Standard Oil Co. of California

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 23, 1936

1 N.L.R.B. 614 (N.L.R.B. 1936)

In the Matter of STANDARD OIL COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA and INTER-
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF OIL FIELD, GAS WELL AND REFINERY
WORKERS OF AMERICA
Case No. XXI-R-3.-Decided April 23, 1936
Oil Refining Industry-Labor Organtzatton : Board will not intervene in inter-
nal affairs of-Amertean Federation of Labor-Jurtsdwetional Dtspute -Unit
Appropriate for Colleeteve Bargaining : Board will not determine where only
question involved is one of internal affairs of labor organization-Petition for
Investigation and Certification of Representatives : denied:
Mr. Stanley S. Surrey, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF CASE
On December 5, 1935, the International Association of Oil Field,
Gas Well and Refinery Workers of America, hereinafter referred
to as the Oil Workers Union, filed a petition with the Regional Di-
rector for the Twenty-first Region, requesting an investigation and
certification of representatives pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the
National Labor Relations Act, approved July 5, 1935. The petition
stated that the Oil Workers Union represented about 700 employees
out of a bargaining unit consisting of all employees engaged at the
El Segundo Refinery, El Segundo, California, of the Standard Oil
Company of California (hereinafter referred to as the Company)
with the exception of office, professional, hospital, laboratory and
supervisory employees; that a company-wide Association, the Stand-
ard Employees Association, claimed to represent the employees in
said unit; that the Oil Workers Union had been unsuccessful in its
attempts to bargain with the Company; and that the above claim of
the Standard Employees Association and the conduct of the Com-
pany gave rise to a question affecting commerce concerning the rep-
resentation of the employees in said unit. The Oil Workers Union
requested that the National Labor Relations Board investigate the
controversy and certify to the parties the name or names of the
representatives that have been designated or selected by said
employees.
After the petition had been 'filed, the Board was advised by the
Regional Director of the following developments in the matter. Sev-
eral unions , upon being informed of the filing of the above petition,
614
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 615
protested against the holding of an election at the El Segundo Re-
finery. These unions were the International Association of Machin-
ists, International Union of Operating Engineers, International
Brotherhood of Firemen and Oilers, International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers, and International Brotherhood of Boiler Makers,
Iron Ship Builders and Helpers. They are joined together in the
Oil Industry Metal Trades Council of Southern California. These
organizations claimed jurisdiction over those employees at the
El Segundo Refinery alleged by them to be eligible for membership
in the respective Unions and consequently denied the jurisdiction of
the Oil Workers Union over such employees. They contended that
if an election were held the choice on the ballot for those employees
should be between the appropriate Union out of the group named
above and the Standard Employees Union, so that the Oil Workers
Union would not appear on such ballots. The Oil Workers Union,
apparently conceding the claim of the Boiler Workers Union, re-
quested permission to amend its petition by adding the "boiler-
workers, welders and helpers" to the list of employees to be excluded
from the bargaining unit. As a result, the Boiler Workers Union
agreed to withdraw it., protest. The remaining four protesting
Unions then proposed a Joint Council, composed of themselves and
the Oil Workers Union, as the candidate to oppose the Standard
Employees Association. This proposal was rejected by the Oil
Workers Union on the ground that these four Unions had no members
employed at the El Segundo Refinery of the Company.' It claimed
that under such circumstances they were not entitled to a place on
the ballot. Conferences conducted by the Regional Director failed
to resolve the deadlock on this point among the several Unions.'
CONCLUSION
The petition in the instant case on its face concerns a controversy
between the Oil Workers Union and the Standard Employees Asso-
ciation as to which represents a majority of the employees at the
El Segundo Refinery of the Company. The former Union is a labor
organization affiliated with the American Federation of Labor.'
However, four other labor organizations, also affiliated with the
American Federation of Labor,4 contest the "jurisdiction" of the Oil
' For the purpose of this decision the Board assumes that the assertion concerning the
total lack of members on the part of the four protesting Unions is supported by the facts.
2 There were in addition several grounds of contention between the Oil Workers Union
and the Company with respect to the geographical limits of the unit and the exclusion of
the groups listed on the original petition
8 Report of the Proceedings of the Fifty-Fifth Annual Convention of the American
Federation of Labor, October 7-19, 1935, at page 33.
4Ibid, at 32-33.
97571-36---vol. 1-40
616 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Workers Union over certain of those employees-the machinists, engi-
neers, electricians, firemen and oilers. These four Unions claim that
under the existing jurisdictional rules of the American Federation
of Labor they, and not the Oil Workers Union, are the labor organi-
zations that are entitled to represent such employees. Under the
National Labor Relations Act, such a controversy would be couched
in the terms of Section 9 (b)-shall the bargaining unit include or
exclude those employees? But in so far as the labor organizations
affiliated with the American Federation of Labor are concerned it is
simply a jurisdictional dispute involving the question of whether such
groups of employees when working in oil fields should be organized
by the American Federation of Labor upon a "craft" basis or upon
a "semi-industrial" basis.
In In the Matter of Brown and Williamson Tobacco Corporation,
decided this day, the Board was concerned with a jurisdictional dis-
pute between the Tobacco Workers' International Union and the
International Association of Machinists involving their opposing
claims to jurisdiction over the machine fixers in tobacco plants. In
that decision the Board discussed at length the nature of jurisdic-
tional disputes. We concluded that this Board should not intervene
in a dispute of that type if an existing labor organization possessed
the authority to render a decision in the matter, since under such
circumstances the dispute related solely to the internal affairs of that
organization. We said :
"Both of the labor organizations involved in the instant cases
are affiliated with the American Federation of Labor and possess
charters from that body. In view of the structure of that body,
the instant controversy is simply a dispute involving the internal
affairs of a labor organization, here the American Federation
of Labor. That dispute resembles the hundreds of other juris-
dictional questions handled by the Federation and it is clearly
of a type which it has power to decide. There thus exists a body
to which these two organizations belong and which has the au-
thority to render a binding decision on the dispute between
them. Under such circumstances, the Board is of the opinion
that it should not intervene in the dispute for the reasons stated
in the Aluminum Company case.
"It is perhaps unnecessary to point out that the internal dis-
pute presented in these cases is merely one of many now exist-
ing within the American Federation of Labor and other or-
ganizations of labor. Some of these disputes, obviously difficult
of solution, are far-reaching and fundamental to the labor
movement; others are small by comparison. But in either case,
it is preferable that in the light of the declared policy of Con-
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 617
gress-'the exercise by workers of full freedom of association,
self-organization and designation of representatives of their
own choosing'-the Board should leave organizations of labor
free to work out their own solutions through the procedure they
themselves have established for that purpose."
The Brown and Williamson decision followed the ruling in In the
Matter of Aluminum Company of America, decided April 10, 1936.
In the latter case the Board held that it would not intervene in a
dispute involving the question of whether the local officers or the
officials of the American Federation of Labor should represent a
Federal labor union in its dealings with the employer.
Since all of the protesting Unions and also the Oil Workers Union
are affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, the decision
of the Board in the Brown and Williamson case is here fully appli-
cable. Consequently, we decline to intervenue in their jurisdictional
controversy. Since it is inadvisable for the Board to proceed with
this case until such controversy is resolved, no formal investigation
and hearing will be ordered under Section 9 (c) of the Act. The
petition will therefore be dismissed without prejudice to its renewal
in accordance with this decision.