Sunray Oil Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 26, 1948

76 N.L.R.B. 970 (N.L.R.B. 1948)

In the Matter of SUNRAY OIL CORPORATION , EMPLOYER and INTER-
NATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS , AFL, PETITIONER
Case No. 16E-R-23.-Decided March 26, 1948
Messrs. F. A. BoDovitz and Paul E. Talia f erro, of Tulsa, Okla.,
for the Employer.
Mr. B. E. Tiller, of Midland, Tex., for the Petitioner.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed, hearing in this case was held at Fort
Worth, Texas, on January 29, 1948, before Elmer Davis, hearing
officer. At the hearing, the Employer moved to dismiss the petition
primarily upon the alleged ground that the Petitioner no longer
represents the current representative interest of the Employer's em-
ployees. For reasons hereinafter discussed, the motion is denied.
The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from preju-
dicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in the case, the National Labor Relations
Board 1 makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
The Sunray Oil Corporation, a Delaware corporation, with its
principal office at Tulsa, Oklahoma, is engaged in the petroleum busi-
ness , including refining, pipe line, and production operations in the
various States. The Employer's North and West Texas Division,
with headquarters at Fort Worth, Texas, is the only one involved
herein. During 1946, the Employer produced crude oil in the North
and West Texas Division in the amount of 1,548,309 barrels. The
oil thus produced was sold to nine different refining or pipe line
1 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-man panel consisting of the undersigned
Board Members [ Chairman Herzog and Members Reynolds and Houston].
76 N. L. R. B., No. 137.
970
SUNRAY OIL CORPORATION 971
companies, one of whom, the Humble Oil and Refining Company, has
been found by the Board to be engaged in interstate commerce.2
Other purchasers also transported this oil outside the State of Texas
for refining or other purposes.
Contrary to the contention of the Employer, we find that it is
engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor
Relations Act.3
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Petitioner is a labor organization, claiming to represent em-
ployees of the Employer.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
On June 23, 1947, the Petitioner requested recognition from the
Employer as bargaining representative of certain of its employees.
The Employer refuses to recognize the Petitioner until certified by
the Board in an appropriate unit.
The Employer moved to dismiss the proceeding on the ground that
although the petition was filed on June 26, 1947, no hearing was held
until January 29, 1948. It contends that during this 7-month interval,
the situation with respect to the Petitioner's representation interest
has changed materially, rendering the Petitioner unrepresentative of
the present desires of the employees. The question of whether or not
a petitioner has made a sufficient prima facie showing of interest is
an administrative matter, and is not subject to direct or collateral
attack by any of the parties 4 The employees' present desires will
be disclosed by the results of an election.
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.
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
We find, in accordance with the agreement of the parties, that all
employees in the production department of the North and West Texas
Division of the Employer, including gang pushers, truck drivers,
mechanics, pumpers, and roustabouts, but excluding field clerks, engi-
neers, farm bosses, head roustabouts and all other supervisors as
defined by the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of
collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
2 See Matter of Humble Oil d Refining Company, 53 N. L. R. B. 116.
3 See Matter of James C. Elias, 72 N. L. R. B. 474; Matter of Pa8otew Pipe Line Com-
pany, 65 N. L. R. B. 819.
'Matter of Ameracan National Bank and Trust Company of Chicago, 71 N. L. R. B. 503 ;
Matter of Davis Lumber Company , Inc., 75 N. L. R. B. 851.
972 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining with Sunray Oil Corporation, Tulsa,
Oklahoma, 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 Sixteenth Region, and subject to Sections 203.61 and 203.62 of
National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 5,
among the employees in the unit found appropriate in Section IV,
above, who were employed during the pay-roll period immediately pre-
ceding 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, but excluding those employees who have since quit
or been discharged for cause and have not been rehired or reinstated
prior to the date of the election, and also excluding employees on strike
who are not entitled to reinstatement, to determine whether or not they
desire to be represented by International Union of Operating En-
gineers, AFL, for the purposes of collective bargaining.