Crown Central Petroleum Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 31, 1940

24 N.L.R.B. 217 (N.L.R.B. 1940)

In the Matter Of CROWN CENTRAL PETROLEUM CORPORATION and OIL
WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, LOCAL No. 227,
Cases Nos. C-1449 and R-1533.-Decided May 31, 1940
Oil Refining Industry Interference, Restraint, and Coercion: charges of, not
sustained-Company-Dominated Union: charges of, not sustained-Complaint:
dismissed-Investigation of Representatives: controversy concerning representa-
tion of employees : rival unions; refusal of employer to recognize either as exclu-
sive representative pending certification by Board-Unit Appropriate for Col-
lective Bargaining: hourly employees including tank farm employees and lead
men but excluding office workers, supervisory and bulk plant and/or sales depart-
ment employees, and night gatemen or watchmen-Election Ordered: eligibility
to vote determined as of pay roll immediately preceding date of Direction of
Election.
Mr. Alba B. Martin, for the Board.
Vinson, Elkins, Weems & Frances, by Mr. Warton Weems, Mr. C. M.
Hightower, and Mr. John D. Harris, of Houston, Tex., for the re-
spondent.
Mandell d Combs, by Mr. Arthur J. Mandell, and Mr. A. R. Kinst-
ley, and Mr. C. P. Humburg, of Houston, Tex., for the Oil Workers.
Mr. Frank T. Bow, of Canton, Ohio, and Mr. Charles Garrett, of
Houston, Tex., for the Federation.
Mr. C. M. Baker, for the Boilermakers.
Mr. Raymond J. Compton, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
ORDER
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On March 1, 1939, Oil Workers International Union, Local No. 227,
herein called the Oil Workers, filed with the Regional Director for the
Sixteenth Region (Fort Worth, Texas), charges alleging that Crown
Central Petroleum Corporation, Pasadena, Texas, herein called the
respondent, had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices
affecting commerce, within the meaning of,Section 8 (1) and (2) and
24 N. L. R. B., No. 10.
217
218 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat.
449, herein called the Act. On March 6, 1939, the Oil Workers filed
with the Regional Director a, petition alleging that a question affecting
commerce had arisen concerning the representation of employees of
the respondent and requesting an investigation and certification of
representatives pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the Act.
On June 15, 1939, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called
the Board, acting pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the Act and Article III,
Section 3, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-
Series 1, as amended, ordered an investigation of the question concern-
ing representation and authorized the Regional Director to conduct
it and to provide for an appropriate hearing upon di-le notice, and
acting pursuant to Article III, Section 10 (c) (2), and Article II,
Section 37 (b), of said Rules and Regulations, further ordered that
the representation proceeding and the proceeding in respect to the
alleged unfair labor practices be consolidated for the purpose of hear-
ing and that one record of the hearing be made.
Upon the charges and amended charges 1 the Board, by the Regional
Director, issued its complaint dated June 28, 1939, against the respond-
ent, alleging that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in
unfair labor practices affecting commerce, within the meaning of
Section 8 (1) and (2) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. Copies
of the complaint and the petition, accompanied by notices of hearing
thereon, were duly served upon the respondent, upon the Oil Workers,
and upon Employees' Federation of Pasadena, Texas, herein called the
Federation, a labor organization alleged in the complaint to be dom-
inated by the respondent and claiming to represent employees directly
affected by the investigation.
The complaint alleged in substance that the respondent (1) about
February 23, 1939, and continuously thereafter, sponsored, fostered;
encouraged, dominated, and interfered with the formation and admin-
istration of the Federation; (2) discouraged membership in the Oil
Workers and openly encouraged membership in the Federation; and
(3) by the aforesaid and other acts interfered with, restrained, and
coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Sec-
tion 7 of the Act.
On August 8, 1939, the Regional Director issued an Order granting
the petition of the Federation filed on August 3, 1939, to intervene in
the proceedings.
Pursuant to notice, and notices of postponement, a hearing was held
at Houston, Texas, from August 24 to 30, 1939, before Madison Hill,
1 Amended charges were filed on June 28, 1939.
CROWN CENTRAL PETROLEUM CORPORATION 219
the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Board. At the commence-
ment of the hearing, the respondent submitted its answer to the com-
plaint, admitting that it was engaged in commerce within the meaning
of the Act, but denying that it had engaged in the alleged unfair
labor practices. The Board, the respondent, the Oil Workers, and the
Federation were represented by counsel,2 participated in the hearing,
and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-
examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing upon the issues.
At the conclusion of the hearing the Trial Examiner took under ad-
visement motions of both the respondent and the Federation for dis-
missal of the complaint. These motions were granted by the Trial
Examiner in his Intermediate Report issued thereafter. The Trial
Examiner also granted a motion by counsel for the Board that the
pleadings be amended to conform to the proof, and a motion by counsel
for the Oil Workers that all the evidence introduced be considered in
resolving the issues in both the representation and the complaint cases.
During the course of the hearing the Trial Examiner made rulings
on.other motions and on objections to the admission of evidence. The
Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds that
no prejudicial errors were committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed.
The Trial Examiner thereafter filed his Intermediate Report dated
December 11, 1939, copies of which were duly served upon the parties.
He found that the respondent had not engaged in the alleged unfair
labor practices and recommended that the complaint be dismissed. On
January 15, 1940, the Oil Workers filed exceptions to the Intermediate
Report and requested permission to present oral argument before the
Board. The Oil Workers thereafter filed a brief in support of its
exceptions. On April 30, 1940, pursuant to notice served upon all
the parties, a hearing for the purpose of oral argument was held
before the Board at Washington, D. C. Only the respondent
appeared by counsel and presented argument. The Federation sub-
mitted a letter to the Board in lieu of oral argument.
The Board has considered the exceptions to the Intermediate Report
and, in so far as they are inconsistent with the findings , conclusions,
and order set forth below, finds them to be without merit.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following:
2 On the first day of the hearing the Trial Examiner granted a motion of the district
representative of the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers , Iron Ship Builders and
Helpers of America , affiliated with the American Federation of Labor , herein called the
Boilermakers , that , it be permitted to intervene in the representation proceedings . There-
after , the Boilermakers did not participate in the hearing or introduce evidence in support
of its claim to membership among the respondent ' s employees.
220 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The respondent is a Maryland corporation with its principal office
and place of business in Baltimore, Maryland. The plant, with
which this proceeding is concerned, is located in Pasadena, Texas.
The respondent is engaged in the business of buying and selling crude
oil, and in the refining, sale, and distribution of natural gasoline,
petroleum, and petroleum products. The respondent purchases and
produces not less than 500,000 barrels of crude oil annually, 25 per
cent of which originates, outside the State of Texas. The sales of
petroleum products by the respondent in 1938 amounted to not less
than 500,000 barrels of petroleum products, of which approximately
90 per .cent were sold and distributed outside the State.
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Oil Workers International Union, Local No. 227, is a labor organi-
zation affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, herein
called the C. I. 0., admitting to membership employees engaged in
the production, transportation, and refining of natural gas and the
marketing of petroleum products, including employees of the
respondent.
Employees' Federation of Pasadena, Texas, is a labor organization,
admitting to membership persons employed at the Pasadena refinery
of the respondent. It is affiliated with the American Association of
Independent Labor Unions, herein called the A. A. I. L. U.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The alleged interference with and domination of the Federation
From 1934 to 1936, Local 227 of the Oil Workers, then affiliated
with the American Federation of Labor, represented a majority of the
respondent's employees. In 1936, following the abandonment of
unsuccessful negotiations with the respondent, many of its members
withdrew. Thereafter, Local 227 became affiliated with the C. I. O.
Its membership continued to decrease until by January 1939 it had
few, if any, members in the respondent's employ.
_
On February 10, 1939, the Oil Workers requested the respondent
to cease handling oil consigned to it from the Mid-Continent Oil
Company, Tulsa, Oklahoma, at whose plant the Oil Workers had
called a strike. The respondent refused, stating that it was under
contract to terminal the oil and consequently could not comply with
the request. As a result, on February 13, the Oil Workers established
CROWN CENTRAL PETROLEUM CORPORATION 221
a picket line at the respondent's plant and secured the cooperation
of other oil companies, navigation companies, and seamen's and team-
sters' unions, in effectuating a boycott of the respondent's products.
None of the respondent's employees, however, participated in the
picket line.
On February 14, 17, and 21, 1939, the Oil Workers held meetings
at which a majority of the respondent's employees became members.
Among those joining the Oil Workers were J. P. Graham, foreman of
the acid plant, and J. D. Dyson, W. G. Preston, W. M. Lamb, C. C.
Guinn, C. C. Lea, and J. G. Sealy, lead men whose duties included
the relaying of work orders and the keeping of time sheets for the
various crews with which they worked.
On February 22, 1939, the respondent closed its plant, allegedly
because of. economic conditions having no connection with the cur-
rent picketing by the Oil Workers, and because of high inventories
of heating oil and gasoline. Although the respondent maintains that
its plant was closed solely because of economic conditions, the Oil
Workers contends in its brief that the effectiveness of the picket line
was responsible for the shut-down. We need not, however, resolve
the conflict. Accepting the contention of the Oil Workers, it cannot
be said that, as alleged in the complaint, the respondent's plant was
closed to assist the Federation or to discourage membership in the
Oil Workers.
The same day, February 22, E. M. Johnson, a pressure-still em-
ployee, engaged Paul Smith, an 'attorney, who prior to September
1936 had been employed as a purchasing agent for the respondent,
to prepare petitions for the formation of an independent union.
Johnson testified that his action was the outgrowth of numerous dis-
cussions among the employees which were occasioned by the estab-
lishment of the picket line and the expression by a number of the
employees of a preference for some other type of organization.
From February 23 to 27, 1939, the above petitions- were circulated
among the respondent's employees. On Sunday, February 26, 1939,
W. F. Manly, first-class machinist and lead man in the machine shop,
accompanied by Willie Fleissner, another first-class machinist, and
T. E. Evans and I. C. Martin, employees of the respondent, visited
the homes of various other employees for the purpose of soliciting
their signatures to the petitions. According to W. M. Lamb and W. G.
Preston, lead men who had previously joined the Oil Workers, Manly
on this occasion told them that if the independent union obtained
a majority membership among the employees, the picket line would
be removed and the plant would reopen. Preston refused to sign
and although Lamb signed the petition that day, he withdrew his
name 2 days later. T. R. Dew and Arvin Seay, pipe fitter's helpers,
222 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
also testified that Manly made similar representations to them when
asking them to sign the petitions. Manly denied telling anyone
that the plant would reopen if an independent union received a
majority membership, but admitted that he discussed the picket line
with some of the men solicited and that he told them that if a ma-
jority signed the petitions the Board would certify the independent
union as the bargaining representative. We give credence to the
testimony of the foregoing witnesses whom Manly solicited and affirm
the finding of the Trial Examiner that Manly made the statements
above attributed to him.
Lamb also testified that when solicited on the foregoing occasion,
Evans, who accompanied Manly, stated that he had talked on the
telephone to R. S. Myers, plant superintendent, concerning the forma-
tion of an independent union and that although Myers stated that
he could not advise him, he "outlined it until he (Evans) knew what
to do." Evans admitted that he had telephoned Myers for advice,
but testified that Myers told him that he would have to decide for
himself. Myers also testified that he so advised Evans and was cor-
roborated in his account of the conversation by K. W. Shimeall,
plant manager, who was present at Myersl home when Evans tele-
phoned. We credit, as did the Trial Examiner, the testimony of
Evans, Myers, and Shimeall.
On February 27, 1939, approximately 110 employees of the re-
spondent attended a meeting held to organize the Federation.
Among those in attendance were A. J. Guillott, head stillman, and
several lead men, all of whom joined the Federation. After reading
the petitions previously circulated, C. W. Garrett, a rerun stillman,
opened the meeting for a discussion of the question of affiliation by
advocates of both the Oil Workers and an independent union, in-
cluding B. J. Schafer, international representative of the Oil Work-
ers, and R. C. Crepeau, vice president of the A. A. I. L. U. and a
member of an independent union organized at the Texas Company
plant in Houston. After considerable discussion, a vote was carried
to form the Federation. Thereafter, petitions authorizing the Fed-
eration to act as their bargaining representative and rescinding prior
authorizations to any other labor organization were circulated among
the employees. An election of officers was also held, followed by the
formulation and adoption of a constitution.
T. R. Dew testified that on February 27, while on his way to the
above meeting of the Federation, he met Louis Fleissner, master
mechanic at the respondent's plant. Fleissner asked if he was work-
ing and Dew replied that he had a job but was not working on that
day because of the rain and that he was going to a meeting in
Houston. When he informed Fleissner that Manly had told him
CROWN CENTRAL- PETROLEUM CORPORATION 223
about the meeting, Fleissner, according to Dew, said : "Well, I would
like for you to go. It makes no difference if you all go back to
work 100 per cent C. I. O. The company won't recognize you and
they will recognize this new union and I would advise you to join
a union that the company. will recognize." Fleissner admitted meet-
ing and talking to ' Dew on the morning of February 27, but denied
that he made the statement attributed to him. Fleissner testified
that their conversation concerned only the probability of the plant
being reopened. The Trial Examiner, who had the opportunity to -
observe the witnesses, credited Fleissner's testimony. We agree with
the Trial Examiner and we find that Fleissner did not make the
statement attributed to him by Dew.
On February 24 and 27, 1939, the Oil Workers and the Federation,
respectively, petitioned the respondent for recognition as the bargain-
ing agent of its employees. On February .28 the respondent sent
identical letters in reply to these requests, stating that it was willing
to bargain with any group representing a majority, but that "an-
other organization" had also claimed the right of representation and
that it was willing to discuss the situation at their convenience.
On April 11, 1939, after several conferences, the Oil Workers sent
the following letter to the respondent :
We wish to submit to you the following proposal as a basis
of full and final settlement of the dispute and of all acts or
alleged acts of the Company up to the date of the agreement.
The Union [Oil Workers] will immediately, upon the acceptance
of these proposals, remove its picket line and will not picket or
otherwise interfere, directly or indirectly, with the operations
of the Company's business on the following conditions:
1. When the plant resumes operations all employees as of date
of closing will return to their jobs progressively as the plant's
operations are resumed without any discrimination.
2. The Company will recognize the Union [Oil Workers] as
the bargaining agency for its members only;
3. The Company agrees to negotiate with the Oil Workers'
International Union Local 227 for its members only. The parties
hereto agree to negotiate in good faith with each other, and any
agreement which may be reached in such negotiations shall be
effective for a period of one year;
4. The Union's [Oil Workers] petition for certification now
pending before the Board, and the charge now pending before.
the Board regarding the Employee's Federation of Pasadena,
Texas, (a copy of which charge is hereto attached), shall be
limited to Section 8, Subsections 1 and 2, and shall be allowed to
remain for the Board's disposition. Should the National Labor
224 DECISIONS OF. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Relations Board certify the Oil Workers ' International Union
Local 227 to be the exclusive bargaining agency, the company will
recognize 'it as such ;
5. Except as provided in paragraph 2, the Company will not
recognize any labor organization unless and until it is determined
to be the proper bargaining agency within the meaning of the
National Labor Relations Act. Should Oil Workers ' Interna-
tional Union Local 227 be determined to be the proper bargain-
ing agency , the Union and the Company agree to bargain with
each other in good faith. %
On April 17 , 1939, the respondent accepted the proposals of the
Oil Workers , whereupon the picket line was removed . On April 18,
1939, the plant was reopened , and on April 24 all of the employees
were returned to work at their former positions.
On May 16 the Federation again requested recognition as the bar-
gaining representative of the employees, and on June 1 protested the
recognition of the Oil Workers and notified the respondent that it had
filed charges with the Board alleging a refusal to bargain : Thereafter,,
the Federation presented to the respondent a petition signed by 101
employees requesting that it refrain from signing an agreement with
any other labor organization.
As described above, 'Manly , Guillott , and several lead men par-
ticipated in the formation of the Federation .. Neither the right of
supervisory employees to engage in concerted activities nor their
eligibility to membership in competing unions excuses an employer's
failure to restrain them from enlisting his prestige on one side of a
representation dispute.3 We are satisfied from the record , however,
that the respondent 's prestige was not so enlisted on behalf of the
Federation . Although Manly, Guillot , and several lead men were
proponents of the Federation , Foreman Graham and several lead
men were members and participated in the activities of the Oil
Workers. With the ranks of supervisory employees thus divided
between the two unions , the respondent 's higher officials refrained
from interfering in the representation dispute. There is no evidence
that H. S. Lane, vice president , who determined the labor policies of
the respondent , and Shimeall and Myers , who were primarily re-
sponsible for the execution of such policies , indicated either to the
employees or the foremen and lead men the respondent 's preference
as between the competing unions.' The Oil Workers contends that
the respondent accepted the strike -settlement agreement , recognized
S Matter of Ford Motor Company and United Automobile Workers of America, Local
No. 325, 23 N. L. R. B. 342, and cases cited in footnote 17 thereof.
4 Cf. Matter of Jefferson Lake Oil Company , Incorporated and Sulphur Workers Local
Union Yo. 21195, 16 N. L. R. B. 355.
CROWN CENTRAL PETROLEUM CORPORATION 225
the Oil Workers on behalf of its members, and refused to grant
similar recognition to the Federation because of the economic pres-
sure exerted by the Oil Workers through the effective boycott of
the respondent's products rather than because of its impartiality.
Regardless of the respondent's motives, its treatment of the Oil
Workers could hardly be characterized as hostile to this labor organ-
ization. Under all the circumstances there is insufficient evidence to
support a finding that the respondent, through its supervisory em-
ployees, assisted the Federation or otherwise interfered with its for-
mation and administration .5
We find that the respondent has not dominated or interfered with
the formation or administration of the Federation or contributed
support to it.
B. The alleged interference, restraint, and coercion
The complaint alleged that the respondent discouraged member-
ship in the Oil Workers and openly encouraged membership in the
Federation by making statements in derogation of the Oil Workers.
In support of this allegation, E. J. Blevins testified that prior to the
closing of the plant he discussed the picketing then in progress with
his foreman, C. J. Flannagan. During the conversation, Flannagan
allegedly said that the unions were "too damn radical." Flannagan
admitted that he had entered into the general conversations which
prevailed throughout the plant concerning the picket line, but
denied that he told Blevins that the unions were too radical. The
Trial Examiner did not credit Blevins' testimony. The record shows
that Blevins had been laid off in May 1939, along with another em-
ployee, for misconduct in connection with the punching of their time
cards, and was discharged on August 17, 1939, for making an assign-
ment of his wages after previous warning that it was contrary to a
well-known rule of the respondent. Blevins admitted that thereafter
he had a heated conversation with Shimeall, plant manager, con-
cerning his reinstatement. In view of his apparent resentment
toward the respondent, and the Trial Examiner's finding, we credit
the testimony of Flannagan relative to the foregoing conversation.
C. Y. Rabun, an oil treater;, testified that about 6 weeks after the
plant reopened he complained to K. T. Wrist, pressure-still inspector,
5In its brief the Oil workers emphasizes the respondent's business relations with Smith,
the attorney for the Federation. Smith had been employed by the respondent before he
had entered the pi`actice of law. Under the circumstances here present, and in the absence
of other evidence we do not believe that the minor legal work and small collections that
Smith handled for the respondent and several of he respondent's employees are sufficient
to support an inference that, as the attorney for the Federation, he was acting in the
interests of the' respondent.
226 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
that Myers, plant superintendent, was "giving us C. I. O. boys hell"
and that he had reprimanded Rabun "on an average of twice a week."
Wrist allegedly replied that Myers also had told him that he "wasn't
making it hard enough on the C. I. O. boys," and that he was not
"the best inspector that worked in the refinery." Myers denied rep-
rimanding Wrist about his laxity with regard to the "C. I. O. boys,"
but admitted that on one occasion when Wrist was bragging about
his ability he had reminded him of his shortcomings as an inspector
and told Wrist that he was not "the best in the world:" Wrist did
not testify.
Myers further testified that he had spoken to Rabun only twice
about neglecting his duties, and that on one of the occasions it was
for "horseplay" during working hours, and the other for not "okeh-
ing" a pipe line. The Trial Examiner found that Rabun's testimony
concerning his conversation with Wrist was a "good illustration of
the way a perfectly legitimate reprimand was converted in the imagi-
nation of the recipient into an attack on the C. I. 0.," and gave cre-
dence to Myers' denial. We likewise find that Myers did not make
the statement to Wrist concerning which Rabun testified above.
Rabun also testified that during the shut-down, when called to the
office to surrender his credit card, O. L. Bordelon, referred to in the
record as the respondent's credit manager, told him that "the fellows
out there in the plant should have got brick bats and run them
(pickets) away from the gates and this wouldn't have happened."
Rabun stated that Bordelon was referring to the closing of the plant
and the recalling of the credit cards. Bordelon did not testify.
Assuming that Bordelon occupied a supervisory position, which is
not clearly shown by the record, we are impelled, as was the Trial
Examiner, to discount Rabun's account of the conversation because
of his exaggeration when testifying to the afore-mentioned conver-
sation with Wrist.
On or about April, 25, 1939, J. A. Worley and L. O. Campbell,
employees of the respondent, suffered a severe beating by persons
whose identity is not revealed in the record. Shortly thereafter,
Myers, plant superintendent, called at Worley's home to inquire as
to his condition. When Myers arrived, several employees were also
there to see .Worley, including A. F. Dunaway, an operator in the
acid plant. According to the testimony of E. E. McLain, a treater
in the acid plant, Dunaway afterwards told him that Myers made
the statement at Worley's home "that it was a damned shame and
the boys that belonged to the Federation ought to get them some rocks
and clubs and run every damn one of them out of the plant into the
bayou," referring to the members of the C. I. O. B. T.. Cammack, a
kettleman, likewise testified that Dunaway told him that Myers had
said "the men ought to get clubs and run all the C. I. O. men away
CROWN CENTRAL PETROLEUM CORPORATION 227
from the plant.'' E. J. Blevins testified that when seeking reinstate-
ment following his lay-off for, misconduct, he asked Myers if he had
made the statement rumored to have been, made by him at Worley's
'home. According to Blevins, Myers replied : "What I told them was
to get some clubs and guns and go out and run all them damn pickets
out." Dunaway, who was called as a witness for the Board, denied
the statements attributed to him by McLain and Cammack and testi-
fied that on the above occasion Myers said "nothing more than what
anybody that had anything to do with that beating down there ought
to be run out of the country," and that Myers did not mention any
labor organization. Myers also denied mentioning the C. I. O. at
Worley's home, but admitted saying "that anybody that had any-
thing to do with that beating down there should be run out of the
country." Myers further denied having made the statement testified
to by Blevins. The fact that there were no pickets around the plant
at the time Worley and Campbell were beaten discredits the testimony
of Blevins regarding the statement Myers allegedly made to him.
Moreover, there was no evidence that persons connected with the
C. I. O. Were responsible for the beating of Worley and Campbell,
or that such was the belief of the respondent. The Trial Examiner
credited the testimony of Myers recited above, and we concur in his
finding.
We find that the evidence does not support the allegation in the
complaint that the respondent interfered with, restrained, or coerced
its employees within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act.
IV. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
Both the Oil Workers and the Federation requested recognition by
the respondent as the exclusive bargaining representative, and at the
hearing each introduced evidence attesting a substantial membership
among the respondent's employees. The respondent has refused to
recognize either union until certified by the Board as the representa-
tive of a majority of its employees in an appropriate unit.
We find that a question has arisen concerning the representation
of employees of the respondent.
V. THE EFFECT OF THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
UPON COMMERCE
We find that the question concerning representation which has
.arisen, occurring in connection with the operations of the respondent
'described in Section I above, has a close, intimate, and substantial
relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and
tends to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce
and the free flow of commerce.
228 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
VI. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
It was stipulated by all parties at the hearing that the appropriate
unit should consist of all hourly paid employees of the respondent,
including the tank farm employees, but excluding office workers,
supervisory and bulk plant and/or sales department employees, and
night gatemen or watchmen.'
Since lead men are eligible for membership in and have been solic-
ited for membership by both the Federation and the Oil Workers,
we believe that they should be included within the appropriate bar-
gaining unit.
We find that all the hourly employees of the respondent, including
the tank farm employees and lead men, but excluding office workers,
supervisory and bulk plant and/or sales department employees, and
night gatemen or watchmen, constitute a unit appropriate for the
purposes of collective bargaining and that said unit will insure to
employees of the respondent the full benefit of their right to self-
organization and collective bargaining and otherwise effectuate the
policies of the Act.
VII. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
We find that the question which has arisen concerning representa-
tion can best be resolved by an election by secret ballot.
The parties expressed no preference for a particular pay-roll period
to determine eligibility to vote in the election. We shall, therefore,
follow our usual practice, and eligibility for participation in the
election shall be determined as of the pay-roll period immediately
preceding the date of the Direction of Election.
Since the record fails to show that the Boilermakers has any mem-
bership among the respondent's employees in the unit we have found
to be appropriate, we shall not place its name upon the ballot.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire
record in the case, the Board makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Oil Workers International Union, Local No. 227 and Em-
ployees' Federation of Pasadena, Texas, are labor organizations
within the meaning of Section 2 (5), of the Act.
9 The Boilermakers , who claimed a majority membership among the welders, boiler,
makers, and helpers , did not participate in the above stipulation but since no evidence was
introduced in support of its claim , we see no reason for excluding such employees from
the bargaining unit. See footnote 2, supra.
CROWN CENTRAL PETROLEUM CORPORATION 229
2. The respondent has not dominated or interfered with the forma-
tion or administration of the Employees' Federation of Pasadena,
Texas, within the meaning of Section 8 (2) of the Act.
3. The respondent has not interfered with, restrained, or coerced its
employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of
the Act, within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act.
4. The operations of the respondent occur in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2 (6) of the Act.
5. A question affecting commerce has arisen concerning the repre-
sentation of employees of the respondent within the meaning of
Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
6. All the hourly employees of the respondent, including the tank
farm employees and lead men, but excluding office workers, super-
visory and bulk plant and/or sales department employees, and night
gatemen or watchmen, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes
of collective bargaining, within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the
Act.
ORDER
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of
law and pursual t"to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations
Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the com-
plaint against the respondent, Crown Central Petroleum Corporation,
Pasadena, Texas, be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
By virtue of and pursuant to the power vested in the National
Labor Relations Board by Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, and pursuant to Article III, Section 8, of National Labor
Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 2, as amended, it is
hereby
DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation authorized by the Board
to ascertain representatives for purposes of collective bargaining with
Crown Central Petroleum Corporation, Pasadena, Texas, 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 of Election
under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the
Sixteenth Region, acting in this matter as agent for the Board, and
subject to Article III, Section 9, of said Rules and Regulations,
among all the hourly employees of Crown Central Petroleum Corpo-
ration, Pasadena, Texas, including the tank farm employees and lead
283035-42-vol. 24-16,
230 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
men, but excluding office workers, supervisory and bulk plant and/or
sales department employees, and night gatemen or watchmen, who
were employed during the pay-roll period immediately preceding the
date of this Direction of Election, including employees who did not
work during such pay-roll period because they were ill or on vaca-
tion, and employees who were then or have since been temporarily
laid off, but excluding employees who shall have since quit or been
discharged for cause, to determine whether they desire to be repre-
sented by Oil `Yorkers International Union, Local No. 227, or by
Employees' Federation of Pasadena, Texas, for the purposes of col-
lective bargaining, or by neither.
[SADIE TITLE
CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
June 29, 1940
On May 31, 1940, the National Labor Relations Board issued, its
Decision, Order, and Direction of Election in the above-entitled pro-
ceedings. Pursuant to the Direction of Election, an election, by
secret ballot .was conducted on June 17, 1940, under the direction and
supervision of the Regional Director for the Sixteenth Region (Fort
Worth, Texas). On June 18, 1940, the Regional Director, acting
pursuant to Article III, Section 9, of National Labor Relations Board
Rules' and Regulations-Series 2, as amended, issued and duly served
upon the parties to the proceedings his Election Report. No objec-
tions to the conduct of the ballot or the Election Report have been
filed by any of the parties.
As to the balloting and the results thereof, the Regional, Director
reported as follows :
Total number of ballots counted---------------------------- 132
Total number of votes for Oil Workers International Union,
Local 227, C. I. 0.---------------------------------------- 36
Total number of votes for Employees ' Federation of.Pasadena,
Texas---------------------------------------------------- 88
Total number of votes for neither organization--------------- 8
Total number of blank ballots------------------------------ 0
Total number of void ballots-------------------------------- 0
Total number of challenged votes--------------------------- 0
Total number of eligibles----------------------------------- 136
CROWN CENTRAL PETROLEUM ' CORPORATION 231
By virtue of and pursuant to the power vested in the National
Labor Relations Board by Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, 49'Stat, 449, and pursuant to Article III, Sections 8 and 9,
of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series
2, as amended,
IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that Employees' Federation of Pasadena,
'Texas, affiliated with the American Association of Independent Labor
Unions, has been. designated and. selected by a majority of the hourly
employees of Crown Central Petroleum Corporation, Pasadena, Texas,
including the tank farm employees and lead men, but excluding
-office workers, supervisory and bulk plant. and/or sales department
employees, and night gatemen or watchmen, as their representative
for the purposes of collective bargaining, and that, pursuant to the
provisions of section 9 (a) of the National Labor Relations Act,
Employees' Federation of Pasadena, Texas, affiliated with the Amer-
ican Association of Independent Labor Unions, is the exclusive rep-
resentative of all such employees for the purposes of collective bar-
gaining in respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and
other conditions of employment.
24 N. L . R. B., No. 10a.