Magnolia Petroleum Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 27, 1948

79 N.L.R.B. 1027 (N.L.R.B. 1948)

kJUJA, G+.
.In the Matter of MAGNOLIA PETROLEUM COMPANY, EMPLOYER and OIL
WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, CIO, PETITIONER
U Case No. 16-RC-83
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
September 27, 1948
In our.decision of August 17, 1948, in this matter, we found that
the Petitioner was in reality acting jointly for itself and Locals 243
and 229, which were found not to have complied with the filing re-
quirements of Section 9 (f), (g), and (h) of the Act. For this reason
we dismissed the petition.
Counsel for the Petitioner has since advised the Board that Locals
243 and 229 had complied with the filing requirements of the Act
before the issuance of the original decision in this case. Unfortunately,
although the Locals had complied with Section 9 (h), the Board
was not apprised of their compliance with Section 9 (f) or (g) until
after the issuance of the decision. In order to correct its decision,
the Board hereby reopens this proceeding and rescinds its Order of
August 17, 1948, dismissing the petition.
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 labor organizations named below claim to represent em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. The question concerning representation :
The Intervenor, Lodge 395, International Association of Machinists,
became the bargaining representative of the employees involved in
this proceeding as the result of a cross-check conducted by the Board
on April 13, 1942. Three contracts have been entered into by the Em-
ployer and the Intervenor, the last of which was amended several
times. The contract, as amended, which ran to April 30, 1948, con-
tained a clause for automatic renewal unless notice to modify or
terminate was given by either party prior to April 1 of any year:
79 N. L. R. B., No. 126.
1027
1028 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On February 26, 1948, the Petitioner made its request for recogni-
tion; on March 1, 1948, the Intervenor proposed changes in its contract
to the Employer; and on March 8, 1948, the Employer informed thg
Petitioner that it would not enter into negotiations with the Petitioner
in view of the Employer's contractual relations with the Intervenor.
On the same date the Petitioner filed the petition in this proceeding.
The Intervenor contends that its contract is a bar to the instant pro-
ceedings. We find this contention to be without merit, as the petition
was filed in this proceeding before the automatic renewal date of the
contract.
The Intervenor further contends that its contract with the Employer
automatically renewed itself on March 1, 1948, by virtue of the fact
that the Intervenor did not give the 60-day notice to terminate or
modify which the Intervenor alleges is required by Section 8 (d) (1)
of the Act. We find no merit to this contention. As we have said in
a previous decision,' Section 8 (d) (1) of the amended Act defines one
aspect of the obligation to bargain collectively, but failure to fulfill
this obligation does not result in an automatic renewal of an existing
contract.
4. The appropriate unit :
The Petitioner seeks a unit composed of all machinists employed as
such in the Employer's Beaumont, Texas, refinery, including air-com-
pressor operators, toolroom employees, helpers, and all hourly paid
subforemen in the machine shop. On November 11, 1943, the Petitioner
was ' certified by the Board as the bargaining representative of the
Employer's production and maintenance employees, excluding machin-
ists. If the election, directed hereinafter, results in the selection of the
° Petitioner as representative, the Petitioner desires to have the unit re-
quested in this petition merged with the unit of production and mainte-
nance employees. We shall make no final unit determination at this
time, but shall be guided in part by the desires of these employees as
expressed in the election hereinafter directed. If these employees
select the Petitioner, they will have thereby indicated their desire to
be included in a unit with the production and maintenance employees,
and the Petitioner may bargain for them as part of such unit.
The Petitioner seeks to include in the unit Subforemen A in the
machine shop, designated in the petition as the hourly paid subfore-
men ; the Employer contends that Subforemen A are supervisors and
-should be excluded. The record indicates that' the Subforemen A in
the machine shop direct and assign work to the employees under their
supervision and recommend hiring and firing. We find that Subfore-
' See Matter of International Harvester Company, 77 N. L. R. B. 242.
MAGNOLIA PETROLEUM COMPANY 1029
men A in the machine shop are supervisors within the meaning of the
Act.
We shall direct that an election by secret ballot be held among all
machinists employed as such in the Employer 's Beaumont, Texas,.
-refinery, including air-compressor operators , toolroom employees, and
.helpers, but excluding all Subforemen A 2 in the machine shop and all
other supervisors.
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 supervision
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-Series 5, as amended, among the em-
ployees described in paragraph numbered 4, above, who were employed
during the pay-roll period immediately preceding the date of this
Direction of Election, 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 employees on strike who
are not entitled to reinstatement, to determine whether they desire to
be represented, for purposes of collective bargaining, by Oil, Workers
International Union, CIO, or by Lodge 395, International Association
of Machinists, or by neither.
2 This exclusion does not cover the relief Subforeman A in the machine shop, who works
1 day a week during vacations as Subforeman A and the balance of the time as a machinist,
as we find he is not a supervisor.
809095-49-vol. 79-66