Standard Oil Co.Download PDFNational Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsMar 10, 1954107 N.L.R.B. 1524 (N.L.R.B. 1954) Copy Citation 1524 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD cision that it is appropriate in scope for severance purposes. In my opinion the history of multiplant bargaining which the record shows has existed since 1945 and has covered the powerhouse employees since 1950 precludes the severance of the powerhouse employees on a single -plant basis . I would therefore dismiss the petition on the ground that , under es- tablished Board policy , is a unit limited to the powerhouse employees at the Employer ' s Painesville, Ohio, plant may not appropriately be severed from the established multiplant unit. Member Beeson took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Direction of Election. i3See St. Regis Paper Company, 105 NLRB 371; The Firestone Tire & Rubber Company, 103 NLRB 1749; Bethlehem Steel Co , 97 NLRB 1591; American Steel Foundries, 85 NLRB 19; American Viscose Corporation, 79 NLRB 958. STANDARD OIL COMPANY and RESEARCH AND ENGINEER- ING PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, Peti- tioner. Case No. 13-RC-3708. March 10, 1954 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before I. M. Lieber- man, hearing officer . The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. 1 Upon the entire record in this case , the Board finds: 1. The Employer2 is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. 2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain employees of the Employer. 3. From 1937 to 1943 the Employer recognized the Inter- venor (and its predecessor , Standard Oil Employees Associ- ation ) as bargaining representative for a plantwide unit at the Employer's Whiting, Indiana , refinery . On March 3, 1944, pursuant to a consent payroll check in Case No . 13-R-2035, the Petitioner was certified as representative of a unit of all professional employees in the research department, engi- neering department , conservation department , and utilities division at the Employer ' s Whiting refinery . Since that time the Petitioner and the Employer have executed a series of l At the hearing, central States Petroleum Union, Local 100, Inc., the Intervenor herein, moved to dismiss the petition on the grounds of (1) contract bar; and (2) the inappropriate- ness of the unit. For the reasons stated in paragraphs numbered 3 and 4, infra, the motion is denied. 2 The Employer's name appears in the caption as amended at the hearing t07 NLRB No. 311. STANDARD OIL COMPANY 1525 contracts for a unit of these employees , excluding inspection and field engineers.' Since 1944 the Intervenor has continued to represent the inspection engineers and field engineers as part of its plant wide unit." By the instant petition , the Petitioner seeks to sever the inspection engineers , the field engineers , and the industrial engineer from the existing unit represented by the Intervenor. The Intervenor contends that since the current contract between the Petitioner and the Employer excludes these employees, it is a bar to the instant petition, relying on the Board ' s decision in the Briggs-Indiana Corporation case .' However , contrary to the situation in that case, the Petitioner's contract contains no promise , express or implied, that the Petitioner will re- frain from seeking to represent the employees involved herein. Accordingly, we find that the current contract between the Petitioner and the Employer does not bar apresent determina- tion of representatives.6 We find that a question affecting commerce exists concerning the representation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 4. As previously mentioned , the Petitioner seeks to sever a unit of all professional employees in the classifications of inspection, field, and industrial engineer at the Employer's Whiting refinery from a unit of production and maintenance employees presently represented by the Intervenor. The Pe- titioner would represent these employees either as part of its existing unit of professional employees or as a separate unit. The Intervenor contends that the unit is inappropriate on the grounds that ( 1) the employees sought are not professional employees, and (2) the proposed unit does not include all the professional employees presently employed at Whiting who are unrepresented . The Employer agrees with the Petitioner that the employees sought are professional employees andmay be properly added to the unit presently represented by the Petitioner. The Employer, with its central offices located in Chicago, Illinois , is engaged in the manufacture, processing , and dis- tribution of petroleum and its related products. The Employer 3In 1943, when the Petitioner filed its petition seeking a unit of professional employees, there was a controversy pending between the Intervenor and the Employer as to whether the inspection engineers and field engineers were exempt employees under the Wage and Hour Act. In an effort to resolve the representation question, without prejudicing the position of the parties in the. Wage and Hour controversy, the Petitioner agreed to forego its claim to the inspection engineers and field engineers. 4The present contract between the Employer and the Intervenor, containing a 90-day auto- matic renewal clause, is effective to March 1, 1954, and is not urged as a bar to the instant petition. 5 63 NLRB 1270. 6United States Gypsum Company, 107 NLRB 122; Chase Brass Rc Copper Co., Incorporated, 102 NLRB 62; Western Gear Works, 98 NLRB 80; Bingham-Herbrand Corporation, 97 NLRB 65; Martin-Parry Corporation, 95 NLRB 1506. 1 526 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD operates five refineries throughout the United States. The Employer's refinery located at Whiting, Indiana,is the only plant involved herein. The Whiting operations are under the general direction of a plant manager and general superintendent who coordinate the activities of 14 various divisions within the refinery.7 The inspection engineers are employed in the inspection depart- ment of the Whiting engineering division under the general supervision of the head inspection engineer and his assist- ants who, in turn, are responsible to the chief of the engineer- ing division. The field engineers are employed in the construc- tion department of the engineering division under the general supervision of the head construction engineer and his assistants who, in turn, are responsible to the chief of the engineering division. The industrial engineer is employed in the industrial engineering department, 1 of the 14 administrative divisions, and is responsible to an assistant general superintendent. There are approximately 8,300 employees presently em- ployed at the Whiting refinery. About 400 of these employees are represented by the Petitioner in its professional unit and the remainder are represented by the Intervenor. As previously stated, the approximately 86 employees involved herein have been represented as a part of the Intervenor's unit. The duties of these employees are as follows: Approximately 80 inspection engineers at Whiting are en- gaged in the maintenance-inspection of plant equipment such as fluid catalytic crackers, hydroformers, piping, and tanks. They find and report the amount of wear to the equipment due to erosion and corrosion. They also inspect new construction to see that it meets specified standards for the technical processes of the refinery. Their inspections are accomplished by metallurgical examinations , involving visual inspection, Zyglo and Magnaflux tests, and electronic tests. They prepare detailed technical reports to show the results of their findings and, if necessary, recommend, on the basis of their findings, the replacement of defective equipment. An individual hired as an inspection engineer is required by the Employer to have a Bachelor of Science degree in engineering or a high school diploma and 5 years of engi- neering experience. Since 1945 the Employer has hired approx- imately 315 new employees as inspection engineers at Whiting, all of whom held Bachelor of Science degrees. Approximately 13 of the inspection engineers presently employed at Whiting transferred to their present positions from other jobs at the refinery. These employees do not hold 7 The 14 divisions at the Whiting refinery are as follows: Accounting division, engineering division, mechanical division, utilities and conversation division, asphalt division, heavy oils division, industrial engineering department, light oils division, transportation division, projects division, fire protection department, industrial relations division, marine and filling rack division, and medical department. STANDARD OIL COMPANY 1527 a Bachelor of Science degree but are high school graduates with engineering experience. Six of these thirteen inspection engineers are qualified to perform only part of the duties of the other inspection engi- neers . Their duties are limited to the inspection of less critical types of plant equipment , such as stanchions , stair- ways, and buildings. They also testplant areas for the presence of toxic and explosive gas fumes as well as assisting other inspection engineers . These six do not inspect complicated equipment nor do they perform any electronic metallurgical tests. After about 1 i years, an employee classified as an inspection engineer is eligible to be promoted to an assistant staff engi- neer in various other departments of the Whiting engineering division . The assistant staff engineers are presently repre- sented by the Petitioner in its professional unit . During the past 5 years, approximately 100 inspection engineers have been promoted to assistant staff engineer or supervisory positions. Approximately five field engineers are employed in the construction department of the engineering division at Whiting. They are primarily engaged in surveying operations , as well as preparing surveyors ' reports and sketches for the location of new refinery equipment , roads, and railroad tracks. In addition to the above duties, they are engaged in the inspection of sewers and sewer flow, the monorail system , and the measuring of coke piles to determine , by geometric calculation, the quantity of coke on hand at Whiting. Like the inspection engineers , the field engineers are re- quired to have a Bachelor of Science degree in engineering or a high school diploma with 5 years ' experience in engi- neering. Since 1945 no field engineers without engineering degrees have been employed at the Whiting refinery. Like the inspection engineers , the field engineers are eligible for promotion to assistant staff engineer or supervisory positions. One industrial engineer is presently employed at Whiting. He is required to have 4 years of college training and 3 years of industrial engineering experience , although 2 years' ex- perience may be substituted for 1 year of college . He estab- lished wage-incentive plans, job standards, and procedures for determining wage costs . He also establishes standards to be applied by the time-study employees at Whiting and analyzes data acquired by them. In view of the foregoing , we find that inspection , field, and industrial engineers are professional employees within the meaning of Section 2 ( 12) of the Act.8 8Potomac Electric Power Company, - 99 NLRB 219; Westinghouse Electric Corporation, 89 NLRB 8; Union Electric Power Company, 83 NLRB 872. Consideration of the Intervenor's offer to prove that the Wage and Flour Division had classified such employees as nonpro- fessional would not affect our ultimate decision herein See The Austin Company 77 NLRB 938; cf. Standard Oil Company of Indiana, 77 NLRB 504. 1528 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Although six of the inspection engineers do not perform all the duties of their classification and perform work of a more routine nature , they are highly skilled technicians and as such, and in accord with established precedent , they may appro- priately be included with the professional employees involved herein.' The Intervenor further contends that the unit sought is in- appropriate because the Petitioner has not included 2 groups of admittedly professional employees employed at the Whiting refinery. These 2 groups are the nurses and research engi- neers. The nurses are employed intherefinerymedicaldepartment. From 1937 to 1948 they had been represented by the Intervenor as a part of its unit . On January 4, 1949, pursuant to a Board- directed election in Case No . 13-RD-1310 the Intervenor was decertified as representative of the nurses . In its Decision and Direction of Election the Board did not determine the professional status of the nurses but recognized that they had different training , skills, duties , and interests from those of the other categories of employees represented by the Inter- venor . The Board reiterated the principle that it has con- sistently excluded nurses from units composed of production and maintenance employees , and other units of technical em- ployees, or units of technical and clerical employees. Even assuming, without deciding, that the nurses are professional employees, we do not believe that their duties and training are so similar to that of the other employees here sought to require that they be included in the same unit. The Research Engineer On November 7, 1952, pursuant to a consent election in Case 13-RD-154, Local 108 of the Central States Petroleum Union was decertified as bargaining representative for the research engineers at the Chicago plant . Approximately 40 research engineers were moved from the Employer's Chicago plant to the Whiting refinery about 4 months prior to the hearing (December 15 - 16) in the instant proceedings . The research engineers occupy a separate wing at the Whiting refinery and do not go throughout the refinery in performing their duties, as do the other employees involved herein . They report directly to the Employer ' s Chicago offices and have no imme- diate supervision at Whiting . There is no interchange or transfer between the research engineers and employees in- volved herein or between any other employees in the various divisions at the Whiting refinery. There is no evidence in the record as to their training , education , or duties. Under all these circumstances , we will not include the nurses and research engineers in the voting group herein- after established. 9 Federal Telecommunications Laboratories, Inc., 92 NLRB 1395. 10 80 NLRB 1022. TAYSTEE BREAD COMPANY 1529 As already stated, there is an established line of progres- sion from the positions of field engineer and inspection engi- neer to the position' of assistant staff engineer . Assistant staff engineers are currently represented by the Petitioner as part of its professional unit . We find, therefore , that the employees herein sought by the Petitioner may be properly included in the existing professional unit. We shall direct an election by secret ballot in the following voting group: All inspection engineers , field engineers , and industrial engineers at the Employer's Whiting refinery, but excluding nurses, research engineers in the engineering research de- partment, . all other employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. If a-majority of 'the employees in this voting group vote for the Petitioner, they will be taken to have indicated their de- sire to join the employees in the existing professional unit. The Petitioner may bargain for them as part of such unit, and the Regional Director is instructed to issue a certificate of results to that effect. If, however, a majority vote for the Intervenor, they will be taken to have indicated a desire to remain a part of the Intervenor's existing unit, and the Re- gional Director is instructed to issue a certification of results of election to that effect. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] Member Beeson took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Direction of Election. AMERICAN BAKERIES COMPANY, d/b/a TAYSTEE BREAD COMPANY and UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS AND JOINERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL NO. 345, AFL, Peti- tioner . Case No . 32-RC-661. March 11, 1954 DECISION AND ORDEh Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Anthony J. Sabella, 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 em- ployees of the Employer.' 1Bakery and Confectionery Workers Union, Local 149, AFL, herein termed the intervenor, was granted permission to intervene at the hearing. 107 NLRB No. 314. Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation