Lone Star Producing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsSep 6, 1949

85 N.L.R.B. 1137 (N.L.R.B. 1949)

J 11 the Matter of LONE STAR PRODUCING COMPANY, EMPLOYER and ()ii WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, CIO, PETITIONER In the Matter of LONE STAR PRODUCING COMPANY, EMPLOYER and VERNON H. SMITH, AN INDIVIDUAL, PETITIONER Cases Nos. 16-EC-134 and 16-RD-28, respectively.Decided September 6, 1949 DECISION DIRECTION OF ELECTION AND .ORDER Upon petitions duly filed, these two cases were consolidated by order of the Board on January 17, 1949. A joint hearing was held before Joseph A. Jenkins, hearing officer of the National Labor Rela- tions Board. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds : 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act. 2. The labor organization named below claims to represent employ- ees of the Employer. 3. Since 1943, the Employer and the Oil Workers International Union, CIO, hereafter called the Oil Workers, have made collective bargaining contracts covering various groups of the Employer's em- ployees. At present, they are bound under a contract which was made and became effective May 26, 1944, and which was renewable from year to year unless notice of termination was given 30 days before May 26 of any year. No such notice has ever been given, and the Oil Workers admits that the contract is presently in effect. The Em- ployer maintains that this contract is a bar to the representation peti- tion herein. The Oil Workers' petition was filed on April 15, 1948, before the contract's automatic renewal,' and the question of representation in I The petition was dismissed by the Regional Director but, on appeal , was reinstated by the Board on November 30, 1948. 85 N. L. R. B., No. 192. 1137 1138 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 0 this case arises from a dispute as to the proper scope of the contract unit. The Employer argues, nevertheless, that the Petitioner was bound to terminate the contract in order to maintain its petition. We disagree. It would be repugnant to the policy of the Act to re- quire that there be a vacuum in contractual labor relations during the pendency of proceedings under Section 9 (c) of the Act, whenever the party instituting those proceedings happens to be one of the parties to the contract. Accordingly, we.find that a question concerning repre- sentation within the meaning of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act exists among the employees in the unit sought by the Oil Workers in Case No. 16-RC-134.2 The petition in Case No. 16-RD-28 was filed by Vernon H. Smith, an individual, herein called Decertification Petitioner. For the rea- sons stated below, we find that no question exists concerning repre- sentation in the unit sought by the Decertification Petitioner, within the meaning of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 4. The appropriate unit: The unit sought by the Oil Workers would embrace all the em- ployees of the Employer, exclusive of office workers and statutorily excluded workers. It would contain about 360 employees. About 80 percent of these, employed at one of the Employer's oil fields and at several gasoline plants, are presently covered by the existing con- tract. The other 20 percent, about 74 employees, are divided into 3 groups : the employees at a gas and oil field, those at a gasoline plant, and a group called "miscellaneous employees." The gas and oil field and the gasoline plant are the most recent additions to the Employer's operations. These miscellaneous employees, consisting of truck drivers and meter inspectors, though apparently in existence from the a beginning of the Employer's operations, were never included in the previously certified units or in the contracts based on these certifica- tions. No explanation of this exclusion is contained in the record. The unit sought by the Decertification Petitioner is limited to the employees at the Employer's -gas and oil field which is covered by the Oil Workers' contract. The Oil Workers was certified as the bar-. gaining agent of this group in 1943. There are about 30 employees in this proposed unit. 3 The Employer also contends that the petition should be dismissed because the Peti- tioner did not give notice of proposed termination or modification , 60 days prior to the expiration of the contract , as required by Section 8 (d) (1) of the Act, nor did it file its - petition before that time . We have frequently held, and we repeat here, that Section 8 (d) (1) is merely definitive of part of the duty to bargain collectively and does not have the effect of, changing the automatic renewal date of the contract . Matter of Magnolia Petroleum Comipany , 79 N. L. it. B. 1027; Matter of Crowley 's Milk Company, Inc., 79 N. L. R. B. 602. LONE STAR PRODUCING COMPANY 1139 Employer's operations The Employer is a Texas corporation doing business in that State. It produces, gathers, and processes gas and oil. Its gross sales amount to about $15,000,000 annually. It operates in an area extending east and west from Dallas, Texas, where its main office is located. Its two most widely separated operating units are about 270 miles apart. The Employer divides its operations into two main departments. The production department finds the oil and natural gas and moves it to where it can be processed. The gasoline department does the proc- essing. The gas and oil fields are called "production areas" or "de- partments." The Employer has two of these, the West Central Texas Department and the East Texas Department. It is the West Central Texas field that is now covered by the Oil Workers' contract. There are employee interchanges within the production and gasoline de- partments, respectively, but only one recorded instance of a transfer between the departments. The work is of a different nature in each department, though there are some common categories, and, where there are, the men receive the same pay. The gasoline department is dependent on the production department for its raw materials. The employees' working conditions are uniform throughout the Company, that is, as to vacations, insurance, and other employee benefits. Each of the two departments has a superintendent and there is a general superintendent over all the Employer's operations. Each plant is separately supervised and is a complete processing unit in itself. Each of the Employer's two oil fields is an independent producing area. The West Central Texas Department supplies the plant in its area and the East Texas Department serves those in its region. History of bargaining The history of bargaining between the Employer and the Oil Workers leaves little doubt as to the appropriate unit. This history began on December 8, 1942, with the filing by the Oil Workers of a petition covering certain employees of the Employer. A consent election was agreed upon, covering separate elections in these two units : Unit 1: Willow Springs Plant, Opelika Plant, and Grapeland Plant. Unit 2: Ranger Plant 101, Ranger Plant 108, Ranger Plant 108-2, Brooks Plant, and miscellaneous Ranger personnel. (The Wil- low Springs Plant later ceased operations and is not concerned in this proceeding.) After the election, the Oil Workers was certified in each of these units and on March 12, 1943, the Employer and the Oil Workers entered into a contract covering all of the plants involved in both elections. 857823-50-vol. 85-73 1140 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD On May 31, 1943, after another consent election, the Oil Workers was certified as representative for all the employees in the West Cen- tral Texas area .3 Shortly afterward, a supplemental agreement was made, bringing this field under the terms of the agreement of March 12, 1943. This is the unit in which the Decertification Petitioner seeks an election. On May 26, 1944, a new agreement was made by the Employer and the Oil Workers covering the units involved in all three of the previous elections. It was to continue from year to year with a 30-day auto- matic renewal clause. This agreement has been renewed each year and is still in effect. On December 8, 1947, again after a consent election, the Oil Workers was certified to represent all the employees in the Employer's Carth- age gasoline plant. Eleven days later, another supplemental agree- ment was entered into, extending the terms of the May 26, 1944, con- tract to cover this plant. It will be noted that the extent of Oil Workers' bargaining agency has followed closely the expansion of the operations of the Employer. As the Employer started new plants or gas and oil fields, elections were held and the new units were included in the coverage of the con- tract. Since the last consent election and supplemental agreement, the Employer has expanded its operations further so that two new groups of employees have resulted. One is the group at the Employer's Chapel Hill Plant, the other, in the East Texas Production Depart- ment. It is these accretions to the Employer's working force, together with the miscellaneous employees described above, which the Oil Workers seeks to include now in order to restore the Employer-wide scope of the bargaining unit. The Employer contends that this history demonstrates that only the single gas and oil fields and single or related plants involved in the four separate consent elections are appropriate units. It asserts that the contract retains the identity of the units as they were certified and that they should be kept separate. The Decertification Petitioner takes the same position. We are constrained to reject this conclusion. There is more to the Employer's and Oil Workers' history of labor relations than the mere sequence of consent elections and contracts. The actual conduct of the labor relations is significant. Bargaining has been conducted for all the Employer's employees at one time. Ne- gotiations are held at Dallas, Texas, the Employer's headquarters. The general superintendent of the Employer represents the Employer at the negotiations. The results of the bargaining have been applied 8 This field is sometimes referred to in the record as the Eastland District. LONE STAR PRODUCING COMPANY 1141 to all the employees of the Employer, even including the unrepresented groups. For instance, a wage increase negotiated by the Oil Workers went into effect January 1, 1949. It was granted to all the Employer's employees. - There is no indication in the record that bargaining has ever been conducted for one of the plants or groups of plants separately. All of the units are pooled within the coverage of the one contract. The recognition clause of the contract lists all the components of the, Employer's operations without any breakdown by groups correspond- ing to the units as they were organized. The substantive terms of the. contract are applied uniformly to all employees. All of the employees of the Employer, wherever stationed, are within the jurisdiction of one local of the Oil Workers, Local 478, and the contract provides that a "workmen's committee" of that local shall handle all the grievances of those employees. Only for seniority purposes is there any classifi- cation of employees under the contract, and that is along departmental lines rather than along lines corresponding to the units in which the Oil Workers achieved recognition. The contract is not, as is some- times the case, a skeleton contract to be particularized by negotiations at the individual plants. Rather, it is a complete agreement covering seniority, grievance procedure, hours of work and overtime, holiday pay, vacations, bulletin boards, job posting, and many other details. In no respect, other than the seniority aspect mentioned above, is there any classification or distinction made among the employees according to where they work. Conclusions Considering all these factors-the system-wide integration of the Employer's operations, which are confined to a single and relatively small geographical area; the interchangeability of employees between different establishments within each of the two departments; and the successful course of collective bargaining, which has served to unify the interests of all the Employer's employees in both departments and at all the separate locations-we are of the opinion that the original piecemeal units of this Employer's employees have been effectively merged into a single group having a strong community of interest in the subject matter of collective bargaining.4 We find accordingly, that the company-wide unit proposed by the Oil Workers is appropri- ate within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act; and that the ulit limited to a single producing field, proposed for severance by the * Matter of Kansas -Nebraska Natural Gas Co., Inc., 80 N . L. R. B. 1061 ; Matter of Pappas Co ., Inc., 80 N. L. R. B. 1272; Matter of Brown Express , et at., 80 N. L. R. B. 753; Matter of Acme Fast Freight, Inc ., 80 N. L. R . B. 979 ; Matter of American Viscose Corp., 79 N. L. R. B. 958 ; Matter of Shell Chemical Corp ., 79 N. L. R. B. 697. 1142 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Decertification Petitioner, is inappropriate. We shall, therefore, dis- miss the petition in Case No. 16-RD-28.5 The Employer contends that even if the company-wide unit is found to be appropriate, the three groups of employees not now formally covered by the Oil Workers' contract should be given an opportunity to vote separately as to whether or not they desire the Oil Workers as their bargaining agent. We reject this contention, for virtually the same reasons that led us to find the company-wide unit appropriate. The three groups of employees in question constitute only inseparable parts of the Employer's total working force, not distinct fringe groups.' They are stationed in the same area with the other employees in the bargaining unit; and their skills, functions, and other work interests are the same. Only historical accident, and no real difference in function or status, has caused these employees to be omitted from the coverage of the Oil Workers' contracts in the past.' Clearly, in view of the provisions of Section 9 (c) (5) of the Act,' we could not properly find today that any one of these three groups, or all of them together, comprise a separate appropriate bargaining units We are of the opinion that they constitute only accretions to the existing unit.1e For these reasons, the employees at the East Texas field and Chapel Hill Plant, and the miscellaneous group, are not entitled to a separate franchise on the issue of their representation in collective bargaining. We find that they are included in the unit defined below. As com- ponents of that unit they will, of course, be entitled to participate in the election which we are directing. ' We have held in many cases that units separately established and certified may be so consolidated by the nature of the bargaining history that a separate unit confined to only one of the original components would be inappropriate . Matter of Standard Brands, In- corporated , 75 N. L . R. B. 394 ; Matter of P. Lorillard Company , Louisville Plant, 58 N. L. R. B. 1112 ; Matter of Bethlehem-Fairfield Shipyard, Inc., 58 N. L. R. B. 579 ; Matter of West Virginia Pulp and Paper Co., 53 N. L. R. B. 814. 6 This statement applies to the miscellaneous employees as well as those at the East. Texas field and the Chapel hill plant , for "miscellaneous " personnel were included in one of the 1942 voting units . The record does not confirm our dissenting colleague's assumption that there have been "no motor inspectors and truck drivers or similar types of employees " among the employees covered by the Oil Workers ' contract. There is , in fact, virtually no evidence as to these or any other specific occupational categories, as the Employer contends only that all 74 employees in the group that includes the "miscella- neous employees" should be balloted separately without attempting to differentiate among them. I It is for this reason that the numerous cases cited in footnote 17 of the dissenting opinion are, in our opinion , inapposite . Furthermore, in none of those cases did any of the parties object , on grounds pertinent here, to the holding of a separate election for one or more groups of employees proposed to be added to an existing unit. In most of those cases , indeed, the petitioner sought an election in the fringe group alone. ° " In determining whether a unit is appropriate for the purposes specified in subsection (b) the extent to which the employees have organized shall not be controlling." Cf. Matter of Lowell Industrial Development Co., 80 N. L . R. B. 1695 ; Matter of Weyer- haeuser Timber Co., 78 N. L. R. B . 1267; Matter of Siuslaw Forest Products Company, Inc., 55 N. L. R. B. 1115; Matter of Pacific Box Company, 50 N. L. R. B. 720. Contrast also, Matter of Chicago Freight Car & Parts Co., 83 N. L. R. B. 1163. 10 Matter of Kaiser Co., Inc ., 55 N. L. R . B. 439. LONE STAR PRODUCING COMPANY 1143 We find that the following employees of the Employer constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act : All employees of the Employer, excluding office-clerical employees, watchmen, guards, professional employees, superintendents and other supervisors as defined in the Act. . DIRECTION OF ELECTION As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the purposes of collective bargaining with the Employer, an election by secret ballot shall be conducted as early as possible, but not later than 30 days from the date of this Direction, under the direction and super- vision of the Regional Director for the Region in which this case was heard, and subject to Sections 203.61 and 203.62 of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations, among the employees in the unit found appropriate in paragraph numbered 4, above, who were employed during the pay-roll period immediately preceding the date of this Direction of Election, including employees who did not work during said pay-roll period because they were ill or on vacation or temporarily laid off, but excluding those employees who have since quit or been discharged for cause and have not been rehired or re- instated prior to the date of the election, and also excluding employees on strike who are not entitled to reinstatement, to determine whether or not they desire to be represented, for purposes of collective bargain- ing, by Oil Workers International Union, CIO. ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition filed herein in Case No. 16- RD-28 be, and it hereby is, dismissed. MEMBER GRAY took no part in the consideration of the above Decision, Direction of Election, and Order. MEMBER REYNOLDS, dissenting in part : I cannot join in the decision of the majority in this case to the extent that it holds that only a single election should be directed for all the employees of the Employer. I do not believe the Board should sanction the inclusion of the employees at the Chapel Hill Plant, the East Texas Production Department or Area and the "miscellaneous employees" (meter inspectors and truck drivers) in the larger cur- rently existing bargaining unit, where they will be a minority, with- out first giving these groups an opportunity to express their desires in a self-determination election. 1144 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD In the past, the Board has always directed an "Armour-type" Globe -election 11 where a union seeks to include within an existing unit, which it currently represents or seeks to represent, a group of em- ployees who theretofore had not been afforded an opportunity to reg- ister a choice as to their bargaining representative.. 2 There are two primary reasons for directing a. self-determination election under these circumstances for the small, previously unrepresented group of employees, rather than a single election for all the employees in- volved. The first is because there is no past bargaining history from which an inference might be drawn of acquiescence in the existing unit. The second is because the Board has not wished to permit the small group of employees to be absorbed into the broad historical bar- gaining unit without affording them an opportunity to express their true desires. Thus, although the small group, if polled separately, might not prefer to be represented by the incumbent union which bar- gains on behalf of the large group, the wishes of the former could be completely thwarted because of the numerical superiority of em- ployees in the latter group. The Board's method of approach with regard to directing an "Ar- mour-type" Globe election has been to confirm initially that the exist- ing unit is appropriate for collective bargaining purposes.13 Once having concluded that the existing unit is appropriate, we have then proceeded to consider ,whether the previously unrepresented group of employees sought to be included is properly a part of the broad historical unit. If so, the Board has given the group a self -determi- nation election. In my opinion, application of the afore-mentioned method of approach to the instant case inevitably leads to the fol- lowing conclusions. The parties by their contracts, conduct with re- spect thereto, and bargaining history based thereon, have established a multi-plant unit of the employees of this Employer, excluding the previously unrepresented groups. The Board has held that such a multi-plant unit is appropriate in a long line of decisions.- The groups of employees at the Chapel Hill Plant, the East Texas Pro- duction Area and the "miscellaneous employees" could properly be part of the established multi-plant unit. They should, therefore, at "See Matter of 4rmour and Company , 40 N. L. R. B. 1333. The type of election directed therein has come to be called in Board parlance an "Armour" Globe. ss See cases cited in the Eleventh Annual Report of the National Labor Relations Board, p. 26; Twelfth Annual Report, p. 20. is Such determination is usually perfunctory because the existing unit has either already been certified by the Board as appropriate or has been established by the parties and there has been a history of bargaining on that basis. 11 See footnote 5, supra; see also footnote 13 in the majority opinion and footnote 24 in my dissenting opinion in Matter of Hygrade Food Products Corporation, 85 N. L. R.. B. 841. LONE STAR PRODUCING COMPANY 1145 least be given a separate election . However, I believe that the inter- ests and identity of these groups are sufficiently distinct to warrant allowing each of them to decide by the votes of their own separate majorities whether or not they desire to become part of the existing unit.15 Thus, I would'favor establishing three separate voting groups for the unrepresented employees16 My colleagues, however, reach an opposite conclusion with regard to the resolution of the questions presented in the instant case. The grounds for their view appear to be three-fold. I shall consider each of them in the order of what I deem to be their relative importance. The majority states that the previously unrepresented groups of employees involved herein are not to be accorded a separate franchise because, in view of the provisions of Section 9 '(c) (5), the Board can- not find that any one of these groups, or all of them together, com- prise a separate appropriate bargaining unit. However, while the qualification in this Section with regard to extent of organization is given consideration when the issue before the Board involves the establishment of a separate appropriate unit, it is not applicable to the present situation. For the ' Board has never specifically held o that a prerequisite for directing an "Armour-type" Globe election is that the group to be added to the existing unit must itself be a bar- gaining unit which could be separately appropriate. On the con- trary, the Board has directed self-determination elections in innu- merable cases where the groups for which such elections were held could not constitute separate appropriate units under established Board precedents and petitions filed for representation of such groups alone would have been dismissed 17 Nor do the cases cited by 15 See Matter of Bell Aircraft Corporation , 61 N. L. It. B. 1352 ; Matter of The Wheland Company, 72 N. L. R. B. 351. 16 In my opinion , the fact that the Petitioner herein seeks a single election covering all the employees of the Employer does not alter the situation to any great extent. If the record clearly showed that the Petitioner desires certification as representative of the employees in the existing unit , despite the fact that it currently represents them, in view of the Board' s decision in Matter of General Box Company, 82 N. L. It. B. 678, I would be inclined to direct a separate election for these employees . In this event, I believe that consistency with past Board precedents would require that a minimum of two separate elections be held, namely , one for employees in the existing unit and another for the unrepresented groups of employees . Under such circumstances I would hold four elec- tions-one each for the three unrepresented groups and one for employees in the existing unit. However , in view of the lack of clarity in the instant record with respect to the Petitioner 's desires , I would not hold an election in the broad historical unit. 17 See, for example , Matter of Watson-Flagg Machine Co., 83 N. L. R. B. 734 ; Matter of General Petroleum Corporation , 83 N. L . R. B. 514; Matter of Kroger Company, 83 N. L. It. B. 343; Matter of Kennecott Copper Corporation , Utah Copper Division, 81 N. L. R. B. 957; Matter of Chrysler Corporation , 80 N. L. It. B. 334; Matter of The James Hanley Company, 79 N. L. It. B. 929; Matter of The Ryan Aeronautical Company, 76 N. L. R. B. 356 ; Matter of Chrysler Corporation , 76 N. L. It. B. 55 ; Matter of Art Metal Construction Company, 75 N. L. It. B . 80; Matter of Rutherford Freight Lines , Inc., 74 N . L. R. B. 1302;. Matter of The P . A. Geier Company, 74 N. L. R. B. 103; Matter of The Sorg Paper Com- 1146 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the majority 19 appear to support its position, as they involved situa- tions where there was an intervenor seeking only the unrepresented group and the Board, therefore, had to determine in the first instance whether or not the group could be a separate appropriate unit as well as part of the existing unit. The majority's second ground is that the employees in question con- stitute only inseparable parts of the Employer's total working force, that is, merely accretions to the existing unit and not "distinct fringe groups." This view implies that before a group can be accorded a self-determination election, the Board must first determine that it is at least it "distinct fringe group." However, as I have heretofore pointed out, the Board has not utilized such a limited test in the past, but has only considered the kind of group involved in order to ascer- tain whether or not it could properly be made part of the existing unit. Moreover, even if this criterion were applied to the instant case, I do not believe that the facts present herein justify the conclusion drawn by my colleagues. In my opinion, the meter inspectors and truck drivers constitute so-called "fringe" groups which we have often accorded an "Armour-type" Globe election because of their past exclu- sion from the contract unit 19 Furthermore, it is difficult for me to pang, 74 N. L. R. B. 5; Matter of International Detrola Corporation , 73 N. L. R. B. 1358; Matter of The Long-Bell Lumber Company, 72 N. L. R. B. 890; Matter of The Wheland Company, 72 N. L. It. B. 351 ; Matter of Emsco Derrick ct Equipment Company, 72 N. L. It. B. 378; Matter of Blair Limestone Company, 70 N. L. It. B. 689; Matter of Union Manufacturing Company, 69 N. L. R. B. 640; Matter of Willamette Valley Lumber Com- pany, 69 N . L. It. B. 1141 ; Matter of Virginia Electric and Power Company, 66 N. L. It. B. 271; Matter of Armour and Company, 64 N. L. R. B. 290 ; Matter of Ball Brothers Com- pany, 64 N . L. It. B. 153; Matter of Briggs Manufacturing Company, 63 N. L. It. B. 860 ; Matter of Bell Aircraft Corporation , 61 N. L. R. B. 1352; Matter of Armour and Company, 61 N. L. It. B. 758; Matter of Union Stock Yards ,& Transit Company of Chicago, 60 N. L. R. B. 115; Matter .of Kimberly- Clark Corporation, 59 N. L. R . B. 780; Matter of Phillips Petroleum Company, 57 N. L. R. B. 1100; Matter of The Lowell Bleachery , Inc., 56 N. L. it. B. 1408 . Although In a few of the foregoing cases, the Board has conducted such elections where the unrepresented groups could possibly have constituted appropriate units by themselves, it has been merely a matter of coincidence and this factor was not referred to by the Board as the reason for directing an election in any of these cases. Further- more, I disagree for the following reasons with the majority 's argument in footnote 7 that these cases are Inapposite :. ( 1) In practically all situations where the Board directs an "Armour" Globe election , as it was in most of the cases cited herein , it is "historical accident" and not a real difference In function or status which has caused the previously unrepresented group to be excluded from the contract unit; ( 2) If we are to adopt the distinction made by the majority between most of the foregoing cases and the Instant case, to wit , that the particular petitioner sought an election in the fringe group alone whereas here the election is sought in the broader unit, we are indicating that henceforth the Board will decide whether or not to permit an "Armour" Globe election based upon the position taken by the union. Thus, if the Petitioner requests an election in the fringe group alone , the Board will grant such election . On the other hand, if the Petitioner seeks an election in the broader unit, the Board will hold an election in that unit . I cannot concur with any such rule which substitutes the desires of one of the parties for the Board's determination as to the type of election which should be held. ^" See footnote 9, supra. " See footnote 17, supra. LONE STAR PRODUCING COMPANY 1147 comprehend how the majority can seriously assert that the employees working in the Chapel Hill Plant and the East Texas Production Area -do not constitute distinct groups. The Board has always deemed that employees in a plant or distinct 'operation, such as the production area involved herein, which is physically disconnected from other plants or operations, represent a most readily identifiable group which has often been found to constitute a separate appropriate unit. Nor does it appear to me that characterizing any of the groups involved in this case as an accretion is an apposite description, especially with regard to the meter inspectors and truck drivers. An accretion is the addi- tion to an existing unit of categories of employees similar to those already part of the unit.20 Here, there is no evidence which in my opinion warrants the inference drawn by the majority that meter inspectors and truck drivers or similar types of employees have been included in the contract unit in this case. Clearly meter inspectors and truck drivers have at all times been an integral part of the Employer's operations during the period when the parties were bar- gaining for the employees included in the contract unit. The final ground asserted by my colleagues is that the original piece- meal units of all the Employer's employees have been effectively merged into a single group and, therefore, the company-wide unit is appropriate. It is true that we have often held that where there has been bargaining history on a multi-plant basis, a separate unit limited to only one of the plant is inappropriate.21 In these decisions, all the plants which comprise the multi-plant unit already had an es- tablished history of bargaining on that basis. However, in no case had the Board found, as the majority is apparently doing here, that where bargaining history on a multi-plant basis has been limited to only some of the Employer's plants or operations, it is sufficient to warrant the inclusion in the multi-plant unit of employees in new plants or operations and categories of employees which had not been previously represented in that unit without allowing such groups an "Armour-type" Globe election .22 20 See footnote 10, supra. 21 See footnote 14, supra. 22 In this connection , the cases referred to by the majority in footnote 4, supra, are not in point. In Matter of Acme Freight, Inc., Matter of American Viscose Corporation, and Matter of Shell Chemical Corporation, the Board found single-plant units sought inappro- priate because of bargaining history on a multi-plant basis. In Matter of Kansas- Nebraska Natural Gas Company , Inc., Matter of C. Pappas Company, Inc., and Matter of Brown Express, et al., the Board found single-plant units sought inappropriate because factors, such as integration of the particular employer's operations , were present , indicat- ing the propriety of establishing only multi -plant units and there was no bargaining history involved on either a single- or multi -plant basis. 1148 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD In view of all the circumstances in this case, I believe that separate self-determination elections should be held for each of the groups involved herein and, as indicated, I would not direct an election for the currently represented employees in absence of a request for such election.