Lion Oil Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 4, 1948

76 N.L.R.B. 565 (N.L.R.B. 1948)

In the Matter of LION OIL COMPANY, EMPLOYER and OIL WORKERS'
INTERNATIONAL UNION, CIO, PETITIONER
Case No. 15-R--2264.-Decided March 'If, 1948
Messrs. J. Davis, B. L. Allen, J. E. Howell and D. Salyers, of El
Dorado , Ark., for the Employer.
Mr. W. M. Akin, of Kilgore , Tex., and Mr. C. A. Partin, of El
Dorado , Ark., for the Petitioner.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed, hearing in this case was held at El
Dorado , Arkansas, on December 19, 1947, before Andrew P. Carter,
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 the case, the National Labor Relations
Board " makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
The Lion Oil Company is a Delaware corporation having its main
office in El Dorado, Arkansas. It conducts its business of refining and
distributing, oil and oil products, and of manufacturing chemicals, in
Texas, Louisiana, Arkansas, Mississippi, and Kansas. The Employer
annually receives about $1,000,000 worth of raw materials and supplies
from sources outside the State where they are used; products sold
outside the State where they are produced amount annually to ap-
proximately $15,000,000 or $20,000,000.
We find that the Employer is engaged in commerce within the mean-
ing of the National Labor Relations Act.
1 Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the
Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three -man panel con-
sisting of the undersigned Board Members [ Chairman Herzog and Members Reynolds and
Murdock].
76 N. L. R. B., No. 88.
565
566 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
H. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Petitioner is a labor organization affiliated with the Congress of
Industrial Organizations 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 until the
Petitioner has been certified by the Board in an appropriate unit.
The Employer moved to dismiss the petition on the ground that the
Board has no jurisdiction because no evidence was presented at the
hearing to show that the Petitioner represents a substantial number of
employees in the unit which the parties have agreed is appropriate.
However, as the Board's authority to conduct an investigation under
Section 9 (c) of the Act is no manner dependent upon the Peti-
tioner's showing of prima facie representative interest, we have
affirmed the hearing officer's denial of the Employer's motion.
Matter of 0. D. Jennings c6 Co., 68 N. L. R. B. 516.
The Employer further contends that the petition should be dismissed
because the Congress of Industrial Organizations, with which the
Petitioner is admittedly affiliated, has not complied with the filing
requirements of Sections 9 (f) and (h) of the Act. We have affirmed
the hearing officer's denial of the motion to dismiss for the reasons
detailed in Matter of Northern Virginia Broadcasters, Inc., 75
N. L. R. B. 11.
The Employer also argues that, as the record does not affirmatively
show that the Petitioner has complied with the requirements of Sec-
tion 9 (f) and (h), the petition should be dismissed. In view of the
language of those sections, however, precluding the Board from inves-
tigating any question concerning the representation of employees
where the requirements have not been met, the matter of compliance is
clearly one for the Board to determine in any manner suited to the
circumstances. As the official records of the Board indicate that the
Petitioner has complied with the requirements of those sections, the
hearing officer's denial of the Employer's motion to dismiss was
proper.
Finally, the Employer contends that the petition should be dismissed
because the true bargaining agent of the employees, a local of the
Petitioner not a party to this proceeding, has not been shown to have
complied with the provisions of Section 9 (f) and (h). We have
affirmed the hearing officer's denial of this motion on the ground that
the compliance status of the local chartered by the Petitioner is not in
LION OIL COMPANY 567
issue in this proceeding since the petition herein was filed by the Inter-
national. Matter of 117arshawsky & Co., 75 N. L. R. B. 1291.
We find that a 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.
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
We find, in substantial accord with the agreement of the parties,
that all field gaugers, gang pushers, pumpers, pump repairmen, meter
repairmen, welders, line-walkers, truck drivers, pipeliners and all
other employees in the Employer's pipeline division in the South
Arkansas area, but excluding clerical employees and supervisors, con-
stitute 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
purposes of collective bargaining with Lion Oil Company, El Dorado,
Arkansas, 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 Di-
rector for the Fifteenth Region, and subject to Sections 203.61 and
203.62, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-
Series 5, among the employees in the unit found appropriate in Sec-
tion IV, above, who were employed during the pay-roll period immedi-
ately 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, 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, and also excluding em-
ployees on strike who are not entitled to reinstatement, to determine
whether or not they desire to be represented by Oil Workers' Interna-
tional Union, CIO, for the purposes of collective bargaining.