Lone Star Gas Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 25, 1950

90 N.L.R.B. 2189 (N.L.R.B. 1950)

III the Matter of LONE STAR GAS COMPANY, EMPLOYER and GEORGE
RAINWATER, AN INDIVIDUAL, PETITIONER and OIL WORKERS INTER-
NATIONAL UNION, CIO, UNION
Case No. 16-RD-63.-Decided August 05, 1950
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
. Upon a decertification petition duly filed, a hearing was held before
Benjamin E. Cook, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made
at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.'
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-member panel [Chairman Herzog and Members
Reynolds and Styles].
Upon the entire record in this case,'the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the National Labor Relations Act.
2. The Petitioner, an employee of the Employer, asserts that the
Union is no longer the representative of the Employer's employees
as defined in Section 9 (a) of the Act.
The Union, a labor organization, is the currently recognized repre-
sentative of the Employer's employees.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9
(c) (1) andSection 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The appropriate unit :
The Petitioner seeks to decertify the Union as representative of
a unit described as, "All employees of the Cayuga Pipe Line District
of the Lone Star Gas Company," excluding supervisors. The Em-
IAt the hearing , the Union moved to dismiss the petition on the grounds , ( 1) that the
Union named In the petition was not the same as that which was certified as the bargaining
agent for the employees involved ; and, (2 ) that the unit of employees described in the
petition was inappropriate . We find that the first ground for dismissal is without merit,
as the current contract between the Employer and the Union names the latter as the
bargaining representative of the employees in the unit involved . The second ground for
dismissal is without merit for reasons given in Section 4. The motion to dismiss the
petition is hereby denied.
3 The Employer 's request for oral argument is hereby denied , as the record and briefs,
in our opinion , sufficiently present the issues and the positions of the parties thereon.
90 NLRB No. 299.
2180
2190 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ployer agrees with the Petitioner that this unit is appropriate. The
Union contends that the unit described in the petition is inappro-
priate, and urges that-the only appropriate unit in this case is' one
that also includes several other groups of the Employer's 'employees
as described in the contract between the Employer and the Union,
dated May 26, 1944, and supplements thereto.
The Employer, a Texas corporation, is engaged in the exploration,
development, processing, and production of natural gas from oil and
gas fields in the States of Texas and Oklahoma, and in the transmission
of gas to approximately 328 towns in those 2 States. For that purpose
it operates several integrated pipeline districts, of which the Cayuga
pipeline district involved herein is one. Its entire operation is divided
into 6 main departments, known as the compressor, gasoline, pipeline,
maintenance, gas measurement, and electrical departments, all or most
of which are subdivided into geographical sections.3 All these de-
partments are managed by the Employer's general superintendent,
who is located in Dallas, Texas, and is responsible only to the Em-
ployer's executive officers. Each of the departments named is super-
vised by a department superintendent. The departments in turn are
composed of subdivisions or sections, each of which is likewise under
separate supervision. Not all of the subdivisions of the Employer's
compressor, gasoline, and pipeline departments are now represented
.by the Ullion.4
The record indicates that on November 23, 1943, following a con-
sent election, Local 479 of the Union was certified as the collective
bargaining agent of the employees in the unit described in the peti-
tion. Between November 23, 1943, and November 26, 1944, Local
479, or the Union, was similarly certified as the bargaining repre-
sentative of other units of the Employer's employees. On November
. 26, 1944, a. single agreement was executed between the Employer and
the Union,5 The preamble of this agreement named the various units
' The Employer operates some 15 compressor stations, 14 pipeline districts, and an
unstated number of gasoline plants, all spread out in different locations in the 2 States
named. Some of these compressor stations, pipeline districts, and gasoline plants are
widely scattered. For example. the pipeline district involved in this proceeding is about 100
miles distant from the Dallas shop unit, and about 350 miles from the Ball anger compressor
station unit. The furthermost unit from the one involved herein is the Shamrock com-
pressor station unit, about 450 miles distant from it.
9 The Union now represents It of the 15 compressor station plants, all of the groups in
the gasoline department, and 5 of the Employer's 14 pipeline districts. It represents none
of the subdivisions of the Employer's other departments. The Employer's witness testified
that out of a complement of 4,000 employees, the Union represents only about 15 percent.
The Union disputes these figures. The record, however, warrants the conclusion that the
Union represents only a minority of the Employer's production and maintenance employees.
S This agreement also contained a clause providing for its automatic renewal on its
anniversary (late, if no notice for its discontinuance was served by either party upon the
other 30 days in advance of such anniversary date. Since the date of its execution, no
discontiriuanee notice had been served by either party, and this agreement was at the time
LONE STAR GAS COMPANY 2191
theretofore certified as being represented by the Union, at the time
about 11 units in all. Since the execution of that agreement, other
units were, after a certification pursuant to consent elections between
the Employer and the Union, brought under its terms.'
Under the contract of November 26, 1944, which has since been an-
nually reflewed, the Employer and the Union have bargained at one
time for all the represented employees, including those groups which
had from time to time been brought under its terms. All of the bar-
gaining has generally been conducted once each year in Dallas, Texas,
the headquarters of both the Employer and the Union. The Employ-
er's general superintendent and the chief executive officers of the
Union conducted the negotiations for all the represented employees.
The results of the bargaining were applied alike to all the Employer's
employees.' There is nothing in the record to indicate that any bar-
gaining was ever separately conducted on behalf of any one of the
units described in the preamble of the agreement.
The Union contends that the unit described in the petition is inap-
propriate for purposes of decertification. It bases its contention
largely on the Board decision in Lone Star Producing Company s The
facts in that decision are similar to those in the instant proceeding,
iii that, (1). the original acquisition of the units by the Union was
through separate elections held under the direction of the Regional
Director, and (2) the bargaining was conducted by the Employer's
and Union's chief officers for all the units at the same time and place,
with no separate negotiations for any of the component units. A
decertification petition filed by the union members of one of the units
in that case was dismissed by the Board on the ground that the various
units, though separately certified, had been merged into a single unit
by the nature of the collective bargaining history between the Em-
ployer and the Union.
of, the filing of the petition. and is today, still in force between the parties hereto. The
petition in this case was filed on April 16, 1950, a little more than 30 days before the
anniversary date of this agreement. No claim was made that the agreement was a bar
to this proceeding.
The following is a sample of the subsequent agreements entered into between the
Employer and the Union
Company and Union entered into Articles of Agreement dated May 26, 1944, cover-
ing certain of Company's employee units which are enumerated in the preamble of
page 1 of the printed Articles of Agreement. Subsequent to the execution of said
contract, the Union has been certified by the National Labor Relations Board as the
exclusive bargaining agency for employees of the Company's pipeline department in
,the Oklahoma District who presently work under the supervision of Mark Black,
exclusive of executives, superintendents and supervisors, and the Company and the
Union desire to bring such additional unit under the terms of said Articles of Agree-
ment dated May 26. 1944.
'These benefits were shared even by the Employer's unrepresented employees.
'85 NLRB 1137 . The Employer herein is the parent corporation of the Lone Star
Producing Company.
2192 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Here, however, unlike the situation in the Producing Company case,
representation of successive employee groups has not progressed to
the point where bargaining has proceeded on a system-wide basis, or
where any labor organization is ready to represent the employees on
such'a basis.9 In the present case, the history of bargaining discloses
that representation has been extended merely to a number of disparate
groups, widely scattered throughout the States of Texas and Okla-
homa, with no cohesive geographical, sectional, or departmental
boundaries, and embracing only a minority of the Employer's produc-
tion and maintenance employees. The groups for which the Union is
now bargaining do not together constitute an appropriate unit, such
as to supersede that in which the Petitioner now seeks decertification.
The latter unit, which formed the basis of the 1943 consent election,
consists of a well-defined group of employees, located within a clearly
circumscribed territory, separately supervised, and possessing common
interests. We find that the unit sought by the Petitioner in this
proceeding is appropriate.
We find that all employees of the Employer's Cayuga, Texas, pipe-
line district, excluding all supervisors,. constitute a unit appropriate
for 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 pur-
poses of collective bargaining with the Employer, an election by secret
ballot shall be conducted as early as possible, but not later than 30
days from the date of this Direction, under the direction and super-
vision of the Regional Director for the Region in which this case was
heard, and subject to Sections 203.61 and 203.62 of National Labor
Relations Board Rules and Regulations, among the employees in the
unit found appropriate in paragraph numbered 4, ,above, who were
employed during the payroll period immediately preceding the date
of this Direction of Election, including employees who did not work
during said payroll 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 rein-
stated prior to the. date of the election, and also excluding employees
on strike who are not entitled to reinstatement, to determine whether
or not they desire to be represented, for purposes of collective bargain-
ing, by Oil Workers International Union, CIO.
In the Producing Company case , some 80 percent. of the employer 's production and
maintenance employees had been represented by the union and a union petition for an
employer -wide unit had been consolidated with the decertification petition . We found
that the employees who remained unrepresented in fact constituted only inseparable parts
of the employer 's total working force , not distinct fringe groups.