U. S. Oil and Refining Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 8, 1958

120 N.L.R.B. 863 (N.L.R.B. 1958)

U. S. OIL AND REFINING COMPANY 863
Under all the circumstances , I find that Respondent's conduct in inducing or
encouraging two employees of Atlantic to cease work concertedly with the object
of forcing or requiring Atlantic to cease doing business with the Charging Party,
was not violative of Section 8 (b) (4) (A) of the Act. I will accordingly recommend
dismissal of the complaint.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
U. S. Oil and Refining Company and Oil, Chemical and Atomic
Workers International Union , AFL-CIO, Petitioner
U. S. Oil and Refining Company and Plumbers and ' Steamfitters
Union , Local No. 82, AFL-CIO, Petitioner
Douglas Guardian Warehouse Corporation and International
Union of Operating Engineers, Local No. 606, AFL-CIO, Peti-
tioner. Cases Nos. 19-1?0-2056, 19-RC-,107, and 19-IBC-,2080.
May 8, 1958
DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
Upon separate petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held in the
above-entitled cases before E. Kenneth McClaskey, hearing officer.
The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prej-
udicial error and are hereby affirmed.
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 Bean and Jenkins].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. U. S. Oil and Refining Company, hereinafter referred to as
U. S. Oil, is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act.'
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employers.2
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of U. S. Oil within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1)
and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
In Case No. 19-RC-2080, the International Union of Operating
Engineers (IUOE) Local No. 606 seeks to represent a unit limited
to the employees of Douglas Guardian Warehouse Corporation, here-
inafter referred to as Douglas.
U. S. Oil operates an oil refinery at Tacoma, Washington, and
Douglas is a public warehousing business operating throughout the
1 In view of our finding , infra, that the bonded representatives sought in a separate unit,
Case No. 19-RC-2080, are employees of U. S. Oil, it is not necessary to determine whether
Douglas Guardian Warehouse is likewise engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
a The Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers, hereinafter referred to as the Oil Workers,
and the International Union of Operating Engineers , Local No. 606 , hereinafter referred
to as IUOE, intervened in the proceedings brought by the other unions.
120 NLRB No. 116.
864 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
United States . These companies operate under two contracts, one is
called a "warehousing contract " and the other a "sub-lease Lease,"
under which Douglas maintains the adjacent warehouse facilities on
property leased to it by U. S. Oil for the purpose of storing and
releasing crude petroleum and refined oil products owned by U. S. Oil.
This arrangement with Douglas was necessary after U. S. Oil pledged
its assets as collateral for certain loans, and the lender required the
appointment of a custodian to protect the collateral . The sole function
of Douglas is to insure the recording of all products coming into the
leased facilities and the removal of the products in compliance with
conditions prescribed by U. S. Oil and the lender.
In order to perform its warehouse duties, Douglas employs a num-
ber of bonded representatives , classified as pumpers and gagers. The
duties of these men include gaging tanks, operating pumps, releas-
ing valves , and preparing and maintaining all necessary warehouse
records. While receiving the crude oil from tankers and barges or
while releasing refined products , they are assisted by U. S. Oil em-
ployees, except for recordkeeping . They are hired by Douglas, but
only upon the express written recommendation of U. S. Oil. Their
wages, hours of work, and length of workweek are determined by
U. S. Oil. The latter has recently raised their wages without clear-
ance with Douglas. The evidence shows they seldom spend more
than 3 1/1 hours per day in strictly warehousing duties for Douglas.
The balance of their time they work for U. S. Oil, under the direction
and control of U. S. Oil supervisors. U. S. Oil furnishes their office
quarters and all facilities . They are entitled to all benefits , such as
group insurance , health and welfare programs , vacations and holidays
as are offered U. S. Oil employees . In case of layoff, U. S. Oil plant
seniority applies to them. Douglas has the authority to discharge
the bonded representatives , but only after consultation with U. S.
Oil officials . However, Douglas considers itself bound to discharge
any bonded representative upon the recommendation of U. S. Oil.
The latter pays Douglas for all wages and other charges connected
with the warehousing duties.
It is clear from the foregoing facts that : ( 1) The bonded represent-
atives spend the major portion of their time performing duties for
U. S. Oil under the direct supervision of U. S. Oil supervisors; (2)
except for the paperwork involved in recordkeeping for Douglas,
they are assisted by other employees of U. S. Oil in performing their
functions as pumpers and gagers ; and (3 ) U. S. Oil exercises a sub-
stantial amount of control over the tenure , pay rates , and working
conditions of the bonded representatives . In these circumstances, we
find that they are employees of U. S. Oil within the meaning of the
Act and they have sufficient interests in common with the production
employees of U. S. Oil to be joined with them for collective -bargaining
U. S. OIL AND REFINING COMPANY 865
purposes.' On the other hand, for basically the same reasons, we can
see no justification for establishing a separate -unit of bonded repre-
sentatives. Accordingly, we shall dismiss the petition of the IUOE
in Case No. 19-RC-2080.
In Case No. 19-RC-2107, the Plumbers and Steamfitters Union,
Local No. 82, AFL-CIO, hereinafter referred to as the Plumbers, seeks
a unit of maintenance department employees at the refinery.' U. S.
Oil and the Oil Workers in Case No. 19-RC-2056, contend that the
only appropriate unit is an overall production and maintenance unit.'
There is no history of collective bargaining at this refinery.
The personnel of the refinery is divided into two departments, the
operating department and the maintenance department. The operat-
ing department employees are classified as operators A and B, blenders
and helpers, who perform the customary duties of their classifications
at oil refineries. This department is under the supervision of the
plant superintendent and works in three shifts. The maintenance
department consists of mechanics A and B, who ordinarily work only
on the day shift. They have as their headquarters the company ware-
house where the tool bins are located. U. S. Oil does not require nor
does it maintain any formal apprenticeship training program. How-
ever, a general mechanical background is necessary for employment
as a maintenance man. After they are hired, the men in the mainte-
nance department are trained in a number of mechanical tasks. The
maintenance department is supervised by a maintenance foreman, who
in turn, is responsible to the maintenance superintendent.
The record shows that the operating personnel do some minor main-
tenance work and vice versa. During "turn around" time when the
refinery is shut down for cleansing of all equipment, operating per-
sonnel assist the maintenance mechanics, and during this time all
employees work under the supervision of the maintenance foreman.
Except for "turn around," time, there appears to be an insubstantial
amount of interchange between the operating and maintenance
employees. Employee benefits are the same for both groups.
The Board has consistently held that, in the absence of a bargaining
history, maintenance employees may constitute a separate appropriate
unit.6 Contrary to the contentions of U. S. Oil, we do not find that
Cf Madonna & Arnold Lumber Co, 106 NLRB 835.
i All maintenance work is done by employees of U. S Oil, and there appear to be no
maintenance employees at Douglas.
6In the event the Board should direct an election in the maintenance unit sought by
the Plumbers, the Oil Workers and the IUOE desire to be on the ballot, and should an
election be directed in the overall production and maintenance unit sought by the Oil
Workers, the IUOE desires to be on the ballot.
6Dierks Paper Company, 120 NLRB 290; United States Gypsum Company, 116 NLRB
1939; American Can Company, 112 NLRB 509, Monsanto Chemical Company, 102 NLRB
273, The Ruberoid Company, 109 NLRB 257; Union Carbide Chemicals Company, 118
NLRB 954; Heublein, Inc., 119 NLRB 1337.
483142-59-vol. 120-56
866 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
its operations are so integrated as to preclude the establishment of
such a unit. In our opinion, the employees in the maintenance depart-
ment possess interests in common, distinct from those of the produc-
tion employees, which are sufficient to warrant their establishment in
a separate unit, where, as here, there is no collective-bargaining history
on a broader basis. We find, therefore, that the employees in the
maintenance department may constitute a separate unit, if they so
desire. An overall operating and maintenance unit may also be
appropriate.'
In view of the foregoing, we shall make no final unit determinations
at this time, but shall direct that the questions concerning representa-
tion be resolved by separate elections among the following groups of
employees at the U. S. Oil's Tacoma, V Tashington, plant :
(1) All maintenance department employees excluding office clerical
employees, professional employees, guards, all other employees, and
all supervisors as defined in the Act.
(2) All production employees, including the bonded representa-
tives, but excluding office clerical employees, professional employees,8
the draftsmen,9 guards, all other employees, and all supervisors 10 as
defined in the Act.
If a majority of the employees in voting group (1) select the
Plumbers or the IUOE, Local No. 606, they will be taken to have
indicated their desire to constitute a separate bargaining unit and
the Regional Director is instructed to issue a certification of repre-
sentatives to the Plumbers or the IUOE, Local No. 606, for such unit,
which the Board, under these circumstances, finds appropriate for the
purposes of collective bargaining. In that event, should a majority
of the employees in voting group (2) vote for a labor organization
appearing on the ballot for that group, the Regional Director is
instructed to issue a certification of representatives to that labor
organization for a unit of employees in that voting group, which the
Board, under these circumstances, finds to be appropriate for pur-
poses of collective bargaining. On the other hand, if a majority of
voting group (1) do not vote for the Plumbers, the ballots of the
employees in that voting group will be pooled with those of the
employees in voting group (2).11 If either the Oil Workers or the
4 Cow taulds ( Alabama ) Inc, 109 NLRB 571.
8 The parties stipulated that chemists and engineers are excluded as professional
employees.
9 The parties stipulated that the draftsman is excluded as a technical employee.
101n accordance with the agreement of the parties , the lead bonded representative, the
chief engineer , the maintenance superintendent , and the maintenance foreman are ex-
cluded as supervisors.
ll If the votes are pooled , they are to be tallied in the following manner : Votes for the
Plumbers shall be counted as valid votes ; but neither for nor against any of the other
participating labor organizations . All other votes are to be accorded their face value,
whether for representation by a union seeking the more comprehensive group or for no
union.
BENJAMIN FRANKLIN PAINT & VARNISH CO. 867
IUOE achieves a majority of the votes in the pooled group, the
Regional Director is instructed to issue a certification of representa-
tives to that labor organization for a unit of employees in both voting
groups (1) and (2) which the Board, under such circumstances, finds
to be an appropriate unit for the purposes of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
[The Board dismissed the petition in Case No. 19-RC-2080.]
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication.]
Benjamin Franklin Paint & Varnish Co., a Division of United
Wallpaper, Inc.' and Emidio J. Palombi, James J. Donahue,
and Anthony Galdi, Petitioners and Local 107, International
Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs , Warehousemen &
Helpers of America Z Case 4-RD-180. May 9, 1958
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed, under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Max Rotenberg, hear-
ing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
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 [Members Rodgers, Jenkins, and Fanning].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. Petitioners, employees of the Employer, assert that the Union is
no longer the bargaining representative of certain employees of the
Employer as defined in Section 9 (a) of the Act. The Union is cur-
rently recognized by the Employer as the exclusive representative of
such employees.
3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9
(c) (1) Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act for the following reasons:
For the past 20 years, the employees involved herein have been
covered by collective-bargaining agreements executed by the Em-
ployer and the Intervenor. The most recent contract was executed at
1 The Employer' s name appears as corrected at the hearing.
2 The Board having been notified by the AFL-CIO that it deems the Teamsters ' certifi-
cate of affiliation revoked by convention action, the identification of this Union is hereby
amended.
120NLRB No. 115.