Phillips Petroleum Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 19, 1954

107 N.L.R.B. 1207 (N.L.R.B. 1954)

PHILLIPS PETROLEUM COMPANY 1207
group (B)4, and the Regional Director conducting the election
herein shall issue a certification of representatives to the
labor organization selected by a majority of employees in the
pooled group, which the Board in such circumstances finds to
be a single unit appropriate for purposes of collective -bargain-
ing.
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication.]
4 If the votes are pooled, they are to be tallied in the following manner: the votes for Local
2 shall be counted among the valid votes cast but neither for nor against any union seeking to
represent the more comprehensive unit; all other votes are to be accorded their face value,
whether for representation in a union seeking the comprehensive unit or for no union See
the dissenting opinions of Board Members Murdock and Peterson in Pacific Intermountain
Express Co., 105 NLRB 480.
PHILLIPS PETROLEUM COMPANY and EASTERN IDAHO
METAL TRADES COUNCIL, AFL, Petitioner. Case No.
19-RC-1399. February 19, 1954
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Howard E.
Hilbun, 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 this case, the Board finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the mean-
ing of the Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent cer-
tain employees of the Employer.
3. A 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.
Contentions of the Parties
The Petitioner, Eastern Idaho Metal Trades Council, AFL,
seeks to represent in a single unit all operating and maintenance
employees at the Employer's Arco, Idaho, atomic energy pro-
ject operations, including heavy equipment repair shop
employees, purchasing and warehouse department employees,
transportation department employees, scientific assistants,
experimental machine shop employees, and cafeteria
employees, but excluding office clerical employees, technical
employees, guards, and supervisors.
The Employer and Oil Workers International Union, CIO,
herein called the Oil Workers, contend that a single unit which
107 NLRB No. 266.
1208 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
would include employees in the heavy equipment repair shop,
purchasing and warehouse department, transportation depart-
ment, and experimental machine shop together with the other
employees requested by the Petitioner is not appropriate. In
the alternative, the Employer contends that not 1 but 2 separate
units should be established, one covering employees in the
material testing reactor and chemical processing plants, and
the other comprising employees in the transportation, ware-
housing, and heavy equipment repair departments.'
International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 370, AFL,
herein called the Operating Engineers, and Teamsters, Chauf-
feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers Union, Local 983, AFL,
herein called the Teamsters, both of which are members of
the Petitioner, appeared at the hearing to endorse the request
of the Petitioner for a single overall unit. However, they also
stated that if the Board should direct separate elections among
heavy equipment repair shop and transportation department
employees, the Operating Engineers desired to appear on the
ballot in an election among heavy equipment repair employees,
and the Teamsters in an election among transportation depart-
ment employees.
At the close of the hearing, the Petitioner stated that it has
no alternative unit position and that the only appropriate unit is
the overall unit for which it petitioned.
Description of Operations Involved
The present proceeding involves the Employer's operations
at the Arco, Idaho, atomic energy project. The Arco installa-
tion covers an area of approximately 10 square miles. At the
center of the area is a series of central facilities buildings
which include, among others, a warehouse, a transportation
depot, maintenance headquarters, and a heavy equipment
repair shop. Radiating out from these buildings and several
miles therefrom are the material testing reactor and chemical
processing plants operated by the Employer, a submarine
testing reactor plant operated by Westinghouse Electric Corpo-
ration and an experimental breeder reactor plant operated by
the University of Chicago.
All parties agree that employees in the material testing
reactor and chemical processing plants should be included in
the same unit. Dispute exists as to employees in the following
departments:
Heavy equipment repair shop: The employees in this shop,
which is located in the central facilities area, repair buses,
trucks, bulldozers, and construction equipment for the Employer
1 The Employer also asserts that the Board is not in a position to decide the unit placement
of the cafeteria employees because the bargaming agent for such employees, Hotel & Restaurant
Employees & Bartenders International Union, AFL, herein called the Bartenders, was not
notified of, and did not appear at, the hearing.
PHILLIPS PETROLEUM COMPANY 1209
as well as for other contractors on the Arco project . They do
not work upon- equipment in use at the reactor or chemical
processing plants. They are supervised by the Employer's
supervisor of general maintenance.
Transportation department : Employees in this department,
principally bus drivers , transport employees of the various
contractors of the Atomic Energy Commission , herein called
the AEC , to and from work. Several employees in the depart-
ment also operate a gas station which services vehicles with
gas and oil. They are supervised by a transportation super-
intendent and have no special contacts with employees working
in the two processing plants.
Warehouse , p rocurement , and property disposal deartment:
Employees in this department work in a separate bui lding a -
jacent to the heavy equipment repair shop. They purchase and
store various products belonging to different companies under
contract to the AEC, keep inventory records, and dispose of
surplus property owned by the AEC.
Cafeteria : The cafeteria furnishes food for the employees of
the AEC, the Employer , and other AEC contractors , as well as
for members of the public who may be at the site.
Experimental machine sho : There are about six precision
machinists in this shop located in the material testing reactor
plant who work with research personnel in making experi-
mental models.
Bargaining History
Before October 1, 1953, the Employer operated the material
testing reactor plant ; American Cyanamid Company operated
the chemical processing plant; National Industrial Maintenance
Company, herein called NIMCO , .operated the heavy equipment
repair shop as well as area and supplemental plant maintenance
for the Employer and American Cyanamid ; Lost River Trans-
portation Company operated the transportation department; and
the AEC directly operated the warehouse , procurement, and
property disposal department . At the time of the hearing held
on November 5, 1953, Harding Williams was operating the
cafeteria , but the Employer expected to take over this opera-
tion on November 16 , 1953. On October 1, 1953, pursuant to a
contract with the AEC , the Employer took over the operation
of all the departments discussed above, except for the cafe-
teria whose take -over date was November 16.
In June and August 1952 , respectively , following Board-
directed elections, the Board certified the Oil Workers as
bargaining representative for separate units of employees at
the chemical processing plant then operated by American
Cyanamid , and the material testing reactor plant then operated
by the Employer. On an unspecified date, the Petitioner was
certified to represent employees engaged in area and supple-
mental maintenance not performed by the Employer and
1210 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
American Cyanamid. On December 17, 1951, the Operating
Engineers was certified to represent employees in the heavy
equipment repair shop operated by NIMCO. On a date not set
out in the record , the Teamsters was certified as bargaining
representative of transportation department employees then
employed by Lost River Transportation Company. Following
the certification, the respective employers and the certified
unions entered into collective - bargaining agreements covering
employees in the certified units . Although the record is silent
as to a possible certification , it does establish that the Bar-
tenders Union has been the bargaining representative of the
cafeteria employees and has had a collective -bargaining agree -
ment with Harding Williams, the previous operator of the
cafeteria . On October 1, 1953, the Oil Workers and the Employer
amended their bargaining agreement to include the general
maintenance employees previously represen ted by the
Petitioner.
CONCLUSION
The unit sought by the Petitioner includes all employees of
the Employer at the Arco installation . It is therefore a custo-
mary unit and may be appropriate . On the other hand , there is
a history of separate collective bargaining for employees in
the chemical processing and material testing reactor plants.
This bargaining history indicates that a unit of such employees,
as urged by the Oil Workers and the Employer , may also be
appropriate . It is the Board ' s practice when confronted with the
equal propriety of broader and smaller units to "Globe"' the
employees in the smaller unit before makingafinal unit deter-
mination. Accordingly , we shall direct separate elections among
the following groups of employees at the Employer's
operations at the Atomic Energy Project near Arco,
Idaho:
(A) All operating and maintenance employees in the chemical
processing and material testing reactor plants , including analy-
tical control laboratory employees at the chemical processing
plant , but excluding transportation department employees,
warehouse , procurement , and property disposal department
employees , cafeterial employees, heavy equipment repair shop
2 The Globe Machine and Stamping Co., 3 NLRB 294.
SThe Petitioner made an adequate showing of interest for its proposed unit. However, the
Board is not directing an election in this unit, but in 2 smaller voting groups. The Petitioner's
proof of interest does not reveal whether in each of these voting groups it has the 30 percent
showing which is administratively required as a precondition to holding an election. The
Regional Director is therefore instructed to recheck the Petitioner's proof of interest to
ascertain whether at the time of the hearing it had a 30 percent showing in each of the voting
groups . If the Petitioner is unable to furnish such proof as to any voting group , the Regional
Director is directed not to conduct an election in such group, but to dismiss the petition as
to such employees.
SIMPLOT FERTILIZER COMPANY 1211
employees, experimental machine shop employees,4 library,
reproduction and document control employees, technicians,
confidential, administrative, professional, and office clerical
employees, draftsmen, guards, and supervisors as defined in
the Act.
(B) All transportation department employees, warehouse.,
procurement, and property disposal department employees,
cafeteria employees, and heavy equipment repairshop
employees, excluding office clerical, administrative, and pro-
fessional employees , draftsmen , guards, and supervisors as
defined in the Act.
If a majority of employees in each voting group vote for the
Petitioner , the 2 voting groups will together constitute a single
appropriate unit. If the majority in the 2 voting groups vote for
different representation, the employees in such voting groups
will constitute separate appropriate units. The Regional
Director conducting the elections shall issue to the parties
certification of results of the election including certification
of representatives if appropriate.5
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication.]
4The Petitioner would include, and the Employer and Intervenor exclude, 6 experimental
machine shop employees. The experimental machine shop is a small shop located in the tech-
nical laboratory and is supervised by a graduate physics engineer. The machinists do no
production work, but together with the engineers and physicists are engaged in designing and
making experimental models. The machinists in this shop have been excluded from the
collective-bargaining contracts between the Employer and the Oil Workers. We find that the
interests of these employees are more closely linked with the technical and professional
employees with whom they work in close association, than with the employees in either of
the 2 voting groups. We shall exclude them. Rockwell Manufacturing Company. 89 NLRB 1434.
5 Member Murdock would dismiss the petition rather than direct elections in the above voting
groups. As he construes the Petitioner's position, it desires an election in the overall unit
and in no other. Moreover, the Oil Workers, although opposing the Petitioner's broad unit,
apparently does not desire an election among the employees for whom it is the certified and
recognized bargaining representative. He believes, therefore, that the Board is directing
elections which none of the parties desires.
J. R. SIMPLOT COMPANY, d/b/a SIMPLOT FERTILIZER
COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING
ENGINEERS, LOCAL NO. 370, AFL, Petitioner. Case No.
19-RC-1045. February 19, 1954
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF
REPRESENTATIVES
A Decision and Direction of Election issued herein on
August 26, 1952.1 Pursuant to a Second Direction issued on
1100 NLRB 771.
107 NLRB No. 254.