The Texas Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 22, 1941

33 N.L.R.B. 722 (N.L.R.B. 1941)

In the Matter of THE TEXAS COMPANY and SUNBURST LOCAL No. 452
of THE OIL WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, AFFILIATED WITH THE
C. I. O.
Case No. R-'663.-Decided July 2,9, 1941
Jurisdiction: oil refining industry.
Investigation and Certification of Representatives : existence of question: re-
fusal of Company to recognize union unless majority designation proven by an
election by secret ballot ; election necessary.
Unit Appropriate for Collective Bargaining : all maintenance and production
employees, excluding clerical workers and supervisory employees ; agreement
as to.
Mr. 0. J. Dorwin and Mr. Y. A. Laiul, of New York City, for the
Company.
Mr. Sylvester Graham, of Helena, Mont., and Mr. John Clark, of
Great Falls, Mont., for the Union.
Mr. Ralph S. Clifford of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
STATEMENT OF TIIE CASE
On April 11, 1941, Local No. 452 of the Oil Workers International
Union, affiliated with the C. I. 0., herein called the Union, filed with
the Regional Director for the Twenty-second Region (Denver, Colo-
rado) a petition alleging that a question affecting commerce had
arisen concerning the representation of employees of The Texas Com-
pany, Sunburst Montana Refinery, Sunburst, Montana, herein called
the Company, and requesting an investigation and certification of
representatives pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. On May 15, 1941, the
National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, acting pur-
suant to Section 9 (c) of the Act, and Article III, Section 3, of Na-
tional Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 2, as
amended, ordered an investigation and authorized the Regional Di-
rector to conduct it and to provide for an appropriate hearing upon
due notice.
On May 31, 1941, the Regional Director issued a notice of hearing,
copies of which were duly served upon the Company and the Union.
33 N. L. R. B., No. 126
722 ,
THE TEXAS COMPANY 723
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held on June 9, 1941, at Sunburst,
Montana, before Willard Y. Morris, the Trial Examiner duly desig-
nated by the Chief Trial Examiner. The Company and the Union
were represented and participated in the hearing. Full opportunity
to be heard, to examine and to cross-examine witnesses, and to intro-
duce evidence bearing on the issues was afforded all parties. During
,the hearing the Trial Examiner made rulings on motions and on the
admission of evidence. The rulings are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
The Texas Company, a Delaware corporation having its principal
offices in New York City, operates the Sunburst Montana Refinery.
The Refinery produces principally gasoline and fuel oil, and has a
daily capacity of approximately 7,000 barrels. Between 50 and 60 per
cent of the production is gasoline, 19 per cent of which is shipped to
points outside the State of Montana. Approximately 30 per cent of
the production is fuel oil, and the balance consists of distillate and
diesel oil. All the fuel oil and nearly all the diesel oil is sold F. O. B.
Sunburst, Montana, to the Great Northern Railway Company, which
uses such fuel oil and diesel oil in its operations. All the crude oil
refined at the Company's Sunburst Refinery is obtained within the State
of Montana.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Local No. 452 of the Oil Workers International Union, affiliated
with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, is a labor organization
admitting to membership employees of the Company.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
At the hearing the parties stipulated that the Union requested recog-
nition as exclusive bargaining representative of the Company's em-
ployees and that the Company replied that it did not know whether
the Union had been designated by a majority of such employees, but
that the Company would recognize the Union if it proved its majority
designation by means of an election by secret ballot. A report of the
Trial Examiner shows that the Union represents a substantial number
of the employees within the unit hereinafter found to be appropriate.'
'The Trial Examiner reported that the Union submitted 70 application cards to him,
all bearing apparently genuine original signatures , 57 of which were dated after January
1, 1941 . Sixty-two of the signatures are the names of persons on the June 1, 1941,
pay roll of the Company which includes 93 hourly paid employees.
450122-42-vol. 33-47
724 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
We find that a question has arisen concerning representation of
employees of the Company.
IV. THE EFFECT 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
At the hearing the parties agreed, and we find, that all maintenance
and production employees, excluding clerical workers, and supervisory
employees constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective
bargaining. We further find that said unit will insure to the em-
ployees of the Company the full benefit of their right to self-organiza-
tion and collective bargaining and otherwise effectuate the policies of
the Act.
VI. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
We find that the question which has arisen concerning the represen-
tation of employees of the Company can best be resolved by an election
by secret ballot.
The Union contends that Russell F. Johannson and Ward L. McVay,
who have been drafted into the military service of the United States,
should not be permitted to vote since they are not now working for the
Company and could.rlot,be present at the voting place. The Company
desires that they be permitted to vote. In accordance with our usual
practice, we shall permit persons in the active military service or
training of the United States, otherwise eligible, to participate'in the
election.2 -
We shall direct that those eligible to vote in the election shall be
the employees within the appropriate unit who were employed by
the Company during the pay-roll period next preceding the date of the
t irection of Election, subject to such limitations and additions as are
set forth in the Direction.'
2 See Matter of Marcalus Manufacturing Co, Inc. and Textile Workers Union of America,
C. I. 0, 33 N. L. R. B. 23
9 Among the additions noted in the Direction is the provision that employees who were
temporarily laid off on the eligibility date selected be permitted to vote. Since it is the
Company ' s policy to rehire, before hiring new employees , any laid off employee who,
prior to his lay-off, had been employed for a period of 4 consecutive months and who had
not been laid off for more than 180 days , the provision in our Direction permitting tem-
porarily laid off employees to vote shall be constructed to cover employees who worked
for the Company for 4 consecutive months and had not been laid off 180 days, at the
THE TEXAS COMPANY 725
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 represen-
tation of the employees of The Texas Company, at its Sunburst Mon-
tana Refinery, Sunburst, Montana, within the meaning of Section 9 (c)
and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
2. All maintenance and production employees at the Company's
Sunburst Montana Refinery, excluding clerical workers and super-
visory employees, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of col-
lective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the 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 Rela-
tions 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 Texas Company, Sunburst Montana Refinery, Sunburst,
Montana, an election by secret ballot shall be conducted as early as
possible, but not later than thirty (30) days from the date of this Direc-
tion, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for
the Twenty-second Region, acting in this matter as agent for the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board, and subject to Article III, Section 9,
of said Rules and Regulations, among all maintenance and production
employees of the Company at its Sunburst Montana Refinery who were
employed-during the pay-roll period next preceding the date of this
Direction of Election, including employees who did not work during
such pay-roll period because they were ill, or on vacation, or in the
active military service or training of the United States, or temporarily
laid off, but excluding clerical workers, supervisory employees and
employees who have since quit or been discharged for cause, to deter-
mine whether or not they desire to be represented for purposes of
collective bargaining by Local No. 452 of the Oil Workers Interna-
tional Union, affiliated with the C. I. O.
time fixed to determine eligibility to vote This principle shall cover the cases of the 2
unnamed employees concerning whom employment data is not available in the record, but
whom the Union desires to exclude from voting.
The record also discloses that during each year the Company hires an additional 42
or 43 men (luring April and October to clean up the plant and do general construction
work The Company and the Union agiee, and we find , that these temporary employees
should not be allowed to participate in the election