Standard Oil Co. of Texas

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 23, 1947

74 N.L.R.B. 615 (N.L.R.B. 1947)

In the Matter of STANDARD OIL COMPANY OF TEXAS, EMPLOYER and
INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS, LOCAL 552, AFL,
PETITIONER
Case No. 16-E-R-8.-Decided July 23, 1947
Mr. J. F. Hulse, of El Paso, Tex., for the Employer.
Mr. B. E. Tiller, of Midland, Tex., for the Petitioner.
Mr. Emil C. Farkas, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
Upon a petition duly filed, the National Labor Relations Board
conducted a prehearing election, between the dates of May 18, 1947,
and May 23, 1947, among employees of the Employer in the alleged
appropriate unit, to determine whether or not they desired to be repre-
sented by the Petitioner for the purposes of collective bargaining.
At the close of the election, a Tally of Ballots was furnished the
parties. The Tally shows that of the approximately seven eligible
voters, all cast ballots, of which four were for the Petitioner, two were
against the Petitioner, and one ballot was challenged.
Thereafter, a hearing was held at El Paso, Texas, on May 23, 1947,
before George A. Yager, 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 the case, the National Labor Relations
Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
Standard Oil Company of Texas, a Delaware corporation, is engaged
in the processing and sale of petroleum products consisting principally
of gasolines, fuel oils, and distillates. The Employer's main office and
refinery are located in El Paso, Texas. During the 6-month period
ending December 1946, the Employer purchased 2,702,102 barrels of
crude oil within the State of Texas. During the same period the
74 N. L. R. B., No. 120. 615
616 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Employer 's shipments of finished products totaled 2 ,675,082 barrels,
of which approximately 33.8 percent represented shipments to points
outside the State. We are herein concerned with the sales department
for the Texas and New Mexico Districts of the Employer's operations.
The Employer admits and we find that it is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
11. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Petitioner is a labor organization affiliated with the American
Federation of Labor, claiming to represent employees of the Employer.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The Employer refuses to recognize the Petitioner as the exclusive
bargaining representative of employees of the Employer until the Pe-
titioner has been certified by the Board in an appropriate unit.
We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning the
representation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of
.Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
IV. TIIE APPROPRIATE UNIT
The Petitioner requests a unit composed of all employees in the
sales maintenance department for the Texas and New Mexico Districts
of the Employer, excluding clerical, administrative, and technical
.employees and all supervisory personnel. The Employer, however,
objects to the proposed unit and urges a unit of all employees within
the sales department, of which the sales and maintenance department
is a part.
The record discloses that the employees, whom the Petitioner desires,
are skilled workers engaged in the maintenance and repair of equip-
ment at the Employer's retail outlets and wholesale plants, and that
the remainder of the employees in the sales department consist, for
the most part, of retail or wholesale salesmen, some of whom are em-
ployecl in the Employer's retail service stations, others in soliciting
orders, and still others as truck driver salesmen. The duties of the
requested employees consist of the installation, construction, and re-
pair of gasoline pumps and tanks, electric motors, air compressors,
hydraulic hoists and lubricating oil dispensers. They are the only
employees in the Employer's sales department who perform mechani-
cal and maintenance duties; their functions are not interchangeable
with those of other employees in the sales department; and they are
under the separate supervision of the sales maintenance supervisor.
From the foregoing facts and upon the basis of the entire record, we
STANDARD OIL COMPANY OF TEXAS 617
:are of the opinion that the sales maintenance employees comprise an
identifiable, homogeneous group having substantially different duties
and interests from those of the other employees in the Employer's
sales department and that they may function together for collective
-bargaining purposes.
We find that all employees in the sales maintenance department for
the Texas and New Mexico Districts of the Employer, excluding cleri-
,cal, administrative, and technical employees, and all supervisory
employees, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective
.bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
V. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
The results of the election held before the hearing show that the
Petitioner has received a majority of the valid votes cast irrespective
of the counting of the challenged ballot.' Under -these circumstances,
we shall certify the Petitioner as the exclusive bargaining represent-
ative of all the employees in the appropriate unit.
IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that International Union of Operating En-
gineers, Local 552, AFL, has been designated and selected by a ma-
jority of all sales maintenance employees for the Texas and New Mex-
ico Districts of Standard Oil Company of Texas, El Paso, Texas, ex-
cluding clerical, administrative, and technical employees, and all
supervisory employees, as their representative for the purposes of col-
lective bargaining and that pursuant to Section 9 (a) of the Act, the
aforesaid organization is the exclusive representative of all such em-
ployees for the purposes of collective bargaining with respect to rates
of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of em-
ployment.
1 No testimony was adduced at the healing with respect to the challenged ballot. In any
event, a determination as to whether the challenged ballot should be opened and counted
is unnecessary because it is insufficient to affect the results of the election.