Ray Stephens, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 16, 1947

73 N.L.R.B. 431 (N.L.R.B. 1947)

In the Matter of RAY STEPHENS, INCORPORATED, AND STEPHENS PE-
TROLEUIII COMPANY, EMPLOYER and OIL WORKERS INTERNATIONAL
UNION, CIO, PETITIONER
Case No.16-R-1836.Decided April 16,1947
Dudley, Duvall cQ Dudley, by Mr. J. B. Dudley, of Oklahoma City,
Okla., for the Employer.
Mr. Waldo E. Stephens, of Oklahoma City, Okla., for the Em-
ployer.
Mr. C. M. Massengale, of Tulsa, Okla., for the Petitioner.
Mrs. Platonia P. Kaldes, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed, hearing in this case was held at Okla-
homa City, Oklahoma, on November 22, 1946, before Glenn L. Moller,
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 the case, the National Labor Relations
Board makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
Ray Stephens, Incorporated, is a Delaware corporation with its
office and principal place of business in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.
It is engaged in the production of petroleum and natural gas at certain
leases located principally in what is known as the "Cement Area" in
Oklahoma. Stephens Petroleum Company is likewise a Delaware
corporation using the same office as Ray Stephens, Incorporated.
Stephens Petroleum Company is engaged in the production of gas
and petroleum at various leases, principally in the "Cement Area"
and is also engaged in leasing and developing of petroleum and gas
leases. Ray Stephens and Waldo E. Stephens are president and vice
president, respectively, of both corporations and the operations of
the corporations are conducted as a single integrated unit. We find
that both companies together, hereinafter referred to as the Employer,
73 N. L R. B., No. 85. 431
739926-47-vol. 73-29
432 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
constitute a single employer of the employees- herein involved, within
the meaning of Section 2 (2) of the Act.' The Employer sells its
entire output of petroleum from the "Cement Area" leases to the
Anderson-Prichard Oil Corporation. From January 1, 1946, through
October 1946, Anderson-Prichard purchased and received from the
Stephens Petroleum Company 373,601 barrels of petroleum and during
the same period received from Ray Stephens, Incorporated, 86,239.71
barrels of petroleum. Petroleum is valued at approximately $1.50 per
barrel. All of the above petroleum purchased by Anderson-Prichard
was received and processed at Anderson-Prichard's refinery at Cyril,
Oklahoma, where it was commingled with other crude petroleum pur-
chased from the surrounding area. Of the output of the Anderson-
Prichard refinery, 46 percent was shipped from the refinery to points
outside the State of Oklahoma. -
The Employer admits, and we find, that it is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Petitioner is a labor organization affiliated with the Congress
of Industrial Organizations, claiming to represent employees of the
Employer.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The Employer refuses to recognize the Petitioner as the exclusive
bargaining representative of employees of the Employer until the Peti-
tioner has been certified by the Board in an appropriate unit.
We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning the
representation of employees of the Employer, within the meaning of
Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
The Petitioner seeks a unit of all maintenance and operating em-
ployees of the Employer who are employed in the geographical area
known as the "Cement Area," including the truck driver, but excluding
technical and clerical employees, the head of the production depart-
ment, the roustabout foremen, the shop foreman, the superintendent of
the compressor plant, the warehouse superintendent, and all other
supervisory employees. The Employer is generally in agreement with
the inclusions or exclusions sought by the Petitioner; however, it ob-
jects to confining the unit to the employees of the "Cement Area" and
contends that the unit should embrace all of its employees irrespective
of the geographic area in which they may be employed.
1 The two companies admit that both are co-employers of the employees here involved.
RAY STEPHENS, INCORPORATED 433
The Employer holds leases in 9 oil or gas fields. Two of these
fields, known as the "East Cement" and "West Cement" fields and
together constituting the "Cement Area," produce the bulk of the
Employer's total output and are located in Oklahoma. About 60 of
the approximately 70 operating and maintenance employees of the
Employer are employed in that area. The remaining employees are
employed at 3 fields located at Jack County, Texas, Zanesville, Ohio,
and McNary County, Tennessee. These 3 fields employ 5, 1 and 3
employees, respectively. The Employer has no personnel at its 4
remaining fields.2
The five employees at the Jack County, Texas, fields were trans-
ferred from the "Cement Area" fields in connection with develop-,
mental operations. These employees perform the same general type
of work, as employees in the "Cement Area" who are similarly classi-
fied, and are under the same general supervision. They will be
transferred back to the "Cement Area" when the present drilling oper-
ations are concluded. Like the other operating and maintenance
employees, they are paid on an hourly basis. Under these circum-
stances, we are of the opinion that their interests, for the purpose of
collective bargaining, are closely allied to those of the employees
presently located in the "Cement Area." We shall, therefore, include
them in the unit.
The one employee located at Zanesville, Ohio, is a salaried, rather
than hourly-paid employee. He is permanently assigned to that area,
has no contact with the "Cement Area" employees, is not subject
to the same supervision as the latter, and apparently has duties of a
different nature.3 We shall exclude him from the unit.
The four employees presently located in McNary County, Tennessee,
were hired by the Employer at its home office specifically for their
present jobs. They are not uncler the same supervision as the "Cement
Area" employees and the drilling operations in which they are en-
gaged require knowledge of a different type of drilling equipment
than that used in the "Cement Area." While the Employer contem-
plates assigning these employees to other jobs when the work they are
now doing is completed, it cannot presently be ascertained whether
that work will be in the "Cement Area." Upon the foregoing facts,
we are of the opinion that their interests, for the purposes of collec-
tive bargaining, are not sufficiently similar to those of the "Cement
2 These four fields are located in Oklahoma and are known as the "Chickasha ," "Elgin,"
"Hoyt," and "Hamburg," fields, respectively
S He is in general charge of the Employer 's interests in the Zanesville field , in which
capacity he maintains contact with the Employer ' s customers , checks the mete, s , reports
the drilling activity in his area, and performs other related duties in connection with the
supervision of the Employer ' s leases on the field.
434 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Area" employees to warrant their inclusion in the same unit with
the latter. We shall, therefore, exclude them from the unit.
As hereinabove indicated, the parties are in agreement generally
as to the categories of employees which should be grouped together
for bargaining purposes. Neither party, however, expressed any
position as to the inclusion of a warehouse clerk employed at the
Employer's warehouse located in the "Cement Area." He assists the
warehouse superintendent in keeping inventory of all materials used
in drilling, production, or maintenance operations in the field and in
handling the requisition and material transfer forms. He has fre-
quent contact with the operation and maintenance employees. We
shall include him in the Unit .4
We find that all operating and maintenance employees of the
Employer in the "Cement Area," including the warehouse clerk, the
truck driver, and all employees temporarily assigned to the Jack
County, Texas, area, but excluding all employees assigned to the
McNary County, Tennessee, and Zanesville, Ohio, areas all technical
employees, office clerical employees, the head of the production depart-
ment, the roustabout foremen, the shop foreman, the superintendent
of the compressor plant, the warehouse superintendent, and all other
supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote, discharge,
discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of employees, or
effectively recommend such action, constitute a unit appropriate for
the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section
9 (b) of the Act.
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining with Ray Stephens, Incorporated, and
Stephens Petroleum Company, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, an election
by secret ballot shall be conducted as early as possible, but not later
than thirty (30) days from the date of this Direction, under the direc-
tion and supervision of the Regional Director for the Sixteenth Region,
acting in this matter as agent for the National Labor Relations Board,
and subject to Sections 203.55 and 203.56, of National Labor Relations
Board Rules and Regulations-Series 4, among the employees in the
unit found appropriate in Section IV, above, who were employed
during the pay-roll period immediately preceding the date of this
Direction, including employees who did not work during said pay-roll
period because they were ill or on vacation or temporarily laid off, and
including employees in the armed forces of the United States who
present themselves in person at the polls, but excluding those em-
4 See Matter of Felmont Corporation, 69 N. L. R. B. 868, 871.
RAY STEPHENS, INCORPORATED 435
ployees who have since quit or been discharged for cause and have not
been rehired or reinstated prior to the date of the election, to determine
whether or not they desire to be represented by Oil Workers Inter-
national Union, CIO, for the purposes of collective bargaining.
MR. JOHN M. HOUSTON took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Direction of Election.