Warren Petroleum Corp.Download PDFNational Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsAug 29, 195195 N.L.R.B. 1468 (N.L.R.B. 1951) Copy Citation 1468 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. 3. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteeed in Section 7 of the Act, Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. 4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices af- fecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. [Recommended Order omitted from publication in this volume.] WARREN PETROLEUM CORPORATION, PETITIONER and OIL WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, CIO WARREN PETROLEUM CORPORATION and OIL WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, CIO, PETITIONER . Cases Nos. 16-RM-4,3 and 16-RC-779. August . 9,1951 Decision and Direction of Election Upon separate petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the Na- tional Labor Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held before Evert P. Rhea, hearing 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 National Labor Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with these cases to a three-member panel [Members Houston, Reynolds, and Murdock]. Upon the entire record in these cases the Board finds: 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act. 2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain em- ployees of the Employer. 3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa- tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 4. Both the Employer and the Union in their respective petitions allege an appropriate unit consisting of all employees employed at the Employer's gasoline plant near Hawkins, Texas, excluding the plant superintendent and the chief engineer. The sole dispute be- tween them relates to the status of three individuals whom the Union would exclude from the appropriate unit as supervisors, and whom the Employer would include. The plant in question is engaged in the processing and manufac- turing of natural gasoline and other gasoline products. The essential operations are divided between the "field" and the plant proper. The functions in the field primarily involve the arrangement and regula- 95 NLRB No. 197. WARREN PETROLEUM CORPORATION 1469 tion' of the flow of gas and raw products to the plant for processing. A total of 47 persons are employed in all of the Employer's operations. The testimony indicates that the plant superintendent is the sole person having direct authority to hire, discharge, discipline, or re- ward employees. Under the plant superintendent, the chief engineer possesses the power to make effective recommendations regarding cer- tain changes in the status of employees. All other subordinates carry out or relay the instructions of the plant superintendent, and their recommendations relating to personnel action affecting employees are subject to independent investigation by the plant superintendent. As to the specific duties and authority of the 3 individuals in dispute, the record discloses the following relevant 'facts: . The schedule supervisor 1 is responsible for arranging and regulat- ing the flow of gas to the 'plant. As testified by the plant superin- tendent, the schedule supervisor has authority "to see that the work is carried out in the field." He ' issues : instructions to the field em- ployees 2 and, among other things; changes their work assignments, answers their operational questions, and may order them to work overtime. He also represents the Employer in dealing with other companies which supply gas to the plant. He' is paid a monthly salary.3 The foregoing facts indicate, in our opinion, that the sched- ule supervisor exercises responsible direction over employees within the meaning of the Act. We are' further persuaded as to his super= visory authority in view of the absence of any other direct supervision over the field employees,, and the disproportion of supervisors over employees evident in the Employer's position on this , issue. We shall therefore exclude'the schedule supervisor.4 ' The 'chemist 5 functions primarily to see that the various products manufactured by the Employer meet required technical specifications. Be performs no research work, but at different stages in the manu- facturing process makes control tests on the products. Two labora- tory testers also perform these tests as their regular full-time employ- ment.6 These testers are responsible to the chemist in connection with 'their work, and also report to him in respect to such matters as taking time off. In addition, the chemist issues operating instructions to various other employees in the plant. Thus, he may order the operator on duty in the plant 7 to raise or lower the temperature of 3 E. C. Swenson. E. g., metermen , roustabouts, the gang pusher, truck drivers ; switchers, and welders. $ All employees are hourly 'paid with the exception of the plant superintendent, the chief engineer , the schedule supervisor , and the chemist. See J. P. Stevens and Co., Inc., 93 NLRB 1513. $ 11. A. Yates. $ The plant superintendent estimates that it would take 3 to 5 . years for an employee of average intelligence working in the laboratory to .become. qualified to assume the. job of chemist in the Employer 's plant. 7 On each of the three shifts at the plant there are employed four employees called tower men , I. e., operator , distillman, oiler , and fireman. 1470 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR. RELATIONS BOARD the boilers, or make other changes; and he supervises certain of the Employer's shipping operations, referred to in the record as the "load- ing rack," where loaders are employed. As already noted, the.cheniist is paid by monthly salary. In these circumstances, we find that the chemist responsibly directs employees within the meaning of the Act, and we shall therefore exclude him." The office manager 0 and a clerk share the clerical work in the plant office. . The evidence shows that both the office manager and the clerk perform the same type of work and, in connection therewith, are under, the direct supervision of the plant superintendent. However, each of them is sufficiently experienced regularly to do the work without specific instruction or direction. It was testified that the classification of office manager was established in this instance as a means of re- ,^warding the present incumbent for length of service without, at the same time, effecting any .change in his duties. While it does appear that the office manager may in certain circumstances give instructions to the clerk, it is clear that- such instructions would be routine in character. Both these individuals are hourly paid. On these facts, we are of the opinion that the office manager is not a supervisor, as contended, and we shall include him 10 We find that all employees employed at the Employer's gasoline plant near Hawkins, Texas, including the office manager, but exclud= ing the plant superintendent, the chief engineer, the schedule, super- visor, the chemist, professional employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute. a unit appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this volume.] 8 As we shall exclude the chemist as a supervisor, we find it unnecessary to pass upon the Union 's further contention that the chemist is a professional employee under the Act. 8 T. B. Alford. 10 See e. g., The Connecticut Electric Manufacturing Co., 94 NLRB 1449 .; J. P. Stevens ct Co., Inc., supra. NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BROADCAST ENGINEERS AND TECHNICIANS, INDEPENDENT and TELEPROMPTER SERVICE CORP . AND TELEPROMPTER EQUIPMENT CORP. Case No. O-CD-40. August 30, 1951 Decision and Determination of Dispute STATEMENT OF THE CASE This proceeding arises under Section 10 (k) of the Ast, as amended, which provides that "whenever it is charged that any person has 95 NLRB No. 199. Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation