Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 22, 1945

61 N.L.R.B. 1344 (N.L.R.B. 1945)

In the Matter Of STANDARD OIL COMPANY OF NEW JERSEY (LOUISIANA
DIVISION) and INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORK-
ERS, LOCAL UNION 767, AFFILIATED WITH AMERICAN FEDERATION OF
LABOR
Case No. 15-R-1235 .-Decided May V,1945
Messrs. Cecil Morgan and A. M. Curtis, of Baton Rouge, La., and
Mr. C. H . Tuttle , of New York City, for the Company.
Mr. W . T. McCain, of Colfax, La., and Mr. J. D. Parker , of Baton
Rouge, La., for the I. B. E. W.
Messrs. Clifford A. Neames, Charles Chavers, and L. F. Thomas, of
Baton Rouge, La., and Mr. Carew V. Sullivan , of Greenwell Springs,
La., for the Association.
Mr. A. Sumner Lawrence , of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a petition duly filed by International Brotherhood of Elec-
trical Workers, Local Union 767, affiliated with the American Feder-
ation of Labor, herein called the I. B. E. W., alleging that a question
affecting commerce had arisen concerning the representation of em-
ployees of Standard Oil Company of New Jersey, (Louisiana Divi-
sion), Baton Rouge, Louisiana, herein called the Company,' the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board provided for an appropriate hearing
upon due notice before LeRoy Marceau, Trial Examiner. Said hear-
ing was held at Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on March 14, 15, and 16, 1945.
The Company, the I. B. E. W., and Standard Oil Employees' Associa-
tion, Independent, herein called the Association, appeared and par-
ticipated. All parties were afforded full opportunity to be heard,
to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence
bearing on the issues. The Trial Examiner's rulings made at the
hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. The
' The Company which was described in the petition as Standard Oil Company of Louisi-
ana, was subsequently merged with the Standard Oil Company of New Jersey as the
Louisiana Division of the latter corporation The petition has accordingly been amended
to indicate the present name and status of the Company as the result of the said merger.
61 N. L. R. B. No. 217.
1344
STANDARD OIL COMPANY OF NEW JERSEY 1345
Company's motion to dismiss and the Association's motion to dismiss
are hereby denied for reasons hereinafter stated. All parties were
afforded an opportunity to file briefs with the Board.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
Standard Oil Company of New Jersey, a Delaware corporation, has
its principal office in New York City. The Louisiana Division of the
Company operates an oil refinery at Baton Rouge, Louisiana, the only
plant involved in these proceedings. During the year 1944, the Louisi-
ana Division of the Company refined approximately 135,000 barrels
of crude oil per day, of which approximately 13,500 barrels were re-
ceived from States other than the State of Louisiana. During the
same period, approximately 12,000 barrels of selected polymer were
shipped to the Baton Rouge refinery from points outside the State of
Louisiana for further manufacture. The refinery processes such
crude oil into 100 octane gasoline and other miscellaneous petroleum
products, of which more than 50 percent is sold and transported to
points outside the State of Louisiana. Approximately two-thirds of
the total production of the refinery during the year 1944 was devoted
to the national war effort.
The Company admits that it is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
H. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union 767,
affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, is a labor organiza-
tion admitting to membership employees of the company.
Standard Oil Employees' Association (Independent) is a, labor
organization admitting to membership employees of the Company.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
On or about September 9, 1944, the I. B. E. W. requested in writing
that the Company recognize it as the exclusive bargaining representa-
tive for certain of the Company's employees at its Baton Rouge refinery
and thereafter filed a petition for an investigation and certification of
representatives. The Company replied that it would defer action on
the request of the I. B. E. W. pending a determination of the proceed-
ings initiated by the filing of the petition.
A statement of the Trial Examiner, introduced into evidence at the
hearing, indicates that the I. B. E. W. and the Association each repre-
1346 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
sents a substantial number of employees in the unit hereinafter found
appropriated.2
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 DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
The I. B. E. W. seeks a craft unit of electrical employees coextensive
with the Company's electrical department, but excluding laborers
therein. The Company and the Association, while not opposing the
general character of the unit sought,' contend that the claimed unit
is inappropriate by reason of the Company's history of collective bar-
gaining upon a plant-wide basis 4
The Company's history of collective bargaining dates from June 26,
1937, when the Association and the Company, then known as the
Standard Oil Company of Louisiana, executed an exclusive bargaining
agreement covering, with certain exceptions not relevant to the present
case, all employees in the manufacturing department of the Baton
Rouge refinery.' This contract was replaced on June 20, 1942, by a
new contract between the Company and the Association in substan-
tially the same form with a provision for yearly automatic renewal
after November 1, 1943. There is no contention that this contract
is a bar to the present proceeding. In its operations under the con-
tract, the Association has established a council of 56 members, 1 from
each group of employees, for the purpose of handling all grievances
that may arise from any of the groups represented by the council.
The Association has also successfully initiated proceedings before the
National War Labor Board for a general increase in wages for 411
employees covered by its contract with the Company.
So far as the relationship of electrical department employees to the
Association is concerned, the record discloses that, following the or-
ganization by the I. B. E. W. of employees in the electrical department
in 1937, the I. B. E. W. requested recognition from the Company as
bargaining representative for the electrical group. The Company,
however, declined to recognize the I. B. E. W. because of its existing
'The Trial Examiner reported that the I B E. W. and the Association had submitted
61 and 71 authorizations, respectively , out of a total of 133 employees whose names appear
on the pay roll of march 12, 1945, in the unit claimed by the I. B. E. W.
3 The only dispute as to the classifications for inclusion within the electrical group con-
cerns the category of subforemen whom the Company and the Association contend should
be excluded as supervisory employees
4 The Company also contends that the unit is inappropriate because of the failure of the
I B E W to include therein certain employees who perform work of an electrical nature
in departments other than the electrical department.
5 The Company ' s contract with the Association followed the recognition by the Company
of the Association as bargaining representative upon the latter 's presentation of evidence
that it represented a majority of the Company 's employees.
STANDARD OIL COMPANY OF NEW JERSEY 1347
contract with the Association. The I. B. E. W. members thereafter
joined the Association and were successful in electing to the council
from the electrical group, employee representatives who were very
active and favorable to the I. B. E. W. The relationship thus estab-
lished remained satisfactory until the latter part of 1940 when mem-
bership among the electrical workers in the Association declined and
the Association by notice dated October 31, 1940, suspended the elec-
trical department representative from the council of the Association.
During the period from October 31, 1940, to July 16,1943, when certain
electrical employees who were members of the Association informally
selected a representative to the Association council, there was no rep-
resentative on the council from the electrical department to handle
the grievances of electrical employees .6 On July 16, 1943, upon the
resumption of relations between the Association and the electrical
department through the informal appointment of a representative to
the Association council, a question arose with respect to the authority
of such appointee to represent the electrical department employees.
During July or August of 1943, the I. B. E. W. procured the signa-
tures of 112 employees in the electrical group to a petition stating that
they did not consider the council member thus selected as authorized
to represent the electrical department. On August 9, 1943, the
I. B. E. W. wrote to the Company enclosing this petition. Shortly
thereafter, a committee from the I. B. E. W. called on the general
manager of the Company, discussed the petition, and demanded
recognition. The Company stated that it could not grant recognition
because of its contract with the Association, but that it would be glad
to accept personal grievances. In the course of several conferences
on this subject, the general manager suggested that the I. B. E. W.
might be able to work out an agreement with the Association.
Pursuant to this suggestion, the I. B. E. W. communicated with the
Association and reached an oral agreement under which the I. B. E. W.
would nominate a candidate and the Association would then appoint
him as member of the council to represent the electrical group. The
agreement thus made became effective on November 27, 1943, with the
nomination of a representative selected by the I. B. E. W. and continued
until June 15, 1944, when the Association permitted a representative
of the electrical group to be elected by members of the Association
without the prior approval, of the I. B. E. W. This development re-
sulted in attempts on the part of 13 electrical department employees
to have the check-off of their dues to the Association discontinued,
together with another demand by the I. B. E. W. that the Company
recognize it as bargaining representative for electrical employees and
6 In the absence of a representative from the electrical department , the officers of the
Association undertook to handle grievances which might arise in the electrical group. So
far as appears , however, only one grievance was handled during this period.
1348 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the filing of the present petition for investigation and certification of
representatives.
The Company and the Association contend that the foregoing his-
tory of relations between the Association and the employees of the
electrical department establishes conclusively the acquiescence of the
electrical employees in a course of bargaining conducted on a plant-
wide basis through the agency of the Association. The record dis-
closes, however, that while electrical department employees have on
two different occasions cooperated with and participated in the collec-
tive bargaining procedure of the Association, the electrical depart-
ment employees have throughout the period from 1937 down to and
including the date of the filing of the petition, maintained their iden-
tity as a group, which identity has been recognized by both the Com-
pany and the Association, not only in the preservation of a separate
department for electrical employees, but also in the oral agreement
between the I. B. E. W. and the Association, which in effect gave to
employees of the electrical department the status of an autonomous
group within the framework of the Association.7 Moreover, it appears
that since the latter part of 1940 when, subsequent to their becoming
members of the Association, the electrical department employees first
indicated their dissatisfaction with the Association and began to with-
draw therefrom, the employees of the electrical department have gen-
erally refrained from using the Association for the settlement of
grievances which have been largely handled on an individual basis
with the aid of I. B. E. W. representatives.8 Further, the electrical
employees have protested against inclusion in a more comprehensive
unit without provision for maintaining their rights to self-represen-
tation, and have sought on numerous occasions to be represented by
their own craft organization.
While we have held in certain instances that, where members of a
craft merge their identity in a plant-wide unit and participate vol-
untarily in the benefits of collective bargaining upon a broader basis,
they will not thereafter be awarded the right of separate representa-
tion," we have also recognized the inherent right to self-determination
on the part of craft employees who have maintained their group iden-
tity and have protested inclusion in the larger unit, particularly where
'See Matter of Symington Gould Corporation , 53 N. L. R . B. 552 at 555 , where the
Board considered among other factors warranting the severance of a craft group, the fact
that the Company and the contracting union had in effect recognized that the craft em-
ployees constituted a group separate and apart from the other production and maintenance
employees.
8 The activity of the Association in the handling of grievances for employees of the
electrical department in recent months has for the most part been confined to the period
following the filing of the present petition
8 See Matter of American Can Company , 13 N L . R B 1252; Matter of The Procter and
Gamble Manufacturing Company, 52 N. L R B . 661 ; Matter of Harnischfeger Corporation,
55 N L . R. B 1176 , Matter of Brewer Dry Dock Company , 56 N. L. it. B. 973; and Matter
of York Corporation, 61 N. L. R. B. 462.
STANDARD OIL COMPANY OF NEW JERSEY 1349
no consideration was given to the merits of a separate craft unit on
the occasion of the establishment of plant-wide bargaining relations 10
Under the circumstances of the present case, we are of the opinion that
the bargaining history of the Company is not determinative of the
present issue and that the electrical employees herein concerned have
not, by their actions during the period covered by the bargaining
history aforesaid, forfeited any right that they may have had to sepa-
rate representation by their own craft organization for the purposes
of collective bargaining." Accordingly, we find that electrical em-
ployees may constitute a separate bargaining unit or be included in
the existing comprehensive unit. Therefore, before making a final
determination with respect to the appropriate unit, we shall first ascer-
tain the desires of the employees themselves, as reflected by an elec-
tion. Upon the results of the election will depend in part our deter-
mination with respect to the appropriate unit'
There remains for consideration the question as to whether the
employees of the electrical department constitute by themselves a
recognizable craft group apart from employees who, it is alleged,
perform electrical work in other departments of the Company, to-
gether with the question as to the inclusion or exclusion of subforemen.
With respect to the question concerning the character of the elec-
trical department group as recognizable craft unit, the Company con-
tends that the electrical department does not constitute a proper basis
for a craft unit by reason of the fact that it does not include all em-
ployees whose work is of an electrical nature. In support of its con-
tention, the Company urges that certain employees with electrical
training in the powerhouse and instrument departments should be
included within a craft unit of electrical employees. The record indi-
cates, however, that not only do the so-called electrical employees in
the powerhouse and instrument departments have nonelectrical
classifications, but also that the instrument department employees are
required to have knowledge of refinery operations beyond that needed
by the electrical department employees in the performance of electrical
maintenance work. It is admitted by the Company that the reason
why electrical department employees are maintained in a separate
department and under separate supervision is that they perform a
type of work which is not similar to that of any other group; and that
the work of the instrument department is very diversified and is per-
10 See Matter of Bendix Products Division of Bendix Aviation , 39 N. L R. B . 81 ; Matter
of Tampa Florida Brewery , Inc, 42 N. L. R. B 642; Matter of Aluminum company o`
America, 42 N. L It. B 772 ; Matter of Westinghouse Electric & Manufacturing Company,
Louisville Ordnance Division, 49 N L. It . B 445 ; Matter of Santa Cruz Portland Cement
Company, 52 N L R B 444, Matter of Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, 55 N L It. B
918, Matter of General Electric Company (Lynn River Works and Everett Plant), 58
N L R B 57, Matter of Moore Drop Forging Company, 60 N L It. B 494.
11 See Matter of General Electric Company (Lynn River Works and Everett Plant), 58
N. L. It. B. 57 ; Matter of Phelps Dodge Corporation , 60 N. L It. B. 1431.
1350 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
formed both by employees with electrical training and by employees
identified with other crafts 12 Under these circumstances, we find
that the electrical department employees in electrical classifications
are sufficiently identifiable as members of a distinct craft to warrant
the severance of such group apart from employees who perform elec-
trical work of a different type in other departments of the Company.
With regard to the question of including or excluding subforemen
from the group of electrical department employees, it appears from
the testimony of numerous witnesses in a position to know the extent
of the authority and responsibilities of subforemen, that such em-
ployees have authority to make effective recommendations as to the
status of employees under their supervision; that they approve em-
ployees sent to them by the head of the department; that they handle
grievances for employees under their immediate supervision and also
attend conferences where management problems are discussed and in-
structions given with respect thereto. We find that subforemen are
supervisory employees within the meaning of our usual definition. We
shall, accordingly, exclude them from the group of electrical depart-
ment employees among whom an election is to be hereinafter directed.
We shall direct that an election by secret ballot be conducted among
all employees in electrical classifications and helpers in the electrical
department of the Company at its Baton Rouge refinery, excluding
laborers, the general foreman, the assistant general foreman, subfore-
men and any other supervisory employees with authority to hire, pro-
mote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status
of employees, or otherwise effectively recommend such action, who
were employed during the pay-roll period immediately preceding the
date of the Direction of Election, subject to the limitations and addi-
tions set forth therein, to determine whether they desire to be repre-
sented by the I. B. E. W. or the Association. If a majority of the
employees in this voting group select the I. B. E. W. as their bargain-
ing representative, they will have thereby indicated their desire to
constitute a separate appropriate unit. If, however, a majority of
these employees choose the Association, then they will have thereby
indicated their desire to be part of the established unit presently rep-
resented by that organization.
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 3, as amended, it is hereby
'-'A witness for the Company testified that the Company 's goal was to make the work
of the instrument department a separate craft.
STANDARD OIL COMPANY OF NEW JERSEY 1351
DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation to ascertain representa-
tives for the purposes of collective bargaining with Standard Oil
Company of New Jersey (Louisiana Division), Baton Rouge, Louisi-
ana, an election by secret ballot shall be conducted as early as possible,
but not later than thirty (30) days from the date of this Direction;
under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the
Fifteenth Region, acting in this matter as agent for the National Labor
Relations Board, and subject to Article III, Sections 10 and 11, of said
Rules and Regulations, among the employees in the voting group set
forth 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 em-
ployees in the armed forces of the United States who present them-
selves in person at the polls, but excluding any who have since quit or
been discharged for cause and have not been rehired or reinstated prior
to the date of the election, to determine whether they desire to be
represented by International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers,
Local Union 767, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor,
or by Standard Oil Employees Association (Independent), for the
purposes of collective bargaining, or by neither.
Mx. JOHN M. HouSTON took no part in the consideration of the
above Decision and Direction of Election.