Kendall Refining Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 5, 1946

69 N.L.R.B. 1185 (N.L.R.B. 1946)

In the Matter of KENDALL REFINING COMPANY, EMPLOYER and OIL
WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, CIO, PETITIONER
Case No. 6-R-1375.Decided August 5,1946
Messrs . O. C. Cool and S. J. Brill, of New York City, for the Em
-ployer.
Mr. William R. Wonsettler, of Oil City, Pa., and Mr. Forrest
Sparks, of Coraopolis , Pa., for the Petitioner.
. Messrs. Charles L. Miller and Martin C. McIntyre, of Bradford,
Pa., for the Operating Engineers.
Mr. A. Sumner Lawrence, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed, hearing in this case was held at Brad-
ford, Pennsylvania, on June 4, 1946, before W. G. Stuart Sherman,.
Trial Examiner. 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 National Labor Relations
Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
Kendall Refining Company is a Pennsylvania corporation, engaged
in the production and refining of oil with properties in the State of
New York and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The Employer
has a refinery in Bradford, Pennsylvania, including related opera-
tions at Fosterbrook, Pennsylvania. During the past 12-month
period, the value of crude oil used by the Employer amounted to^
approximately $4,699,000 in value, of which about .5 of 1 percent was
shipped to the Company from points outside the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania. During the same period, the Employer's products,
consisting of lubricants, greases, and petroleum specialties, were,
valued at approximately $10,205,581, of which about 90 percent was
sold and shipped outside the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
The Employer admits that it is engaged in commerce within the-
meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
69 N. L. It. B., No. 143.
701592-47-vol. 69--7(5 1185
1186 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
The Petitioner is a labor organization, affiliated with the Congress
of Industrial Organizations, claiming to represent employees of the
Employer.
International Union of Operating Engineers, herein called the
Operating Engineers, is a labor organization, affiliated with the
American Federation of Labor, claiming to represent employees of
the Employer.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The Employer refuses to recognize the Petitioner as the exclusive
bargaining representative of employees of the Employer until the
Petitioner has been certified by the Board in an appropriate unit.
We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning
the representation of employees of the Employer, within the mean-
ing of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
IV. TIIE APPROPRIATE UNIT
The Petitioner contends that all employees employed in or attached
to the Employer's refinery at Bradford, Pennsylvania, including
Fosterbrook, a stock clerk and his helper, and watchman, but exclud-
ing pipe-line employees, production employees, the main and job
order clerk, laboratory employees, office and clerical employees, sales-
men, administrative employees, foremen, assistant foremen, and all
other supervisory employees within the Board's usual definition, con-
stitute an appropriate unit. The Employer, although not objecting
to the inclusion or exclusion of specific classifications requested by the
Petitioner, contends that the unit should extend beyond the refinery,
and include the employees of both the pipe-line and the production
departments. The Operating Engineers takes a position intermedi-
ate between that of the Employer and the Petitioner, and contends
that the appropriate unit should include both refinery and pipe-line
department employees, but exclude production department employees
in harmony with the unit previously found appropriate by the Board
in an earlier proceeding involving employees of the Employer.'
With respect to the Petitioner's contention that the appropriate
unit should be limited to refinery employees and exclude both pipe-
line and production department employees, it appears that the
refinery constitutes a separate department; that transfers of em-
1 See Matter of Kendall Refining Company, 59 N. L. R. B. 1334.
' The Petitioner first indicated its desire to exclude pipe-line employees by a motion at the
hearing to amend its petition which originally included pipe -line employees in the claimed
appropriate unit.
KENDALL REFINING COMPANY 1187
ployees between the refinery and other departments are infrequent
and that the majority of the employees in one department do not
come into contact with employees in any other department of the
Employer during the normal course of their employment. On the
other hand, it appears the function of the refinery is closely integrated
with that of the pipe-line department. Moreover, although the
Petitioner has apparently made little or no effort to organize em-
ployees in departments other than the refinery the Operating Engi-
neers has extended its organization beyond the refinery, and has
organized employees in the closely related pipe-line department.
The Petitioner requests that an appropriate unit be ,found, based
largely on the extent of its organization among the refinery employees
herein concerned. However, the Board customarily will not predi-
cate a unit finding on the extent of one union's organization where
organization of the employees by a rival union has been effected in a
broader appropriate bargaining unit .3 In the present instance, the
record indicates that there has been substantially no change in the
Employer's operations, its administrative organization or the duties
of the employees in the disputed departments since the earlier pro-
ceeding.4 Under the circumstances, we see no reason to depart from
our previous finding with regard to the appropriate unit .5 Accord-
ingly, we are of the opinion that the employees of the refinery and
pipe-line departments, taken together, have interests sufficiently dif-
ferent from those of the production employees to warrant their estab-
lishment in a separate unit for the purposes of collective bargaining,s
but the refinery employees should not be segregated from those in the
pipe-line department.
We find that all employees employed in or attached to the Em-
ployer's refinery at Bradford, Pennsylvania, including Fosterbrook,
the pipe-line department, the stock clerk and his helper, and watch-
men, but excluding the main and job order clerk, production employees,
laboratory employees, office and clerical employees, salesmen, admin-
istrative employees, foremen, assistant foremen, and all or any other
supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote, discharge,
discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of employees, or
effectively recommend such action, constitute a unit appropriate for
the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section
9 (b) of the Act.
8 See Matter of Great Lakes Pipe Line Company, 64 N. L. R. B. 1296 , 1299, and cases cited
therein.
° The only change in duties as reported in the record concerns an employee in the classi-
fication of main and job order clerk who has since been transferred to the office pay roll
and whom all parties agree should be excluded from the appropriate unit.
' See Matter of The Mathieson Alkali Works , 55 N. L. It. B. 1100 ; Matter of Kennecott
Copper Corporation , Chino Mines Division, 64 N. L. It. B. 1377.
c See Matter of Sunray Oil Corporation , 61 N. L. It. B. 1648.
1188 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining with Kendall Refining Company, Brad-
ford, Pennsylvania , 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 Sixth Region, acting in this matter as agent for the
National Labor Relations Board, and subject to Article III, Sections
10 and 11, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-
Series 3, as amended, among the employees in the unit found appro-
priate in Section IV, above, who were employed during the pay-roll
period immediately preceding the date of this Direction , including
employees who did not work during said pay-roll period because they
were ill or on vacation or temporarily laid o 'ff, and including em-
ployees in the armed forces of the United States who present them-
selves in person at the polls, but excluding those employees who have
since quit or been discharged for cause and have not been rehired or
reinstated prior to the date of the election , to determine whether they
desire to be represented by Oil Workers International Union, CIO,
or by Internatioal Union of Operating Engineers , AFL, for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining , or by neither.
MR. JOHN M . HOUSTON took no part in the consideration of the
above Decision and Direction of Election.