Gulf Oil Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 13, 1950

92 N.L.R.B. 700 (N.L.R.B. 1950)

In the Matter of GULF OIL CORPORATION, EMPLOYER and OIL WORKERS
INTERNATIONAL UNION7 CIO, PETITIONER
Case No. 39-RC-210.-Decided December 13, 1950
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before John F. Burst, hearing officer.
The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from preju-
dicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the represen-
tation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section
9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. In 1943, the Petitioner was certified as representative of a unit
of operating and maintenance personnel at the Employer's Port Ar-
thur, Texas, refinery.' The Petitioner now seeks to add to that unit,
a group of bathhouse employees who have not previously been included
in the unit. The Employer contends that the bathhouse employees
are guards within the meaning of Section 9 (b) (3) of the- amended
Act, ineligible for inclusion in the broader unit.
The Employer maintains 2 bathhouses at its Port Arthur plant,
both of which are located outside of, but adjoining, the refinery itself.
The bathhouses, containing lockers, showers, and washroom facilities,
are staffed by 10 employees under the supervision of a labor foreman
reporting to the chief watchman. Four employees, working one to
a shift, are assigned to each bathhouse,, while a maintenance:mechanic
and one other employee work at both locations. The duties of the
bathhouse attendants consist in the main of cleaning, disinfecting,
sweeping, and other janitorial work. The record shows that well
over 50 percent of their time is bccupied in these tasks. Unlike gate-
men and guards, the attendants do not wear uniforms, are not armed,
and do not punch a time clock. '
The Employer, however, contends that the bathhouse employees are
charged with certain responsibilities which bring them 7ithin the
' Gulf Oil Corporation ( Port Arthur Refinery ), 47 NLRB 327.
92 NLRB No. 119.
700
GULF OIL CORPORATION 701
classification of guards. In this respect, the attendant's duties are
alleged to include watching for fire and prowlers, stopping gambling,
fighting, and smoking on the part of employees, reporting drunken-
ness or theft as well as generally maintaining a constant watch on the
lockers. It is apparent, however, that the bathhouse attendants can-
not and do not maintain a close or constant watch on the lockers or
their contents during the course of their janitor work. The attend-
ants have, on occasion, reported cases of thefts and drunkenness to
the plant-protection department, as have other employees, but there
is no record of their having made an arrest or exercised like authority.
Although the attendants also relieve gatemen for periods of 5 or 10
minutes at irregular and unscheduled times, and may occasionally open
a plant gate to allow trains to enter the yard, the total time they spend
in such duties does not exceed 3 or 4 hours a month.
We have consistently held that where an employee alleged to be
a guard spends the majority of his time in production or maintenance
work, he is eligible for inclusion in a unit of production and main-
tenance employees, despite, the proscription of Section 9 (b) (3) of
the amended Act against commingling guards and other employees in
the same bargaining unit.2 Upon the entire record; we find that the
bathhouse employees are not guards within the meaning of the Act 3
Under all the circumstances, we are also of the opinion that the bath-
house attendants at the Employer's refinery have a sufficient com-
munity of interest with operating and maintenance workers to be
included in the existing operating and maintenance unit.
As no question of representation exists at the present time in the
basic production and maintenance unit,4 we shall direct an election
among the bathhouse employees excluding the foreman and all other
employees and supervisors as defined in the Act.' If a majority of the
employees voting in the election cast their ballots for the Petitioner,
they will be taken to have indicated their desire to be a part of the
over-all operating and maintenance unit and the Petitioner may bar-
gain for bathhouse employees as a part of that unit.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
s See Radio Corporation of America (R. C. A. Victor Division ), 76 NLRB 826.
' The fact that the Petitioner, in 1945, was certified in a consent election proceeding
as the representative of these employees in a unit together with the Employer' s watchmen
does not militate against this conclusion , contrary to the contention of the Employer. The
Board in that case did not find that the bathhouse attendants were, in fact, watchmen,
much less that they were guards.within the meaning of Section 9 (b) (3) of the Act as
later amended.
4 Cf. Waterous Company, 92 NLRB 76.
5 See Armour and Company, 40 NLRB 1333; Great Lakes Pipe Line Company, 92 NLRB
583. For reasons stated in his dissent in the Great Lakes Pipe Line Company case,
Member Murdock would decline to direct an election for this fringe group. However,
deeming himself bound by the action of the majority in the earlier case, he joins in the
decision here.