Gulf Refining Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 22, 1940

25 N.L.R.B. 745 (N.L.R.B. 1940)

In the Matter of GULF REFINING COMPANY and FEDERAL LABOR
UNION No. 22191, AFFILIATED WITH THE AMERICAN FEDERATI02T OF
LABOR
Case No. R-1915.-Decided July 22,, 1940
Jurisdiction : oil refining and distributing industry.
Investigation and Certification of Representatives : existence of question where
employer refuses to accord full recognition to union and requests that cer-
tification be obtained; election necessary.
Contract terminable on one month's notice, or notice by Board's Regional
Director that contracting union uo longer represents a majority in the unit
covered by the contract.
Employees who have been with the Company less than six months, and
have not yet acquired seniority rights held eligible to vote although one
union requests their exclusion.
Unit Appropriate for Collective Bargaining : all_ employees ,of'the Company at
its refinery at Toledo. Ohio, including laboratory workers and excluding
clerical and supervisory employees and specifically named employees.
Laboratory workers who are eligible for membership in the unions- in-
volved and are paid on a basis similar to other employees in the unit and
have been previously bargained for by the union now requesting their
exclusion, included within the appropriate unit.
Mr. Edwin J. Lynch, Mr. John W. Hackett, Mr. John Froelich, Mr.
William Stwrr, and Mr. Frank Dexter, of Toledo, Ohio, for the
Federal.
Mr. Lowell Goerlich, dlr. Edward Lamb, and Mr. Clyde P. Derby,
of Toledo, Ohio, and Mr. R. L. Bruce, of Fort Worth, Tex., for
the International.
Mr. Eldon Young, of Houston, Tex., for the Company.
Mr. William Strong, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On May 8. 1940, Federal Labor Union No. 22191, herein called the
Federal, filed with the Regional Director for the Eighth Region
(Cleveland, Ohio) a petition alleging that a question affecting coin-
merce' had arisen concerning the representation of employees of-Gulf
25 N. L. R. B., No 83
745
746 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Refining Company, herein called the Company, at its refinery in
Toledo, Ohio, and requesting an investigation and certification of
representatives pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Re-
lations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act.
On June 15, 1940, 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 Regula-
tions-Series 2, as amended, ordered an investigation and authorized
the Regional Director to conduct it and to provide for, an appro-
priate hearing upon due notice.
On June 17, 1940, the Regional Director issued a notice of hearing,,
copies of which were duly served upon the Company, the Federal,
and Oil Workers International Union, Local No. 346, affiliated with
the Congress of Industrial Organizations, herein called the Interna-
tional. Pursuant to notice a hearing was held on June 21, 1940, at
Toledo, Ohio, before Max W. Johnstone, the Trial Examiner duly
designated by the Board. The Company, the Federal, and the, Inter-
national were duly represented by counsel, and the Federal and In-
ternational also by representatives; all participated in the hearing.
Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses,
and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues was afforded all
parties. During the course of the hearing, the Trial Examiner ruled
upon several motions and 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.
On July 5, and on July 11, 1940, ,the Federal and the International
filed briefs which the Board has -duly considered.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the,following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF, THE COMPANY
Gulf Refining Company is a corporation organized under the laws
of the State of Delaware, and is a wholly owned subsidiary of Gulf
Oil Corporation. The Company is engaged in refining, selling, and
distributing petroleum products. The- raw materials used by the
Company in the, refining process are for the most part crude oil, of
which in excess of 20,000 barrels are used each day. Over 50 per cent
of such crude oil comes from without the State of Ohio. ' The finished
products of the Company are petroleum products, such as gasoline,
kerosene, fuel oil, and coke. In excess of 20,000 barrels of such fin-
ished products are produced each day, over 50 per cent of which are
sold and distributed to points outside the State of Ohio.
GULF REFINING COMPANY 747
The Company employs more than 250 employees.
At the hearing all parties stipulated that the, Company is engaged
in interstate commerce within the meaning of the Act.
11. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Federal Labor Union No. 22191 is a labor organization affiliated
`Ilth the American Federation of Labor.
Oil Workers International UnionLocal No. 346, is a labor organ-
ization affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations.
Both labor organizations admit to membership employees of the
Company, excluding clerical and supervisory employees.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
On October 19, 1939, the International and the Company entered
into a collective agreement which recognized the-International as the
exclusive bargaining agent of all the Company's employees at the
plant involved herein, except clerical and supervisory employees.
By its terms this agreement remained in effect until April 19, 1940,
and will continue in effect until terminated upon one month's notice
by either party, or until such time as written notice is given to the
Company by the Regional Director that the International no longer
represents a majority of the employees in the agreed unit.
On April 24, 1940, the Federal requested the Company to recognize
it as the exclusive barganung agent of the Company's employees.
On April 30, 1940, the Company informed the Federal that it would
not recognize the Federal unless and until the latter has been cer-
tified by the Board as the exclusive' bargaining agent' of the,
Company's employees.
From the statement of an agent of the Board, introduced into
evidence, it appears that the Federal and the International have
substantial membership among the employees of the Company.
We find that a question has arisen concerning the representation
of employees of the Company.
IV. 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 Company
described in Section I above, has a close, intimate, and substantial rela-
tion 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.
748 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
V. THE APPPROPRLITE UNIT
The Federal desires a unit composed of all the employees at the
Toledo refinery, excluding clerical and supervisory employees. The
International would also exclude laboratory workers. The Company
has taken no position as to the laboratory workers.
The Company employs 6 laboratory workers. These laboratory
workers make viscosity and distillation tests. They have been selected
by the Company from among the more capable employees. A high-
school education is preferred for this task, but not all six have a
high-school education. They are not required to be chemists, and
perform their duties under the supervision of an assistant chemist,
who is, in turn, supervised by a chemist. The laboratory workers
are paid on an hourly basis, as are the other refinery employees,
and their names appear on the Company's general hourly pay roll.
The laboratory in which they work is housed in a separate building,
across the street from the refinery. The laboratory workers appear
to be eligible, for membership in the International-as well-as- in-the
Federal. The International also appears to have bargained on behalf
of the laboratory workers. We find that the laboratory workers belong
within the appropriate unit.
The parties agreed and we find that the 25 persons named in Appen-
dix "A" are supervisory employees. They will therefore be excluded
from the unit. The International contends that the 10 persons named
in Appendix "B" are also supervisory employees. The Federal dis-
agrees with this contention. These 10 employees exercise supervisory
authority over groups ranging in size between 1 and 8 men. They
direct the employees whom they supervise in the performance of the
latter's duties, prepare time sheets showing the work performed, the
rates of pay, and the distribution of such pay to each of the employees,
and sign such sheets as "foreman." While they do not exercise orig-
inal authority to hire or discharge, they report to higher supervisory
officials --var-ious• infractions of company rules by the employees under
them and also recommend discharges. We find that the 10 persons
named in Appendix "B" are supervisory employees and that they
should be excluded from the appropriate unit.'
We find that all employees of the Company at its refinery at Toledo,
Ohio, including laboratory workers, and excluding clerical employees,
the employees named in Appendix "A" and Appendix "B" and other
supervisory employees, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes
of collective bargaining and that said unit will insure to employees
of-,the.Company the full benefit of their right to self-organization and
' See Matter of Kingsley Lumber Co and Lumber and Sawnill Workers Local No 2879, 13
N. L. R B . 174; Matter of Rnls Manufactar ing Corp and United Electrical . Radio cC Machine
Workers of America, 11 N. L R B. 696
GULF REFINING COMPANY 749
to collective bargaining and otherwise effectuate the policies of the
Act.
VI. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
We find that the question concerning representation can best be
resolved by means of an election by secret ballot and we shall direct the
holding of such an election.
The International would exclude from the election 7 employees
named in Appendix "C," Who were employed less than 6 months before
May 12, 1940. The Federal would permit them to vote . Although
these 7 employees may not have obtained seniority rights prior to May
12, it is clear that they have a substantial interest in the outcome of the
election. They will therefore be eligible to participate in the election.
The parties are agreed and we find that the pay roll for the period
ending May 12, 1940, shall be used as a basis for determining eligibility
to participate in the election . We shall direct that the employees
within the appropriate unit whose names appear on the pray roll for
the period ending May 12, 1940 , including the employees named in
Appendix "C" and employees who did not work during such pay-roll
period because they were ill or on vacation and employees who during
such pay-roll period were or have since been temporarily laid off and
excluding employees who have since quit or been discharged for
cause, shall be eligible to vote in the election.
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. A question affecting commerce has arisen concerning the repre-
sentation of employees of Gulf Refining Company, at its refinery
at Toledo, Ohio, within the meaning of Section 9 (c) and Section 2
F6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act.
2. All the employees of the Company at its refinery at Toledo,
Ohio, including laboratory workers, and excluding clerical employees,
the employees named in Appendix "A" and Appendix "B," and other
supervisory employees constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes
of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the
`National Labor Relations. Act.
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 Re-
lations Act and pursuant to Article III, Section 8, of National Labor
Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 2, as amended, it
is hereby
750 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation ordered by the Board
to ascertain representatives for the purposes of collective bargaining,
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 Eighth Region, acting in the matter as agent for
the National Labor Relations Board and subject to Article III, Sec-
tion 9 (c), of said Rules and Regulations , among all employees of
the Company at its refinery at Toledo, Ohio, who were employed
by the Company during the pay-roll period ending May 12, 1940,
including the employees named in Appendix "C", employees who
were not employed during the pay-roll period because they were ill
or on vacation, and employees who were or have since been tem-
porarily laid off, and excluding employees who have since quit of
been discharged for cause, and further excluding clerical employees,
the employees named in Appendix "A" and Appendix " B," and
other supervisory employees, to deteriuiue whether they desire to be
represented by Federal Labor Union No. 22191, affiliated with the
American Federation of Labor, or by Oil Workers International
Union, Local No. 346, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial
Organizations, for the purposes of collective bargaining, or by
neither.
APPENDIX A
J. Gafford
J. Houd
D. Heffner
C. Kilo
E. Callihan
F. Thorndyke
W. Johnson
F. Schutte
S. Hayes
W. Morton
W. Ries
S. Howard
T. Doliii
Robert Gerrald
R. Caulkins
C. Pfeiffer
H. Quinnlan
C. Eddy
W. Armstrong
R. Williams
0. Locke
J. Sheppard
A. Goodwin
D. Hinch
0. Ruff
R. Tipton
A. Elder
Ray Portman
Harry Bailey
J. Zoll
APPENDIX B
F. Purcell
J. Toth
H. Falvey
D. Bryan
E. Poulson
GULF REFINING COMPANY 751
APPENDIX C
S. Cobb Phillip Fonner
Charles Leadford Fred Schoepf
L. R. Vosberg Ralph Dixon
Charles C. Martin
MR. WILLIAM M. LEISERSON took no part in the consideration of
the above Decision and Direction of Election.