Indian Refining Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 3, 1942

44 N.L.R.B. 774 (N.L.R.B. 1942)

In the Matter of INDIAN REFINING COMPANY and OIL WORKERS INTER-
NATIONAL UNION (C. I. 0.)
Case No. R- d5. Decided October 3, 1942
Jurisdiction : oil refining industry.
Investigation and Certification of, Representatives : existence of question : re-
fusal to accord petitioner recognition ; temporary employees who had been in
service of Company less than four months held, eligible to vote; election
necessary.
Unit Appropriate for Collective Bargaining : production, maintenance, and labo-
ratory employees 'connected with refining department of Company, ex-
cluding chemists, laboratory technicians, the laboratory assistant, gatemen,
-watchmen,, and office, clerical, supervisory, and professional employees.
Definitions : temporary. employees; in service of Company for less than. four
months, held employees within the meaning of the Act.
Mr. A. E. Van Dvsen, of New York City, 11Mr. F. H. Holmzes, of
Lawrenceville, Ill., and Mr. H. K. Norton, of Chicago, Ill., for the
Company.
Mr. B. J. Rickey, of Lawrenceville, Ill., for the C. I. O.
Mr. Fred W. Gee, of Lawrenceville, Ill., for the Association.
Mr. Marvin C. Wahl, of counsel to, the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon petition duly filed by Oil Workers International Union
(C. I. 0.) herein called the.C. I. 0., alleging that a question affecting
commerce had arisen concerning the representation of employees of
Indian Refining Company, Lawrenceville, Illinois, herein called the
Company, the National Labor Relations Board provided for an
appropriate hearing upon due notice before William W. Ward, Jr.,
Trial Examiner. Said hearing was held at Lawrenceville, Illinois,
on August 26, 1942. The Company, the C. I. 0., and Association
of Employees of Indian Refining Company, herein called the Associa-
tion, appeared, participated, and were afforded full opportunity to
be heard, to -examine and, cross-examine witnesses, and, to introduce
44 N. L. R. B., No. 148.
774
INDIAN REFINING COMPANY 775
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 entire record in the case, the Board makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I: THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
Indian Refining Company 1 is a Maine corporation, engaged in
manufacturing and marketing petroleum and petroleum products. It
owns, maintains, and operates a refinery at Lawrenceville,, Illinois,
where it manufactures or processes gasoline, naphtha, kerosene, lubri-
cating oil, and other crude oil 'products. Although in the year pre-
ceding the hearing all crude oil processed by the Company was
produced in Illinois fields, its major products were shipped in sub-
stantial quantities to points outside that State. Thus, 87 percent of
the gasoline, 74 percent of the kerosene, 75 percent of the lubricating
oils, and 53 percent of the asphalts and fuel and road oils produced
by the Company in Illinois were shipped outside the State. Of, the
,gasoline',shipped'out4'6f Illinois, 75 percent was transported, via the
Texas Pipe Line Company, a common carrier, to Mount Vernon,
Indiana, from which point it was reshipped to other destinations or
sold directly to customers. The remaining 25 percent of the exported
gasoline was shipped by tank car and tank truck.
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Oil Workers International Union, affiliated with the Congress of
Industrial Organizations, and Association of Employees of Indian
Refining Company are labor organizations, admitting to membership
employees'of the Company.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
On May 27, 1942, the Company refused the C. I. O.'s request to
-bargain with it as the exclusive bargaining representative of the
Company's employees because of the existence of a collective, bargain-
ing agreement between the Company and the Association. That
agreement was entered into on April 15, 1941, and was to remain in
effect until November 1, 1942. At the hearing, none of the parties
asserted the agreement as a bar to a present investigation and de-
termination-of representatives, and we find that it does not operate
as a bar.
'The petition named The Texas Company as the employer in this proceeding. However
'the record - shows 'only'the, Indian Refining Company to be involved and does not show the
relationship , if any, between The Texas Company and the Indian Refining Company.
'776 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL.LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
A statement of the Regional Director, introduced in evidence at
the hearing, shows that the C. I. O. represents a substantial number
• of employees in the unit hereinafter found appropriate.',
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 (6) and (7) of the National Labor
Relations Act.
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
The C. I. O. contends that all production, maintenance , and labora-
tory employees and watchmen and gatemen connected with the re-
fining department' of the Company, excluding chemists, laboratory
'technicians, the 'laboratory 'assistant, and clerical, 'supervisory, and
professional employees constitute an appropriate unit. The Asso-
ciation claims thit all employees of the respondent, excluding super-
visory employees, constitute an appropriate unit. The 'Company
agrees with the_ C. I. O.'s position except that it takes no position as
to the watchmen and gatemen.
The laboratory employees' whom all parties wish to' include are
samplemen and first,' second, and third class testers, all of whom are
hourly paid employees. Their duties do not require them.to have any
technical training or skill. The chemists and laboratory technicians,3
whom 'the C. I. O. and the Company would exclude, 'are persons
having specialized training and skill and are paid a monthly salaiy.
The laboratory assistant assists the chemists in their work and, while
he is not required to have so great a degree of technical skill as the
chemists, the qualifications for his work are nevertheless higher than
those for the laboratory employees,as to whom there is no dispute.
Like the. chemists, the laboratory. assistant receives a • monthly - salary.
In view of the higher degree of training and skill required for the
duties of chemist, laboratory technician, and laboratory assistant,
and in view/of the.,salaried status of such employees, we -shall exclude
them from the appropriate unit.
2 The. Regional Director reported that the , C. I. O. submitted 235 signed membership appli-
cation cards , all of which were dated between February 3 and May 28 , 1942, with the
exception of-6 'cards which were not dated ; that all the mgnatu'res appear to be genuine and
that 231 of the signatures corresponded to names of employees appearing on the Company's
pay roll of May 15 , 1942 , which contained 534 names in all. At the close of the hearing,
the Trial Examiner stated that the C. I. O. had submitted to him 32 membership cards, all
of which bore apparently genuine signatures , dated between June and August 1942; that
24 of the signatures corresponded to the names of persons appearing on the Company's pay
roll of May 15, 1942 ' While the record is not clear on this point it would seem that the
cards submitted to the Ti 'al Examiner were in addition to those examined by the Regional
Director . The Association did not submit any proof of representation.
8 The record does not show precisely who are considered laboratory technicians it would
appear, however , that the parties had in mind the L T. F D. man ( low temporary-fractional
distillation ) and the anti -knock operator.
INDIAN RErINING COMPANY 777
The Association desires to include within the appropriate unit the
office and clerical employees, all of whom receive a monthly salary.
The C. I. 0. and the Company request their exclusion as not prop-
erly a part of the unit. While the Association formerly bargained
for the office and clerical employees, in a consent election held in
1937 between the C. I. 0. and the Association, the latter agreed to the
exclusion of these classes of employees from the balloting. In view
of the nature of the unit requested and, of the prior consent election,
we find that office and clerical employees should be excluded from
the llu'
The C. I. 0. and the Association desire the inclusion of the gate-
men and watchmen, while the Company takes no position as to them.
It appears, that these employees are deputized either as city police
or as deputy sheriffs. They carry firearms and wear uniforms fur-
nished by the Company. Although they are paid by the Company,
they are not subject to its control during the present emergency, and
it would appear that they are likely to become a part of the auxiliary
police of the United States Arniy. ' We shall, consequently, exclude
the gatemen and watchmen.,
We find that all production, maintenance, and laboratory employees
connected with the refining department of the Company, excluding
chemists, laboratory technicians, the laboratory assistant, gatemen
and watchmen, and office and clerical, supervisory, and professional,5
employees 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 find that the question concerning representation which has
arisen can best be resolved by an election by secret ballot. The C. I. 0.
and the Association requested that temporary employees G be declared
ineligible to vote in the election. ' The Company took no position on
the question. We find that they are properly considered employees
within the meaning of the Act and as such are entitled to vote.?
We shall direct that the employees of the Company eligible to vote
in the election shall be those in the appropriate unit who were em-
ployed during the pay-roll period immediately preceding the date of
The Association also requested the inclusion of the Company's five telephone operators.
The C . I 0 and the Company opposed this contention . Inasmuch as the telephone opera-
tors are office employees , our finding is applicable to them.
B No proof was offered as to the nature of the duties of the professional employees. How-
ever, it is apparent that from the unit found appropriate herein ; such employees should be
excluded
'These are defined as employees with less than 4 months of service with the Company
7 See Lake Superior District Power Company and International Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers, Local B-31, A. F. of L , 42 N. L R. B 317.
778 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
,the Direction of Election herein, subject to the limitations and ad-
ditions set forth in the Direction.
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
DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation ordered by the Board
to ascertain representatives for the purposes of collective bargaining
with Indian Refining Company, Lawrenceville, Illinois, 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, under the
direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Fourteenth
Region, acting in this matter as agent for the' National Labor Rela-
tions Board, and subject to Article III, Section 9, of said Rules and
Regulations, among the employees in the unit found appropriate in
Section IV, above, who were employed by the Company during the
pay-roll period immediately preceding the date of this Direction of.,
Election, including any such employees who did not work during said
pay-roll period because they were ill or on vacation or in the active
military service or training of the United States, or temporarily laid
off, but excluding any who have since quit or been discharged for
cause, to determine whether they desire to be represented by Oil
Workers International Union (C. I. 0.), or by Association of Em-
ployees of Indian Refining Company, for the purposes of collective
bargaining, or by neither.
MR. WM. M. LEISERSON took no part in' the consideration of the
above Decision and Direction of Election.