Richfield Oil Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 29, 1958

119 N.L.R.B. 1425 (N.L.R.B. 1958)

RICHFIELD OIL CORPORATION 1425
tration of the law and guarantees of due process to grant Austin's
motion on the present record, and we must accordingly deny it.'
[The Board denied the motion for reconsideration.]
MEMBERs RoDGEils and FANNING took no part in the consideration
of the above Supplemental Decision on Motion for Reconsideration..
8 In view of our decision on Austin's motion, we find it unnecessary to consider the
General Counsel's similar motion for reconsideration or the Union's brief in opposition
Richfield Oil Corporation and Sailors Union of the Pacific, Peti-
tioner. Case No. 21-RC-4844. January 29, 1958
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Karl W. Filter, 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 meaning of the
Act.
2. The Petitioner, and the Intervenor, Oil, Chemical, and Atomic
Workers International Union, AFL-CIO, are labor organizations
within the meaning of the Act claiming to represent certain employees
of the Employer.
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 Employer, a mayor producer of petroleum products, contin-
ually searches for new deposits of oil. It has been drilling off the
California coast to explore the possibilities of offshore deposits since
March 30, 1957; prior to this time, its offshore drilling was let out to
an independent contractor. The Employer's offshore drilling is con-
ducted with the aid of 3 ships; a stationary barge, the Rincon, and 2
smaller vessels, El Barquero and Roco, that carry supplies and men
to the Rincon. Drilling is done from the deck of the Rincon above a
hole, or drilling well, cut through the deck and bottom. The actual
drilling work is done by the same classifications that perform drilling
The Employer moved foi oral argument before the Board We are satisfied that the
briefs and record define the issues with sufficient clarity. Accordingly, the motion is
denied
119 NLRB No. 179,
476321-58-vol. 119-91
1426 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
functions ashore : drillers, derrickmen, cleanup men, roustabouts,
engine repairmen, rotary helpers, and welders. The offshore drillers
were directly recruited from the Employer's onshore production. The
functions incident to the managing, repairing, and operating of the
vessels are performed by A. B. seamen, deckhands, cooks, messmen,
vessel cleanup men, marine repairmen, and boatmen. Most of the
personnel engaged in these functions were referred to the Employer
by the California Department of Employment. Marine. employees are
directly responsible to a general marine foreman; the drillers are super-
vised by a drilling foreman. Both the drilling and marine foremen
are supervised by the Employer's supervisor of offshore operations.
There are roughly 24 drillers, who live aboard the Rincon, approxi-
mately 26 marine employees live on either the- Rincon or the El
Barquero.
The Intervenor has represented the Employer's California produc-
tion employees since 1937. It was certified by the Board in 1951 (Case
No. 21-RC-1660, not reported in printed volumes of Board Decisions
and Orders).' Its latest contract with the Employer; executed August
6, 1956, with a termination date of August 5, 1958, covers all "produc-
tion, construction and maintenance employees . . . in the State of Cal-
ifornia...." By express terms, this contract, which is asserted as a
bar, covers "production" drilling crews in California.'
On May 7, 1957, the Petitioner filed the instant petition, requesting
a unit comprised of all employees in the offshore program, or, alter-
natively, only the maritime employees so engaged.
The Employer and the Intervenor, in urging their 1956 contract as
a bar to the election sought in the petition, argue that offshore drilling
is an accretion to existing, onshore production. The Petitioner con-
tends that the Employer, in undertaking offshore drilling, has em-
barked on a new operation outside the scope of that contract; and
hence, that the contract does not bar an election at this time. In the
Petitioner's view, the chief distinction between onshore drilling and
offshore drilling is found in the exploratory nature of the Employer's
offshore undertaking. Thus the Petitioner points out that onshore
The following unit was therein found appropriate :
All production , construction and maintenance employees , including working foremen
and pipeline gaugers, employed by the Richfield Oil Corporation in the Producing, Refin-
tug, Natural , Gasoline , Pipe Line, and Long Beach Harbor Terminal Divisions in the
State of California , but excluding all clerical , administrative , professional , technical,
casual, temporary, Marine Department , electrical employees and guards , gatemen and
watchmen , and all supervisors as defined in Section 2 (11)' of the Act, as amended, con-
stitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning
of Section 9 (b) of the Act , as amended.
- aWhen, early in 1957, the Employer decided to undertake offshore drilling under its
own management. it negotiated a supplement to the main contract . This agreement exe-
cuted February 27, 1957 , expressly covers all employees necessary for the offshore program
which began, under Richfield's management, on -March 30, 1957. In view of our dispo-
sition of the case, we find it unnecessary
agreement as a bar to this proceeding.
to pass on the matter of the supplemental
RICHFIELD OIL CORPORATION 142 .1
drilling is geared to money-making production, whereas offshore drill-
ing is keyed to geological testing; and that oil obtained' from onshore
wells is refined and sold to consumers, whereas oil coming from- off-
shore operations is used for geological analysis and not for consumer
consumption.
We are not persuaded by the Petitioner's argument. The distinc-
tion the Petitioner draws between the Employer's utilization of on-
shore and offshore oil lacks merit. The entire record in this case points
to one crucial factor : the Employer is engaged in the same functional
activity in its offshore and onshore locations-drilling. Clearly in-
dicative of the close correlation between offshore and onshore drilling
is the similarity of skills and equipment found in both locations. As
noted, the offshore drillers were recruited directly from the Employer's
onshore production crews, and they utilize the same skills offshore as
they previously used onshore. Moreover, though offshore drilling
machinery is necessarily adapted to meet the ebb and flow of ocean
tides, it nevertheless has a close functional similarity to onshore drill-
ing equipment. Therefore, whether the oil extracted offshore is ana-
lyzed by geologists or sold to consumers is immaterial to a determina-
tion of the contract-bar issue, for we are convinced that the entire
offshore undertaking is geared to an activity demonstrably similar to
the Employer's onshore counterpart.
In addition, a number of factors are present which show that the
Employer's offshore operations are closely integrated with its onshore
operations. In the first place, although the Employer has estab-
lished a separate offshore division, with a separate supervisor of off-
shore operations, important functions of the offshore division-drill-
ing, purchasing, construction, and maintenance-are controlled by the
same officials who control similar functions in the onshore operation.
In the second place, personnel relations for both on and offshore drill-
ing are centrally controlled. In the third place, all of the men, ashore
and afloat, enjoy the same employees benefits : sick leave, group in-
surance, retirement plan, stock purchase plan, veterans plan, and
vacations. And, fourthly, the seniority of offshore employees is
computed jointly with that of onshore employees.
Nor does the fact that offshore drilling involves some marine work
persuade us that offshore drilling is a new operation. Though certain
offshore employees must conform to various Coast Guard licensing
requirements, these requisites do not, in and of themselves, mitigate
against a finding that the marine employees are part of a larger unit
which has accreted to onshore production. For, in this connection,
it is apparent that there exists a community of interests between the
offshore drillers and those employees who perform marine functions.
As noted, all offshore employees live together on the Rincon or on the
El Barquero where they all share the same living , working, and recre-
1428 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ational facilities. Moreover, the record indicates that there is no close
functional delineation between drillers and maritime employees and
the work to which they are assigned. Thus, both the engine repair-
man and the marine repairman, who are equally qualified to handle
vessel engines and drilling equipment, are assigned this work in al-
ternate shifts. Drillers assist in so conventionally a marine function as
the handling of lifeboats, and drillers and roustabouts both aid in
moving anchors; conversely A. B. seamen and messmen assist the
drilling crews in cementing operations, which is a drilling function.
And, further, seamen and roustabouts are interchangeably assigned
the duties of vessel cleanup, painting, and chipping paint; just as the
rotary helper and seamen are both called upon to unload supplies 4
In short, we conclude that the marine employees engaged in the
offshore undertaking are performing merely auxiliary service activi-
ties subordinate to the Employer's main offshore activity : drilling.'
Based on the foregoing and our analysis of the record as a whole,
we find the Employer has undertaken its traditional productive ac-
tivity-drilling-in a new location. The novelty of the location may
require modifications in the personnel and equipment customary in
land-based drilling, but the alterations induced by the geographic
site do not sufficiently change the overall function to classify it as a
new undertaking. It therefore follows that the Employer's offshore
undertaking is an accretion to existing production, and the contract
between the Employer and the Intervenor governing onshore produc-
tion bars the present petition.' Accordingly, we shall dismiss the
petition.
[The Board dismissed the petition.]
'See Penrod Drilling Co ., 15-RC-1545 (1957 ) (not reported in printed volumes of
Board Decisions and Orders ) where the Board included roustabouts who worked aboard
a tender used for quartering employees from an adjacent stationary drilling platform in
an overall offshore unit , on the basis of similarity of working conditions , living conditions,
and fringe benefits. To the same effect, see Salt Dome Production Co., 15-RC-1435
(1956). See also Phillips Petroleum Co., 15-RC-1434 ( 1956 ) ( neither of these cases was
reported in printed volumes of Board Decisions and Orders ) where the Board included
maritime employees aboard a stationary barge in an overall unit on the basis of similarity
of duties and a common community of interests.
' Our finding that the maritime employees herein involved are auxiliary service
employees differentiates the instant case from Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp ., 54 NLRB
679, 682, where the Board said : "The fact that the Respondent 's towboat operations are
only incidental to its manufacturing of steel does not remove the employees . . . from
the scope of the phrase `maritime trade'. .. ." However , the barge employees in that
case were clearly , and primarily , employing their maritime skills as such in a distinct
maritime operation ; there was no intermingling of these skills with the manufacturing
process ; and there was no evidence that the maritime and manufacturing operations
had been closely integrated.
See, for example , Pluss Poultry , Inc., 1 . 00 NLRB 64 ; Hudson Pulp and Paper Corpo-
ration, 117 NLRB 416; Borg-Warner Corp ., 113 NLRB 152, affirmed sub nom. Interna-
tional Union, United Automobile Workers, CIO v. N. L. R. B., 231 F. 2d 237 (C. A. 7),
cert . denied, 352 U. S. 908 ( 1956).