National Refining Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 4, 1938

5 N.L.R.B. 794 (N.L.R.B. 1938)

In the Matter of NATIONAL REFINING COMPANY and OIL WORKERS
INTERNATIONAL UNION, LOCAL No. 420
Case No. R-576.-Decided March 4, 1938
Oil Refining Industry-Investigation of Representatives : controversy con-
cerning representation of employees : refusal by employer to recognize union
as the exclusive bargaining agent until question of representation determined
by Board-Unit Appropriate for Collective Bargaining : community of interest-
Representatives : proof of choice : applications for membership in union-
^Certification of Representatives : upon proof of majority representation.
Mr. Peter Di Leone, for the Board.
Tolles, Hogsett, d Ginn, by Mr. Thomas M. Harmon, of Cleve-
land, Ohio, for the Company.
Mr. Edwin L. Swope, of counsel to the Board. -
DECISION
AND
CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On December 3, 1937, Oil Workers International Union, Local No.
420, herein called the Union, filed with the Regional Director for
the Eighth Region (Cleveland, Ohio) a petition alleging that a
question affecting commerce had arisen concerning the representa-
tion of employees of National Refining Company, Findlay, Ohio,
herein called the Company, and requesting an investigation and
certification of representatives pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the
National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act.
On December 22, 1937, the National Labor Relations Board, herein
called the Board, acting pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the Act and
Article III, Section 3, of National Labor Relations Board Rules
and Regulations-Series 1, as amended, ordered an investigation and
authorized the Regional Director to conduct it and to provide for an
appropriate hearing upon due notice.
On January 17, 1938, the Regional Director issued a notice of hear-
ing, copies of which were duly served upon the Company and upon
the Union. Pursuant to the notice, a hearing was held on January
25, 1938, at Findlay, Ohio, before Waldo C. Holden, the Trial Ex-
aminer duly designated by the Board. The Board and the Company
794
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 795
were represented by counsel and participated in the hearing. Full,
opportunity to be heard, to examine and to cross-examine witnesses,
and, to introduce evidence bearing on the issues was afforded all par-
ties. During the course of the hearing the Trial Examiner made-
several rulings on motions and on objections to the admission of evi-
dence. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner
and finds that no prejudicial errors were committed. The rulings
are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in the case the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
The Company, originally organized in 1882 as a Delaware cor-
poration, became an Ohio corporation about 1933. It is engaged in
the refining, transporting, and marketing of petroleum products, and
operates refineries at Findlay, Ohio, Coffeyville, Kansas, and Marietta,
Ohio. The present case involves only the refinery located at Findlay;
where there are employed approximately 175 persons.
All the crude petroleum used by the Company comes to the Find-
]ay refinery by pipe lines from States other than Ohio. Five to. ten
per cent of the finished product of the Company is shipped outside
of Ohio. The Company has not questioned the jurisdiction of the;
Board.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Oil Workers International Union, Local No. 420, is a labor
organization, affiliated with the Committee for Industrial Organiza-
tion, admitting to membership all refinery employees at the Findlay
plant, excluding clerical, supervisory and sales employees, engineers,
and masons.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The Union claims to represent a majority of the employees in the
Company's refinery at Findlay, Ohio. The Company has indicated
its unwillingness to recognize the Union as the exclusive bargaining
agent unless the Board certifies that the Union represents a majority
of the Company's employees.
We find that a question has arisen concerning representation of
employees of the Company.
IT., THE: EFFECT OF THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
UPON COMMERCE
We find that the question concerning representation which has,
arisen , occurring in connection with the operations of the Company
796 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
described in Section I above, has a close, intimate , and substantial
relation to trade, traffic , and commerce among the several States,
and tends to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing com-
merce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
The bargaining unit, alleged appropriate by the Union, is a unit
composed of all employees of the Refinery , excluding supervisory and
clerical employees . Representatives of the Union indicated at the
hearing that they deemed it appropriate also to exclude from the unit
sales employees , engineers , and masons.
The Union contends that 0. Beckwith and C. J. Moomey, classified
by the Company as employees of the production unit of the plant,
should not be included in the unit due to the fact that their work is
clerical in nature . Beckwith is employed in the storeroom. His
duties are to wait on employees as they come to get such materials
as may be necessary to their work. He makes a record of who gets
the material and how much . Moomey is employed in the car shop.
He has a position similar to Beckwith's in that he gets parts for
employees and keeps records.
The Company objects to Merlin Jeffrey being included in the unit
due,to the fact that he is an employee of the Sales Department. His
duties are to repair tank trucks and trucks that are used only in the
Refinery. We feel that on the basis of all the facts , the interests of
Beckwith, Moomey, and Jeffrey are closely related to those of the
employees in the bargaining unit and we shall , therefore , include
them within the unit.
We find that the employees of the Findlay Refinery excluding
clerical , supervisory and sales employees , engineers , and masons, con-
stitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining
and that said unit will insure to employees of the Company the full
benefit of their right to self-organization and to collective bargaining
and otherwise effectuate the policies of the Act.
VI. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
There was introduced in evidence at the hearing a list of the em-
ployees of the Company at the Findlay plant as of the pay-roll period
ending December 3, 1937, excluding foremen, sales, and office workers.
The list contained the names of two masons and one engineer who,
we have found, should not be included within the bargaining unit.
If the names of the two masons and the engineer are excluded from
the list and the name of Jeffrey, who was employed during such
period, is added, the list contains the names of all employees at the
Findlay plant within the appropriate unit as of the pay-roll period
ending December 3. Such employees number 178.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 797
The Union submitted in evidence 137 membership application cards.
The Company made no objection to the cards. A comparison of
such cards and the Company's list of refinery employees as of Decem-
ber 3, revised as indicated above, shows that 133 employees whose
names -appear on the application cards were employed Within the
appropriate unit at the Findlay plant during the aforesaid period.
Three of the signers could not be identified as employees of the
Company. One application card, which was not signed, had the
name of a person printed thereon who could not be identified as an
employee of the Company. Nine other application cards were not
signed by employees, but merely had the name of the employee
printed thereon. Two of the cards were dated after December 3,
1937.
Even if these cards are eliminated from consideration there is clear
evidence that 122 of the 178 employees within the appropriate unit
desire representation by the Union.
We find that the Union has been designated and selected by a ma-
jority of the employees in the appropriate unit as their representative
for the purpose of collective bargaining. It is, therefore, the exclusive
representative of all the employees in such unit for the purposes of col-
lective bargaining, and we will so certify.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire
record in the case, the Board makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. A question affecting commerce has arisen concerning the repre-
sentation of employees of National Refining Company, Findlay, Ohio,
within the meaning of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the
National Labor Relations Act.
2. The employees of the Refinery, excluding clerical, supervisory
and sales employees, engineers, 'and masons, constitute a unit appro-
priate for the purposes of collective bargaining, within the meaning
of Section 9 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act.
3. Oil Workers International Union, Local No. 420, is the exclusive
representative of all the employees in such unit for the purposes of
collective bargaining, within the meaning of Section 9 (a) of the
National Labor Relations Act.
CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
By virtue of and pursuant to the power vested in the National
Labor Relations Board by Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, and pursuant to Article III, Section 8, of National Labor
Relations Rules and Regulations-Series 1, as amended,
IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that Oil Workers International Union, Local
No. 420, has been designated and selected by a majority of the em-
798 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ployees of National Refining Company, Findlay, Ohio, excluding
clerical, supervisory and sales employees, engineers, and masons, as
their representative for the purpose of collective bargaining and that,
pursuant to the provisions of Section 9 (a) of the Act, Oil Workers
International Union, Local No. 420, is the exclusive representative of
all such employees for the purposes of•collective bargaining in respect
to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of
employment.