West Texas Cottonoil Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 29, 1947

73 N.L.R.B. 645 (N.L.R.B. 1947)

In the Matter Of WEST TEXAS COTTONOIL COMPANY, EMPLOYER and
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF OIL MILL WORKERS , A. F. L., PETI-
TIONER
Case No. 16-R-00/.3.-Decided April 29, 1947
Mr. Ben R. Howell, of El Paso, Tex., and Mr. Ben R. Barbee, of
Abilene, Tex., for the Employer.
Messrs. Lester Graham and Allen Hatchett,,of Abilene, Tex., for
the Petitioner.
Mr. Morton B. Spero, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed, the National Labor Relations Board
on December 3, 1946, conducted a prehearing election among the
employees of the Employer in the alleged appropriate unit, to de-
termine whether or not they desired to be represented by the Petitioner
for the purposes of collective bargaining.
At the close of the election a Tally of Ballots was furnished the
parties. The Tally shows that there were approximately 39 eligible
voters, that 40 cast ballots, of which 33 were for, and 4 were against,
the Petitioner, and 3 were challenged. -
Thereafter, a hearing was held at Abilene, Texas, on January 7,
1947, before Lewis Moore, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rul-
ings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are here-
by affirmed.
Upon the entire record in the case, the National Labor Relations
Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
West Texas Cottonoil Company, a Delaware corporation, is en-
gaged at its Abilene, Texas, plant, in the processing of cottonseed
into cotton linters, hulls, cottonseed oil, cakes, and meal: During
the 6-month period preceding December 1-, 1946, the Employer pur-
73 N. L . R. B., No. 122
645
646 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD .
chased all its cottonseed, valued at about $660,000, within the State
of Texas. During the same-period, the Employer sold from this plant
about $290,000 worth of finished products, of which approximately
$24,700, or 8.5 percent, represented shipments to points outside the
State? The Employer annually purchases within the State ,repair
parts valued at approximately $5,000, all of which are manufactured
outside the State.
We find, contrary to the Employer's contention, that the Employer
is-engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor
Relations Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Petitioner is a labor organization affiliated with the American
Federation of Labor, claiming to represent employees of the Employer.
III. THE 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. TIIE VALIDITY OF THE PREHEARING ELECTION
On-December 3, 1946, a prehearing election, which the Petitioner
won, was conducted in a unit described as : all production and mainte-
nance employees, including truck drivers, at the-Employer's Abilene,
Texas, plant, but excluding office and clerical employees, solvent de-
partment employees, the office porter, and all supervisory employees.
The period during which the election was held was not a normal one
in the Employer's operations. In this connection, the record shows
that in May 1946, the Employer, which was then extracting oil from--
cottonseed by the use of hydraulic presses, decided upon a change of
method. It thereupon ordered, as a replacement' for its_ hydraulic
presses, all equipment necessary to extract the oil by the use of chemi-
cal solvents, and commenced construction on a building to house
the new solvent extraction units. Thereafter, in an effort to conserve
the scarce supply of cottonseed so that it might adequately test its new -
solvent extraction units, which were expected by December 15, 1946, -
the Employer, on November 1, 1946, ceased the processing of all cotton-
1 The seeming disparity between the Employee's purchases and its sales appears to be
due to the fact that cottonseed was in exceedingly scarce supply, and the Employer , during
this period , curtailed its processing activities , and therefore its sales , in order to have on
hand a supply of cottonseed adequate to test some new machinery it then had on order.
WEST TEXAS COTTONOIL COMPANY 647.
seed, and shut down its hydraulic pressroom. Most of the 15 pressroom
employees were discharged; the few remaining employees were sent
to other mills of the Employer, with the understanding that they were
to be shifted to the solvent-department when it commenced operations.
The shut-down of the pressroom had an impact on the remaining oper-
ations at the Employer's Abilene plant. The employees retained 2
were engaged mainly in receiving additional cottonseed and shipping
some previously processed products ; no cottonseed at all was processed
during this period, although the operations of the plant normally re-
volved in large part around such processing. As of December 3, 1946,
when the prehearing election was held, the hydraulic pressroom was
still shut down, and the equipment for the solvent department had not
yet arrived.3
Accordingly, inasmuch as the plant of the Employer is a processing
plant whose main function is to process cottonseed into its various
byproducts, and inasmuch as the election was held at a time when the
Employer was not engaged in any processing activities, but was ac-
tively undergoing a transition with respect to the processing depart-
ment, we are of the opinion that theinstant prehearing election should
not be accorded any validity, and we shall set aside the election 4
V. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT ISSUE
The Petitioner contends that the appropriate unit should consist of
all production and maintenance employees at the Employer's Abilene,
Texas, plant, including watchmen, lintermen, and' truck drivers, but
excluding office and clerical employees, solvent department employees,
the Office porter, and all supervisory employees. The Employer differs
'with the Petitioner, in that it would include all employees except the
operators in the solvent department, and all mixed-feed department
employees, and in,that it would exclude watchmen, as monitorial em-
ployees, and lintermen, as supervisory employees.
The record is clear as to lintermen and watchmen. As to the linter-
men, it appears that they operate the linter machines in the lint room,
2 The remaining production and maintenance departments or categories of the plant
consist of :
(1) seed unloading
(2) cleaning room
(3) lint loom
(4) huller room
(5) cake room
(6) products handlers
(7) truck drivers
(8) watchmen
(9) the office porter
(10) the local truck driver
(11) the yard cleaner
(12) the repair man
3 On January 2, 1947, after receipt of information that the delivery of the solvent depait-
ment machinery would be delayed , the Employer decided to reopen the hydraulic pressroom
until the change -over could be made.
' Although the Employer urged as a ground for setting aside the election the contem-
plated doubling of the size of its complement by the time the solvent department was
installed , we find it unnecessary to pass upon this ground , in view of the above finding.
648 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
r
and that each has four men in his work group. The Employer admits
that lintermen have no authority to hire or discharge employees, but
contends that new employees in the lint- room are trained by the
lintermen, and that lintermen can effectively recommend changes in
the status of these employees. While it seems that lintermen report
on the qualifications of these trainees, it does not'appear that these
reports rise to the stature of effective recommendations. Rather does
it appear that,lintermen and their trainees are in the relationship of
master craftsmen and apprentice, and as such, they are not supervisors
within the Board's customary definition of that term.' Accordingly,
we-shall include lintermen with the production and maintenance em-
ployees.
As to, watchmen, the record reveals that they are neither deputized
nor uniformed but are armed. The watchmen check on people enter-
ing and leaving the plant, and have the authority to report any em-
ployee found leaving the plant with company property. They are also
charged with the duty of enforcing the Employer's fire prevention
rules, and have the authority to report employees who violate them.
We are of the opinion, therefore, that the duties of watchmen are
monitorial in nature, and we shall, in accordance with our practice of
excluding monitorial watchmen from production and maintenance
units, exclude them."
However, the - record is both incomplete and indefinite as to the
mixed-feed department employees and=the solvent department em-
ployees. This was apparently due to the state of the Employer's
operations at the time of the hearing. 'Thus, the mixed-feed depart-
ment, although established at that time, was staffed with only one
employee, and the solvent 'department was in the process of being
established.7 Information as to the functions and duties of the cate-
gories of employees in both departments is essential before the unit
issue herein can be finally resolved. Under these circumstances; we
shall reopen the record in this proceeding, and refer it to the Regional
Director for the Sixteenth Region for the purpose' of conducting a
further hearing on the appropriate unit issue.
ORDER
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining with West Texas Cottonoil Company,
Abilene, Texas;
c Matter of Volney Felt Mills, Inc., 71 N L. R B. 951.
Matter of Volnet/ Felt Mills, Inc., 71 N L R B 386.
The Board has been administratively advised that as of March 18, 1947 , the Employer
lacked only a few minor pieces of the new equipment , and that it expected to commence
solvent department operations shottly after the receipt thereof.
WEST TEXAS COTTONOIL COMPANY 649
Jr Is HEREBY ORDERED that the prehearing election conducted on
December 3, 1946, among the employees of the Employer at Abilene,
Texas, be, and the same hereby is, vacated and set aside;
AND IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that the record in this proceeding
be,, and it hereby is, reopened, and that a further hearing be held for
the purpose of taking testimony with respect to the appropriate issue
herein ;
AND IT, IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that this proceeding be referred
to the Regional Director for the Sixteenth Region for the purpose of
conducting such further hearing, and that the said Regional Director
be, and he hereby is, authorized to issue notice thereof, whenever he
shall determine the time to be appropriate.
MR. JoIIN M. HOUSTON took.no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Order.