Chalmette Petroleum Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 2, 1944

58 N.L.R.B. 679 (N.L.R.B. 1944)

In the Matter of CHALaMET1E PETROLEUM CORPORATION and OIL
WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION7 AFFILIATED WITH CONGRESS OF
INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATIONS
In the Matter of DOUGLAS PUBLIC SERVICE CORPORATION and OIL
WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, AFFILIATED WITH CONGRESS OF
INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATIONS
Cases Nos. 15-R-1181 and 15-R-1197 respectively.Decided October
R,1944
Mr. Nicholas Callan, of New Orleans, La., for Chalmette.
Baldwin, Haspel, Molony cfi Lang, by Mlir. L. A. Molony, of New
Orleans, La., for Douglas. - -
Mr. R. W. Starnes, of New Orleans, La., for the CIO.
Mr. Robert Faget, of New Orleans, La., for the AFL.
Cllr. Robert Silagi, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
AND
ORDER
-STATEMENT OF TIIE CASE
Upon petition` duly filed by Oil Workers International Union,
affiliated with Congress of Industrial Organizations, herein called the
CIO, alleging that questions affecting commerce had arisen concern-
ing the representation of employees of Chalmette Petroleum Corpora-
tion, New Orleans, Louisiana, herein called Chalmette, and Douglas
Public Service Corporation, New Orleans, Louisiana, herein called
Douglas, the National Labor Relations Board consolidated the peti-
tions and provided for an appropriate hearing upon due notice-before
Leroy Marceau, Trial Examiner. Said hearing was held at New
Orleans, Louisiana, on August 24, 1944. The Company, the CIO,
and International Union of Operating Engineers, Local Unions Nos.
226, 226A, and 226C, herein called the AFL, appeared.and participated.
All parties were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine
and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the
issues. The Trial Examiner's rulings made at the hearing are free
38 N. L. R. B., No. 139
679
680 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. All parties were af-
forded an opportunity to file briefs with the Board.
During the hearing, and in its brief, Douglas moved to dismiss the
petition in Case No. 15-R^1197. 'Ruling on the motion was reserved
by Trial Examiner for the Board. For the reasons hereinafter set
forth, the motion is hereby granted.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF CHALMETTE AND DOUGLAS
Chalmette Petroleum Corporation is a Delaware corporation main-
taining its principal office in New Orleans, Lcuisiana. Chalmette is
engaged in the business of refining petroleum, for which purpose it
operates a refinery at Chalmette, Louisiana. During the first half -of
the year _1944, this refinery secured over 7,000 barrels of petroleum
products each month from sources outside the State of Louisiana,
which represented 3.4 percent of its total purchases. During the
second quarter of 1944, 79 percent of its products, or more than 160,-
000 barrels each month were shipped to points outside the State of
Louisiana.
Douglas Public Service Corporation, a Louisiana corporation, con-
ducts a general warehousing business in the course of which it operates
warehouses and bulk liquid terminals in Louisiana, including the
one at Chalmette. Each year the merchandise entering Douglas'
warehouses and terminals exceeds $50,000 in value and comes from
States other than Louisiana. During the same period the merchan-
dise leaving the warehouses and terminals exceeds $50,000 in value
and is shipped to States.Qther than Louisiana.
In connection with its oil refinery, Chalmette has several storage
tanks located on its premises. Under a contract with Chalmette, the
tanks are leased to Douglas which takes possession of the oil pumped
into them from the refinery and issues negotiable warehouse receipts
therefor. Aside from the fact that Chalmette is a customer of Doug-
las, there is no interrelation between the two companies.
We find that both Chalmette and Douglas are engaged in com-
merce within the meaning of the National Labor Relation Act.
It. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Oil Workers International Union, affiliated with the Congress of
Industrial Organizations,,is a labor organization admitting to mem-
bership employees of the Company.
CHALMETTE PETROLEUM CORPORATION 681-
International Union of Operating Engineers, Local Unions Nos.
226, 226A, and 226C affiliated with the American Federation of Labor,
are labor organizations admitting to membership employees of the
Company.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION IN CASE NO . 15-11-1181;
THE ALLEGED QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION IN CASE NO.
15-R-1197
- On August 12, 1943, Chalmette and the AFL executed a contract
covering the employees working at the refinery in Chalmette,
Louisiana. This contract, by its terms, was to remain in effect until
August 11, 1944, and each year thereafter unless terminated or^
amended upon written notice 30 days prior to an anniversary date.
On July 10, 1944, the CIO advised Chalmette that it represented a
majority of its employees and requested a conference at which the
terms of a collective bar-gaining agreement might be discussed.- Three
days later Chalmette refused to grant the CIO recognition in the
absence of a Board certification. Inasmuch as the CIO's claim to
representation was presented to Chalmette prior to the automatic
renewal date, the contract does not constitute a bar to a present deter-
mination of representatives.
On May 5, 1944, Douglas executed a collective bargaining agreement
with the AFL to commence on June 1, 1944, and terminate on Septem-
ber 30, 1946. This contract covers employees of Douglas working in
its bulk liquid departments at Marrero, Algiers, Avondale, and Chal-
mette, Louisiana. The AFL and Douglas join in the contention that
their contract bars a present investigation into the question concerning
representation. Since the CIO made no claims to representation what- _
ever upon Douglas prior to the execution of the contract, in accordance
with our well established policy we find that it bars a determination of
representatives at the present time. We find that there is no question
concerning the representation of employees of Douglas within the
meaning of Section 9 (c) and Section12 (6) and (7) of the Acts. and we
shall, therefore, dismiss the petition in Case No. 15-R-1197. -
A statement of a Board agent, introduced into evidence at the hear-
ing, indicates that CIO represents a substantial number of employees
in the unit hereinafter found appropriate.'
We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning
the representation of employees of Chalmette, within the meaning of
Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
i The Field Examiner reported that the CIO submitted 60 membership cards . 57 of which
bore the names of persons appearing on the Company 's pay roll of July 17. 1944. There
are approximately 60 employees within the appropriate unit.
'682 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
The parties agree that all production and maintenance employees of
Chalmette excluding the clerical and supervisory employees constitute
an appropriate unit. To this group the CIO would add the three
bonded watchmen who are employees of Douglas, urging that they are
an integral part of the refinery group.2 However, in view of our dis-
missal of the petition in Case No. 15-R-1197 on other grounds we find
it unnecessary to discuss the appropriateness of including within the
same unit employees of two unrelated employer•s.3
We find that all production and maintenance employees of Chal-
mette, but excluding clerical employees and all supervisory employees
with authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise
effect changes in the status of employees or effectively recommend such
action, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective
bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
V. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
The CIO requests that the pay roll for the week of July 10, 1944,
be used to determine eligibility to vote. No substantial reason appear-
ing for deviating from our normal procedure in this respect, we shall
direct that the question concerning representation which has arisen
be resolved by all election by secret ballot among the employees in
the appropriate unit who were employed during the pay-roll period
immediately preceding the date of the Direction of Election herein,
subject to the limitations and additions set forth in the Direction.
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
By virtue of and pursuant to the power vested in the Nat'ioral Labor
Relations Board by Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations
Act, and pursuant to Article III, Section 9, of National Labor Rela-
tions Board Rules and Regulations-Series 3, as amended, it is hereby
DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation to ascertain representa-
tives for the purposes of collective bargaining with Chalmette Pe-
2 The CIO seeks their inclusion on the following giounds (a) the watchmen, who also
act as gaugers, execute orders emanating from Chalmette supervisors, (b) they work in
close proximity with the refinery employees of Chalmette , ( c) they desire representation
by the CIO, (d) they allegedly are carried on the seniority register of Chalmette, and
(e) one of the watchmen served as chairman of the CIO Committee of Chalmette employees
which negotiated with Chalmette management.
IIt should be noted, however, that in the absence of some nexus between individual
employers which results in a common control of labor policies or some unique and com-
pelling factual situation, the Board does not direct an emplo}er to bargain with respect
to the wages , hours, and conditions of employment of persons who are not its own
employees See National Labor Relations Boa-d Sixth Annual Report. pp 67-6ft, also see
Matter of J. L Biandeis d Sons, 50 N. L. R B 325, and Matter of Chicago Bridge and
Iron Co, 54 N L R B. 1001.
CHALMETTE PETROLEUM CORPORATION 683
troleum Corporation , New Orleans , Louisiana , an election by secret
ballot shall be conducted as early as possible, but not later than thirty
(30) days from the date of this Direction, under the direction and
supervision of the Regional Director for the Fifteenth Region, acting
in this matter as agent for the National Labor Relations Board, and
subject to Article III, Sections 10 and 11, of said Rules and Regu-
lations, among the employees in the unit found appropriate in Section
IV, above, who were employed during the pay-roll period immediately
preceding the date of this Direction, including employees who did not
work during said pay-roll period because they were ill or on vacation
or temporarily laid off, and including employees in the armed forces
of the United States, who present themselves in person at the polls.,
but excluding those employees who have since quit or been discharged
for cause and have not been rehired or reinstated prior to the date
of the election, to determine whether they desire to be represented
by Oil Workers International Union, affiliated with the Congress of
Industrial Organizations, or by International Union of Operating
Engineers, Local Unions Nos. 226, 226A, and 226C, affiliated with the
American Federation of Labor, for the purposes of collective bar-
gaining, or by neither.
ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of facts and upon the
entire record in the case , the National Labor Relations Board hereby
orders that the petition for investigation and certification of repre-
sentatives of employees of Douglas Public Service Corporation, New
Orleans, Louisiana, filed by Oil Workers International Union, affili-
ated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, be, and it hereby
is, dismissed.