Humble Oil & Refining Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 8, 1965

153 N.L.R.B. 1361 (N.L.R.B. 1965)

HUMBLE OIL & REFINING COMPANY 1361
and prospective buyers, the Employers make all decisions concerning
when and where major repairs are to be made to the vessels, and the
Employers pay the expenses of the entire operation.
In view of the foregoing and the entire record in these cases, we con-
clude that the captains are not independent contractors, but employees
of the Employers, as are the crewmembers.d We therefore find that
questions affecting commerce exist concerning the representation of
certain employees of the Employers within the meaning of Section
9(c) (1) andSection2(6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The parties are otherwise in agreement and we find that the
following employees of the Employers constitute separate units appro-
priate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of
Section 9 (b) of the Act:
(1) In Case No. 4-RC-6272, all employees aboard clamming vessels
owned by William P. Riggin & Son, Inc., excluding the captains.
(2) In Case No. 4-RC-6273, all employees aboard clamming vessels
owned by Robert Robbins, excluding the captains.
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication.]
"East Coast Trawling & Dock Company, Inc., 153 NLRB 1354; Robert Casebeer &
Herman Poland, d/b/a Casebeer & Poland, a Partnership, 149 NLRB 742; Southern Shell-
fish Co., Inc., supra, footnote 5.
Humble Oil & Refining Company, Petitioner and Industrial Em-
ployees Association , Inc.,' and Local Union No . 553, affiliated
with International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America .' Case No. 29-UC-20.
July 8,1965
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon a petition for clarification duly filed under Section 9(b) of
the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a hearing was held
before Hearing Officer Jordan Ziprin. All parties appeared and were
given full opportunity to participate at the hearing. Thereafter, Peti-
tioner and Local 553 filed briefs in support of their respective positions.
The National Labor Relations Board has considered the Hearing
Officer's rulings made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial
error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel [Members Fanning, Brown, and Jenkins].
I Hereinafter called Industrial.
8 Hereinafter called Local 553.
153 NLRB No. 111.
796-027-66-vol. 153-87
1362 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
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 organizations involved claim to represent certain
employees of the Employer.
3. Petitioner, a Delaware corporation, is engaged in the production,
refining, and distribution of petroleum products throughout the
United States. Petitioner's employees in the New York State area
currently are, and for a number of years have been, represented by
Industrial in a unit of production and maintenance employees, includ-
ing delivery truck operators, motor tank salesmen, plant men, sales
agents, plant helpers, mechanics, and mechanical helpers. On Au-
gust 7, 1964, Petitioner purchased the assets of Weber & Quinn and its
subsidiary Burdi Fuel Co., Inc., Brooklyn, New York. At that time
Local 553 represented Weber & Quinn's truckdrivers and mechanics
under a collective-bargaining agreement to terminate in December
1965. Pursuant to its policy of integrating into its existing structure
newly acquired smaller businesses, Petitioner closed Weber & Quinn's
office on April 2,1965. All panel and delivery trucks formerly owned
by Weber & Quinn were repainted to delete the latter's name and
were moved either to Petitioner's Brooklyn or Queens offices. Of
Weber & Quinn's 14 mechanics and 10 drivers, 9 mechanics, including
8 burner service mechanics and 1 truck mechanic, and 4 drivers were
employed by Petitioner. The four drivers and the truck mechanic
were relocated at Petitioner's Brooklyn office where they work with
Petitioner's other drivers and mechanics. Similarly, the eight burner
service mechanics work out of Petitioner's Queens office. Thus, the
former Weber & Quinn employees work out of the same locations, serv-
ice the same accounts, work for the same supervisors, are subject to the
same labor relations policies, are paid from the same office, and have
the same interests in wages and working conditions as the other drivers
and mechanics of Petitioner.
Petitioner now seeks to include in the existing contractual unit the
above employees previously employed by Weber & Quinn. Local 553
has moved to dismiss the petition on the grounds that : (1) Petitioner,
as successor to Weber & Quinn, is bound by the terms of the latter's
contract with Local 553; and (2) Local 553 has filed a complaint with
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York, requesting the court to compel the Petitioner to arbitrate certain
disputes arising out of its current contract with Local 553. For the
reasons stated below, Local 553's motion is hereby denied.
It is clear from the record that Petitioner has effectively merged the
former Weber & Quinn employees into the New York unit currently
represented by Industrial. These employees cannot now be considered
a separate appropriate unit. Whatever Petitioner's obligations with
INT'L LONGSHOREMEN'S & WAREHOUSEMEN'S UNION 1363
respect to Local 553's contract with Weber & Quinn are, such obliga-
tions cannot operate as a bar to the inclusion of the former Weber &
Quinn employees in the production and maintenance unit currently
represented by Industrial on an exclusive basis. Similarly, Local 553's
contractual right to arbitrate disputes arising from its relationship
with Weber & Quinn does not preclude the Board from determining a
question concerning the appropriateness of unit for the purposes of
collective bargaining. We shall therefore grant the Petitioner's
petition.
[The Board granted the Petitioner's petition for clarification.]
International Longshoremen 's & Warehousemen 's Union; and
Locals 6, 10, 34, 54, and 91, International Longshoremen's &
Warehousemen 's Union and United States Steel Corporation.
Case No. 20-CD-136. July 9,1965
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon a charge filed on May 13, 1964, and amended on June 8, 1964,
by United States Steel Corporation, hereinafter called U.S. Steel, the
General Counsel for the National Labor Relations Board, herein called
the General Counsel, by the Regional Director for Region 20, issued a
complaint, dated January 29, 1965, against International Longshore-
men's & Warehousemen's Union; and Locals 6, 10, 34, 54, and 91, Inter-
national Longshoremen's & Warehousemen's Union, herein called the
Respondents, alleging that the Respondents had engaged in and were
engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the
meaning of Section 8(b) (4) (D) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended. Copies of the complaint,
the charge, the amended charge, and the notice of hearing were duly
served upon the Respondents and U.S. Steel. Thereafter, on Febru-
ary 5, 1965, the Respondents filed an answer denying the commission of
any unfair labor practices.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged
that: Pursuant to Section 10(k) of the Act, the Board had heard and
made a determination of dispute out of which the charged unfair labor
practice arose; the determination of the Board was that the Respond-
ents were not lawfully entitled to force or require U.S. Steel to assign
the work of unloading the Employer's cargo from the Employer's
ships at the Pittsburg works dock to employees represented by
Respondents rather than to employees represented by Local No. 1440,
United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO, herein called Steel-
workers; the Respondents have not complied with the terms of the
153 NLRB No. 121.