Western Hyway Oil Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 13, 1953

106 N.L.R.B. 125 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

WESTERN HYWAY OIL COMPANY 125
Petitioner , and upon the entire record , fuel oil dispatchers,
service dispatchers , telephone order clerks , and service
mechanics employed at the Employer ' s Mount Vernon and
Tarrytown , New York, tank stations , excluding clerical and
office employees , guards , watchmen , professional employees,
and supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appro-
priate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9 ( b) of the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
WESTERN HYWAY OILCOMPANY and CHAUFFEURS, TEAM-
STERS & HELPERS , LOCAL NO. 150, INTERNATIONAL
BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS , CHAUFFEURS, WARE-
HOUSEMEN & HELPERS OF AMERICA, AFL, Petitioner.
Case No. 20 -RC-2238 . July 13, 1953
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Natalie P.
Allen , 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 Act, the
Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to
a three-member panel [Members Houston , Styles , and Peter-
son].
Upon the entire record in this case , the Board finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the Act.
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent
certain employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the
representation of employees of the Employer within the
meaning of Section 9 ( c) (1) and Section 2 ( 6) and ( 7) of the Act.
4. The Petitioner seeks a unit of all permanent truckdrivers
employed by the Employer at its West Sacramento , California,
bulk oil plant , excluding seasonal drivers and plantemployees.
The Employer , relying on the alleged integration of its opera-
tions , interchange among its employees , and collective-bar-
gaining practice in that area , contends only a unit including
both its drivers and plant employees is appropriate. The
Employer takes no position as to the placement of the seasonal
drivers . There is no history of collective bargaining among
any of the Employer ' s employees.
The Employer , a California corporation , is engaged in the
wholesale marketing of oil products at its West Sacramento
bulk plant where bulk oil products are received and stored and
from which they are distributed . Among its facilities are a
tank " farm" for storing the oil products and a marine dock
where barges tie up to unload their oil cargoes.
106 NLRB No. 14.
12 6 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Generally , the permanent drivers , 13 in number , perform
duties consisting of assisting plant men in the fueling and
loading of truck transports , which occupies a minor portion of
their time , delivering the load to distributors in the Sacra-
mento area , and returning to the plant for reloads . The plant
employees include 4 plant men, 3 loaders , 1 yardman, and 1
plant clerk. The plant men and loaders are engaged primarily
in loading of the trucks. They also take inventory and assist
in the unloading of barges . The yardman does general cleanup
and maintenance work in the yard and office and infrequently
assists in barge unloading . The plant clerk works in the
plant office, which is the headquarters for both drivers and
plant employees , doing the necessary paper work andassisting
in the dispatching of trucks.
All regular employees enjoy similar employment benefits.'
Also , plant men frequently move the trucks around the plant
area and during emergencies plant men may be assigned as
drivers . However , drivers are paid on a different basis and
receive higher wages than plant employees , 2 work different
schedules , and have different immediate supervision. Further-
more, transfer from the driver category to the plant has been
infrequent,' no plant employees have been transferred to the
driver classification , and drivers do not interchange with other
employees.
We believe that the integration of the Employer ' s operations
and the interchange of the Employer's personnel are not
sufficient to affect the identity of the truckdrivers as a separate
group . 4 Nor do we believe the alleged practice of collective
bargaining in the Sacramento area is sufficient to bar repre-
sentation on other than a plantwide basis . We find therefore
that the Employer ' s truckdrivers constitute a separate appro-
priate unit.
There remains for consideration the placement of the
seasonal drivers . The fuel oil season extends from approxi-
mately October 1 to May 1. During the season the Employer
leases fuel transport trucks and hires the owners as drivers.
These seasonal drivers perform the same duties as the
permanent drivers and generally are subject to the same con-
ditions of employment . S Of the Employer ' s current complement
of 13 permanent drivers , 2 were hired as seasonals and have
remained under steady employ for more than 18 months.
During the past heating season the Employer hired approxi-
'Since May 1, 1953, both plant employees and drivers have been eligible on the same
basis for paid holidays Prior to this, drivers were not, whereas plant employees were,
entitled to paid holidays.
2 Drivers are paid an hourly rate and receive $400 per month They receive straight pay
rather than incentive pay for overtime. Plant employees are paid on a salary basis ranging
from $300 to $380 per month. They receive time-and-a-half for work over 40 hours per
week.
3 There have been only three instances of transfer from driver to plant categories
4Q-F Wholesalers, Inc., 85 NLRB 582.
5Seasonal drivers do not receive sick leave and are not eligible for the Employer's
pension plan. Since May 1, 1953, the seasonal drivers are eligible for vacations, whereas
they formerly were not
INTERNATIONAL FURNITURE COMPANY 127
mately 25 seasonal drivers who worked an average of 5 or 6
months. Many are rehired from season to season . We find that
the seasonal drivers are properly included in the unit with the
permanent drivers and in view of the tenure of their employ-
ment are eligible to vote.6
We find that the following employees of the Employer con-
stitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective
bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act:
All permanent and seasonal drivers employed by the Em-
ployer at its West Sacramento, California, plant, excluding all
other employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the
Act. °
5. Because the season in the Employer's fuel oil business
has passed, we shall not direct an election at this time. Fol-
lowing our customary practice in seasonal industries, we shall
direct that the election be held during the Employer's next
season at or near the employment peak on a date to be deter-
mined by the Regional Director, among the employees in the
appropriate unit, who are employed during the payroll period
immediately preceding the date of the issuance by the Regional
Director of the notice of election.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
6See Fox DeLuxe Foods, Inc., 96 NLRB 1132; cf. California Spray-Chemical Corp., 86
NLRB 453.
7In its petition the Petitioner also sought to exclude part-time drivers from the unit.
The Employer was silent on this matter. Since it appears such drivers are employed only
on infrequent occasions and for short periods of time, we find the part-time drivers are
casuals and ineligible to vote.
INTERNATIONAL FURNITURE COMPANY and UPHOLSTER-
ERS' INTERNATIONAL UNION OF NORTH AMERICA,
LOCAL 188, AFL . Case No. 10-CA-1393 . July 14, 1953
DECISION AND ORDER
On April 13, 1953, Trial Examiner Frederic B. Parkes, 2nd,
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 Intermediate Report attached hereto.
Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate
Report and a brief in support thereof.
The Board' has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner
made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was
committed. Except as noted below, the rulings are hereby
1 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 Houston, Murdock, and
Peterson'.
106 NLRB No. 23.