Lone Star Gas Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 30, 1971

194 N.L.R.B. 761 (N.L.R.B. 1971)

LONE STAR GAS COMPANY
Lone Star Gas Company and W . A. Graham, Jr., and
R. H. Devorsky, and Eddy W. Morris, and E. L.
McClendon, and E. M. Palmer , and R. D. Herring-
ton, Petitioners and Oil , Chemical and Atomic
Workers International Union, AFL-CIO, and its
Local 4-478, Union. Cases 16-RD-500,
16-RD-501, 16-RD-502, 16-RD-503,
16-RD-505, and 16-RD-506
December 30, 1971
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF
ELECTIONS
BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND
KENNEDY
Upon petitions duly filed under Section 9(b) and
9(c)1 of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, a hearing was held before Hearing Officer
Irene B. Hammond on April 16 and 28 and May 10,
1971. Following the hearing, pursuant to Section
102.67 of the National Labor Relations Board Rules
and Regulations and Statements of Procedure, Series
8, as amended, these cases were transferred to the
National Labor Relations Board for decision. There-
after, the Employer, Petitioners, and the Union filed
briefs.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has reviewed the Hearing Officer's
rulings made at the hearing and finds that they are
free from prejudicial error. The rulings are hereby
affirmed.
Upon the entire record in these cases, including the
briefs, the Board finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within
the meaning of the Act and it will effectuate the
purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.
2. The petitions in Cases 16-RD-500,
16-RD-501, 16-RD-502, 16-RD-503, 16-RD-505,
and 16-RD-506 assert that the Union therein named,
a labor organization, is no longer the representative,
as defined in Section 9(a) of the Act, of the employees
designated in the respective petitions.
1 Oll, Chemical and Atomic Workers International Union, AFL-CIO,
and its Local 4-478, filed petitions 16-RC-5691 and 16-RC-5692. These
petitions were consolidated with the RD petitions now before us However,
subsequent to the hearing in this proceeding and before its transfer to the
Board, the Union requested the withdrawal of these petitions The
Regional Director granted the request on July 23, 1971, with prejudice
2 The Employer and Union at present negotiate two collective-
bargaining agreements The Red contract covers all employees of Lone
Star Gas Company. The Blue contract covers all employees of Lone Star
Gas Company's wholly owned subsidiary Lone Star Producing Company
Involved in the present proceeding are only employees covered by the Red
(Lone Star Gas Company) contract.
761
3. Petitioners in each of the above-stated RD cases
seek to decertify the incumbent Union, Oil, Chemical
and Atomic Workers International Union,
AFL-CIO, and its Local 4-478, hereinafter referred
to as O.C.A.W. or the Union. On the other hand,
O.C.A.W. urges that these petitions be dismissed
because they fail to state an appropriate unit
coextensive with the present collective-bargaining
unit. The Union argues that the only appropriate unit
comprises all of Lone Star Gas Company's employees
covered by the present collective-bargaining agree-
ment, referred to as the Red contract.2 The Employer
and the Petitioners counter that the collective-bar-
gaining history does not establish that there has been
a merger of all the separate groups of employees
represented by the Union into one overall bargaining
unit.
Lone Star Gas Company is a public utility engaged
in the exploration, production, and distribution of
natural gas and natural gas products in Texas and
Oklahoma. Since 1943, it had negotiated on a regular
basis with O.C.A.W. a single collective-bargaining
agreement covering units of employees in the Em-
ployer's pipeline, gasoline, and compressor depart-
ments. Each department was composed of all plants
within the Employer's system performing the same
function. Recently, the Employer has abolished the
pipeline and compressor departments as distinct
entities and created in their place regional divisions or
departments.3 However, this change has not affected
the terms of the present collective-bargaining agree-
ment nor, in general, has it changed the present
bargaining structure.
The areas serviced by Lone Star Gas Company are
divided into 12 geographic pipeline districts-the
composition of the former pipeline department. The
employees working in each of these districts are
charged with maintaining the gas pipeline system
within their district and as need arises constructing
new pipeline. The Union, at present, represents the
employees in 6 of these 12 districts. Within the
pipeline districts are located approximately 30 com-
pressor stations-the composition of the former
compressor department. These compressor plants are
designed to maintain a certain gas pressure within the
pipeline system. The Union, at present, represents 5 of
3 On April 1, 1971, the Employer abolished the pipeline and compressor
departments in a major reorganization of its supervisory lines of authority
Instead of including functionally distinct departments it has created
regional divisions or departments covering all pipeline districts and
compressor plants within a geographic region . Mr. Poage, the Employer's
manager of industrial relations , indicated that this reorganization will not
affect the operations of the individual plants . Further, he also testified that
for the purposes of the present collective-bargaining agreement the
Employer would continue to operate under the old departmental
designations Accordingly, to simplify the present discussion, reference will
continue to be made to the old departmental designations
194 NLRB No. 129
762 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the approximately 30 plants. Also located within the
pipeline districts are 5 gas liquids plants-the com-
position of the present gasoline department. The
primary purpose of these gas liquids plants is to refine
the raw natural gas product coming into the Employ-
er's system so as to remove undesirable elements as
well as to recover certain valuable byproducts.
Currently, the Union represents four of the five gas
liquids plants.
As indicated above, O.C.A.W. and Lone Star Gas
Company negotiated their first collective-bargaimng
agreement in 1943 after the Board had certified
O.C.A.W. as the collective-bargaining agent at several
pipeline districts, gasoline plants, and compressor
stations. Negotiation at that time culminated in a
single agreement covering all the employees then
represented by the Union. This had continued to be
the general practice. At the negotiation of the 1969
agreement, which is still in effect, the Employer was
represented by the manager of industrial relations,
acting as the chairman of the negotiations, representa-
tives of the legal department, and, as needed,
representatives of the various operating departments.
The Union's negotiating committee consisted of at
least one International representative and various
other employee representatives from the Local. It
appears that negotiations rarely involved particular
units.4 Rather, normal discussions involved general
terms and conditions affecting pipeline employees,
compressor station employees, or gas liquid employ-
ees.
The Red contract's recognition clause provides that
the Company recognize the Union as the representa-
tive for "the following units," and thereafter lists all
the separate units covered by the agreement.5 The
agreement also provides that departmental and then
companywide seniority are to be used as the basis for
determining layoffs artid the related "bumping"
procedures, as well as job bidding 6 References to
departmental seniority or company seniority relate
only to those locations covered by the agreement. The
record indicates that there are permanent transfers
between the various units. However, one of the
Petitioners indicated that he had made use of the
departmentwide job bidding procedures to move
from one pipeline district to another.
Lone Star Gas Company develops its personnel
policies on a companywide basis. Central personnel
files are kept on all employees. Timeslips prepared at
the Employer's different locations are forwarded to
4 The Red contract refers to the various locations covered by the
agreement as "units " In order to simplify discussion, references will be
made to the described unit in referring to these locations
5 Article I of the articles of agreement between-Lone Star Gas Company
and O.C.A W for 1969.
6 Articles IV and V of the articles of agreement between Lone Star Gas
Company and 0 C.A.W. for 1969.
the central office where all paychecks are prepared
and disbursed. Although the firstline supervisors hire
and discharge at their discretion, all such personnel
actions are subject to review by several higher levels of
supervisory authority.
Until recently the practice has been to include new
units of employees within the coverage of the
collective-bargaining agreement as soon as the
O.C.A.W. was certified as the bargaining agent or the
Employer voluntarily recognized the Union as the
bargaining agent. However, when the O.C.A.W. was
certified as the bargaining agent for the Gainesville
and Fort Worth pipeline districts and the Springtown
gas liquids plant in 1968, 1969, and 1967, respectively,
the Employer refused to allow the employees in these
units to be brought within the coverage of the then
existing collective-bargaining agreement. With re-
spect to the Gainesville pipeline district, the Union
filed a unit clarification petition in 19687 seeking to
include this recently certified bargaining unit within
the coverage of the then current collective-bargaining
agreement. The Regional Director found no legal
justification to warrant the clarification, relying on a
1950 Board decisions which found that there had
been no merger of the units covered by the Red
contract to prevent a decertification election. No
request for review of the Regional Director's decision
was made to the Board. Instead, there ensued a period
in which the Union negotiated separately for these
units, but without the completion of an agreement. It
appears, however, that these units are now included
within the terms of the present, 1969, collective-
bargaining agreement. Moreover, Edward B. McA-
dams, International representative of the O.C.A.W.,
testified that during the negotiations that he has
engaged in for several of the recent collective-bargain-
ing agreements the Employer has steadfastly main-
tained that the units covered by the Red contract are
separate and distinct.
There have been several occasions during the course
of the long bargaining relationship between the
Employer and the Union when units have been
removed from the coverage of bargaining agreements
either through Board-conducted decertification elec-
tions or by action of the parties. In 1950, the Board
granted a decertification election at the Cayuga
pipeline district .9 Again in 1958, the Board, in an
unpublished decision, directed a decertification elec-
tion among several inspection crews.10 More recently
in 1965, the parties deleted from coverage of the
7 Lone Star Gas Company (Gainesville pipeline district), 16-UC-30,
October 2, 1968.
8 Lone Star Gas Company, 90 NLRB 2189.
s Id
s° Lone Star Gas Company (Northwest Inspection Crew), 16-RD-178,
179, May 7, 1958
LONE STAR GAS COMPANY 763
agreement Ranger I compressor station, Shamrock
compressor station, and Petrolia compressor station.
It further appears from the record evidence that these
locations were "abandoned" by the Union. In 1969,
the Union filed a disclaimer as the result of decertifi-
cation petitions being filed at Shamrock pipeline
district" and Fox compressor station.12
As indicated above, the collective-bargaining agree-
ment covers 6 of the 12 pipeline districts: Fox,
Groesbeck, Ranger, Waco, Gainesville, and Fort
Worth. Fox, Groesbeck, Ranger, and Waco have
been included within the coverage of the Red contract
since the mid-1940's. At Gainesville and Fort Worth
the O.C.A.W. has been certified as bargaining agent
within the last 4 years. These six units are the subjects
of the present decertification petitions. There are
between 14 and 30 employees in each pipeline district.
These employees are scattered at several locations
within the respective districts.
Each district location is supervised by a senior
foreman. The senior foreman plans the work at each
location and otherwise handles the day-to-day opera-
tions of the pipeline facilities in his charge. Applica-
tions for employment are filed with the senior
foreman, who has the authority to hire the employee
or discharge him. These actions are subject to review
through the entire supervisory hierarchy, but reversals
of the senior foreman's actions are rare. Once the
senior foreman hires an employee, that employee
begins his employment immediately. The senior
foreman prepares the timesheets and forwards them
to the payroll clerk. From these timesheets the payroll
office in Dallas prepares the checks for all employees
and distributes them. The senior foreman also
maintains his own set of personnel records on each
employee in his district.
Employees of a pipeline district normally work only
within the boundaries of their own district. However,
welders from some pipeline locations are on occasion
sent to other pipeline locations to assist in emergen-
cies. It is also indicated in the record that sporadically
gas liquids plants request the assistance of pipeline
welders and backhoe operators since employees with
these skills and the equipment needed are not
normally available at the gas liquids plants.
The Union argues that none of the present petitions
state a unit coextensive with the present collective-
bargaining unit. Although it admits that several units
herein involved, as well as others now included under
the terms of the agreement, were originally found by
the Board to be separate appropriate units, it argues
that through the course of negotiations there has
developed a merger of these units into a single unit
comprising all employees at Lone Star Gas Company
represented by the Union. This fact, it is argued, is
evidenced by (1) the centralized methods of negotia-
tion, (2) the negotiation of only one contract to cover
all employees represented by the Union, (3) the fact
that seniority used for both layoffs and job bidding is
based on either departmental or company seniority
rather than on the seniority in each location, and (4)
the terms of the contract cover many items uniformly
affecting all employees represented or those in a
particular department, i.e., job classifications.
On the other hand, the Employer and the Petitioners
argue that there has never been a merger of these units
into a single overall collective-bargaining unit. They
contend that there is no functional, administrative, or
geographic grouping on which the Board can find that
the conglomerate group of units covered by the Red
contract is an appropriate bargaining unit under
existing standards except as possibly based on past
bargaining history. To this they respond that although
negotiations have taken place at a central location for
a single contract it was done only as a matter of
convenience. In their opinion this position is support-
ed by the following facts: (1) the Employer has
consistently taken the position that the groups listed
under the Red contract are separate and distinct
entities, (2) Board decisions, as recent as the 1968
Gainesville pipeline district unit clarification decision
have determined there has been no merger of the Red
contract's units into an overall bargaining unit but
rather that those units have remained separate and
distinct, (3) the Employer has recently negotiated with
the Union separately for a period of time about the
conditions of employment at two of the pipeline
districts herein involved, and (4) the Red contract's
recognition clause clearly provides the separate listing
of all units covered by the agreement. Finally, the
Petitioners argue that if the Board should find the
units now covered under the Red contract to be
merged into a single overall bargaining unit then the
Board should follow its recent decision in Duke Power
Company, 191 NLRB No. 41, and direct decertifica-
tion elections in the recently certified Gainesville and
Fort Worth pipeline districts.
There are some facts which could lead the Board to
conclude that there has been a merger of the several
units listed in the Red contract. Thus, there is only
one agreement negotiated at a central location
covering all the represented employees of the Employ-
er. Moreover the contract's seniority clause used for
layoff procedures and job bidding is based on either
departmental or companywide seniority rather than
unit seniority. It further appears that the Employer's
personnel policies are centrally directed, and all
firstline supervisory decisions involving hiring and
11 16-RD-455
12 16-RD-457.
764 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD'
terminations receive final approval of senior supervi-
sory authority.
On the other hand, the record clearly reveals an
understanding between the parties that the units
covered by the contract are to remain separate and
distinct. Indeed, the Employer has clearly expressed
such an intent and the Union by its actions appears to
have acquiesced.
Thus, as O.C.A.W. International Representative
Edward B. McAdams admitted, the Employer has
maintained the position at the negotiation that the
units covered by the agreement are separate and
distinct. Moreover, in 1965, the Union agreed to drop
from the coverage of the agreement several compres-
sor stations. In 1968, the Regional Director found, in
accord with the Employer's position and contra to the
Union's unit clarification petition, that there was no
legal justification to include a recently certified
pipeline district within the coverage of the then
current agreement. The O.C.A.W.' chose, rather than
seek review of this decision by the Board, to accept the
Regional Director's decision and negotiate a separate
contract for this pipeline district as well as for another
district in which it was certified as the bargaining
representative the following year. More recently, in
1969, the Union chose to file disclaimers of interest
when employees filed decertification petitions at two
locations previously included within the coverage of
the then current Red contract. One of these locations
was a pipeline district. In light of the above actions of
the Union in recent years it appears evident to us that
the Union has accepted the established position of the
Employer that the locations covered by the Red
contract have remained separate and distinct units for
the purposes of collective bargaining.
13 In order to assure that all eligible voters may have the opportunity to
be informed of the issues in the exercise of their statutory right to vote, all
parties to the elections should have access to lists of voters and their
addresses which may be used to communicate with them. Excelsior
Underwear Inc, 156 NLRB 1236; N.LR.B v. Wyman-Gordon Co, 394 U.S.
759. Accordingly, it is hereby directed that election eligibility lists,
containing the names and addresses of all the eligible voters, must be filed
Accordingly we find that the decertification peti-
tions do not state units inconsistent with the present
collective-bargaining structure and direct that elec-
tions be held at each of the six pipeline districts
involved in this proceeding.
We find that the following units are appropriate
units for the purposes of collective bargaining within
the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act:
All operating and maintenance employees and
plant clerical employees employed at the Employ-
er's pipeline district head quartered at Fort Worth,
Texas, excluding office clerical, guards, watchmen
and supervisors as defined in the Act.
All employees at the Employer's Waco pipeline
district excluding executives, superintendents,
supervisors, professional employees and guards
and other supervisors as defined in the Act.
All employees at the Employer's, Ranger, Texas,
pipeline district excluding supervisors, administra-
tive, clerical and professional employees, watch-
men, guards, temporary employees, superintend-
ents and other supervisors as defined in the Act.
All employees at the Employer's Groesbeck
pipeline district excluding executives, superintend-
ents, supervisors, guards and other supervisors as
defined in the Act.
All employees at the Employer's Fox pipeline
district #4 excluding guards, supervisors and
professional employees as defined in the Act.
All operating and maintenance employees
employed at the Employer's pipeline district at
Gainesville, Texas, excluding "A" clerical, profes-
sional employees and supervisors as defined in the
Act.
[Direction of Elections 13 omitted from publication.]
by the Employer with the Regional Director for Region 16 within 7 days of
the date of this Decision and Direction of Elections . The Regional Director
shall make the lists available to all parties to the elections . No extension of
time to file these lists shall be granted by the Regional Director except in
extraordinary circumstances . Failure to comply with this requirement shall
be grounds for setting aside the elections whenever proper objections are
filed.