Shell Oil Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 11, 1947

72 N.L.R.B. 516 (N.L.R.B. 1947)

In the Matter of SHELL OIL COMPANY, INCORPORATED, EMPLOYER and
MIDDLESEX PETROLEUM WORKERS ASSOCIATION, PETITIONER
Case No. 1-R-3410.---Decided February 11, 1947
Mr. John C. Quilty, of New York City; for the Employer.
Messrs. Leo Concannon and David Concannon, of Boston, Mass., for
the Petitioner.
Mr. Raymond L. Clark, of New York City, for the Intervenor.
Mr. Edmund J. Flynn, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed, hearing in this case was held at Boston,
Massachusetts, on November 27, 1946, before Leo J. Halloran, hearing
officer. The hearing officer'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. TIIE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
Shell Oil Company, Incorporated, a Virginia corporation having
its principal offices in New York City, is engaged in producing, refin-
ing, and distributing oil and oil products, owning and operating oil
fields and refineries in Texas, Louisiana, Kansas, Illinois, Indiana,
Oklahoma, and New Mexico. The Employer markets these products
through country-wide bulk distribution plants, two of which located
at Cambridge and Waltham, Massachusetts, are involved in this pro-
ceeding. The Employer annually ships oil and oil products, valued in
excess of $1,000,000, from its fields and refineries to its Cambridge
and Waltham, Massachusetts, plants, for sale and distribution in the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts and adjacent States.
The Employer admits and we find that it is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
72 N. L. R B., No. 96.
516
SHELL OIL COMPANY, INCORPORATED
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
517
The Petitioner is a labor organization, claiming to represent em-
ployees of the Employer?
Oil Workers International Union, Local 542, herein called the Inter-
venor, is a labor organization affiliated with the Congress of Industrial
Organizations, claiming to represent employees of the Employer.
111. 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 certifi3d 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 meaning
of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.2
IN. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
Seeking to represent all marketing department operating employees
of the Employer's Cambridge and Waltham plants, including auto-
motive mechanics, driver salesmen, yardmen, car washers, and watch-
men, but excluding supervisory personnel, the Petitioner asks that,
should it be chosen as bargaining agent in an election among these
employees, they be merged into a single unit with the dispatchers,
cashiers, and clerical employees of the Cambridge and Waltham plants
whom it now represents. But the Intervenor contends that the em-
ployees here sought by the Petitioner constitute a separate appropri-
ate unit, and opposes their consolidation with the workers now repre-
sented by the Petitioner. No position is taken by the Employer with
respect to the issue thus raised.
Dispatchers, cashiers, and clerical employees are known as "inside"
workers, whereas the employees directly concerned in this proceeding
are known as "outside" workers. The inside employees are in reality
' At the hearing, the Intervenor refused to stipulate that the Petitioner was a labor
organization within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act. But the record
shows that the Petitioner was organized more than 2 years ago for the purposes of repre-
senting certain of the Employer's employees in collective bargaining negotiations with the
Employer, that the Petitioner adopted a constitution and bylaws and elected officers ;
and that following a consent election held on May 2, 1945, under Board auspices, the Peti-
tioner was designated by the Regional Director as collective bargaining representative of
the Employer's dispatchers, cashiers, and clerical employees. This evidence clearly indi-
cates that the Petitioner is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of
the Act.
2 A contract between the Employer and the Intervenor is not raised as a bar to an elec-
tion, nor could it be, for the Petitioner apprised the Employer of its rival claim to repre-
sentation before the 1946 operative date of the automatic renewal clause in the contract
and filed its petition in this case within 10 days after the claim was made. Moreover, the
Employer effectively forestalled automatic renewal of the contract by seasonably notifying
the Intervenor of its desire to terminate the agreement.
5IS DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
an office clerical group, and the outside workers are in effect It produc-
tion and maintenance group.' It is true that the inside and outside
employees work similar hours, receive similar vacation and sick bene-
fits, and are paid on the same basis, but there are fundamental differ- -
ences in work and interests between the inside or "white collar" group
and the outside group. And these differences, we have found in
numerous analogous cases,4 preclude the inclusion in a single unit
of both groups of workers.
Moreover, since May 1945, the Petitioner has represented the in-
side group and the Intervenor has represented the outside group, in
separate units.b With this bargaining history as an added element,
we are persuaded that the merger desired by the Petitioner should be
denied.
We find that all marketing department operating employees of the
Employer's Cambridge and Waltham, Massachusetts, plants, includ-
ing automotive mechanics, driver salesmen, yardsmen, car washers,
and watchmen, but excluding dispatchers, cashiers, clerical employees,
and all supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote, dis=
charge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of em-
ployees, or effectively recommend such action, constitute a unit ap-
propriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning
of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the
purposes of collective bargaining with Shell Oil Company, Incor-
porated, Boston, Massachusetts, 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 First Region, acting in this matter
as agent for the National Labor Relations Board, and subject to Sec-
tions 203.55 and 203.56, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and
Regulations-Series 4, among the employees in the unit found ap-
propriate in Section IV, above, who were employed during the pay-
roll period immediately preceding the date of this Direction, includ-
ing employees who did not work during said pay-roll period because
3 Although dispatchers in the inside group have some contact with the drivers in the
outside group because they distribute delivery orders to dnvers, this work, their mainte-
nance of records of these deliveries, their issuance of loading orders to customers, and their
other work, which is purely of a clerical nature, indicate that their interests lie with those
of the cashiers and clerical employees
4 See e g , Matter of Beeco Company, 71 N L R B. 692 , Matter of Edward G Budd
Manufacturing Company, 68 N. L R. B. 153, and Matter of Riggs Optical Company, Con-
solidated, 67 N L R B 565
5 Such representation stemmed from consent elections conducted under Board auspices
Case No 1-R-2430 with reference to the inside group ( see also fn. 1, supra) and Case
No 1-R-2429 with reference to the outside group.
SHELL OIL COMPANY , INCORPORATED 519
they were ill or on vacation or temporarily laid off, and including
employees 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 elate of the election, to determine whether0
they desire to be represented by Middlesex Petroleum Workers Asso-
ciation, or by Oil Workers International Union, Local 542, C. I. 0.,
for the purposes of collective bargaining, or by neither.