Humble Oil & Refining Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsNov 22, 1965

155 N.L.R.B. 1084 (N.L.R.B. 1965)

1084 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD All package delivery men, bulk delivery men, and bulk delivery helpers employed by the Employer at its Main Street, Hartford, Con- necticut , service building excluding all other employees, guards, pro- fessional employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act. All mechanics and washers employed by the Employer at its service building garage located on Main Street, Hartford, Connecticut, ex- cluding all other employees, guards, professional employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act. [Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication.] Humble Oil & Refining Company and Everett Refinery Independ- ent Union , affiliated with Local Union No. 68, International rotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and Helpers of America. Case No. 1-RC-8478. November 02, 1965 DECISION AND ORDER Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a hearing was held before Hearing Officer Peter W. Hirsch. 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 National Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Members Fanning, Brown, and Zagoria]. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds: 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act and it will effectuate the purposes of the Act to assert juris- diction herein. 2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain employees of the Employer.' 3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the represen- tation of certain 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 seeks a unit which it described in various ways at the hearing, and which it described in its brief to the Board as all 1 At the hearing, the Employer and the Intervenor refused to stipulate that the Peti- tioner is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. As the record shows that the Petitioner exists for the purpose of representing employees in col- lective bargaining and admits employees into membership , we find that it is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act. Esso Workers Union, Inc., herein referred to as the Intervenor , was permitted to inter- vene on the basis of its contract interest. 155 NLRB No. 99. HUMBLE OIL & REFINING COMPANY 1085 manufacturing operation employees employed at the Employer's Everett, Massachusetts, location in the classifications of maintenance mechanics, plantmen special, plantmen, - weighers, laboratory techni- cians, and office assistants, excluding all employees of the Employer's marketing division who were so employed on April 14. 1965, guards, professional employees, and supervisors. The Petitioner also indi- cated that it is willing to accept any unit description which the Board determines to be appropriate. The Employer and the Intervenor contend that the unit sought, however- described by the Petitioner, is inappropriate on the grounds, among others, that it is a members. onl=-" unit, and that the requested employees are at. present a segment of an integrated unit. The Employer is engages i in the production, refining, and distribu- tion of petroleum products throughout the United States. Only the operations at its Everett terminal in the Boston, Massaenusetts, area are here involved. Prior to June 1962, the. Employer's manufacturing division maintained a full refinery operation at Everett. The employ- ees at the refinery were represented by Everett Refinery Independent Union, herein called the Independent, iii two separately certified units, one consisting of all operating, mechanical, and maintenance employ - ees, herein referred to as the operating unit, and the ether consisting of all clerical and technical emplo ;â€¢ees. herein referred to as the sala- ried unit. At the time of the certifications in April 1959. there were 214 employees in the operating unit and 39 in the salaried unit. In 1962 all the refinery operations at Everett were eliminated except those related to the manufacture of asphalt, and most of the refinery apparatus was demolished. After a reduction in force the Employer and the Independent executed a single contract covering the approxi- mately 48 remaining operating, mechanical, maintenance, technical, and clerical employees. In 1964, the Employer decided to eliminate asphalt manufacturing at the Everett re- finery and to consolidate the facilities used therefor with these of the marketing division at the Everett terminal, which was located adjacent to the refinery but separated from it by a locked fence. The marketing division agreed to place a number of the Everett plant employees in its expanded marketing operation provided that the manufacturing division, subsequent to the shut down of manufacturing operations, gave these employees the training necessary for their new jobs. On January 20, 1965, the Employer and the Intervenor, which has represented the Employer's marketing division employees in a unit covering the Boston area. for approximately 27 years, executed a sup- plemental agreement providing - that the manufacturing - employees 1086 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD hired by the Everett marketing division would retain the seniority acquired as manufacturing division employees. On January 24 manu- facture of asphalt at Everett ceased, and the equipment used therefor was demolished. Between January 25 and April 15, some of the manu- facturing employees were retrained; on the 'Latter date they were employed by the market division. By April 15 the remaining facilities at the Everett plant were consolidated with and made a part of the market division; the locked gate was opened; the employees' locker- room and laboratory at the plant were moved to the main building of the Everett marketing terminal ; and the manufacturing division at the Everett. plant ceased to exist. Thirty employees who had been classified as operators, mechanics, maingate attendants, laboratory technicians, and clerks were reclassi- fied as plantmen special, weighers, maintenance mechanics, plant clerk, office. assistant, and laboratory technicians. These former manufactur- ing employees now work at the same location as do other marketing division employees, under the same supervision, and perform the same functions as other marketing division employees in the same classifica- tions. Similarly the clerical employees who had worked in the refinery offices now work in the marketing division offices, performing the same duties under the same supervision as the other clerical employees there. In addition to the 30 transferred employees whom the Petitioner seeks to represent, there are 44 motor-tank salesmen, 13 plantmen, one plantinan special, and 21 clerical employees employed at the Everett marketing terminal. All these employees are currently represented by the Intervenor under separate area.wi de agreements between the Employer and the Intervenor covering the Employer's marketing operations in the New England area. The wage earner agreement, applicable to the Employer's entire Boston area operations, covers classifications such as piantmen, plantmen special, maintenance mechanics, oil burner mechanics, motor-tank salesmen, and weighers. The field clerical agreement covers clerical assistants, plant or district clerks, laboratory technicians, and office assistants (plant). It is clear from the foregoing and the entire. record that the former manufacturing employees have been merged into and have become an integral part of the marketing division employee complement repre- sented by the. Intervenor. The employees sought by the Petitioner constitute only a segment of the Employer's employees in the same classifications, working under common supervision and sharing the same employment interests, and are, in fact, no longer identifiable for unit purposes by classification but only by name. We find, therefore, that the unit formerly represented by the Independent, which the Peti- tioner now seeks to represent, has ceased to exist as a separate unit, and, NORGE . DIVISION , BORG-WARNER. CORPORATION 1087 further, that the employees sought. by the Petitioner do not constitute a separate appropriate unit. We shall, accordingly , dismiss the petition? [The Board dismissed the petition.] 2 Humble Oil & Re,, ning Company , 153 NLRB 1361; Pacific Intermountain Express Company, 145 NLRB 805, 808-809 ; Granite City Steel Company, 137 NLRB 209; Brook- lyn T- nion. Gas Compare-y, 129 NLRB 361. In view of this disposition, we find it unnecessary to consider other grounds on which the Employer and the Intervenor urged that the petition be dismissed. Norge Division, Borg-Warner Corporation and Local 370, Allied Industrial Workers of America, affiliated with International Union, Allied Industrial Workers of America , AFL--CIO. Case No. 26-CA-1852. November 23,196 DECISION AND ORDER On February i6, 1965.. Trial Examiner Eugene F. Frey issued leis Decision in the. above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Deci- sion. Thereafter, the General Counsel and Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and supporting briefs. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the 'National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the -National Labor Relations Board has delegated its nowers in connection With this case to a three-mer_iber panel [Members Fanning. Brown, and Jenkins.]. The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner at the hearing and finds that no prej udiciai error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial xar 'ie_ S Decision, the exceptions aiidt .briefs, and the entlie record the case, and n ts merit in excep tions es' ^in tr, n- it finds the of the,; R^ al_3eilt. Accordingly, the Board adopts the findings of the Trial Examiner only to the extent consistent here-vi th. The only issue is whet_ fier the Respondent discharged two probation- arâ€¢ employees, Ruby Shepherd and Clara Stayers, in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. The Trial Examiner found that it did. For reasons stated beiov^, we lsagre . The facts essential to decision may be briefly set forth. The Respond- ent's cone tine bargains g agreement with the Charging Union pro- vices for a 50-work1ng cis probationary -period during wh13h new 155 NLRB No. 95.