Richfield Oil Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 2, 1938

7 N.L.R.B. 639 (N.L.R.B. 1938)

In the Matter of RICHFIELD OIL CORPORATION and MARINE ENGINEERS
BENEFICIAL ASSOCIATION NO. 79
Case No. R-711.-Decided June 2, 1938
Water Transportation Industry-Investigation of Representatives: controversy
concerning representation of employees: majority status disputed by employer;
employer's refusal to grant recognition of union-Unit Appropriate for Collective
Bargaining: licensed marine engineers employed on the seven tankers operated
by employer ; no controversy as to-Representatives: proof of choice : comparison
of pay roll with union membership application cards-Certification of Repre-
sentatives: upon proof of majority representation.
Mr. David Sokol, for the Board.
McCutchen, Olney, Mannon d Greene, by Mr. Farnham P. Grij-
fiths and Mr. George E. Dane, both of San Francisco, Calif., for the
Company.
Mr. Harry D. Norman, of San Pedro, Calif., for the Union.
Mr. J. H. Krug, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On February 3, 1938, Marine Engineers' Beneficial Association,
No. 79,1 herein called the Union, filed with the Regional Director
for the Twenty-first Region (Los Angeles, California) a petition
alleging that a question affecting commerce had arisen concerning the
representation of employees of Richfield Oil Corporation, Los
Angeles, California, herein called the Company, and requesting an
investigation and certification of representatives pursuant to Section
9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein
called the Act. On March 7, 1938, the National Labor Relations
Board, herein called the Board, acting pursuant to Section 9 (c) of
the Act and Article III, Section 3, of National Labor Relations
Board Rules and Regulations-Series 1, as amended, ordered an
investigation and authorized the Regional Director to conduct it
and to provide for an appropriate hearing upon due notice.
IIt appears from the record that this is the correct name of petitioner . The name
appearing in the petition is Marine Engineers Beneficial Association No. 79.
639
640 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On March 29, 1938, the Regional Director issued a notice of hearing,
copies of which were served upon the Company, upon the Union, upon
the Central Labor Council at Los Angeles, California, affiliated with
the American Federation of Labor, and upon the Los Angeles Indus-
trial Union Council, affiliated with,the_Committee for Industrial-Or=
ganization. Pursuant to the notice, a- hearing was held on April 11,
1938, at Los Angeles, California, before Jesse E. Jacobson, the Trial
Examiner duly designated' 'by the'Boar'd: _- The Board and the Com-
pany were represented by counsel ; the Union was represented by its
business manager; and all parties participated in the hearing. Full
opportunity to be heard, to examine and- cross-examine witnesses, and
to introduce evidence bearing on the issues was afforded all parties.
During the course of the hearing the Trial Examiner made several
rulings on motions and on objections to the admission of evidence.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds
that no prejudicial errors were committed. The rulings are hereby
affirmed.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY 2
Richfield Oil Corporation, organized under the laws of Delaware,
has its principal office at 'Los Angeles, California. The Company is
engaged (1) in the production, purchase, and sale of crude petroleum,
natural gas, and casinghead gasoline, (2) in the transportation of
crude petroleum and refined products by pipe lines and by tank ships,
(3) in the refining of crude petroleum, and (4) in the sale and distri-
bution of petroleum products in the Pacific Coast territory and for ex-
port. All of the properties of the Company relating to the produc-
tion, purchase, sale, transportation, and refining of crude petroleum,
natural gas, and petroleum products are located within California.
During the period from March 13, 1937, to December 31, 1937, approxi-
mately 17 per cent of the Company's total sales of refined petroleum
products consisted of export sales ; approximately 16 per cent consisted
of tank-car sales from the Company's refineries in California to points
outside California; and approximately 67 per cent consisted of sales
to retail dealers, consumers, and others from the Company's bulk dis-
tributing plants and facilities. The Company maintains bulk dis-
tributing facilities in the States of California, Washington, Oregon,
2 Substantially all of the facts in this section are derived from a stipulation entered
into between counsel for the Board and counsel for the Company. - --
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 641
Arizona, Nevada, Idaho, and Utah, to which it ships refined petroleum
products from its refineries located in California.
The Company owns seven tank ships and four barges. During
the period from March 13, 1937, to December 31, 1937, the Company
transported by tankers moving on the high seas out of California ports
approximately 9,134,149 barrels of crude oil and petroleum products,
of which approximately 3,662,811 barrels were transported between
California ports and ports outside of California, and. approximately
5,471,338 barrels were transported between California ports.
We find that the Company is engaged in traffic, transportation, and
commerce among the several States and between the United States
and foreign countries, and that the men engaged in the operation of the
tankers of the Company are directly engaged in such traffic, transpor-
tation, and commerce.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Marine Engineers' Beneficial Association, No. 79, is a labor organi-
zation, affiliated with the Committee for Industrial Organization.
The Union, which has its headquarters at San Pedro, California, is a
local of National Marine Engineers' Beneficial Association, herein
called the N. M. E. B. A. It admits 'to membership all licensed en-
gineers employed on the seven tank ships owned and operated by the
Company.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
In November 1937, the San Francisco local of the N. M. E. B. A. re-
quested the Company to recognize it as the exclusive bargaining repre-
sentative of the licensed marine engineers employed on the Company's
tankers. The Company refused on the ground that a majority of
these employees did not desire to be represented by affiliates of the
N. M. E. B. A. At the hearing counsel for the Company stated that
its position was unchanged and that the Company desired a Board
election to determine the matter. The Union claimed that it had
jurisdiction to represent for the purposes of collective bargaining all
the licensed engineers employed on the Company's tankers who were
members in any local of the N. M. E. B. A. The Company did not
dispute this ,claim. The Union's assertion that it had been designated
as collective bargaining agency by a majority of the employees in the
appropriate unit was contested by the Company.
We find that a question has arisen concerning representation of
employees of the Company and that such question tends to lead to
labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow
of commerce.
642 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
In its petition and at the hearing the Union claimed that the licensed
marine engineers employed on the seven tankers operated by the
Company constituted a unit appropriate for purposes of collective
bargaining.
No evidence was introduced which would justify a deviation from
our rulings in similar previous decisions-3 that the licensed engineers
constitute an appropriate unit.
Three of the seven tankers operated by the Company have their
home ports on the Atlantic and Gulf coasts. The record discloses no
reason for excluding the engineers employed on these three ships
from the appropriate bargaining unit. The Union claims members
among these engineers. At the hearing the Union introduced undis-
puted evidence showing that it had secured from other locals of the
N: M. E. B. A. jurisdiction over the licensed engineers on these three
tankers. Under the circumstances we are of the opinion that the
appropriate bargaining unit should include the 28 licensed engineers
employed on all 7 tankers.
We find that the licensed marine engineers employed on the seven
tankers operated by the Company constitute a unit appropriate for
the purposes of collective bargaining and that said unit will insure
to employees of the Company the full benefit of their right to self-
organization and to collective bargaining and otherwise effectuate the
policies of the Act.
V. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
The Union introduced in evidence 21 membership application cards.
By consent of the parties the original cards were withdrawn and pho-
tostatic copies substituted. Twenty of the 21 names appearing on the
application cards correspond with the names of employees in the ap-
propriate unit on the Company's pay roll.4 The Union's business
manager, H. D. Norman, testified that he saw eight of the applications
signed. The Company made no objection to their authenticity. It
objected to the introduction of two of these eight applications on the
8 Matter of Panama Rail Road Company and Marine Engineers Beneficial Association,
2 N. L. R B 290; Matter of Seas Shipping Company and National Marine Engineers'
Beneficial Association Local No 33, 2 N L. R B. 398.
'Board Exhibit __o. 3(a) to (g), inclusive The pay rolls from which the names
were taken are dated during the period between the date of the filing of the petition and
the date of the hearing . One application card bears the name of an employee who was
on vacation at the time of the hearing . We find it unnecessary to consider this card in
determining whether the Union has shown that it has been designated by a majority as
collective bargaining agency.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 643
ground that, according to the evidence, the two applicants had not
been actually admitted to membership.5 This objection was properly
overruled by the Trial Examiner. By signing the applications, the
two applicants sufficiently designated the Union as their representa-
tive for purposes of collective bargaining. Norman was not present
and did not see the remaining application cards for membership in
the Union signed.° On the basis of his knowledge of the Union books
and records he testified that nine of the men whose names appeared on
-these- applications, were members in good standing. The books and
records were not introduced in evidence, but Norman exhibited his
file cards showing payments of dues and counsel for the Company was
afforded an opportunity to examine the dues cards. While the Com-
pany questioned the authenticity of these application cards, it made no
effort to introduce evidence tending to show that the applications were
not signed by the employees whose names appeared thereon. Nor
did the Company offer in evidence specimens of the signatures of these
employees, or explain why such evidence was not offered. Under the
circumstances, we find that the Company's objections to the authen-
ticity of the nine application cards under consideration are groundless.
We conclude that at least 17 licensed marine engineers employed on
the tankers operated by the Company have signed applications for
membership in the Union.
The Company directed attention to the dates on which the applica-
tions were signed. Of the 17 applications, only 5 are dated within
a period of 1 year preceding the date of the petition. Of the remain-
ing 12, 1 is dated in the year 1936, 2 in 1935, 2 in 1934, and 6 in 1933;
and the twelfth application does not reveal in what year it was
signed. Although the Company did not make its position as to the
dates explicit, it was apparently under the impression that a certifica-
tion of the Union, without the holding of an election, would be barred
by the fact that so many of the applications were executed long prior
to the date of the filing of the petition. We are of the opinion, how-
ever, that the dates borne by the application cards offer no obstacle
to a certification, in view of the following considerations. The N. M.
E. B. A. is a long-established labor organization, and it is to be
expected that the members of its locals continue their membership
over a period of years. In addition, Norman testified from his
knowledge of the Union records, including the dues cards, that all
6 One of these was an application for reinstatement by a former member who had beerb
dropped for nonpayment of dues
9 Norman testified that the man whose name appears on one of these Petitioner Ex-
hibit No 10 had applied for membership in the San Francisco local, No 97, of the Na-
tional Marine Engineeis' Beneficial Association This exhibit, however, appears to be
an application for membership in No. 79. Owing to the conflict between the testimony
and the exhibit, we shall disregard this application.
644 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the 17 employees whose names appeared on the application cards, with
the exception of the 2 not yet admitted to membership ,7 were mem-
bers in good standing . Although the Company was afforded an
opportunity to inspect the dues cards , it did not challenge any of
Norman's testimony which was based on the dues cards . No evidence
was adduced at the hearing tending to show that any of the employees
whose names appeared on the application cards had joined another
labor organization or had revoked their designation of the Union
as collective bargaining agency. We conclude that at least 17 em-
ployees in the appropriate unit have designated the Union as their
representative for the purposes of collective bargaining . Since this
constitutes a majority of the 28 employees included in the unit, we
find it unnecessary to consider the authenticity or the effect of two
applications for membership in' locals of the N . M. E. B. A. other
than the Union.
We find that the Union has been designated and selected by a ma-
jority of the employees in the appropriate unit as their representative
for the purposes of collective bargaining . It is, therefore , the exclu-
sive representative of all the employees in such unit for the purposes
of collective bargaining , and we will so certify.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire
record in the case, the Board makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1 1. A question affecting commerce has arisen concerning the repre-
sentation of employees of Richfield Oil Corporation , Los Angeles,
California , within the meaning of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6)
and (7 ), of the National Labor Relations Act.
2. The licensed marine engineers employed on the seven tankers
operated by the Company constitute a unit appropriate for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining , within the meaning of Section 9 (b)
of the National Labor Relations Act.
3. Marine Engineers ' Beneficial Association , No. 79, is the exclusive
representative of all the employees in such unit for the purposes of
collective bargaining, within the meaning of Section 9 (a) of the
National Labor Relations Act.
CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
By virtue of and pursuant to the power vested in the National
Labor Relations Board by Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Rela-
'These two applications were dated , respectively, March 8, 1938 , and January 30,
1938. See footnote 5, supra.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 645
lions Act , and pursuant to Article III, Section 8, of National Labor
Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 1, as amended,
IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that Marine Engineers' Beneficial Associa-
tion, No. 79 , has been designated and selected by a majority of the li-
censed marine engineers employed on the seven tankers operated by
Richfield Oil Corporation , Los Angeles , California, as their repre-
sentative for the purposes of collective bargaining and that, pursuant
to the provisions of Section 9'(a) of the Act, Marine Engineers' Bene-
ficial Association , No. 79, is the exclusive representative of all such
employees for the purposes of collective bargaining in respect to
,rates of pay , wages, hours of employment , and other conditions of
employment.