The Texas Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 24, 1941

37 N.L.R.B. 932 (N.L.R.B. 1941)

In the Matter of THE TEXAS COMPANY, PORT ARTHUR REFINERY and
OIL WORKERS' INTERNATIONAL UNION, LOCAL No. 23, AFFILIATED
WITH THE C. I. O.
Case No. R-3166.-Decided December 24, 1941
Jurisdiction : oil production and refining industry.
Investigation and Certification of Representatives : existence of question : state-
ment that Company's policy was to refuse exclusive recognition to labor
organization unless certified by Board ; elections necessary.
Unit Appropriate for Collective Bargaining : employees of refinery and employees
of terminal not to be separated for purposes of collective bargaining; pro-
posed unit including some departments and excluding others inappropriate;
determination of whether machinists, electricians, boilermakers, and labora-
tory employees, excluding supervisory and clerical employees, constitute sepa-
rate units or parts of larger unit of Company's production and maintenance
employees, held dependent on desires of employees; separate elections to
determine appropriate units.
Mr. 0. J . Dorwin, of New York City, for the Company.
Mr. Chris Dixie , of Houston , Tex., Mr. Mike Doughtry , of Beau-
mont, Tex., and Mr. W. J . Trombley, of Port Arthur , Tex., for the Oil
Workers.
Mr. Carl Huhndorff , Mr. J. R. Read , Mr. Raymond Grant, and Mr.
Benny Vizuette , all of Port Arthur , Tex., for the Machinists.
Mr. W. J . Cox, of Dallas, Tex., and Mr. Joe Varret , of Port Arthur,
Tex., for the Electricians.
Mr. J. F. Schmitt , of St. Petersburg , Fla., and Mr. W. E. Trow,
and Mr. Sam J. Shelburne , both of Port Arthur , Tex., for the Boiler-
makers.
Mr. Robert H. Sadler, Mr. Mitchell Young, Mr. G . F. Russell, Mr.
Walter Andrews , and Mr. P. F. Patterson , all of Port Arthur, Tex.,
for the Operating Engineers.
Mr. W. J. Burkett and Mr.-C. R. Quinn, both of Port Arthur, Tex.,
for Local 195, International Association of Steam Fitters and
Plumbers.
111r. A. J. LaSalle , of Port Arthur , Tex., for the Laboratory
Workers.
Mr. Sydney S. Asher, Jr ., of counsel to the Board.
37 N. L R. B., No. 156
932
THE TEXAS COMPANY
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
933
On July 15, 1941, Oil Workers' International Union, Local No. 23,
affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, herein
called the Oil Workers, filed with the Regional Director for the Six-
teenth Region (Fort Worth, Texas) a petition alleging that a ques-
tion affecting commerce had arisen concerning the representation of
employees of The Texas Company,,New York City, herein called the
Company, and requesting an investigation and certification of rep-
resentatives pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. On September 13, 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 authorized the Regional
Director, to conduct it and to provide for an appropriate hearing
upon due notice.
On September 19, 1941, the Regional Director issued a notice
of hearing, copies of which were duly served upon the Company
and the Oil Workers, and upon International Association of Ma-
chinists, Port Arthur Local No. 823, affiliated with the American
Federation of Labor, herein called the Machinists, International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Port Arthur Local No. 390,
affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, herein called the
Electricians, International Union of Operating Engineers, Port
Arthur Local No. 461, affiliated with the American Federation of
Labor, herein called the Operating Engineers, and International
Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Shipbuilders, Welders and Help-
ers of America, Port Arthur Local No. 305, affiliated with the Amer-
ican Federation of Labor, herein called the Boilermakers, labor
organizations claiming to represent employees directly affected by
the investigation., Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held on Oc-
tober 14 and 15, 1941, at Port Arthur, Texas, before Bliss Daffan,
1 Notices of hearing were also served upon the Brotherhood of Painters , Decorators and
Paper hangers of America, Port Arthur Local, and upon the International Hodcarriers
Building and Common Laborers Union of America Local No 853, both of which are
affiliated with the American Federation of Labor Neither of these unions appeared at the
hearing nor presented evidence of membership Local 195. International Association of
Steam Fitters and Plumbers, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, did not
receive a copy of the notice of heai mg, but appeared at the beginning of the hearing It
did not, however, move to inteivene, participate in the hearing, or present any evidence
of membership
4:is2.^7-- 42--voi. :i7--60
934 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Chief Trial Examiner.
At the commencement of the hearing, United Laboratory Workers,
unaffiliated, herein called the Laboratory Workers, a labor organiza-,
tion claiming to represent employees directly affected by the investi-
gation, moved to intervene. This motion was granted by the Trial
Examiner. The Company, the Oil Workers, the Machinists, the'
Electricians, the Operating Engineers, the Boilermakers, and the
Laboratory Workers were represented and participated in the hear-
ing. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine
witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues was afforded
all parties. During the course of the hearing, the Trial Examiner
made several rulings on motions and on objections to the admission
of evidence. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Ex-
aminer and finds that no prejudicial errors were committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
The Texas Company is a Delaware corporation with its general
offices in New York City and Houston, Texas. It is the principal
subsidiary, wholly owned, of the Texas Corporation, through which
it is affiliated with other corporations located in the State of
Texas, in other States of the United States, and in foreign countries,
all comprising an integrated organization for the production, trans-
portation, refining, and marketing of crude oil and the products
thereof, and for incidental businesses.
The Company owns and operates a refinery and terminal at Port
Arthur, Texas, with which the present proceedings are concerned.
During the first 6 months of 1941, the Port Arthur refinery of the
Company received approximately 22,000,000 barrels of crude oil from
Texas, Oklahoma, Louisiana, and New Mexico. During the same
period, the Company shipped approximately 24,000,000. barrels of
'products, or more than 97 percent of the total production of the
Port Arthur refinery, to points outside the State of Texas. The
terminal is the sole seagoing outlet of the refinery.,
H. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Oil Workers' International Union, Local No. 23, is a labor organi-
zation, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations,
which admits to membership employees of the Company.
International Association of Machinists, Port Arthur Local No.
823, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Port Arthur
THE TEXAS COMPANY 935
Local No. 390, International Union of Operating Engineers, Port
Arthur Local No. 461, and International Brotherhood of Boiler-
makers, Iron Shipbuilders, Welders and Helpers of America, Port
Arthur Local No. 305, are labor organizations affiliated with the
American Federation of Labor. They admit to membership em-
ployees of the, Company.
United Laboratory Workers is -an unaffiliated organization which
admits to membership employees of the Company.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
An international representative of the Oil Workers testified that
in May 1941, during negotiations with respect to another of the
Company's plants, B. H. Anglin, the Company's Manager of Indus-
trial Relations, stated that it was against the policy of the Company
to grant exclusive recognition to any labor organization unless that
organization had been certified by the Board. In view of this an-
nounced policy, the Oil Workers filed its present petition with-
out first approaching the Company and demanding exclusive
recognition.
The Oil Workers, the Machinists, the Electricians, the Operating
Engineers, the Boilermakers, and the Laboratory Workers each sub-
mitted proof of substantial representation within the respective units
alleged by them to be appropriate .2
We find that a question has arisen concerning the 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
2 The Oil workers submitted to a Field Examiner of the Board approximately 1,860
authorization cards and a verified list of employees who had signed the cards A sample
check , made with the Company 's pay roll of August 1, 1941 , indicated that the Oil workers
had submitted cards containing the apparently genuine signatures of between 39 and 43
percent of the employees within the unit alleged by it to be appropriate. The Machinists
submitted 156 authorization cards. A similar check indicated that the Machinists had
submitted cards containing the apparently genuine signatures of a majority of the em-
ployees in the unit which it alleges to be appropriate. The Electricians submitted a
membership list which was checked against the pay roll. Forty-three of the names appear-
ing on this list were the names of employees of the Company ' s electrical department, which
consisted of 55 employees . The Operating Engineers submitted a sworn membership list
containing 115 names. A sampling of this list indicated that most of the 115 names
appeared on the Company's pay roll . , The Operating Engineers ' representative stated
that he had "no idea" how many employees were included in the unit which it sought
At the hearing, the Boilermakers submitted to the Trial Examiner a sworn list of its
members , containing 89 names. A check of this list indicated that 86 of the 89 names
appeared on the Company's pay roll The number of employees in the unit sought by the
Boilermakers was not stated. The Laboratory workers submitted a sworn list of its
members It appears from a statement made by the Trial Examiner at the hearing that
125 of the names on the membership list appeared aiilong the names of the 242 hourly paid
employees in the laboratory.
936 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
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
A. The contentions of the parties
The Oil Workers seeks a unit consisting of all employees of the
Company's refinery and terminal at Port Arthur, Texas, excluding
supervisory, technical, and clerical employees, employees of the cafe-
teria, employees of the first-aid department, crew members in the boat
department, and guards (as distinguished from watchmen).
The Operating Engineers seeks a unit consisting of the employees
of the refinery, in the operating division, laboratory employees, load-
ing-rack employees, and hoisting engineers, excluding laborers, the
railroad crews, and supervisory, technical, maintenance, Ad clerical
employees, and employees of the terminal.3
The Machinists claims a unit consisting of employees of both the
refinery and the terminal, in the machine and blacksmith departments,`
excluding supervisory employees. The machine department of the
refinery includes three laborers whom the Machinists wishes to include
in the unit, and a single pipe fitter whom it desires to exclude.
The Electricians seeks a unit composed of the employees in the elec-
trical department, the recording-instrument department, and the
powerhouse, electricians permanently assigned to the laboratory, and
telephone and telegraph operators, excluding supervisory employees.
While the Electricians does not specifically limit the unit it seeks to
the refinery, it does not appear that there are any electrical employees
in the terminal.
The Boilermakers contends that the employees of the boiler depart-
ment and of the welding department of the refinery, excluding super-
visory employees, constitute an appropriate unit. It did not indicate
whether it desires to include the one non-supervisory welder employed
,at the terminal. '
The Laboratory Workers seeks a unit consisting of the hourly-
-paid employees in the laboratory department of the refinery, includ-
ing clerical employees. It did not -indicate whether it seeks to
include the laboratory workers at the terminal.
The Company maintains, with respect to the various craft groups,
that the employees should be permitted to determine for themselves
3 The Operating Engineers' representative stated at one time that his union claimed only-
the operating division. At a later point, lie testified that it also claimed laboratory eni--
plovees and loading-rack employees, who are in the miscellaneous division
4 Referred to on the Company's pay roll as the machine shop and the blacksmith shop
THE TEXAS COMPANY 937
what are the appropriate units. It contends, however, that the em-
ployees of the refinery should not be merged with the employees in
the terminal.
B. The refinery and the terminal
At the refinery, the Company is engaged in manufacturing gaso-
line and other products from crude oil. The refinery has three main
divisions, namely, operating, maintenance and construction, and
miscellaneous. Each main division is subdivided into departments.
The operating division includes the bulk of the production em-
ployees, the maintenance and construction division consists of the
maintenance employees, and the miscellaneous division is made up
mainly of clerical employees.
The terminal is located on a navigable body of water, at a dis-
tance of about 3 miles from the refinery. It has facilities for loading
boats and is the sole seagoing outlet of the refinery. The operations
of the terminal consist principally in packaging the products of the
refinery, and loading them upon boats for transportation to other
points. The terminal is, apparently, departmentalized in a manner
similar to the refinery.
The terminal and the refinery are connected by telephone lines,
pipe lines, and tracks of the Kansas City Southern Railroad. The
same electrical generating plant supplies electricity to both the re-
finery and the terminal. There are over 4,000 employees at the
refinery and approximately 290 employees at the terminal.
As noted above, the Oil Workers and the Machinists seek units
which would combine the employees of the refinery and the terminal.
It is not clear whether the Boilermakers and the Laboratory Workers
desire to include employees of the terminal within the units sought
by them, and there appear to be no employees at the terminal who
would fall within the unit sought by the Electricians. The Company
and the Operating Engineers, however, would restrict the unit to em-
ployees of the refinery. For reasons stated below, we do not con-
sider the unit specified by the Operating Engineers to be sufficiently
-definite and distinct to constitute a separate bargaining unit. In
addition, the work of the employees in the refinery and the terminal,
as the record discloses, is closely interrelated. There is, moreover,
a community of interest between the employees of the refinery and
the terminal. We are of the opinion, under all the circumstances,
that the employees of the refinery and the terminal should not be
separated for the purposes of collective bargaining.5
'See Matter of Republic Steel Corporation and Raiinund #121 & Spaulding #556,
International Union of Mine, Mill & Smelter Workers, 37 N. L. R B. 173.
938 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
C. The, units sought by the Machinists, the Electricians, and the
Boilermakers
As noted previously, the unit claimed by the Machinists consists of
the employees in the machine department 6 and the blacksmith de-
partment.' The Electricians seeks all the electrical employees," while
the Boilermakers contends that the employees of the boiler depart-
ment and the welding department should be considered as a single
group of employees.°
The Company has bargained with the Machinists, the Electricians,
and the Boilermakers as the respective bargaining representatives
of their members since 1934, although no written contract has ever
been entered into between the Company and any of these unions.
Since 1936 "Working Rules" generally have been submitted by the
Company to all three of these unions and discussed -with them be-
fore they are put into effect. When the Company was engaged in
new construction work in 1939, it obtained seven skilled craftsmen
through the Electricians. In the summer of 1941, the Electricians
presented a closed-shop contract to the Company, but negotiations
were postponed until after the conclusion of the present proceedings.
In view of the facts set forth in the record, it appears that the
employees sought by the Machinists, the Electricians, and the Boiler-
makers can be considered either as parts of a large unit encom-
passing virtually all of the Company's employees, as contended by the
Oil Workers, or as separate units, as claimed by the Machinists, the
Electricians, and the Boilermakers. Accordingly, we hold that the
chief factor in determining whether they should constitute separate
units or become parts of the larger unit is the desire of the employees
themselves. To ascertain the desires of these groups of employees,
we shall, in accordance with our usual practice,1° direct that an
election by secret ballot be held among the employees in each of these
three groups,1' with the exclusions noted below, to determine whether
they wish to be represented by the Oil Workers on the one hand,
or by the Machinists, the Electricians, or the Boilermakers, respec-
tively, on the other hand, or by neither. No final determination of
0 The Machinists has asked to exclude one employee in the machine department , the pipe
fitter we are of the opinion , and find , that the pipe fitter properly belongs with the
other employees in the machine department
'Both the machine department and the blacksmith department are included in the
maintenance division . Although the blacksmiths have a shop separate from the machine
shop , they are under the machine -shop foreman
9 Most of the electrical employees are in the maintenance division.
'Both the boiler department and the welding department are part of the maintenance
division _
10 Matter of The Globe Machine and Stamping Co. and Metal Polishers Union, Local No. 3,
et al , 3 N. L. R. B 294 , and suiise6uent cases.
"For reasons stated above , the election units shall include the employees at the
terminal as well as the refinery. ,
THE TEXAS COMPANY 939
the appropriate unit or units will be made pending the results of
these elections and the election which we shall also direct, as stated
below, among the remaining employees 12 of the Company.
D. The unit sought by the Laboratory Workers
The Laboratory Workers seeks a unit composed of hourly paid
employees in the laboratory department, including clerical employees.
The Oil Workers and the Operating Engineers content that these
employees should form part of a larger unit. The laboratory is in-
cluded in the miscellaneous division and contains approximately 250
employees. Research work is carried on under the direction of grad-
uate chemists, who are paid on a salary basis. Laboratory helpers
and experimental laboratory operators, who are hourly paid em-
ployees, assist in routine testing. The equipment used is similar to
that used elsewhere in the refinery and is operated for experimental
purposes only.
The Laboratory Workers was formed about 6 weeks prior to the
hearing. Up to the time of the hearing, it had not attempted to
bargain with the Company. While there has been no history of
collective bargaining on the basis of a unit confined to the labora-
tory employees, neither has there been any bargaining on the basis
of a larger unit. including the laboratory workers.
Under all the circumstances, we believe that the hourly paid em-
ployees of the laboratory can be considered either as a separate unit,
as contended by the Laboratory Workers, or as part of a larger
unit, as contended by the Oil Workers and the Operating Engineers.
We hold, accordingly, that the chief factor in determining whether
they should constitute a separate unit or become part of a larger
unit is the desire of the employees themselves. To ascertain their
desires, we shall, as in the case of the three groups of employees dis-
cussed above, direct that an election by secret ballot be held among
the hourly paid employees in the laboratory,13 with the exclusions
noted below, to determine whether they wish to be represented by
the Oil Workers, by the Operating Engineers, by the Laboratory
Workers, or by none of these organizations. Upon the results of
this election and the election which we shall also direct, as noted
below, among the remaining employees of the Company, will depend
our finding as to the appropriate unit with respect to the hourly
paid laboratory employees.
12 Except for the laboratoiy employees, discussed below
"For reasons stated above , the laboratory employees at the tel mural as well as the
refinery shall participate in the election.
940 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
E. The remaining employees
The Oil Workers, as we have,stated, desires a unit consisting of
all employees of the refinery and the terminal with certain specified
exclusions. The Operating Engineers seeks a unit composed of
employees in the operating division of the refinery, excluding labor-
ers, but including laboratory employees, loading-rack employees, and
hoisting engineers (who are not in the operating division) .14
The Operating Engineers contends that the unit it seeks is a craft
unit rather than an industrial unit. The employees in that unit do
not, however, possess a similarity of skills such as exists, for example,
among ' the machinists, electricians, and boilermakers. The em-
ployees sought by the Operating Engineers constitute, for the most
part, the majority of the employees who are engaged in refining oil.
The Operating Engineers would also include such groups as the
laboratory workers, the loading-rack employees, and the hoisting
engineers, none of whom are part of the operating division. Upon
the entire record, we are of the opinion that the unit sought by the
Operating Engineers is not sufficiently well-defined or cohesive to
constitute a separate or craft unit within the meaning of the Act.'
We have, as noted above, directed separate elections among the
machinists, electricians, boilermakers, and laboratory employees.
We shall also, under the circumstances presented herein, direct an
election among all of the remaining employees of the refinery and
the terminal, subject to the exclusions noted below, to determine
whether they desire to be represented for the purposes of collective
bargaining by the Oil Workers, by the Operating Engineers, or by
neither of these organizations.
The Oil Workers seeks to exclude from the unit which it claims
to be appropriate supervisory, technical, and clerical employees, em-
ployees of the cafeteria, employees of the first-aid department, crew
members in the boat department, and guards (as distinguished from
watchmen). None of the parties desires to include in the unit sought
by it either supervisors,1' technical employees, employees of the cafe-
14 On May 1 , 1941 , the present Port Arthur local of the Operating Engineers was
chartered . On June 3 , 1941 , it demanded recognition and the Company orally recognized
it as the bargaining representative of its members. No written agreement was entered into.
The record indicates that since 1933 there has been another local of the Operating
Engineers at Port Arthur which, apparently , made ' no attempt to bargain with the
Company The Oil Workers, as noted above, has not attempted to bargain with the
Company -
15 It is significant , moreover , that in Hatter of The Texas Company , West Dallas Works
and International Union of Opei ating Engineers Local No. 472, 35 N L R B, No. 77,
which involved another of the Company's plants, the Operating Engineers sought and
obtained a unit composed of all production and maintenance employees.
10 The Laboratory Workers contends that B M. Lavender, C M Corley, A. C Smith, and
F L, Ratcliffe , subforemen employed in the laboratory of the refinery , are not supervisory
employees . The Company and the Oil Workers maintain that they are supervisory em-
ployees The Operating Engineers did not indicate its position with respect to these
THE TEXAS COMPANY 941
teria, employees of the first-aid department, or crew members in the
boat department. We shall exclude these employees from the unit
or units found appropriate. All parties also agree that guards
should be excluded. The Oil Workers, however, would include
watchmen. The guards are stationed at various gates, while watch-
men, as ^a general rule, have regular routes throughout the buildingu.
areas. Both watchmen and guards are recruited primarily from old
employees or employees on accident status, and are not included in
the Company's seniority system. We find that no substantial dis-
tinction exists between guards and watchmen, and that both classes
of employees should be excluded.
The Laboratory Workers seeks to include clerical employees in
the laboratory 17 in the unit which it claims is appropriate. None
of the other parties desires to have clerical employees included with
other employees in the units which they seek. We are of the opinion
that clerical employees should be excluded, and we so find.18
VI. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESI:NTATIVFS
We find that the question concerning representation which has
arisen can best be resolved by, and we shall accordingly direct, five
separate elections by secret ballot. If the Operating Engineers does
not desire to appear on the ballot in either or both of the elections in
which we have directed that its name be included, it may notify the
Regional Director to that effect within five (5) days after the receipt
of this Decision and Direction of Elections; thereupon its name shall
be accordingly omitted from the ballot or ballots, as the case may
be. The employees of the Company eligible to vote in the elections
shall be the employees described above who were employed during
the pay-roll period immediately, preceding the date of the Direction
of Elections herein, subject to the limitations and additions set forth
in the Direction.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire
l;ecord in the case, the Board makes the following:
CONCLUSION OF LAW
A question affecting commerce has arisen concerning the representa-
tion of employees of The Texas Company, New York City, within
snbforemen Although these employees perform duties somewhat clerical in nature, they
are each in charge of from 10 to 15 testers , and they are responsible for the distribution
and performance of work. They receive a higher rate of pay than first -class testers, and
are not included in the seniority system in'effect at the refinery and teiminal. They
have no power to discharge employees , but their recommendations with respect to hiring
and discharging carry weight We find that these 4 pei sons are supervisory employees
"The pay roll of the laboratory department of the refinery contains the names of six
clerks and two junior clerks
'- See Matter of The Texas Company and Oct Workers International Union Local 367,
33 N L. R. 13, No. 202
942 DECISIONS OF,NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the meaning , of,,Section 9 (a) and Section 2 .(6) and "(7) of the
National Labor Relations Act. '
,DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
By virtue of and pursuant to the power vested in the National
Labor Relations Board by Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, 49 Stat. 449, 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 Texas Company, New York City, 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,
acting in this matter as agent for the National Labor Relations
Board, and subject to Article III, Section 9, of said Rules and Regu-
lations, among the employees of the Company at its refinery and
-terminal at Port Arthur, Texas, who fall within the groups indicated
below and who were employed by the Company during the pay-roll
period immediately preceding the date of this Direction of Elections,
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 exclud-
ing those employees who have since quit or been discharged for
cause:
(a) All employees in the machine department and the blacksmith
department of both the refinery and the terminal, including laborers
and the pipe fitter, but excluding supervisory employees, to determine
whether they desire to be represented by Oil Workers' International
Union, Local No. 23, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organ-
izations, by International Association of Machinists, Port Arthur
Local No. 823, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor,
for the purposes of collective bargaining, or by neither;
(b) All employees in the electrical department, the recording-
instrument department, and the powerhouse, electricians permanently
assigned to the laboratory, and telephone and telegraph operators,
of both the refinery and the terminal, excluding supervisory em-
ployees, to determine whether they desire to be represented by Oil
Workers' International Union, Local No. 23, affiliated with the Con-
gress of Industrial Organizations, by International, Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers,, Port Arthur Local No. 390, affiliated with the
American Federation of Labor, for the purposes of collective
bargaining, or by neither;
THE TEXAS COMPANY 943
(c) All employees in the welding department and the boiler de-
partment, of both the refinery and the terminal, excluding super-
visory employees, to determine whether they desire to be represented
by Oil Workers' International Union, Local No. 23, affiliated with
the Congress of Industrial Organizations, by International Brother-
hood of Boilermakers, Iron Shipbuilders, Welders and Helpers of
America, Port Arthur Local No. 305, affiliated with the, American
Federation of Labor, for the purposes of collective bargaining, or
by neither;
(d) All hourly-paid employees in the laboratory department of
both the refinery and the terminal, excluding supervisory and clerical
-employees, to determine whether they desire to be represented by Oil
Workers' International Union, Local No. 23, affiliated with the Con-
gress of Industrial Organizations, by International Union of Oper-
ating Engineers, Port Arthur Local No. 461, affiliated with the
American Federation of Labor, by United Laboratory Workers,
for the purposes of collective bargaining, or by none of these
organizations;
(e) All employees in the refinery and the terminal, excluding em-
ployees in the groups described in paragraphs (a), (b), (c), and
(d) above, supervisory, technical, and clerical employees, employees
in the cafeteria, employees in the first-aid department, crew mem-
bers in the boat department, guards and watchmen, to determine
whether they desire to be represented by Oil Workers' International
Union, Local No. 23, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organ-
izations, by International Union of Operating Engineers, Port
Arthur Local No. 461, affiliated with the American Federation of
Labor, for the purposes of collective bargaining, or by neither.