General Petroleum Corp. of California

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 13, 1944

56 N.L.R.B. 1366 (N.L.R.B. 1944)

In the Matter Of GENERAL PETROLEUM CORPORATION OF CALIFORNIA and ,
EMPLOYEES UNION OF THE GENERAL PETROLEUM CORPORATION OF
CALIFORNIA
'
In the Matter of GENERAL PETROLEUM CORD: (TORRANCE REFINERY)
and STEAM & PIPE FITTERS, WELDERS & HELPERS LOCAL 250, AFL
In the Matter of GENERAL PETROLEUM CORP. and INTERNATIONAL
BROTHERIIOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL B-11, A. F. OF L.
In the Matter of GENERAL PETROLEUM CORPORATION OF CALIFORNIA and
OIL WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, CIO
In the Matter of GENERAL PETROLEUM CORPORATION OF CALIFORNIA and
EMPLOYEES UNION OF THE GENERAL PETROLEUM CORPORATION OF
CALIFORNIA
Cases Nos. 21-R-1757, 21-R-2158, 21-R--2181, 21-R-2230, and'
21-R-2307 respectively.-Decided June 13, 1944,
Mr. 'George H. O'Brien, for the Board.
Mr. J. L. Goddard, of Los Angeles, Calif., for the Company.
Mr. Rufus Bailey, of Los Angeles, Calif., for the Employees Union.
Messrs. Charles S. McKinley and Thomas Owens, of South Gate,
Calif., for the Pipefitters.
Mr. Al Slater, of Los Angeles, Calif., for the I. B. E. W.
Messrs. Lindsay P. Walden, of Fort Worth, Tex., F. J. Neuman and
John N. Starke, of El Segundo , Calif., for the Oil Workers.
Messrs. Jack C. Rafn and Lester Coombes,, of Los Angeles, Calif.,
for the Boilermakers. - `
Messrs. Arthur Garrett and Nick Cordil, of Los Angeles, Calif., for
the Carpenters.
Mr. A. Sicmmer Lawrence, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon separate petitions and amended petitions filed by Employees
Union of the General Petroleum Corporation of California, herein
called the Employees Union; by Steam •& Pipe Fitter's, Welders &
Helpers Local 250, AFL, herein called the Pipefitters; by International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local B-11, A. F. of L., herein
56 N. L. R. B., No. 244
•1366
,GENERAL PETROLEUM CORPORATION OF CALIFORNIA 1367
called the I. B. E. W.; by Oil Workers International Union, CIO,
herein called the Oil Workers,l alleging that questions affecting com-
merce had arisen concerning the representation of employees of Gen-
eral Petroleum Corporation of California, Los Angeles, California,
herein called the Company, the National Labor Relations Board pro-
vided for an appropriate consolidated hearing upon due notice before
James C. Batten, Trial Examiner. Said hearing was held on April
1, 3, and 19, 1944, at Los Angeles, California. The Company, all pe-
titioning' unions, International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron
Ship Builders, Welders and Helpers of America, Local 92, AFL,
herein called the 'Boilermakers, Los Angeles County District Council
of Carpenters, United-Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners of Amer-
ica, A. F. of L., herein called the Carpenters, and General Transport,
Petroleum and Sales Drivers, Local Union No. 224, International,
Brotherhood, of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers,
AFL, herein called the Teamsters, appeared, participated, and were
afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine
witnesses, and to introduce, evidence bearing on the issues. The Trial
Examiner's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial
error and are hereby affirmed. All parties were afforded an oppor-
tunity to file briefs with the Board.
Upon the entire record in the,case, the' Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
General Petroleum Corporation of California, a Delaware corpora-
tion, has its principal place of business at Los Angeles, California,
and is engaged in the business of producing, refining, transporting,
and distributing crude petroleum and petroleum products. In addi-
tion to its California operations, which alone are involved in the
present proceedings, the Company operates and maintains plants in
the States of Arizona,. Washington, Nevada, Wyoming, 'Montana,
Colorado, and the Territory of Alaska. During the year 1943, the
Company sold, products valued in excess of $60,000,000, of which ap-,
proximately 25 percent represented the sale of products outside the
'State of California. During the same period, the Company purchased
for use in its California plants raw materials valued in excess of $1,-
000,000, of,which approximately 5 percent was obtained from points
outside the State of California.
The Company admits that it is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
1 The name of the Oil Workers was incorrectly , stated in the petition and other formal
papers as Oil Workers International Union, Organizing Campaign, CIO, and-was corrected by
motion at the'hearing.
1368 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Employees Union _ of the General Petroleum Corporation is an
unaffiliated labor organization, admitting to membership employees of
the Company.
Steam & Pipe Fitters, Welders & Helpers-Local 250; International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local B-1l; Los Angeles District
Council of Carpenters, United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners
of America; International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship
Builders, Welders and Helpers of America, Local 92; and General
Transport, Petroleum and Sales Drivers Local Union No. 224, Inter-
national Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and
Helpers, are labor organizations affiliated with the American Feder-
ation of Labor, admitting to membership employees of the Company.
Oil Workers International Union is a labor organization affiliated
with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, admitting to member-
ship employees of the Company.
III. THE QUESTIONS CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
At the hearing, the Company stated that it declined to recognize'
any of the labor organizations involved as the exclusive bargaining
representative of any of its employees-unless and until certified by the
Board.
A revised statement prepared by an attorney for the Board and intro
duced,in evidence at the hearing together with a statement by a Field
Examiner, indicates that the Employees Union, the Oil Workers, the
Pipefitters, the I. B. E. W., the Carpenters, and the Boilermakers,
each represents a substantial number of employees within the unit it
claims to be appropriate .2
2 The following tabulations are set forth in the Board Attorney's statement concerning
the authorization evidence submitted to him i
No of No.'ofDesig
Em-
ployees
(Oil
Work-
IBEW Carpen- Boiler- Pipe.Em-
nations Umon ers) cards ters makers fittersployees sub- cards CIO in Unit cards cards • cardsin Unit lt d U t cards in Unit in Unit in Unitmi e in ni in Unit
Employees' Union Unit (Gen-
eral)------------------------- 2,190 995 741 359 21 9 10 20
CIO Unit_____________________ 776 437 249 210 21 9 10 20
IBEW Unit_______________ 45 41 23 2 21 0 0 0
Carpenters Unit_______________ 26 13 4 10 0 9 0 0
Boilermakers Unit___ 33 15 7 14 0 0 10 0
XPipefitters Unit___ 110 36 27 31 0 0 0 10
Employees Umon (Guards) --- 15 11 8 0 0 0 0 0
The Board 's attorney also reported that the ' approximate rate of labor turn -over within
the 'bargaining units during the 12 -month period , preceding March 1 , 1944, was 3 percent
per month ; that although several of the cards submitted by the Employees Union and the
Oil Workers ( CIO) were dated prior - to March 1943 , the rate of labor turn -over has been'
so small that the showing made by these organizations would be hardly affected by the
dates appearing on the cards. -
In the separate case relating to the plant -protection employees there was introduces] in
GENERAL-PETROLEUM CORPORATION OF CALIFORNIA 1369
We find that questions affecting commerce have arisen concerning
the representation of employees 'of the Company within the meaning
of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor
Relations Act. -
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNITS ; THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
The Employees Union contends that all employees of the Company
in the State of California including field clericals and packaging and
sales employees, excluding employees in the off-shore marine depart-
nient,i employees in the transportation department for whom the ' Team-
sters and the Operating Engineers have been certified as bargaining
representatives, respectively,4 office, and clerical employees in the
Higgins Building'(main Los Angeles office building), plant-protection
employees, and supervisory employees, constitute an appropriate bar-
giining unit. This organization also seeks a separate unit of piant-
protection employees.' The Oil Workers (CIO) contends that all
hourly paid production and maintenance employees of the Company's
manufacturing department in the State of California, including
Marine Terminal employees 6 and field employees of, the engineering
division, but excluding office and clerical employees, administrative,
professional, technical, supervisory, and laboratory employees, all em-
ployees in the Company's main office at the Higgins Building, and part-
time, casual, or temporary employees, constitute an appropriate unit.'
The L B. E. W., the Carpenters, the Boilermakers, and the Pipefitters
each seeks a bargaining unit composed of skilled employees on the com-
bined pay roll of the Company's Vernon and Torritnce plants, engaged
in occupations bringing them within the general jurisdiction of such
unions.s The Teamsters, although not seeking to represent any addi-
tional employees at this time, requests that employees referred to as
evidence the ieport of a Field Examiner of the Board which stated that the Employees
Union had submitted 11 designations , 8 of which bore the names of employees on the
Company's pay roll of February 23, 1944 , containing 15 names in the claimed appropriate
unit. - -
3 1 he off-shore marine department has been the subject of separate representation
proceedings See Matter of General Petroleum Corporation of California , 5 N. L. R B.
954, 982, 8 N L. R B 686 ; 42 N. L R. B. 339.
4 See Matter of General Petroleum Corporation of California, 40 N. L. R B. 453 ;
44 N L R B. 584. - ,
`The dispute as herein set forth with respect to the appropriate unit does not apply
to the plant-protection employees for whom the Employees Union alone seeks repre-
sentation -
I Marine Terminal employees are engaged in the loading of petroleum products into
-tankers and other vessels for transportation by water to various points
I In addition to the unit which it specifically requests be found appropriate; the Oil
workers suggests by way of intervention with respect to the over -all unit claimed by the
Employees Union , that from the residual group of employees there should be establislierl
four non -craft units consisting of a unit of pipe-line employees and three oil field produc-
tion units corresponding to the three oil producing fields now under development by the
Company in the State of California -
The proposed craft units are limited to' craft employees in the engineering division,
a subdivision of the manufacturing department, and carried on the composite pay roll
of the Vernon and Torrance plants , situated in the Los Angeles Basin area . The em-
4
1370 'DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
warehousemen and sales truck drivers in the marketing department be
excluded from any over-all or residual unit that may be found appro-
priate in the present proceeding. The Company takes no definite
position with respect to the appropriate unit or units,, except to urge
that the number of bargaining'units be kept to'a minimum.
The Company functions as an integrated oil company, engaged in
the business of producing, refining, transporting, and distributing'
crude petroleum and petroleum products. While it operates, in eight
States and the Territory of Alaska, the Company's California opera-,
tions here involved, comprise four main operating departments desig-
nated as (1) production; (2) pipe line, (3) manufacturing, and (4)
marketing. A vice-president is in charge of each department. Under'
each of these departments are divisions 9 with a manager or super-
intendent in charge. The sections within the divisions are in charge
of a superintendent or general foreman.
Notwithstanding the division of the Company's organization in
the manner hereinabove set forth, the Employees Union contends that
its request for an over, unit is supported by-the Company's history
of collective bargaining. The record discloses that, for some time
prior to the enactment of the Act and continuing to the' present time,
the employees of the Company (excluding the off-shore.marine depart-
ment and since 1942 the teamsters and operating engineers) elected
representatives' from their various groups for the purposes of con-
ferring with the Company. Durin this period, these representa-
tives and the Company met at various times throughout the year to
consider complaints which had been filed by the employees. The Com-
pany, during the period, never raised any question as to their right to
represent the employees concerned. The Company has from time to
time issued printed rules and regulations setting forth work conditions
which have been discussed at the aforesaid,meetings between the Com-
pany and the employee representatives.10 On the other hand, the.
Board has, in a previous case involving the Company and the Em-
ployees Union, considered the Company's history of collective bar-
gainingand found that the negotiations between the Company and the
Employees Union did not establish such collective bargaining rela-
tions between employer and employees as would preclude the establish-
ployees in the craft units are included among the production and maintenance employees
of the manufacturing department whom both the Oil Workers and the Employees Union
would include in their respectyve units
9 The,production department, having-charge of oil field production, is divided into three
divisions ( 1) Southern , Los Angeles Basin, (2) Coastal Area, ( 3) San Joaquin Area
The pipe-line department is divided into the southern and northern divisions, respectively.
The manufacturing department is divided into (1) laboratory, (2) patent,. (3) refining,
(4) engineering, and (5 ) gas The marketing department is divided into ( 1) Southern
California '(including Marine Terminal,- Terminal Island), (2) Northern California,
(3) Oregon, and (4) Washington
10 The Company and the Employees Union do not contend that the bargaining with respect
to complaints resulted in the consummation of agreements, nor do they assert that any
understandings ariived at through these meetings are a bar to the proceeding herein.
7
GENERAL PETROLEUM CORPORATION OF CALIFORNIA ' 1371
ment of a bargaining unit upon a narrower but otherwise appropriate
basis.11 Under the circumstances, we are of the opinion that the
history of collective bargaining between the Company and the Em-
ployees Union is not of such a character as to compel a finding that
an over-all company-wide unit is appropriate for the purposes of
collective bargaining. We shall, accordingly, consider, the various
other units proposed by the Oil Workers and the craft labor, organiza-
tions hereinabove referred to.
The unit proposed by the Oil Yorkers
The Oil Workers seeks to establish' a bargaining unit composed of
all hourly paid production. and maintenance employees of the Com-
pany's manufacturing division including Marine Terminal employees
and field employees of the engineering division, but excluding office
clerical, administrative, professional, technical, supervisory, and
laboratory employees, and all employees of the Company's main office
in the Higgins Building, and part-time, casual, and temporary em-
ployees. The hourly paid production and maintenance employees and
the field employees of the engineering division referred'to, come under
the supervision 'of the manufacturing department. The employees
of the Marine Terminal are tinder the general supervision of the mar-
keting department. While it would appear that a unit confined
to the employees of either the manufacturing department or the mar-
keting department would not be inappropriate for collective bargain-
ing, there is nothing in the record to indicate that these departments,
or portions of each, are so related that they together constitute an
appropriate unit 12 We find, therefore, that the unit as proposed by
the Oil Workers is not appropriate for the purposes of collective bar-
gaining. On the other hand, we find, in conformity with. the main
divisions of the Company's organization, that the hourly paid produc-
tion and maintenance employees in the production, pipe line, manu-,
facturing, and marketing departments, respectively, subject to the pro-
visions hereinafter noted, may properly constitute separate units for
the purposes of collective bargaining.
The units proposed by the craft labor organizations
As noted above, the units sought'by the I. B. E. W., the Boilermakers,
the Carpenters, and the Pipefitters, are confined to skilled craft em-
ployees of'the engineering division in the manufacturing department
and listed on the combined pay roll of the Company's Vernon and Tor-
rance plants. While such units are identifiable by reference to the pay
11 See 42 N. L R B. 1260, wherein the Board found a separate unit of shovel, dragline,
crane, and tractor operators in the transportation depaitment, notwithstanding the con-
tentions of the Company and the Employees Union for an over-all unit of production and
maintenance employees
12 See Matter of Potomac Eiectr¢c Power Company, 55 N L. R B 692.
1372 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
roll aforesaid, it appears that there are a number of craft employees
who, although performing substantially the same type of work, are
excluded therefrom by reason of the fact that they work in one or more
subdivisions of the manufacturing department other than the en-
gineering division. Under these circumstances, we are of the opinion
that any craft units which maybe found appropriate herein should
be coextensive with the limits of the manufacturing department. We
shall, accordingly, modify to this extent the proposed craft units in
the event that such units are found appropriate as separate bargaining
groups.
The record discloses that the employees claimed by the I. B. E. W.,
the Boilermakers, the Carpenters, and the Pipefitters, might function
as separate bargaining units, or might appropriately be included in
a unit with production and maintenance employees of the manufac-
turing department. Accordingly, we are of the opinion that the con-
siderations are sufficiently balanced to make the desires of the em-
ployees themselves a factor in our determination of the type of unit
through which they shall bargain.13 We shall,. therefore, make no
present determination of the appropriate unit or units as affecting
the manufacturiig department, but shall reserve such finding pend-
ing the result of the separate elections which we shall hereinafter di-
rect. Upon the results of these elections will depend in part the scope
of the bargaining unit or units within the manufacturing department.
In addition to the contentions of the petitioning craft organizations,
the Teamsters contends by way of intervention that employees re-
ferred to as warehousemen and sales truck drivers in the marketing
department should be excluded from. any unit found appropriate in
the present proceedings." While the Teamsters bases its request upon
a jurisdictional claim to the aforesaid employees, it presented no evi-
dence of representation among the employees in question. We shall,
accordingly, deny the request of the Teamsters for the exclusion of
warehousemen and sales truck drivers from the unit of marketing
department employees hereinafter found appropriate for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining. _ In addition thereto, we shall, by rea-
son of the Teamsters' failure to present evidence of representation
among the employees of the marketing department, omit the name
of the Teamsters from the ballot in the election hereinafter directed
for the employees of this department.
There remains for consideration the proposed unit of plant-pro-
tection employees for whom the Employees Union alone is seeking
representation. The unit as suggested would include a group of
approximately 15 employees, all of whom, with the exception of 1 or
2 employees located in outlying districts of the Company's California
See Matter of Goodyear Aircraft Corporation, 45 N. L R . I B'298.
GENERAL PETROLEUM CORPORATION OF CALIFORNIA- 1373
operations, are militarized and are employed at the Marine Terminal,
a division of the marketing department. Inasmuch as it is' our policy
not to include non-militarized plant-protection employees in the same
unit with militarized guards,'' we shall exclude the non-militarized
plant-protection employees from the unit of militarized guards here-
inafter found appropriate.
- Upon the basis of the entire record, we find that the following units
are, appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act:
1. All hourly production and maintenance, employees in the pro-
duction department employed by the Company in the State of Cali-
fornia, excluding office and, clerical employees, -administrative, pro-
fessional, technical, casual and temporary employees, and supervisory
employees with authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or
otherwise effect changes in the status of employees or effectively rec-
ommend such action ;
2. All hourly production and maintenance employees, in- the pipe-
line department employed by the Company in the State of California,
excluding office and clerical employees, administrative,' professional,
technical, casual and temporary employees, and supervisory employees
with authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise
effect changes in the status of employees, or effectively, recommend
such action ;
3. All hourly production and maintenance employees in the mar-
keting department, including employees referred to as warehousemen
and sales truck. drivers- employed by the Company in the State of -
California, excluding office and clerical employees, administrative,
professional, technical, casual and temporary employees, and all super-
visory employees with authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline,
or otherwise effect changes in the status of employees, or effectively
recommend such action ;
4. All militarized guards employed by the Company in the State
of California, excluding supervisory employees with authority to hire,
promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status
of employees, or effectively recommend such action;
5. All remaining employees of the Company, employed in the State
of California, excluding the hourly paid production and maintenance
employees of the manufacturing department, employees of the off-
shore marine department, employees in the transportation department
for whom the Teamsters and the Operating Engineers are at present
the certified bargaining, representatives, office and clerical employees,
administrative, professional, technical, casual and temporary employ-
14 See Matter of Dravo Corporation , 52 N L R B. 322 ; Matter of Foot Bros. Gear and
Machine Corpo atzon, 52 N L R B 861.
587784-45-vol 56-88
1374 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ees, and all supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote, dis-
charge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of em-
ployees, or effectively recommend such action.
As previously indicated, we shall at this time make no final de-,
termination with respect to the appropriate unit or^units of employees
in the manufacturing department pending the outcome of elections'
in each of the voting groups set forth below :
1. All electrical maintenance and electrical maintenance construc-
tions employees in the manufacturing department,' employed by the
,.Company in the State of California, excluding supervisory employees
with authority to hire, promote,' discharge, discipline, or otherwise,
effect changes in the status of employees-" or effectively recommend
such action.
2. All maintenance carpenters in the manufacturing department,
employed by the Company in the State of California, exchiding ,super-
visory employees with authority to -hire, promote, discharge, disci-
pline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of employees, or
effectively recommended such action;
3. All employees classified as boiler lay-out A and B, boilermakers
A and B, boilermakers' helper A and B, in the manufacturing depart-
ment, employed by the Company in the.State of California, excluding
supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote, discharge,
discipline, or otherwise effect changes' in the status of employees, or
effectively recommend such action;
4. All pipe fitters and helpers in.the manufacturing department,
employed by the Company in the State of California, excluding
supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote, discharge,
discipline, or otherwise effect' changes in the status of employees,'or
effectively recommend such action; and
5. All hourly paid production and maintenance employees'in the
manufacturing department, employed by the Company in the State
of California, excluding the employees within the craft groups here-
inabove set forth, office and clerical employees, administrative;
professional, technical, casual and temporary employees, and all
supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote, discharge, dis-
cipline, or- otherwise effect, changes in the status of employees, or
effectively recommend such action.
We shall direct separate elections among the employees in the sev-
eral units and groups set forth above, who were employed during the
pay-roll ; period.immediately- preceding the date of the Direction of
Elections herein, subject to the limitations and addition's set forth in
the Direction.
On August 14, 1943, the Oil Workers filed charges with the Board,
alleging that the Company had dominated and interfered with the for-
GENERAL PETROLEUM CORPORATION OF' CALIFORNIA 1375
mation and administration of the Employees Union 15 In view of the
fact that the aforesaid charges are still pending before the Board, the
Oil Workers urges that any certification of the Employees Union re-
sulting-from. the instant proceeding should be made conditional upon
the Board's disposition of said charges. The Board does not usually
proceed with an election where charges are pending which may affect
the validity of such election unless such charges are waived by the
complaining labor organization. , Although the Oil Workers has not
filed a waiver of its charges, where, as here, such charges involve the
applicability of the limitation imposed by the current Appropriations
Act and disposition of the merits of the charges appears to be precluded
thereby, we are of the opinion that the question concerning repre-
sentation should proceed to determination in `order to prevent undue
-delay in the selection of a bargaining representative. However, in
the event that the Employees Union is certified as the exclusive repre-
sentative of any of the Company's employees, such certification will be
subject to revocation if the Board should hereafter determine, in the
complaint proceeding, that the Company has dominated and inter-
fered with the formation and administration of the Employees Union.
The record discloses that the Company has certain regular part-time
employees consisting of high school boys who, work every Saturday.
Inasmuch as these employees have a regular permanent employment
status, we shall include them within the category of eligible employees.16
The Oil Workers indicated at the hearing that it was not' interested
in a unit of,' marketing department employees. However, ,in view of
the fact that the Terminal Island employees, whom the Oil Workers
requested be included in the proposed unit of manufacturing depart-
ment employees, have been made a part of the unit of marketing de-
partment employees, we shall afford the Oil Workers an opportunity
to participate in the election with respect to this particular unit. If
the Oil Workers does not desire to avail itself of the opportunity it
may apply within 5 days from the date of this Decision for leave to
withdraw, its name from the ballot with respect to such unit.
The Pipefitters requests that it may appear on the ballot in the pipe-
fitters' group as "The United Association of Steamfitters, Local 250,
AFL." The request is hereby granted.
15 Case No 21-C-2161.' On November 10, 1943, the Regional Director refused to issue a
complaint upon the ground that the Board was precluded from proceeding by reason of the
existence of a contract between the Company and the Employees Union which falls within
the terms of the limitation on the expenditure of Board funds in the current Appropria-
tions Act (National Labor Relations Board Appropriations Act, 1944, Title IV,,Act of
July 12, 1943, P L. 135,-73th Congress, 1st Session). An appeal from the action of the
Regional Director is now pending before the Board
S6 See Matter of Ken-Rad Tube ct,Lamp Corporation , 56 N L . R B 1050
1376 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS'
By virtue of and pursuant to the power vested in the National Labor
Relations Board by Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act,
and pursuant to Article III, Section 9, of National Labor Relations
Board Rules and Regulations-Series 3, it is hereby
DIRECTED. that, as part of the investigation to ascertain -repre-
sentatives for the purposes of collective bargaining with General Pe-
troleum Corporation of California, Los Angeles, California, elections
by secret ballot shall be conducted as early as possible but not later than
thirty (30) days from the date of this Direction of Elections, under
the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Twenty-
first Region, acting in this matter as agent for the National Labor Re-
lations Board, and subject to Article III, Sections 10 and 11, of said
Rules and Regulations, among the employees in the units and groups
referred to 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 any who have since quit or been dis-
charged for-cause and have not been rehired or reinstated prior to the
date of the elections :
1. To determine whether the employees iii the electricians' group de-
scribed in Section IV, above, desire to be represented by International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local B-11, A. F. of L., or by Oil
Workers International Union, C. I. 0., or by Employees Union of
The General Petroleum Corporation of California, or by none of these
o
organizations;
2. To determine whether the employees in the carpenters' group
described in Section IV, above, desire to be represented by Los Angeles
County District Council of Carpenters, United Brotherhood of Car-
penters & Joiners of America, A. F. of L., or by Oil Workers.Inter-
national Union, C. I. 0., or • by Employees Union of The General
Petroleum Corporation of California, or by none of these organiza-
tions ;
3. To determine whether the employees in the boilermakers' group
described in Section IV, above, desire to' be represented by Inter-
national Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders, Welders
and Helpers of America, Local 92, AFL, or by, Oil Workers Inter-
national Union, C. I. 0., or by Employees Union of The General Pe-_
troleum Corporation of California, or by none of these organizations;
4. To determine whether the employees iii the pipe-fitters' group, de-
GENERAL PETROLEUM CORPORATION OF CALIFORNIA 1377
scribed in Section IV, above, desire to be represented by Steam &
Pipe Fitters, Welders & Helpers Local 250, AFL, or by Oil Workers
International Union, C. I. O.; or by Employees Union of The Gen-
eral Petroleum Corporation of California, or by none of these
organizations;
5. To determine whether the residual production and maintenance
employees in the manufacturing departments, described in Section IV,
above, desire to be represented by Oil Workers International Union,
C. I. 0., or by, Employees Union of The General Petroleum Corpora-
tion of California, or by neither;
6. To determine whether the employees of the production depart-
ment in the unit found appropriate in Section IV, above, desire to be
represented by Oil Workers International Union, C. I. 0., or by
Employees Union of The General Petroleum Corporation of Cali-
fornia, or by neither;
7. To determine whether the employees.of the pipe-line department
in the unit found appropriate in Section IV, above, desire to be rep-
resented by Oil Workers International Union, C. I. 0., or by Em-
ployees Union, of The General Petroleum Corporation of California,
or by neither;
8. To determine whether the employees of the marketing department
in the unit found appropriate in Section IV, above, desire to be rep-
resented by Oil Workers International Union, C. I. 0., or'by Em-
ployees Union of The General Petroleum Corporation of California,
,or by neither. I f r
9. To determine whether or not the militarized guards in the unit
found appropriate in Section IV, above, desire to be represented by
Employees Union of The General Petroleum Corporation of Cali-
fornia ; and
10. To determine whether or not the employees in the residual State-
wide company unit found appropriate in Section IV, above, desire to
be represented by Employees Union of The General Petroleum Cor-
poration of California,. for the purposes of collective bargaining.
MR. GERARD D. REILLY took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Direction of Elections.
I
i