A.v.Construction Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 24, 1945

60 N.L.R.B. 1467 (N.L.R.B. 1945)

In the Matter of AMERADA PETROLEUM CORPORATION, CALOWELL CON-,
STRUCTION CO., AND ANTHONY J. V ALLIER D/B/A A. V. CONSTRUCTION
COMPANY and OIL WORIURS INTERNATIONAL UNION, C. I. O.
Case No. 21-R,0,463.-Decided March '.4, 1945
Latham ct Watkins , by Mr . Paul R. Watkins, of Los Angeles, Calif.,
for Amerada Petroleum Corporation.
Dechter, Hoyt , Pines et Walsh , by Miss Adele Walsh , of Los Angeles,
Calif., for Calowell Construction Company.
Messrs. Frank J. Neuman and. William J. Neville , of El Segundo,
Calif., for the C. I. O.
Mr. E. D. Boyd, of Los Angeles , Calif., for the A. F. L.
Mr. A. Sumner Lawrence , of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS,
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF TITE CASE
Upon an amended petition duly filed by Oil Workers International
Union, C. I. 0., herein called the C. I. 0., alleging that a- question
affecting commerce had arisen concerning the representation of em-
ployees of Amerada Petroleum Corporation, Los Angeles, California,
Calowell Construction Co., Long Beach, California, and Anthony J.
Vallier, doing business as A. V. Construction Company, Riverdale,
California, herein sometimes collectively called the Companies, the
National Labor Relations Board provided for an appropriate hearing
upon due notice before William B. Esterman, Trial Examiner. Said
hearing was held at Los Angeles, California, on December 18, 19, and
20, 1944. The Companies, the C. I. 0., and Los Angeles Building
Trades Council, A. F..L., herein called the A. F. L., appeared and
participated. All parties were afforded full opportunity to be heard,
to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence
bearing on the issues. The Trial Examiner's rulings made at the
hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. Sub-
60 N. L. R. B., No. 252.
1467
1468 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL ,LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Sequent to the hearing, the Board directed that the record be reopened
and a further hearing held for the purpose of adducing additional
evidence as to the business operations of Amerada Petroleum Cor-
poration. Thereafter, the Regional Director forwarded to the Board
a stipulation of the parties covering the business operations of
Amerada Petroleum Corporation, submitted in lieu of testimony that
might be adduced at a further hearing with respect thereto. The
stipulation is hereby approved and made a part of the record. The'
motion to segregate filed by Amerada Petroleum Corporation is hereby
granted for reasons hereinafter stated. All parties were afforded an
opportunity to file briefs with the Board.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the ?ollowing :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANIES
Amerada Petroleum Corporation, a Delaware corporation, has its
principal place of business in New York City, and is engaged in the
exploration of oil fields and the production of crude oil and natural.
gas. Amerada Petroleum Corporation operates in nine States, includ-
ing the State of California, in which latter State are the only opera-
tions involved in the present proceeding. It has full or partial interest
in more than 1,000,000 acres of leaseholds, royalties, and mineral rights
located in the nine States covered by its operations. During the year
1943, Amerada Petroleum Corporation acquired 375,000 acres and
liquidated 96,000 acres. During the calendar year 1943, it purchased
for use in its California operations, supplies, material, and equipment
valued at slightly less than $1,000,000, of which amount approximately
38 percent represents the value of items originating from points out-
side the State of California. The record also discloses that, during
the same period, Amerada Petroleum Corporation from its California
operations sold to various oil companies for delivery within the State
of California, considerable gnantities of crude oil which were com-
mingled with oil purchased by such companies from other sources
and thereafter refined into various products, a substantial portion of
which was sold to customers residing outside the State of California.
Calowell Construction Co., a California corporation, has its prin-
cipal place of business at Long Beach, California, and is, engaged in
the construction and maintenance of oil wells and equipment, which
operations have, since the year 1942, been confined to the State of
California.
Anthony J. Vallier, doing business as A. V. Construction Company,
is similarly engaged in maintenance work related to the operation of
AMERADA PETROLEUM CORPORATION 1469,
wells and pipe lines. Both Calowell Construction Company and
A. V. Construction Company buy all or substantially all of the equip-
ment which they need locally within the State of California. Neither
is engaged in the manufacture of products or the sale of raw mate-
rials to manufacturers for the purposes of resale. Both are concerned
only with a localized maintenance function known in the oil industry
as "lease work operations."
Upon the basis of the foregoing facts we find, contrary to the con-
tention of Amerada Petroleum Corporation, that it is engaged in com-
merce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act On
the other hand, we find that Calowell Construction Company and A. V.
Construction Company are not engaged in activities which affect com-
merce within the meaning of the Act.2 Accordingly, we shall, there-
fore, dismiss the proceeding insofar as it relates to the A. V. Con-
struction Company and the Calowell Construction Company.
If. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Oil Workers International Union is a labor organization affiliated
with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, admitting to member-
ship employees of the Amerada Petroleum Corporation.
Los Angeles Building Trades Council-is a labor organization affili-
ated with the American Federation of Labor, admitting to member-
ship employees of Calowell Construction Company.3
III. THE QUESTIONS CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
On or about July 19, 1944, the C. I. 0. addressed a letter to Amerada
Petroleum Corporation, herein called the Company, claiming a major-
ity representation among the latter's employees and requesting a
conference for the purposes of collective bargaining. Subsequently
thereto, the Company replied, stating that it declined the request for
a conference upon the ground that it was without proof of the C. I. O.'s
claim to representation.
A statement of a Field Examiner for the Board, introduced into
evidence at the hearing, indicates that the C. I. O. represents a sub-
' See Matter of Long Beach Oil Development Co , 58 N L R B. 794
8 While the C I. 0 contends that the Calowell Construction Company and the A V.
Construction Company are controlled by Amerada Petroleum Corporation, and therefore
subject to the present proceedings , the record discloses that they are independent con-
tractors not subject to control nith respect to personnel , wages, or price policies, by
Amerada Petroleum Corporation
8 The A F. L.'s only concern with the present proceeding is with respect to the employees
of Calowell Construction Company , as to whom it claims an interest by virtue of an
existing bargaining agreement . Since , as hereinabove stated, we shall dismiss the pro-
ceeding insofar as it relates to Calowell Construction Company , we have no further occa-
sion to consider the A F. L as a party to this proceeding and shall , therefore , omit its
name from the ballot in the elections hereinafter directed.
1470 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
stantial number of employees of the Company in the units herein=
after found appropriate.'
We find that questions affecting commerce have arisen concerning
the representation of employees of the Company within the meaning
of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. '
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNITS
The C. I. 0. contends that all non-supervisory field employees of the
Company employed in its operations at Riverdale and Rio Vista,
California,5 including particularly roustabouts, laborers, pumpers,
drillers, derrickmen, pushers, rotary-helpers, gaugers, repairmen, truck
drivers, warehouse employees, clean-up men, operators, head operators,
chart changers, and employees classified as miscellaneous, but exclud-
ing district superintendents, assistant district superintendents, produc-
tion foremen, petroleum engineers, farm bosses, and all supervisory
employees with authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or
otherwise effect changes in the status of employees, or effectively
recommend such action, constitute an appropriate unit.6 The Com-
pany does not oppose the classifications requested for inclusion or ex-
clusion, but maintains that the employees at the Riverdale and Rio
Vista operations constitute separate appropriate units. The record
reveals that the Riverdale and Rio Vista operations are approximately
200 miles apart and separated by many thickly settled communities.
Moreover, it appears that these operations are under the supervision
of separate district superintendents who report independently of each
other to the Company's divisional office at Los Angeles, California.
It is undisputed that there is no regular interchange of employees
between the two districts, the operations of which are somewhat dif-
ferent due to the fact that at Rio Vista only gas is produced, necessi-
tating the use of different surface equipment. Under the circum-
stances, we are of the opinion that the employees at Riverdale and
Rio Vista have insufficient interests in common to constitute a single
appropriate unit. Accordingly, we shall separate the employees at
'The Field ' Examiner reported that the C I. 0 had submitted 44 cards dated between
June and November 1944, which bore the names of employees on the Company's pay roll
of October 18, 1944 , containing the names of approximately 60 employees at Riverdale
and Rio Vista . While the report of the Field Examiner contains no breakdown of repre-
sentation between Riverdale and Rio Vista employees , it would appear, in view of the
simultaneous organization of employees at Riverdale and Rio Vista, that the C . I. O. has
substantial representation at both locations , the employees of which are divided between
Riverdale and Rio Vista , in the proportion of approximately 42 and 18 employees,
respectively.
5In addition to the operations at Riverdale and Rio Vista , the Company has branches
in ce'rtain other localities within the State of California
° The C I . 0 stated at the hearing that in the event that the Board found as urged by
the Company , separate units for Riverdale and Rio Vista employees to be appropriate. it
-nevertheless desired to participate in elections held with respect thereto
AMERADA PETROLEUM CORPORATION 1471
each of the aforesaid operations into distinct units for the purposes of
collective bargaining.
We find that all non-supervisory field employees of the Company,
employed at its Riverdale , California , operation , including roust-
abouts, laborers , pumpers, drillers , derrickmen , pushers, rotary-
helpers, gaugers , repairmen , truck drivers , warehouse employees, and
clean-up men , but excluding the district superintendent , the assistant
district superintendent , the production foreman, the petroleum engi-
neer, the farm boss, and all supervisory employees with authority to
hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the
status of employees , or effectively recommend such action , constitute
an appropriate unit, within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
We further find that all non-supervisory field employees of the
Company employed at its Rio Vista, California, operation, including
head operators , operators , chart changers , truck drivers , and employees
classified as miscellaneous , but excluding the district superintendent,
the assistant district superintendent, the petroleum engineer , and all
supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote , discharge, dis-
cipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of employees, or
effectively recommend such action, constitute a unit appropriate for
the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section
9 (b) of the Act.
V. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
We shall direct that the questions concerning representation which
have arisen be resolved by elections by secret ballot among the em-
ployees in the appropriate units who were employed during the pay-
roll period immediately preceding the date of the Direction of Elec-
tions herein, subject to the limitations and additions set forth in the
Direction.
DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
By virtue of and pursuant to the power vested in the National Labor
Relations Board by Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations
Act, and pursuant to Article III, Section 9, of National Labor Rela-
tions Board Rules and Regulations-Series 3, as amended, it is hereby
DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation to ascertain representa-
tives for the purposes of collective bargaining with Amerada Petro-
leum Corporation , Riverdale , and Rio Vista, California , elections by
secret ballot shall be conducted as early as possible, but not later than
sixty (60) days from the date of this Direction, under the direction
and supervision of the Regional Director for the Twenty-first Region,
acting in this matter as agent for the National Labor Relations' Board,
and subject to Article III, Sections 10 and 11, of said Rubs and Regu-
1472 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
lations, among the employees in the units found appropriate in Sec-
tion IV, above, who were employed during the pay-roll period immedi-
ately 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 any who have since quit or been discharged
for cause and have not been rehired or reinstated prior to the date of
the elections, to determine whether or not they desire to be represented
by Oil `Yorkers International Union, C. I. 0., for the purposes of col-
lective bargaining.
ORDER
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the present proceeding be, and it hereby
is, dismissed, insofar as it alleges that questions affecting commerce
have arisen concerning the representation of employees of Calowell
Construction Co., and Anthony J. Vallier, doing business as A. V.
Construction Company.
CHAIRMAN MILLIS took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision , Direction of Elections and Order.