Gulf Oil Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 21, 1947

72 N.L.R.B. 895 (N.L.R.B. 1947)

III the Matter of GULF OIL CORPORATION, EMPLOYER and BRICKLAYERS,
MASONS AND PLASTERERS ' INTERNATIONAL UNION OF AMIERICA, LOCAL
UNION No. 17, or TEXAS, AFL, PETI'nONER
Case No. 16-R-1819.-Decided February m1, 1947
Mr. R. P. Ricketts, of Port Arthur, Tex., and Mr. J. H. Sperry, of
Houston, Tex., for the Employer.
Mr. B. C. Swain, of Washington, D. C., and Messrs. J. D. Cre.Swell,
Janes A. Ponpolina, and Eustacio Vargas, all of Port Arthur, Tex.,
for the Petitioner.
Messrs. Ivan B. Haven, R. C. Davis, and William S. Povall, all of
Port Arthur, Tex., for the Intervenor.
Mr. Emil C. Farkas, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed, hearing in this case was held at Port
Arthur, Texas, on October 8, 1946, before Lewis Moore, hearing officer.
At the hearing the Intervenor moved to dismiss the petition on the
ground that the unit sought was inappropriate . The hearing officer
referred this motion to the Board. For reasons stated in Section IV,
infra, the motion is hereby denied. 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
1. THE BUSINESS OF TIIE EMPLOYER
Gulf Oil Corporation, a Pennsylvania corporation, is engaged in all
branches of the petroleum industry at its various facilities among the
several States . We are here concerned with its refinery at Port
Arthur, Texas, where it is engaged in the refining of crude oil and the
production of gasoline, kerosene, lubricating oil, and other petroleum
products. The refinery receives approximately 25 percent of its crude
oil charge from points located outside the State of Texas, and more
72 N L. R B., No 152 895
731242-47-vol 72-58
896 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
than 50 percent of its products is sold at points located outside this
State.
The Employer uchnits and we find that at its Port Arthur refinery
it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor
Relations Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS 1N VOLVEI)
The Petitioner is a labor organization affiliated with the American
Federation of Labor, claim ng to represent employees of the Employer.
Oil Workers International Union. herein called the Intervenor, is a
labor organization affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organ-
izations, claiming to represent employees of the Employer.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The Employer refuses to recognize the Petitioner as the exclusive
bargaining representative of employees of the Employer until the
Petitioner has been 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.
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT; THE DETERMINATION OE REPRESENTATIVES
The Petitioner seeks a unit comprising all bricklayers and bricklayer
apprentices in the Employer's bricklaying department, excluding
bricklayer helpers. The Intervenor contends, in effect, that the unit
is inappropriate, and that, in any event, the bricklayer helpers should
be grouped together with the bricklayers and bricklayer apprentices
in any unit found to be appropriate. The Employer takes no posi-
tion with respect to the appropriateness of the requested unit.
The record discloses that the employees in the classification desig-
nated as bricklayers are skilled craftsmen who lay brick, finish cement,
and do plastering. Their work requires a rather high degree of spe-
cialization and a period of apprenticeship of approximately 4 years.
Bricklayer apprentices are indentured for a 4-year period during
which they are taught the various phases of the bricklaying trade and
upon the completion of which they become bricklayers. We have here-
tofore held that such employees constitute a true craft group which
may function together for collective bargaining purposes.,
With respect to the bricklayer helpers, whom the Intervenor would
include in the requested unit, the record reveals that these employees
are neither skilled nor semi-skilled. They are drawn from a "hiring-
in-pool" which also furnishes helpers for the various other crafts in the
' Matter of E I Dupont tie Ncmours cC Company. 61 N L R B 473
GULF OIL CORPORATION 897
Employer's refinery. These bricklayer helpers are assigned to the
bricklaying department where their duties consist of supplying the
bricklayers with bricks and other working materials, and of mixing
mortar under the supervision of the bricklayer foreman. Except
in rare instances, when a bricklayer helper has had previous bricklay-
ing experience, such employees are not advanced to the classification
of bricklayer without first serving the required period of apprentice-
ship. It further appears that, as the volume of work requires, the
complement of bricklayer helpers is enlarged by the addition of helpers
who are part of the Labor Department, and who are assigned to the
various operating and maintenance departments when necessary.
When assigned to work in the bricklaying department, these helpers
are under the supervision of the bricklayer foreman who keeps a
record of their working time; like the bricklayer helpers, these helpers
are engaged in hauling bricks and handling other materials, and with
the exception that they do not mix mortar or cement, perform virtually
the same duties as those performed by the bricklayer helpers.
The history of collective bargaining at the Employer's refinery
shows that in 1938, the Petitioner land the Intervenor sought to ob-
tain bargaining rights in a unit of "all bricklayers in the masonry
trades including apprentices but excluding helpers" but neither union
won the election held in that unit. Thereafter in 1943, pursuant to
a petition filed by the Intervenor, the Board directed an election
among all production and maintenance employees excluding certain
crafts among which were the bricklayers and their apprentices.' The
Petitioner apparently did not intervene in that proceeding. A contract
covering this unit was executed by the Employer and the Intervenor
in that year and a second contract was entered into in January 1945.
Subsequently, on July 10, 1945, pursuant to an agreement between
the Employer and the Intervenor, to which the Petitioner was not
a party, a consent election was held in a unit of all hourly paid em-
ployees in the bricklaying department including bricklayers and
bricklayer apprentices. Although no specific mention was made of
helpers, it appears that they were included in the bricklayer's unit.
The Intervenor won the election and was certified as the bargaining
representative in that unit on August 15, 1945. Thereupon, the Em-
ployer and the Intervenor entered into a stipulation amending their
1945 contract so as to embrace the bricklayers and their apprentices
within its terms ; no reference to helpers was made therein.
Insofar as the helpers in the bricklaying department are concerned,
it would thus appear that they were included in the unit of pr oduc-
2In excluding these employees from the unit the Board pointed out that the Intervenor
failed to make any representation with respect to them It appears that helpers who are
classified as maintenance employees were nnclnded in the unit.
898 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tion and maintenance employees from 1943 until 1945, and that, al-
though they were subsequently included in the same unit with brick-
layers and bricklayer apprentices in 1945, such inclusion was not
productive of any collective bargaining history on that basis. The
bargaining history from the time of the consent election is consequently
inconclusive on the issue of whether a unit of bricklayers and their
apprentices can function together for collective bargaining purposes
m` the same unlit with bricklayer helpers. Under these circumstances,
and inasmuch as the bricklayer helpers are unskilled employees who
are in many important respects indistinguishable from the laborer
helpers who have since 1943 been included in the production and
maintenance unit, we shall exclude the bricklayer helpers from the
requested unit.
The aforesaid bargaining history, in view of its short duration,
is likewise inconclusive on the issue of whether the bricklayers and
their apprentices have merged their interests with those of the pro-
duction and maintenance employees. Accordingly, inasmuch as the
bricklayers and bricklayer apprentices constitute a cohesive group of
highly skilled workers possessing the characteristics of a true craft,
and because these craft employees have not had an opportunity since
1938 to demonstrate in an election their desires as to separate repre-
sentation, we shall afford them that opportunity.
We shall, therefore, make no final unit determination at this time,
but shall be guided by the desires of the employees as expressed in
the election directed hereinafter. If at such election the employees
of the voting group set forth below select the Intervenor they will
be taken to have indicated their desire to be bargained for as part of
the existing production and maintenance uit, but if at such election
they select the Petitioner they will be taken to have indicated their
desire to constitute a separate collective bargaining unit.
Accordingly, we shall direct an election by secret ballot among all
bricklayers and bricklayer apprentices in the Employer's bricklaying
department, excluding bricklayer helpers and all supervisory em-
ployees with authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or
otherwise effect changes in the status of employees , or effectively
recommend such action , subject to the limitations and additions set
forth in the Direction."
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the
purposes of collective bargaining with Gulf Oil Corporation, Port
Arthur, Texas, an election by secret ballot shall be conducted as early
e Matter of International Harvester Compan i, 1Visconsrnt Steed TVoI ks, 42-NT L R B. 1275.
GULF OIL CORPORATION 899
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 Na-
tional 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 voting group 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 Brick-
layers, Masons and Plasterers' International Union of America, Local
Union No. 17, of Texas, AFL, or by Oil Workers International Union,-
CIO, for the purposes of collective bargaining, or by neither.
CHAIR-MAN HERZOG took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Direction of Election.