Phillips Petroleum Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 3, 1943

48 N.L.R.B. 934 (N.L.R.B. 1943)

In the Matter of PHILLIPS PETROLEUM COMPANY and OIL WORKERS
INTERNATIONAL UNION, LOCAL 348 , AFFILIATED WITH THE CONGRESS
OF INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATIONS
Case No. R-50.1.-Decided April 3,19/3
Jurisdiction : oil refining industry.
Investigation and Certification of Representatives : existence of question : refusal
to accord the union recognition ; election necessary.
Unit Appropriate for Collective Bargaining : all operation, production, and main-
tenance employees, including stillmen, treaters, gang leaders, and janitors, but
excluding office employees, laboratory employees, employees in the sales- de-
partment, temporary employees, and supervisory employees; company's appre-
hension that janitors might obtain access to confidential information, found not
to afford a basis for excluding them.
Messrs. M. W. Eddleman, of Bartlesville, Okla., and H. Hunter
Booth, of Kansas City, Mo., for the Company.
Messrs. O. A. Knight, of Fort Worth, Tex., and H. C. Fremming, of
Kansas City,'Mo., for the Union.
Mr. Glenn L. Moller, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
I
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon petition duly filed by Oil Workers International Union, local
348, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, herein
called the Union, alleging that a question affecting commerce had
arisen concerning the representation of employees of Phillips Petro-
leum Company, Kansas City, Kansas, herein called the Company, the
National Labor Relations Board provided for an appropriate hearing
upon due notice before Robert S. Fousek, Trial Examiner. Said hear-
ing was held at Kansas City, Missouri, on March 17, 1943. The Com-
pany and the Union appeared, participated, and were afforded full
opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and
to introduce evidence bearing on the issues. Phillips Employees
Independent Union, an unaffiliated organization, was duly notified of
48 N L R. B., No 109.
934
PHILLIPS 'PETROLEUM COMPANY 935
the hearing, but did not appear or' participate in the hearing. The
Trial Examiner's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial
error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
Phillips Petroleum Company is a Delaware corporation with its
principal operative offices in New York City, and in Bartlesville, Okla-
homa. The Company is engaged in the business of refining, processing,
transporting, distributing and selling petroleum products. The Com-
pany owns and operates refineries in several States, among those being
a refinery located in Kansas City, Kansas. The Company also main-
tains pipe lines in the States of Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, and Missouri.
The Kansas City refinery, the only operation involved in this proceed-
ing, has a capacity of approximately 23,000 barrels of crude petroleum
per day. During the year 1941 the refinery processed approximately
7,000,000 barrels of crude petroleum. During the same period
approximately 80 percent of the products of the refinery was sold and
distributed to points outside the State of Kansas.
The Company admits that it is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Oil Workers, International Union, Local 348, affiliated with the
Congress of Industrial Organizations, is a labor organization admitting
to membership employees of the Company.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
On or about January 18, 1943, the Union requested that the Company
recognize it as the exclusive bargaining representative of the Com-
pany's employees at the Kansas City refinery. The Company declined
to recognize the Union as such representative.'
A statement of the Field Examiner, introduced into evidence at the
hearing, indicates that the Union represents a substantial number of
employees in the unit hereinafter found appropriate.2
' In its coriespondence with the Union, the Company stated that an existing contract
with Phillips Employees Independent Union precluded it from recognizing the Union. At
the healing the Company did not contend that the alleged contract constituted a bar to
this proceeding , nor did it introduce any evidence with respect thereto As stated above,
the Independent did not appear.
2 The Field Examiner reported that the Union submitted 423 application -for-membership
cards , 308 of which bore the apparently genuine signatures of persons whose names
appealed on the Company ' s pay roll of January 30, 1943. There are approximately 439
employees in the appropiiate unit.
936 DECISIONS "OF N'A'TIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
We 'find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerniig
the representation of employees of the Company, within the' meaning
of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the At.
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
The Union contends that all operation, production, and maintenance
employees, including stillmen, treaters, gang leaders, temporary em-
ployees and janitors, but excluding office employees, laboratory em-
ployees, employees, in the sales department, and all supervisory
employees with the right'to hire and discharge or to recommend such
action, constitute an appropriate unit. ,
The Company accepts the above. definition of, the appropriate unit
with two exceptions : it would exclude from the unit temporary
employees and janitors.
Temporary employees are hired by the Company for definite and
limited periods, to do specific jobs, usually not directly related to pro-
duction work. These.eniployees include construction workers, brought
in to do repairing ,or remodeling and boys who are hired' during the
summer months to cut grass and weeds. These temporary employees
do not participate in many of the benefits enjoyed by the regular em-
ployees,,such as group insurance, unavoidable absence benefits, vaca-
tions, sick leave, and- retirement pensions. A temporary employee
cannot become a permanent employee 'simply by lapse of time. 'New
employees who are,employed on a perm anent _basis.are considered to be
on probation for the first 6 months, but they participate in all the
-benefits of permanent employees from the beginning of their employ-
ment.. Under the circumstances; we do 'not, believe the interests,,bf
temporary employees to be sufficiently related, to, those of the perma-
nent employees to warrant their inclusion in, the unit. We shall
accordingly exclude them 3- " ' -
The Company's- only reason for, desiring, to exclude janitors ,from
the unit is the asserted fear that because they work in and around the
offices of the Company's executives,,confidential information contained
in papers'lying upon the desks might be,available to them. The record
discloses no basis -for apprehension concerning the integrity of • the
janitors. In 'any event, the possibility that they may engage ,in
wrongful conduct ,affords no basis for excluding, them from the unit.
It is not contended that they are office employees, or otherwise engaged
in performing duties of a confidential nature in the regular course'of
their employment. We shall include them in the unit .4 .
Accordingly, we find that all operation, production, and mainte-
nance employees, including stillmen, treaters, gang leaders, and jani-
Matter of Farces, Manufacturing