Phillips Petroleum Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 21, 1952

100 N.L.R.B. 684 (N.L.R.B. 1952)

684 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
PHILLIPS PETROLEUM COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL UNION OF
OPERATING ENGINEERS . Case No. 16-CA-463. August 01, 1952
Decision and Order
On March 24, 1952, Trial Examiner Charles W. Whittemore issued
his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair
labor practices in violation of Section 8 (a) (5) and Section 8 (a) (1)
of the amended Act, and recommending that it cease and desist there-
from and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy
of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter the Re-
spondent filed exceptions, and supporting reasons therefor, to the
Intermediate Report.
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-member
panel [Members Houston, Murdock, and Styles].
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner- and finds
that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby af-
firmed' The Board has considered the Intermediate Report, the ex-
ceptions and supporting reasons, and the entire record in this case,2
and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of
the Trial Examiner.
Order
Upon the entire record in this case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, Phillips Petro-
leum Company, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with International Union of
Operating Engineers as the exclusive representative of all its em-
ployees in the appropriate unit, with respect to rates of pay, wages,
hours of employment, or other conditions of employment.
(b) In any manner interfering with the efforts of International
Union of Operating Engineers to bargain collectively with the Re-
spondent on behalf of the employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit.
1 The Trial Examiner rejected an offer of proof as to certain evidence as to the Re-
spondent 's apartment-hotel. The evidence contained in this offer of proof was previously
Submitted to the Board in support of a motion to reopen the representation proceeding
which preceded the instant case At that time, the Board considered the evidence tendered
by the Respondent and found it insufficient to merit reopening the representation record
or revision of the findings made in that proceeding . Accordingly, the ruling of the Trial
Examiner herein is affirmed.
Y As the record and the exceptions and supporting reasons, in our opinion , adequately
present the issues and contentions of the parties , the Respondent 's request for oral argu-
ment is hereby denied.
100 NLRB No 120
PHILLIPS PETROLEUM COMPANY 685
2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Upon request, bargain collectively with International Union of
Operating Engineers, as the exclusive representative of all employees
in the appropriate unit, and embody any understanding reached in a
signed agreement.
(b) Post at its place of business at Bartlesville, Oklahoma, copies
of the notice attached to the Intermediate Report, marked "Appendix
A." 3 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director
for the Sixteenth Region, shall, after being duly signed by the Re-
spondent's representative, be posted by the Respondent immediately
upon the receipt thereof, and maintained by it for a period of sixty
(60) consecutive days thereafter in conspicuous places including all
places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable
steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said notices are
not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Sixteenth Region, in
writing, within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps
the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
3 This notice , however , shall be amended by striking therefrom the words "The Recom-
mendations of a Trial Examiner" and substituting therefor the words "A Decision and
Order." In the event that this order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of
Appeals, there shall be substituted for the words "Pursuant to a Decision and Order" the
words "Pursuant to a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals , Enforcing an Order "
Intermediate Report
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Charges having been duly filed and served , a complaint having been issued and
served by the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, and a
notice of hearing thereon having been waived by the parties, a hearing involving
allegations of unfair labor practices'by- the above-named company, herein called
the Respondent, in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) and (5) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended , 61 Stat. 136, herein called the Act, was held in Bartles-
ville, Oklahoma , on March 17, 1952, before the undersigned Trial Examiner.
In substance the complaint alleges that the Respondent , since January 17,
1952, has refused to bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive repre-
sentative of all employees in an appropriate unit, and thereby has interfered
with , restrained , and coerced its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed
by the Act. In substance, oral answer made by the Respondent at the opening
of the hearing denies that the unit alleged is appropriate. Affirmatively, it is the
Respondent 's position that the Board erred in its determination of the appro-
priate unit in Case No. 16-RC-8111 and that it may not be required to bargain
as to a unit which is not appropriate.
At the hearing all parties were represented, were afforded full opportunity to
be heard, to examine i nd cross-examine witnesses, to introduce evidence perti-
nent to the issues, to argue orally upon the record, and to file briefs and proposed
findings and conclusions . Argument and the filing of briefs were waived by
all parties.
'Phillips Petroleum Company, 97 NLRB 67.
686 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Upon the entire record in the case the Trial Examiner makes the following -
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Phillips -,Petroleum Company Js a Delawkre corporation, having its principal
office and jMace of business in Bartlesville, Oklahoma, and is engaged in several
States of-the United States in the production, sale, and distribution of petroleum
and related products. The Respondent annually causes petroleum and related
products, valued at more than $1,000,000, to be purchased, delivered, and trans-
ported in interstate commerce from and through States other than the State of
Oklahoma.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
International Union of Operating Engineers, herein called the Union, is a
labor organization admitting to membership employees of the Respondent.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
The complaint alleges, the Board has found, and in accordance with the
Board's determination-the Trial Examiner now finds, that a unit appropriate
for purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (a) of the
Act, among the Respondent's employees, consists of :
All employees of the Building Division of the Treasury Department en-
gaged in the operation and maintenance of the Adams Building, Phillips
Building, Bank Building, Thurman Building, Safety Building, Research
Laboratory, Carpenter Shop, Power Plant, Machine Shop, Airport, Mailing
Room, and the Phillips Apartment Hotel, all located at Bartlesville, Okla.,
including the leadmen on the night cleaning crew of the Research Labora-
tory and the light cleaning crew, but excluding mail register, file, stored
records, and all other clerks, receptionists, mail sorters, typists, night service
board operator, stenographer, secretary, personnel director, auditors, tele-
phone operators, and all other office and clerical employees, cigar stand
attendants, watchmen, professional- employees, confidential employees, main-
tenance foremen, operations foremen, day service foremen, carpenter shop
foremen, warehouse foremen, elevator operator foremen, electrical super-
visor,- shipping supervisor, office 'Supervisor, mail section supervisor, the
housekeeper, assistant manager, and manager at the hotel, janitor foreman,
combination foremen, and all other supervisors as defined in the Act.
A Board election was held following the Board's Direction of Election, above
cited. It was won by the Union, which thereafter was certified as the exclusive
bargaining agent of the employees in the aforesaid unit.
On or about December 28, 1951, the Union requested the Respondent to bar-
gain with it for all employees in the aforesaid unit. On January 17, 1952, the
Respondent refused to bargain with the Union as the representative of the
employees engaged in the operation and maintenance of the Phillips Apartment
Hotel, maintaining that the Board had erred in including such employees in
the appropriate unit. At the hearing the Respondent confirmed its position in
this respect.
Also at the hearing the Trial Examiner rejected an offer of proof made by
the Respondent, as to additional evidence which, it claimed, related to the ques-
tion of an appropriate unit. Rejection of the offer was made upon the Respond-
1'IIILLIPS PETROLEUM COMPANY 687
cut's admission that the same offer had previously been made to the Board at the
time of moving for reopening of the record in the above -cited representation case.
The Trial Examiner does not consider that the merit of the Respondent's
claims as to the appropriateness of the unit is before him for determination but,
instead, that he serves merely as a medium-. through whom the -question of such
merit may reach the Board for its reconsideration.
The Trial Examiner therefore concludes and finds that on January 17, 1952,
.and at all times since , the Respondent has refused to bargain collectively with
the Union as the exclusive representative of all - employees in the above -described
appropriate unit, and that by such refusal ' the Respondent has interfered with,
restrained , and coerced its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by the
Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent, set forth in section III, above, occurring in
connection with the operations of the Respondent described in section I, above,
have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade; traffic, and commerce
among the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and ob-
structing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
It has been found that the Respondent has engaged in the unfair labor practice
of refusing to bargain collectively with the chosen representative of its employees.
It will therefore be recommended that it cease and desist therefrom and from
like and related conduct. It will further be recommended that the Respondent
bargain collectively, upon request, with the Union as the exclusive representative
of its employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. International Union of Operating Engineers is a labor organization within
the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. All employees of the building division of the treasury department of the
Respondent engaged in the operation and maintenance of the Adams Building,
Phillips Building, Bank Building, Thurman Building, Safety Building, research
laboratory, carpenter shop, power plant, machine shop, airport, mailing room,
and the Phillips Apartment Hotel, all located at Bartlesville, Oklahoma, in-
cluding the leadmen on the night cleaning crew of the research laboratory, and
the light cleaning crew, but excluding mail register, file, stored records, and all
other clerks, receptionists, mail sorter, ,typists, night service 'board operator,
stenographers, secretary, personnel director, auditors, telephone operators, and
all other office and clerical employees, cigar stand attendants, watchmen, profes-
sional employees, confidential employees, maintenance foremen,-Operations fore-
men, day service foremen, carpenter shop foremen, warehouse foremen, elevator
operator foremen, electrical supervisor, shipping supervisor, office supervisor,
mail section supervisor, the housekeeper, assistant manager, and manager of the
hotel, janitor foremen, combination foremen, and all other supervisors as de-
fined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective
bargaining within the meaning of the Act.
3. International Union of Operating Engineers was on December 10, 1951, and
at all times since has been the exclusive representative of all employees in the
aforesaid unit for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of
Section 9 (a) of the Act.
688 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
4. By refusing on and after January 17, 1952, to bargain collectively with the
aforesaid Union as the exclusive representative of the employees in the aforesaid
appropriate unit, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in an unfair
labor practice within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (5) of the Act.
5. By the aforesaid unfair labor practice, the Respondent has interfered with,
restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act, thereby engaging in an unfair labor practice within the
meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning
of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication in this volume. I
Appendix A
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that :
WE WILL bargain collectively upon request with INTERNATIONAL UNION OF
OPERATING ENGINEERS, as the exclusive representative of all employees in
the bargaining unit described herein, with respect to grievances, labor
disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, and other condiitons of
employment, and if an understanding is reached, embody such understand-
ing in a signed agreement. The bargaining unit is :
All employees of the building division of the treasury department en-
gaged in the operation and maintenance of the Adains Building, Phil-
lips Building, Bank Building, Thursman Building, Safety Building,
research laboratory, carpenter shop, power plant, machine shop, airport,
mailing room, and the Phillips Apartment Hotel, including the leadmen
on the night cleaning crew of the research laboratory and the light
cleaning crew, but excluding mail- register, file, stored records, and all
other clerks, receptionists, mail sorters, typists, night service board
operator, stenographer, secretary, personnel director, auditors, tele-
phone operators, and all other office and-clerical employees, cigar stand
attendants, watchmen, professional employees, confidential employees,
maintenance foremen, operations foremen, day service foremen, carpenter
shop foremen, warehouse foremen, elevator operator foremen, electrical
supervisor, shipping supervisor, office supervisor, mail section super-
visor, the housekeeper, assistant manager, and manager at the hotel,
janitor foremen, combination foremen, and all other supervisors as de-
fined in the Act.
WE WILL NOT in any manner interfere with the efforts of the above-named
Union to bargain collectively with us, or refuse to bargain with said union,
as the exclusive representative of all our employees in the bargaining unit
set forth above.
PHILLIPS PETROLEUM COMPANY,
Employer.
Dated------------------------ By------------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not
be altered , defaced , or covered by any other material.