Standard Oil Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 30, 1964

147 N.L.R.B. 1226 (N.L.R.B. 1964)

1226 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
employees involved. Since there is only one assistant production
superintendent-stock preparation, who is present during only one shift
a day, a supervisory vacuum would result if no one exercised supervi-
sory authority over these employees on the other shifts. The record
does not establish that any employees other than the shift foremen
possess sufficient authority to fill this vacuum.
In view of the above considerations, the record clearly supports a
finding that the shift foremen-stock preparation are supervisors with-
in the meaning of the Act and should therefore be excluded from the
bargaining unit?
8 West Virginia Pulp and Paper Company, 140 NLRB 951 ; West Virginia Pulp and
Paper Company, 96 NLRB 871 ; cf. United States Gypsum Company, 116 NLRB 656,
,659-660.
Standard Oil Company and Truck Drivers & Helpers Local
Union No. 728, affiliated with the International Brotherhood
of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of
America, Petitioner . Case No. 10-RC-5800. June 30, 1964
DECISION ON REVIEW
On March 4, 1964, the Regional Director for the 'Tenth Region
issued a Decision and Direction of Election in the above-entitled
proceeding, finding appropriate a separate unit of truckdrivers at
the Employer's Doraville, Georgia, bulk fuel terminal. Thereafter,
the Employer, in accordance with Section 102.67 of the Board's Rules
and Regulations, as amended, filed with the Board a timely request
for review of such Decision and Direction of Election on the ground
that the unit is inappropriate under officially reported Board precedent
and prejudicially affected the rights of the Employer and its em-
ployees. On March 30,1964, the Board, by telegraphic Order, granted
the request for review and stayed the scheduled election.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel [Members Leedom, Brown, and Jenkins].
The Board has considered the entire record in the case with respect
to the Regional Director's determination under review and makes the
following findings :
The Petitioner requests a separate unit of truckdrivers at the Em-
ployer's Doraville, Georgia, plant, excluding all other employees. In
the alternative, it is willing to represent any other unit found to be
appropriate. The Employer contends that only a unit composed of all
employees at the terminal is appropriate.
147 NLRB No. 156.
STANDARD OIL COMPANY 1227
The Employer is engaged in the sale and distribution of petroleum
products including diesel fuel, heating fuel, gasoline, and kerosene,
which are stored at the terminal prior to distribution. Eighteen truck-
-drivers, 8 plant clerks, 2 mechanics, 1 maintenance man, and 1 laborer
:are employed at Doraville. All these employees work under the super-
vision of the superintendent and the assistant superintendent.' All
regular employees, including the truckdrivers, work the same number
,of hours, are paid on the same monthly salary basis,2 and all receive
.,overtime pay. All employees are under the same pension plan, hospi-
talization program, and stock plan, and all report to the same loca-
tion at the start of each shift. There is no history of bargaining
concerning the Doraville location 3
The Employer's operations are heaviest during the months of No-
vember, December, January, and February. During this period the
-drivers generally spend 75 percent of their time away from the plant,
-driving trucks. The remaining 25 percent is usually spent at the yard
,loading and unloading, fixing flat tires, changing oil, etc., on their
,own trucks as well as others, and in the performance of paperwork.
Unlike the other terminal employees, drivers are required to wear uni-
forms and are subject to ICC regulations. There is a decrease in
business from March to October, resulting in a slack period during
which the Employer generally schedules vacations. As a consequence,
:during the slack period, some plant clerks drive trucks, and some
,drivers are assigned to the loading rack (regularly attended by load-
ing clerks) to load common carriers, and to relieve plant clericals
-on vacation. Drivers frequently perform relief 'in "clerical" jobs,
.depending on the volume of business. 'During a 6-month period
'surveyed by the Employer, four of the truckdrivers were assigned to
.the'loading racks for periods totaling 2861/4 hours, during which time
,,they - replaced clerks and performed all of the plant-clerical duties
ras well as loading and unloading. During these periods they appar-
-ently did no driving.
The plant clericals are informally classified as "loading clerks,"
_"terminal clerks," and "plant clerks" ; and employees within each clas-
sification are trained to, and in fact, perform any of the duties of the
other classifications. The "loading clerks" physically load trucks,
assist the "terminal clerks" in gauging storage tanks, wash trucks,
1 The parties stipulated that the superintendent and the assistant superintendent are
-supervisors within the meaning of the Act. All supervision for the terminal is lodged in
these two.
2 Variations in salary are determined solely by length of service.
8 In Regional Director's decisions not published in NLRB volumes, overall units at two
of the Employer 's terminals were found appropriate (Case No. 12-RC-1400 , issued
March 23, 1962 ; Case No. 10-RC-5281, issued July 18, 1962 )., In each of those cases
the unit was agreed upon by the parties.
1228 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and help the drivers in changing oil. The "terminal clerks" gauge
storage tanks, assist the drivers in keeping the latter's records, wash
trucks when work is slow, and also help the drivers load the trucks
or change tires. The primary functions of the "plant clerk" are to
dispatch the plant drivers and keep a record of plant sales; he also,
assists the "terminal clerks" and "loading clerks" with their office-
work, relieves them on vacations, and helps load or wash trucks, or
change tires. The "plant clerk" regularly drives a plant truck 2 or
3 days a month. Other plant clericals drive trucks when there is a
high degree of absenteeism due to sickness or vacations. None of the
other employees regularly drive trucks, although the laborer may
hostle trucks in the terminal yard, and the maintenance man may per-
form substitute driving.
The two mechanics work in the garage where they repair and
maintain the Employer's trucks. They also perform emergency re-
pairs. The maintenance man greases valves and performs other gen-
eral maintenance work in the storage tank area and on the loading
rack. He also works in the garage, helping the drivers change tires and
oil the trucking equipment. The laborer likewise works in the garage
helping the drivers change tires and oil vehicles; in addition, he cleans
up, and cuts weeds in, the terminal yard.
Although the Board has found in appropriate cases that truck-
drivers may constitute separate, appropriate units, such findings were
based upon evidence that the drivers involved constituted functionally
distinct and homogeneous groups whose duties and interests were
different and distinct from those of the employer's other employees.4
In this case, there is no basis for such finding. As shown above,
the drivers regularly spend a substantial amount of their time in the
performance of the same functions as other employees at the terminal,
some of whom, likewise, perform driving duties. Drivers, along with
all other employees, are under common supervision, are paid on the
same basis, and have the same employee benefits. Although the truck-
drivers, unlike other employees, are required, when driving, to wear
uniforms and are subject to ICC regulations, in all other respects
their terms and conditions of employment are the same as those of
the other employees. In our opinion it is clear from the foregoing
that the truckdrivers and the plant employees share a close com-
munity of interests and are so functionally integrated as to preclude
the representation of the truckdrivers in a unit apart from the plant
employees.' Accordingly, we find, contrary to the Regional Director,
that the truckdrivers do not constitute a separate appropriate unit.
* Reichhold Chemicals, Inc., 126 NLRB 619, 620; Ballentine Packing Company, Inc.,
132 NLRB 923, 925.
B See Sylvania Electric Products, Inc., 135 NLRB 768, 770 ; Tops Chemical Company,
137 NLRB 736, 737; Philco Corporation , 146 NLRB 867.
AIR CONTROL PRODUCTS, INC. 1229
As the Petitioner is willing, however, to represent all the employees
at the terminal in a single unit, we shall amend the unit description
and find that the following employees constitute an appropriate unit
for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Sec-
tion 9(b) of theAct: 6
All employees of the Employer at its Doraville, Georgia, bulk fuel
terminal, excluding casual employees, guards, superintendent, assist-
ant superintendent, and all other supervisors as defined in the Act.
The case is hereby remanded to the Regional Director for the Tenth
Region for the purpose of conducting an election in the above appro-
priate unit pursuant to his Direction of Election, except that the eligi-
bility period shall be the payroll period immediately preceding
June 30,1964.
"The unit found appropriate is larger than that sought by the Petitioner and neither
the exact size of the unit nor the exact interest of the Petitioner in the unit is clear from
the record before us . Accordingly , we instruct the Regional Director not to proceed with
the election herein directed until he shall have first determined that the Petitioner has
made an adequate showing of interest among the employees in the appropriate unit who
are eligible to vote in the election . Foremost Dairies, Inc., 118 NLRB 1424 , 1428, at
footnote 7.
In the event the Petitioner does not wish to participate in an election in such a unit,
we shall permit it to withdraw its petition upon notice to the Regional Director within
5 days from he date of issuance of the Direction and shall thereupon vacate the Direction
of Election.
Air Control Products , Inc. and United Steelworkers of America;
AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 124C-1630. June 30, 1964
DECISION ON REVIEW AND DIRECTION OF NEW
RUNOFF ELECTION
On May 2, 1963, the Regional Director for the Twelfth Region
issued a Decision and Direction of Election in the above-entitled
proceeding. ' Pursuant thereto, an election was conducted on June 7,
1963, in the unit found appropriate. Because none of the three choices
on the ballot received a majority, a runoff election was conducted on
June 21, 1963, between the Intervenor, Airco Employees Association,
Inc., and the Petitioner. At the conclusion of the runoff election, the
parties were furnished a tally of ballots, which showed that of ap-
proximately 394 eligible voters, 328 cast valid ballots, of which 125
were for the Petitioner, 194 were for the Intervenor, and 9 cast chal-
lenged ballots. The challenged ballots were insufficient in number to
affect the election results. Thereafter, the Petitioner filed timely ob-
jections to conduct affecting the results of the election.
In accordance with the Board's Rules and Regulations, the Acting
Regional Director conducted an investigation and on August 9, 1963,
issued and duly served upon the parties a Supplemental Decision,
147 NLRB No. 165.