Amoco Production Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 12, 1977

233 N.L.R.B. 1096 (N.L.R.B. 1977)

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Amoco Production Company and Oil, Chemical &
Atomic Workers International Union, AFL-CIO,
Petitioner. Case 15-RC-6089
December 12, 1977
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF
ELECTION
BY MEMBERS JENKINS, PENELLO, AND MURPHY
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a
hearing was held on May 3 and 4, 1977, before
Hearing Officer Anton G. Hajjar of the National
Labor Relations Board at Lake Charles, Louisiana.
Pursuant to Section 102.67 of the Board's Rules and
Regulations and Statements of Procedure, Series 8,
as amended, this case was transferred by the
Regional Director for Region 15 to the National
Labor Relations Board for decision. Both parties
filed briefs.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has reviewed the Hearing Officer's
rulings made at the hearing and finds that no
prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are
hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this proceeding, the
Board finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within
the meaning of the Act and it will effectuate the
purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.
2. The Petitioner is a labor organization within
the meaning of the Act and claims to represent
certain employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concern-
ing the representation of the employees of the
Employer within the meaning of Sections 9(c)(1) and
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Petitioner seeks a unit of all hourly rated,
limited hour, producing, operating, and maintenance
employees employed by the Employer in the Lake
Charles area 1 of its New Orleans division. The
Employer disputes the scope of the unit and
contends that only a divisionwide unit of employees
' The Petitioner would exclude 37 employees in the Northern Louisiana
and Southern Arkansas sections who were recently included in the Lake
Charles area due to an administrative change in corporate division
boundary lines. Because these employees were previously represented by
another local of the Petitioner and their present status is the subject of a
pending unfair labor practice proceeding in Case 23-CA6306, the
Petitioner did not wish to prejudice its position in that proceeding by
including those 37 employees in the unit sought here. Nevertheless, the
Petitioner has indicated a willingness to represent an areawide unit
including those disputed employees. In any event, whether the 37 employees
are included or excluded does not affect the question of whether the unit
233 NLRB No. 132
is appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining.
No other union seeks to represent the employees here
on a divisionwide basis. However, by way of
background, in 1968 the Independent Oil Workers
Union, Local # 14, was certified as the bargaining
representative for a divisionwide unit stipulated to by
the parties. After two collective-bargaining agree-
ments, however, the union was decertified in 1973. In
1975, the Petitioner lost an election in the same
divisionwide unit, also stipulated to by the parties
herein.
Amoco Production Company,2 a Delaware corpo-
ration, is engaged in the exploration for and
production of oil and gas. The Employer's principal
office is in Chicago, Illinois. Its domestic operations
are divided into three divisions: Houston, Denver,
and New Orleans. Each division has two operating
departments: exploration and production.
The New Orleans division, which is involved in this
proceeding, encompasses the eastern seaboard of the
United States and consists of three operating areas:
Lake Charles, Lafayette, and Lafayette offshore. As
of December 1, 1976, the boundaries of the New
Orleans division were enlarged. With respect to the
petitioned-for unit the Lake Charles area was
extended to include Northern Louisiana and South-
ern Arkansas which were formerly part of the Tyler
area in the Houston division. Aside from these
changes, however, the Lake Charles area has re-
mained basically the same since about 1950.
The Employer's major logistical and corporate
policymaking functions are centralized. 3 Decisions
regarding resource allocation, including both men
and equipment, purchasing, marketing, and produc-
tion are made at the division level. As to labor
relations, the division promulgates a single set of
personnel policies, work rules, and regulations
governing the entire division. The division employee
relations department establishes job classifications
and wage scales which, except for the offshore units,
are uniform throughout the division.
Employee benefits are uniform. The main office in
Chicago formulates and coordinates most of these
benefits. The division office does, however, set some
local divisionwide benefits, such as excused absences
with pay during jury duty, and is involved in
implementing the corporate benefit programs, as an
sought is appropriate but rather relates to a question of eligibility, the
resolution of which will depend on the outcome of the unfair labor practice
proceeding. In the meantime, these employees shall be permitted to cast
challenged ballots in the election directed below.
2 The Employer's motion, which the Petitioner opposed, to change the
name of the Employer to Amoco Production Company, New Orleans
Division, is denied because there is evidence in the record that the
Petitioner's designation of Amoco Production Company is correct.
3 The division management's authority is somewhat restricted by the
main office in Chicago. That office controls certain policy and planning
decisions and handles financial disbursements.
1096
AMOCO PRODUCTION COMPANY
information resource, benefit plan counselor, and
training center for supervisors.
The day-to-day implementation of personnel poli-
cy, 4 however, is the responsibility of the area
managerial staff. In fact, division policy dictates that
management directives must be implemented
through the supervisory hierachy. Each area has an
area office, an area superintendent, an administrative
staff, an engineering staff, and various levels of
supervisory personnel.
Each area interviews and hires its own hourly
workers. Applications are kept on file at the
individual area office. Once an employee is hired, a
complete personnel file of that area employee is
maintained at the area office. The area staff performs
the timekeeping function and sends the payroll
information directly to the Chicago office. There,
payroll checks are prepared and returned either to
the area office or to the employees themselves.
Job bidding for vacancies is restricted to the area in
which they occur. Notices are posted throughout the
area and the area superintendent fills the vacancy
from the applications received. When layoffs occur
seniority is usually applied within the area. Although
there is a provision for interarea displacement in a
layoff situation, that eventuality has never occurred.
The area supervisors are also responsible for
preparing written evaluations of the performances of
their employees. These evaluations are relevant to
most personnel matters such as increases in pay,
promotions, transfers, and disciplinary dispositions.
When lower level management positions are vacant,
the area superintendent recommends a number of
area candidates from which the division people make
a selection.
Routine personnel matters, including inquiries as
to benefits and payroll discrepancies, are handled by
the area administration. If the problem involves an
interpretation of corporate policy or information that
is not available locally, the advice of the division or
the main office in Chicago is sought. Certain matters,
such as insurance adjustment, are referred exclusive-
ly to the main office.
The disciplinary and grievance procedure reflects a
similar delegation of responsibility. Ordinarily, disci-
pline is meted out by the area supervisors with the
advice and supervision of their superiors, up to and
including the division managers. The more substan-
tial the discipline, however, the greater is the
involvement of the division. The division must be
notified of warning letters and central approval is
necessary before an employee can be terminated.
The formalized grievance procedure has three
steps. The first is limited to the frontline supervisor.
4 The area supenntendent also has significant authority and discretion in
other matters. For example, he has the authonty to contract out
The second is adjudicated by the area superintendent
with a division supervisor in attendance. The third
step involves the additional presence of the division
manager in charge of the division.
Transfers among the different areas are insignifi-
cant. Although transfers must be cleared through the
office of the division employee relations manager this
official could recall only two transfers in the previous
15 months and those transfers were in connection
with the startup of some sites offshore. Casual
interchange is also neglible. Absent an emergency
situation, hourly employees are not shifted temporar-
ily into another area. Supervisors also tend to stay in
their areas with the exception of drilling foremen
who do not supervise hourly workers.
Working conditions, job classifications, and hours
are identical in the Lake Charles and Lafayette areas.
The offshore area, however, is substantially different.
At Lake Charles and Lafayette, employees work 8-
hour shifts, 5 days a week. The offshore employees
work 84 hours within 8 consecutive calendar days,
generally in 12-hour shifts with 6 consecutive days
off. Although the Employer contends that the
functions of the offshore hourly employees are
similar to those of their colleagues onshore, the job
classifications are different for offshore employees.
Offshore employees usually live farther from their
work and receive travel compensation benefits not
generally afforded the onshore employees.
Based upon the above findings and the record, we
conclude that the Employer is not so administrative-
ly centralized in its operation as to require a finding
that only a divisionwide unit of employees is
appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining.
See Amoco Production Company, 199 NLRB 484
(1972). Although there is some history of collective
bargaining on a divisionwide basis, the long-estab-
lished Board policy is that the Board is not bound by
a bargaining history in a unit which was not
determined by the Board. The Grand Union Company,
176 NLRB 230, 231 (1969); Mid-West Abrasive
Company and its subsidiary, Allied Abrasive Company,
145 NLRB 1665, 1667 (1964).
The unit sought by the Petitioner constitutes a
stable and identifiable group of employees with
common interests. The scope of the unit conforms to
a coherent administrative subdivision whose authori-
ty and discretion in personnel matters is substantial
and autonomous from the other areas. The supervi-
sory hierarchy and the employee work force are
distinct and separate in each area. Employee inter-
change among the areas is minimal and job bidding
is confined to each individual area. The offshore
area, which the Employer argues should be included
maintenance functions, if it is necessary, and to spend up to $35,000 for
equipment.
1097
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
in the unit, in addition to its administrative autono-
my, has substantially different working conditions
which would affect the community of interests
between offshore and onshore employees.
The area management exercises a significant
control over the day-to-day operations in their
jurisdictions in personnel matters of primary concern
to the employees such as hiring, job bidding,
performance evaluations, and recommendations for
promotions to management. The initial discipline
and grievance authority is delegated to the area
supervisors and generally the employees are directed
to the area management for the resolution of their
personnel inquiries and disputes.
5 Those 37 employees in the Northern Louisiana and Southern Arkansas
portions of the Lake Charles area who are the subject of the unfair labor
practice complaint will be permitted to vote challenged ballots. In the event
that those ballots are determinative, the final tally of ballots will be
suspended until the resolution of the unfair labor practice proceeding.
Member Murphy agrees with her colleagues that the Employer's Lake
Charles area constitutes an appropriate unit as it is a separate administrative
subdivision of the Employer's operations and is composed of a separate
readily identifiable group of employees. She finds this result is supported by
the following: (I) the area has its own separate area management which
exercises significant control over day-to-day operations including matters of
primary concern to employees, such as hiring, job bidding, performance
Accordingly, we conclude that a unit confined to
the Lake Charles area is appropriate.5 We find the
following employees of the Employer constitute a
unit appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act:
All hourly rated, limited hour, producing, operat-
ing, and maintenance employees employed by the
Employer in its Lake Charles area; excluding all
office clerical employees, professional employees,
guards and supervisors, as defined by the Act.
[Direction of Election and Excelsior footnote
omitted from publication.]
evaluation, and recommendations for promotions; (2) initial discipline and
grievance matters are handled by the area supervisor as are most employee
personal inquiries and disputes; and (3) there is minimal interchange of
employees in the area with other areas of the Employer's operations, and job
bidding in the area is restricted to the area employees. In reaching this result
here, however, she finds it unnecessary to consider the situations of the
offshore and Lafayette areas, for the facts with respect to those areas have
no bearing on the appropriateness of the requested unit, a matter which
must be determined on the basis of facts directly related to its own
organization and operation, and not those applicable to other aspects of the
Employer's operations.
1098