Phillips Petroleum Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 9, 1959

122 N.L.R.B. 1348 (N.L.R.B. 1959)

1348 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Phillips Petroleum Company Mining and Milling Department
Ambrosia Mill located near Grants , New Mexico 1 and Oil,
Chemical and Atomic Workers International Union, AFL-
CIO, Petitioner
Phillips Petroleum Company Mining and Milling Department
Ambrosia Mill located near Grants , New Mexico and Inter-
national Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 611 AFL-
CIO, Petitioner. Cases Nos. 33-RC-709 and 33-RC-711. Feb-
ruary 9, 1959
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
Upon separate petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the.
National Labor Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held be-
fore Hugh M. Smith, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings
made at the hearings are free from prejudicial error and are hereby
affirmed.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with these cases to a three-
member panel [Members Rodgers, Jenkins, and Fanning].
Upon the entire record in these cases, the Board finds :
1.. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain
employees of the Employer.2
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section
9(c) (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
4. In Case No. 33-RC-709, the Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers
International Union, AFL-CIO, herein called the Oil Workers, seeks
a unit of all production and maintenance employees at the Employer's
Ambrosia mill near Grants, New Mexico, including warehousemen,
janitors, and laboratory technicians, but excluding office clerical em-
ployees, guards, watchmen, professional employees, and all super-
visors as defined in the Act. In Case No. 33-RC-711, the Interna-
tional Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 611, AFL-CIO,
herein called the IBEW, seeks a separate craft unit of all electricians,
apprentices, helpers, electrical learners, and instrument repairmen
and their leadmen. The Oil Workers, the Steelworkers, and the
Employer contend that the employees sought by the IBEW are not-
'The Employer's name was amended at the hearing.
2 United Steelworkers of America, herein called the Steelworkers, intervened in Case
No. 33-RC-709 on the basis of an adequate showing of interest.
122 NLRB No. 157.
PHILLIPS PETROLEUM CO. MINING AND MILLING, ETC. 1349
craftsmen who are entitled to separate representation but appropri-
-ately belong in the overall production and maintenance unit. There
is no history of bargaining at this plant.
Case No. 33-RC-711
There are four employees holding classifications of electrician-lead-
man, electrician A, and electrician, who are primarily engaged in
installing, maintaining, and repairing electrical equipment in the
plant. These employees are under the immediate supervision of the
electrical and instrument foremen and are housed in a separate elec-
trical-instrument shop which is located in the maintenance depart-
ment. The record reveals that the electricians, who were hired on
the basis of previous electrical experience and ability, possess be-
tween 31/2 and 12 years of experience in their trade. They use the
tools and equipment employed by the electrical craft, do no produc-
tion work, and do not interchange with other employees. While the
Employer does not maintain an apprenticeship program for elec-
tricians, these employees receive on-the-job training to acquire the
requisite skills.
There is an instrument leadman and an instrument A man whose
duties involve the installation and repair of instruments which are
both electrically and pneumatically operated. These employees have
extensive experience in their craft which apparently was acquired
at another plant of the Employer. In the course of their duties, the
instrument men utilize specialized equipment which is not used by
other classications of employees. Like the electricians, the instru-
ment men are separately housed in the electrical-instrument shop,
are supervised by the same foremen, do no production work, and do
not interchange with other employees.
On the basis of the foregoing, and the entire record, we are satis-
fied that the electricians and the instrument here involved make use
of the skills normally associated with their craft and that they may,
if they so desire, be separately represented.' Accordingly, we find
that the Employer's electrician-leadmen, electricians A, electricians,
instrument leadmen, and instrument men A, may constitute an ap-
propriate unit within the meaning of Section 9 (b) .4
Production and Maintenance Unit (Case No. 33-RC-709)
The parties are in general agreement over the composition of the
production and maintenance unit. However, the Oil Workers and
Steelworkers would include, and the Employer would exclude, the
4 See Koppers Company, Inc., 117 NLRB 422.
As the record fails to disclose that the Employer employs any electrical learners,
helpers, or apprentices , we shall omit these classifications from the unit description.
1350 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
janitors. The duties of the janitors consist of cleaning the offices.
and plant restrooms. As janitors are customarily included with pro-
duction and maintenance employees, and no persuasive reason has
been given for their exclusion, we find that they are appropriately
part of the production and maintenance unit .5
The Steelworkers also urges that the Board should include certain
temporary employees in the requested unit because the Employer
contemplates their hire during the summer months. However, as.
the Employer does not presently employ such classifications, we shall
omit them from the unit description.
Accordingly, we find that all production and maintenance em-
ployees, including warehousemen, janitor, and laboratory technicians,.
but excluding office clerical employees, guards, watchmen, profes-
sional employees, and all supervisors as defined in the Act, may con-
stitute an appropriate unit within the meaning of Section 9(b) of
the Act.
We shall therefore direct separate elections in the following voting
groups at the Employer's Ambrosia mill near Grants, New Mexico,
excluding office clerical employees, guards, watchmen, professional
employees, and all supervisors as defined in the Act.
(a) All electrician-leadmen, electricians A, electricians, instrument
leadmen, and instrument men A, excluding all other employees.
(b) All production and maintenance employees, including ware-
housemen, janitors, and laboratory technicians, excluding employees
in voting group (a).
If a majority of the employees in voting group (a) vote for the
IBEW, they will be taken to have indicated their desire to constitute
a separate bargaining unit, and the Regional Director conducting
the election is hereby instructed to issue a certification of representa-
tives to the IBEW for such unit, which the Board under the circum-
stances finds to be appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining.
However, if a majority of the employees in voting group (a) do not
vote for the IBEW, they will appropriately be included in the same
unit with the employees in voting group (b) and their votes will be
pooled with those in voting group (b).e The Regional Director-
conducting the election is instructed to issue a certification of repre-
sentatives to either the Oil Workers or the Steelworkers if selected
by a majority of the employees in voting group (b) or in the pooled
group, as the case may be, which the Board in the circumstances.
finds to be a unit appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining..
6 Texas Bronze Manufacturing Company, Incorporated, 118 NLRB 1373 at 1375.
9 Pooled votes shall be tallied as follows : Votes for the IBEW shall be counted as valid
votes, but neither for nor against the Oil Workers or the Steelworkers. All other votes:
are to be accorded their face value, whether for representation by the Oil Workers or the
Steelworkers , or for no union.
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 t 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.
' In Case No. 16-RD-i86, of approximately 83 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.