Cities Service Oil Co. of Pennsylvania

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 17, 1953

105 N.L.R.B. 643 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

CITIES SERVICE OIL COMPANY OF PENNSYLVANIA 643
of a decertification petition by an Employer is insufficient to
establish the collusion which the Union alleges. ' Therefore, as
the record contains no substantial evidence that the Employer
inspired or fostered the instant petition , we find no merit in
the Union' s contention that the petition should be dismissed on
this ground.
The Union also asserts that a contract between it and the
Employer bars this petition . This contract, effective on
November 1, 1951, contained a termination date of January 31,
1953, in the absence of written notice of intent to change
tendered by either party not less than 2 months prior to the
termination date . This notice was given by the Union on
November 22, 1952. Although the contract also provides that
"Pending determination of conditions of new agreement the
terms and conditions of this agreement shall remain in effect,"
the Board has consistently ruled that a contract , under such
circumstances , is one of indefinite duration which cannot bar
a representation petition .: We accordingly reject the Union's
contention.
A question affecting commerce exists concerning the repre-
sentation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of
Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The following employees of the Employer constitute a
unit appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining within
the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act:
All production employees in the bindery, shipping, and
mailing departments of the Employer' s printing and binding
plant at Meriden, Connecticut, including shippers , mailers,
helpers on machines, truckers , and general utility helpers,
but excluding all employees inthe pressroom , composing room,
and foundry, watchmen-janitors , baler - janitors , executives,
office clerical employees , guards, salesmen , professionalem-
ployees , and supervisors as defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
'See Morganton Full Fashioned Hosiery Company, 102 NLRB 134.
2 See The Fuller Automobile Company, 88 NLRB 1452.
CITIES SERVICE OIL COMPANY OF PENNSYLVANIA and
OIL WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, CIO, Petitioner.
Case No. 2-RC - 5758. June 17, 1953
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Arthur A.
Greenstein , hearing officer . The hearing officer ' s rulings made
at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby
affirmed.
105 NLRB No. 87.
644 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the
Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to
a three-member panel [Members Houston, Styles, and
Peter son].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning
of the Act.
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent cer-
tain employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the
representation of employees of the Employer within the meaning
of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Petitioner requests a unit consisting , in terms of the
Employer ' s classifications , of all service station attendants
and assistant service station managers , I, or shift managers,
employed by the Employer at its service stations located on
the New Jersey Turnpike , excluding service station managers,
assistant service station managers , III, or assistant managers,
and all other employees and supervisors . The Employer, other-
wise in agreement with the requested unit, urges that the shift
managers are supervisors as defined by the Act and as such
should be excluded from the unit.
The Employer operates 10 service stations on the New
Jersey Turnpike . A general manager with the aid of 3 assist-
ants maintains general supervision over the entire operation.
A station manager and 2 assistant managers , who are admittedly
supervisors , are present in each station . The station manager
is on duty only during the daytime shift. The evening shift is
supervised by an assistant manager . Also at each station are
4 shift managers --a total of 40 for the 10 stations --who are
generally in charge of the island area of the station and rotate
among themselves the midnight to 8 a. m. shift during which
none of their superiors is present ., There are approximately
90 regular , full-time attendants employed for the 10 stations.
The shift managers are responsible for checking in the shifts,
assuring the accessibility of items used around the island,
checking the inventory around the island, the physical appear-
ance of the station and personnel , checking availability of
charge and cash books, being alert for correct handling of
money and recording of certain sales, offering suggestions
and sales tips , the routine assignment of personnel , and trans-
mitting instructions of their superiors to attendants. They
apparently spend a substantial part of their time performing
the same work as the attendants . Although the Employer's
general manager testified that shift managers in general have
authority to discharge or discipline employees , or effectively
recommend such action , there is no evidence that the shift
managers were ever advised that they possessed suchauthority.
The Employer also submitted a list of instances involving 14
employees where shift managers allegedly made effective
personnel recommendations , as reflected by entries in the
Employer's records . However, the 3 shift managers who
t Each shift manager works on the night shift 1 week out of every 3
CITIES SERVICE OIL COMPANY OF PENNSYLVANIA 645
testified at the hearing denied those instances which were with-
in their personal knowledge . Indeed, I shift manager testified
that his recommendation that certain employees not be dis-
charged was ignored and the employees were subsequently
discharged.2
As already mentioned , the shift manager works on the
midnight to 8 a. m. shift when normally only the shift manager
and one attendant are present .' On that shift and during other
absences of their supervisors , it appears the shift managers
have some discretion to extend credit or cash checks , and may
exercise limited disciplinary power, such as to send home an
intoxicated employee and then notify the station manager.
However, shift managers have been instructed to contact the
station managers when unusual problems arise at night and it
appears that detailed instructions are left for the midnight
shift by one station manager.
The shift managers have no authority to transfer employees
or to settle grievances . Although they receive a slightly higher
base starting wage than the attendants , 4 they generally enjoy
the same interests and conditions of employment as the attend-
ants. Unlike the station managers and assistant station man-
agers , the shift managers have not attended management
classes.
Under all the circumstances , including the inordinately high
ratio of supervisors to attendants if the shift managers are
found to be supervisors , 5 and in view of the limited nature of
their authority and responsibility , we find that the shift man-
agers are not supervisors within the meaning of Section 2 (11)
of the Act and, therefore, we shall include them in the unit.6
Accordingly, we find the following employees of the Employer
constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective
bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act: All
service station attendants and assistant service station man-
agers , I, or shift managers, employed by the Employer at its
service stations located on the New Jersey Turnpike , excluding
all other employees , service station managers, assistant
station managers , III, or assistant managers, and all other
supervisors as defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
2 The only instances of alleged effective recommendation ofhiring appear to have been mere
suggestions by shift managers ofavailable personnel when the Turnpike operation began. While
the shift managers are consulted in the matter of promotions , there is no evidence that they
initiate promotions and it only appears that their opinions may be solicited when the matter
of promotions arises.
6At times there may be a carry-over employee remaining on duty from the previous shift
uhtil 1 or 2a m., and another shift manager arrives before 8a m. to prepare for the incoming
shift. On rare holiday rush periods, such as Decoration Day, up fo 15 attendants may be em-
ployed during the midnight shift at a single station.
4 Station managers receive $331 per month as starting pay; assistant managers , $276 per
month; shift managers , $256; and others $246.
5A determination that shift managers are supervisors would mean that the Employer has
over 70 supervisors -and 90 regular , full- time attendants.
6See Pennsylvania Glass Sand Corporation, 102 NLRB 559; Geo. Knight & Co., 93 NLRB
1193, and cases therein cited; Potash Company of America, 97 NLRB 511.