General Petroleum Corp. of California

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 11, 1942

42 N.L.R.B. 339 (N.L.R.B. 1942)

In the Mattel of GENERAL PETROLEUM CORPORATION OF CALIFORNIA and
SAILORS UNION OF THE PACIFIC, A. F. L.
Case No. R-3935.-Decided July 11, 194.o2
Jurisdiction : water transportation industry
Investigation and Certification of Representatives: existence of question, re-
fusal to negotiate with petitioner until certified by Boaid, prior certification
of petitioner in effect for nearly 4 years held no bar, petitioner's contract with
Company held no bar, where petition was filed more than 30 days prior to
yearly expiration period of contract, filing of petition was an act inconsistent
with continuing existence of contract, and contiact had been in effect mote
than 3 years, election necessary
Unit Appropriate for Collective Bargaining : all unlicensed deck employees
on the oil tankers of the Company ; unit identical to that for which petitioner
was previously ceitified
Mr. D. W. Woods, of Los Angeles, Calif., for the Company.
Mr. I. B. Padway and Mr. Harry Lundeberg, of San Francisco,
Calif , for the S. U P. and the S. I. U.
Mr. Robert E. Tillman, of counsel to the Board. -
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon petition duly filed by Sailors Union of the Pacific, A. F. L.,
herein called the S. U P., alleging that a question affecting commerce
had arisen concerning the representation of employees of General
Petroleum Corporation of California,' Los Angeles, California, herein
called the Company, the National Labor Relations Board provided for
an appropi iate hearing upon due notice, before Robert C. Moore, Trial
Examiner. Said hearing was held in Los Angeles, California, on
June 8,1942. The Company, the S. U. P., and Seafarers International
Union of North America, A. F. of L., herein called the S. I. U., ap-
peared and participated.' All parties were afforded full opportunity
i The Company's name appears in this form in its stipulation as to commerce
2 National Maiitime Union, affiliated with the C I o , although served with notice of the
hearing, did not appear
42N L R B,No 80
339
340 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce
evidence bearing on the issues The Trial Examiner's rulings made at
the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed
Upon the entree record in the case, the Boaid makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I THE BUSINESS OF TIIE COMPANY
General Petroleum Corporation of Califoinia, a Delaware corpora-
tion, maintains its principal office in Los Angeles, Califoinia The
Company is engaged in the hvsiness of producing, refining, transport-
ing, and marketing oil and oil products. During the 9 months'
peiiod ending September 30, 1941, the Company purchased raw ma-
teiials valued at $12,096,000, of which $68,000 represents the value of
materials purchased outside the State of California Duiing the same
period, the, Company sold products valued at $39,392,000, of which
$17,066,000 represents the value of products sold outside the State of-
California. In connection with its business, the Company operates
seagoing oil tankers which admittedly haul cargoes to ports outside
the State of California. These tankers are the only aspect of the
Company's open ations involved in the present proceeding.
H. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Sailors Union of the Pacific, affiliated with the American Fedeia-
tion of Labor, is a labor organization forming a distinct division of
Seafarers International Union of North America It admits to mem-
berslup unlicensed deck personnel employed on the Company's tankers
Seafarers International Union of North America, affiliated with the
American Federation of Labor, is a labor organization admitting to
membership unlicensed personnel employed on the Company's tankers
It is not claiming any unit in this proceeding
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The parties stipulated, and we find, that the Company has refused
to negotiate with the S U P until the latter is certified by the Board
On July 29, 1938, the S. U P. was certified by the Board as the
collective bargaining representative of a unit comprising unlicensed
deck personnel on the Company's tankers.3 This was the same unit as
that for which the S U. P is presently petitioning The present peti-
tion was filed with the intention that the S U P might be recertified
as the bargaining representative of a unit of unlicensed deck personnel
8Matter of General Petroleum Corp of California and Saalor8 Union of the Paefle,
8 N L R B 686
GE \ ERAL PE1 ROLEUM CORPORATION OF CALIFORNIA 341
ning repre-at the same time as the S I U was certified as the bargai
sentative of separate units of stewards and unlicensed engine-room
employees 4 The S U P now urges that we either dismiss-the
petition and reinstate the prior certification, or order an election in
the unit petitioned for The Company contends that since the filing
of the petition was inconsistent with the prior certification, and inas-
much as that certification h.es been in effect for nearly four years,
that an election should be ordered to ascertain whether the S U. P.
is still the bargaining representative of a majority of the unlicensed
deck employees employed on the Company's tankers. In view of all
these facts, we find that the prior certification is no bar to a present
determination of the question concerning representation.
Pursuant to the pi for certification, the S U P. and the Company
enteied into a contract on February 15, 1939, the terms of which pro-
-% ided that the contract was renewable yearly unless terminated by
30 days' written notice prior to any yearly expiration date. Under
these terms, the contract was automatically renewed in 1940 and 1941
On December 22, 1941, the S U P. notified the Company by telegram
that it claimed to iepiesent the Company's unlicensed deck employees.
The manager of the marine-transportation division of the Company
testified that lie interpreted this telegram as indication that the S U P.
was terminating its contiact. On January 14, 1942, more than 30 days
before the yearly expiation date of the contract, the S U P, pur-
suant to the teisns of the contract, notified the Company of its desire
to reopen the contract for discussions of changes and amendments.
The Company replied in a letter dated January 23, 1942, less than 30
days prior to the yeaily expiration date, that it regarded the contract
as terminated The S U P made no ieply to this letter, and the
manager of the iiaiine-transportation division testified that he as-
sumed that by this silence the S U P. acquiesced in the Company's
position
The Company now contends that there is no contiact The S U P)
a n the other hand, contends that the contract is still in existence, but
does not plead it as a bar to its own petition We need not decide
whether the contract was terminated as suggested by the Company
We find, how ever, that since the petition was filed on December 29,
1941, by a party to the contract, more than 30 days before the yearly
expiration period of the contract, and since the filing of the petition
was an act inconsistent with the continuing existence of the contiact
after Februaiy 15, 1942, and since the contract has been in effect, for
'The S I TJ filed petitions claiming to iepicsent separate units of stewards and
unlicensed engine-room employees at the time that the S U P petitioned for a unit of
unlicensed deck personnel The S I U petitions were dism, ,sed nnrthout healing because
of failuic to make showings of substantial inteiest
342 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
more than 3 years that it is no bar to a present determination of the
question concerning representation.
A statement of the Regional Director, introduced in evidence at the
hearing, indicates that the S U P. represents a substantial number of
employees in the unit hereinafter found appropriate.5 -
We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning
the representation of employees of the Company, within the meaning
of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6Y and (7) of the Act.
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
The S. U. P. requested a unit of all unlicensed deck employees on
the oil tankers of the Company. The Company stated that it had no
preference as to the appropriate unit
Since, as stated in Section III, above, the unit requested by the
S. U P. is the same as that which we previously found to be appro-
priate, and since no other party at this time contends for any other
unit, and the record clearly supports the finding that such unit is
appropriate, we find that all unlicensed deck employees on the oil
tankers of the Company constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes
of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
V. THE DETERMINATION' OF REPRESENTATIVES
We shall direct that the question concerning representation which
has arisen be resolved by means of an election by secret ballot. In
,view of the present- uncertainty as to the arrival, departure, routes,
and personnel of the Company's present operations, we shall direct
that the Regional Director for the Twenty-first Region, under whose
direction the election will be held, shall determine the exact time, place,
and procedure for giving notice of the election and for balloting
Those eligible to vote will be the unlicensed deck employees who are
employed as such on each vessel at the time balloting takes place on
that vessel, provided however, that no employee shall vote more than
once.
Since the National Maritime Union has made no showing of mem-
bership in the unit herein found appropriate, it is,not entitled to a
place on the ballot.
5 The Regional Director stated that the S U P had submitted to him 4 petitions bearing
a total of 49 signatures, all of which appeared to be genuine and of ngmal , and that 14
of the signatures were names of persons whose names appeared on the Company 's pay roll
of unlicensed deck employees foi January 20, 1942, which listed 39 such employees
The National Maritime Union, affiliated with the C I 0, although not participating
in the hearing , submitted 41 authorization cards , all bearing apparently genuine signatures
None of the signatures were names of persons listed on the aforementioned pay roll as
unlicensed deck employees , and only six were names of persons listed on the pay roll of
total unlicensed peisonnel for January 20, 1942, which contained 09 names
GENERAL PETROLEUM CORPORATION OF CALIFORNIA 343
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 Relations Act,
49 Stat. 449, and pursuant to Article III, Section 8, of National Labor
Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Seizes 2, as amended, it is
hereby
DIRECTED that, as pact of the investigation to ascertain representa-
tives for the purposes of collective bargaining with General Petroleum
Corporation of California, Los Angeles, California, an election by
secret ballot shall be conducted as soon as convenient, and beginning
as promptly as is practicable after the date of this Direction, in con-
formity with the instructions set forth in Section IT, above, for the
conduct of such election, under the diiection 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 Article
III, Section- 9, of said Rules and- Regulations, among all employees
of the Company in the unit found appropriate in Section IV, above,
to determine whether or not they desire to be represented by Sailors
Union of the Pacific, affiliated with Seafarers International Union,
A. F. of L , for the purposes of collective bargaining
CD?