James C. Ellis

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 7, 1947

72 N.L.R.B. 474 (N.L.R.B. 1947)

In the Matter of JAMES C. ELLIS, SOLE OWNER, D/B/A JAMES C. ELLis
(OIL PRODUCTION), EMPLOYER and INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD
OF FIREMEN & OILERS, AFL, PETITIONER
Case No. 11-R-100.-Decided February 7, 1.947
Messrs. E. B. Anderson and G. H. Cunningham, of Owensboro, Ky.,
for the Employer.
Mr. Harold L. Colvin, of Louisville, Ky., for the Petitioner.
Miss Eleanor Schwartzbach, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition 1 duly filed, hearing in this case was held at Owens-
boro, Kentucky, on December 10, 1946, before Clifford L. Hardy, hear-
ing oficer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
After the hearing the Employer filed a motion requesting that the
Board dismiss the petition on jurisdictional grounds. The motion is
hereby denied for the reasons stated in Section I, infra.
Upon the entire record in the case, the National Labor Relations
Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF TIIE EMPLOYER
James C. Ellis, an individual, operating in Kentucky under the
name of James C. Ellis (Oil Production), produces crude petroleum
oil from land in Kentucky owned by himself and leased from third
persons. During the past 12 months, Ellis produced over 10,000 barrels
of oil. A small amount of the oil was purchased at the wells by Owens-
boro Ashland Company, and transported through its pipe lines. The
largest amount of the oil was purchased at the wells by Producers Pipe
Line Company, a Delaware corporation doing business in Kentucky,
'The petition and other formal papers aie hereby amended to show the correct name
of the Employer.
72 N. L. R. B., No. 83.
474
JAMES C. ELLIS (OIL PRODUCTION) 475
and transported by pipe line to Owensboro, Kentucky, where it was
placed in barges and towed to Louisville, Kentucky. There it was de-
livered to Louisville Refining Company, a concern engaged in inter-
state commerce.'
We find, contrary to the contention of the Employer, that it is
engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor
Relations Act.3
IT. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Petitioner is a labor organization affiliated with the American
Federation of Labor, claiming to represent employees of the Employer.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The Employer refuses to recognize the Petitioner as the exclusive
bargaining representative of employees of the Employer.
We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning
the representation of employees of the Employer, within the meaning
of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
The parties are in substantial accord that the appropriate unit
should include production and maintenance employees of the Em-
ployer engaged in the Production of oil in the fields adjacent to
Owensboro, Kentucky, excluding administrative, clerical, technical,
and supervisory employees. The parties disagree as to the status
of district foremen.4 The Employer contends that district foremen
are supervisory employees to be excluded from the unit. The
Petitioner contends that the district foremen are leadmen, having no
supervisory authority, and that they should be included in the bar-
gaining Unit.
Each district foreman,' is in charge of approximately 12 leases,
covering an area of about 2 square miles, and supervises from 15 to 20
employees. Foremen instruct and supervise the men working under
them, and supply extra men and equipment when needed. They re-
ceive 25 percent more wages than pumpers, the only salaried men on
the working crews. They recommend the hire and discharge of em-
ployees, and their recommendations carry weight. Inasmuch as it
2 N L R B v. Loaiswlle Refining Co, 102 F. (2d) 678, 679 (C. C A. 6), modifying 4 N L.
R B 844, cert denied 308 U . S. 568.
3 N L R B v. Fainblatt , et at., 306 U. S 601,,602-609; Matter of J. T. Martin, et al.
70 N L U . B 1172, Matter o f Quick Industrie8 , Inc, 69 N. L. R . B. 760; Matter of Trini-
dad Brick and Tile Company , 67 N. L. R B 1351
* At the time of the hearing Elmer Reardon, Ernest Swift, and William Al . Swift were
classified as district foremen
District foremen are called head roustabouts by their crews.
476 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
appears that district foremen are supervisory employees within our
definition of the term, we will exclude them from the bargaining unit.
We find that all production and maintenance employees of the
Employer engaged in the production of oil in the fields adjacent to
Owensboro, Kentucky, excluding administrative, clerical and technical
employees, district foremen, and all other supervisory employees with
authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect
changes in the status of employees, or effectively recommend such
action, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective
bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the
^ urposes of collective bargaining with James C. Ellis, sole owner,
d/b/a James C. Ellis (Oil Production), Owensboro, Kentucky, an
election by secret ballot shall be conducted as early as possible, but not
later than thirty (30) days from the date of this Direction, under the
direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Ninth
Region, acting in this matter as agent for the National Labor Relations
Board, and subject to Sections 203.55 and 203.56, of National Labor
Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 4, among the em-
ployees in the unit found appropriate in Section IV, above, who were
employed during the pay-roll period immediately preceding the date
of this Direction, including employees who did not work during said
pay-roll period because they were ill or on vacation or temporarily
laid off, and including employees in the armed forces of the United
States who present themselves in person at the polls, but excluding
those employees who have since quit or been discharged for cause and
have not been rehired or reinstated prior to the date of the election,
to determine whether or not they desire to be represented by Inter-
national Brotherhood of Firemen & Oilers, AFL, for the purposes of
collective bargaining.