Texas Pacific Coal and Oil Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 2, 1951

96 N.L.R.B. 1330 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

1330 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
TEXAS PACIFIC COAL AND OIL COMPANY and OIL WORKERS INTERNA-
TIONAL UNION, CIO, PETITIONER . Case No. 33-RC-258. Novem-
ber 2, 1951
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 Charles Y. Latimer,
hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing
are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
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-mem-
ber panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Houston and Murdockl.
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 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 Petitioner seeks to represent all production and maintenance
employees in the Employer's West Texas-New Mexico Division, ex-
cluding drilling crews, a watchman-janitor, temporary employees,
office and clerical, professional, and supervisory employees. The
Employer contends that a company-wide unit embracing all of its
production and maintenance workers, wherever situated, is appropri-
ate. In the alternative, it proposes, as a minimum appropriate unit,
one coextensive with its West Texas-New Mexico plus Central Texas
Divisions. The parties also dispute the unit placement of drilling
crews, the janitor-watchman, temporary employees, and certain alleged
supervisors.
The Employer operates oil wells in Texas, New Mexico, Louisiana,
Mississippi, Oklahoma, and Montana. Most of its wells, and the
employees in question, are located in Texas, within the two divisions
mentioned above.
The West Texas-New Mexico Division is one of several "geographic
areas" in which the Employer conducts operations. It appears from
the record that slightly less than half of the Employer's personnel and
operations are located within this division, which embraces an area
200 miles long and 75 miles wide. The adjacent Central Texas Divi-
sion, which is somewhat larger in area, contains the bulk of the Em-
ployer's remaining operations and personnel. Its other operations,
which are 200 to 1,500 miles distant from the main offices in Fort
96 NLRB No. 198.
TEXAS PACIFIC COAL AND OIL COMPANY 1331
Worth, Texas, are not given divisional status, and are closely super-
vised by the Fort Worth executives.
All matters directly affecting personnel in the West Texas-New
Mexico Division, such as discipline, vacations, and daily work sched-
ules, originate within the division. Subject to the immediate supervi-
sion of district field foremen, all employees in this division are respon-
sible to the division superintendent, who must follow general policies
originating in Fort Worth. The main office also reviews hiring, firing,
and expenditures, although the record does not show that the personnel
control exercised in Fort Worth is other than routine. Production,
engineering, and geological records are maintained within the divi-
sion ; all other records are kept in Fort Worth.
The Employer's opposition to a single-division unit rests primarily
upon the assertion that there are frequent transfers of employees
among the divisions. In support of its arguments, the Employer
introduced material showing employee transfers during the past 5
years. Analysis of its exhibits shows that about eight employees
have been transferred between divisions in each of the years in
question.'
As the kind of work performed throughout the Employer's opera-
tions is substantially the same, and, so far as appears in the record, the
general working conditions of all employees uniform, it appears that
the scope of the unit could be company-wide. However, a number of
facts shown in the record amply support the Petitioner's contention
that a unit limited to the West Texas-New Mexico Division is also
appropriate. Among these are the Employer's separate operation,
for administrative purposes, of the division in question, with its own
division superintendent; the geographical separation of these em-
ployees from all others; the relatively few interdivision transfers of
employees; the absence of any collective bargaining history on a
broader unit basis; and the fact that no labor organization wishes to
represent the employees on a company-wide basis. In this circum-
stance, and upon the record as a whole, we are satisfied that a unit
limited to the employees of the West Texas-New Mexico Division is
appropriate.'
About eight drilling crew employees operate one rotary and two
cable tool drilling rigs. The drilling crews clean out and work over
old wells. They also spend some time, the exact amount undisclosed
in the record, drilling new wells with the rotary rig., When not
'Included in the exhibit are drilling crew transfers, which could be treated separately,
in view of the roving nature of drilling work. Shown on the exhibits, but not considered,
are interdivision transfers of supervisory, clerical , and professional personnel, excluded
from the unit by agreement between the parties. Also excluded from , our consideration
are intradivision transfers, as well as about 20 transfers which, from the record as a
whole, cannot be characterized as interdivisional or intradivislonal.
2 Standard Oil Company of Texas, 88 NLRB 224.
3 Most of the Employer 's new wells are drilled by independent contractors.
1332 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
engaged in drilling activities, drilling crew employees are retained
on the payroll in ordinary production and maintenance jobs. The
record also shows that drilling crews are more subject to interdivisional
transfer than other production and maintenance employees, although
it does not establish that they spend less than 50 percent of their time
in the West Texas-New Mexico Division.
The Petitioner would exclude the drilling crews because they are
subject to separate supervision and have interests distinct from those
of production and maintenance employees. However, drilling crew
employees are under the supervision of district-field foremen, who also
supervise other employees in their respective districts. As the record
also shows that the drilling crews redrill and clean producing wells,
we find that their interests are not substantially different from those
of all other production and maintenance employees within the division.
Accordingly, we shall include them in the production and maintenance
unit found appropriate.4
The Petitioner would also exclude, as supervisors, all gang pushers,
drillers or tool pushers, and a mechanic-foreman. Gang pushers work
with small groups of production employees. They transport their
men from a central assembly point to their day's assignments; they
also issue tools and materials. Job assignments are made each morn-
ing by the field foremen. It appears that the gang pushers spend
almost all their time doing manual labor of the same type as that done
by the other employees. Drillers, or tool pushers, are in charge of the
drilling rigs. They decide when to change drilling bits, and make all
similar decisions regarding machine operations. The one mechanic-
foreman in the unit has no subordinates. The Employer's witness
testified without contradiction that this employee's title, and the in-
creased pay incident thereto, was conferred upon him as a reward for
l ong service.
Although one of the Employer's drillers once reported a helper for
drunkenness, and the helper was transferred and later discharged,
nothing in the record suggests that the driller initiated, or even recom-
mended, any disciplinary action in this case. As to all of these alleged
supervisors, the Employer's witnesses testified that they had no powers
to hire, fire, or effectively recommend any changes in the employ-
ment status of any other employees. There is no showing that they
responsibly direct the work of other employees. Accordingly, we
shall include gang pushers, drillers or tool pushers, and the mechanic-
foreman in the unit.
The watchman-janitor, whom the Petitioner would exclude, works at
the Employer's Midland, Texas, office. He cleans the building,
watches the furnace and the air-conditioning equipment, and, in
4 American Republica Corporation, 78 NLRB 1025.
TEXTILE. MACHINE WORKS, INC. 1333
season, mows the lawn. He carries no gun, and has no guard duties.
Accordingly, we find that he is a maintenance employee, and we shall
include him in the unit.
On the Employer's payroll at the time of the hearing were 46 college
students, whom the Petitioner would exclude as temporary employees.
The record does not show how many of these employees work in the
West Texas-New Mexico Division. The Employer asserts that it has
no classification of "temporary employees," and that many college
students remain on the payroll as permanent employees. It thus ap-
pears that none of these employees work only part-time; that they do
the same work as all permanent employees in the same classifications;
and that they are subject to the same company rules and working con-
ditions. The record does not show, as the Petitioner asserts, that they
have a limited tenure of employment. In these circumstances, we
shall include the college students in the unit.'
Accordingly, we find that all production and maintenance employ-
ees in the. Employer's West Texas-New Mexico Division, including
drilling crews, temporary employees (college students), gang pushers,
drillers or tool pushers, the mechanic-foreman, and the watchman-
janitor, but excluding clerical and professional employees, guards, and
all 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 in this
volume.]
B The Sheffield Corp., 94 NLRB 1781.
TEXTILE MACHINE WORKS, INC. and PAUL J. GASSERT, ET AL.
TEXTILE MACHINE WORKS, INC. and WILLIAM G. BAUER
TEXTILE MACIIINE WORKS , INC. and UNITED STEEL WORKERS OF
AMERICA, C . I.O. Cases Nos . 4-CA-118,4-CA-277, and 4-CA-343.
November 5, 1951
Decision and Order
STATEMENT OF TIIE CASE
Upon separate charges duly filed (a) on September 8, 1948, by Paul
H. Gassert and other individuals, (b) on July 22, 1949, by William
G. Bauer, and (c) on January 12, 1950, by United Steel Workers of
America, C. I. 0., herein called the Union, the General Counsel of
96 NLRB No. 195.
974176-52-vol. 96-85