Gulf Oil Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 23, 1948

77 N.L.R.B. 308 (N.L.R.B. 1948)

III the Matter of GULF OIL CORPORATION, EMPLOYER and INTERNA-
TIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, PETITIONER
In the Matter of GULF OIL CORPORATION, EMPLOYER and UNITED
BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS AND JOINERS OF AMERICA, A. F. L.,
LOCAL No. 610, PETITIONER
In the Matter of GULF OIL CORPORATION, EMPLOYER and INTERNA-
TIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF BOILERMAXERS, IRON SHIP BUILDERS, WELD-
ERS, AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, A. F. L., LOCAL No. 305, PETITIONER
Cases Nos . 16-R-2238 , 16-R-29346, and 16-R-22841, respectively.-
Decided April 23, 19.448
Mr. J. H. Sperry, of Houston, Tex., and Messrs. R. P. Ricketts and
J. Ralph Davis, of Port Arthur, Tex., for the Employer.
Mr. John W. Carlton, of Fort Worth, Tex., and Mr. W. L. Grant,
of Beaumont, Tex., for the I. A. M.
Messrs. Walter Monroe, E. Guillory, and J. E. Warlick, of Port
Arthur, Tex., for the United.
Messrs. E. R. Winstel and Wade McQuirt, of Port Arthur, Tex.,
for the Brotherhood.
Mr. Lindsay P. Walden, of Fort Worth, Tex., and Mr. R. C. Davis,
of Port Arthur, Tex., for the C. I. O.
DECISION
DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
AND
ORDER
Upon petitions duly filed, hearing in these proceedings was held at
Port Arthur, Texas, on July 8 and 9, 1947, before Glenn L. Moller,
hearing officer. For the reasons stated in Section IV, infra, the
motion of the C. I. O. to dismiss the petitions herein is hereby granted
insofar as it relates to Case No. 16-R-2238, and is hereby denied inso-
far as it relates to Cases Nos. 16-R-2246 and 16-R-2284. The hearing
officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error
and are hereby affirmed.
77 N. L R. B, No. 42.
308
GULF OIL CORPORATION 309
Upon the entire record in the case, the National Labor Relations
Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. TILE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
Gulf Oil Corporation, a Pennsylvania corporation, is engaged in
the manufacture and sale of petroleum products in several States.
We are here concerned with its refinery at Port Arthur, Texas, where
it is engaged in refining crude oil and in producing gasoline, kerosene,
lubricating oil, and other petroleum products. The refinery receives
approximately 25 percent of its crude oil from points outside the
State of Texas. Of the products shipped from its refinery at Port
Arthur , in excess of 50 percent is shipped to points outside the State
of Texas.
The Employer admits and we find that it is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
IT. TILE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
International Association of Machinists , herein called the I. A. M.,
is an unaffiliated labor organization claiming to represent employees
of the Employer.
United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local
No. 610, herein called the United, is a labor organization affiliated with
the American Federation of Labor, claiming to represent employees
of the Employer.
International Brotherhood of Boilermakers , Iron Ship Builders,
Welders, and Helpers of America, Local No. 305, herein called the
Brotherhood , is a labor organization affiliated with the American
Federation of Labor, claiming to represent employees of the Employer.
Oil Workers International Union, Locals 23 and 254, herein called
the C. I. 0., is a labor organization affiliated with the Congress of
Industrial Organizations, • claiming to represent employees of the
Employer.
III. TIIE QUESTIONS CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The Employer refused to recognize the I. A. M., the United, or the
Brotherhood as the exclusive bargaining representatives of employees
of the Employer in any of the several units asserted to be appropriate
by these labor organizations until such organizations have been certi-
fied by the Board.
We find that questions affecting commerce exist 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.
788886-49-vol 77-21
310 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNITS
The I. A. M., the United, and the Brotherhood petition for units
consisting respectively of garage mechanics, carpenters, and tinners.
The C. I. O. opposes the unit requests of each of the petitioning unions
upon the ground that the operating and maintenance unit which it
presently represents, and in which these employees are included, is the
only appropriate unit. In addition, the C. I. O. attacks the limited
scope of the units requested by the I. A. M. and the Brotherhood. The
Employer maintains a neutral position with regard to the issue of the
appropriate units.
Effective collective bargaining at the Employer's refinery dates from
1937 when the Brotherhood was certified as the exclusive bargaining
representative of the employees in the boilermaking and welding de-
partment.) In 1938, as a result of the consent agreements, three units
composed of machinists, electricians, and trainmen, respectively, were
found appropriate by the Board.2 It was not until 1943 that a plant-
wide unit of operating and maintenance employees, including the
employees sought herein, but excluding, among others, the em-
ployees in the four above-mentioned craft units was found appro-
priate." The C. I. O. was certified as the bargaining agent for this
unit, and the resultant collective bargaining contract it executed with
the Employer annually has been automatically renewed or renego-
tiated. In 1946, a unit of bricklayers employed at the refinery was
found to be appropriate; 4 this determination by the Board in no way
altered the composition of the 1943 comprehensive unit, as the brick-
layers were specifically excluded therefrom. Thus, since 1943 the
unit represented by the C. I. O. has remained intact,5 and has, as in-
dicated above, included the machinists, carpenters, and tinners whom
the petitioning unions seek to represent. In the light of this history
of craft and industrial bargaining, which applies with equal effective-
ness to each of the claimed units, we shall consider the appropriate-
ness of the units proposed by the several labor organizations 6
Matter of Gulf Oil Corporation , 4 N L. R B 133.
a Case No 16-R-96
3 Matter of Gulf Oil Corporation, 47 N L R. B 327.
4 Matter of Gulf Oil Corporation, 72 N. L R B 895
S In 1946 the Board administratively dismissed three petitions which sought to sever
craft units of carpenters , tinsmiths ( tinners ), and electricians from the operating and
maintenance unit. Cases Nos 16-11-1564, 16-R-1592, and 16-R-1599.
° Craft and industrial bargaining exist side by side in many operations within the oil
industry See Matter of Standard Oil Company of California, 67 N L R B 139, Matter of
Standard Oil Company of California, 63 N. L . R B 471; Matter of Richfield Oil Corpora-
tion. 59 N L R B 1554; Matter of General Petroleum Corporation of California, 56
N I. R B 1366. and Matter of Humble Oil & Refining Company, 53 N L. R. B 116 Cf..
Matter of Sinclair Refining Company, 64 N. L. it. B 611.
GULF OIL CORPORATION 311
The unit proposed by the I. A. M.
The I. A. Al. requests a craft unit of all first and second class garage
mechanics, including certa}n operating employees, namely, caterpillar
crane operators, bulldozer operators, and launchmen, but excluding
supervisory personnel. However, should the Board deem the operat-
ing employees improper inclusions, the I. A. M. requests a unit re-
stricted to garage mechanics. The C. I. 0. opposes the I. A. M.'s
unit request generally upon the ground that the only appropriate unit
for these employees is the inclusive operating and maintenance unit,
but more specifically upon the ground that the proposed unit is, under
any circumstances, inappropriate for the reason that it does not
include all mechanics in the Employer's refinery.
The garage mechanics who number about 17 are normally under the
supervision of a garage foreman. Their headquarters is in the garage
and their work there includes the maintenance of the automotive
equipment used in the refinery operations. However, a substantial
portion of their time is spent repairing various types of gasoline,
combustion, Diesel, and electric engines used to operate cranes, welders,
air compressors, pumps, and sea-going vessels. In the performance
of their repair work, the garage mechanics work throughout the plant,
at which times they may be supervised by various department heads.
Thus, though nominally classified as garage mechanics, these em-
ployees are in fact plant-wide repair mechanics and are therefore
distinguishable from, and perhaps more highly skilled than, em-
ployees usually encountered under a garage mechanic classification.
Relying upon the skills of the garage mechanics, the I. A. M. as-
serts that they are craft employees and as such may be severed from
the operating and maintenance unit. No other cogent reason is urged
by the I. A. M. for severing these employees. The C. I. 0., without
conceding that the garage mechanics are craft employees, argues that
in any event they do not constitute an appropriate unit, for the reason
that other similarly skilled refinery mechanics, namely, the running
maintenance mechanics, are not included therein. In effect, the
C. I. 0. argues that the I. A. M. has resorted to an arbitrary grouping
in attempting to sever a fragmentary group of alleged craft employees.
The running maintenance mechanics who, like the garage me-
chanics, are presently included in the operating and maintenance unit,
have their headquarters in the refinery laboratory where they repair
laboratory machinery and equipment. The main function of these
employees, however, is the running maintenance of the various engines
and operating machinery in the refinery. Thus, both the garage and
the running maintenance mechanics repair as well as maintain refinery
equipment. While the record does not thoroughly explore the precise
312 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
skills of the running maintenance mechanics, it does convince us that
their occupational tasks, though doubtless differing in varying re-
spects, are fundamentally similar and complementary to those of the
garage mechanics. Although the Board has found appropriate units
comprised of garage employees similar to the type sought to be severed
herein,T we believe that the unit requested by the I. A. M. is inap-
propriate inasmuch as it comprises only a segment of an employee
classification possessing similar skills and performing comparable
work.8 Accordingly, we shall dismiss the petition filed by the I. A. M.
The unit proposed by the United
The United seeks a unit of all carpenters and carpenter apprentices
and trainees, but excluding carpenter helpers. As has already ap-
peared, the C. I. 0. contends that these employees should continue to
be represented by it in the operating and maintenance unit.
The carpenters and their apprentices, who together number about
58, are under the supervision of a carpenter foreman and 5 subfore-
men. These employees work in their own shop and in addition work
throughout the refinery where they perform all necessary carpentry
work. The record indicates that these employees constitute a highly
skilled, well-recognized craft group employed in an industry in which
craft units of carpenters and apprentices are encountered.,, Under
these circumstances, we are of the opinion that the carpenters and
carpenter apprentices and trainees may, if they so desire, constitute a
separate unit, notwithstanding the Board's previous more inclusive
unit determination, 10 and the history of collective bargaining
predicated thereon?1
However, the Board will make no unit determination until it has
first ascertained the desires of the employees involved. If in the elec-
tions hereinafter ordered, the carpenters select the United, they will
7 Matter of The Standard Oil Company of Ohio, 63 N. L. R. B. 320, where there was no
history of collective bargaining and the garage employees constituted a separate depart-
ment ; and Matter of New York Butchers Dressed Meat Company, 67 N. L. R. B. 1010,
wherein it was found that the garage employees were an identifiable homogeneous group
having a community of interests apart from those of other craft maintenance employees
8 See Matter of St Louis Public Service Company, 75 N. L. R. B. 693, and 71 N. L. R. B.
160 wherein petitions seeking units of bus mechanics were dismissed for failure to include
streetcar mechanics in the unit See also Matter of Lockheed Aircraft Corporation, 57
N. L. R. B. 41 ; and Matter of General Petroleum Corporation of California, 56 N. L. R. B.
'1366, 1372.
9 Matter of General Petroleum Corporation of California, 56 N L. R. B. 1366.
10 Section 9 (b) (2) of the Act, as amended, provides that the Board shall not "decide
that any craft unit is inappropriate . . . on the ground that a different unit has been
established by a prior Board determination, unless a majority of the employees in the pro-
posed unit vote against separate representation." See Matter of Westinghouse Electric
Corporation, 75 N L. R. B. 638.
11 See Matter of Fork S Hoe Company, 72 N L R. B. 1025
GULF OIL CORPORATION 313
be taken to have indicated their desire to constitute a separate bar-
gaining unit.
The unit proposed by the Brotherhood
The Brotherhood requests a unit of all tin shop employees, namely,
all tinners and tinner apprentices, trainees, and helpers. The C. I. 0.
opposes the separation of this group from the existing operating and
maintenance unit upon the ground that the latter unit is the only unit
appropriate for the tin shop employees. The C. I. 0. contends further
that the proposed unit is inappropriate for failure to include therein
the drum shop employees, who together with the employees whom the
Brotherhood seeks to represent comprise all the employees of the Tin
and Drum Shop.
The Tin and Drum Shop is composed of two distinct shops which
are located a considerable distance apart. The Tin and Drum Shop
foreman personally supervises the tin shop while a subforeman super-
vises the drum shop. The tin shop employees construct, braze, copper,
and weld all sheet metal parts used in processing oil at the refinery; in
addition they make such maintenance objects as rainspouts and gut-
ters. A 4-year apprenticeship is required to achieve the status of
journeyman tinner. The record establishes and we find that the
tinners, who are synonymous with employees found in the usual sheet
metal worker classification, are highly skilled employees and, as such,
constitute a well recognized craft 12
The drum shop employees, whose exclusion from the proposed unit
of tinners renders, in the view of the C. I. 0., such unit inappropriate,
are engaged in the straightening, testing, and welding of damaged oil
drunis. This work, as contrasted with the construction work performed
by the tin shop employees, is strictly repair work. Although some of
the drum shop employees could, if called upon, perform the routine
welding work of the tin shop, they are unskilled in the more compli-
cated phases of cutting and laying out sheet metal. It is also apparent
that the over-all work of the tin shop requir,