Cities Service Refining Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 27, 1951

94 N.L.R.B. 1634 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

1634 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Moreover, that section itself contemplates that its obligations are sub-
ject to defeasance by the operation of the Board's ordinary representa-
tion procedure 22 Congress was well aware of the Board's preexisting
rules for determining the timeliness of a rival claim to representation.
Nowhere in the 1947 legislative history is there any suggestion that
.these rules were to be changed because of the insertion of Section 8
i(d) in the Act. Nor would we change them today
The majority also seeks to rely upon the rationale used in the North-
-.western, Publishing and Mississippi Lime cases. In both those cases,
.the Board merely followed the agreement of the parties in determin-
ing the "usual and natural" period for conducting negotiations.
.'The Board did not fix this period for them, nor did it permit a change
in the period during the contract term. That is precisely what our
,colleagues are permitting the Employer and the Intervenor to do in
this case. In the 1946 agreement, which was renewed for several
-successive years, the contracting parties agreed upon what would be
a reasonable period for conducting new negotiations. They per-
mitted the contract to be renewed without changing this period for
several years after the effective date of the Labor Management Rela-
tions Act. As late as 1949, the last renewal year, the parties appear
to have been satisfied with the 30-day negotiating period they them-
selves had provided. We would hold them to their contract.
Under established Board rules, the Petitioner filed its second pe-
tition in timely fashion. For this reason we agree with our colleagues
that the 1950 contract is not a bar to a present determination of rep-
resentatives.
22Section 8 (d) provides :
The duties imposed upon employees , employers , and labor organizations by para-
graphs (2), (3) and ( 4) shall become inapplicable upon an intervening certifica-
tion of the Board, under which the labor organization or individual, which is a
party to the contract , has been superseded as or ceased to be the representative of the
employees subject to the provisions of Section 9 (a). . . .
'CITIES SERVICE REFINING CORPORATION and OFFICE EMPLOYEES INTER-
NATIONAL UNION, LOCAL No. 87, PETITIONER. Case No. 15-RC-496.
June 27,1951
Decision and,Direction of Election
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the Natioaal Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Max Schwartz, hearing offi-
cer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from
prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
94 NLRB No. 217.
CITIES SERVICE REFINING CORPORATION 1635
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, Reynolds, and Styles).
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 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. The parties generally agree that office clerical employees at the
Employer's Hodge Street and Frank Building offices at Lake Charles,
Louisiana, excluding confidential and managerial employees and su-
pervisors,' constitute a unit appropriate for bargaining purposes.
These employees handle the administration, bookkeeping, paper work,
and all related activities of the Cities Service operations in the Lake
Charles area. Among them are secretaries of office and department
heads and employees dealing with labor relations. The parties dis-
agree as to the unit placement of certain individuals, discussed below,
whom the Petitioner would include in the unit, but whom the Em-
ployer would exclude therefrom.'
The auditor checks and approves vouchers for the payment of
money.3 The auditor supervisor makes departmental audits, includ-
ing audits of the Employer's payroll department. Although in the
course of his duties he has access to personnel and labor relations
information, and may make general policy recommendations, it does
not appear that he determines or effectuates labor relations policy.
He exercises none of the powers of a supervisor as set forth in Sec-
tion 2 (11) of the Act. The cashier receives and enters in cashbooks
vouchers from the Employer's accounting department, checks regis-
ters, and selects the banks in which he makes deposits and on which
the Employer draws checks in payment of the vouchers. Chief clerks
1 The parties agree that employees in categories listed on Appendix A should be included
in the unit and that employees in categories listed on Appendix B should be excluded
from the unit.
Z The Petitioner would also include, and the Employer exclude , the supervisor B and
the telephone operator senior. There were no individuals in these categories at the time
of the hearing , and the record does not indicate that the Employer contemplates filling
these jobs in the immediate future. In accordance with the Board's usual policy, we
shall make no unit determination for these disputed categories . Ruben Furniture
Company, 91 NLRB No. 207.
3 Although the Employer intended that the auditor should have virtually the same work
duties and responsibilities as the auditor supervisor, discussed below, and should work
with him, the auditor, because of his physical condition , has been unable to make audits
during about the last 2 years.
1636 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(general ledger division), of whom there are two,' prepare the Em-
ployer's monthly financial statements. In the course of their work,
they see that departmental accounting employees submit reports on
time, and keep the Employer's general ledgers and proportionate
sheets. Although grievances in their first step may "come" to them,
thus affording them access to departmental personnel files, it does
not appear that either of the chief clerks now under discussion adjusts
grievances or exercises any of the other powers of a supervisor or
formulates or effectuates labor relations policy. Employees working
with the chief clerks assist them with the preparation of the Em-
ployer's monthly statements. They submit departmental reports, as
noted above, and do other accounting work, and typing and dittoing.
The supervisor A. and the clerks B and D (budget Section) each
month prepare the Employer's monthly budget, comparing the re-
sults of the Employer's operations for the current month with those
for the preceding month and keep an instruction ledger, showing
the approved parts of the budget, and a tax accrual record. The
supervisor A exercises no supervisory authority. The clerk B (pay-
roll department) handles the Employer's. payroll. In the course of
her work duties, she makes payroll deductions in accordance with
the Employer's collective bargaining contracts, and thus has access
to personnel and other labor relations records. She makes reports
to the Employer's New York office relating to the Employer's execu-
tive payroll. On the basis of the above facts, and the entire record
in this case, we find that the auditor, auditor supervisor, chief clerks
and employees working with them (general ledger division), super-
visor A and clerks B and D (budget section), and clerk B (payroll
department) are not supervisors within the meaning of the Act and
neither managerial nor confidential employees within the Board's
definitions of these terms.5
The chief clerk (traffic department) selects the type of transpor-
tation by which the Employer makes shipments of its merchandise,
makes contracts with common carriers, passes on the rates which
they charge the Employer, represents the Employer at public utility
commission hearings and may determine the order in which the
Employer makes shipments and in which tank and other. freight cars
are unloaded at the Employer's refinery. Although grievances may
"come" to the chief clerk, and he was consulted by the head of the
traffic department in the hiring of a departmental stenographer, it
does not appear that the chief clerk adjusts grievances or exercises
"The work duties of one of the chief clerks relate to the Employer's refinery; the duties
of the other , to its butadiene plant. At the hearing, -the parties agreed that their duties
are virtually the same.
5 New England Telephone and Telegraph Company, 90 NLRB 639, and cases cited therein.
CITIES SERVICE REFINING CORPORATION 1637
:any other powers of a supervisor. We shall exclude him, however,
as a managerial employee.
The stenographer-secretary (insurance department) handles the
Employer's insurance records, including those relating'to the Em-
ployer's group insurance and retirement plans for its employees, and
:substitutes for, and assists, the secretary to the Employer's vice presi-
dent and general manager.° We infer and find from the record
that the vice president and general manager formulate and effectuate
the Employer's labor relations policy, and that the stenographer-
-secretary (insurance department) acts in a confidential capacity to
the vice president and general manager. The stenographer-secretary
(sales department) and the stenographers junior (accounting and
purchasing departments) perform the usual duties of their classi-
fication for the acting head of the sales department, the head of the
accounting department, and the senior buyer and the purchasing
agent of the purchasing department, respectively. Although the
secretary-stenographer and the stenographers junior now under dis-
cussion deal with matters which the Employer considers confidential
to its business, and have access to labor relations and personnel files,
and handle correspondence relating to grievances, the record fails
to. establish that any of the persons for whom they work formulates
or effectuates the Employer's labor relations policy. We shall, there-
fore, exclude the stenographer-secretary (insurance department)
from the unit, and we shall include the stenographer-secretary (sales
department) and the stenographers junior (accounting and purchas-
ing departments) in the unit.
The telephone operator junior operates the Employer's telephone
:switchboard. The telephone operator junior-teletype operator oper-
ates the switchboard and the teletype machine. Although the Em-
ployer contends that the teletype operator is the supervisor of the
-telephone operator junior, the record does not disclose that she ex-
ercises any of the powers of a supervisor as set forth in Section 2 (11)
,of the Act. When operating the switchboard, these employees may
overhear messages relating to the Employer's labor relations and
financial matters. When operating the teletype machine, the tele-
type operator is required to read such messages. We shall include
the telephone operator junior and the telephone operator junior-
teletype operator in the unit.?
We find that all office clerical employees at the Employer's Hodge
Street and Frank Building offices at Lake Charles, Louisiana, includ-
ing the auditor, the auditor supervisor, the cashier, chief clerks and
employees working with them (general ledger division), the super-
6 The parties agree to exclude the secretary to the vice president and general manager.
I New England Telephone and Telegraph Company, supra , and Southern Alkali Corpora-
tion, 84 NLRB 120, and cases cited therein.
1638 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
visor A and the clerks B and D (budget section), the clerk B (pay-
roll department), the stenographer-secretary (sales department), the
stenographers junior (accounting and purchasing departments), the
telephone operator junior, the telephone operator junior-teletype
operator, and all employees in the categories listed on Appendix A,
but excluding the chief clerk (traffic department), the stenographer-
secretary (insurance department) and all employees in the categories
listed on Appendix B and all other managerial and confidential em-
ployees and supervisors, constitute a unit appropriate for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of
the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
WEST TEXAS UTILITIES COMPANY, INC. and INTERNATIONAL BROTHER-
HOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCALS 898 AND 920, AFL. Case No.
16-CA-193. June 28, 1951
Decision and Order
On November 30, 1950, Trial Examiner George A. Downing issued
his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding
that 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, Respondent filed
exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief ; the
General Counsel filed exceptions.
The Board 1 has reviewed the Trial Examiner's rulings made at the
hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rul-
ings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Intermediate
Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in the case, and.
hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the
Trial Examiner, with the modifications, corrections, and additions
noted below : 2
i 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 Herzog and
Members Houston and Reynolds].
2 Respondent contends that the filing requirements of Section 9 (f), (g), and (h) of
the Act have not been satisfied in the present proceeding. It does not controvert the
fact that the necessary affidavits and reports have been filed by the two charging locals,
by their International , and by the AFL itself. However, it asserts that reports and
non-Communist affidavits should also have been filed by the Rio Pecos branch of Local 898
and the Abilene Power Plant branch of Local 920.
We find this contention to be without merit. The locals , not the Rio Pecos or Abilene
Power Plant branches , are the charging parties in this case . The statute requires affidavits
91 NLRB No. 237