The Texas Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 8, 1945

61 N.L.R.B. 1018 (N.L.R.B. 1945)

In the Matter of THE TEXAS COMPANY and OIL WORKERS INTERNA-
TIONAL UNION, C. I. O.
Case No. 5-R-179,5.-Decided May 8, 19/5
Mr. H. L. Grames, of Norfolk, Va., and Mr. Raymond W. Gengler,
of New York City, for the Company.
Mr. Robert A. Johnson, of Norfolk, Va., and Mr. William R. Neil-
son, of New York City, for the Union.
Mr. R. L. Ful f ord, of Norfolk, Va., for the "No-Union Group" of
the Company's employees.
Mr. Angelo J. Fiumara, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a petition duly fired by Oil Workers International Union,
C. I. 0., herein called the Union, alleging that a question affecting
commerce had arisen concerning the representation of employees of
The Texas Company, Norfolk, Virginia, herein called the Company,
the National Labor Relations Board provided for an appropriate
hearing upon due notice before Earle K. Shawe, Trial Examiner.
Said hearing was held at Norfolk, Virginia, on March 20, 1945. The
Company and the Union appeared and participated.' A group of
employees, herein called the "No-Union Group," appeared through a
representative z for the sole purpose of requesting protection of the
right of employees to vote against the petitioning union in any elec-
tion directed by the Board. Since the request is in accordance with
our usual practice, we shall grant it. 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
I The Independent Organization of Employees of The Texas Company, herein called the
Independent , was served with notice but failed to appear.
2 Although Mr. Fulford first indicated at the hearing that he was appearing for the
Independent, lie later revised his position , stating that the Independent had been dissolved,
and that he was, in fact, appearing on behalf of the "No-Union Group."
61 N. L. R. B, No. 172.
1018
THE TEXAS COMPANY 1019
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
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
The Texas Company, a Delaware corporation with its principal
office located in New York City, is engaged in the production, trans-
portation, refining, and marketing of crude oil and petroleum prod-
ucts. We are here concerned solely with the Company's operations
at its oil terminal at Norfolk, Virginia, herein called the Norfolk
Terminal. During the year 1944, in excess of 100,000 barrels of oil
and petroleum products or approximately 75 percent of the Com-
pany's total production at the Norfolk Terminal was shipped to
points outside the State of Virginia. All products so shipped orig-
inated outside the State.
The Company admits, and we find, that it is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Oil Workers International Union, affiliated with the Congress of
Industrial Organizations, is a labor organization admitting to mem-
bership employees of the Company.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
By letter dated December 29, 1944, the Union advised the Company
that a substantial number of the employees in the unit previously
found appropriate by the Board had designated it as their repre-
sentative and requested the Company not to extend, renew, or nego-
tiate any agreement with any other labor organization. The Com-
pany thereupon refused to recognize the Union unless and until it
had been certified by the Board.
The Company has recognized the Independent as the exclusive
bargaining agent of its production and maintenance employees since
1937. On December 9, 1943, the Independent was certified by the
Board as the exclusive bargaining representative in substantially the'
same unit now sought by the Union, as the result of a Board-directed
election.3 Thereafter, on March 22, 1944, the Company and the Inde-
pendent entered into a contract which was to remain in effect until
February 1, 1945, and from year to year thereafter, "subject to termi-
3 Matter of The Teaas Company , 53 N. L. R. B. 436
1020 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
nation by either of said parties after February 1, 1945, upon 30 days'
written notice to the other." On December 22, 1944, the Independent
wrote the Company that, at its November 13, 1944, meeting, "it was
voted by unanimous consent" to notify the Company that the Inde-
pendent would disband on termination of the present agreement,, that
it did not wish to renew its agreement, and that it was relinquishing
all bargaining rights. A similar communication was also addressed
to the Board.
The record discloses that the Independent has, in fact, become
defunct and is no longer functioning as the representative of the
Company's employees. Moreover, since the contract has been effec-
tively terminated by the written notice of the Independent dated De-
cember 22, 1944, we find that it does not constitute a bar to a determi-
nation of representatives at this time.
A statement of a Board agent, introduced into evidence at the
hearing, indicates that the Union represents a substantial number of
employees in the unit hereinafter found appropriate.4
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
We find, in accordance with the agreement of the parties, that all
production and maintenance employees at the Norfolk Terminal, in-
cluding group leaders , gang leaders,5 checkers, watchmen, and gate-
men, but excluding all assistant foremen, subforemen , and their
superiors , all clerical employees , professional , technical , and adminis-
trative employees , and all or any other supervisory employees with
authority to hire, promote , discharge , discipline , or otherwise 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 6
V. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
We shall direct that the question concerning representation which
has arisen be resolved by an election by secret ballot. The "No-Union
.Group" does not purport to function as a labor organization for the
4 The Field Examiner reported that the Union submitted 50 membership application
cards dated between November 16, i944, and January 18, 1945 . There are approximately
62 employees in the unit hereinafter found appropriate
s It is clear that the group leaders and gang leaders do not have supervisory authority
within the customary Board definition
6 This is substantially the same unit found appropriate by the Board in its prior decision
(see footnote 3, supra ) and covered by the recently terminated agreement between the
Company and the Independent.
THE TEXAS COMPANY 1021
purposes of representing employees of the Company in collective bar-
gaining with their employer. It desires, as already indicated, that the
employees be given an opportunity to reject collective bargaining by
the petitioning union. We shall, in accordance with our usual prac-
tice, make provision on the ballot that employees may vote for or
against the Union. Those eligible to vote in the election shall be all
employees in the appropriate unit who were employed during the
pay-roll period immediately preceding the date of the Direction of
Election 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 Rela-
tions 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, Norfolk, Virginia, an election by secret ballot shall be con-
ducted 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 Fifth 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 em-
ployees in the unit found appropriate in Section IV, above, who were
employed during the pay-roll period immediately preceding 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
any who have since quit or been discharged for cause and have not
been rehired or reinstated prior to the date of the election, to deter-
mine whether or not they desire to be represented by Oil Workers
International Union, C. I. 0., for the purposes of collective bargaining.
7 The Union's request that it be designated on the ballot as "Oil Workers International
Union, C I. 0." is hereby granted
639678-45-vol. 61-66