Mid-West Refineries, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 2, 1952

98 N.L.R.B. 1043 (N.L.R.B. 1952)

MID-WEST REFINERIES, INC. 1043
Appendix C
Name Location Present occupational manufacturing-4611
C. W. Carlisle_____________ Point Breeze_______-_________ Engineer , Electrical or Mechanical Maim.
facturing-4611.
J. L Winton-------------- Hdqtrs.-Mfg. Div--____--__ Do.
E. L. Lewis---------------- Hawthorne----------__------ Do.
E. W. Van Nest ----------- Allentown______________ Do.
R. W. Fuller-------------- ----- do.---------------------- Do.
J. E. Armstrong ----------- Point Breeze_________________ Do
E. H. Flanagan ------------ ----- do------------------------ Do.
M. J. Schultz-------------- ----- do------------------------ Do.
F. H. Wyatt--------------- -----do------------------------ Do.
P. B. Yohn---------------- ----- do------------------------ Do.
J. W. Lee____ _____________ Hdqtrs.-Mfg. Div ---------- Do.
Z. H Reed--- ------------- ----- do------------------------ Do.
J. L. Seixas ---------------- ----- do------------------------ Do.
R. M. Anderson ----------- Indianapolis ----------------- Do.
W. P. Hopkins----------- -----do------------------------ Do.
H. P. Lane---------------- ----- do------------------------ Do.
O. C. Sherman----------- ----- do------------------------ Do.
W. R. Jansen------------- ----- do------------------------ Do.
P. J. Dalton_______________ Hdqtrs.-Mfg Div ---------- Do.
J. J. Perri----------------- ----- do------------------------ Do.
A. L. Sallette-------------- ----- do----------------------- Do.
J. E. Eaton---------------- ----- do------------------------ Do. •
J. McGowna--------------- Tonawanda ------------------ Rate Setter, Piece Rates-1642 Engineer,
R. B. Dillingham---------- Hawthorne___________________ Electrical or Mechanical, Manufacturing-
4611.
C. E. Streeter-------------- ----- do------------------------ Do.
F. A. HaJek----- --------- - ----- do------------------------ Do.
J. E. DeWan-------------- -----do------------------------ Do.
A. W. Pond-- ------------- Allentown ------------------- Do.
MID-WEST REFINERIES , INC. and OIL WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION,
CIO, AND ITS LOCAL No. 540, PETITIONER. Case No . 7-RC-1588.
April 2, 1952
Decision and Direction of Elections
Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before W. M. Otter,
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
this case to a three-member panel [Chairman Herzog and Members
Murdock and Peterson].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the National Labor Relations Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. International Union of Operating Engineers, Local No. 322, AFL,
hereinafter referred to as the Intervenor, urged its contract as a bar
98 NLRB No. 150.
1044 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
to this proceeding. By its terms, this contract, executed on January
1, 1950, was automatically renewable annually, subject to a 60-day
reopening provision. The Petitioner made its demand for recog-
nition on October 25, 1951, and filed its petition with the Board on
the same day, before the automatic renewal date of the Intervenor's
contract. Furthermore, the Intervenor, by notice given to the Em-
ployer on October 29, 1951, opened the contract pursuant to its terms
and thereby forestalled its automatic renewal. Under these circum-
stances, we find that the contract cannot operate as a bar to this pro-
ceeding. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the rep-
resentation 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 a unit of all transportation, production, and
maintenance employees at the Employer's Alma, Michigan, refinery,
and all transportation and pipeline division employees at the Em-
ployer's Grandville, Michigan, operation, excluding office clerical em-
ployees, plant guards, and all supervisors as defined in the Act. How-
ever, since the hearing we have been administratively advised that
the Petitioner is willing to represent these employees in other unit
groupings.
The Intervenor opposes the composition of the over-all unit pre-
ferred by the Petitioner, urging its contract unit as the appropriate
one. The contract unit consists of transportation, production, and
maintenance employees at the Alma, Michigan, refinery and two
transportation division employees working out of the Grandville,
Michigan,' terminal.
Although the Employer's latest contract covers the unit urged by
the Intervenor, it takes the position that the broader unit initially
sought by the Petitioner is the more appropriate one.
The Operations of the Employer
The general offices of the Employer are located at Grand Rapids,
Michigan. The Employer's entire operations consist of the following.
Under the supervision of a vice president, the Employer operates a
petroleum refinery at Alma, Michigan, where it has approximately
110 employees. Employees at the Alma refinery operation, as well as
the two truck drivers working out of Grandville, are hired at Alma.
In a separate fiscal division, under the supervision of another vice
president, the Employer has a petroleum pipeline terminal and bulk
truck loading station at Grandville, Michigan, approximately 85
miles from Alma, Michigan. This operation is devoted to the collec-
I All of the parties stipulate that in the event the Board finds that the Alma and Grand-
ville operations should be treated as two separate units, the two transportation employees
(truck drivers) working out of Grandville are properly a part of the Alma transportation
division and appropriately belong with the latter group. I
MID-WEST REFINERIES, INC. 1045
tion of oil from fields owned by other producers in this area. The
8 employees at the Grandville operation, consisting of 2 loading rack
employees working at the terminal and 3 gaugers and 3 maintenance
men working at the gauging and pipeline headquarters about 2 miles
away, were hired by the personnel office at Grand Rapids, Michigan,
which is about 15 miles from Grandville.
Employees at the Alma refinery and the Grandville terminal do
not have comparable duties, are not interchanged and have no contact
with one another except for the two employees, of the transportation
division of Alma referred to in footnote 1, ,supra.
History of Bargaining
Until 1946, the Employer operated a full-scale petroleum refinery
at Grandville, Michigan. At that time; it recognized the Intervenor,
through another local, as bargaining agent for its employees at Grand-
ville. In 1946, the Employer transferred its refinery operations from
Grandville to Alma, leaving only the pipeline terminal and loading
station at Grandville. The Intervenor established a new local at
Alma, and continued to represent the refinery employees there.
Except for the transportation di vision employees working out of
Grandville, the Intervenor has not represented any of the Grandville
employees since 1946.
In view of the lack of any transfer of employees,z between Grand-
ville and Alma, the dissimilarity of skills and working conditions
of the employees of the two operations other than a common group
insurance plan,3 the separate bargaining history at the Alma refinery,
and the Petitioner's alternative willingness to represent the employees
of the two operations in units other than a single over-all unit, we
believe that two separate units may be appropriate.'
On the other h%nd, because of the functional relationship between
the Grandville and Alma operations, and the presence of the two
Alma transportation division employees at Grandville, we are of the
opinion that the Alma and Grandville employees together might
properly constitute a single appropriate unit.
We shall therefore make no final determination at this time, but
shall first ascertain the desires of the employees as expressed in the
separate elections herein directed to be held among employees in the
following voting groups :
2 We do not regard the Employer ' s indication that in the event the depletion of the
oil interests at Grandville substantially reduces its operations there, the employees would,
if willing, be permanently transferred to Alma at the expense of the Employer , as con-
stituting interchange of employees.
2 Cf. Denver Producing & Refining Company, 75 NLRII 873.
4 We have administratively determined the sufficiency of the Petitioner's showing of
interest in each of the two voting groups described herein . However, any of the par-
ticipants may, upon its prompt request to, and approval thereof by , the Regional Director,
have its name removed from the ballot in the elections hereinafter directed.
998666-vol 98-53-67
1046 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(a) All transportation, production, and maintenance employees of
the Employer at its Alma, Michigan, operation, including those trans-
portation employees presently operating out of the Grandville ter-
minal of the Employer, but excluding all office clerical employees,
guards, and all supervisors as defined in the Act.
(b) All employees at the Employer's Grandville, Michigan, ter-
minal, including loading rack employees, gaugers, and maintenance
men, but excluding transportation employees employed by the Alma
refinery operation working out of Grandville, office clerical employees.
guards, and all supervisors as defined in the Act.
If a majority of the employees in voting group (a) cast their bal-
lots for the Intervenor, they will constitute a separate appropriate
unit. Similarly, if a majority of employees in either group (a) or
(b) cast their ballots for the Petitioner, the employees in that voting
group will constitute a separate appropriate, unit, provided however,
if a majority of employees in each group cast their ballots for the
Petitioner, they together will constitute a single appropriate unit.
The Regional Director is instructed to issue a certification of represent-
atives in accord with the foregoing.
5. The Employer testified that there is a larger force of employees on
its payroll in the winter months than at any other time of the year
and that normally layoffs of a few employees could be expected to take
place within 60 to 90 days. In addition, the Employer also testified
that. a gasoline retail price war in the area imminently threatens to
close down a substantial part of the Employer's operations and bring
about a wholesale layoff of employees.
In view of this testimony, the Intervenor made a motion that the
usual election eligibility date be disregarded by the Board in the
event an election is ordered, and that, instead, the determination of
the eligibility date be left to the discretion of the Regional Director.
This motion was referred to the Board.
The employment fluctuation at the end of the winter months is
apparently minor and is therefore insufficient to call for the applica-
tion of seasonal industry rules with respect to eligibility payroll date.
The possibility of a wholesale layoff because of the current gasoline
retail price war is too speculative to warrant a change in our customary
procedure. Further, there is no indication that any layoffs which
may be effected would be other,than temporary, and under our usual
rules such temporary laid-off employees would be eligible to vote.
Accordingly, we shall deny the Intervenor's motion and adhere to our
usual practices.
The Employer and Intervenor urge that no election should be direc-
ted until after the disposition of certain unfair labor practice charges
filed by the Petitioner. As the Petitioner has executed a waiver with
PHELPS DODGE CORPORATION 1047
respect to such charges, we see no reason to delay this proceeding and
shall in accordance with our usual practice direct an immediate
election.
A question was raised concernig the eligibility of certain alleged
temporary employees to vote. However, the Emplyoer was unable
to identify such employees or to supply any information in this regard.
As we do not have sufficient evidence upon which to base a deter-
mination, we believe this question of eligibility, if it exists, can best
be resolved by challenge at the election.
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication in this
volume.]
PHELPS DODGE CORPORATION ( COPPER QUEEN BRANCH )1 and INTER-
NATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL UNION
487, AFL, PETITIONER . Case No. 21-RC-2163. April 3, 1952
Decision and Order
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Ben Grodsky, hearing
officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free
from rejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its power in connection with this case to a three-member
panel [Members Houston, Murdock, and Styles].
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 organizations involved claim to represent employees
of the Employer.2
3. No 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, for the following,
reasons:
In 1942 the Board upon petitions filed by the Petitioner herein, the
Engineers, seven other AFL craft unions, and International Union
of Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers, CIO, found appropriate at this
plant of the Employer eight craft units and a residual unit sought
i The name of the Employer is amended to show the name of the branch involved.
2 At the hearing International Union of Operating Engineers , Local No. 428, herein
called the Engineers , and Bisbee Metal Trades Council, herein called the Council, re-
quested and received permission to intervene on the basis of their contractual interest in
these employees. In view of our decision herein, we find it unnecessary to pass upon the
Employer's and Intervenors' motion to dismiss the petition on the ground that the
existing contract is a bar to a present determination of representatives.
98 NLRB No. 158.