E. W. Saybolt & Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 11, 1953

105 N.L.R.B. 510 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

51 0 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
CHARLES M. SMYTHE, JOSEPH H. McCABE, AND MARIE
C. HOLSTEIN, d/b/a E. W. SAYBOLT & COMPANY and
OIL WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, CIO. Case No.
39-CA-324. June 11, 1953
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon a charge filed on April 2, 1953, by Oil Workers Inter-
national Union, CIO, herein called the Union, the General
Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, herein called
the General Counsel, by the Regional Director for the Sixteenth
Region (Fort Worth, Texas), issued a complaint dated April 15,
1953, against Charles M. Smythe, Joseph H. McCabe, and Marie
C. Holstein, d/b/a E. W. Saybolt & Company, herein jointly
called the Respondent, alleging that the Respondent had
engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) and (5) of the
National Labor Relations Act, herein called the Act. Copies of
the charge, complaint, and notice of hearing were duly served
upon the Respondent and the Union.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint
alleges in substance that (1) on or about March 30, 1953, and
at all times thereafter, the Respondent refused to bargain
collectively with the Union as the exclusive bargaining rep-
resentative of its employees in an appropriate unit, although
a majority of said employees had selected the Union as their
collective-bargaining representative; and (2) since on or about
March 30, 1953, the Respondenthas interferedwith, restrained,
and coerced its employees in the exercise of their rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. On April 24, 1953, the
Respondent filed an answer , admitting certain allegations of the
complaint, but denying that it had engaged in any unfair labor
practices. The Respondent also moved that the complaint be
dismissed. For the reasons hereinafter stated, the request for
dismissal is hereby denied.
On April 21, 1953, all the parties, desiring to obviate the need
for a hearing, entered into a stipulation which set forth an
agreed statement of facts. The stipulation provided that the
parties waived their rights to a hearing before a duly authorized
Trial Examiner; that the Board may make findings of fact
and conclusions of law, and issue an order based upon the
agreed facts; and that the charge, the complaint, the notice of
hearing, the answer, and the stipulation shall constitute the
entire record. The stipulation is hereby approved and made a
part of the record herein and, in accordance with Section 102.50
of the National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations,
the proceeding is hereby transferred to and continued before
the Board. As provided in the stipulation, the Respondent filed
a brief with the Board.
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, Murdock, and
Peterson.]
105 NLRB No. 69.
E. W SAYBOLT & COMPANY 511
Upon the basis of the aforesaid stipulation , the Respondent's
brief , and the entire record in this case , the Board makes the
following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The Respondent is engaged in the inspection of petroleum
products . Its main office is located in Elizabeth , New Jersey,
and other offices are maintained in port cities throughout the
United States , including Houston , Texas, which is involved in
this proceeding , and various foreign countries . In the continental
United States, the Respondent operates three principal divisions,
the Atlantic , the Pacific , and the Gulf Coast. The Gulf Coast
Division , which extends from Brownsville , Texas, to Jackson-
ville, Florida, has a head office at Houston, Texas . For the
fiscal year 1952 , the Respondent ' s gross income from services
performed in the Gulf Coast Division amounted to in excess of
$ 700,000.
The Respondent admits, and we find , that it is engaged in
commerce within the meaning of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Union is a labor organization which admits to member-
ship employees of the Respondent.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
On January 6, 1953, the Union filed a petition for certification
of representatives for a unit of certain employees of the
Respondent.'
Thereafter , a hearing was held before a duly authorized
hearing officer , at which time all parties were granted full
opportunity to offer and adduce evidence bearing onthe issues,
to state their positions on the record , and to file briefs with
the Board . On February 20, 1953 , the Board issued its
Decision and Direction of Election in the following unit found
to be appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining:
All petroleum inspectors of the Employer ' s Houston District
operations at Houston , Freeport , and Texas City, Texas, also
known as Stations Nos. 23, 24, and 27, respectively , excluding
all other employees and supervisors as defined in the Act.
Of the approximately 16 eligible employees who voted in the
election , 10 voted for the Union and 6 against . On March 18,
1953, the Union was certified as the exclusive bargaining
representative in the unit set forth above.
On March 30, 1953 , in response to a request for bargaining
negotiations , the Respondent notified the Union that it refused
to recognize or deal with it on the ground that the unit certified
lCase No 39-RC-550.
512 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
by the Board was inappropriate. In contesting the unit finding of
the Board, the Respondent contends that the Board improperly
gave controlling significance to the extent of the Union's
organization and that the entire Gulf Coast Division extending
from Brownsville, Texas, to Jacksonville, Florida, constitutes
the only appropriate unit. While a broader unit might be
appropriate, it does not necessarily follow that a subdivision
thereof may not also be appropriate.2 As indicated in the
Decision and Direction of Election, the following factors
establish the appropriateness of a unit limited in scope to the
Respondent's Houston District operations: all the employees in
the unit work within a small geographical area and are widely
separated from the other inspectors in the Gulf Coast Division;
the infrequent transfers of personnel in and out of the Houston
District, which functions for certain purposes as an adminis-
trative subdivision;' the absence of a history of collective
bargaining on a broader basis; and the fact that no labor
organization is seeking to represent the employees on a
division-wide basis. In view of the foregoing and for other
reasons appearing in the Decision and Direction of Election,
we find no merit in the Respondent's contention and adhere to
our prior unit determination.
On the basis of the entire record, we find that by refusing to
bargain with the Union as the exclusive bargaining represent-
ative on or about March 30, 1953, and thereafter, the Respondent
violated Section 8 (a) (5) of the Act. By such conduct, the
Respondent also interfered with, restrained, and coerced its
employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section
7 of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
It is found that the activities of the Respondent, set forth in
section III, above, occurring in connection with the operations
of the Respondent described in section I, above, have a close,
intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and com-
merce among the several States and tend to lead to labor
disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free
flow of commerce.
V THE REMEDY
It having been found that the Respondent has engaged in unfair
labor practices, it will be recommended that it cease and
2 The Board's power to establish such units is specifically supported by the language of
Section 9 (b) of the Act, which provides that the Board shall decide in each case whether
"the unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining shall be the employer unit,
craft unit, plant unit, or subdivision thereof." (Emphasis supplied )
$Although, according to Respondent's witnesses, each of the three stations within the
unit have separate managers with hiring authority, the record shows that instructions to
the Freeport and Texas City stations are relayed through the manager of the Houston sta-
tion. For the purpose of facilitating its inspection service, the Respondent, in a letter to
its customers, listed its "Houston District Personnel" setting forth the name of a "man-
ager " and the names of the inspectors who are assigned respectively to the Houston, Free-
port, and Texas City stations. This letter also requested that all correspondence regarding
inspection services be directed to the "Houston District Office."
E W. SAYBOLT,C. COMPANY 513
desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed
to effectuate the policies of the Act . It having been found that
the Respondent has refused to bargain collectively with the
Union as ` the exclusive representative of its employees in an
appropriate unit, it will be ordered that the Respondent
upon request bargain collectively with the Union.
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, CIO , is a labor organi-
zation within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. All petroleum inspectors of the Respondent ' s Houston
District operations at Houston , Freeport , and Texas City, Texas,
also known as Stations Nos. 23 , 24, and 27, respectively,
excluding all other employees 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.
3. The Union was on and after March 30, 1953 , the exclusive
representative of all employees in the aforesaid unit for the
purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section
9 (a) of the Act.
4. By refusing on March 30 , 1953, and at all times thereafter,
to bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive repre-
sentative of all its employees in the unit described in paragraph
2, above, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 ( a) (5) of
the Act.
5. By interfering with, restraining , and coercing its
employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section
7 of the Act , the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1)
of the Act.
6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section
2 (6) and ( 7) of the Act.
ORDER
Upon the entire record in this case , and pursuant to Section
10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the Re-
spondent , Charles M. Smythe, Joseph H. McCabe, and Marie
C. Holstein , d/b/a E . W. Saybolt & Company, Houston, Texas,
their agents , successors , and assigns , shall: I
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with Oil Workers Inter-
national Union, CIO , as the exclusive representative of its
employees in the following unit:
All petroleum inspectors of the Respondent ' s Houston
District operations at Houston , Freeport , and Texas City
Texas, also known as Stations Nos. 23, 24 , and 27 , respectively,
I
514 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
excluding all other employees and supervisors as defined in
the Act.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with the efforts
of Oil Workers International Union, CIO, to negotiate for or
represent the employees in the aforesaid unit as exclusive
bargaining agent.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds
will effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Upon request, bargain collectively with Oil Workers
International Union, CIO, as the exclusive bargaining agent of
all employees in the bargaining unit described above, with
respect to wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, and other
conditions of employment, and if an understanding is reached,
embody such understanding in a signed agreement.
(b) Post at its operations at Houston, Freeport, and Texas
City, Texas, copies of the notice attached hereto, marked
"Appendix A".4 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the
Regional Director for the Sixteenth Region, shall, after being
duly signed by the Respondent, be posted by the Respondent
immediately upon receipt thereof and maintained byitfor sixty
(60) consecutive days thereafter inconspicuous places, including
all places where notices to employees are customarily posted.
Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure
that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any
other material.
(c) File with the Regional Director for the Sixteenth Region,
within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, a report in
writing setting forth the manner in which the Respondent has
complied with the foregoing Order.
4in the event that this order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals,
there shall be substituted for the words "Pursuant to a Decision and Order" the words
"Pursuant to a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order "
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify our
employees that:
WE WILL bargain collectively upon request with Oil
Workers International Union, CIO, as the exclusive repre-
sentative of all employees in the bargaining unitdescribed
herein with respect to wages, rates of pay, hours of
employment, or other terms or conditions of employment,
and if an understanding is reached embody such under-
standing in a signed agreement. The bargaining unitis:
All petroleum inspectors of the Houston District oper-
ations at Houston, Freeport, and Texas City, Texas, also
THE SUN COMPANY OF SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA 515
known as Stations Nos. 23, 24, and 27, respectively,
excluding all other employees and supervisors as defined
in the National Labor Relations Act.
WE WILL NOT in any manner interfere with the efforts
of the above -named union to bargain collectively with us
or refuse to bargain with said union as the exclusive
representative of the employees in the bargaining unit set
forth above.
E. W. SAYBOLT & COMPANY,
Employer,
Dated ............... By ....................................................
(Representative ) (Title)
This notice must remain posted far 60 days from the date
hereof, and must not be altered , defaced, or covered by any
other material.
THE SUN COMPANY OF SAN BERNARDINO , CALIFORNIA
and THOMAS L. MULLINS
THE SUN COMPANY OF SAN BERNARDINO , CALIFORNIA
and JOSEPH A. BENNETT . Cases Nos. 21-CA - 1365 and
21-CA - 1507. June 11, 1953
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER
On March 6 , 1953, the Board issued its Decision and Order'
in the above -entitled cases finding that the Respondent had
engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices
and ordering that it cease and desist therefrom and take cer-
tain affirmative action designed to effectuate the purposes of the
Act. On April 8, 1953, the Respondent filed with the Board a
motion for an order to reopen the record and for permission to
adduce additional evidence and for reconsideration of the
Board ' s Order of March 6 , 1953. The General Counsel, on
April 23 , 1953, filed a memorandum in opposition to the Re-
spondent ' s motion to reopen . On May 8, 1953, the Respondent
filed a reply to the General Counsel's memorandum. 2
1. In its motion , the Respondent requested that the record be
reopened for the purpose of taking written interrogatories of
Ralph W . Davis, the Respondent ' s vice president , concerning
the discharge of Joseph A. Bennett . The Respondent stated that:
Davis suffered a heart attack on September 7, 1952 , and was
1103 NLRB 359.
2 The Respondent ' s request for oral argument is hereby denied as the record , the Re-
spondent 's exceptions and brief , and the motions and replies thereto, in our opinion, ade-
quately present the issues and the positions of the parties.
105 NLRB No. 60.