The Texas Pipe Line Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 18, 1960

129 N.L.R.B. 705 (N.L.R.B. 1960)

THE TEXAS PIPE LINE COMPANY 705
The Texas Pipe Line Company and Oil, Chemical and Atomic
Workers International Union . Case No. 23-CA-1005. Novem-
ber 18, 1960
DECISION AND ORDER
On July 19, 1960, Trial Examiner Samuel Ross issued his Inter-
mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondent had engaged in certain unfair labor practices and recom-
mending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative
action, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached
hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Inter-
mediate Report and a supporting brief.'
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel [Chairman Leedom and Members Jenkins and
Fanning].
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at
the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in the
case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and reconunenda-
tions of the Trial Examiner.
ORDER
Upon the entire record in this case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations
Board hereby orders that the Respondent, The Texas Pipe Line Com-
pany, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively concerning rates of pay, wages,
hours of employment, or other terms or conditions of employment,
with Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers International Union as the
exclusive representative of all its employees in the following appro-
priate unit :
All operating and maintenance employees of the Wichita Falls,
Houston, and Lafayette divisions, excluding office clerical, tech-
nical, and professional employees, guards, mechanical mainte-
nance foremen, electrical maintenance foremen, chief main line
engineers, and all other supervisors as defined in the Act.
(b) In any like or related manner, interfering with, restraining,
or coercing its employees in the exercise of their rights to self-
1 The Respondent's request for oral argument is hereby denied as, in our opinion, the
record, exceptions, and brief adequately present the positions of the parties
129 NLRB No. 84.
586439-61-vol 129--46
706 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
organization, to form a labor organization, to join or assist Oil, Chem-
ical and Atomic Workers International Union, or any other labor
organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their
own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose
of collective bargaining or other mutual aid and protection, or to
refrain from engaging in any such activities.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Upon request, bargain collectively with Oil, Chemical and
Atomic Workers International Union, as the exclusive representative
of all employees in the appropriate unit, in respect to rates of pay,
wages, hours of employment, and other terms or conditions of em-
ployment, and, if an understanding is reached, embody such under-
standing in a signed agreement.
(b) Post at its plants at Wichita Falls and Houston, Texas, and
Lafayette, Louisiana, copies of the notice attached to the Intermediate
Report marked "Appendix A." 2 Copies of said notice, to be fur-
nished by the Regional Director for the Twenty-third Region, shall,
after having been duly signed by the Respondent, be posted by Re-
spondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it
for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all
places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reason-
able steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that such no-
tices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Twenty-third Region, in
writing, within 10 days from the date of this Decision and Order,
what steps it has taken to comply therewith.
2 This notice shall be amended by substituting for the words "The Recommendations of
a Trial Examiner" the words "A Decision and Order." In the event that this Order is
enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, there shall be substituted for
the words "Pursuant to a Decision and Order" the words "Pursuant to a Decree of the
United States Court of Appeals , Enforcing an Order."
INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a charge filed by Oil , Chemical and Atomic Workers International Union,'
herein called the Union , the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board
issued a complaint dated April 7, 1960, against The Texas Pipe Line Company,
herein called Respondent, alleging that Respondent has engaged in unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) and ( 5) of the
Labor Management Relations Act, as amended ( 61 Stat. 136, 73 Stat. 519), herein
called the Act. The Respondent has filed an answer which denies the commission of
the unfair labor practices.
Pursuant to notice , a hearing was held before the duly designated Trial Examiner
on May 3, 1960 , at Houston, Texas. All parties were represented at the hearing
and were given full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine wit-
nesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues . The Respondent has filed
a brief which I have fully considered.
1 At the hearing, the designation of the Charging Union was amended by consent to
delete "AFL-CIO" from its name
THE TEXAS PIPE LINE COMPANY 707
Upon the entire record in the case, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
The Respondent, a Texas corporation whose principal office and place of business
is located in Houston, Texas, is a wholly owned subsidiary of Texaco, Inc., engaged
in the transportation of petroleum products by pipeline in the States of Texas,
Louisiana, Illinois, Indiana, Oklahoma, and Montana. During the last 12 months, a
representative period, the Respondent shipped crude oil and petroleum products
valued in excess of $200,000,000 between and among the above-named States. Upon
the foregoing, I find that the Respondent is engaged in interstate commerce within
the meaning of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers International Union is a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
On March 4, 1959, the Respondent filed a petition with the Board requesting that
an election be held in a unit composed of "all operating and maintenance employees
of the Respondent's Wichita Falls Division." 2 On March 9, 1959, the Union filed
a petition requesting that an election be held in a companywide unit consisting of
"all operating and maintenance employees of Respondent." 3 The two petitions were
consolidated for hearing and a representation hearing was held in Houston, Texas,
on April 6 and May 18, 19, 20, and 21, 1959, before a bearing officer of the Board.
The principal issue at the hearing was the question of what constituted an appro-
priate unit for purposes of collective bargaining. After the hearing, briefs were
filed on behalf of both Respondent and the Union. On December 17, 1959, the
Board issued its Decision and Direction of Election .4 Therein the Board concluded
that the following employees of the Respondent constituted a unit appropriate for
the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of the Act:
All operating and maintenance employees of the Employer's Wichita Falls,
Houston, and Lafayette divisions, excluding office clerical, technical and pro-
fessional employees, guards, mechanical maintenance foremen, electrical main-
tenance foremen, chief main line engineers , and all other supervisors as defined
in the Act.
Thereafter on December 28, 1959, the Respondent moved for reconsideration of
the Board's unit determination quoted above, and, on January 7, 1960, filed with the
Board a brief in support of said motion. In its motion and supporting brief, the Re-
spondent contended that the unit found appropriate by the Board, was inappropriate,
contrary to law and fact, arbitrary and capricious, and based on the extent of union
organization. On January 23, 1960, the Board denied the Respondent's motion for
reconsideration "as lacking in merit."
On January 26 and 27, 1960, an election was conducted by the Board among the
employees of Respondent in the above unit . The tally of ballots disclosed that of
388 eligible voters, 245 voted for the Union, 115 voted against the Union, there
was 1 void ballot, and no challenged ballots. Thereafter, on February 9, 1960, the
Board formally certified the Union as the exclusive bargaining representative of the
employees in the unit described above.
On March 10, 1960, the Respondent wrote a letter to the Union stating, inter alia,
that "the Board's unit determination is contrary to law," "arbitrary and capricious,"
that, therefore, to save the Union "unnecessary expenditure of time and effort in
preparation for bargaining," it was advising that "must decline to bargain with
your Union." The letter stated further that "bur sole reason for taking this action is
to obtain a review by the Courts" of the Board's unit determination.
At .the hearing in the instant case, the Respondent sought to relitigate the appro-
priateness of the unit which the Board found appropriate in its decision and direction
of election. If offered to prove that the Board's unit determination was contrary to
law and fact, that the Company's organizational structure was on a divisional basis,
that there wasa 16-year history of bargaining by the Compny on a divisional basis,
8 Case No. 16-RM-176.
8 Case No 39-RC-1358. This case number was subsequently changed to 23-RC-1358.
4 125 NLRB 837.
708 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
that the Board's decision and direction of election was based on the extent of the
Union's organization among the Respondent's employees, that the Montana division
of the Respondent has a current contract in effect, and that the Salem, the Hearne
Products, and the Evangeline Products divisions have no union organization. It
further offered to prove that each of the three divisions in the unit found appropriate
by the Board has a separate manager with full authority in his own division but
none outside of it and that the Board's decision makes necessary bargaining by a
team consisting of three of the Respondent's division managers. However, the Re-
spondent admitted at the hearing that there was no change in the circumstances of
any of the employees involved since the Board's decision and direction of election,
and further admitted that all of the facts which it offered to prove at the hearing
in this case were already contained in the testimony of the witnesses in the transcript
of the hearing conducted pursuant to the petitions for an election. Since the Re-
spondent offered no testimony which had not already been considered and resolved
by the Board in the aforementioned cases, I rejected the offer of proof and did not
permit the Respondent to relitigate the appropriateness of the unit found by the
Board.5
Upon the record herein, including the Board's decision and direction of election,
the Union's victory in the election of January 26 and 27, 1960, and the Board's
certification of the Union dated February 9, 1960. I find and conclude that the
Union, at all times material herein, has been and now is the exclusive representative
of all the Respondent's employees in a unit appropriate for purposes of collective
bargaining in respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other terms
and conditions of employment. Moreover, based on the Respondent's letter dated
March 10, 1960, I find and conclude that on and after the said date, the Respondent
has refused to bargain with the Union.6
Accordingly, I find and conclude that by the said refusal to bargain with the
Union , the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act, and that by such conduct the
Respondent has also interfered with, restrained, and coerced employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act and has thereby engaged in and is
engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECTS OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in con-
nection with the operations of the Respondent described in section I, above, have
a close, intimate , and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the
several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing com-
merce and the free flow thereof.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I
shall recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative
action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the
case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers International Union is a labor organiza-
tion within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
2. All operating and maintenance employees of the Respondent 's Wichita Falls,
Houston, and Lafayette divisions, excluding office clerical, technical, and professional
employees , guards, mechanical maintenance foremen, electrical maintenance fore-
men, chief main line engineers , and all other supervisors as defined in the Act, con-
stitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the mean-
ing of Section 9(b) of the Act.
3. At all times since February 9, 1960 , the Union has been and continues to be
the exclusive bargaining representative of all the employees in the aforementioned'
unit for the purpose of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(a)
of the Act.
5 Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company v N L R B., 313 U.S 146; N L R B v. American
Steel Buck Corp., 227 F. 2d 927 (CA. 2) ; National Carbon Company, 110 NLRB 2184
6 In view of Respondent's letter advising the Union that it would not bargain in order
to test the Board's certification, the absence of a demand by the Union to bargain is
immaterial since such a demand would have been a useless gesture. Old Town Shoe
Company, 91 NLRB 240.
GIBBS CORPORATION 709
4. By refusing , on and after March 10 , 1960 , to bargain collectively with the
Union as the exclusive representative of its employees in the aforesaid unit, the
Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8(a) (5) of the Act.
5. By the aforesaid refusal to bargain collectively, the Respondent has interfered
with , restrained , and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
in Section 7 of the Act, and thereby has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act.
6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board , and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, as amended , we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL bargain collectively upon request with Oil, Chemical and Atomic
Workers International Union , as the exclusive representative of all our em-
ployees in the bargaining unit described herein, in respect to rates of pay,
wages, hours of employment , or other conditions of employment , and, if an
understanding is reached , embody such understanding in a signed agreement.
The bargaining unit is:
All operating and maintenance employees of our Wichita Falls, Houston,
and Lafayette divisions , excluding office clerical , technical , and professional
employees , guards, mechanical maintenance foremen , electrical mainte-
nance foremen , chief main line engineers, and all other supervisors as
.defined in the Act.
THE TEXAS PIPE LINE COMPANY,
Employer.
Dated------- ------------ By-------------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not be
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
Gibbs Corporation and Industrial Union of Marine and Ship-
building Workers of America , AFL-CIO
Southern Shipbuilding , Inc., Division of Gibbs Corporation and
Industrial Union of Marine and Shipbuilding Workers of
America, AFL-CIO. Cases Nos. 12-CA-1153 and 12-CA-1206.
November 18, 1960
DECISION AND ORDER
On June 29, 1960, Trial Examiner A. Bruce Hunt issued his Interme-
diate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Re-
spondents had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair labor
practices and recommending that they cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Inter-
mediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondents filed
exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief.
129 NLRB No. 80.