Standard Oil Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 20, 1957

118 N.L.R.B. 1099 (N.L.R.B. 1957)

STANDARD OIL COMPANY 1099
conclusion that, despite the geographical separation which exists
between the stores in San Diego and Bakersfield and those in greater
Los Angeles, the only appropriate unit for the employees involved is
one encompassing the retail sales employees of all the Employer's
stores in its southern California division 5 In the circumstances, as
the Petitioners' unit requests are too narrow' in scope, we shall grant
the motions of the Employer and the Intervenor to dismiss the
petitions.
[The Board dismissed the petitions.]
s Father c& Son Shoe Stores, Inc., supra ; Food Fair Stores, Inc., 114 NLRB 521.
Standard Oil Company and Local 483, International Brotherhood
of Boilermakers, Iron Shipbuilders, Blacksmiths, Forgers and
Helpers, AFL-CIO and Local 338, International Hod Carriers,'
Building and Common Laborers Union of America , AFL-CIO,
Petitioners. Cases Nos. 14-RC-3.118, 14 RC,-3120, and 14-RC-
3121. August 20,1957
s
DECISION, DIRECTION OF ELECTION, AND ORDER
Upon separate petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held before
William F. Trent, 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 Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel [Members Rodgers, Bean, and Jenkins].
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 certain
employees of the Employer?
3. A 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.
4. The appropriate unit :
The Employer, an Indiana corporation, is engaged in the produc-
tion, refining, and distribution of petroleum and related products
in various locations throughout the United States. Only its refin-
1 During the hearing, International Hod Carriers moved to withdraw the petition in
Case No. 14-RC-3121, on the ground of "loss of interest" among the employees they sought
to represent . The motion is hereby granted.
9 Central States Petroleum Union , Local 115, the Intervenor herein, intervened on the
basis of a contract covering the employees involved.
118 NLRB No. 148.
1100 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ery at Wood River, Illinois, is involved in these proceedings. The
Intervenor has represented an overall unit of the operating and main-
tenance employees at the Wood River refinery since 1940. The Peti-
tioner seeks, by its petition in Case No. 14-R--3120, to sever from
the existing operating and maintenance unit all rigging department
employees, including journeymen riggers and apprentice riggers. In
Case No. 14-RC-3118, the Petitioner seeks to sever from the existing
operating and maintenance unit all boilermaker department employ-
ees, including journeymen boilermakers, boilermaker apprentices,
boilermaker layerout, and boilermaker machine operator.
The unit request in Case No. 14-RC-3120 is in substance a request
for severance of all employees performing rigging functions in the
rigging department on a craft basis. However, in the alternative, the
Petitioner seeks severance of this group of employees on a depart-
mental basis.
In the past the Board has consistently held that riggers do not
constitute a separate and distinct craft group.' The Petitioner con-
tends, however, that prior Board decisions dealing with riggers are
not applicable to the present situation, as the employees in question
meet all the requirements for craft severance as set forth in the
American Potash case.' In this respect, the Petitioner asserts that
the riggers in question are required to complete a 4-year apprentice-
ship in order -to attain journeyman rigger status; that they have sepa-
rate seniority, separate supervision, perform separate functions, and
that the Petitioner has historically represented riggers. We do not
agree with this contention.
In the first place, the Board has not regarded the mere existence
of an apprenticeship program as sufficient to support a finding that a
particular group of employees constitute a craft.' Secondly, it is
true that the riggers in question are under separate supervision and
have separate seniority. They also perform rigging functions, which
for the most part, are not performed by other employees. However
this is because of the Employer's organizational structure, and is not
a typical arrangement. Thus, riggers usually perform rigging serv-
ices for a particular craft, such as pipefitters and boilermakers, and
are considered part of such craft unit, and are not, as here, grouped
together in a single department. For example at the Shell and Sin-
clair refineries at Wood River, riggers performing boilermaker rig-
ging and pipefitter rigging are included in respective craft units of
boilermakers and pipefitters. Thirdly, although it appears that in
the past the Petitioner has in fact represented riggers, neither the
testimony herein nor our independent experience shows that the Peti-
J See , for example , American Cyanamid Compan y, 110 NLRB 89, 93 ; American Potash &
Chemical Corporation , 107 NLRB 1418.
American Potash & Chemical Corporation , supra.
Gulf Oil Corporation , 108 NLRB 162.
STANDARD OIL COMPANY 1101
tioner or the Boilermakers International has ever represented riggers
in separate units. Lastly, the employees in question do not constitute
a functionally distinct department identified with any traditional
trade. For, as indicated, riggers are not normally grouped together
on a departmental basis, but rather are included in the particular
craft for which they perform their functions.
In view of the foregoing, we find that the unit requested by the
petition in Case No. 14-RC-3120, is appropriate for neither craft
severance nor for severance on a departmental basis.'
As indicated, the Petitioner seeks to sever, in Case No. 14-RC-3118,
all employees in the boilermaker department. The Employer con-
tends that this unit is inappropriate for craft severance because (1)
the employees do not perform welding or rigging functions;' and
therefore do not perform the whole gamut of skills normally asso-
ciated with the boilermaker craft; and (2) because the employees in
question are assigned to work in the central labor pool performing
functions outside the boilermaker department.
As to the Employer's first contention, the record shows that these
employees perform the functions of riveting, chipping, caulking, burn-
ing, bending, rolling, expanding, laying out, shearing, punching, and
flanging on tanks, crude stills, vessels, drums, boilerplate, heat ex-
changers, and furnaces. However, due to the Employer's organiza-
tional structure separate groups of welders and riggers are maintained,
and, as a result, neither the boilermakers nor any other craft group
at the Employer's operation in Wood River perform welding or
rigging operations. The record shows that the employees in the
boilermaker department are required to complete a 4-year apprentice-
ship in order to attain journeyman boilermaker status. During this
time the employees receive on-the-job training and classroom instruc-
tions in mathematics, blueprint reading, and boilermaker techniques
from books and manuals.
Although it is true that the boilermakers do no welding or rigging,
which is normally a function of the boilermaker craft, it is apparent
that they possess and exercise all other skills normally associated with
the boilermaker craft.'
With respect to the Employer's second contention, the record shows
that the Employer maintains a central labor pool, from which all
departments obtain additional help when needed, and to which all
departments assign employees during slack periods and work stop-
9 American Potash , supra.
'All layout work is Performed by one individual in the boilermaker department. In
addition , 5 or 6 employees in that department specialize in operating the machinery located
in the boiler shop,
8 See Sam. Mantel Copper Corporation , 1.1.6 NLRB 11. 53, 1158 ; Stauffer Chemical Corpo-
ration , 113 NLRr.i 1255, 1257 ; Sinclair Rubber, Inc., 96 NLRB 220, 225; Tennessee Copper
Company, 88 NLIIB 1516 , 1518; Mid-Continent Petroleum Corporation , 65 NLRB 113, 115;
Waterman Steamship Corp., 78 NLRB 20, 22 , 23 ; American Smelting & Refining Co., 78
NLRB 75, 76.
1102 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
pages. In this way, employees who normally would be laid off
during slack periods in their respective departments are assigned to the
labor pool and are utilized in some other department during these slack
periods. The record also shows that of the 42 employees in the boiler-
maker department, 12 with the least seniority were assigned to the
labor pool at the close of the payroll period immediately preceding
the filing of the petition on October 19, 1956. At the time of the
hearing, December 17, 1956, three of these employees had been reas-
signed to the boilermaker department. The record further shows that
during the 6-week period immediately preceding the filing of the peti-
tion, the number of boilermakers assigned to the labor pool during each
week ranged from 7 to 11.
It thus appears that a small number of the boilermakers in question
are from time to time assigned to the labor pool and perform func-
tions outside the boilermaker department. However, as these assign-
ments result from decreases in work, are temporary in nature , and are
not considered a part of their routine duties , under the circumstances,
we do not deem this arrangement a sufficient basis for denying craft
severance to an otherwise true craft group?
Under the circumstances , we find that the employees in the boiler-
maker department constitute a craft group, and they may, if they
so desire , constitute a separate unit, notwithstanding their previous
inclusion in a broader unit.
Accordingly, we shall direct an election among all employees em-
ployed in the Employer's boilermaker department at Wood River,
Illinois , including journeyman boilermakers , boilermaker apprentices,
boilermaker layerout, and boilermaker machine operator, but exclud-
ing all other employees and all supervisors as defined in the Act.
5. We shall make no final unit determination at this time , but shall
be guided by the desires of the employees as expressed in the election
hereinafter directed. If a majority vote for the Petitioner, they
will be taken to have indicated their desire to constitute a.separate
appropriate unit, and the Regional Director conducting the election
is instructed to issue a certification of representatives to the Petitioner
for the employees in the group described above, which the Board, in
such circumstances , finds to be appropriate for purposes of collective
bargaining. In the event that a majority do not vote for the Peti-
tioner, these employees shall remain a part of the existing unit and
the Regional Director will issue a certification of results of election
to such effect.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
[The Board dismissed the petition in Case No. 14-RC-3120.]
e See Malliackrodt Chemical Works , 115 NLRP, 730, 733; Sinclair Rubber, Inc., 96 NLRB
220, 223.
STANDARD OIL COMPANY 1103
MEMBER BEAN, concurring in part and dissenting in part :
I agree with the holding that the riggers at this plant are not, as
claimed by the Petitioner, craftsmen, but I would also deny this
Union's request for severance of the boilermaker group. As appears
clearly from the record, the limited skills which they possess and
exercise fall far short of the craft severance requirements set out in
the American Potash guide decision.
Of the 42 employees in the group at the time of the hearing, only
1, assisted by another, performs all the layout work. The large
machinery of the boiler shop is operated almost exclusively by only
5 or 6 other employees out of the entire group. All of the remaining
employees receive some training in a limited number of the regular
boilermaker craft skills, but, at work, each of them utilizes only a
fraction of the limited abilities so required. This is due to the fact
that the operation and maintenance of this refinery is such an intricate
process that the work of many of the employees is highly specialized
and repetitive. And two of the most important types of work tra-
ditional to the boilermaker craft-welding and rigging-are not per-
formed, or even learned by these "boilermakers" at all; instead they are
carried out by welders and riggers in entirely different departments.
The Board has only recently stressed its considered judgment that
welding is a highly distinctive and craft-like occupation.10 It follows
that separation of these and others of the boilermaker skills from
the work of the employees here involved, skims the cream off the
top of the craft, to a point where I am reluctant to buy it. And there
is further dilution of what specialty remains to them in the fact that
a substantial number of these boilermakers are regularly assigned
to the common labor pool, where, as needed for other work in other
departments, they are distributed elsewhere throughout the plant.
Of the 42 claimed by the Petitioner as craftsmen, 12 were working
out of the labor pool when the petition was filed, and 9 were still
there at the time of the hearing 3 months later. In turn, as the work
of this department increases, men are drawn as needed from the com-
mon labor pool, and presumably, they are nevertheless sufficiently
skilled to perform the type of boilermaker work done in this
department.
In the American Potash decision, the Board not only stated that
severance would only be granted to a "true craft group ... exercising
genuine craft skills," but expressly announced that the test would be
"rigidly enforced," and that "the requirement will not be relaxed over
a period of time." 11 Unless that period of time has now expired,
the facts set out above do not meet the rigid test of which the Board
spoke. As recognized by the majority opinion in this very case-
10 Hughes Aircraft Company, 117 NLRB 98.
11 American Potash and Chemical Corp ., 107 NLRB 1418, 1423.
1104 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
in that portion which dismisses as to the riggers-a normal appren-
ticeship program, or even the label "journeyman," is not sufficient
to create craftsmen within the Board's definition of the term. Indeed,
denial of a separate bargaining unit to the riggers, who also train
through a 4-year apprenticeship program, are classified in progressive
grades to journeymen status, and exclusively perform specialized and
difficult work, unmistakably illustrates the majority's departure from
the American Potash rule in granting the boilermaker unit.
Because I do not believe this record, as to the boilermaker group,
meets the Board's established craft severance test, and because of the
inconsistency inherent in applying, all in one case, a high-content test
to the riggers and a watered-down one to the boilermakers, I would
dismiss both petitions in this case.
Communications Workers of America, AFL-CIO and its District 8
and its Local Union 8519 and The Mountain States Telephone
and Telegraph Company. Case No. 21-CD-39. August 21, 1957
DECISION AND ORDER
This proceeding arises under Section 10 (k) of the Act, which pro-
vides that "whenever it is charged that any person has engaged in an
unfair labor practice within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (4) (D) of
the Act, the Board is empowered and directed to hear and determine the
dispute out of which such unfair labor practice shall have arisen. . . ."
On March 28,1956, Mountain States Telephone and Telegraph Com-
pany, herein called the Company, filed a charge 1 with the Regional
Director for the Twenty-first Region against Communications Work-
ers of America, AFL-CIO, and its District 8 and its Local Union 8519,
herein called the CWA. The charge alleged that CWA had engaged
in and were engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8 (b) (4) (D) of the Act.
Thereafter, pursuant to Section 10 (k) of the Act and Sections
102.71 and 102.72 of the Board's Rules and Regulations, the Regional
Director investigated the charge and provided for an appropriate
hearing upon due notice to all parties. A hearing was held before
Ernest L. Heimann, hearing officer, from July 24 through July 27,
1956. All parties appeared at the hearing and were afforded full op-
portunity to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to adduce evi-
dence bearing on the issues. The rulings of the hearing officer made
at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
The Company and CWA filed briefs with the Board.
'This original charge was followed by an amended charge filed May 22 , 1956, which
added the Union's District No. 8 and its Local 8519 as additional parties.
118 NLRB No. 154.