Phillips Petroleum Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 9, 1959

122 N.L.R.B. 1351 (N.L.R.B. 1959)

PHILLIPS PETROLEUM COMPANY 1351
In all other events, the Regional Director is instructed to issue a
certification of results of the elections as appropriate in the circum-
stances.
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication.]
Phillips Petroleum Company and Charles Everett, C. W. Robin-
son, and Lelia Routson , Petitioners and Local Union No. 351,
International Union of Operating Engineers , AFL-CIO. Cases
Nos. 16-RD-186, 16-RD-187, and 16-RD-188. February 9, 1959`
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND CERTIFICATION
OF RESULTS OF ELECTIONS
Pursuant to a Board Decision and Direction of Elections I issued
on August 27, 1958, elections by secret ballot were conducted on
November 18, 1958, under the supervision of the Regional Director
for the Sixteenth Region among those employees in the units found
appropriate by the Board. Upon completion of the elections, the
parties were furnished in each case with a tally of ballots, showing
that the Union had failed to receive in any of the three elections a
majority of the valid votes cast, and that the challenged ballots were
insufficient to affect the results of the elections.'
Thereafter on November 21, 1958, the Union filed a letter with
the Regional Office in which it objected to "the conducting and the
results of the Elections" on the grounds (1) that the elections were
improperly held in view of the pendency of unwaived -unfair labor
practice charges affecting employees in the appropriate units, and
(2) that in Case No. 16-RD-188 the election was barred by a con-
tract between the Union and Employer. Pursuant to the Board's
Rules and Regulations, the Regional Director caused an investigation
to be made, and on December 5, 1958, issued and duly served upon
the parties his report on objections to elections, in which he found
that there had not been timely service by the Union of copies of its
objections upon the parties. He, therefore, recommended that the
objections be overruled and the results of the elections be certified.
Thereafter, the Union filed timely "Exceptions to Board Ruling on
Objections to Election," in which it took no exception to the Re-
gional Director's findings and recommendation but raised only the
issues originally presented in its objections.
1 Unpublished.
2In Case No. 16-RD-1S6, of approximately 33 eligible voters, 11 votes were cast for
the Union , 18 against , and 2 were challenged ; in Case No . 16-RD-187, of approximately
8 eligible voters, no ballots were cast for the Union and 8 were against ; and in Case No.
16-RD-188, of approximately 10 eligible voters, 4 cast ballots for the Union , 5 against,
and 1 ballot was challenged.
122 NLRB No. 159.
1352 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR REIATXONS BOARD
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 8(b) of the,Aot,;the Board
has delegated its powers herein to a three- member panel . [Chairman
Leedom and Members Bean and Fanning].
We agree with the Regional Director that the Union' s objections
were not timely served upon the other parties and, thus, that the
objections should be overruled. As noted above, a tally of ballots
was served upon the parties in each case on November 18, 1958, and
the objections were filed with the Board on November 21. The inves-
tigation disclosed, however, that the Union did not know when copies
of. the objections were sent to the other parties, and the envelope
containing the copy received by the Employer was postmarked
November 29. Such delay beyond the filing date in mailing "a copy
of the objections to the Employer does not constitute immediate
service of the objections upon the parties, as required by Section
102.69 of the Board's Rules and Regulations.'
Moreover, the Union's objections, even if they could be considered,
are without merit, as the election was not held until the charges had
been dismissed by the Regional Director and were pending on appeal
before the General Counsel,' and the Board will not reconsider ques-
tions of contract bar, which could have been fully litigated at the
preelection hearing, at this post-election stage of the proceeding.'
In view of the foregoing, we adopt the Regional Director' s recom-
mendation and overrule the Union's objections. Consequently, as the
Union failed to receive a majority of the valid ballots cast in any
of the elections, we shall certify the results of these elections.
[The Board certified that Local Union No. 351, International
Union of Operating Engineers, AFL-CIO, was not selected by a
majority of the employees in any of the three appropriate units and
that that Union is not the exclusive bargaining ' representative of the
Pantex Garage employees, of the traffic department tank car shop
employees, or of the telephone and teletype operators employed by
the Employer at its Phillips, Texas, operations.]
8 General Time Corporation , 112 NLRB 86.
';Stewart-Warner Corporation , 112 NLRB 1222, 1228.
5 'Winter Seat Corporation, 117 NLRB 659, 660 ; see Rookwell Manufacturing Company,
122 NLRB" 798.
.U.S. Chaircraft Manufacturing Corp.' and United Chalrcraft
Employees Union (Ind.), Petitioner . Case No. 22-RC-332.
February 10, 1959
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before a hearing
officer of the National Labor Relations Board. His rulings made at
the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are affirmed.
1 The name of the Employer appears as amended at the hearing.
122 NLRB No. 167.