Standard Oil Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 10, 1954

107 N.L.R.B. 1524 (N.L.R.B. 1954)

1524 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
cision that it is appropriate in scope for severance purposes.
In my opinion the history of multiplant bargaining which the
record shows has existed since 1945 and has covered the
powerhouse employees since 1950 precludes the severance of
the powerhouse employees on a single -plant basis . I would
therefore dismiss the petition on the ground that , under es-
tablished Board policy , is a unit limited to the powerhouse
employees at the Employer ' s Painesville, Ohio, plant may not
appropriately be severed from the established multiplant
unit.
Member Beeson took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Direction of Election.
i3See St. Regis Paper Company, 105 NLRB 371; The Firestone Tire & Rubber Company,
103 NLRB 1749; Bethlehem Steel Co , 97 NLRB 1591; American Steel Foundries, 85 NLRB 19;
American Viscose Corporation, 79 NLRB 958.
STANDARD OIL COMPANY and RESEARCH AND ENGINEER-
ING PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, Peti-
tioner. Case No. 13-RC-3708. March 10, 1954
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 I. M. Lieber-
man, hearing officer . The hearing officer's rulings made at
the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby
affirmed. 1
Upon the entire record in this case , the Board finds:
1. The Employer2 is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent
certain employees of the Employer.
3. From 1937 to 1943 the Employer recognized the Inter-
venor (and its predecessor , Standard Oil Employees Associ-
ation ) as bargaining representative for a plantwide unit at the
Employer's Whiting, Indiana , refinery . On March 3, 1944,
pursuant to a consent payroll check in Case No . 13-R-2035,
the Petitioner was certified as representative of a unit of
all professional employees in the research department, engi-
neering department , conservation department , and utilities
division at the Employer ' s Whiting refinery . Since that time
the Petitioner and the Employer have executed a series of
l At the hearing, central States Petroleum Union, Local 100, Inc., the Intervenor herein,
moved to dismiss the petition on the grounds of (1) contract bar; and (2) the inappropriate-
ness of the unit. For the reasons stated in paragraphs numbered 3 and 4, infra, the motion
is denied.
2 The Employer's name appears in the caption as amended at the hearing
t07 NLRB No. 311.
STANDARD OIL COMPANY 1525
contracts for a unit of these employees , excluding inspection
and field engineers.'
Since 1944 the Intervenor has continued to represent the
inspection engineers and field engineers as part of its plant
wide unit."
By the instant petition , the Petitioner seeks to sever the
inspection engineers , the field engineers , and the industrial
engineer from the existing unit represented by the Intervenor.
The Intervenor contends that since the current contract between
the Petitioner and the Employer excludes these employees, it
is a bar to the instant petition, relying on the Board ' s decision
in the Briggs-Indiana Corporation case .' However , contrary
to the situation in that case, the Petitioner's contract contains
no promise , express or implied, that the Petitioner will re-
frain from seeking to represent the employees involved herein.
Accordingly, we find that the current contract between the
Petitioner and the Employer does not bar apresent determina-
tion of representatives.6
We find that 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. As previously mentioned , the Petitioner seeks to sever a
unit of all professional employees in the classifications of
inspection, field, and industrial engineer at the Employer's
Whiting refinery from a unit of production and maintenance
employees presently represented by the Intervenor. The Pe-
titioner would represent these employees either as part of its
existing unit of professional employees or as a separate unit.
The Intervenor contends that the unit is inappropriate on the
grounds that ( 1) the employees sought are not professional
employees, and (2) the proposed unit does not include all the
professional employees presently employed at Whiting who
are unrepresented . The Employer agrees with the Petitioner
that the employees sought are professional employees andmay
be properly added to the unit presently represented by the
Petitioner.
The Employer, with its central offices located in Chicago,
Illinois , is engaged in the manufacture, processing , and dis-
tribution of petroleum and its related products. The Employer
3In 1943, when the Petitioner filed its petition seeking a unit of professional employees,
there was a controversy pending between the Intervenor and the Employer as to whether the
inspection engineers and field engineers were exempt employees under the Wage and Hour
Act. In an effort to resolve the representation question, without prejudicing the position of
the parties in the. Wage and Hour controversy, the Petitioner agreed to forego its claim to
the inspection engineers and field engineers.
4The present contract between the Employer and the Intervenor, containing a 90-day auto-
matic renewal clause, is effective to March 1, 1954, and is not urged as a bar to the instant
petition.
5 63 NLRB 1270.
6United States Gypsum Company, 107 NLRB 122; Chase Brass Rc Copper Co., Incorporated,
102 NLRB 62; Western Gear Works, 98 NLRB 80; Bingham-Herbrand Corporation, 97 NLRB
65; Martin-Parry Corporation, 95 NLRB 1506.
1 526 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
operates five refineries throughout the United States. The
Employer's refinery located at Whiting, Indiana,is the only
plant involved herein.
The Whiting operations are under the general direction of
a plant manager and general superintendent who coordinate
the activities of 14 various divisions within the refinery.7 The
inspection engineers are employed in the inspection depart-
ment of the Whiting engineering division under the general
supervision of the head inspection engineer and his assist-
ants who, in turn, are responsible to the chief of the engineer-
ing division. The field engineers are employed in the construc-
tion department of the engineering division under the general
supervision of the head construction engineer and his assistants
who, in turn, are responsible to the chief of the engineering
division. The industrial engineer is employed in the industrial
engineering department, 1 of the 14 administrative divisions,
and is responsible to an assistant general superintendent.
There are approximately 8,300 employees presently em-
ployed at the Whiting refinery. About 400 of these employees
are represented by the Petitioner in its professional unit and
the remainder are represented by the Intervenor. As previously
stated, the approximately 86 employees involved herein have
been represented as a part of the Intervenor's unit. The duties
of these employees are as follows:
Approximately 80 inspection engineers at Whiting are en-
gaged in the maintenance-inspection of plant equipment such
as fluid catalytic crackers, hydroformers, piping, and tanks.
They find and report the amount of wear to the equipment due
to erosion and corrosion. They also inspect new construction
to see that it meets specified standards for the technical
processes of the refinery. Their inspections are accomplished
by metallurgical examinations , involving visual inspection,
Zyglo and Magnaflux tests, and electronic tests. They prepare
detailed technical reports to show the results of their findings
and, if necessary, recommend, on the basis of their findings,
the replacement of defective equipment.
An individual hired as an inspection engineer is required
by the Employer to have a Bachelor of Science degree in
engineering or a high school diploma and 5 years of engi-
neering experience. Since 1945 the Employer has hired approx-
imately 315 new employees as inspection engineers at Whiting,
all of whom held Bachelor of Science degrees.
Approximately 13 of the inspection engineers presently
employed at Whiting transferred to their present positions
from other jobs at the refinery. These employees do not hold
7 The 14 divisions at the Whiting refinery are as follows: Accounting division, engineering
division, mechanical division, utilities and conversation division, asphalt division, heavy
oils division, industrial engineering department, light oils division, transportation division,
projects division, fire protection department, industrial relations division, marine and
filling rack division, and medical department.
STANDARD OIL COMPANY 1527
a Bachelor of Science degree but are high school graduates
with engineering experience.
Six of these thirteen inspection engineers are qualified to
perform only part of the duties of the other inspection engi-
neers . Their duties are limited to the inspection of less
critical types of plant equipment , such as stanchions , stair-
ways, and buildings. They also testplant areas for the presence
of toxic and explosive gas fumes as well as assisting other
inspection engineers . These six do not inspect complicated
equipment nor do they perform any electronic metallurgical
tests.
After about 1 i years, an employee classified as an inspection
engineer is eligible to be promoted to an assistant staff engi-
neer in various other departments of the Whiting engineering
division . The assistant staff engineers are presently repre-
sented by the Petitioner in its professional unit . During the
past 5 years, approximately 100 inspection engineers have
been promoted to assistant staff engineer or supervisory
positions.
Approximately five field engineers are employed in the
construction department of the engineering division at Whiting.
They are primarily engaged in surveying operations , as well
as preparing surveyors ' reports and sketches for the location
of new refinery equipment , roads, and railroad tracks. In
addition to the above duties, they are engaged in the inspection
of sewers and sewer flow, the monorail system , and the
measuring of coke piles to determine , by geometric calculation,
the quantity of coke on hand at Whiting.
Like the inspection engineers , the field engineers are re-
quired to have a Bachelor of Science degree in engineering
or a high school diploma with 5 years ' experience in engi-
neering. Since 1945 no field engineers without engineering
degrees have been employed at the Whiting refinery. Like
the inspection engineers , the field engineers are eligible for
promotion to assistant staff engineer or supervisory positions.
One industrial engineer is presently employed at Whiting.
He is required to have 4 years of college training and 3 years
of industrial engineering experience , although 2 years' ex-
perience may be substituted for 1 year of college . He estab-
lished wage-incentive plans, job standards, and procedures
for determining wage costs . He also establishes standards
to be applied by the time-study employees at Whiting and
analyzes data acquired by them.
In view of the foregoing , we find that inspection , field, and
industrial engineers are professional employees within the
meaning of Section 2 ( 12) of the Act.8
8Potomac Electric Power Company, - 99 NLRB 219; Westinghouse Electric Corporation,
89 NLRB 8; Union Electric Power Company, 83 NLRB 872. Consideration of the Intervenor's
offer to prove that the Wage and Flour Division had classified such employees as nonpro-
fessional would not affect our ultimate decision herein See The Austin Company 77 NLRB
938; cf. Standard Oil Company of Indiana, 77 NLRB 504.
1528 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Although six of the inspection engineers do not perform all
the duties of their classification and perform work of a more
routine nature , they are highly skilled technicians and as such,
and in accord with established precedent , they may appro-
priately be included with the professional employees involved
herein.'
The Intervenor further contends that the unit sought is in-
appropriate because the Petitioner has not included 2 groups
of admittedly professional employees employed at the Whiting
refinery. These 2 groups are the nurses and research engi-
neers.
The nurses are employed intherefinerymedicaldepartment.
From 1937 to 1948 they had been represented by the Intervenor
as a part of its unit . On January 4, 1949, pursuant to a Board-
directed election in Case No . 13-RD-1310 the Intervenor was
decertified as representative of the nurses . In its Decision
and Direction of Election the Board did not determine the
professional status of the nurses but recognized that they had
different training , skills, duties , and interests from those of
the other categories of employees represented by the Inter-
venor . The Board reiterated the principle that it has con-
sistently excluded nurses from units composed of production
and maintenance employees , and other units of technical em-
ployees, or units of technical and clerical employees. Even
assuming, without deciding, that the nurses are professional
employees, we do not believe that their duties and training
are so similar to that of the other employees here sought to
require that they be included in the same unit.
The Research Engineer
On November 7, 1952, pursuant to a consent election in Case
13-RD-154, Local 108 of the Central States Petroleum Union
was decertified as bargaining representative for the research
engineers at the Chicago plant . Approximately 40 research
engineers were moved from the Employer's Chicago plant to
the Whiting refinery about 4 months prior to the hearing
(December 15 - 16) in the instant proceedings . The research
engineers occupy a separate wing at the Whiting refinery and
do not go throughout the refinery in performing their duties,
as do the other employees involved herein . They report
directly to the Employer ' s Chicago offices and have no imme-
diate supervision at Whiting . There is no interchange or
transfer between the research engineers and employees in-
volved herein or between any other employees in the various
divisions at the Whiting refinery. There is no evidence in
the record as to their training , education , or duties.
Under all these circumstances , we will not include the
nurses and research engineers in the voting group herein-
after established.
9 Federal Telecommunications Laboratories, Inc., 92 NLRB 1395.
10 80 NLRB 1022.
TAYSTEE BREAD COMPANY 1529
As already stated, there is an established line of progres-
sion from the positions of field engineer and inspection engi-
neer to the position' of assistant staff engineer . Assistant
staff engineers are currently represented by the Petitioner
as part of its professional unit . We find, therefore , that the
employees herein sought by the Petitioner may be properly
included in the existing professional unit. We shall direct an
election by secret ballot in the following voting group:
All inspection engineers , field engineers , and industrial
engineers at the Employer's Whiting refinery, but excluding
nurses, research engineers in the engineering research de-
partment, . all other employees, guards, and supervisors as
defined in the Act.
If a-majority of 'the employees in this voting group vote for
the Petitioner, they will be taken to have indicated their de-
sire to join the employees in the existing professional unit.
The Petitioner may bargain for them as part of such unit,
and the Regional Director is instructed to issue a certificate
of results to that effect. If, however, a majority vote for the
Intervenor, they will be taken to have indicated a desire to
remain a part of the Intervenor's existing unit, and the Re-
gional Director is instructed to issue a certification of
results of election to that effect.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
Member Beeson took no part in the consideration of the
above Decision and Direction of Election.
AMERICAN BAKERIES COMPANY, d/b/a TAYSTEE BREAD
COMPANY and UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS
AND JOINERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL NO. 345, AFL, Peti-
tioner . Case No . 32-RC-661. March 11, 1954
DECISION AND ORDEh
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Anthony J.
Sabella, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made
at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby
affirmed.
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 organizations involved claim to represent em-
ployees of the Employer.'
1Bakery and Confectionery Workers Union, Local 149, AFL, herein termed the intervenor,
was granted permission to intervene at the hearing.
107 NLRB No. 314.