Humble Pipeline Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 19, 1954

107 N.L.R.B. 892 (N.L.R.B. 1954)

892 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
regularly devoting an average of even 15 percent of his time to
boilerroom functions.
In The Ocala Star Banner, 97 NLRB 384, and subsequent de-
cisions, the Board held that an employee who performs work
both within and outside the unit is included and eligible to vote,
if his work within the unit is regular and for "substantial"
periods of time. In the present case, Matthews, Opalka, and
Sauerzopf were essentially general maintenance employees.
Even assuming they regularly performed boilerroom relief
work, the amount of their time spent in such duties, on the
payroll eligibility and election dates, was too insubstantial
in our opinion to render them eligible to vote in a boiler-
room unit.6 We shall therefore sustain the challenges to the
ballots of Matthews, Opalka, and Sauerzopf.
As to the remaining challenged employees, Trachin and
Rose, it is clear that Trachin, who sporadically devoted little
time to boilerroom work, is ineligible, and we shall sustain
the challenge to his ballot. Because Rose is the sole remaining
eligible employee and the unit is therefore in effect a one-man
unit, we shall sustain the challenge to his ballot and shall dis-
miss the instant petition.?
[The Board dismissed the petition.]
Member Peterson took no part in the consideration of the
above Supplemental Decision and Order.
6See Sullivan Mining Company, 101 NLRB 1366, 1372
T National Container Corporation of Wisconsin , 99 NLRB 1492 ; cf. Producers Rice Mill, Inc.
and Producers Dryer , Inc., 106 NLRB 119.
HUMBLE PIPELINE COMPANY, SOUTHERN DIVISION and
EMPLOYEES FEDERATION OF THE HUMBLE PIPELINE
COMPANY, SOUTHERN DIVISION, Petitioner . Case No. 39-
RC-669. January 19, 1954
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Clifford W.
Potter, 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 withinthe meaning
of the Act.
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent cer-
tain employees of the Employer.
3. The alleged question concerning representation:
107 NLRB No 173.
HUMBLE PIPELINE COMPANY, SOUTHERN DIVISION 893
The Employer has recognized the Petitioner as the exclusive
bargaining representative for all its production and maintenance
employees since 1937 . At the hearing, the Employer admitted
that it had a contract with the Petitioner as the recognized
bargaining representative for such employees . The parties are
in dispute as to the status of some 11 employees , now classified'
as assistant district gaugers, the Petitioner contending that
these are not supervisors , and the Employer urging that they
are, and are not properly in the bargaining unit.
Prior to November 1, 1952, the assistant district gaugers
were engaged in the work of accepting and testing the oil de-
livered to the lease tanks of the Employer , their duties being
primarily to measure the quantity of oil received , to check it
for quality by means of various tests, and to lock and seal the
tanks after the oil had been turned into the Employer ' s pipe-
lines. The assistant district gaugers worked under the super-
vision of the district gaugers, who, in turn, reported to the
district superintendent.
On November 1, 1952, the Employer effected a companywide
revision of its administrative hierarchy in all its 5 divisions by
changing the title of assistant district gauger to field gauger and
then promoting some 11 employees in the latter group to the
title of assistant district gaugers. It also createdthe new posi-
tion of chief district gauger who reported to the district super-
intendent . The assistant district gaugers were notified of their
promotion in writing, were given a substantial increase in
salary. i and were informed of their new powers and duties which
are as follows:
1. To attend a company sponsored course on the fun-
damentals of supervision ; to attend and participate in meet -
ings of supervisors called for the purpose of discussing
labor relations.
2. To direct the work of field gaugers and others as-
signed to them and to prepare a performance record for
these employees.
3. To check the accuracy of the reports made by the
field gaugers for presentation to state regulatory bodies.
4. To authorize overtime, time off, and trading of work
days.
5. To effectively recommend hiring and discharge and to
have the power to discharge summarily for violation of
safety regulations.
6. To handle the first step in the grievance procedure.
7. To relieve the district gauger at least 2 days a week,
at which time the assistant district gauger is in command
of the district operations.
I The evidence does not show what the increase in compensation was except that it was sub-
stantial and that it was on a salary rather than an hourly basis as prior to the promotion.
337593 0 - 55 - 58
894 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Petitioner contends that the Employer, without bargaining
with the Union, had no right in any event to take these employees
out of the bargaining unit by giving them supervisory duties,
and that the work of the assistant district gaugers has re-
mained primarily the same.
The assignment of particular duties has been recognized by
the Board as a prerogative of management. The only question
for determination is whether such supervisory duties have in
fact been conferred upon the individuals concerned.'
Although there appears to be an unusually large number of
supervisors in proportion to men supervised, the situation is
explained by the fact that the great distances between the Em-
ployer's operations necessitate decentralized reponsibility.
Accordingly , because it is clear that the assistant district
gaugers have in fact been clothed with the supervisory powers
outlined above, we find that they are supervisors within the
meaning of the Act.3
As it appears that the Employer does not question the ma-
jority status of the Petitioner and that neither party desires
an election , we find that no question affecting commerce
exists concerning the representation of employees of the Em-
ployer within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6)
and (7) of the Act. Accordingly, we shall dismiss the petition.4
[The Board dismissed the petition.]
2See American Finishing Company, 86 NLRB 412; The Baltimore Transit Company, 92
NLRB 1260.
3Continental Pipe Line Co., 78 NLRB 379.
4W.K.B.H. Inc., 81 NLRB 63; see also Lake Tankers Corporation, 79 NLRB 442; Houston
Terminal Warehouse et als., 107 NLRB 290
SOUTHERN OXYGEN COMPANY, INC. and TRUCK DRIVERS
AND HELPERS, LOCAL 355, INTERNATIONAL BROTHER-
HOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN
AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, AYL. Case No. 5-CA-693.
January 20, 1954
DECISION AND ORDER
On August 11, 1953, Trial ExaminerSidney L.Feiler issued
his Intermediate Report in the above -entitled proceeding, find-
ing that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in
certain unfair labor practices , and recommending that it cease
and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set
forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto.
The Trial Examiner found further that the Respondent had not
engaged in certain other unfair labor practices alleged in the
complaint, and recommended dismissal of those allegations of
107 NLRB No. 176.