Humble Oil & Refining Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 25, 1954

108 N.L.R.B. 1026 (N.L.R.B. 1954)

1026 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
IV, THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III, above, occuring in connection
with its operations described in section I, above, have a close, intimate , and substantial
relation to trade, traffic , and commerce among the several States and tend to lead to labor
disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow thereof
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, it will
be recommended that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action de-
signed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Having found that the Respondent discriminated
against employees because some of them were members of the Union by denying them full
employment, it will be recommended that Zude and Berry be made whole for any loss of
earnings suffered because of the layoff practice and that the Respondent cease and desist
from making layoffs for the purpose of discouraging union membership Russell Barnhart
too lost earnings as a result of this discrimination but as no claim to be made whole is made
in his behalf no recommendation to that effect will be made.
Loss of earnings as to Zude and Berry shall be calculated by payment to them of that
sum of money they would have earned in full employment with the Respondent from December
9 or 11, 1952, through February 1953, less actual earnings in the employment afforded by
the Respondent and whatever amounts they may have earned as wages in other employment
Back pay shall be computed on a quarterly basis in the manner established by the Board
in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289 It will also be recommended that the Respondent
upon reasonable request make available to the Board or its agents, for examination and copy-
ing, all pertinent records necessary or convenient for a calculation of the amount of back
pay due.
Considering the character of the Respondent's urfair labor practices and the manifestations
of union animus recited in this report, it will be recommended that the Respondent cease
and desist from infringing in any manner upon the rights of employees guaranteed in Section
7 of the Act
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the case,
I make the following-
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Cannery, Warehousemen , Food Processors , Drivers & Helpers , Local Union No. 318,
is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2 By failing to afford steady employment to its permanent warehouse workers for the
purpose of discouraging membership in the Union, the Respondent has engaged in and is
engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
3. By such conduct and by stating that steady employment would be given if an employee
resigned union membership and that the situation regarding lyoffs would be different if
the Union' s contract was canceled , the Respondent interfered with , restrained , and coerced
its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act and engaged in and
is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce
within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
HUMBLE OIL & REFINING COMPANY and R. C. BIT TRICK,
Petitioner and BAYTOWN EMPLOYEES FEDERATION. Case
No. 39-RD-29. May 25, 1954
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Clarence L.
108 NLRB No. 138.
HUMBLE OIL & REFINING COMPANY 1027
Stephens , hearing officer . The hearing officer ' s rulings made
at the hearing are free from prejudicial 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 Petitioner asserts that the Union is no longer the
representative of certain employees on whose behalf the peti-
tion herein is brought . The Union is a labor organization and
is currently recognized by the Employer as the exclusive
representative for a production and maintenance unit , including
the employees in dispute.
3, The Union was first certified as the bargaining agent for
a production and maintenance unit of approximately 4,000 em-
ployees in 1943, and has been so recognized since that date by
the Employer . Neither the Employer nor the Petitioner question
the Union ' s majority status . Rather there is adispute as to the
status of some 167 employees whom the Petitioner , over the
objection of the Union , contends are supervisors within the
meaning of the Act . The Employer takes a neutral position on
this issue.
The parties agree that these 176 employees , regardless of
their classification , occupy substantially the same level in the
Employer ' s organizational structure and possess about the
same degree of authority and responsibility. The classifications
involved are shift engineer , shift supervisor , operator, and
stillman 1st . Employees in these classifications are the
respective heads of departmental or operational units which
represent the ultimate subdivision in the Employer ' s organi-
zational structure . These employees work, in turn, under'the
supervision of a foreman who generally has overall direction
of more than 1 operating unit . The foreman , as a rule, works
only during the day shift , although the Employer operates on a
3-shift basis. ' During the night shifts, the employees involved
work under the supervision of a night superintendent who has
broad supervision over practically all operating units.
As head of such a unit , each employee in question is respon-
sible for anywhere from 2 to 15 million dollars worth of
equipment and has on the average , about 5 to 6 other employees
under his immediate direction . The evidence shows that such
employees have the authority to as sign work to employees under
them-within their respective classifications to insure the effi-
cient operation of the operating units . Their recommendations
as to promotions and discipline are given serious consideration
by management , albeit a separate investigation is made before
any such action is taken. They also complete work performance
reports for extra employees when assigned to their operating
units . Each has authority to decide whether an employee in the
unit is in fit condition to work and whether to allow an employee
' The day foreman , however , is subject to emergency calls 24 hours a day.
1 028 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
to go on the job if he reports late. Their permission is required
before an employee may leave his job during working hours.
It is abundantly clear from the foregoing and the entire
record that the employees in dispute are vested by management
with a substantial degree of authority over employees within
their respective units. Thus, at the very least, the record
shows that these employees exercise independent judgment
in assigning work and in responsibly directing other em-
ployees. Accordingly, we find that the 167 employees in
dispute are supervisors within the meaning of the Act, and
therefore are not properly a part of the appropriate unit.
Nor can they constitute an appropriate unit for the purposes
of decertification. Therefore, we find that no question affecting
commerce exists 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, and we shall dismiss
the petition.'
[The Board dismissed the petition.]
'Neches Butane Products Company, 107 NLRB 1098; IJumble Pipeline Company, 107
NLRB 892.
L. WIEMANN COMPANY and LOCAL 1284, RETAIL CLERKS
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AFL, Petitioner. Case
No. 13-RC-3415. May 25, 1954
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER
Pursuant to the Board's Decision and Direction of Election'
herein, issued on September 28, 1953, an election was conducted
on October 23, 1953, under the supervision and direction of
the Regional Director of the Thirteenth Region, among the
employees in the unit found appropriate by the Board. Fol-
lowing the election a tally of ballots was furnished the parties.
The tally shows that of 199 votes cast in the election, 75
were for, and 123 were against the Petitioner, and 1 ballot
was challenged.
On October 26, 1953, the Petitioner filed the objections to
conduct affecting the results of the election. The Regional
Director investigated the objections and on March 11, 1954,
issued and duly served upon the parties a "Report on Ob-
jections" in which he recommended that a hearing be held
in order that certain factual issues in dispute may be resolved.
On March 19, 1954, the Employer filed exceptions to the
"Report on Objections" urging that the Board reject the
Regional Director's recommendations, and dismiss the Pe-
titioner's objections to the conduct of the election.
1106 NLRB 1167.