Union Sulphur and Oil Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 7, 1952

99 N.L.R.B. 19 (N.L.R.B. 1952)

UNION SULPHUR AND OIL CORPORATION 19
effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction in this case.2
Accordingly, we shall dismiss the present petitions.
Order
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petitions filed in the case be, and they
hereby are, dismissed.
8 Cf. Dorn's House of Miracles , Inc., 91 NLRB 632; Hollow Tree Lumber Company,
91 NLRB 635.
UNION SULPHUR AND OIL CORPORATION and LOCAL No. 407, INTERNA-
TIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS , AFL, PETITIONER. Case
No. 15-RC-560. May 7,1952
Supplemental Deeision and Direction of Election
On January 31, 1952, the Board issued a Decision and Order 1 in
the above-captioned matter, finding that the unit requested by the Peti-
tioner, limited to the Employer's gas and oil operations in southwest-
ern Louisiana , was inappropriate, and that the unit should also in-
clude the Employer's employees at its operations in southeastern
Texas. Although the Petitioner was willing to represent the larger
unit found to be appropriate, as its showing of interest was not suffi-
cient to justify holding an election in the larger unit, the Board dis-
missed the petition.
On April 1, 1952, the Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration,
in which it alleged that it now has obtained a sufficient number of
designations to entitle it to participate in an election among the Em-
ployer's employees in the larger unit.
The Board having determined administratively that the Petitioner's
showing of interest is sufficient under its Rules and Regulations to
warrant a direction of election in this proceeding, and having con-
sidered the Petitioner's motion for reconsideration and the Employer's
reply thereto, the motion is hereby granted. Upon the entire record
in this case, the Board further finds : 2
1 Union Sulphur and Oil Corporation . 97 NLRB No. 236.
2 The issues concerning the unit and the contentions of the parties were fully litigated
at the hearing . The Employer does not contend that , since the hearing, there has been
any change of conditions or circumstances affecting the employees concerned, or that it
is in possession of newly discovered evidence not available at the hearing . The Board
has held that there is no impropriety in making a unit determination upon a motion for
reconsideration where the Employer is in no way prejudiced by such action . Foreman cb
Clark, Inc., 98 NLRB 530. Under the circumstances , we believe that it would serve no
useful purpose and would not be in the public interest to require the Petitioner to file
a new petition . Cf. The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc., 98 NLRB 87.
99 NLRB No. 5.
20 DECISIONS OF 'NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
At the hearing.in this case, the parties were agreed as to the general
composition of the unit, i. e., that a unit composed of all operating,
production, and maintenance employees excluding office clerical em-
ployees, professional employees, watchmen, guards, and all supervisors
is appropriate. But the Employer would include and the Petitioner
would exclude the drilling employees, the head rodman, and survey
crews. The Employer would exclude and the Petitioner would in-
clude the pushers, subforemen, and rotary drillers.
The drilling employees work in groups in southwestern Louisiana
and in southeastern Texas wherever needed. They frequently travel
from Louisiana to Texas and spend from 3 to 4 months at one place.
They share, however, the same benefits and privileges as the other
employees. They frequently work on the same jobs with rig builders
whom the Petitioner would include in the unit, and there is some inter-
change between the drilling employees and those in the operating
departments. We shall include the drilling employees in the unit.'
The head rodman has no engineering or technical training. A high
school education is sufficient for anyone to learn the duties of this
classification within a week or two. He is hourly rated and his duties
consist of handling the rod on running levels and keeping minor field
notes which are ha>^ded_to, the instrumentman 4 None of the parties
asserts, and the record does not indicate, that he possesses any super-
visory authority. The survey crews, like the head rodman, need have
no more training than a high school education. While their actual
duties do not appear on the record, it appears that they are merely
temporary employees picked up when needed at the site of the survey.
We shall include the head rodman in the unit, but exclude the survey
crews as casual employees.
The pipe connection crew pushers, the workover rig pushers, the
roustabout pushers, the rig builders sub foremen, and the rotary drill-
ers each work with three to five employees, and in the absence of the
foremen direct the work of these employees. Each of the pushers,
subforemen, and rotary drillers makes effective recommendations as
to the hiring and discharging of any of the employees with whom they
work. Upon the entire record, we find that the pipe connection crew
pushers, the workover rig pushers, the roustabout pushers, the rig
builder subforemen, and the rotary drillers are supervisors within the
meaning of the Act, and we shall exclude them from the unit.
We find that all operating, production, and maintenance employees
employed at the Employer's southwest Louisiana and southeast Texas
gas and oil operations, including field clerks, drilling employees, and
the head rodman, but excluding office clerical, professional, and tech-
J. S. Abercrombie Co., 77 NLRB 712.
The parties agree that the instrumentman should be excluded from the unit.
TECHNICAL PORCELAIN AND CHINAWARE COMPANY 21
iiical employees , survey crew , watchmen, guards , pipe connection
crew pushers, workover rig pushers, roustabout pushers, rig builders
subforemen , rotary drillers, and,all other supervisors as defined in the
Act, constitute a unit appropriate for purposes of collective bargain-
ing within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
MEMBERS STYLES and PETERSON took no part in the consideration of
the above Supplemental Decision and Direction of Election.
ANTONE PAGLIERO, JOHN PAGLIERO, AND ARTHUR J. PAGLIERO,
CO-PARTNERS, D/B/A TECHNICAL PORCELAIN AND CHINAWARE COM-
PANY and CHEMICAL WORKERS UNION, LOCAL 266, MINE, MILL AND
SMELTER WORKERS UNION. Case No. 20-CA-566. May 9, 1952
Decision and Order
On November 1, 1951, Trial Examiner Irving Rogosin issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair
labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Inter-
mediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent filed
exceptions to the Intermediate Report.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner and
finds that no prejudical error was committed. The rulings are hereby
affirmed. The Board has considered the Intermediate Report, the
exceptions, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the
findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner
with the following additions and modifications.
The Trial Examiner has found, and we agree, that the Respondent
furnished aid and assistance to Local 165, National Brotherhood of
Operative Potters, .AFL, in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) and (2)
of the Act. Like the Trial Examiner, we base our finding in this
respect upon the fact that the Respondent accorded continuing effect,
after November 19, 1950, to a contract with Local 165 containing
illegal union-security provisions. In the usual case of this sort the
Board, as the Trial Examiner has recommended, orders that the
respondent cease giving effect to such a contract, and withhold recog-
99 NLRB No, 4.
215233-53-3