Mid-Co. Gasoline Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 31, 1947

74 N.L.R.B. 910 (N.L.R.B. 1947)

In the Matter of MID-Co GASOLINE COMPANY, EMPLOYER and INTER-
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, PETITIONER
Case No. 16-11-1983.-Decided July 31, 1941
Samuels, Brown, Herman eC Scott, by Mr. John M. Scott, of Fort
Worth, Tex., and Mr. C. A. Middleton, of Corsicana, Tex., for the
Employer.
Mr. John W. Carlton, of Fort Worth, Tex., for the Petitioner.
Mn. Morton B. Spero, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
Upon a petition duly filed, the National Labor Relations Board on
December 18, 1946, conducted a prehearing election among employees
.of the Employer in the alleged appropriate unit, to determine whether
or not they desired to be represented by the Petitioner for the purposes
of collective bargaining 1
At the close of the election, a Tally of Ballots was furnished the
parties. The Tally shows that the approximately 23 eligible voters
cast ballots, of which 14 were for the Petitioner, 1 was against the
Petitioner, 7 were challenged, and 1 was void.
Thereafter, a hearing was held at Dallas, Texas, on April 15, 1947,
before Glenn L. Moller, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings
made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby
affirmed.
Upon the entire record in the case, the National Labor Relations
Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE B1 SINES S OF THE EMPLOYER
Mid-Co Gasoline Company, a Texas corporation, operates at Mala-
koff, Texas, a natural gasoline plant and a small refinery which process
1 The Petitioner has waived any right to object to this election on the basis of any of
the acts all ged as unfair labor practices in Case No 16-C-1468, filed by it against the
Employer
74 N L. R. B , No. 142
910
MID-CO GASOLINE COMPANY 911
natural gas into natural and white gasoline, butane, kerosene, kerosene
distillate, fuel oil, and residue gas. The Employer annually purchases
raw materials valued at over $100,000 from various oil and gas pro-
ducers, all located within the State of Texas. It annually sells and
delivers over $300,000 worth of refined products to petroleum and
refining companies within the State, which companies, in turn, sell
said products locally. During a similar period, it sells'a small portion
of residue gas to the Athens Natural Gas Company, which supplies the
fuel gas needs of the town of Athens, Texas; in addition, it delivers
the remainder of the residue gas to the pipe line gathering system of
the Lone Star Gas- Company, a public utility company which is itself
engaged in interstate commerce. During the year 1946, the Lone Star
Gas Company purchased from the Employer 2,018,601 M cubic feet
of residue gas, valued at over $100,000. This gas, which was thus
intermingled with gas purchased from other refiners, was sold by the
Lone Star Gas Company in the city of Dallas, Texas, to interstate car-
riers, and to other consumers, whose operations admittedly affect in-
terstate commerce.2
In view of the foregoing, We find, contrary to the contention of the
Employer, that its operation affect commerce within the meaning of
the National Labor Relations Act."
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Petitioner is a labor organization , claihiing to represent em-
ployees of the Employer.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The Employer refuses to recognize the Petitioner as the exclusive
bargaining representative of employees of the Employer, until the
Petitioner has been certified by the Board in an appropriate unit.
We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning
the representation of employees of the Employer, within the meaning
of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
2 We take judicial notice, in this connection, of the fact that we have heretofore asserted
jurisdiction over the Lone Star Gas Company (52 N L R B. 1058 and 61 N L. R. B 76(3),
and over many of its customers See, in this connection, the following cases involving
customers of J one Star Gas Company • Matter of Ford Motor Company, 26 N L R B 322 ,
D(atter of Texas Textile Mills, 58 N L. R. B 352 , Matter of The Gniberson Corporation,
59 N L R B 1091 ; Matter of The Continental Gin Company, 56 N L R B 1499 , Matter
of Burrus Feed Mills, 59 N L R B. 425; Matter of Dallas Power & Light Company, G0
N L R B 1088. Matter of Proctor cC Gamble 11(auafacturing Co, 62 N L R B 1262;
Matter of Sears, Roebuck & Company, 72 N. L. R B. 566, and Matter of The Texas Comb
pony, 52 N L R. B 457.
3 N L R B. v. T. W Phillips Gas & Oil Co , 141 F. (2d) 304 (C. C A 3), enforcing
51 N L It B 376; Matter of llamilton Gas Corporation, 72 N. L R,B 269, Matter of
James C Ellis, 72 N L R B 474, and cases cited therein
755420-4S-vol 74 59
912 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
The Petitioner seeks a unit of all production and maintenance em-
ployees at the Malakoff, Texas, operations of the Employer, including
truck drivers, the mechanic, assistant mechanic, and chief engineer,
but excluding all office and clerical employees and supervisory em-
ployees 4 The Employer agrees generally with the composition of the
unit. There is some question, however, as to the disposition to be made
of the truck drivers, mechanic, and assistant mechanic, who, together
with the chief engineer, comprise all the employees whose ballots were
challenged at the election.5
Truck drivers: It appears that these employees are engaged in de-
livering gasoline and butane in trucks to customers of the Employer.
Although the truck drivers report daily to the plant, where the trucks
are serviced and maintained, it appears that they do not work the same
hours as do the production and maintenance employees, that they spend
most of their time away from the plant, that they are paid only on a
mileage basis, and that there is no interchange of employees with the
production and maintenance force. In view of the foregoing, and on
the entire record in the case, we shall exclude truck drivers from the
unit.
The mechanic and assistant mechanic: It appears that these em-
ployees service the trucks owned by the Employer. They spend all
their working time at, the plant, and do the normal work of main-
tenance employees. We perceive no cogent reason for their exclusion;
accordingly, we shall include the mechanic and the assistant mechanic
in the unit.
We find, therefore, that all production and maintenance employees,
at the Malakoff, Texas, operations of the Employer, including the me-
chanic, assistant mechanic, and chief engineer, but excluding truck
drivers, office and clerical employees, and supervisory employees, con-
stitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining
within Section 9 (b) of the Act.
V. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
The results of the election held before the hearing show that the
Petitioner secured a majority of the valid votes cast, irrespective of the
The election was held among employees in this unit.
c Although the Petitioner withdrew its challenges to the ballots of the truck drivers, the
mechanic , and the assistant mechanic , the Employer refused to take a position as to their
inclusion in or exclusion from the unit The Petitioner , on the other hand , agreed to
the inclusion of the chief engineer in the unit as a non -supervisory employee , after the
withdrawal by the Employer of its challenge to the ballot of that employee.
MID-CO GASOLINE COMPANY 913
counting of the challenged ballots. Under these circumstances, we
shall not direct that the challenged ballots of those employees found
to be within the appropriate unit be opened and counted, but instead,
we shall certify the Petitioner as the collective bargaining representa-
tive of the employees in the appropriate unit.
CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that International Association of Machinists'.
has been designated and selected by a majority of all production and
maintenance employees at the Malakoff, Texas, operations of Mid-Co'
Gasoline Company, including the mechanic, assistant mechanic, and
chief engineer, but excluding truck drivers, office and clerical em-
ployees, and supervisory employees, as their representative for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining, and that, pursuant to Section 9 (a) of
the Act, the said organization is the exclusive representative of all
such employees for the purposes of collective bargaining with respect
to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of
employment.