Sinclair Refinery Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 11, 1950

92 N.L.R.B. 643 (N.L.R.B. 1950)

In the Matter Of SINCLAIR REFINERY COMPANY, EMPLOYER and LOCAL
No. 483 , INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF BOILERMAKERS
, IRON SHIP
BUILDERS AND HELPERS , A. F. L., PETITIONER
In the Matter of WOOD RIVER OIL AND REFINING COMPANY , EMPLOYER-
and INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS DISTRICT No. 9,
PETITIONER
In the Matter of THE WOOD RIVER OIL AND REFINING COMPANY DIVI-
SION OF SINCLAIR OIL COMPANY, EMPLOYER and INTERNATIONAL
UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS , LOCAL No. 525 , A. F. L., PETITIONER
In the Matter of SINCLAIR OIL COMPANY , EMPLOYER and UNITED ASSO-
CIATION OF JOURNEYMEN AND APPRENTICES OF THE PLUMBING AND
PIPEFITTING INDUSTRY OF THE U. S . AND CANADA , LOCAL 553, A. F. L.,
PETITIONER
-In the Matter of SINCLAIR REFINING COMPANY , EMPLOYER W a CAR-
PENTERS DISTRICT COUNCIL OF ALTON , WOOD RIVER AND VICINITY OF
THE UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS AND JOINERS OF AMERICA,
A. F.'L., PETITIONER
In the Matter Of WOOD RIVER OIL & REFINING COMPANY, DIVISION OF
SINCLAIR OIL, COMPANY, EMPLOYER and LOCAL UNION No. 525,
AFFILIATED WITH THE INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS,
CHAUFFEURS , WAREHOUSEMEN & HELPERS OF AMERICA , A. F. L.,
PETITIONER
In the Matter Of SINCLAIR REFINING COMPANY , EMPLOYER and INTER-
NATIONAL HOD CARRIERS' , BUILDING AND COMMON LABORERS' UNION,
LOCAL 338, A. F. L., PETITIONER
In the Matter of SINCLAIR REFINING COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL
BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, A. F. L. LOCAL 649, PETI-
TIONER
In the Matter Of the WOOD RIVER OIL AND REFINING COMPANY, Divi-
SION OF SINCLAIR OIL COMPANY, EMPLOYER and LOCAL UNION NO.
917, BROTHERHOOD OF PAINTERS , DECORATORS AND PAPERHANGERS OF
AMERICA, A. F. OF L.
Cases Nos. 14-RC-1153, 14-RC 11.31, 14-RC-1151, 14-RC-1155,
14-RC-11577.14-RC-11611 14-RC-1175, 14-RC-1206, and 14-RC=
126.Decided December 11,1950.
92 NLRB No. 112.
643
644 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon petitions 1 duly filed, a hearing was held 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 this case the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the- National -Labor Relations Act. =
2. The Petitioners, and Oil Workers International Union, CIO,
herein-called the Intervenor, are labor organizations claiming to rep=:
resent certain employees of the Employer.
3. The question.concerning representation :
The Intervenor urges that its existing contract with Sinclair Refire--
ing Company, herein called Sinclair, embracing a company-wide unit
of employees in the refining, pipeline, development, production, pur-
chasing, and marketing operations of Sinclair constitutes a bar to the
instant petitions. The petitions are limited to the employees. of the
refinery, newly acquired by Sinclair from Wood River Oil and Refin-
ing Company, herein called Wood River Company or the Wood River
plant.
The contract in question was executed on July 29, 1949, to continue
in effect until June 30, 1950, and thereafter, unless terminated by either
party upon 60 days' written notice. However, on March 31, 1950,
the contract was renewed and the termination date extended to July 1,
1951. The extended contract specifically provided for the coverage
of the operations of "other companies which may hereafter be ac-
quired." Sinclair acquired the physical properties of the Wood River
plant as of July 1, 1950. The petitions herein were all filed at various
times after May 1, 1950, the automatic renewal date of the original
contract 2
These facts indicate beyond question that the Wood River plant
represents an entirely new operation added by Sinclair to its existing
facilities after the execution of the contract alleged by the Inter-
venor as a bar. Under these circumstances, despite the contract pro-
vision for the inclusion of after-acquired companies, it is settled, and
we find, that the contract cannot operate to bar an election among the
new employees.3
The parties waived notice of consolidation of the petitions in Cases Nos. 14-RC-1206
and 14-RC-1226, which were filed after consolidation was effected as to the other petitions.
2 Had any of the petitions been filed before May 1, 1950, this fact alone would be sufficient
to prevent the renewed contract from operating as a bar . Republic Steel Corporation, 84
NLRB 483. .
8 E. g., St. Regis Paper Company , 84 NLRB 454 ; Westinghouse Electric Corporation, 87
NLRB 463; Commercial Solvents Corporation, 74 NLRB 1265.
SINCLAIR REFINERY COMPANY 645
4. The appropriate unit:
The Petitioners seek separate craft units confined to the Wood River
plant, coextensive with their respective jurisdictions . The Intervenor
opposes the requests of the Petitioners , contending that the Wood,
River plant has become integrated in Sinclair 's total operations as to
which the only appropriate unit is company -wide . in scope. Alterna-
tively, the Intervenor indicates that it is willing to participate in an
election among all the employees in such a company -wide unit, even
though only the Wood River plant is properly before the Board.
The Petitioners also take alternative positions , viz : If the Board finds
that the company -wide unit, as proposed by the Intervenor , is appro-
priate, a self -determination election should be directed among the
employees at the Wood River plant to. ascertain ( a) whether they
desire to be represented in the company -wide unit or in their respective
craft units at the Wood River plant ; or, in the further alternative,
(b) whether they desire to be represented in the company -wide unit
or in a production and maintenance unit limited to the Wood River
plant, with all the Petitioners appearing on the ballot jointly. The
Employer indicated its position was neutral.
The record shows that the newly acquired Wood River plant has
been rapidly integrated into Sinclair 's Nation-wide operations. Al-
though the Wood River plant continued its, physical operations sub-
stantially 'unchanged after its purchase by Sinclair , it immediately
became subject to Sinclair 's centralized control from New York City
in respect to such matters as industrial relations , crude oil supply,
production and marketing , in the same manner as other refineries and
facilities of Sinclair . It also appears that the operation at the Wood
River plant in relation to Sinclair 's over-all facilities are not substan-
tially different from those of Sinclair 's other refineries . Moreover,
the quantity of - crude' petroleum received at the Wood River plant
through Sinclair 's pipeline sharply increased from approximately
51 percent of its total supply in June 1950 to 84 percent in September,
1950.4
Since 1934 the bargaining history between the Intervenor and
Sinclair has been on a Nation -wide basis . In 1942 Sinclair initially
recognized the Intervenor as the execlusive representative of its
production , pipeline , and refining employees, except those in the
Wellesville Refinery. Successive contracts between these parties car-
ried the provision that employees in expanded or newly acquired oper-
ations shall be covered . But in several instances the contract was not
4 on October 20, 1950, the Intervenor filed with the Board "Motion to Reopen Record,"
together with certain employee affidavits. .The stated object of the motion is to incorporate
in the record certain alleged post-hearing developments which would indicate, if true, a
greater degree of integration of the wood River plant in Sinclair's over-all operations.
However, assuming the truth of the allegations in the motion , our disposition of the
issues herein would remain unchanged . The mation is therefore denied.
646 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
in fact applied to such additional operations until after the Inter-
venor established its majority representation of the employees sought.
to be added.,'
As to the newly acquired Wood River plant, however, all the produc-
tion and maintenance employees had been represented since 1941 by
the various petitioning craft unions herein. While each of these
unions retained its full craft autonomy, bargaining was conducted
on a joint basis and a single master contract was executed by all of
them, except that International Association of Machinists, herein
called IAM, after its disaffiliation from the American Federation of
Labor, executed a separate uniform contract following its partici-
pation in the joint negotiations. In 1948, all of the Petitioners won
Section 9 (e) elections, pursuant to which they were authorized by
the Board to enter into union-security agreements on behalf of their
respective craft units; and in. 1948 and 1949, three of these unions 6
were certified by the Board as exclusive bargaining agents in their
separate craft units. After the purchase of the Wood River plant
in July 1950, Sinclair terminated the recognition of the Petitioners but
continued, as an interim measure, to utilize the grievance procedure
established under the preexisting contracts.7
Before the purchase of the Wood River plant, the IAM and
Wood River Company entered into a consent election agreement.
The Regional Director proceeded with the election on July 11, 1950,
despite the change of ownership. Although the election results in-
dicated that the IAM received a majority of the valid votes cast,
the Regional Director withheld his designation or certification of
the IAM in view of the pendency of the instant proceedings. The
IAM now requests that it be certified. It is our opinion that the
results of the consent election are not binding upon the Board with
respect to the question of appropriate unit, particularly as there
was no designation by the Regional Director or bargaining history
based upon such results." The new ownership of the Wood River
plant and its integration into Sinclair's over-all operations present
such changed circumstances as to require that the Regional Director
set aside the consent election results, and that the IAM's representative
5 Thus, by means of Board elections, self-determination was afforded the employees at
the Wellesville Refinery in 1942, and the Pennsylvania Division of the products pipeline
in 1946; and the Fort Worth, Texas, Refinery was included only after a United States
Conciliator certified the Intervenor's representation of the employees therein.
6 United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting
Industry of the U. S. and Canada, Local 553, A. F. L. ; Local Union No. 525, Affiliated
with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of
America, A. F. L.; and International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, A. F. L. Local 649.
4 The contracts of the Petitioners with Wood River Company all expired on August 1,
1950 (before the hearing).
8 See, e. g ., Rocky Mountain Pipe Line Company, 79 NLRB 1119.
SINCLAIR REFINERY COMPANY 647
status at the Wood River plant be determined on the same basis as
that of the other Petitioners.
Past Nation-wide bargaining covering Sinclair's employees and the
integration of the Wood River plant into Sinclair's operations would
indicate the appropriateness of merging the Wood River plant in the
existing company-wide unit of Sinclair. However, the employees
in the Wood River plant, who are in the position of new employees
at a new plant, are entitled to a voice in the determination of the
issue of their collective bargaining representation.' In addition,
the positive bargaining history under the Wood River Company in-
volving these employees provides a sufficient basis to afford them
the choice of separate representation by the Petitioners, as well as
that of company-wide representation by the Intervenor."o
The primary contention of the Petitioners for an election in their
respective craft units confined to the Wood River plant must be re-
jected in view of the new status of these employees under Sinclair, and
the consequent necessity that any craft units, now to be found appro-
priate, be company-wide in scope."' However, the effective bargaining
history at the Wood River plant, including the joint negotiations on
the part of the various Petitioners and their acceptance of uniform
contract terms, supports the Petitioners' alternative contention for a
plant-wide unit of the employees at the Wood River plant represented
by the Petitioners jointly. Under all these circumstances, and the en-
tire record in the case, we find that a unit of all the employees at the
Wood River plant may be appropriate, depending upon the results
of the election hereinafter directed. If a majority of the employees
select the Petitioners as their joint representative, they will be taken
to have indicated their desire to be represented in a separate plant unit;
if a. majority select the Intervenor, they will be taken to have indicated
their desire to become a part of the existing company-wide unit.12
Accordingly, we shall direct an election in the following voting
group:
All employees at the Employer's Wood River Refinery at Hartford,
Illinois, excluding office and clerical employees, guards, professional
employees, and supervisors.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
9 E. g., Sylvania Electric Products , 87 NLRB 597 ; Lone Star Producing Company, 85
NLRB 1137; Chicago Freight Car & Parts Co., 83 NLRB 1163.
10 See Illinois Cities Water Company, 87 NLRB 109; Lowell Industrial Development Com-
pany, 80 NLRB 1697. Cf . Lone Star Producing Company, ibid.
11 See, e. g., West Texas Utilities Co. Inc ., 88 NLRB 192 ; Joseph E. Seagram & Sons, Inc.,
83 NLRB 167; Caterpillar Tractor Co., 77 NLRB 457.
12 For the reasons herein stated, the Intervenor 's motion to dismiss the petitions is hereby
denied.