Cities Service Oil Co. of Pennsylvania

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 20, 1947

75 N.L.R.B. 78 (N.L.R.B. 1947)

In the Matter of CITIES SERVICE OIL CO. OF PENNSYLVANIA (MARINE
DIVISION), EMPLOYER and SEAFARERS INTERNATIONAL UNION OF
NORTH AMERICA, AFL, PETITIONER
Case No. 19-R-7244.-Decided October 20, 1947
Messrs. Carver W. Wolfe and M. J. Adkins, both of New York City,
for the Employer.
Benjamin B. Sterling, by Mr. Hyman Parness, of New York City,
and Messrs. Alexander Kerr and Morris Weisberger, both of New
York City, for the Petitioner.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed, hearing in this case was held at New
York City, on July 28, 1947, before Sidney Reitman, hearing officer.
The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from
prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in the case, the National Labor Relations
Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
Cities Service Oil Co. of Pennsylvania, a Pennsylvania corporation,
is engaged at its Marine Division, the only operation involved herein,
in the transportation of petroleum oil on a world-wide basis. The Em-
ployer transports petroleum oil between various ports of the United
States, between ports in the United States and foreign ports, and be-
tween foreign ports. During the year 1946 the Employer transported
petroleum valued in excess of $500,000, all of which represented ship-
ments in interstate or foreign commerce.
The Employer admits and we find that it is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED 1
The Petitioner is a labor organization affiliated with the American
Federation of Labor, claiming to represent employees of the Employer.
' National Maritime Union of America, herein called the N. M. U., which made a show-
ing of representation for purposes of intervention, was duly served with Notice of Hearing
but did not appear at the hearing
75 N. L. R. B, No. 10
78
CITIES SERVICE OIL CO. OF PENNSYLVANIA
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
79
The Employer refuses to recognize the Petitioner as the exclusive
bargaining representative of employees of the Employer until the
Petitioner is certified by the Board in an appropriate unit.
We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning
the representation of employees of the Employer, within the meaning
of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.2
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
We find, in substantial agreement with the Petitioner and the Em-
ployer, that all unlicensed personnel on board the vessels of the Marine
Division of the Employer, including deck and engine employees and
stewards, but excluding pursers, radio operators, and supervisors, as
defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of
collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining with ities Service Oil Co. of Pennsyl-
vania (Marine Division), New York, New York, an election by secret
ballot shall be conducted as early as possible, but not later than thirty
(30) days from the date of this Direction, under the direction and
supervision of the Regional Director for the Second Region, acting in
this matter as agent for the National Labor Relations Board, and sub-
ject to Sections 203.61 and 203.62, of National Labor Relations Board
Rules and Regulations-Series 5, as amended, among the employees
in the unit found appropriate in Section IV, above, who were employed
during the pay-roll period immediately preceding the date of this Di-
rection, including employees who did not work during said pay-roll
period because they were ill or on vacation or temporarily laid of,3
but excluding those employees who have since quit or been discharged
for cause and have not been rehired or reinstated prior to the date of
the election, to determine whether or not they desire to be represented
by Seafarers International Union of North America, AFL, for the
purposes of collective bargaining.
MEMBERS MURDOCK and GRAY took no part in the consideration of the
above Decision and Direction of Election.
2 None of the parties asserted the existence of any contractual bar to this proceeding.
Although there is in existence a written agreement dated February 1942, between the
Employer and the N 111 U, that agreement relates solely to the "issue of passes," and is
not a collective bargaining agreement
3 We omit here the provision which was customarily inserted in our directions of
elections during the recent war, peumtting employees in the armed forces of the United
States to vote if they presented themselves in person at the polls In view of the
demobilization of the aimed forces and the termination of selective service , we are of the
opinion that the provision need no longer be included.