Magnolia Pipe Line Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsMar 26, 1965

151 N.L.R.B. 1239 (N.L.R.B. 1965)

MAGNOLIA PIPE LINE COMPANY 1239 3. Within 10 days from the date of this Decision and Determina- tion of Dispute, International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers, Local 3, AFL-CIO, shall notify the Regional Director for Region 6, in writing, whether or not it will refrain from forcing or requiring Brayman Construction Company by means proscribed by Section 8 (b) (4) (D) of the Act, to assign work in dispute to its members, rather than to employees represented by United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local 2274, AFL-CIO. Magnolia Pipe Line Company and Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers International Union , AFL-CIO.' Case No. 16-R-1130. March 26, 1965 DECISION AND ORDER DENYING PETITION On June 4, 1945, Oil Workers International Union, AFL-CIO, herein called the Union, was certified as the bargaining representative of a unit of operating and maintenance employees of the Employer's pipelines, with certain exclusions. Among the employees included in the unit were the dispatchers and the assistant dispatchers. On December 12, 1950, the National Labor Relations Board issued an order amending certification, excluding certain other classifications. On October 5, 1964, the Employer filed a petition to clarify certifi- cation, seeking the exclusion from the certified unit of all dispatchers at its Dallas general office. On October 23, 1964, the Union filed an opposition to the petition. On November 20, 1964, the Board issued an order directing hearing, referring the matter to the Regional Director for Region 16, and directing that a hearing be held for the purpose of taking testimony on the issues raised by the Employer's petition and the Union's opposition thereto. A hearing was held on December 17, 1964, before Hearing Officer T. Lowry Whittaker. The Hearing Officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from preju- dicial error and are hereby affirmed. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Fanning and Brown]. At the time of the Board's original decision in this proceeding,2 the primary duty of the dispatchers was to control and direct the 1 As amended at the hearing 2 At the hearing, the Hearing Officer requested that the Employer make available to the Board the job descriptions of dispatchers and assistant dispatchers prior to the automation of the system Such descriptions have been submitted (with copies to the Union) and are hereby admitted into evidence 151 NLRB No. 122. 1240 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD movement of oil through the pipeline system, using telephone and telegraph equipment, and to a degree merely following the direc- tions of supervisors. Since that time the control of the system has been in large part automated. As a result the dispatchers now regulate the pumping system by remote control, operating from control panels in Dallas rather than by relaying instructions, and using their own discretion to a greater extent than formerly. Despite the change in the way they do their work, the dispatchers still are engaged in essentially the same function they performed when the Board, in 1945, held them to be operational employees properly included in the unit. It may well be that the operation of the automated control system makes the dispatchers technical employees. However, even if they are, we believe, contrary to the position of the Employer and Inter venor, that the community of interest which impelled their original inclusion in the unit has not been destroyed by the change in which they perform the same function .3 [The Board denied the petition to clarify certification.] 8 See The Sheffield Corporation, 134 NLRB 1101, 1103-1104. Smeco Industries , Inc. and International Brotherhood of Boiler- makers, Iron Shipbuilders , Blacksmiths , Forgers and Helpers, AFL-CIO. Case No. 13-CA-612. March 29, 1965 DECISION AND ORDER On November 12, 1964, Trial Examiner William J. Brown issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that Respond- ent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor prac- tices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Exami- ner's Decision. The Trial Examiner also found that Respondent had not engaged in certain other unfair labor practices and recommended dismissal of the complaint as to them. Thereafter the Respondent filed exceptions to that portion of the Trial Examiner's Decision in which it was found to have violated the Act and filed a brief in support thereof. The General Counsel filed cross-exceptions to the Trial Examiner's failure to make certain findings and conclusions and filed briefs in support thereof and in support of the remainder of the Trial Examiner's Decision. 151 NLRB No. 123.