Stanolind Oil and Gas Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 31, 1952

98 N.L.R.B. 973 (N.L.R.B. 1952)

STANOLIND OIL AND GAS COMPANY 973
and the assistant assembly foremen, but excluding salesmen, office and
clerical employees, the manager, the assistant manager, the warehouse
foreman-shipping clerk,3 assembly foreman, assembly clerk 4 and
supervisors as defined in the Act.
5. The Teamsters and the Carpenters desire to go on the ballot as a
single, joint representative. The Employer opposes this on the
grounds that it is a subterfuge to defeat a finding of a unit on an
over-all basis. No showing has been made that, if selected, the Team-
sters and the Carpenters will not bargain on a joint basis for the whole
unit. Board precedent has fully established the propriety of two
or more labor organizations acting jointly as bargaining representa-
tive for a single group of employees. We see no reason to depart from
such precedent in the present instance, and accordingly find that the
Teamsters and the Carpenters may appear jointly on the ballot in the
election directed hereinafter. If they should win, they will be certi-
fied jointly as the bargaining representative of the employees in the
entire appropriate unit. The Employer may then insist that the
Teamsters and the Carpenters do in fact bargain jointly for such em-
ployees as a single unit.5
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
The duties of the shipping clerk and the warehouse foreman are presently combined'
In one person.
4 All parties agreed to the exclusion of this clerical employee.
5Internetional Harvester Company, West Pullman Works, 89 NLRB 413.
STANOLIND OIL AND GAS COMPANY and OIL WORKERS INTERNATIONAL.
. UNION, CIO , PETITIONER . Case No. 30-RC-676. March 31, 19593
Decision and Direction of Election
Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before Clyde F.
Waers, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hear-
ing 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 [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 National Labor Relations Act.
2. The Petitioner is a labor organization claiming to represent
employees of the Employer.
98 NLRB No. 143.
974 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of certain 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 to represent "process, mechanical, and main-
tenance" employees of the Employer's Elk Basin, Wyoming, plant.'
The plant in question started operating in 1949 and is located in
the Employer's Rocky Mountain division, which consists of all of
its operations in Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, and western
Nebraska. There has been no bargaining for employees of this divi-
sion.' Contracts covering division-wide units exist between the Stano-
lind Employees Federation and the Employer on behalf of two other
divisions : the central division and the Texas-Louisiana Gulf Coast
division.3 The Employer has one other division-the North Texas-
New Mexico-whose employees have been represented by the Stanolind
Employees Bargaining Agency. In 1944 the Board dismissed, on the
ground of inappropriate unit, the Oil Workers' petition asking for
the employees of two areas in the North Texas-New Mexico division 4
At Brownsville, Texas, the Employer has a chemical plant where the
AFL Operating Engineers is certified as the bargaining representa-
tive for a unit of production and maintenance employees a
The Employer contends that this proceeding should be dismissed
because anything less than a division-wide production unit is inappro-
priate. It argues that the Elk Basin plant is not a separate facility
within its Rocky Mountain division, but is "inseparably linked" with
the producing operation in the field.
1 This is a production and maintenance unit, excluding only professional and clerical
employees , guards, and supervisors.
The petition refers to the Elk Basin installation as a "gasoline plant," a description
apparently sustained by the Employer ' s publications which Petitioner introduced as its
Exhibits 1 and 2 ; see footnote 6 below. At the hearing the Employer referred to it as
the "Elk Basin Repressuring Plant " and in its brief denied that it was a gasoline plant.
The Employer 's exhibits , specifically its Exhibit 9, indicate , however, that gasoline is a
product of the plant . The Employer 's Exhibit 3-a map revised October 24, 1951-
Identifies the Elk Basin plant as a "gas plant ," and its Exhibits 5 and 6-organization
charts-refer to it simply as "Elk Basin Plant."
2 In 1947 , at the request of the Petitioner , a prehearing election was held in a division-
wide unit , in which election the Union was unsuccessful . Case No . 17 D-R-37.
IIn 1946 the Oil Workers petitioned for an election in a unit covering the Texas-
Louisiana Gulf Coast division , including the exploration department of the division. The
Board found appropriate a division -wide unit of the production department only. See
Stanolind Oil and Gas Company, 67 NLRB 375. The Federation was successful in that
election
i Stanolcnd Oil and Gas Company, 58 NLRB 412, in which the Board compared its appar-
ently contrary decision in Gulf Oil Corporation , 52 NLRB 880 , finding appropriate a unit of
two pools out of a division , and observed that it had said in the Gulf case that it would
consider each case on its merits.
I Stanoland Oil and Gas Company, Case No 39-RC-285; supplemental decision contain-
ing certification , 95 NLRB 619 The Employer takes the position that the Brownsville
chemical plant is a distinct department or unit in its organizational setup.
STANOLIND OIL AND GAS COMPANY 975
The Petitioner, stressing the manufacturing character of the Elk
I3asln plant, contends that its employees in themselves constitute an
appropriate unite
As the record shows, the Employer also has gas and repressuring
plants in the three divisions whose employees are included in over-all
division-wide units. In those divisions the plant employees have by
_practice been included in the established broad units. We do not con-
cur with the Employer's contention, however, that that situation neces-
sarily makes a unit of gas plant employees in the Rocky Mountain
division inappropriate. In its first published decision concerning this
Employer, the Board implied that it would continue its policy of con-
sidering each case on its own merits.7
Here the record shows that the Elk Basin plant, which partakes
of the nature of a manufacturing plant, has its own supervision, al-
though top supervision for both the plant and the field is supplied by
the division superintendents It also shows that there is little inter-
change of employees between the field and the plant except in emer-
gencies. In fact the Employer's own testimony states that "normally"
there is no interchange because the plant has its "own specialized
men . . . who are better acquainted with their own work." 9
We note that (1) interchangeability of employees and (2) flexibility
..of area boundaries within divisions due to decline or increase in crude
,oil production were stressed by the Board in its original decision,10
which-by dismissing a petition for two areas out of a division-set
the pattern of division-wide bargaining. In the current proceeding
interchange is not present and flexibility of area boundaries offers no
The Petitioner introduced , as its Exhibit 1 , a 1948 publication of the Employer in
the nature of a report to its employees , listing the EIk Basin plant as a "natural gasoline
plant," a "manufacturing plant" under construction ; as its Exhibit 2, the March 1950
issue of a magazine called "Standard Torch." containing an article on gas and gasoline
plants , which refers to a "newly created ( 1946 ) manufacturing department " The Em-
ployer states in its brief that it has no "Manufacturing Department," and that gasoline,
propane, butane , and sulphur are "simply recovered ," not "manufactured." It also con-
tends that the "sole" purpose for building the Elk Basin plant was repressuring of wells.
Evidence on its behalf, however , indicates that profits from the said products are antic-
ipated, and that the "excess amount of wet gas" in the area caused the employer "to
.construct the gasoline plant " rather than attempt repressuring by water . Upon this
record, we find that the Elk Basin plant is not only an aid to production but is com-
parable to a manufacturing facility
° Stanolind Oil and Gas Company, 58 NLRB 412 , footnote 2, see footnote 4 above.
s For example , the plant superintendent has no jurisdiction over field employees unless
they are working in the plant due to an emergency , and although the division office allo-
,cates employees to its various operating field and plants , the plant superintendent receives
applications and recommends hiring for the plant.
9 The plant superintendent also testified that plant employees have worked in the field
"on a few occasions when the field needed specialized help" Plant employees service
the "lines" between the plant and the separators, and field production employees service
them "on out into the fields."
11 Stanolind Oil and Gas Company, 58 NLRB 412 , see footnote 4 above
976 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
reason for denying separate representation to a relatively stable group
of plant employees. In addition we note the lack of collective bar-
gaining for this division in the past and the fact that no other bargain-
ing agent seeks to represent the Employer's Rocky Mountain division
employees as an over-all unit. For these reasons, and upon the record
as a whole, we are satisfied that a unit limited to employees of the Elk
Basin gas and repressuring plant is appropriate."
Accordingly, we find that all production and maintenance em-
ployees in the Employer's Elk Basin, Wyoming, plant, including
employees in the process, mechanical, and maintenance classifications,
but excluding professional employees, clerical employees, guards, and
supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for
the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section
9 (b) of the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
11 See Texas Pacific Coal and Oil Company, 96 NLRB 1330 , where the Board, for similar
reasons , found a division unit appropriate although a company -wide unit, which no one
sought to represent , was urged by the employer.
RAY BROOKS and INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS FOR ITS
DISTRICT LODGE No. 727. Case No.. 1-CA-1117. April 1, 195
Decision and Order
On October 29, 1951, Trial Examiner Martin S. Bennett issued his
Intermediate Report in this proceeding, finding that the Respondent
had engaged in and was engaging in conduct violative of Section 8
(a) (1) and 8 (a) (5) of the Act, and recommending that it cease and
desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the
copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. The Trial Exam-
iner also found that the Respondent had not engaged in certain other
violations of Section 8 (a) (1) alleged in the complaint, and recom-
mended that such allegations be dismissed. Thereafter, the Respond-
ent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report., and a supporting
brief.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions, the brief, and the entire record in this
I 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 [Chairman Herzog and
Members Houston and Styles].
98 NLRB No. 151.