Warren Petroleum Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 29, 1951

95 N.L.R.B. 1468 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

1468 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8 (a) (3) of the Act.
3. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of
the rights guaranteeed in Section 7 of the Act, Respondent has engaged in and is
engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of
the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices af-
fecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommended Order omitted from publication in this volume.]
WARREN PETROLEUM CORPORATION, PETITIONER and OIL WORKERS
INTERNATIONAL UNION, CIO
WARREN PETROLEUM CORPORATION and OIL WORKERS INTERNATIONAL
UNION, CIO, PETITIONER . Cases Nos. 16-RM-4,3 and 16-RC-779.
August . 9,1951
Decision and Direction of Election
Upon separate petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held before
Evert P. Rhea, 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 National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
these cases to a three-member panel [Members Houston, Reynolds,
and Murdock].
Upon the entire record in these cases the Board finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the National Labor Relations 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. Both the Employer and the Union in their respective petitions
allege an appropriate unit consisting of all employees employed at
the Employer's gasoline plant near Hawkins, Texas, excluding the
plant superintendent and the chief engineer. The sole dispute be-
tween them relates to the status of three individuals whom the Union
would exclude from the appropriate unit as supervisors, and whom the
Employer would include.
The plant in question is engaged in the processing and manufac-
turing of natural gasoline and other gasoline products. The essential
operations are divided between the "field" and the plant proper. The
functions in the field primarily involve the arrangement and regula-
95 NLRB No. 197.
WARREN PETROLEUM CORPORATION 1469
tion' of the flow of gas and raw products to the plant for processing.
A total of 47 persons are employed in all of the Employer's operations.
The testimony indicates that the plant superintendent is the sole
person having direct authority to hire, discharge, discipline, or re-
ward employees. Under the plant superintendent, the chief engineer
possesses the power to make effective recommendations regarding cer-
tain changes in the status of employees. All other subordinates carry
out or relay the instructions of the plant superintendent, and their
recommendations relating to personnel action affecting employees are
subject to independent investigation by the plant superintendent. As
to the specific duties and authority of the 3 individuals in dispute, the
record discloses the following relevant 'facts:
. The schedule supervisor 1 is responsible for arranging and regulat-
ing the flow of gas to the 'plant. As testified by the plant superin-
tendent, the schedule supervisor has authority "to see that the work
is carried out in the field." He ' issues : instructions to the field em-
ployees 2 and, among other things; changes their work assignments,
answers their operational questions, and may order them to work
overtime. He also represents the Employer in dealing with other
companies which supply gas to the plant. He' is paid a monthly
salary.3 The foregoing facts indicate, in our opinion, that the sched-
ule supervisor exercises responsible direction over employees within
the meaning of the Act. We are' further persuaded as to his super=
visory authority in view of the absence of any other direct supervision
over the field employees,, and the disproportion of supervisors over
employees evident in the Employer's position on this , issue. We shall
therefore exclude'the schedule supervisor.4
' The 'chemist 5 functions primarily to see that the various products
manufactured by the Employer meet required technical specifications.
Be performs no research work, but at different stages in the manu-
facturing process makes control tests on the products. Two labora-
tory testers also perform these tests as their regular full-time employ-
ment.6 These testers are responsible to the chemist in connection
with 'their work, and also report to him in respect to such matters as
taking time off. In addition, the chemist issues operating instructions
to various other employees in the plant. Thus, he may order the
operator on duty in the plant 7 to raise or lower the temperature of
3 E. C. Swenson.
E. g., metermen , roustabouts, the gang pusher, truck drivers ; switchers, and welders.
$ All employees are hourly 'paid with the exception of the plant superintendent, the
chief engineer , the schedule supervisor , and the chemist.
See J. P. Stevens and Co., Inc., 93 NLRB 1513.
$ 11. A. Yates.
$ The plant superintendent estimates that it would take 3 to 5 . years for an employee
of average intelligence working in the laboratory to .become. qualified to assume the. job
of chemist in the Employer 's plant.
7 On each of the three shifts at the plant there are employed four employees called
tower men , I. e., operator , distillman, oiler , and fireman.
1470 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR. RELATIONS BOARD
the boilers, or make other changes; and he supervises certain of the
Employer's shipping operations, referred to in the record as the "load-
ing rack," where loaders are employed. As already noted, the.cheniist
is paid by monthly salary. In these circumstances, we find that the
chemist responsibly directs employees within the meaning of the
Act, and we shall therefore exclude him."
The office manager 0 and a clerk share the clerical work in the plant
office. . The evidence shows that both the office manager and the clerk
perform the same type of work and, in connection therewith, are under,
the direct supervision of the plant superintendent. However, each
of them is sufficiently experienced regularly to do the work without
specific instruction or direction. It was testified that the classification
of office manager was established in this instance as a means of re-
,^warding the present incumbent for length of service without, at the
same time, effecting any .change in his duties. While it does appear
that the office manager may in certain circumstances give instructions
to the clerk, it is clear that- such instructions would be routine in
character. Both these individuals are hourly paid. On these facts,
we are of the opinion that the office manager is not a supervisor, as
contended, and we shall include him 10
We find that all employees employed at the Employer's gasoline
plant near Hawkins, Texas, including the office manager, but exclud=
ing the plant superintendent, the chief engineer, the schedule, super-
visor, the chemist, professional employees, guards, and supervisors
as defined in the Act, constitute. a unit appropriate for 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.]
8 As we shall exclude the chemist as a supervisor, we find it unnecessary to pass upon
the Union 's further contention that the chemist is a professional employee under the Act.
8 T. B. Alford.
10 See e. g., The Connecticut Electric Manufacturing Co., 94 NLRB 1449 .; J. P.
Stevens ct Co., Inc., supra.
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BROADCAST ENGINEERS AND TECHNICIANS,
INDEPENDENT and TELEPROMPTER SERVICE CORP . AND TELEPROMPTER
EQUIPMENT CORP. Case No. O-CD-40. August 30, 1951
Decision and Determination of Dispute
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This proceeding arises under Section 10 (k) of the Ast, as amended,
which provides that "whenever it is charged that any person has
95 NLRB No. 199.