Shell Oil Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 17, 1956

116 N.L.R.B. 203 (N.L.R.B. 1956)

SHELL OIL COMPANY 203
to authorized personnel. Because of the confidential nature of the
blueprints, the attendants are subject to special security investigation.
They are supervised by the chief design engineer, who has an office in
the main office building. They are on the salaried payroll and have
the same fringe benefits as other salaried employees.
The Petitioner contends the blueprint crib attendants are plant
clerical employees and should be added to the production and main-
tenance unit if it wins the election. The Employer urges that they are
office clericals, and may not become a part of the production and main-
tenance unit.
We find on the basis of the record that these attendants are plant
clericals. Although we find no merit in the Employer's contention
that the crib attendants are security personnel and that these and the
cost recorders may not be represented by Petitioner because of any con-
flict of interest with production workers or because the same union
would represent both groups,' the record shows that there are some 50
other unrepresented plant clerical employees who work in the plant
with foremen and engineers, and whom the Petitioner does not seek to
represent. We find therefore that the Petitioner is seeking only a seg-
ment of the plant clerical employees, and for this reason the requested
unit is inappropriate. Nor may a segment of the plant clerical group
be granted a self-determination election with respect to representation
in a production and maintenance unit.
Inasmuch as the groups requested by the Petitioner neither sepa-
rately nor in combination constitute appropriate units, we shall dis-
miss the petition.
[The Board dismissed the petition.]
CHAIRMAN LEEDOM and MEMBER MURDocK took no part in the con-
sideration of the above Decision and Order.
5 See footnote 1, supra.
Shell Oil Company and Local No. 553, affiliated with United Asso-
ciation of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and
Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, AFL-
CIO, et al ., Petitioners.' Cases Nos. 14-RC-2947, 14-RC-2955,
14-RC-2958, 14-RC-2959, 14-RC-2960, 14-RC-2966, 14-RC-2969,
and 14-RC-2973. July 17,1956
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
Upon consolidated petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the
National Labor Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held before
1 The other Petitioners are : Carpenters District Council of Madison County & Vicinity,
Illinois, United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners of America, AIL-CIO ; Local 56
116 NLRB No. 24.
204 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Joseph H. So]ien, 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 labor organizations involved claim to represent employees
of the Employer.2
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning representation
of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1)
and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The 8 craft Petitioners herein seek certification of 8 separate
craft or "craft-like" units. The Employer opposes the separate units
primarily on the ground that the bargaining history for all the em-
ployees involved has been on a single- or industrial-unit basis.
Therefore, the Employer contends that this is a case of severance and
that under the American Potash 3 doctrine the Petitioners have not
sufficiently shown the true craft characteristics of the respective units
they here seek. Although the Petitioner's International Unions
have, along with other unions not here involved, for several years
jointly negotiated and signed single contracts covering the employees
in question, they contend that this case does not involve severance
within the meaning of that term as used in American Potash, but in-
volves only the certification of units which have historically been
recognized and bargained for as individual craft units. In the light
of these contentions, we turn to the bargaining history.
At different times during 1933, 14 local craft unions each met with
the Employer and attempted negotiations for contract units covering
their respective crafts at the refinery involved ; only 6 contracts were
concluded that year. Thereafter, in 1934, in order to simplify negotia-
tions, the American Federation of Labor proposed to the Employer
that a "one-unit agreement" be negotiated and signed jointly by the
International Unions, rather than the locals which had bargained for
their respective craft groups. This proposal was accepted and the
first such joint bargaining agreement became effective May 1, 1935.
In 1938, because of interunion problems, the Metal Trades Department
of the AFL became coordinator for the International Unions and has
International Association of Heat & Frost Insulators and Asbestos Workers ; Local Union
No. 917, International Brotherhood of Painters , Decorators and Paperhangers Union of
America, AFL-CIO ; International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union 649,
AFL-CIO ; Local Union No. 525, affiliated with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America , AFL-CIO ; Local 483, International
Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Shipbuilders , Blacksmith , Forgers & Helpers , AFL-CIO ;
Local 268, Sheet Metal Workers' International Association , AFL-CIO.
2 International Hod Carriers and Common Laborers Union of America , AFL-CIO, which
currently represents certain employees of the Employer who are not directly involved
herein, intervened , however , for the sole purpose of protecting its interests from any
possible effect the proceeding might have thereon.
3 American Potash f Chemical Corpoation, 107 NLRB 1418.
SHELL OIL COMPANY 205
since, along with the International Unions, signed contracts with the
Employer covering the refinery employees here involved'
We note that, during the period from 1949 through 1951, some of
the International Unions signatories to the joint agreement advised
the Employer that they desired to have separate Board certifications,
in the name of their locals, for the respective classifications of em-
ployees that they represented under the joint agreement. The Em-
ployer countered with the proposition that it would not oppose cer-
tification of the individual units provided the Internationals would
refrain from insisting that the certification be in the name of the
locals and that the Internationals would continue to negotiate jointly
and sign joint agreements as they had done in the past. The Interna-
tionals agreed and were later certified by the Board for their indi-
vidual units. Under these certifications there have been a preserva-
tion of craft lines. However, the Internationals have continued up
to the present time to sign joint agreements. The locals are here
petitioning for certification as the representative of the same units
now represented by their internationals.
We have the current joint agreement before us. Viewing this agree-
ment in the light of the above facts, we believe that the bargaining
has been, on an individual craft group basis rather than on an indus-
trial basis. Although the agreement does not set out a specific unit
or units as most agreements do, it states in the preamble that the
agreement is between the Employer and the Metal Trades Depart-
ment and the enumerated International Unions, as representatives of
a majority of the employees employed "on work coming within the
established jurisdiction of the Internationals." I Section 1 of the agree-
ment is entitled "General Craft Provision or Rules." This entire
section refers to "crafts" and "craftsmen." 6 There is separate senior-
ity for each of the groups for whom the Petitioning unions seek cer-
tification. Furthermore, the Employer, as noted above, agreed to
the certification of the Internationals for the employees within their
respective craft jurisdiction.
In view of the foregoing, we find that the Internationals' practice of
negotiating and signing joint contracts with the Employer, simply
4 Sometime after 1940 , the International Union of Operating Engineers and the Inter-
national Association of Machinists withdrew from the joint , agreement and have since
negotiated separate contracts, at the local union level , for their respective crafts employed
at the refinery involved.
5 Also, the modification clause of the contract emphasizes the individual recognition of
each International craft union for its respective group. The modification clause provides
that "each party shall have the right to two reopenings on the subject of basic wages . . .
We think the term "each party" refers to, among others, each of the International
Unions who are signatory parties to the contract.
9 For instance , article 5 , par. 4 deals with transfers of employees "within his own
craft" ; article 16, par. 1 refers to "craftsmen 's helpers" not being assigned "craftsmen
work" ; article 17 establishes separate craft committees to handle complaints ; article 19
provides for handling of jurisdictional disputes among the local craft unions involved.
206 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
because they believe, at the time, it was more convenient to bargain
in one instrument concerning the various craft groups, does not in
view of this record support a contention that collective bargaining
under the contract was conducted on an industrial basis' Rather
it appears and we find that collective bargaining has proceeded on
the basis of continued recognition and separate preservation of in-
dividual craft groups.
As the record establishes that the long history of collective bar-
gaining among the employees involved has been on a separate craft
unit basis, it follows that this case is not a case of severance, but merely
involves a request by the present petitioning locals for certification
of the separate historical units.' In view of the bargaining history,
we find that the following employees of the Employer employed at its
Wood River, Illinois, refinery, constitute appropriate separate his-
torical units for the purpose of collective bargaining within the mean-
ing of the Act:
Unit 1: All employees classified as pipefitter leadman, pipefitter
welder layer out, pipefitter 1st, pipefitter 2nd, pipefitter helper 1st,
pipefitter helper 2nd, leadburner 1st, and leadburner 2nd, excluding
office clerical and plant clerical employees, guards, watchmen, profes-
sional employees, and supervisors as defined in Section 2 (11) of the
Act, as amended, and all other employees of the Employer.
Unit 2: All employees classified as carpenter leadman and carpenter
1st, excluding office clerical and plant clerical employees, guards,
watchmen, professional employees, and supervisors as defined in Sec-
tion 2 (11) of the Act, as amended, and all other employees of the
Employer.
Unit 3: All employees classified as boilermaker layer out (inspector
and leadman), boilermaker, boilermaker helpers, blacksmith working
leader, blacksmith 1st, blacksmith 2nd, blacksmith helper, excluding
office clerical and plant clerical employees, guards, watchmen, profes-
sional employees, and supervisors as defined in Section 2 (11) of the
Act, as amended, and all other employees of the Employer.
Unit 4: All employees classified as insulator 1st, excluding office
clerical and plant clerical employees, guards, watchmen, professional
employees, and supervisors as defined in Section 2 (11) of the Act, as
amended, and all other employees of the Employer.
Unit 5: All employees classified as tinner, excluding office clerical
and plant clerical employees, guards, watchmen, professional em-
7 See Phelps Dodge Corporation , 98 NLRB 726, 729, 730; see also American Can
Company. 109 NLRB 1284.
8In the absence of any craft severance problem, we find it unnecessary to determine
whether the requested units are sufficiently craft in nature to warrant their severance
under the American Potash doctrine. We also, reject as without merit the Employer's
contention that the petitioning locals are not the traditional bargaining representatives
as such argument is applicable only to craft severance situations . See Campbell Soup
Company, 109 NLRB 518 , at 521.
SHELL OIL COMPANY 207
ployees, and supervisors as defined in Section 2 (11) of the Act, as
amended, and all other employees of the Employer.
Unit 6: All employees classified as paint inspector, painter leadman,
and painter, excluding office clerical and plant clerical employees,
guards, watchmen, professional employees, and supervisors as defined
in Section 2 (11) of the Act, as amended, and all other employees of
the Employer.
Unit 7: All employees classified as electrician leadman, electrician
1st, electrician helper 1st, apprentice electrician 1st year, apprentice
electrician 2nd year, apprentice electrician 3rd year, apprentice elec-
trician 4th year, instrument leadman, instrumentman 1st, instrument-
man helper 1st, apprentice instrumentman 1st year, apprentice instru-
mentman 2nd year, apprentice instrumentman 3rd year, apprentice
instrumentman 4th year, excluding office clerical and plant clerical
employees, guards, watchmen, professional employees, and supervisors
as defined in Section 2 (11) of the Act, as amended, and all other
employees of the Employer.
Unit 8: All employees classified as counterman leadman, counter-
man 1st, counterman 2nd, truckdriver, truckdriver helper, tractor
operator, and bus driver 1st, excluding office clerical and plant clerical
employees, guards, watchmen, professional employees, and supervisors
as defined in Section 2 (11) of the Act, as amended, and all other
employees of the Employer.
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication.]
MEMBERS PETERSON and DODGERS, dissenting :
We dissent from the majority's holding that the bargaining in this
case for the employees involved has been on a separate craft unit
basis rather than on an overall basis. In our opinion, such a conclu-
sion is not supported either by the character of the bargaining that
has taken place or by the resulting contracts.
As for past bargaining, the record shows that in 1933 certain local
unions which had succeeded in organizing the Employer's mainte-
nance employees entered into separate bargaining negotiations with
the Employer concerning the employees represented by them. This
type of bargaining proved to be unworkable and was abandoned in
favor of a procedure calling for the Employer and the parent organi-
zations of the local unions to bargain together for a "unit agreement"
to be signed by all. The first such joint bargaining agreement be-
came effective in May 1935. In 1938, to secure more unanimity among
the International Unions, the Metal Trades Department of the
A. F. of L.9 entered the picture and became a party to the joint contract
executed with the Employer. Since 1938, that organization, together
9 Hereinafter referred to as the Metal Trades Department.
208 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
with the International Unions, including the parent organizations of
the eight Petitioners, has been a party to every bargaining contract
negotiated with the Employer. When asked at the hearing whether
the negotiations for the contracts executed since 1935 had been "jointly
conducted by the representatives of the unions signatory or have they
been separately conducted by the separate international unions," the
Employer's representative in the bargaining negotiations testified that
they had been "jointly conducted." And when asked if "the final
settlement in each of the negotiations was the result of the joint nego
tiations," the same witness answered in the aflirmative.'0
Of the contract resulting fiom the joint negotiations described
above, only the most recent one, effective by its terms from May 1,
1954, to May 1, 1956, was made an exhibit in the case." That agree-
ment is between the Employer and the Metal Trades Department and
the International Unions. The preamble recognizes the International
Unions and the Metal Trades Department "as representatives of a
majority of the employees of the Employer . . . employed on work
coming within the established jurisdiction of those International
Unions on all matters concerning wages and working conditions."
Most of the provisions which follow are applicable to all the em-
ployees covered by the contract, according uniform treatment in senior-
ity matters and with respect to such other matters as working hours,
pay for work away from the home shop, overtime, night shift bonuses,
lunch hour allowances, vacations, pay periods, and holiday pay. The
contract also provides for the creation of a Metal Trades Committee
consisting of seven employees, each of whom must be from a different
"craft union," and it assigns to this committee a leading role in the
grievance procedure covering all the employees. Under the contract,
a grievance is not referred to any International Union until the fourth
step of the grievance procedure has been reached, after the Metal
Trades Committee has met with the Employer on the grievance. Also,
the allegedly unjustified discharge of any employee is a matter which
the Metal Trades Committee must attempt to adjust before an In-
ternational Union may intercede. The Metal Trades Committee is
also the representative of all applicants for employment in the physi-
cal examination procedure set forth in the contract. The maintenance-
of-membership requirement in the contract is linked to the effective
date of the agreement and it appears that the contract would not
have become effective at all without its acceptance by all the parties
thereto. In this connection, the contract contained a provision for
an "escape period" which permits withdrawal from union membership
la This testimony stands uncontradicted in the record.
11 No contention is made, however , that this contract , to the extent pertinent herein,
is not substantially representative of prior contracts.
SHELL OIL COMPANY 209
only "after this agreement is sib ied by all of the parties thereto."
And with respect to the giving of any notice for canceling, chang-
ing, or reopening the contract, the "Unions," as the International
Unions and the Metal Trades Department are referred to in the pre-
amble, are considered as a single party and their action must be on a
joint basis.
All the foregoing, including the joint bargaining negotiations in-
itiated to replace unsuccessful separate bargaining sessions, the rec-
ognition of the "Unions" as representatives of all the employees
covered by the last contract,12 the provisions in that contract applica-
ble to all the employees, the authority vested in the Metal Trades Com-
mittee by the 1954 contract to act as the representative of all the em-
ployees, and the contract's treatment of the "Unions" as a single party,
points unmistakably to a substantial past history of bargaining con-
ducted on a joint basis for an overall unit of the maintenance employees
involved in this proceeding.13 In reaching the opposite conclusion
noted above, our colleagues have attached considerable weight to the
references in the contract to "crafts" and "craftsmen." But the use
of these words in a contract covering maintenance employees can
have little, if any, significance. Our colleagues seem to be reading
them as though the words "craft units" had been used in their stead.
This, however, is obviously not the case. Nor do we find support for
the majority's conclusion in the fact that the Employer agreed to
Board certification in 1950 of two of the International Unions for the
employees within their respective craft jurisdiction. As the majority
itself points out, the Employer's agreement in these cases was con-
ditioned upon the International Unions continuing "to negotiate
jointly and sign joint agreements as they had done in the past," and
this is precisely the procedure which has been followed since the
certifications. 14
In view of all the circumstances disclosed by the record, we believe
that this is a severance case and that the Board must inquire into
whether, in view of the substantial bargaining history on an overall
basis, severance of the units requested by the Petitioners is appropriate
under American Potash. We are not satisfied that the showing for
severance required by American Potash has been made in any of the
cases and we would therefore dismiss the petitions.
12 It would appear that my colleagues believe that the preamble accords recognition to
each of the International Unions as the bargaining representative of the employees falling
within its jurisdiction . If this is their view, what employees would they say are repre-
sented by the Metal Trades Department"
13 See The Langenau Manufacturing Company, 115 NLRB 1505; United States Time
Corporation , 108 NLRB 1435 ; General Metaicraft , Inc., Olympia Division , 106 NLRB 1131.
1; Cf United States Time Corporation, supra.
40544 8--5 7-v of 116-15