Continental Oil Black Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 30, 1953

102 N.L.R.B. 870 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

870 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
provided in the contract and will not be changed unless there should be some
mutual agreement between us to our mutual advantage . We say "Mutual" and
we mean "Mutual" for we are all friends and allies . We have a common interest
in working together to please our customers so that we may sell our product and
provide you with jobs which is the only real security.
We believe that if you will take steps to choose representatives from each of
your departments as suggested to meet with us regularly , we can assure you that
we will continue to grow closer together , that we will always have a better and
clearer understanding of each others problems , and that we will be able to work
together always in a friendly way to further our mutual interests.
This is about all we have to say. We want to be sure that I have made it clear,
and I would also welcome the chance to have a discussion with you. As we see
it, the main thing now is for you to arrange to choose your representatives in
this plant from each department.
For your convenience and information , the message just given you will be
posted on the bulletin board for one week, and thereafter will be in our files but
will be available to you.
Before leaving you, are there any questions?
RALPH B . BALDWIN
CONTINENTAL OIL BLACK COMPANY (WESTLAKE, LOUISIANA PLANT)
and LOCAL UNION 407, INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING EN-
GINEERS, AFL, PETITIONER. Case No. 15-RC-854. January 30,
1953.
Decision and Order
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before John E. Price, hear-
ing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
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, Styles, and Peterson].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent employees of
the Employer.
3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9
(c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, for the following
reasons:
The Petitioner requests a unit of all unit operators, and/or A oper-
ators, and/or shift foremen, employed by the Employer at its West-
lake, Louisiana, plant. However, the record establishes that the Peti-
tioner in substance desires an addition of these workers to the already
existing production and maintenance unit which it represents.
102 NLRB No. 86.
CONTINENTAL OIL BLACK COMPANY 871
A consent election was held among the Employer's production and
maintenance employees on July 11, 19521 Thereafter, on July 21,
1952, the Petitioner was certified as the bargaining representative of
these employees. After the election, but prior to the certification, the
A operators were told by the Employer that they were being made
shift foremen. Since the certification, the Employer refused to bar-
gain concerning these four shift foremen, contending that they are
supervisors. The Petitioner thereafter filed the present petition.2
The sole question to be determined here is whether the shift foremen
involved herein are supervisors. If they are not, they may properly be
included in the already existing production and maintenance unit .3
The 4 individuals in question, who are hourly paid, received an in-
crease in wages of 10 to 24 cents an hour when they were promoted and
given the title of shift foreman on July 16, 1952. The Employer
operates on a 3-shift basis. During the day shift, the plant superin-
tendent and plant foreman are on the premises and the plant is in
their charge. On this shift, the man classified as shift foreman is not
responsible as a supervisor but is responsible only as an operator of his
unit. This was also the extent of the A operators' duties and respon-
sibilities while working on the second and third shifts prior to their
receiving the title of shift foremen and wage increases. However,
the shift foremen working the second and third shifts 4 are now respon-
sible for the operation of the plant on their shifts and for 2 other men
on their respective shifts. No other supervisor is present on these
shifts 8
It is the responsibility of the shift foremen on the second and third
shifts to see that the pellet tender and the utility crew man are on the
job and if either of the latter does not report to work, the shift foreman
has the duty to see that a man is sent out to replace him. The pro-
duction of the pellet tender and the utility crew man on the second
and third shifts is also the responsibility of the shift foreman. If the
utility man fills his quota of "pulling black," he then reports to the
shift foreman who tells him what other duties to perform. If the
pellet works are jammed it is the responsibility of the shift foreman
properly to shut down the plant. While the testimony is in conflict
as to the exact extent of the shift foremen's other authority, one shift
foreman testified without contradiction that he was told by the Em-
1 The Employer challenged the ballots cast in that election by the A operators , who are
in issue in this decision , on the ground that these employees were being trained for
supervisory positions . Their challenged ballots did not affect the results of the election.
(Case No. 15-RC-761.)1
2 The Petitioner filed an unfair labor practice charge against the Employer , Case No.
15-CA-513, but subsequently withdrew that charge.
3 Continental Oil Company, 85 NLRB 827.
4 The shift foremen apparently rotate their work on shifts.
6 The Employer testified that the shift foremen were created in order to have someone
responsible on the second and third shifts because of the danger of serious damage to
equipment.
872 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ployer that he has the power to recommend the discharge of an
employee. The Employer testified that weight would be given to the
recommendations of the shift foreman.
Under all the circumstances, we find that the shift foremen are
supervisors within the meaning of the Act. Accordingly, we shall
dismiss the petition herein.
Order
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition filed herein be, and it hereby
is, dismissed.
CONSOLIDATED VULTEE AIRCRAFT CORPORATION , FORT WORTH DIVISION
and AERONAUTICAL INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT LODGE No . 776, INTERNA-
TIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS , AFL, PETITIONER . Case No.
16-RC-1153. January 30, 1953
Amended Decision and Direction of Elections
On November 25,1952, the Board issued its Decision and Direction
of Election 1 in the above-entitled proceeding directing a self-deter-
mination election in a voting group consisting of all tool planners,
tool designers, tool liaison employees, fabrication specification plan-
ners, and tool service liaison men "A" and "B" at the Employer's Fort
Worth, Texas, division. On December 8, 1952, the Petitioner filed
with the Board a motion for clarification of the Board's Decision and
Direction of Election seeking to have added to the voting group estab-
lished therein all employees classified as tool and operations planners
"A", "B", and "C". The Intervenor, Federated Independent Texas
Unions, Aircraft Local 900, on December 24, 1952, filed a motion
opposing the Petitioner's request that the tool and operations planners
be added to the voting group as set forth in the Board's Decision and
Direction of Election.
Upon reconsideration of this case, and upon the entire record herein,
the Board makes the following additional findings of fact:
The foregoing classifications of tool and operations planners were
established by the Employer in April 1952 in order to consolidate and
expedite certain planning operations. These new classifications com-
bined in one job the functions formerly performed by the tool plan-
ners, who had been previously represented by the Intervenor, and
those performed by installation planners "A" and a number of
installation planners "B", who had been previously represented by
the Petitioner.
Y 101 NLRB 584.
102 NLRB No. 80.