89 N.L.R.B. 969 (N.L.R.B. 1950)

Sinclair Refining Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsMay 3, 1950

89 N.L.R.B. 969 (N.L.R.B. 1950)

In the Matter Of SINCLAIR REFINING COMPANY, PIPELINE DEPARTMENT, EMPLOYER and INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS,. AFL, PETITIONER Case No. ' 17-RC-574.Decided May 3, 1950 DECISION AND ORDER Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before Martin_ Sacks, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.' Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Members Reynolds, Murdock, and. Styles]. 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 labor organizations involved claim 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 Petitioner seeks a unit composed of employees of the Employer's Southwest Products Pipeline, Division. The Employer and the In- tervenor contend that their 1-year Nation-wide contract executed July 28, 1949, containing a 60-day automatic renewal clause is a bar to this. proceeding, and further, that the requested unit is inappropriate. The Petitioner contends that the application of prior Nation-wide contracts between the Intervenor and the Employer and the Employer's posi- tion taken at the 1948 and 1949 bargaining conferences, indicates that the contract does not cover the employees here sought. Further, 1 The Oil Workers International Union, CIO, herein called the Intervenor , request for oral argument is hereby denied as the record and the briefs submitted by the parties, in our opinion, adequately present the issues and positions of the parties. 89 NLRB No. 137. 969 `970 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the Petitioner asserts that a supplemental agreement, executed in Oc- tober 1949, between the Employer and the Intervenor, prevents the -contract from operating as a. bar to this proceeding. In view of our findings hereinafter it is unnecessary for us to pass -upon the various contentions of the parties regarding the contract bar issue. The Petitioner seeks a unit composed of employees of the Employer's Southwest Products Pipeline Division.2 The Employer and the In- tervenor oppose the unit sought (1) because of the long history of bar- gaining of all the Employer's pipe line, production, and refinery employees in a single Nation-wide unit, and (2) because the unit sought is only a segment of a continuous pipeline system. The Intervenor or its predecessor has continuously represented the Employer's production, pipeline, and refinery operations through a series of collective bargaining agreements dating from 1934. The Employer, among its other facilities, operates a continuous pipe line from Marcus Hook, Pennsylvania, via East Chicago, Indiana, to Houston, Texas, for the transportation of refined petroleum prod- ucts. The Petitioner does not desire to represent those pipe-line employees employed in the segment from East Chicago to Marcus Hook. It appears that the Petitioner's request is limited to the ex- tent of its organization, which is not a controlling factor in determin- ing the appropriateness of a bargaining unit.3 In view of the integration of the Employer's operations and the effective history of collective bargaining on a Nation-wide basis, we find that the unit sought by the Petitioner is inappropriate' We shall, accordingly, dismiss the petition. ORDER Upon the basis of the entire record in this case, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the petition filed herein be, and it hereby is, dismissed. 2 This division is comprised of the Employer's products pipe line from East Chicago, Indiana, to Houston, Texas, and a separate line from Corpus Christi to San Antonio to Luling to Austin, Texas. 3 Section 9 (c) (5) of the Act. Richfield Oil Corporation, 86 NLRB 629; Lone Star Producing Company, 85 NLRB 1137.