Phillips Petroleum Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 1, 1946

69 N.L.R.B. 1101 (N.L.R.B. 1946)

In the Matter of PIfrLLnrs PETROLEUM Co., EMPLoYER and INTERNA-
TIONAL CIMMICAL WORKERS UNION, LOCAL 2 07 , AFL, PETITIONER
Case No. 8-R-21J3.-Decided August 1, 1946
Mr. Cecil L. Thin t, of Bartlesville , Okla., for the Employer.
Mr. H. A. Bradley, of Akron, Ohio, for the Petitioner.
Mr. Harry W. Clayton , Jr., of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
Upon a petition duly filed, hearing in this case was held at Akron,
Ohio, on June 14, 1946, before Thomas E. Shroyer, Trial Examiner.
The Trial Examiner's rulings made at the hearing are free from
prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in the case, the National Labor Relations
Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
The Employer, a Delaware corporation with its main office in
Bartlesville, Oklahoma, operates numerous plants throughout the
country. The retail Philgas Division at Hudson, Ohio, where the
Employer handles the distribution of liquefied petroleum gas, is the
only establishment involved in this proceeding. The volume of busi-
ness handled by the Employer at Hudson, Ohio, exceeds $100,000 per
year, and the majority of the products pass in interstate commerce.
The Employer admits and we find that it is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
11. TILE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Petitioner is a labor organization affiliated with American
Federation of Labor claiming to represent employees of the Employer.
69 N. L. R. B., No. 13.
1101
1102 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The Employer refuses to recognize the Petitioner as the exclusive
bargaining representative of employees of the Employer until the
Petitioner has been certified by the Board in an appropriate unit.
We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning
the representation of employees of the Employer within the mean-
ing of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNITS
The Petitioner requests a unit of all employees at the Employer's
retail establishment at Hudson, Ohio, excluding the plant manager
and assistant plant manager. The Employer urges that clerical em-
ployees should be excluded. Although the Petitioner contends that
the clerical employees should be included in the same appropriate unit
with the other employees, it has requested that, if the Board decides
on their exclusion, they be found to constitute a separate appropriate
unit. The Employer does not oppose this alternative request.
The Employer has eight employees called gas servicemen who fill
containers and tank delivery cars with gas, call on customers on regular
routes, check meter readings, make repairs, and fill the customers'
tanks with gas. These employees, who are all qualified to do any
job around the plant, spend the majority of their time on their routes.
The three clerical employees spend 100 percent of their time in the
office doing all the clerical work such as making out reports and
billing customers.
In accordance with our usual policy I we find that the office clerical
employees should not be included in the unit with the other employees.
However, we shall grant the Petitioner's alternative request and find
that they constitute a separate appropriate unit.
We find that all employees of the Employer's retail Philgas Divi-
sion at Hudson, Ohio, excluding the clerical employees, plant man-
ager, assistant plant manager, and all or any other supervisory
employees with authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or
otherwise effect changes in the status of employees, or effectively rec-
ommend such action, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of
collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
We further find that all clerical employees of the Employer's
retail Philgas Division at Hudson, Ohio, excluding all or any super-
visory employees with authority to hire, promote, discharge, disci-
pline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of employees, or effec-
tively recommend such action, constitute a unit appropriate for the
I Matter of The Procter d G amble Manufacturing Co., 64 N. L, It It 1555, 64 N. L. R. B.
314.
PHILLIPS PETROLEUM CO. 1103
purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9
(b) of the Act.
DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the
purposes of collective bargaining with Phillips Petroleum Co., Hud-
son, Ohio, elections 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 Di-
rector for the Eighth Region, acting in this matter as agent for the
National Labor Relations Board, and subject to Article III, Sections
10 and 11, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regula-
tions-Series 3, as amended, among the employees in the units 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 em-
ployees 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 or not they desire to be represented by Inter-
national Chemical Workers Union, Local 207, AFL, for the purposes
of collective bargaining.
MR. JOHN M. HousTON took no part in the consideration of the
above Decision and Direction of Elections.