Magnolia Pipe Line Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 26, 1965

151 N.L.R.B. 1239 (N.L.R.B. 1965)

MAGNOLIA PIPE LINE COMPANY 1239
3. Within 10 days from the date of this Decision and Determina-
tion of Dispute, International Association of Bridge, Structural and
Ornamental Iron Workers, Local 3, AFL-CIO, shall notify the
Regional Director for Region 6, in writing, whether or not it will
refrain from forcing or requiring Brayman Construction Company
by means proscribed by Section 8 (b) (4) (D) of the Act, to assign
work in dispute to its members, rather than to employees represented
by United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local
2274, AFL-CIO.
Magnolia Pipe Line Company and Oil, Chemical and Atomic
Workers International Union , AFL-CIO.' Case No. 16-R-1130.
March 26, 1965
DECISION AND ORDER DENYING PETITION
On June 4, 1945, Oil Workers International Union, AFL-CIO,
herein called the Union, was certified as the bargaining representative
of a unit of operating and maintenance employees of the Employer's
pipelines, with certain exclusions. Among the employees included in
the unit were the dispatchers and the assistant dispatchers. On
December 12, 1950, the National Labor Relations Board issued an
order amending certification, excluding certain other classifications.
On October 5, 1964, the Employer filed a petition to clarify certifi-
cation, seeking the exclusion from the certified unit of all dispatchers
at its Dallas general office. On October 23, 1964, the Union filed an
opposition to the petition. On November 20, 1964, the Board issued
an order directing hearing, referring the matter to the Regional
Director for Region 16, and directing that a hearing be held for the
purpose of taking testimony on the issues raised by the Employer's
petition and the Union's opposition thereto. A hearing was held on
December 17, 1964, before Hearing Officer T. Lowry Whittaker. The
Hearing Officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from preju-
dicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the Board has delegated its powers in
connection with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman
McCulloch and Members Fanning and Brown].
At the time of the Board's original decision in this proceeding,2
the primary duty of the dispatchers was to control and direct the
1 As amended at the hearing
2 At the hearing, the Hearing Officer requested that the Employer make available to
the Board the job descriptions of dispatchers and assistant dispatchers prior to the
automation of the system Such descriptions have been submitted (with copies to the
Union) and are hereby admitted into evidence
151 NLRB No. 122.
1240 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
movement of oil through the pipeline system, using telephone and
telegraph equipment, and to a degree merely following the direc-
tions of supervisors.
Since that time the control of the system has been in large part
automated. As a result the dispatchers now regulate the pumping
system by remote control, operating from control panels in Dallas
rather than by relaying instructions, and using their own discretion
to a greater extent than formerly.
Despite the change in the way they do their work, the dispatchers
still are engaged in essentially the same function they performed
when the Board, in 1945, held them to be operational employees
properly included in the unit.
It may well be that the operation of the automated control system
makes the dispatchers technical employees. However, even if they
are, we believe, contrary to the position of the Employer and Inter
venor, that the community of interest which impelled their original
inclusion in the unit has not been destroyed by the change in which
they perform the same function .3
[The Board denied the petition to clarify certification.]
8 See The Sheffield Corporation, 134 NLRB 1101, 1103-1104.
Smeco Industries , Inc. and International Brotherhood of Boiler-
makers, Iron Shipbuilders , Blacksmiths , Forgers and Helpers,
AFL-CIO. Case No. 13-CA-612. March 29, 1965
DECISION AND ORDER
On November 12, 1964, Trial Examiner William J. Brown issued
his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that Respond-
ent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor prac-
tices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take
certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Exami-
ner's Decision. The Trial Examiner also found that Respondent had
not engaged in certain other unfair labor practices and recommended
dismissal of the complaint as to them. Thereafter the Respondent
filed exceptions to that portion of the Trial Examiner's Decision in
which it was found to have violated the Act and filed a brief in
support thereof. The General Counsel filed cross-exceptions to the
Trial Examiner's failure to make certain findings and conclusions
and filed briefs in support thereof and in support of the remainder
of the Trial Examiner's Decision.
151 NLRB No. 123.