The Texas Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 6, 1947

73 N.L.R.B. 1490 (N.L.R.B. 1947)

In the Matter of THE TEXAS COMPANY, EMPLOYER and INDEPENDENT
UNION OF PETROLEUM WORKERS and OIL WORKERS INTERNATIONAL
UNION, CIO, PETITIONER
Cases Nos. 21-R-3507, V1-R-3638, and 21-RD681.Decided June 6,
1947
Messrs. J. A. McNair and Wallace E. Avery, of Los Angeles, Calif.,
for the Employer.
Mr. A. E. Hurley, of Los Angeles, Calif., for the Independent.
Mr. J. Elro Brown, of Bakersfield, Calif., for the CIO.
Mr. Abraham Frank, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
Upon separate petitions duly filed, hearing on these consolidated
cases was held at Los Angeles, California, on January 21, 23, 24, 27,
28, 1947, before Charles M. Ryan, hearing officer. At the hearing the
Employer moved to dismiss the petitions on various grounds. The
hearing officer reserved ruling on the motion for the Board. Inasmuch
as the motion to dismiss would entail a complete dismissal, it is hereby
denied for reasons hereinafter set forth.' The hearing officer's rulings
made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby
affirmed.
Upon the entire record in the case, the National Labor Relations
Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
The Texas Company, a Delaware corporation, is engaged in the pro-
duction, manufacture, and distribution of petroleum products. Its
principal offices are located in New York City. The Employer's activi-
ties, divided for administrative purposes into several divisions, extend
1 The motion to dismiss was directed against a consolidation of units . The Employer
does not object to a determination of representation as to those units not presently rep-
resented by any labor organization.
73 N. L. R. B., No. 251.
1490
THE TEXAS COMPANY 1491
to each of the 48 States. This proceeding is concerned solely with the
producing, refining and marine operations of the Employer's Pacific
Coast Division in the State of, California, with headquarters at Los
Angeles, California. During 1944, the Employer purchased through
the Los Angeles office raw materials and petroleum valued in excess of
$12,000,000, of which approximately 30 percent originated from sources
outside the State of California. During the same period the Em-
ployer's sales amounted to about $59,000,000, approximately 51 percent
of which represented shipments to points outside the State of Cali-
fornia. The nature and volume of business has not changed materially
since 1944.
The Employer admits and we find that it is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Independent Union of Petroleum Workers, herein called the Inde-
pendent, is a labor organization, claiming to represent employees of
the Employer.
Oil Workers International Union, herein called the CIO, is a labor
organization affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations,
claiming to represent employees of the Employer.
III. TIIE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The Employer refuses to recognize the Petitioner as the exclusive
bargaining representative of employees of the Employer until the
Petitioner has been certified by the Board in an appropriate unit.
We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning
the representation of employees of the Employer, within the meaning
of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNITS
A. The Contentions of the Parties
In Case No. 21-R-3681, the CIO seeks a consolidation of all units
of employees of the Employer in the State of California which it
currently represents.' In addition, it requests that the Board conduct
'
The CIO represents the following units • (1) all employees of the Los Angeles Works
and the Los Angeles terminal, except office and supervisory emplo%ees and technical
employees engaged in teclnwal work, (2) all employees of the Los Angeles prckage
terminal except office and supervisory employees and technical employees engaged in
technical work; (3 ) all employees of the pipe line division of the refining department
except office and clerical employees and technical employees engaged in technical work,
(4) all employees of gasoline operations of the producing department , Los Angeles Basin
district, except office and supervisory employees and technical employees engaged in
technical work; (5) all employees of production, mechanical, transportation, garage and
(billing operations of the producing department, Los Angeles Basin district, except inter-
district transport drivers, office and supervisory employees, and technical employees
engaged in technical work, (6) all field telephone opetatois, Los Angeles Basin distuct,
except supeuisoiy employees, (7) all employees of barge operations of the marine de-
1492 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
separate elections in three units of employees not presently represented
by any labor organization 3 and, in the event the CIO is designated
as the bargaining representative of these three groups, that they then
be incorporated in the afore-mentioned State-wide unit.
In Cases Nos. 21-R--3597 and 21-R-3638, respectively, the Inde-
pendent seeks in the Ventura and Coalinga districts the same units of
employees requested by the CIO.4 The Independent further requests
that, if the Board directs an election in the Fillmore Works refinery
unit, it be allowed to compete on the ballot with the CIO.5 In the
event the Independent gains a majority in two or more of the disputed
units, it also requests that the Board consolidate these units into a
single unit.
The Employer contests the appropriateness both of the single State-
wide unit sought by the CIO and the consolidated unit requested by
the Independent. There are no other conflicting unit contentions
among the parties.
B. The nature and scope of the Em•ployer's operations
As indicated in Section I, supra, the Employer's activities are
national in scope. In the State of California, which is part of its
Pacific Coast Division,' it operates on a geographical and functional
basis. Geographically, the State is divided into six operating dis-
tricts,' three of- which the CIO would exclude from its requested
State-wide unit." The headquarters of the nearest district to the prin-
cipal office of the Pacific Coast Division in Los Angeles is 19 miles
distant, and that of the furthest is 670 miles. Functionally, the
Employer's operations are divided into four departments : producing,
refining, marine, and sales.' These in turn are further divided into
separate plants or sub-departments.
partment at Wilmington , California ; ( 8) all office and clerical employees of the Los
Angeles Works except supervisory and confidential employees ; and (9 ) all office and clerical
employees of Los Angeles package terminal except supervisory and confidential employees
8 (1) All daily and hourly paid employees on the classified pay roll in the drilling, gaso-
line and producing operations of the producing department of the Employer ' s operations in
the Ventura District, excluding office and clerical employees and supervisory employees ;
(2) all daily and hourly paid employees on the classified pay roll in the drilling , gasoline
and producing operations of the producing department of the Employer's operations in, the
Coalinga district, excluding office and clerical employees and supervisory employees ; and
(3) all employees of the Fillmore Works refinery of the refining department of the Em-
ployer 's operations , excluding office and clerical employees and supervisory employees
' See (1 ) and (2), footnote 3, supra.
i At the time of the hearing , the Independent had not presented evidence of representa-
tion among these employees , but the parties stipulated on the record that there was no
objection to it being accorded a place on the ballot.
8 Composed of the States of California , Oregon, and Washington In the latter two
States, however , the Employer is engaged only in exploratory operations and occasional
drilling expeditions.
'i Los Angeles Basin , Fillmore Works, Ventura , Fellows , Coalinga , Sacramento, Humboldt.
8 Fellows. Sacramento. Humboldt The CIO would exclude the latter two districts on
the ground that too few employees are involved . It seeks to reserve the right to petition
for the inclusion of the Fellows district at a subsequent date.
9 The Sales department is not involved in this proceeding.
THE TEXAS COMPANY 1493
The refining department is engaged primarily in processing crude
petroleum into finished petroleum products such as naphtha, kerosene,
gasoline, Diesel, and fuel oil at the Los Angeles Works plant and the
Fillmore Works plant. In addition, the refining department includes
employees of the pipe-line division, who work throughout the Los
Angeles Basin district, receiving crude oil from the producing depart-
ment or other concerns and transporting it by pipe line to storage
facilities or directly to the refineries. In the same department are
included the employees at the Los Angeles terminal, who are engaged
in loading petroleum products on tankers; employees of the Los An-
geles package terminal, who fill drums, cans and cases with lubricating
oil for shipment to the trade; and finally telephone operators and
clerical employees.
The producing department extends to the Coalinga, Ventura and
Los Angeles Basin districts, and includes employees engaged in drill-
ing wells, producing oil extracting waste products from natural gaso-
line and various other mechanical, transportation and laboratory
employees.
In the marine department the only employees involved are eight
bargemen whose duties consist of maintaining and repairing barges
and loading and unloading fuel and Diesel oil.
The geographic and functional separation of duties indicated above
is carried out by a system of separate supervision for the various dis-
tricts, plants, and departmental divisions. District superintendents
and division heads are in charge of single, well-integrated units and
responsible to the division manager of their respective departments
in Los Angeles, who in turn is responsible to a vice-president of the
Employer in charge of the particular department in New York City.
Each department maintains its own pay rolls and hiring is done at
plant level by the superintendents within the various departments and
sub-departments. Interchange of employees from one department to
another is relatively rare. The hours, rates of pay, and other condi-
tions of employment vary according to the type of the work performed
and the location.
C. Conclusions 0
Neither the organizational structure of the Employer nor the corre-
lation of its diverse activities affords a reasonable basis for the inclu-
sion of all employees sought herein into a single State-wide unit or a
separate consolidated unit, as requested by the CIO and the Independ-
ent. The entire national organization of the Employer functions on
the basis of well-defined, departmental lines, with the result that each
department operates as a distinct and complete entity separate from
the other departments. Among the various departments and sub-
departments of the Pacific Coast Division in California, the inter-
1494 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
change of employees is negligible; administration and employment
are conducted on a departmental basis; rates of pay, hours, and other
conditions of employment are dissimilar. Moreover, as previously
indicated, prior bargaining history takes cognizance of the Employer's
departmental structure, with individual units established within a
particular department, corresponding generally to the geographic
location and the nature of the functions performed .10
In addition, the boundaries of California provide no basis in other
respects for a determination of the appropriate unit 11 The Pacific
Coast Division is not confined to California, but includes the States
of Oregon and Washington as well.12 Furthermore, while contend-
ing for a State-wide unit, the CIO, nevertheless, would exclude two
districts solely on the ground that too few employees are involved,
and would reserve the right to incorporate a third district at a later
date. Were a State-wide unit otherwise appropriate, it necessarily
follows that all districts would be included therein.
In view of the foregoing, we are of the opinion that both the State-
wide unit and the consolidated unit, respectively contended for by the
Petitioners, are inappropriate. On the other hand, the functional
and administrative pattern of the Employer's organization and the
effectiveness of past bargaining history indicate the appropriateness
of individual units. Accordingly, we are of the opinion that separate
units are appropriate for the employees in the Ventura district, the
Coalinga district, and the Fillmore Works refinery.13
We find that the following groups of employees, excluding office
and clerical employees, and all supervisory employees with authority
to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in
the status of employees, or effectively recommend such action, con-
10 Fora period of approximately 10 years the Employer and CIO have bargained on the
basis of the units as presently constituted (See footnote 2, supra.) During this period,
the record reveals that only one stroke has occurred and industrial relations have been
generally stable Each unit of employees represented by the CIO appoints a workmen's
committee to settle grievances of a local nature with the plant management, proceeding
by various stages to a vice president of the Employer in California before going to arbitra-
tion An insignificant number of cases has reached the 3d step in the grievance procedure
In bargaining contracts for the several units the CIO, although represented by one nego-
tiating committee, jyhich includes employees from all departments, meets separately with
the various departmental managers of the Pacific Coast Division and only those employees
on the negotiating committee who represent the departments actually involved participate
in the negotiations
"It does not appear from the record that either a State-wide or individual type unit
prevails in the oil industry in California ; both types are current The CIO introduced
into evidence several contracts with other petroleum corporations coveting various cate-
gories of employees on it State-wide basis However, theme was no showing that such
contracts did not follow an organizational set-up which might well be confined to State
lines.
12 Although operations within these two States are currently of comparative minor
significance, they are, nevertheless, an integral part of the Pacific Coast Division.
1' See Matter of Socoay Vacuum Oil Co , 72 N L R B 1086 , and Hatter of Amerada
Petroleum Corporation, 60 N. L R B 1467 Cf. Yale Petroleum Company, 60 N. L R B
754 ; Iowa Public Service Company, 60 N L R. B 1153
THE TEXAS COMPANY 1495
stitute units appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining
within the meaning of'Section 9 (b) of the Act:
1. All employees of the Employer in the drilling , gasoline and pro-
ducing operations of the producing department in the Ventura dis-
trict;
2. All employees of the Employer in the drilling , gasoline and pro-
ducing operations of the producing department in the Coalinga dis-
trict;
3. All employees of the Employer at the Fillmore Works refinery of
the refining department.
DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS 14
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining with The Texas Company, Los Angeles,
California, separate elections 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 direction and supervision of the Regional
Director for the Twenty-first Region, acting in this matter as agent
for the National Labor Relations Board, -and subject to Sections
203.55 and 203.56, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regu-
lations-Series 4, among the employees in the units found appropriate
in Section IV, above, who were employed during the pay-roll period
immediately preceding the date of this Direction, including employees
who did not work during said pay-roll period because they were 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 those employees who have since quit or
been discharged for cause and have not been rehired or reinstated
prior to the date of the elections, to determine whether they desire to be
represented by Independent Union of Petroleum Workers or by Oil
Workers International Union CIO, for "the purposes of collective bar-
gaining, or by neither.
CIIAntMAN HERZOG took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Direction of Elections.
"Any paiticipant in the elections herein may, upon its piompt request to and approval
thereof by the Regional Director , have its name removed from the ballot
0