Gulf Oil Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 6, 1946

65 N.L.R.B. 865 (N.L.R.B. 1946)

In the Matter of GULF OIL CORPORATION and OIL WORI{F.RS
INTERNATIONAL UNION, C. I. 0., LOCAL No. 23
Case No. J6-R-1431.-Decided February 6, 1946
Mr. J. H. Sperry, of Houston, Tex., and Mr. L. D. Bushnell, of
Port Arthur, Tex., for the Company.
Messrs. Homer Coffman and Robert C. Davis, of Port Arthur, Tex.,
for the Oil Workers.
Mr. Jack B. Rogers, of Houston, Tex., and Mr. E. R. Wins,tel, of
Port Arthur, Tex., for the Boilermakers.
Miss Margaret H. Patterson, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon an amended petition duly filed by Oil Workers Inter-
national Union, C. I. 0., Local No. 23, herein called the Oil Workers,
alleging that a question affecting commerce had arisen concerning
the representation of employees of Gulf Oil Corporation (Port
Arthur Refinery), Port Arthur, Texas, herein called the Company,
the National Labor Relations Board provided for an appropriate
hearing upon due ngtice before R. Arthur Burns, Trial Examiner.
The hearing was held at Port Arthur, Texas, on September 28, 1945.
At the commencement of the hearing, the Trial Examiner granted a
motion of International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship'
builders, Welders and Helpers of America, Local 305, A. F. L., herein
called the Boilermakers, to intervene. The Company, the Oil
Workers, and the Boilermakers appeared and participated. All
parties were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and
cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the
issues. The Boilermakers moved at the hearing for a dismissal of the
petition herein on the ground that a presently existing contract be-
tween the Company and the Boilermakers constitutes a bar to this
proceeding. The Trial Examiner reserved ruling upon this motion
for the Board. For reasons hereinafter stated in Section III, the
65 N L. R. B., No. 154. 865
866 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
motion is denied. The Trial Examiner's rulings made at the hearing
are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. All parties
were afforded opportunity 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
Gulf Oil Corporation (Port Arthur Refinery), Port Arthur, Texas,
with which we are concerned herein, is engaged in the refining of crude
oil and the production of gasoline, kerosene, lubricating oil, and other
petroleum products. It receives approximately 4,200,000 barrels of
crude oil per month, of which about 25 percent is received from points
located outside the State of Texas. It produces a monthly average of
approximately 1,680,000 barrels of gasoline, 185,000 barrels of kero-
sene, 430,000 barrels of furnace oil, 330,000 barrels of lubricating oil,
and 2,000,000 pounds of various types of greases, over 50 percent of
which is sold at points located outside the State of Texas. In addition
to the foregoing, the refinery has terminal facilities for loading rail-
road tank cars and deep water vessels.
The Company admits and we find that in the operations of its Port
Arthur Refinery it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the
National Labor Relations Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Oil Workers International Union, Local No. 23, is a labor organiza-
tion, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, admit-
ting to membership employees of the Company.
International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Shipbuilders,
Welders and Helpers of America, Local 305, is a labor organization,
affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, admitting to mem-
bership employees of the Company.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The Company has refused to grant recognition to the Oil Workers
as the exclusive bargaining representative of the employees involved
herein until the Oil Workers has been certified by the Board in an
appropriate unit.
The Boilermakers was certified by the Board as the exclusive collec-
tive bargaining representative of the employees involved herein, on
three occasions, the last being on April 4, 1944.1 At the hearing, the
' Matter of Gulf Oil Corporation, 4 N L. R 13 133 , November 16, 1937; 47 N. L. R. B.
327, February 4, 1943 , supplemented and amended , 58 N. L . R B. 978 , October 13, 1944,
54 N. L. R. B. 1574 , February 23, 1944, supplemented , 55 N. L. R B. 1005, April 4, 1944.
GULF OIL CORPORATION 867 ,
Boilermakers submitted a collective bargaining agreement between it-
self and the Company, which provided that it should be "effective from
August 21, 1944, to August 21, 1945, and if not terminated at the end
of that period by thirty (30) days' prior written notice, which may be
given by either party to the other, it shall continue thereafter until
terminated by either party upon thirty (30) days' prior written notice
to the other." The Boilermakers contends that, inasmuch as neither
party to the agreement notified the other of intent to terminate within
the time stipulated, the contract was automatically renewed for 1 year
and that such renewal constitutes a bar to the Oil Workers' petition.
On July 6, 1945, however, the Oil Workers wrote the Company re-
questing recognition which was refused, and on July 16, 1945, the Oil
Workers filed its petition for certification of representatives (this
petition was amended to include welders on August 17, 1945). Thus,
the Oil Workers' claim for recognition was made prior to the automatic
renewal date of the Boilermakers' agreement (July 22, 1945), and was
therefore timely. Accordingly, the Boilermakers' agreement is no bar
to this proceeding and the Boilermakers' motion to dismiss the petition
is without merit and has been denied.
A statement of a Board agent, introduced into evidence at the hear-
ing, indicates that the Oil Workers represents a substantial number of
employees in the unit hereinafter found appropriate.2
We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning
the representation of employees of the Company, within the meaning
of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
Substantially in accordance with the stipulation and agreement of
the parties, we find that all employees employed in the boilermaking
and welding department of the Company's Port Arthur Refinery, but
excluding supervisory and clerical employees, and all or any other
supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote, discharge,
discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of employees, or
effectively recommend such action, constitute a unit appropriate for
the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section
9 (b) of the Act.3
2 The Field Examiner reported that the Oil workers submitted 141 authorization cards,
hearing the names of 123 employees , listed on the Company ' s pay roll as of the pay-roll
period ending July 15, 1945.
There are approximately 2:6 employees in the appropriate unit.
8 This unit is the same as that found appropriate by the Board in the three cases cited
in footnote 1, supra, and covered by the Boilermakers' collective bargaining agreement
with the Company . It was agreed by the parties that the classifications included are
boilermakers , welders, layer -outs, riveters , blacksmiths , burners, riggers, tank men, punch
and shear men, backers , heaters, caulkers, inspectors and their apprentices and helpers.
868 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
V. TI[E DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
We shall direct that the question concerning representation which
has arisen be resolved by an election by secret ballot among employees
in the appropriate unit who were employed during the pay-roll period
immediately preceding the date of the Direction of Election herein:
subject to the limitations and additions set forth in the Direction-
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
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 Rela-
tions Board Rules and Regulations-Series 3, as amended, it is
hereby
DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation to ascertain representa-
tives for the purposes of collective bargaining with Gulf Oil Corpora-
tion (Port Arthur Refinery), Port Arthur, Texas, 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 Article III, Sections 10 and 11, of said Rules and Regu-
lations, among 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 they desire to be represented by
Oil Workers International Union, Local No. 23, affiliated with the
Congress of Industrial Organizations, or by the International Brother-
hood of Boilermakers, Iron Shipbuilders, Welders and Helpers of
America, Local 305, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor,
for the purposes of collective bargaining, or by neither.
4 From the record it appears that because of a work stoppage at the Company's Port
Arthur Refinery , the plant was shut down on September 30 and at the time of the hearing
many of the employees of the boileimaking and welding department were out of town.
The parties joined in a request that the Board refrain from ordering an election until,
such time as normal operations are resumed in the boilermaking and welding department
and that the pay-roll period for eligibility be designated as that ending September 15,
1945, the last pay-roll period preceding the beginning of the work stoppage. It now
appears that normal operations have been resumed at the Port Arthur Refinery and that
parties have all signed a stipulation (dated January 7, 1946 ), that in the evant an elec-
tion is ordered , the Board may designate a current pay-roll date in determining the list
of eligible employees to vote in the election , provided the election is ordered not later
than sixty ( 60) days from the date of the stipulation.