Stanolind Oil and Gas Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 26, 1956

116 N.L.R.B. 1208 (N.L.R.B. 1956)

1208 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
exclude him. The evidence indicates that the Employer, in preparing
the eligibility list, deliberately and without advising the Petitioner,
excluded Yedynak in the erroneous belief that he was a management
representative and not an employee within the meaning of the Act.
The Petitioner, apparently unsure that the list of some 130 names
was complete, asked the Employer whether it had listed all the eligible
employees. The Petitioner accepted the Employer's compromise pro-
posal in reliance upon the Employer's express assurance that the list
was complete. In these circumstances I cannot agree with my col-
leagues of the majority that the Petitioner "conceded" to Yedynak's ex-
clusion. Nor do I perceive why such a finding is "particularly war-
ranted" by the Petitioner's failure to discover and raise the omission
of Yedynak's name in the 5-week period before the election, as the
majority say, even if they are otherwise convinced that the Petitioner
had agreed to Yedynak's ineligibility.
Had it been intended to exclude him, provision could well have
been made therefor in the unit description or by express agreement
in the eligibility conference between the Employer and Petitioner.
Eligibility lists are to be viewed as a guide to eligibility and not as an
absolute limitation thereof. To hold otherwise would virtually do
away with the Board's challenge procedure and relegate to the parties
the Board's function of the final determination of the fact of
eligibility.
MEMBER MURDOCK took no part in the consideration of the above
Supplemental Decision and Certification of Results of Election.
Stanolind Oil and Gas Company and Oil , Chemical and Atomic
Workers International Union , AFL-CIO, Petitioner . Case No.
30-RC-1167. September 26, 1956
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 Clyde F. Waers, 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 organization involved claims to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning representation
of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1)
and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
116 NLRB No. 159.
STANOLIND OIL, AND GAS COMPANY 1209
4. The Petitioner seeks a unit of all operating and maintenance em-
ployees _at the Employer's.Salt Creek (Midwest) gas plant, excluding
office clerical and supervisory employees. This gas plant is located in
the Salt Creek area or field of the Employer's. Rocky Mountain Di-
vision. Division offices are at Casper, Wyoming, 40 miles south of
the Salt Creek field. The Employer contends that the unit requested,
a group of about 69 employees, is not an appropriate one and that in-
stead a unit consisting of the producing department of the entire di-
vision, a group of about 468 employees, is the appropriate unit.
The Employer operates 1 other gas plant in the Rocky Mountain
Division, at Elk Basin, and in 1952, the Board found appropriate a
unit limited to the employees of that plant, despite the pattern of divi-
sionwide bargaining existing in the Employer's 3 other domestic di-
visions,' all, of-which include gas plants. This Petitioner was duly
certified as the bargaining representative of the Elk Basin gas plant
employees after election, and presently represents the approximately
43 employees in the unit. In its 1952 decision the Board reviewed the
overall bargaining history affecting, employees of this Employer as
reflected in Board decisions, noted the lack of bargaining in the Rocky
Mountain Division and the fact that no labor organization was seeking
to represent the employees in a divisionwide unit, found that the Elk
Basin gas plant partook of the nature of a manufacturing plant as
well as a repressuring device for oil production, and that its employees
were a relatively stable group not interchanged with field or area em-
ployees except in emergencies, and concluded that a unit limited to
that group would be appropriate.
The Salt Creek field or area employees number about 220, the two
largest classifications being resident pumpers of whom there are 74,
and roustabouts, of whom there are 63. In addition to this group of
220 and the Salt Creek,gas plant group of 69, the divisionwide produc-
ing unit contended for by the Employer would include the 43 gas plant
employees at Elk Basin who are already represented by this Petitioner,
the 49 Elk Basin area employees, plus smaller groups of employees in
the 6 other areas or fields which comprise the Rocky Mountain
Division.
The Petitioner contends that the facts surrounding the operation of
the two Elk Basin and Salt Creek gas plants are substantially iden-
tical. The Employer contends that they are distinguishable, and that
in any event a unit of gas plant employees is based upon extent of
organization and is therefore inappropriate within the meaning of
Section 9 (c) (5) of the Act.
198 NLRB 973. In a subsequent proceeding involving the Employer's refusal to bargain,
the unit finding was upheld by the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit in N. L. R. B. v.
Stanolmd Oil and Gas Company, 208 F. 2d 239.
1210 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
As 'to similarity between the plants, the Employer concedes that
the Salt Creek or Midwest plant performs a repressuring' function in
the Salt Creek area, just as the Elk Basin plant does in the Elk Basin
area; that the production of natural gasoline, propane and butane,
which is, sold to others, is an incident of the operation of both gas
plants; and that the Salt Creek plant has its own payroll and its own,
supervision separate from that of the Salt Creek area or field. But
the Employer would distinguish the Salt Creek situation because of
the manner in which maintenance work is handled, and because of the
community of interest between field' and plant employees which arises
from their daily living contacts and from the interdependence of the
area's facilities, of which the gas plant is one. It also adverts to the
lack of booster stations in conjunction with the Elk Basin plant, and
the fact that the latter plant supplies its own electricity whereas the
Salt Creek gas plant gets its electricity from the power facility for
the area.
Maintenance: The Salt Creek or Midwest plant is the older of the
two gas plants and admittedly requires more maintenance work. The
Rocky Mountain division manager testified that Salt Creek field em-
ployees "provide a lot more maintenance" to the plant than in the Elk
Basin area, but that the "processing end" is essentially the same in
the two plants. It appears from the record that the following classi-
fications are employed in processing; engineer 1st and 2d class and
helper, booster operator, and powerplant operator.
The Salt Creek gas plant has maintenance employees working under
2 maintenance foremen, 1 group doing routine maintenance work "in-
side the fences" at the plant and at the 7 booster stations, the other
group servicing chloride pots near producing wells and maintaining
the small lines of the collection system, which are less than 4 inches
in diameter and require less heavy equipment for their seryicing. They
also do routine maintenance on the gasoline line to Casper, and haul
oil for road work and for sandfrac work at the wells.
The complement of field or area employees at Salt Creek includes
3 groups doing maintenance work : 1 for general pipeline maintenance,
including fuel and water lines and for major repairs on the Casper
gasoline line, but excluding the collection lines of less than 4-inch
diameter. This group also uses and maintains all heavy equipment,
including grading and excavating machinery. Another group is
known as an electrical transmission group and it does all electrical
work in the area, including that in the gas plant where no electricians
are employed. A third group has headquarters in the area machine
shop. It maintains housing units, automotive equipment, the water
treating plant and the central heating system for nonresidential struc-
tures. It also fabricates equipment parts and chloride pots, and does
STANOLIND OIL AND GAS COMPANY - 1211
major construction and repair work including such work in the gas
plant. In an emergency in the plant it appears that all maintenance
employees, whether field or plant, may work together.
The Employer prepared for the hearing an exhibit showing that
during the year ending April 30, 1956, field maintenance employees
spent approximately 22,000 hours in maintenance work for the gas
plant and its facilities. This included 2,400 hours by carpenters, 2,200
by 1st class welders and 1,100 by 2d class welders, 1,500 by 1st class
linemen, 1,300 by "maintenance men," 1,000 by heavy truckdrivers,
1,000 by "repairmen," and 8,000 by roustabouts. This work consti-
tuted about 10 percent of the working time of the field employees so
involved.
The Employer also submitted an exhibit showing 30 transfers of
employees to the gas plant, mostly from the Salt Creek area. These
appear to be permanent transfers starting in 1938. Since 1951, only
one transfer to the plant has occurred. Concerning transfers out of the
plant there was testimony that six experienced employees were trans-
ferred from the Salt Creek plant to the Elk Basin plant when the
latter was opened in 1949. Only one employee was named as having
transferred from the plant to the field, the reason being to avoid shift
work in the plant.
Interdependence of plant and area: In the Salt Creek area, the
Employer has a large residential camp with more than 175 houses,
known as Midwest Camp, which was built by the Employer's prede-
cessor Midwest Refining Company. This contains community facili-
ties, shops and utility buildings for the area. In addition the Em-
ployer has built a residential camp known as the Gas Camp, which
has 37 houses, all occupied by gas plant personnel including 6 super-
visors. Approximately 21 more gas plant employees live at the Mid-
west Camp. Of the few remaining gas plant employees, most live
at the booster stations. The record does not contain a detailed de-
scription of the living conditions in the Elk Basin area. It appears
that the employees there have bought what were formerly company-
owned houses, and that plant and field employees have some community
of interest in living conditions. The Petitioner contends that the gas
plant employees at Salt Creek feel a strong community of interest
among themselves, and from the standpoint of living conditions, the
large nucleus who make up the Gas Camp would tend to support that
argument. The Employer contends that the real community of in-
terest is on an areawide basis. But the community of interest on the
broader basis tends to support the appropriateness of a unit limited
to the Salt Creek area rather than a divisionwide producing unit
which would include the remaining employees in Wyoming, plus
those in Utah, Colorado, North Dakota, and Montana. We do not
1212 DECISIONS OF. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
believe that 'whatever community of interest necessarily, exists in the,
area as a, whole negates the, appropriateness of a unit of gas plant
employees, in the circumstances of this case as set forth.
The common electric system, water system, and warehouse facili-
ties support the Employer's claim of interdependence of the area's,
facilities. However, like the evidence of common employee interests
arising from living conditions, this evidence would support the ap-
propriateness of an area unit rather than the divisionwide unit sought
by the Employer, without negating the appropriateness of a unit
confined to the gas plant employees, who, as at Elk Basin, comprise
a relatively stable group, with common work interests.
Weighing the impact of the maintenance factor here, as compared
with the Elk Basin gas plant which has its own specialized mainte-
nance crew but also divides the servicing of "lines" 2 between plant and
field personnel, we note that the interchange of employees occurs at.
Salt Creek only to the extent that the plant maintenance work is reg-
ularly divided between plant and field personnel. We do not believe
that this methodical division of maintenance work is of a character to
destroy the essential homogeneity of the gas plant employee group at
Salt,Creek. Nor does the existence of booster stations manned by plant
employees appear to have this effect. In addition we note, as we did
in the Elk Basin proceeding, that the factor of flexibility in area
boundaries which influenced the Board in earlier cases to find ap-
propriate divisionwide as opposed to area units, has no application
to a unit composed of a relatively stable group of plant employees.'
We are satisfied that our unit finding in the Elk Basin case is appli-
cable as a precedent for finding appropriate, on the record here made
and for the reasons outlined, a unit limited to employees of the Salt
Creek (Midwest) gas plant.
This plant, like the one at Elk Basin, partakes of the nature of a
manufacturing plant. Under Section 9 (b) of the Act,, "plant" units
are a type of unit which the Board in its discretion may find appro-
priate. In finding this gas plant unit appropriate we see no violence to
Section 9 (c) (5), which requires that the extent to which employees
have organized shall not be controlling in the Board's determinations
under Section 9 (b). The unit is comprised of a stable, identifiable
group of employees with common interests. These are the controlling
factors in our decision, not the extent to which the Union. has
organized.
Accordingly, we find that all production and maintenance employees
at the Employer's. Salt Creek, Wyoming (Midwest) gas plant, ex-
cluding professional employees, office clerical employees, guards, and
2 See 98 NLRB 973, 975, footnote 7.
3 See 98 NLRB 973, 975.
MISSCO, INC. 1213
supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the
purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b)
of the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
MEMBER BEAN took no part in the consideration of the above Deci-
sion and Direction of Election.
Missco , Inc.' and International Union , United Automobile, Air-
craft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW-
AFL-CIO), Petitioner . Case No. 32-RC-940. September 27,
1956
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 Vivan E. Burks,
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 Petitioner seeks to represent certain employees of the Em-
ployer at its Blytheville, Arkansas, operation. The Employer, Miss-
co, Inc., an Arkansas corporation, is engaged in the retail sale, service,
and repair of farm machinery and farm implements, and in the retail
sale of furniture and hardware, at its stores in Blytheville and Os-
ceola, Arkansas. The Employer operates a store in Blytheville,
Arkansas, known as Missco Implement Co. of Blytheville. In Osce-
ola, Arkansas, it operates two stores, one known as Missco Implement
Co. of Osceola and the other known as Missco Hardware and Furniture
of Osceola. During the past year, the Employer's total out-of-State
purchases for its three operations was in excess of $1,000,000. None
of the Employer's stores, considered separately, has a sufficient volume
of business to come within the Board's established jurisdictional
standards.
The Employer contends that as each of its operations 2 is separate
and distinct from the other, the out-of-State purchases of the several
stores should not be combined for jurisdictional purposes. We find
this contention to be without merit. It is well-established Board
practice to total direct inflow, indirect inflow, or direct outflow of all
I The name of the Employer appears as corrected at the hearing.
2 The Petitioner introduced testimony tending to establish that Missco Implement Co.,
of Monette, Arkansas , another Arkansas corporation having the same officers , stockholders,
and general manager as Missco, Inc ., together with Missco, Inc ., constitute a single
employer . In view of our decision in this proceeding , we deem it unnecessary to make
any finding on this point.
116 NLRB No. 163.