Continental Oil Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 23, 1947

74 N.L.R.B. 597 (N.L.R.B. 1947)

In the Matter of CONTINENTAL OIL COMPANY, EMPLOYER and INDE-
PENDENT OIL WORKERS' UNION OF OKLAHOMA , PETITIONER
Case No. 16-R-2099--Decided July 23,1947
Messrs. A. L. Hull and R. 0. Wilson, of Ponca City, Okla., for the
Employer.
Messrs. Lester R. Maxis, C. Wayne Stevens, and Everett Dickson,
of Ponca City, Okla., for the Petitioner.
Mn. Robert J. Freehling, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION,
Upon a petition duly filed, hearing in this case was held at Ponca
City, Oklahoma, on April 29, 1947, before C. Woodrow Greene, hear-
ing officer . The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudical error and are hereby affirmed. The Employer, In its
brief, moved to dismiss the petition filed herein, on the ground that the
unit sought is inappropriate. For the specific reasons stated in Sec-
tion IV, infra, the Employer's motion is hereby denied.
Upon the entire record in the case, the National Labor Relations
Board makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
Continental Oil Company, a Delaware corporation, is engaged
in processing crude oil and in distributing products derived therefrom.
It maintains its general office in Ponca City, Oklahoma, and operates
refineries in Ponca City and in other parts of the United States. Its
general office and Ponca City refinery are alone involved in this pro-
ceeding. At the time of the hearing, approximately 40 percent of
the crude oil processed at the Ponca City refinery came from sources
outside the State of Oklahoma, and approximately 60 percent of the
products derived from such processing was distributed to points out-
side the State.
74 N. L . R. B., No. 116. 597
598 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
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
The Petitioner is an unaffiliated labor organization, claiming to
represent employees of the Employer.
M. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The Employer refuses to recognize the Petitioner as the exclusive
bargaining representative of employees of the Employer.
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.
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
The Petitioner seeks a unit confined to all non-supervisory office and
clerical employees at the Employer's Ponca City, Oklahoma, refinery.,
• The Employer contends that the unit should embrace, in addition, all
similar workers employed in its general office, also located at Ponca
City. The parties are in further disagreement with respect to certain
refinery employees, discussed below, whom the Petitioner would in-
clude in and the Employer would exclude from any unit found ap-
propriate.
A. Scope of unit
There has been no history of collective bargaining with respect to
the employees involved in the instant case.2 The Employer's general
office maintains general supervision and control over the numerous
refineries, pipe lines, and other facilities utilized by the Employer in
its manufacturing and distributing operations. Its Ponca City re-
finery, which is situated in a fenced enclosure apart from the general
office, is engaged in the production of such petroleum products as gas-
oline, lubricating oils and greases. The general office is located about
one-quarter mile distant from the refinery main office building.
The record indicates that the office and clerical employees in the gen-
eral office and the office and clerical employees in the refinery exercise
substantially the same skills; that they work the same hours; that,
'This unit would include the office and clerical employees in such divisions of the re-
finery as the manufacturing , motor transportation , marketing, and refinery accounting
departments.
2 Craft units and a residual unit of the production and maintenance workers in the re-
finery, but excluding the employees sought by the Petitioner herein, have been established
by the Board (see, e. g., Matter of Continental Oil Company , 55 N. L. R. B. 1157) ; and
collective bargaining agreements covering such units have been entered into by the Em-
ploygr and the certified employee-representatives.
CONTINENTAL OIL COMPANY 599
with minor exceptions, they are paid by salary on a common pay roll;
that they have frequent personal contact and share the same cafeteria
and amusement facilities; that the Employer considers the refinery
accounting office as a training ground for its general office accounting
personnel; and that the labor policies for both groups of employees
are established by the general gffice.3
However, the record further indicates that the approximately 58
refinery office and clerical employees are engaged in work relating
principally to the Ponca City refinery, such as collecting and tabulat-
ing data on plant yields, and performing miscellaneous clerical tasks
essential to the various refinery operations; whereas the approximately
400 office and clerical employees in the general office correlate and
analyze the information obtained from all the Employer's refineries
and, in addition, are assigned to clerical work pertaining to the Em-
ployer's numerous other facilities. Moreover, it appears that the re-
finery office and clerical employees work under separate immediate
supervision, and that employee interchange, on a temporary basis, be-
tween the refinery and the general office has been relatively limited in
the past 4
In view of the foregoing, and upon the entire record in the case, we
are of the opinion that the refinery office and clerical employees con-
stitute a distinct, cohesive group capable of functioning as a separate
unit for collective bargaining purposes.5 Accordingly, we shall es-
tablish a unit limited to the office and clerical workers at the refinery,
and we shall exclude therefrom all general office employees.
B. Composition of unit
We come now to a discussion of the refinery employees whom the
Petitioner would include in and the Employer would exclude from the
unit :
1. Employees whose exclusion is requested by the Employer on the
ground that they are supervisory
Lester Dutton: This individual works in the yard office as office as-
sistant to the assistant superintendent of the refinery. He directs the
8 Although there is a single "employment agency" in the general office for the general
office and refinery employees, this agency merely screens the new applicants, and the actual
determination with respect to the hiring of refinery workers is made by the refinery super-
visory personnel
4 The record shows, in this connection, that two non-supervisory employees from the
general office accounting section have regularly spent from 2 to 5 days per month working
in a clerical capacity in the refinery ; that two other similar general office accounting
employees have served as clerical workers in the refinery on infrequent occasions; and
that general office stenographers have been detailed to the refinery, from time to time, to
aid in cases of illnesses, vacations, and work overload.
5 Cf. Matter of The Texas Company, 64 N. L. R B. 625.
600 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
work of three other employees and receives wages approximately 50
percent higher than those of his best paid subordinate. It appears that
he has the authority effectively to recommend the hire and discharge
of these three employees.
W. J. Herber: Herber, the, head pay-roll clerk, is assigned to the
refinery accounting office, where he oversees the work performed by
five time clerks and an assistant pay-roll clerk. He apparently has
authority effectively to recommend the hire and promotion of his
subordinates.
Roscoe T. Smith: This employee serves in the refinery accounting
office as the head shipping clerk. He is directly or indirectly respon-
sible for the work of two shipping clerks, three billing clerks, two
"C & P Plant" clerks and two grease plant clerks. He is paid wages
from 10 to 25 percent higher than those of his subordinates, and has
authority effectively to recommend their hire, discharge, and promo-
tion.
Luther D. Lej7ler: This individual is employed in the refinery ac-
counting office, under the classification of head processing supplies
clerk. He is charged with the maintenance of the refinery stock of
testing chemicals and processing supplies, and is assisted in these
duties by one other employee. It appears that, in the course of his
work, Leffler contacts foremen to secure the necessary labor for un-
loading materials; that he receives wages approximately 75 percent
higher than those of his immediate subordinate; and that his recom-
mendations as to the hire and discharge of the latter "would carry
weight."
Roy L. Min: Ulin is engaged as a machine shop clerk, performing
duties relating mainly to work and job orders. Although he directs
the work of another employee having the same job classification, it
does not appear that Ulin has authority to hire, discharge, or change
the status of his subordinate, or effectively to recommend such action.
Under all the circumstances, we are of the opinion that Lester
Dutton, W. J. Herber, Roscoe T. Smith, and Luther D. Leffler exercise
supervisory authority, and that Roy L. Ulin fails to exercise such
authority. Accordingly, we shall exclude Dutton, Herber, Smith, and
Leffler from the unit as supervisors, and shall include Ulin therein as
a refinery clerical employee 6
0In accord with the agreement of the parties at the hearing , we find that the following
individuals are also supervisors and, as such , should be excluded from the unit . James B.
Young, employment records clerk ; I A. Harrisberger , chief clerk of the refinery accounting
department ; Robert Lewis , assistant chief clerk of the refinery accounting department ;
C. A. Onstot, warehouse foreman of the refinery accounting department ; and J. C . Seetin,
warehouse clerk and assistant warehouse foreman.
CONTINENTAL OIL COMPANY 601
2. Employees whose excl>;ision is requested by the Employer
on the ground that they are confidential
Nadine Overmeyer: This employee is detailed to the sales engineer-
ing laboratory, where she apparently works as confidential secretary
to the manager of the sales engineering division. The latter in-
dividual exercises "managerial" functions with respect to the em-
ployees in his division.
Leona B. Lane and Roy M. Robbins: Both Lane and Robbins, whose
work is "somewhat interchangeable," are engaged as employment
records clerks in the refinery personnel office. Lane spends a portion
of her time serving as confidential secretary to the personnel adviser
of the refinery, and, during the balance of her time, performs various
clerical tasks, including those inciclential to the hire, discharge and
transfer of refinery employees, and to the maintenance of seniority
records. Robbins is concerned primarily with the preparation of
reports on sicknesses and non--occupational accidents; in addition, he
interviews employment applicants, in the absence of the personnel
adviser and of James B. Young, an admittedly supervisory employee.
Wilda V. Bateman: This individual performs secretarial duties for
the assistant to the manufacturing manager, who is in charge of the
maintenance of mechanical equipment in the manufacturing opera-
tions of all the Employer's refineries. The record indicates that Bate-
man is classified as a general office employee, and that she works in an
office located within the refinery area mainly due to the lack of avail-
able space in the general office.
We are of the opinion, upon the basis of the foregoing, that Nadine
Overmeyer, Leona B. Lane, and Roy M. Robbins are employed in
a confidential capacity within the Board's definition of that term,
and that, apart from other considerations, Wilda V. Bateman has
interests more closely akin to those of the general office employees.
We shall, therefore, exclude Overmeyer, Lane, and Robbins from
the unit as confidential employees," and shall exclude Bateman as a
general office employee.
' Cf Mattei of Sheffield Farms Company, Inc, 73 N L. R B 572, and Matter of Bethle-
hem Steel Company , 70 N L R B 881.
8 The parties agreed at the bearing that Leota M. Moore, secretary to the refinery super-
intendent, should be excluded as a confidential employee, the Petitioner, in its brief, also
apparently agrees with the Employer ' s contention at the hearing that E. W. Rice, an em-
ployment records clerk, should be similarity excluded Accordingly, we find that Leota
M. Moore and E. W. Rice are serving in a confidential capacity and shall exclude them
from the unit as confidential employees.
602 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
3. Employee whose exclusion is requested by the Employer on the
ground that she is a technical employee
Jane Vance: Vance works for the Employer 's patent committee,
performing various clerical duties relating to patent requests from
employees in all the Employer 's operations . Similarily to Bateman,
discussed above, Vance is designated as a general office employee and
is assigned to an office in the refinery area primarily due to the lack
of adequate space in the general office . As in the case of Bateman,
we are of the opinion that , apart from other considerations, the
interests of Jane Vance lie with those of the general office employees
and we shall, therefore, exclude her from the unit as a general office
employee.
We find that all office and clerical employees at the Employer's
Ponca City, Oklahoma, refinery, excluding general office employees,
confidential employees , supervisors , and all other supervisory em-
ployees, 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
purposes of collective bargaining with Continental Oil Company,
Ponca City, Oklahoma, 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 Sixteenth Region, acting in this matter as agent for
the National Labor Relations Board, and subject to Sections 203.55 and
203.56, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-
Series 4, 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 Direction , including employees
who did not work during said pay-roll period because they were ill
or on vacation or temporarily laid off, and including employees in
the armed forces of the United States who present themselves in
person at the polls, 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 Independent Oil Workers' Union of Okla-
homa, for the purposes of collective bargaining.