Richfield Oil Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 19, 1949

86 N.L.R.B. 629 (N.L.R.B. 1949)

In the Matter of RICHFIELD OIL CORPORATION, EMPLOYER and B. A.
PITCHER, PETITIONER and OIL WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION,
CIO, UNION
In the Matter of RICHFIELD OIL CORPORATION, EMPLOYER and C. E.
ROBERTSON, PETITIONER and OIL WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION,
CIO, UNION
Cases Nos. 21-RD--52 and 21-RD-54, respectively.Decided October
19, 1949
DECISION
AND
ORDER
Upon separate decertification petitions duly filed, a consolidated
hearing was held before Irving Helbling, hearing officer. At the
hearing, the Union moved to dismiss the petitions on various grounds
stated below. The hearing officer referred this motion to the Board.
For the reasons stated hereinafter, the motion is hereby granted. The
hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial
error and are hereby affirmed.
The Union's request for oral argument is denied as the record and
briefs, in our opinion, adequately present the issues and the positions
of the parties.'
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
these cases to a three-member panel [Chairman Herzog and Members
Reynolds and Gray].
Upon the entire record in these cases the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the National Labor Relations Act.
2. The Petitioners, employees of the Employer, assert that the
Union is no longer the representative of the Employer's employees
designated in the petitions.
1 After the hearing, the Union filed a motion to strike the Employer ' s brief , which al-
legedly set forth information not produced at the hearing. As each party is entitled,
under the Board's Rules and Regulations , to file a timely brief commenting on the evi-
dence and setting forth its position , we shall deny the Union 's motion to strike. The
Board's decision , however, is based solely upon evidence adduced at the hearing , and not
upon factual statements appearing only in a brief . Matter of General Steel Tank Com-
pany, 81 N. L. R. B. 1345; Matter of Hudson Hosiery Company , 77 N. L. R. B. 566.
86 N. L. R. B., No. 85.
867351-50-vol. 86-41 629
630 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Union, a labor organization affiliated with the C. I. 0., is cur-
rently recognized by the Employer as the exclusive bargaining rep-
resentative of the employees designated in the petitions.
3. No 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, for the following
reasons:
The Petitioners request that a decertification election be held in a
unit composed of all the Employer's production and maintenance em-
ployees in the State of California employed in its exploitation-natural
gasoline, pipe line, and Long Beach Harbor terminal departments.
This unit is essentially a field departmental unit embracing all the
Employer's production and maintenance workers except those in the
refinery. The Employer agrees that the requested unit is appro-
priate. The Union, in support of its motion to dismiss, asserts that
the proposed unit is inappropriate, and contends that the only appro-
priate unit is the existing State-wide production, construction and
maintenance unit embracing both field and refinery employees, estab-
lished as a result of a long history of collective bargaining.2
The bargaining history
In 1937, the Employer executed a contract with the Union's prede-
cessor, International Association of Oil Field, Gas Well and Refinery
Workers of America, covering all the Employer's production and main-
tenance employees in California who were members of that labor or-
ganization. In 1940, and again in 1942, the Employer executed sim-
ilar contracts with the Union covering substantially the same
employees. In 1945, following Board-directed elections," the Union
was certified as bargaining representative for all the Employer's pro-
duction, construction, and maintenance employees in the State of
2 The Union further contends that a collective bargaining agreement executed on No-
vember 11, 1948, by the Employer and the Union covering all the Employer's production,
construction , and maintenance employees in the State of California , except electricians,
constitutes a bar to the petition in Case No . 21-RD-52, as amended at the hearing. The
agreement , inter alia, provides :
. . . This Article shall not be construed to prejudice the position of either party
in any hearings before the National Labor Relations Board on such petitions for
decertification of representatives ; nor shall this Agreement be construed as a bar
to such proceedings or to decertification of the Union as to any part of parts of the
unit described in the Agreement.
On October 21, 1948 , the petition in Case No . 21-RD-52 was filed seeking a unit com-
posed of all field employees in the Employer ' s Northern Division . At the hearing, the
Petitioners amended this petition to describe a somewhat broader unit . As it is clear
from the language of the contract quoted above that the parties did not intend to bar any
pending petition seeking the decertification of the Union as to any part or parts of the
contractual unit, we find no merit in the Union 's contention.
3 59 N. L. R. B. 1554.
RICHFIELD OIL CORPORATION 631
California except electricians 4 In May 1946, the Employer and the
Union executed the first exclusive bargaining contract covering the
employees in' the unit for which the Union was certified .5 After a
strike involving the Employer's operations in 1948, the Employer and
the Union, on November 11, 1948, again executed an agreement cover-
ing the employees in this broad unit, which was in effect at the time of
the hearing.
The Employer's operations
The Employer, an "integrated oil company" 6 is engaged in the pro-
duction, refining, transportation, and marketing of petroleum and
petroleum products in the State of California. For operational pur-
poses, the Employer is organized into four departments known as the-
exploitation-natural gasoline, pipe line, Long Beach Harbor termin=
als, and refinery departments. The exploitation-natural gasoline, or
production department, is subdivided into three divisions-Northern,
Southern, and Coastal-coinciding with the three major California oil
fields. The functions of all the Employer's operating departments and
divisions are closely coordinated and interdependent. For example,
after discovery of oil and the necessary exploration work, a well is
"brought in" by drilling employees who then turn the well over to field
production workers. The production employees, in turn, work closely
with pipe-line department employees who gauge the petroleum and
transport it through an elaborate pipe-line system to field units, or to
the refinery, or to other oil companies. After the petroleum is pro-
cessed at the refinery, it is transported through other pipe lines by
pipe-.line department employees to the Long Beach Harbor terminals
for shipment.
At the time of the hearing, the Employer's production, construc-
tion, and maintenance complement in California, excluding electri.-
cians,' comprised 1,733 employees. Of this number, about 760 were
employed at the Watson, California, refinery, and the remainder, ap-
proximately 870, were distributed among the various field operations
and compose the unit proposed by the Petitioners. All production,
construction, and maintenance employees, irrespective of assignment,
generally have the same employee benefits. There is no variation in
pay for similar work, whether it is performed in the field or at the
refinery.
4 The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, A. F. L., as a result of the
same proceeding , was certified as representatives for a separate unit of the Employer's
electricians in that State.
In 1945 the Employer executed a contract with the IBEW covering its electricians.
Its most recent contract with that organization was executed in January 1949.
6 An "integrated oil company" is an enterprise engaged in all phases of the production
and distribution of oil, from its initial discovery through its marketing.
4 There were 28 electricians.
632 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
In our earlier decision involving essentially these same operations,
we said : 8
.. . it is clear from the record and from the history of bar-
gaining . . . that the operations of the Company are sufficiently
integrated to make feasible the State-wide all inclusive produc-
tion, construction, and maintenance unit requested by the Oil
Workers.
Since 1945, the date of that decision, collective bargaining, except for
the electricians craft unit, has proceeded on a company-wide, State-
wide basis. It is apparent that there has been no material change
since that date in the Employer's operations, job descriptions, em-
ployees' duties, or the relationship of the field operations to the
refinery.
Upon consideration of all the foregoing circumstances, we believe
that the factors relied upon by the Board in the earlier case above
cited, and particularly the integration of the Employer's operations,
continue to present a compelling argument in favor of an over-all
bargaining unit. Moreover, since the date of the Union's certification
following that decision, there has been a further effective history of
collective bargaining on the basis of this unit. We therefore find that
the unit sought by the Petitioners is inappropriate for the purposes
of a decertification election.9 We shall accordingly dismiss the
petitions.
ORDER
Upon the basis of the entire record in these cases, the National
Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the petitions filed in the
instant matter be, and they hereby are, dismissed.
9 59 N , L. R. B. 1554, 1557.
'In view of our findings , we deem it unnecessary to pass upon the other grounds ad-
vanced by the Union in opposition to the proposed unit.