Hydril Company of California

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 7, 1939

13 N.L.R.B. 507 (N.L.R.B. 1939)

In the Matter of HYDRIL COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA:' and OIL WORKERS
INTERNATIONAL UNION, LOCAL 128, C. I. O.
Case No. R-1381.-Decided July 7, 1939
Pressure Drilling Equipment Manufacturing and Distributing Industry-
Investigation of Representatives : controversy concerning representation of
employees : refusal of employer to recognize petitioning union-Unit Appropriate
for Collective Bargaining : production and maintenance employees , exclusive of
supervisory and clerical employees ; no controversy as to-Representatives:
proof of choice : comparison of petitions with pay-roll list-Certification. of
Representatives : upon proof of majority representation.
Mr. David Sokol, for the Board.
Latham c6 Watkins, by i11r. Paul R. Watkins, of Los Angeles, Calif.,
for the Company.
Mr. Fred L. Phillips, of Long Beach, Calif., for the Union.
Mr. William Logan Donnel, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On April 10, 1939, Oil Workers International Union, Local 128,
C. I. 0., herein called the Union, filed with the Regional Director
for the Twenty-first Region (Los Angeles, California), a petition
alleging that a question affecting commerce had arisen concerning
the representation of employees of Hydril Company of California,
Torrance, California, herein called the Company, and requesting an
investigation and certification of representatives pursuant to Section
9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called
the Act. On May 6, 1939, the National Labor Relations Board,
herein called the Board, acting pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the Act
and Article III, Section 3, of National Labor Relations Board
Rules and Regulations-Series 1, as amended, ordered an investiga-
IIncorrectly designated as "Hydril Company" in the petition and notice of hearing.
By stipulation entered into by counsel for the Board and counsel for the Company
during the course of the hearing, all pleadings were amended to state the name of the
Company as set forth in the title above.
13 N. L. R. B., No. 58.
507
508 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tion and authorized the Regional Director to conduct it and to
provide for an appropriate hearing upon due notice.
On May 9, 1939, the Regional Director issued a notice of hearing,
copies of which were duly served upon the Company, the Union, and
upon the Los Angeles Industrial Union Council (C. I. 0.), the
Central Labor Union of Los Angeles (A. F. of L.), International As-
sociation of Machinists at Los Angeles and the International President
of its Grand Lodge at Washington, D. C. Pursuant to the notice,
a hearing was held on May 16, 1939, at Los Angeles, California, be-
fore John T. Lindsay, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the
Board. The Board and the Company were represented by counsel,
the Union by its representative, and all participated in the hearing.
No other parties appeared. Counsel for the Board stated for the
record that International Association of Machinists had informed
the Regional Director that it was not interested in the proceeding.
Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses,
and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues was afforded all
parties. During the course of the hearing, the Trial Examiner made
several rulings on motions and on objections to the admission of
evidence. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Exam-
iner and finds that no prejudicial errors were committed. The rulings
are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
Hydril Company of California is a California corporation engaged
in the business of manufacturing and distributing pressure-drilling
equipment, tool joints for drill pipe, and threaded drill pipe and
casing, at a plant situated at Torrance, Los Angeles County, Califor-
nia. The raw materials used by the Company in its business consist
principally of steel, forgings, castings, and sundry commercial articles.
During the year 1938 the Company purchased raw materials valued
at $394,708.25, of which 80.4 per cent represented materials purchased
from sources in California,, and 19.6 per cent represented materials
shipped by rail, truck, and boat to the Company's plant from points
outside California.
During the year 1938, the Company sold products exceeding
$1,250,000 in value. Of this amount, approximately $300,000 repre-
2 Stated sources of these materials were as follows : Timken Steel and Tube Company,
Los Angeles ; Youngstown Sheet and Tube Company , Los Angeles ; Earle M. Jorgensen
Company, Ducommun Corporation ; General Metals Corporation ; Los Angeles Steel Cast-
ing Company and Rubbercraft Corporation
HYDRIL COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA 509
sented products shipped by rail, truck, and boat to States other than
California and to foreign countries.' During the year 1939, up to
the date of the hearing, the movement in interstate and foreign com-
merce of materials purchased and products sold and shipped by the
Company was substantially the same as during the same period in
1938. The Company advertised its products during the year 1938 in
various oil-trade journals, including the following : Oil Weekly,
Institute of Petroleum Technologists, Oil Equipment, Oil and Gas
Journal, Petroleum World, and World Petroleum.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Oil Workers International Union, Local 128, is a labor organizatioi
affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, admitting to
its membership production and maintenance employees of the Com-
pany. It excludes from its membership supervisory employees and
office and clerical workers.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
Although requested to do so by the Union , the Company is unwill-
ing to bargain collectively with the Union as the representative of
its production and maintenance employees until after a determination
by this Board that the Union is the exclusive bargaining representa-
tive of such employees.
We find that a question has arisen concerning representation of
employees of the Company.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION UPON
COMMERCE
We find that the question concerning representation which has
arisen, occurring in connection with the operations of the Company
described in Section I above, has a close, intimate, and substantial
relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and
with foreign countries, and tends to lead to labor disputes burdening
and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
In its petition the Union claimed that all production employees
except supervisory and clerical employees constitute a unit appro-
priate for the purposes of collective bargaining. Maintenance em-
ployees are eligible to membership in the Union, and a number of
8 Of the total sales, 18.4 per cent were shipped to Texas, and 4.2 per cent to foreign
countries. The foreign countries to which shipments were 'made are Arabia, India, Iraq,
Bahrein Island, Persian Gulf, Philippine Islands, and Trinidad.
510 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
them have signed authorizations designating the Union as their rep-
resentative for purposes of collective bargaining. It is clear from
the record that the Union desires the maintenance employees to be
included in the unit. The Company takes no position in regard to
the unit, and has no collective bargaining agreements with any other
organizations.
We find that all production and maintenance employees at the
Company's Torrance plant, exclusive of supervisory and clerical
employees, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collec-
tive bargaining and that said unit will insure to employees of the
Company the full benefit of their right to self-organization and to,
collective bargaining and otherwise effectuate the policies of the Act.
VI. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
The Company introduced in evidence typewritten lists representing
pay rolls of its production and maintenance employees, exclusive of
supervisory and clerical employees, as of January 1, 1939, and May
13, 1939, the latter being its pay roll for thel period immediately
preceding the date of hearing. The pay-roll list for May 13, 1939,
was used at the hearing by the Company and the Union as deter-
mining the number of employees in the appropriate unit. This pay-
roll list contains 199 names, and we find that as of May 13, 1939, there
were 199 employees in the appropriate unit.
In support of its claim to represent a majority of the employees
in the appropriate unit, the Union introduced in evidence five peti-
tions, together containing 129 signatures, each petition being headed
by the following caption :
The undersigned employees of the Hydril Company, Lomita,4
California, hereby designate the Oil Workers International
Union and Local No. 128 of the Oil Workers International
Union, to be their sole agency for collective bargaining on the
matters of wages, hours and working conditions in their employ-
ment with the Company.
Should the Company refuse to recognize the above agency, the
undersigned employees hereby request the National Labor
Relations Board to certify the Oil Workers International Union
as such agency.
Union, Representative Phillips testified that because the Union did
not desire to place its membership cards in evidence, and in order
to bring its authority to represent the Company's employees up to
* Lomita and Torrance are adjacent suburbs of Los Angeles . Union Representative
Phillips testified he did not know on which side of the boundary line the plant of the
Company was situated , and prepared the language of the captions under the impression
the plant was in Lomita.
HYDRIL COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA 511
date, these petitions were prepared and circulated among employees
of the Company on and after February 25, 1939, which date each
petition bears. Maurice K. Boyd, chairman of a committee of
the Union appointed for that purpose, and four members of the com-
mittee circulated the five petitions among employees of the Company.
They advised the employees solicited, both members and non-members
of the Union, to read the caption and sign the petitions if they chose,
and that signing was an authorization of the Union to represent the
signers for purposes of collective bargaining only and was not an
assumption of membership in the Union. Boyd supervised the solici-
tation of signatures carried on by the other four members of the com-
mittee.5 The solicitation occurred on Company property, before and
after work and during lunch hour, but not during working hours.
The Company did not contest the genuineness of the, signatures.
During a recess declared for that purpose, counsel for the Company
and Union Representative Phillips checked the signatures on the five
petitions against the names on the May 13, 1939 pay-roll list. Phil-
lips testified that as a result of this check he found the May 13, 1939,
pay-roll list contained 198 names, of which 124 corresponded with
the signatures on the five petitions.
Following this check and the testimony in regard to the signing
of the petitions, the five petitions were received in evidence, over
objection by counsel for the Company directed to their competency.
This objection seems to be based on the ground that the issue involved
was membership in the Union, in which event the union membership
cards and records would have been the best evidence. The issue here
involved is not whether a majority of the employees are members of
the Union, but whether a majority have designated the Union as their
collectivebargaining representative, regardless of whether or not
they are members of the Union. The five petitions bear directly on
this issue. These petitions are competent evidence of the Union's
designation as bargaining representative by a majority of the em-
ployees. in the appropriate unit, and were properly received in
evidence.
We have checked the pay-roll list as of May 13, 1939, and the five
petitions, and find that the pay-roll list contains the names of 199
employees, and not 198 as found by Phillips, and that the five peti-
tions contain 129 signatures. Checking the pay-roll list against the
petitions, we find 123 signatures appearing on the petitions which
correspond with the names on the pay-roll list, not 124 as found by
Phillips. We find that 123 of the 199 employees in the appropriate
unit have designated the Union as their representative for purposes
, The other four committeemen were Arnold Strong, William Southwood or Southword,
Al Doucet , and Gus fomrighusen.
512 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of collective bargaining. At no time has the respondent expressed
any doubt that the Union represented a majority of employees in
the appropriate unit.
We find that the Union has been designated and selected by a
majority of the employees in the appropriate unit as their represent-
ative for the purposes of collective bargaining. It is, therefore, the
exclusive representative of all the employees in such unit for the
purposes of collective bargaining, and we will so certify.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire
record herein, the Board makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. A question affecting commerce has arisen concerning the repre-
sentation of employees of Hydril Company of California, Torrance,
California, within the meaning of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6)
and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act.
2. The production and maintenance employees of the Company,
exclusive of supervisory and clerical employees, constitute a unit
appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining, within the
meaning of Section 9 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act.
3. Oil Workers International Union, Local 128, C. I. 0., is the
exclusive representative of all employees in such unit for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining, within the meaning of section 9 (a) of
the National Labor Relations Act.
CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
By virtue of and pursuant to the power vested in the National
Labor Relations Board by Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Re-
lations Act, and pursuant to Article III, Section 8, of National
Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 1, as amended,
IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that Oil Workers International Union,
Local 128, C. I. 0., has been designated and selected by a majority
of the production and maintenance employees, exclusive of super-
visory and clerical employees, employed by Hydril Company of
California, Torrance, California, as their representative for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining and that, pursuant to the provisions of
Section 9 (a) of the Act, Oil Workers International Union, Local
128, C. I. 0., is the exclusive representative of all such employees for
the purposes of collective bargaining in respect to rates of pay,
wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of employment.
MR. WILLIAM M. LEisERSON took no part in the consideration of the
above Decision and Certification of Representatives.