Shell Development Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 13, 1943

47 N.L.R.B. 507 (N.L.R.B. 1943)

In the Matter of SHELL DEVELOPMENT, COMPANY, INC. and INTERNA-
TIONALFEDERATION OF ARCHITECTS , ENGINEERS , CHEMISTS AND TECH-
NICIANS, C. I. O.
Case No. R-4791.-Decided February 13, 1943
'Jurisdiction : petroleum research industry.
Investigation and Certification of Representatives : existence of question: re-
fusal to accord exclusive recognition because employees in prior election voted
not to be represented by union ; prior election conducted pursuant to Board
Decision and Direction of Election more than a year ago in which no repre-
sentative was selected held no bar to a present determination of representatives,
when union represented a substantial number of company's employees at present
time; election necessary. ,
Unit Appropriate for Collective Bargaining : all chemists, junior chemists,
physicists, junior physicists, engineers, and junior engineers at Emeryville
laboratories of company, provisionally including assistants to the manager, but
with specified exclusions, held an appropriate unit.
McOutchen, Olney, Mannon cu Greene, by Mr. F. F. Thomas, Jr.,
and Mr. Sherrill Halbert, of San Francisco, Calif., for the Company.
Gladstein, Grommer, Margolis cC Sawyer, by Mr. Bertram Edises,
of Oakland, Calif., for the Union.
Mr. Louis Cokin, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon petition and amended petition duly filed by International
Federation of Architects, Engineers, Chemists and Technicians, C. 1. 0.,
herein called the Union, alleging that a question affecting com-
merce had arisen concerning the representation of employees of Shell
Development Company, Inc., Emeryville, California, herein called
the Company, the National Labor Relations Board provided for-an
appropriate hearing upon due notice before LeRoy Marceau, Trial
Examiner. Said hearing was held at San Francisco, California, on
January 18, 1943. The Union and the Company appeared, partic-
ipated, and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine
47 N. L.R.B,No 71.
507
508 DE,CISS-6\'s OF NATIONAL LABOR _ RELATIONS BOARD
and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the
issues. At the commencement of the hearing; counsel for the Company
moved to dismiss the petition. The Trial Examiner reserved ruling.
The motion is hereby' denied. The Trial Examniner's rulings made at
the hearing,are free from, prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
On January 27 and 28, 1943, respectively; the Company and the
Union filed briefs which the Board has considered. .
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
Shell Development Company, Inc., is a Delaware corporation en-
gaged in research at Emeryville, California, on new and improved-
methods of producing oil, petroleum products, and chemicals. Dur-
ing 1942, the Company used approximately 3,000,000 pounds of ma-
terials, approximately 50,000 pounds of which were shipped to it from
,points outside the State of California, and equipment valued at about
$88,000, of which about $15,000 worth was shipped to it from. points
outside the State of California. During the, same period, the Com-
,,pany produced approximately 399,000 pounds • of mnaterials, about
300,000 pounds of which were shipped to points outside,the State of
California. , ,
IT. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED ,
,International Federation of Architects, Engineers, Chemists and
Technicians is a labor organization affiliated with the Congress of
Industrial Organizations, admitting to membership employees of the
Company.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
During November 1942, the Union requested the Company to recog-
nize it as the exclusive representative of certain of the Company's
employees. The Company refused this request.
On-February 11, 1942, the employees involved lierein.voted, pursuant
to a Decision and Direction of Election of'the Board," not to be 'rep-
resenited by the Union. The Company contends that the employees
are not likely to have changed their minds with respect to union affilia-
tion since the date of the election, and that, therefore, the petition
in the instant proceeding should be dismissed. A year has elapsed
since the ordered election. The record discloses that the Union 'rep-
resents a substantial number of the Company's employees in the unit
1 38 N. L. R. B. 192.
SHELL DEVELOPMENT COTMPANIY; INC., 509
hereinafter found to be appropriate.'- Since no collective bargaining
representative was chosen as a result of the prior election, and in view
of the fact that a' substantial number of the Company's employees in
the appropriate unit appear to desire representation by the Union,
we believe that the policies of the-Act will-best be effectuated by con-
ducting an election on'the present petition, as amended .3.
We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning
the representation of employees of the Company within the meaning of
Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Re-
lations Act.
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
The Union contends that all chemists, junior chemists, physicists,
junior physicists, engineers, and junior engineers at the Emeryville
laboratories of the Company, excluding executives, the manager, asso-
ciate directors, department heads, and assistant department heads
who may be classified as chemists, junior chemists, physicists, junior
physicists, engineers or junior engineers, constitute an, appropriate
bargaining unit. The only controversy with respect to the unit con-
cerns assistants to the manager and three -named alleged assistant
department heads.
The Company employs three persons classified by it as assistants to
'the manager. At the time of the previous election, alluded to above,
these employees were designated as assistants to the assistant director
and ' were included in the unit. The Union urges that they be ex-
cluded -from the unit and the Company that they be included. The
record does not indicate that there has been any change in the au-
thority or functions of these employees. We shall include the assist-
ants to the manager in the unit, subject, to their being challenged in
the election to be directed below if it is shown that their duties have
changed siiice our last decision.
- The Union urges that Isitt, Ballard, and Marple 'be excluded
from' the unit and, the Company that they be included. -Isitt is
classified by the Company as an engineer and Ballard and Marple'
as group leaders. Representatives of the Company conceded that
Isitt's duties' are equivalent to those - of an assistant department
head. 'The latter classification of employees is excluded from the
unit by 'agreement of the parties. , Ballard has 6 research teams,
composed of 17 employees, working under his supervision, and he
occupies a private office. Marple has 4 research teams, composed
' A statement of a Field Exaininer of the Board , introduced into evidence at the hearing,
shows that the Union presented a certified list of members containing the names of 117
persons who appear on the Company's pay roll of December 29, 1942. There are 227
employees in the appropriate unit.
8 See Hatter of Detroit Nut Company and Local 174, United Automobile , Airciaft cC Agri-
cultural Implement lWoikers of Amet ice , C. 1. 0., 39 X. L R 13.739.
510 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATTONS BOARD
of 19 employees, working under, him.- Neither Ballard nor Marple
performs any laboratory work in, connection with the research
teams. The head of the laboratory testified that Ballard and Mar-
ple would, be consulted in the matter of the discharge of any per-
son working under them. Under the circumstances, we shall ex-
clude Isitt, Ballard, and Marple from the unit. -
We find that all chemists, junior chemists, physicists, junior phys-
icists,' engineers, and junior, engineers at the Emeryville labora-
tories of the Company, provisionally including assistants to the
manager, but excluding executives, the manager, associate -directors,
department heads, assistant department heads who may be classified
as chemists, junior chemists, physicists, junior physicists, engineers
or junior engineers, and Isitt, Ballard, and Marple,; 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 find that the question concerning representation which has
arisen can best be'resolved`by means of an election by secret ballot.
The Union urges that the pay roll of January 15, 1943, be used to
determine eligibility to vote. The Company contends that a cur-
rent, pay roll should be used for that purpose. Inasmuch as no
` reason appears why we should depart from our usual practice, we
shall direct that' the employees eligible to vote shall be those in the
appropriate unit who were employed during the pay-roll period im-
mediately preceding the date of the Direction of Election herein,
subject to the limitations and additions set forth in the Direction.
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
By virtue of and pursuant to the power vested, in the National
Labor: Relations, Board k by Section 9, (c) of the National Labor Re-
lations Act, and pursuant to Article III, Section 9, of National Labor
Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 2, , as amended, it
is- hereby -
DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation to ascertain representa-
tives for the purposes of collective bargaining with Shell Develop-
ment Company, Inc., Emeryville, California, an election by secret
ballot shall be conducted as early as possible, but not later than
thirty (30) days from the date of this Direction, under the direc-
tion and supervision of the Regional Director for the Twentieth
Region, acting in this matter as agent for the National Labor Re-
lations Board, and subject to Article III; Section 10, of said Rules
and Regulations, among the employees in the unit found appropriate
SHELL DEVELOPMENT COMPANIT, INC. 511
in Section IV, above, who were employed during the pay-roll
period immediately preceding the date of this Direction, including
any such employees who did not work during said pay-roll period
because they wore 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, to determine whether
or not they desire to be represented by International Federation of
Architects, Engineers, Chemists and_ Technicians, affiliated with the
C. I. 0., for the purposes of collective bargaining.