Standard Oil Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 15, 1943

48 N.L.R.B. 1291 (N.L.R.B. 1943)

J
f
In the Matter Of STANDARD OIL COMPANY, AN OHIO CORPORATION and
OIL WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, LOCAL 346, C. I. O.
Case No. R-4,986.-Decided April '15, 1943
Jurisdiction : oil refining industry.
Investigation and Certification of Representatives : existence of question : refusal
to accord petitioner recognition ; contract with an organization -found to be
employer-dominated, no bar ; probationary employees, held eligible to vote ;
election necessary.
Unit Appropriate for Collective Bargaining : all process or production employees
and maintenance employees at one of the refineries of the company, with
specified inclusions and exclusions; all clerks with the exception of clerks'
in the,warehouse department, boiler shop, utility clerks, and clerks in the
engineering department, excluded when they were admittedly clerical em-
ployees; certain specified employees excluded because of their supervisory
duties.
Practice and Procedure : labor organization found to be employer-dominated not
permitted to intervene. ,
McAfee, Grossman, Hanning c0 Newcomer, by Mr. Maurice F.
Hanning and Mr. James R. Tritschler, of Cleveland, Ohio, for the
Company.
Edward Lamb, by Mr. Lowell Goerlicli, of Toledo, Ohio, for the
Union.
Mr. Loves Cokin, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon petition duly filed by Oil Workers International Union, Local
346, C. I. 0., herein called the Union, alleging that a question affecting
commerce had arisen concerning the representation of employees of
Standard Oil Company, an Ohio corporation, Toledo, Ohio, herein
called the Company, the National Labor Relations Board provided for
an appropriate hearing upon due notice before Carl-C. Wheaton, Trial
Examiner. Said hearing was held at Toledo, Ohio, on March 10 and
11, 1943. At the commencement of the hearing the Trial Examiner
denied a motion of Petroleum Workers of the Standard Oil Company
48 N. L..R. B., No. 162.
1291
1292 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of Ohio, herein called the Independent, to intervene. That ruling is
hereby affirmed.' The Company and the Union appeared at and par-
ticipated in the hearing and were afforded full opportunity to be heard,
to examine and cross-examine witnesses,- and to introduce evidence
bearing on the issues. At various times throughout the hearing, coun-
sel for the Company moved to dismiss the petition. The Trial Ex-
aminer reserved rulings on the motions. The motions are hereby
denied. The Trial Examiner's rulings, made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
On March 19, 1943, the Union filed a brief which the Board has
considered.
,Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
r
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
Standard Oil Company, an Ohio corporation, is engaged in produc-
ing, transporting, refining and marketing gasoline, oil, kerosene, motor
oils, industrial lubricants and various other types of oils. We are
here concerned with its refinery at Toledo, Ohio. During 1941 the
Company refined approximately 25,756,000 barrels of crude oils, 98
percent of which was shipped to it from points outside the State of
Ohio. During the same period the Company produced finished pro-
ducts valued at $76,740,000, approximately 8 percent of which was
shipped to points outside the State of Ohio. The Company admits
that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National
Labor Relations Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Oil Workers International Union, Local 346, is a labor organization
affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, admitting to
membership employees of the Company.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
Several times, during 1942 and the early part of 1943, the Union
requested the Company to recognize it as exclusive bargaining repre-
sentative of the employees at the Toledo refinery- of the Company.
The Company refused these requests, stating that it was operating
under a contract with the Independent. Since, the Independent has
' On February 15, 1943, the Board ordered the Company, among other things, to cease
and desist from dominating and interfering with the administration of the Independent
and to withdraw and withhold from the Independent all recognition as representative of
Its employees and completely disestablish the Independent as such representative . Matter of
Standard Oil Company, an Ohio corporation, Sohso Pipe Lane Corporation , Latonia Refining
Corporation and Oil Workers International Union, et at., 47 N. L. It. B., No. 74.
STANDARD OIL COMPANY 1293 ,
been found'to be an organization dominated by the Company,2 the
,contract does not constitute a bar to a present determination of
representatives.
A statement of the Trial Examiner, read into evidence during the
hearing, indicates that the Union represents a substantial number of
employees in the unit hereinafter found to be appropriate.3
We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning
the representation of employees of the Company, within the meaning
of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
The. Union contends that all process or production employees and
maintenance employees at the Toledo refinery of the Company, includ-
ing watchmen and clerical employees, but excluding supervisory em-
ployees and graduate technical engineers and chemists, constitute an
appropriate'unit. , The only controversy with respect to the unit con-
ferns clerical employees and certain named supervisory employees.
The Company employs various categories of clerical employees at
its Toledo refinery.' The Union would include all such employees in
the unit and the Company would exclude them. All such persons,
with the exception of three clerks in the warehouse department, the
boiler shop clerk, utility clerks, and clerks in engineering department,
are admittedly clerical eniployees and are under the supervision of a
chief clerk. Since the status and functions of clerical employees are
essentially different from the status and functions of the employees
who do manual labor, our usual practice has been to exclude office and
,clerical employees from a unit largely composed of production and
maintenance employees. Since no affirmative showing has been made,
or any persuasive reasons advanced for departing from this practice,
we shall exclude clerks in the refinery yields department, timekeepers,
and paymasters, clerks in the budget department, clerks in the ship-
ping department, laboratory clerk, switchboard operators, and private
secretaries from the unit.
Three employees in the warehouse department actually handle
materials as they are brought to and taken from the warehouse. Under
those circumstances, we find that such clerks should be included in
the unit.
2 See footnote 1.
B The Trial Examiner reported that the Union presented, 255 membership application
cards bearing apparently genuine signatures of persons whose names appear on the Com-
pany's pay roll of March 9, 1943 There are approximately 501 employees in the appropri-
ate unit.
4 Such employees are classified as clerks in refinery yields department , clerks in storage
and warehouse department , timekeepers and paymasters , clerks in budget department, clerks
in shipping department , utility clerks , boiler shop clerks, laboratory clerks, clerks in engi-
neering department , switchboard operators , and private secretaries.
1294 DECISIONS OF NATION'AL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The utility clerks work throughout the Company 's refinery and are
under the supervision of the utility foreman who is also the foreman
over many of the maintenance employees . - We shall include utility
clerks in the unit.
The Company has one employee in its boiler room classified as a
boiler shop clerk. This employee actually works in the boiler shop
and is under the supervision of the boiler shop foreman . We shall
include him in the unit.
The clerks in the engineering department work under the super-
vision of the foreman of that department and work alongside the
engineers . We shall include clerks in the engineering department in
the unit.
The Company has 39 employees classified by it as guards or katch-
men. The guards patrol the plant, are armed, and have been sworn
in as auxiliary military police. Although the watchmen are not armed
they have also been sworn in as auxiliary military police . In accord-
ance with our usual practice , we shall exclude the guards and the
militarized watchmen from the unit.
The Union urges that H. D. Frazier and J . U. Hooks be included
in the unit and the Company contends that they should be excluded
because of their supervisory duties. Frazier and Hooks are in charge
of the cleaning of coking drums and each directs the work of about
six men. Although each spends about 20 percent of his time perform-
ing manual labor, they recommend the hire and discharge of their
subordinates . We shall exclude Frazier and Hooks from the unit.
The Union urges that R. E. Bradford be excluded from the unit
on the ground that he is a supervisory employee. The Company
contends that he should be included . Bradford is employed as chief
operator of a combination unit and on occasion acts as shift foreman
breaker. While acting in the former capacity , he is in complete charge
of the refinery . We shall exclude Bradford from the unit.
The Union requests that H. E. West and J. E. Schaffer be excluded
from the unit as supervisors and the Company urges that they be
included. West and Schaffer are classified by the Company as treaters.
They merely direct the men who work with them and do not have any
authority to recommend hire or discharge. We shall include West and
Schaffer in the unit.
V. Ames is classified by the Company as a carpenter . The Union
urges that he be excluded as a supervisor and the Company contends
that he should be included in the unit. Ames merely transmits orders
to his helpers and cannot recommend hire or discharge. We shall
include him in the unit.
C. E. Brown is classified by the Company as a senior clerk. The
Union requests that he be excluded as a supervisor and the Company
STANDARD OIL COMPANY 1295
urges that he be included. The record indicates that the work per-
formed by Brown is purely clerical in nature. We shall exclude
Brown from the unit as a clerical employee. ,
We find that all process or production employees and maintenance
employees at the Toledo-refinery of the Company, including utility
clerks, the boiler shop clerk, clerks in'engineering department, H. E.
West, J. E. Schaffer, and V. Ames, but excluding clerical employees
(other than those included above), supervisory employees, graduate
technical engineers and chemists, guards and watchmen, R. E. Brad-
ford, H. D. Frazier, J. U. Hooks, and C. E. Brown, constitute a unit
appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining, within the mean-
ing of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
V. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
We shall direct that the question concerning representation which
has arisen be resolved by means of an election by' secret ballot among
the employees in the appropriate unit who were employed during the
pay-roll period immediately preceding the date of the Direction of
Election herein, subject to the limitations and additions set forth in the
Direction.
The Union urges that all employees who have not been employed by
the Company for at least 6 months should be deemed ineligible to vote.
The Company urges that all such persons be allowed to participate in
the balloting. The Company hires all its employees subject to a 6
months' probationary period. The Union stated in support of its con-
tention- that inasmuch as the Company may at any time within 6
months terminate the employment of such persons, they should not be
allowed to vote. There is no evidence that the Company's business
is seasonal in nature and the persons whom the Company terms pro-
bationers do not appear to have been employed otherwise than for the
ordinary purpose of the business. Further, at the conclusion of the
probationary period, the employee's' seniority dates back to the origi-
nal date of his employment. We find that probationary employees
within the appropriate unit are eligible to vote in the election.
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
By virtue of and pursuant to the power vested in the National Labor
Relations Board by Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act,
and pursuant to Article III, Section 9,'of National Labor Relations
Board Rules and Regulations-Series 2, as amended, it is hereby
DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation to ascertain representa-
tives for the purposes of collective bargaining with Standard Oil Com-
pany, an Ohio corporation, Toledo, Ohio, an election by secret ballot
shall be conducted as early as possible, but not later than thirty (30)
1296 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
J
days from the date of this Direction, under the direction and super-
vision of the Regional Director for the Eighth Region, acting in this
matter as agent for the National Labor Relations Board, and subject to
Article III, Section 10, of said Rule's and Regulations,'among the em-
ployees in the unit found appropriate in Section IV, above, who were
employed during the pay-roll period immediately preceding the date
of this Direction, including employees who did not work during said
pay-roll period because they were ill or on vacation or temporarily
laid off, and including employees in the armed forces of the United
States who present themselves-in person at the polls, but excluding any
who have since quit or been discharged for cause, to determine whether
or not they desire to be represented by Oil Workers International
Union, Local 346, affiliated with, the Congress of Industrial Organiza-
tions, for the purposes of collective bargaining.