The Texas Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 4, 1945

61 N.L.R.B. 885 (N.L.R.B. 1945)

In the Matter of THE TEXAS COMPANY and OIL WORKERS INTER-
NATIONAL UNION, LOCAL No. 128, C. I. O.
Case No. 21-R,0658.-Decided May 4,1915
Messrs. J. A. McNair and D. Hendrix, of Los Angeles , Calif., for the
Company.
Messrs . C. 7'. Peterson , of Long Beach, Calif ., and Otis Odell Clay-
ton, of Torrance , Calif., for the Union.
Mr. Stanley B. Korengold , of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a petition duly filed by Oil Workers International Union,
Local No. 128, C. I. 0., herein called the Union, alleging that a ques-
tion affecting commerce had arisen concerning the representation of
employees of The Texas Company, Los Angeles, California, herein
called the Company, the National Labor Relations Board provided
for an appropriate hearing upon due notice before George H. O'Brien,
Trial Examiner. Said hearing was held at Los Angeles, California,
on March 16, 1945. The Company and the Union appeared and par-
ticipated. All parties were afforded full opportunity to be heard,
to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence
bearing on the issues. The Trial Examiner's rulings made at the
hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. All
parties were afforded an opportunity to file briefs with the Board.
Upon the entire record in'the case, the Board makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
The Texas Company, a Delaware corporation with its headquar-
ters in New York City, is engaged in the production, manufacture,
and distribution of petroleum products. Its operations are located
61 N. L. It. B., No. 145.
885
886 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
In eight west coast States, including the Wilmington, California, ter-
minal here involved, for which it maintains an administrative office
located at Los Angeles, California. During the year 1944 the Com-
pany purchased through this office raw materials and petroleum
equipment amounting to over $12,000,000, of which approximately 30
percent was shipped into California from points outside the State.
The corresponding sales for the year amounted to $59,000,000, of
which approximately 51 percent were shipments outside the State of
California. The Army and Navy purchased about 60 percent of this
petroleum production.
We find that the Company is engaged in commerce within the mean-
ing of the National Labor Relations Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Oil Workers International Union, Local No. 128, affiliated with the
Congress of Industrial Organizations, is a labor organization admit-
ting to membership employees of the Company.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
On January 12, 1945, the Union requested that the Company recog-
nize it as the exclusive bargaining agent for certain of its barge em-
ployees. The Company declined the Union's request for recognition.
The Company contends that, according to the constitution of the
Union, it cannot admit to membership the bargemen of the Company.
It argues that barge employees are seamen , eligible to membership in
various unions of such employees, but not eligible for membership in
a union composed of employees in the petroleum industry; that the
Board's order of an election will give rise to strife, unrest, and juris-
dictional disputes between the various unions.
We find no substantial merit in these contentions. The Company
has offered no evidence of jurisdictional demands by other unions;
moreover, the record indicates that the seamen unions have little or no
interest in the representation of these barge employees.' Whether or
not the constitution of the petitioning Union permits membership of
barge employees need not be here decided. The petitioner has stated
that it would admit such employees to membership, and there has been
no showing that the Union will not accord adequate representation to
all employees included within the unit herein found appropriate.2
1 The Field Examiner requested both the Seafarers ' International Union of North Amer-
ica, Pacific District , and the Inland Boatmen ' s Union of the Pacific to submit representa-
tion evidence to the Board . The Seafarers ' International Union replied that it has no
members among the Company ' s barge employees , the Inland Boatmen ' s union did not reply
2 See Matter of Platter Boat Works, 59 N L R. B. 292 , Matter of Virginia Smelting
Company, 60 N. L R. B. 616.
THE TEXAS COMPANY 887
A statement of the Field Examiner, introduced into evidence at the
hearing, indicates that the Union represents a substantial number of
employees in the unit hereinafter found appropriate.3
We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning the
representation of employees of the Company, within the meaning of
Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
The Company has, at its Wilmington, California, terminal, two
barges, each operated by four bargemen. The bargemen are rated as
head bargemen or barge captain, bargeman No. 1, 2, and 3, each re-
,ceiving a salary equivalent to his rating. As the barges are towed and
not self-propelled, the head bargeman does not act as a pilot or nav-
igator of the vessel, and thus does not fall into the classification of a
captain, or master of a ship. He does the regular barge work along
with the men and has but little supervisory authority. He is hired
as a bargeman , not as a supervisor. While he is responsible for the
upkeep and maintenance of the barge and its equipment, all of the
bargemen receive their orders and instructions from the Marine Super-
intendent. The head bargeman is not a licensed officer, but has merely
a tankerman's certificate which the other bargemen also possess.' The
record discloses that the head bargeman has no authority to hire,
discharge, or discipline employees, but that such authority rests only
with the Marine Superintendent. While the Company contends that
a recommendation by the head bargeman would be given considerable
weight, the record presents no substantial evidence of such practice.b
The Union has bargaining contracts with other oil companies in which
the head bargeman is included in the bargaining unit. Accordingly,
we are of the opinion that the head bargeman is not a supervisory
employee within the Board's definition thereof.
' The Field Examiner reported that of eight employees in the unit petitioned for, the
Union submitted five application for membership cards , dated December 1944 . All five
designations checked with the Company ' s pay roll of January 31, 1945.
4 A tankerman ' s certificate , which is issued by the Coast Guard, merely certifies that the
eihployee is capable and qualified to handle liquid cargo Generally each man on the barge
is so certified A license, on the other hand, issued by the same agency , is a Government
commission given only to the chief officers of a ship , such as masters , mates, pilots, and
,engineers . It certifies that the individual has met certain academic , physical, and ex-
perience requirements , and is now authorized to act on any type of vessel in his licensed
capacity Every steam vessel sailing upon the high seas, the Great Lakes, or the rivers of
the United States must carry such licensed personnel as the local inspectors deem necessary,
with a minimum always of one licensed officer, 46 U S. C. 222 , 224, 362 , 364. The same
provisions apply to Diesel engine vessels sailing upon the high seas and the' Great Lakes
They do not, however , apply to Diesel vessels navigating upon the rivers of the United
States , On the latter there need be no licensed personnel, 46 U S C. 367 . For small
crafts, motor boats, and nonself -propelled crafts there are varying regulations . Generally
they do not require any licensed officers on board
The only supervisory power of the head bargeman concerns the maintenance and up-
keep of the barge, which work he can divide between the four men ; he reports accidents
to the Marine Superintendent , and communicates the latter ' s orders to the other bargemen.
He spends as much time doing ordinary barge work as any of the other bargemen.
888. DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
We find that all bargemen, including the head bargeman or barge
captain, employed in the Marine Department of the Company's oper-
ations at Wilmington, California, but excluding all supervisory em-
ployees with authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or other-
wise effect changes in the status of employees, or effectively recommend
such action, 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
We shall direct that the question concerning representation which
has arisen be resolved by an election by secret ballot among the em-
ployees in the appropriate unit who were employed during the pay-
roll period immediately preceding the date of the Direction of Elec-
tion herein, subject to the limitations and additions set forth in the
Direction.
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 9, of National Labor Relations
Board Rules and Regulations-Series 3, as amended, it is hereby
DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation to ascertain representa-
tives for the purposes of collective bargaining with The Texas Com-
pany, Los Angeles, California, 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 Twenty-first Region, acting in this
matter as agent for the National Labor Relations Board, and subject
to Article III, Sections 10 and 11, of said Rules and Regulations,
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, and including employees in the armed forces
of the United States who present themselves in person at the polls, 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, to determine whether or not they desire to be represented by
Oil Workers International Union, Local No. 128, C. I. 0., for the
purposes of collective bargaining.