Lone Star Producing Co.Download PDFNational Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsOct 25, 195196 N.L.R.B. 1063 (N.L.R.B. 1951) Copy Citation LONE STAR, PRODUCING COMPANY 1063 apprenticeship training period before they were hired, and the sec- ond-class carpenter has had 31/2 years' experience in carpentry work. In these circumstances, we find that the carpenters constitute an identifiable, homogeneous craft group, and shall establish them as a separate unit.' Although two employees in this category's who were recently given a temporary assignment to the roofing and siding crew, have performed some painting work while assigned to that crew, we shall include them in the unit hereinafter found to be appropriate on the basis of their association and interests with the other members of the carpenters group.' We find that all maintenance mechanics-carpenters, first- and sec- ond-class, and their helpers employed at the Employer's Pasadena, Texas, plant, excluding all other employees and supervisors as de- fined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of col- lective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this volume.] Order IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition filed by Local No. 130, Broth- erhood of Painters, Decorators and Paperhangers of Amerida, AFL, in Case No. 39-RC-332 be, and it hereby, is, dismissed. 5 See International Paper Company , Southern Kraft Dioisaon ( Rayon Plant), supra. 6 Carpenters first-class Machalk and Meadows. 7 Robertshaw -Fulton Controls Co ( Fulton Sylphon Division) , 88 NLRB 1508. LONE STAR PRODUCING COMPANY and OIL WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, CIO, PETITIONER. Cade.No.16-RC-134.- October 25,1951 Order Clarifying Decision , Direction of Election, and Order On September 6, 1949, the Board issued a Decision, Direction of Election, and Order in the above-entitled proceeding., Following an election conducted pursuant to the direction of election, the Board, by its Regional Director for the Sixteenth Region, on October 14, 1949, issued a certification of representatives, in which the Petitioner was certified as the duly,' designated representative of the employees of the Employer in a unit heretofore found by the Board to be appro- priate. On February 19, -1951, the Petitioner filed a "Motion for Clarification" of said Decision, Direction of Election, and Order. The Board denied this motion on March 20, 1951. Thereafter, on i Lone Star Producing Company, 85 NLRB 1137. 11 96 NLRB No. 169. 1064 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 11 March 26, 1951, the Petitioner filed a "Motion Requesting Reconsid- eration of Order Denying Motion for Clarification." On April 2, 1951, the Board issued its "Order Reopening Record and Remanding Proceeding to Regional Director for Further Hearing." Pursuant to that order, a hearing was held before C. Woodrow Greene, hearing officer. The healing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. The Employer objected at the hearing and also in its brief to continuance of these proceedings pursuant to the Board's order reopening the record and remanding the case for further hearing on the ground that after the election had been held and certification issued the Board had no further jurisdiction in the matter. This objection has no merit. It is well settled that the Board has the right to police its certification.2 The Employer requested oral argument. The request is hereby denied inasmuch as the record and briefs adequately present the issues and the positions of the parties. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Members Houston, Reynolds, and Murdock]. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds : In its Decision, Direction of Election, and Order of September 6, 1949, the Board found the following employees to constitute the ap- propriate unit and directed an election therein : "All employees of the Employer, excluding office-clerical employees, watchmen, guards, professional employees, superintendents and other supervisors as defined in the Act." As a result of the election the Petitioner was certified as the bargaining representative for those employees. Sub- sequently, a dispute arose between the Petitioner and the Employer as to whether or not certain employees, namely, clerks, warehousemen, and storekeepers, were included within the unit found appropriate. It is this controversy which caused the Petitioner to file its motion for clarification and the Board to order the hearing reopened to adduce evidence as to the duties of the disputed job categories. The Employer contends that certain clerks, warehousemen, and storekeepers are office-clerical employees and properly excluded from the unit .3 It admits that the parties stipulated for the inclusion of these employees at the original hearing, but asserts that the Board impliedly rejected that stipulation when it excluded office-clerical employees from the appropriate unit. The Petitioner disputes this interpretation as to the effect of the Board's decision. It takes the position that at the most the employees in dispute are only plant cleri- cals and should be, and were, included within the unit. 2 Lane Wells Company, 79 NLRB 252. 3 There are some employees in these classifications who, the Employer admits, spend less than 50 percent of their time in clerical work and are properly included in the unit. LONE STAR PRODUCING COMPANY 1065 There being insufficient evidence in the record to judge the correct- ness of the stipulation, the Board did not, in its original decision, deal at all with the stipulation referred to, neither accepting it nor reject- ing it. The unit was defined in the terms of the usual production and maintenance unit and, in accord with the consistent practice of the Board, all office-clericals in the employ of the Employer were excluded. The question to be resolved then is which, if any, of the disputed cate- gories of employees are office-clericals. As indicated in the Board's original decision,' the Employer is a Texas corporation doing business in that State. It produces, gathers, and processes gas and oil. It operates in an area extending east and west from Dallas, Texas, where its main office is located. Its two most widely separated operating units are 270 miles apart. The Employer divides its operations into two main departments. The production department finds the oil and natural gas and moves it to where it can be processed. The gasoline department does the processing. Both departments employ clerks and warehousemen but only the gasoline department has storekeepers. The clerks who are in dispute have the job classifications of clerk, •clerk A, clerk B, clerk C, and clerk D. Among them they perform the following duties : Act as custodian of agents' fund, maintain ware- house and keep inventory of stock, maintain field office files and rec- ,ords, compile daily production records, type letters and reports, keep tankcar loading and shipping reports, prepare bills of lading, main- tain storehouse records including local supply orders, prepare reports on material received or transferred, check and pay invoices, keep time and payroll records, pay local bills, and conduct laboratory tests. The warehousemen perform the following tasks : Prepare various forms connected with material and equipment, measure tubu- lar equipment and record measurements on pipe tally sheets, post, balance, and maintain stock inventory card record, keep records of material used, salvaged, and junked, record transfers of material, compile daily shipment and tankcar reports, conduct routine labora- tory tests, arrange material in bins, and keep warehouse and ware- house office clean. The storekeepers record and report on material re- •ceived into and shipped out of the plant warehouse, issue supply orders, check incoming material and pay invoices, keep records of material used on construction projects, type correspondence pertaining to the warehouse, and assist in cleaning and sweeping out warehouse office. All of the clerks, warehousemen, and storekeepers are located in field offices rather than in the Employer's central office at Dallas. They are all paid by the hour. In each plant or production area they have the same general supervision as the production and maintenance em- * 85 NLRB 1137. 1066 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ployees and, in some cases, the same immediate supervision. For the most part, they work in offices attached to either warehouses or gaso- line plants. On the basis of these facts and on the record as a whole, we find that the clerks, warehousemen, and storekeepers do not come within the classification of office-clerical employees whom the Board excluded from the unit found appropriate in the original decision in this case.-" Accordingly, we find that the clerks, warehousemen, and storekeepers, are, and have been, included in that appropriate unit.' Order IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the "Motion for Clarification" of the De- cision, Direction of Election, and Order issued in this proceeding on September 5, 1949, be, and it hereby is, granted, and accordingly it is declared that clerks, warehousemen, and storekeepers were included within the unit found appropriate in that Decision, Direction of Elec- tion, and Order. 5It appears from the record that the Employer also has a classification called junior typist , though at present the position is unoccupied . The two most recent occupants have, been transferred to other jobs among the disputed field clericals . The job of the junior typist consists of filing and typing and also assisting the other field clerical employees. We find that the junior typist also is not an office -clerical position and is therefore included within the unit heretofore found appropriate. 6 Standard Oil Company , ( Indiana ), 80 NLRB 1275 ; Union Oil Company of California, 62 NLRB 1144. CAPITOL TRAILER COMPANY, INC.' and UNITED AUTOMOBILE , AIRCRAFT AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, PETI- TIONER. Case No. 32-RC-362. October 05, 1951 Decision and Direction of Election Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before John E. Cienki, hearing officer . The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed 2 1 The name of the Employer appears as amended at the hearing. 2 The hearing officer erred in denying the Employer's motion to dismiss the petition on the ground that the Petitioner failed to submit proof of its interest and of compliance with Section 9 (f), (g), and (h) of the Act. Under Section 102.57 of the Board's Rules and Regulations a motion to dismiss the petition should be referred to the Board . However, the hearing officer ' s ruling In this case was not prejudicial because the motion to dismiss is without merit . Modern Welding Company, 93 NLRB No . 220. As to the allegation that the Petitioner failed to submit proof of its interest, the Board has repeatedly held that the showing of interest is not litigable at the hearing , but that it is a matter for the Board to determine in its administrative capacity . We are , furthermore , administratively satisfied that the Petitioner has made a sufficient showing of interest . Modern Welding Company, supra. With regard to the assertion that the Petitioner failed to submit proof of its compliance, the fact of compliance by a labor organization that is required to comply is also a matter for administrative determination and is not litigable by the parties . Moreover, the Board 96 NLRB No. 161. Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation