The Standard Oil Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 9, 1941

32 N.L.R.B. 437 (N.L.R.B. 1941)

In the Matter of THE STANDARD OIL COMPANY, AN OHIO CORPORATION,
and OIL WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, LOCAL 395 (C. I. 0.)
Case No. R-2518.-Decided June 9, 1941
Jurisdiction : oil refining industry.
Investigation and Certification of Representatives : existence of question:
parties stipulated that,the Company refused to accord the petitioning union
recognition until it is certified by the Board ; election necessary.
Unit Appropriate for Collective Bargaining : production and maintenance em-
ployees at one of the Company's five refineries including stock clerks in the
tool department, the two pipe-line gaugers, and the emulsion plant assistant,
but excluding all other clerical, technical service, and supervisory employees.
McAfee, Grossman, Hanning and Newcomer, by Mr. Maurice F.
Hanning and Mr. Woods McCahill, of Cleveland, Ohio, for the
Company.
Mr. James J. Covey, of Whiting, Ind., Mr. A. J. Peague, of Cleve-
land Ohio, and Mr. Tlcom,as Fairlay, of Cleveland, Ohio, for the
International.
Mr. R. C. Ragan, of Toledo, Ohio, for the Association.
Mr. Edward S'clceunemann, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On March 12, 1941, Oil Workers International Union, Local 395
(C. I. 0.), herein called the International, filed with the Regional
Director for the Eighth Region (Cleveland, Ohio), a petition alleg-
ing that a question affecting commerce had arisen concerning the
representation of the employees of The Standard Oil Company,
Cleveland, Ohio, herein called the Company, and requesting an
investigation and certification of representatives pursuant to Section
9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called
the Act. On April 17, 1941, the National Labor Relations Board,
herein called the Board, acting pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the Act
and Article III, Section 3, of National Labor Relations Board Rules
and Regulations-Series 2, as amended, ordered an investigation and
32 N. L. R. B., No. 87.
437
438 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
authorized the Regional Director to conduct it and to provide for a a
appropriate hearing upon due notice.
On April 21, 1941, the Regional Director issued a notice of hearing,
copies of which were duly served 'upon the Company, the ' Interna-
tional, 'and upon the Association of Petroleum Workers of The
Standard Oil Company of Ohio, herein called the Association, a labor
organization claiming to represent' employees of the Company. Pur-
suant to notice, a hearing was held in Cleveland, Ohio, on April 28
and 29, 1941, before Harry. L. Lodish,, the - Trial , Examiner, duly
designated by the Chief Trial Examiner. ' The Company, the Asso-
ciation, and the International, represented by, counsel, participated
in the hearing and we're 'afforded full' opportunit'y' to be 'heard, to
examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence
bearing on the issues. During the course of the hearing, the Trial
Examiner made a number of rulings on motions and on objections to
the admission of evidence. The Board has ' reviewed the -rulings of
the Trial Examiner and finds that no prejudicial errors. were com-
mitted. The rulings are hereby affirmed.
On May 10, 1941, the 'Company and the Association filed, briefs
which the Board has duly considered. Upon the entire record'in the
case, the Board makes the following : '
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
The Company, an Ohio corporation, and its wholly owned subsidi-
aries, operate refineries in Toledo, Ohio; Lima', Ohio, Latonia, Ken-
tucky, and two refineries known as Refinery No. 1 and Refinery No. 2'
in Cleveland, Ohio. The preselit proceeding is directly concerned
with the No. 1 Refinery in Cleveland, herein called Refinery No. 1.
The Company is engaged in all branches of the oil industry including
producing, transporting, refining, ,and marketing oil, gasoline,' kero-
sene, motor oils, industrial lubricants, asphalt, road oil, and fuel oil.
In 1939, the Company and, its subsidiaries owned crude pipe lines
comprising 663 miles in Kentucky, Indiana, Ohio, Illinois, and
Michigan. It draws almost all of its crude oil requirements from
producing fields in neighboring States. The Company, employs
approximately 1,300 non-supervisory eip loyees in all five refineries
and approximately 428 non-supervisory employees -in Refinery No. 1.
The Company admits that it is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the, Act.
THE SfrANDARD OIL COMPANY 439
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Oil Workers International Union, Local 395, is a labor organization
affiliated with the Congress of Industrial. Organizations. It admits
to membership employees of the Company.
The Association of Petroleum Workers of The Standard Oil Com-
pany of Ohio is an unaffiliated labor organization. It admits to
membership employees of the Company.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The parties stipulated at the hearing, and we find, that the
Company refuses to recognize the International as exclusive repre-
sentative for the employees in Refinery No. 1, unless and until, the
International is certified by the Board.
The parties stipulated at the hearing that the International had
submitted to the Trial Examiner authorization cards showing sub-
stantial adherence among the 428 employees in Refinery No. 1, and
that the Association had submitted to the Trial Examiner 43
authorization cards signed by employees in that refinery.,
We find that a question has arisen concerning representation of
employees of the Company.
IV. THE EFFEOT OF THE QUESTION CONCERNING
REPRESENTATION UPON COMMERCE
We find that the question concerning representation which has
arisen, occurring in connection with the operations of the Company,
described in Section I above, has a close, intimate, and substantial
relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, and
tends to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce
and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
The International contends that the production and maintenance
employees at Refinery No. 1 constitute an appropriate unit, and
that clerical, technical service, and supervisory employees should be
excluded. The Company and the Association contend that all non-
supervisory employees, including clerical and technical service em-
ployees, in all five refineries of the Company should be included in
the unit, and the Company contends further that if the clerical and
technical service employees are excluded, all other non-supervisory
i The Association also introduced evidence in support of Its claim to represent a majority
of all non-supervisory employees employed in all five refineries, and a majority in each
refinery except Refinery No. 1.
440 DECISIONS :OF NATIONAL 'LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
employees in all refineries should nevertheless be included. The
parties stipulated further that if the Board found that Refinery
No. 1 was not an appropriate unit it should dismiss the petition.
The Company's five refineries are operated under the supervision
of a vice president in charge of manufacturing located in the Com-
pany's home'offiee in Cleveland. Each refinery is under the direction
of a superintendent who is responsible for an allotted monthly pro-
duction in his refinery, and-who has power to hire and discharge with
the approval of the vice president in charge of manufacturing.
Substantially the same work is performed and the same products
produced in each refinery.. Wages, hours, and working conditions,
which are determined by the officers of the Company in Cleveland,
are generally uniform, according to job classifications, in all five
refineries. '
In 1933, an employee representation plan called the Sohio Council
was organized among the employees of the Company. It consisted
of individual. councils in each plant, the presidents of which consti-
tuted a central council for the entire Company. It charged no dues,
and all non-supervisory employees of the Company were automatically
members.
In April, 1937, the superintendent of. Refinery No. 1 signed an
agreement with "recognized representatives of No. 1 Refinery" stating
the Company's policy then in effect with reference to such matters
as seniority, starting time, and clock-punching rules, and providing
for the settlement of certain grievances involving individuals. The
president of the Sohio Council and officers of the individual council
in Refinery No. 1 also signed the agreement.
On April '22, 1937, the Company, by letter, informed the chairman
of the Sohio Council that the Company could no longer contribute
to its support. On April 29, •1937, the chairman replied, stating
that "We ... have arranged for expenses through collection of dues."
In the same letter he requested the Company to grant exclusive
recognition to "this association" 2 and to open negotiations on several
specified subjects including increases in pay, and vacations. At or
about the same time, the Association, which the record clearly
discloses to be a successor to the Sohio Council, was formed.
On June 25, 1937, the Company, at the request of the Association,
issued a statement of its policy concerning seniority, paid vacations,
working hours, and use of the bulletin boards by the Association.
The statement included a provision for monthly meetings between
the managers of the refineries and the local representatives of the
As noted below, the Association on or -about the date of this letter succeeded the
Sohio Council -but the record does not establish the precise date or the identity of the
organization to which the letter refers.
THE S ANDA,RD On. COMPANY 441
Association, and yearly meetings between chairmen of the Associ-
ation's chapters and the company representatives. On April 28,
1939, the Company, at the 'request of -the 'As`sociation, issued another
statement of policy containing modifications of the provisions relating
to vacations and the use of bulletin boards by' the Association. The
Company and the Association have held numerous' conferences
concerning grievances.
Although the president of the Association testified that the 'Com-
pany had recognized it as exclusive representative of the employees
in all five refineries, no such recognition is expressed in the statements
of-policy. Company officials testified that they had recognized the
Association for the employees it represented, and were always ready
to deal with the representative of any of its employees. The Asso-
ciation has not requested the Company to enter into a signed collective
bargaining agreement and its representatives testified that they did
not desire such an agreement.
In April 1937, the International began organizing employees in
Refinery No. 1. In May 1938 and March 1941,, it requested the Com-
pany to recognize it as exclusive representative of the employees at
this refinery and to execute a collective bargaining agreement cover-
ing those employees. The Company refused both requests pending
certification by the Board. The Company has negotiated with the
International concerning grievances. '
Upon the entire record, we find that Refinery No. 1 constitutes
an appropriate unit.3
In accordance with our usual practice, we shall exclude the clerical
and technical service employees. Upon the request of the Inter-
national, to which the Company and the Association ' hthe not
objected, we shall include the stock clerks in the tool department,
the two pipe-line -gaugers, and the emulsion plant assistant, who,
although they are classified as clerical or technical employees, per-
form work closely connected with production in the refinery.
We find that all production and maintenance employees of the
Company in Refinery No. 1 including stock clerks in the tool depart-
ment, the two pipe-line gaugers, and the emulsion plant assistant,
but excluding all other clerical, technical service, and supervisory
employees constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective
bargaining and that such unit will insure 'to the employees of the
Company the full benefit of their right to self-organization and to
collective bargaining, and otherwise effectuate the policies of the Act.'
3 Cf. Matter of Chrysler Corporation and United Automobile Workers of America, Local
371, affiliated with C. 1. 0 ., 13 N. L. R. B. 1303.
442 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
VI. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
We find that the question which has arisen concerning representa-
tion can best be resolved by, and we shall accordingly direct, an
election by secret ballot, among all employees in the appropriate
unit whose names appear on the Company's pay roll of April 25,
1941,4 subject to such limitations and additions as are set forth in
the Direction.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire
record in the case, the Board makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. A question affecting commerce has arisen concerning the repre-
sentation of employees of The Standard Oil Company, an Ohio
corporation, Cleveland, Ohio, within the meaning of Section 9 (c)
and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act.
2. All the production and maintenance employees of the Company
in Refinery No. 1, including the stock clerks in the tool department,
the two pipe-line gaugers, and the emulsion plant assistant, but
excluding all other clerical, technical service, and supervisory em-
ployees constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective
bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the National
Labor Relations Act.
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 8, of National
Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 2, as amended,
it is hereby
DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation authorized by the
Board to ascertain representatives for the purposes of collective
bargaining with The Standard Oil Company, an Ohio corporation,
Cleveland, Ohio, 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 Eighth Region, acting in this matter as agent for
the National Labor Relations Board and subject to Article III,
Section 9, of said Rules and Regulations, among all the production
and maintenance employees of the Company in Refinery No. 1, whose
4 The parties agreed that the Company 's pay roll of April 25, 1941, should be used to
determine eligibility to participate in the election . There is practically no turn -over in
employment at the Company's refineries.
THE STANIDARD OIL COMPANY 443
names appear on the Company's pay roll of April 25, 1941, including
the stock clerks in the tool department, the two pipe-line gaugers,
and the emulsion plant assistant, any employees who did not work
during said pay roll period because they were ill, on vacation, tem-
porarily laid off, or in the active military service of the United
States, but excluding all other clerical, technical service, and super-
visory employees, and any employees who have since quit or been
discharged for cause, to determine whether they desire to be repre-
sented by Oil Workers International Union, Local 395 (C. I. 0.),
or by the Association of Petroleum Workers of The Standard Oil
Company of Ohio, for the purposes of collective bargaining, or by
neither.
MR. EDWIN S. SMITH, dissenting :
For the reasons expressed in my dissenting opinions in Matter of
Cluett, Peabody d Co., Inc.,' and Matter of Libbey-Owens-Ford
Glass Company,6 I am of the opinion that Refinery No. 1 should not
be split off from the other refineries. I would dismiss the petition.
0 Matter of Cluett, Peabody d Co., Inc., and United Garment Workers, etc., 31 N. L. R. B.
505.
6Matter of Libbey-Owens-Ford Glass Co. and National Flat Glass Workers, etc., 31
N. L. R. B. 243.