Neches Butane Products Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 9, 1954

107 N.L.R.B. 1098 (N.L.R.B. 1954)

1098 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
are satisfied that the alleged objectionable conduct,, assuming
that it did occur, does not constitute interference with the
election. Prior to the filing of the instant petition, it was
common knowledge among the employees herein involved that
their counterparts at the Employer's other plants had already
received an increase, and that the Employer had planned to
treat them in like fashion. In such a situation, it is well settled
that notwithstanding the pendency of the petition, the Employer
would have been privileged to have given the wage increase to
the Danville employees; 3 but, to maintain absolute neutrality,
the Employer decided to withhold the wage increase pending the
election. In these circumstances, the fact that certain super-
visors may have assured employees that the wage increase
would be forthcoming regardless of the outcome of the election
could hardly be regarded as improperly influencing the em-
ployees against the Union. Nor do we agree that the alleged
single instance of interrogation could have constituted inter-
ference with the election.4
Accordingly, we find that the Union's objections do not raise
substantial and material issues regarding the conduct of the
election, and, because the counting of the disputed ballot as a
vote against the Union results in the Union's failure to receive
the required majority of votes necessary for certification, we
shall dismiss the petition.
[The Board dismisged the petition.)
3 Eisner Grocery Co , 93 NLRB 1614; United Screw and Bolt Corporation, 91 NLRB 916
4Peter Paul, Inc., 99 NLRB 386; Silver Knit Hosiery Mills, Inc., 99 NLRB 422.
NECHES BUTANE PRODUCTS COMPANY and L. A. YOAST,
et als ., Petitioners and OIL WORKERS INTERNATIONAL
UNION, CIO. Case No. 39-RD-28 . February 9, 1954
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before John F. Burst,
hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the
hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby af-
firmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the mean-
ing of the Act.
2. The Petitioner and three other operating engineers, for
whose sole benefit this petition is brought, assert that the
Union is no longer their representative. The Union is a labor
107 NLRB No. 231.
NECHES BUTANE PRODUCTS COMPANY 1099
organization and is currently recognized by the Employer as
the exclusive representative for a production and maintenance
unit including the four operating engineers.
3. The alleged question of representation:
The Union was certified as bargaining representative for a
production and maintenance unit in 1944 and has been recog-
nized since that date as such by the Employer. At the hearing,
the Employer did not question the majority status of the Union
but it took the position, as did the Petitioner, that the four
operating engineers in the steam, power, and water department
are supervisors and are therefore not properly in the unit.
The operating engineers wish the Union to be decertified as
to them. The Union contends that these men were included in
the certified unit and that they should remain in it as their
duties have remained primarily the same. The Employer stated
that it has attempted to bargain on the question of getting these
men out of the unit but without success. There is no evidence
in the record that the Petitioners desire an election, but merely
a release from their inclusion in the bargaining unit.
The evidence shows that the 4 operating engineers, whose
status is in issue , work under the chief engineer , and together
are responsible for the operation of the department. The oper-
ating engineer is usually left in charge by the chief engineer,
and he has some 20 men working under his direction, whose
work he assigns and for which he is responsible. On the night
shift, when the chief engineer is never present, the operating
engineer has complete charge, and on that shift he may even
hire a replacement to do the necessary work if the circum-
stances warrant his doing so. On other shifts, however, the
operating engineer may not hire or discharge but he may effec-
tively recommend such action. There is also evidence that he
may discipline an employee when necessary. Although there was
some evidence that the rank-and-file employees do not regard
these men as supervisors under that name, they are regarded
as the operating heads of the department and the men must
obey their orders and instructions. Under these circumstances,
we find that the 4 operating engineers are supervisors within
the meaning of the Act, and therefore are not properly a part
of the appropriate unit. Nor can they constitute an appropriate
unit for purposes of decertification. Accordingly, as the Peti-
tioners have not requested an election in an appropriate unit,
we find that no question affecting commerce exists concerning
the representation of employees of the Employer within the
meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act,
and we shall dismiss the petition. I
[The Board dismissed the petition.]
1 Humble Pipe Line Company, Southern Division, 107 NLRB 892.