Standard Oil Co. of California

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 22, 1945

63 N.L.R.B. 471 (N.L.R.B. 1945)

In the Matter Of STANDARD OIL COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA and On,
WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION ORGANIZING CAMPAIGN, CIO
Case No. 21-R-2500.--Decided August 22, 1945
Mr. John M. Hall, of Los Angeles, Calif., for the Company.
Mr. Lindsay P. Walden, of Fort Worth, Tex., and Mr. W. B. Taylor,
of El Segundo, Calif., for the Oil Workers.
Messrs. Rufus Bailey and Arlo D. Poe, of Los Angeles, Calif., for
the Independent.
Mr. W. F. McConnell, of Alameda, Calif., for the Boilermakers.
Mr. Nick Cordil, of Los Angeles, Calif., for the Carpenters.
Mr. Albert Weisbord, of Washington, D. C., for the Engineers.
Mr. Herbert Ely, of Los Angeles, Calif., for the Culinary Workers.
Mr. C.8. McKinley, of Southgate, Calif., for the Plumbers.
Mrs. Augusta Spaulding, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon an amended petition duly filed by Oil Workers International
Union Organizing Campaign, CIO, an organizing agency or facility
of Oil Workers International Union, herein called the Oil Workers,
alleging that a question affecting commerce had arisen concerning the
representation of employees of Standard Oil Company of California,
El Segundo, California, herein called the Company, the National Labor
Relations Board provided for an appropriate hearing upon due notice
before Maurice J. Nicoson, Trial Examiner.' Said hearing was held
,The Company contends that it was denied an "appropriate" hearing, on the grounds
(1) that the Trial Examiner appeared for the Board in the instant case in a dual capacity,
interrogating witnesses and also ruling upon the admissibility of evidence and motions
presented to him, and ( 2) that Maurice J. Nicoson , who served as attorney for the Board
In Matter of Standard Oil Company of California , Case No. 21-C-2167, a complaint pro-
ceeding more particularly discussed in Section IV, below, served as Trial Examiner in the
Instant proceeding and that this fact per se constitutes prejudice against the Company.
We find no merit In these contentions
In complaint hearings , a Board attorney formally presents evidence which bears upon
the commitment of violations charged in the complaint A Trial Examiner , appointed by
the Board , serves in a judicial capacity at the complaint hearing and thereafter incorpo-
63 N: L. R. B., No. 73.
471
472 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
at Los Angeles, California, on June 8, 18, and 19, 1945. The Com-
pany; the Oil Workers; Independent Union of Petroleum Workers,
herein called the Independent; International Union of Operating
Engineers, herein called the Engineers; Culinary Workers and Bar-
tenders Union, Local 814, herein called the Culinary Workers; United
Association of Plumbers and Steamfitters, Local No. 550, A. F. of L.,
herein called the Plumbers; Los Angeles District Counsel of Carpen-
ters of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America,
herein called the Carpenters; and International Brotherhood of Boiler-
makers, Iron Shipbuilders and Helpers, herein called the Boiler-
makers,2 appeared and participated. All parties were afforded full
opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and
to introduce evidence bearing on the issues. During the course of the
hearing, and again in its brief, the Company, on numerous grounds,
moved to dismiss this proceeding. For reasons set forth below, the
motion is denied. The Trial Examiner's rulings made at the hearing
are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. All parties
were afforded opportunity to file briefs with the Board. The Com-
pany's motion for oral argument is hereby denied.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
Standard Oil Company of California is engaged in the production,
refining, transportation , sale, and distribution of petroleum and pe-
troleum products . The Company, through its subsidiaries and affili-
ates, owns extensive oil lands throughout the United States and foreign
rates his rulings , findings, and recommendations in an Intermediate Report , which issues as
an official document in the case and constitutes part of the formal record therein. The
Board itself , upon the entire record , makes the final findings and issues an appropriate
order. In this way, the dual responsibilities resting upon the Board in complaint pro-
ceedings are respectively served at the hearing and at each stage of the proceedings In
usual representation proceedings , however, which are merely investigatory in character
and from which no final order issues, a single representative of the Board is all that is
normally required to place in the record facts necessary for the determination of the issues.
The "Trial Examiners Statement in It-Cases ," duly served upon the parties , makes clear
his neutral functions and responsibilities Since the Board necessarily makes its determi-
nation upon the facts adduced , and not upon any other criterion , the identity of the Trial
Examiner is a matter of indifference , and the only material questions are (1) whether,
through his rulings and general conduct of the hearing , all parties had ample opportunity
to present in orderly and suitable manner matters pertinent to the issues and (2 ) that the
entire record fully discloses the evidence required for a proper disposition of the issues
The duty of the Trial Examiner in representation cases is thus to present a complete
record , upon which the Board , and not the Trial Examiner , may in the first instance
determine the facts and predicate thereon pertinent conclusions
The instant record does not disclose that any party to these proceedings was denied an
opportunity to introduce evidence pertinent to the issues
2 The Boilermakers appeared solely to protect its interest with respect to a contract with
the Company covering certain employees more particularly described below, and not to
make any other contention as to the issues within.
STANDARD OIL COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA 473
'-countries: The Company owns and operates refineries at Richmond,
Bakersfield, and El Segundo, California, and, through subsidiaries,
operates certain refineries in Texas and in British Columbia, Canada.
During the past year the total amount of crude oil run through its
California refineries, which resulted in the manufacture of many dif-
ferent kinds of products, was in excess of 75,000,000 barrels. A sub-
stantial portion of the finished products was shipped in interstate
,commerce.3
We find that the Company is engaged in commerce, within the
meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
11. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Oil Workers International Union Organizing Campaign is an or-
ganizing facility or agency of Oil Workers International Union, a
labor organization affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Or-
,ganizafions, admitting to membership employees of the Company.4
Independent Union of Petroleum Workers is an unaffiliated labor
organization, admitting to membership employees of the Company.
International Union of Operating Engineers, United Association
:of Plumbers and Steamfitters, Local No. 550, Los Angeles District
,Counsel of Carpenters of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and
Joiners of America, International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron
'Shipbuilders, and Helpers, and Culinary Workers and Bartenders
Union, Local 814, are separate labor organizations affiliated with the
'American Federation of Labor, each admitting to membership em-
ployees of the Company.
III. THE QUESTIONS CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
On September 29, 1944, the Oil Workers asked the Company for
recognition as bargaining representative of employees of the Com-
pany's- El Segundo refinery. On October 12, 1944, the Company
refused the request. , The Independent, the Plumbers, and the En-
gineers at the hearing made conflicting claims to represent employees
at the El 'Segundo plant.
A statement prepared by a Field Examiner and other evidence
introduced at the hearing indicates that the Oil Workers, the Plumb-
3 For amore complete statement of the Company ' s operations , see Matter of Standard
Oil Company of California , 58 N. L R. B 560
4 The Company contends that the petition should be dismissed in that the facility of
the Oil Workers, rather than the Oil Workers , per se, filed the instant petition for investi-
tion and certification of representatives We do not agree . The Oil Workers defines
,Oil ,Workers International Union Organizing Campaign as a facility or department of
the International Union, to which is assigned the work of organizing employees for the
Oil Workers ., The full name of the Oil Workers, however , will appear on the ballot in
any election in which it may participate as a result of the instant petition , in order that
ono party may be in doubt of the choices to be made for a bargaining representative therein.
474 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ers, and the Culinary Workers represent substantial numbers of
employees in their: respectively proposed bargaining units.5
We find that questions affecting commerce have arisen concerning
the representation of employees of the Company, within the meaning
of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
Under integrated management at San Francisco, the Company
operates within the State of California three refineries, -located at
El Segundo, Richmond, and Bakersfield, respectively. Each refinery
functions under a plant manager and is capable of producing certain,
if not all, products made by the Company. Employees at the several
refineries have like skills. The El Segundo refinery is approximately
450 miles distant from the Richmond refinery, and approximately
150 miles distant from the Bakersfield refinery. The Oil Workers,
the petitioner herein, contends that employees at the El Segundo
6 The Oil Workers submitted an affidavit of its representative , alleging that , among the
employees in its proposed unit of approximately 1,200 employees , the Oil Workers had 513
members in good standing
The Independent submitted an affidavit of its secretary , alleging that, among employees
in its proposed unit, the Independent had 154 members in good standing . The record
does not disclose the number of employees therein.
The Plumbers submitted , prior to the hearing, 17 authorization cards in its estimated
unit of 80 employees and, during the course of the hearing , 68 additional cards.
The Engineers submitted 151 authorization cards, indicating its general organization
among the Company' s employees.
The Culinary Workers submitted at the hearing evidence that it represented 3 employees
in its proposed unit of 15 employees , and was granted permission by the Trial Examiner
to submit additional authorization cards before the close of the hearing Six additional
cards were in fact presented to the Trial Examiner after the close of the hearing and, for
this reason, forwarded to the Board at Washington, D. C , with a motion duly served upon
the parties for the proper consideration of these cards with reference to the issues in this
proceeding The Company, subject to its general objection noted below , and the Oil
Workers agreed to the reception of these cards as evidence of the extent of organization
of the Culinary Workers, and no other party has raised any objection to this procedure.
We hereby grant the motion of the Culinary Workers, and we order that the 6 additional
cards be, and are , hereby made part of the official record in this proceeding
The Carpenters offered no cards or other evidence to indicate its organizational efforts
among employees in any defined unit
The Company contends that the Oil Workers does not presently show a sufficient interest
among employees in its proposed unit to justify an election . We do not agree. We have
frequently stated that what constitutes a sufficient interest to justify an election depends
upon the surrounding circumstances at any given time. We consider among the factors
contributing to the sufficiency of the showing made by a petitioning labor organization
unfair labor practices committed by the employer involved and, even more specifically,
the refusal of the employer to comply with the Board' s order to cease and desist from the
same and to take the required remedial steps to effectuate the policies of the Act. We
found in recent complaint proceedings , more specifically noted below, that the Company
had committed unfair labor practices, and the Company has refused to comply with our
order regarding the same. As we have frequently stated, authorization or membership
cards are required by the Board as an administrative precaution They do not serve as
proof of the precise number of employees who desire to be represented by a labor organiza-
tion, but they do provide a reasonable safeguard against the indiscriminate use of Board
proceedings by labor organizations having little or no following among employees in units
claimed to be appropriate Thus, in view of the limited purpose of the Field Examiner's
statement , we do not permit any parties to challenge its truth . See.,bfatter ofLalance<&
Grosjean Manufacturing Co., 63 N L. R. B. 130; Matter 'of H. 01. Hill Stores, Inc., 39
N. L. R. B. 874.
STANDARD OIL COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA 475
refinery constitute an appropriate bargaining unit apart from em-
ployees at the other refineries. The Company and the Independent,
however, contend that employees at the El Segundo refinery do not
constitute an appropriate separate unit.
"On March 8, 1938, the Board, in Hatter of Standard Oil Company
of California, Case No. R-265, dismissed a prior petition for investiga-
tion and certification of representatives of employees of the Company
filed by the Oil Workers, on the ground that, in view of the history
of collective bargaining between the Company and its employees on
a system-wide basis through Standard Employees Association, herein
called the S. E. A., their recognized bargaining representative, a unit
limited to employees at the El Segundo refinery was not an appro-
priate bargaining units
On June 7, 1943, the Board, upon charges duly filed, issued a com-
plaint against the Company in Matter of Standard Oil Company of
California, Case No. 21-C-2167, alleging, inter alia, that the Com-
pany had dominated and controlled the S. E. A. in violation of Section
8 (1) and (2) of the Act.
On September 4, 1944, while the complaint proceeding was pending
decision, the Board issued a Decision and Direction of Elections in
Matter of Standard Oil Company of California, Cases Nos. 20-R-1079
and 20-R-1109, finding that employees at the Company's Richmond
refinery might constitute an appropriate bargaining unit apart from
employees at the other refineries or might be a part of a system-wide
.unit, and ordered elections in three separate voting groups (a) among
machinists, (b) among electricians, and (c)• among residual produc-
tion and maintenance employees at the Richmond refinery, deferring
any finding as to the scope of the unit or units appropriate for such
employees until the results of the elections should be disclosed.'
The Board specifically provided that any certification that it should
thereafter issue in the representation proceedings would be made
subject to its findings in the complaint proceedings then pending.
On November 13, 19447 the Board issued Proposed Findings of Fact,
Proposed Conclusions of Law, and Proposed Order in Case 21-C-2167,
the complaint proceeding noted above, containing, inter alia, a finding
that the S. E. A. was a company-dominated labor organization and
ordering that the Company withdraw all recognition from the S. E. A.
and disestablish it as the bargaining representative of any of the
Company's employees.
On November 18, 1944, the Board issued a Supplemental Decision
and Certification of Representatives in the consolidated representa-
tion cases, noted above, in which it found that electrical employees at
the Richmond refinery constitute an appropriate unit and certified
e See Matter of Standard Oil Company of California, 5 N. L. R B. 750
See footnote 3, above.
476 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers as their bargaining
representative. The Board further found that a majority of machin-
ists at the Richmond factory had selected International Association
of Machinists as their bargaining representative and provided that
this organization should bargain for them in a unit including other
machinists for whom the same organization was bargaining repre-
sentative. Although the S. E. A. received a majority of votes cast
in the residual production and maintenance group, the Board, in view
of the proposed findings and order outstanding in the complaint case,
made no finding with respect to the unit appropriate for these em-
ployees, pending the issuance of its final determination respecting the
legality of the S. E. A. On May 19, 1945, however, the Board issued
its Decision and Order in Case No. 21-C-2167, finding, inter alia,
that the S. E. A. was a company-dominated organization and ordering
the Company to disestablish the S. E. A. as bargaining representative
of the Company's employees." Thereafter, the Board took no further
action with respect to the unit appropriate for production and main-
tenance employees in the residual group at the Richmond plant.9
Thus, in 1938 we found that, under all the circumstances then pres-
ent, a unit limited to the El Segundo refinery was not an appropriate
unit for the Company's employees. The Company alleges that except
for normal growth in its facilities, there has been no substantial
change in the operation of its business since that time and contends
that, under these circumstances, a unit limited to employees of the
El Segundo refinery is not an appropriate unit at this time. We do
not agree. In 1944 in the face of charges of unfair labor practices
and the claims of several labor organizations to represent different
groups of skilled, semi-skilled, and unskilled employees, we found that
employees at the Richmond plant might function either as a separate
unit or part of the system-wide unit. At the present time there is no
legitimate labor organization which purports to represent a substan-
tial number of the Company's production and maintenance employees
8 See Matter of Standard Oil Company of California , 61 N L R B 1251. `
8 Petitions for enforcement and review , respectively, of the Board 's order in the com-
plaint proceedings are presently pending hearing in the Fifth Circuit. The Company,
inter alia, contends that the investigation of the instant petition during the pendency of
these appellate proceedings jeopardizes contract rights to which it is entitled as the em-
ployer of the employees herein concerned The Company thus contends that the S. E A as
the recognized bargaining agent of its employees and party to a contract on their behalf is
a necessary party to these proceedings We do not agree We have frequently held that
the choice of a bargaining representative by employees in an appropriate unit is not the
immediate concern of their employer . Having found the S E A to be a company-domi-
nated organization , and having abrogated its contract with the Company and ordered the
Company no longer to recognize the S . E A as bargaining representative of its employees,
we will not permit the S E A to intervene in this proceeding or to participate in the
elections which we shall direct Any certification of representatives which we may issue
as a result of the instant petition may, however , upon appropriate motion, be vacated if
our findings respecting the legality of the S E A be set aside by a court of competent
jurisdiction . See Matter of New Idea, Inc, 25 N . L. R. B 265, and Matter of Baltimore
Transit Company, The Baltimore Coach Co ., 59 N L. R B. 159.
STANDARD OIL COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA 477
in a system-wide unit. Since no such labor organization has filed a
petition for a unit on a system-wide basis and employees at this refinery
constitute a well identified sector of the Company's working force, and
since the Oil Workers has limited its present organizational efforts to
employees at the El Segundo refinery, we find that a unit limited to
employees at the El Segundo refinery constitutes an appropriate unit
for the purposes of collective bargaining."' Any such unit which may
result from our investigation of the instant petition, however,,shall
not preclude a later determination as to the broader scope of a bargain-
ing unit for the Company's employees upon a petition subsequently
filed.
The several labor organizations herein involved seek to represent
employees in the manufacturing division of the Company's opera-
tions at the El Segundo refinery and to exclude employees in certain
other administrative divisions of the Company's operations, such as
the motor transport division, the purchase and stores department,
and the administration building. The manufacturing department,
the largest of the administrative departments, includes employees
commonly known as production and maintenance employees. Their
work is under the general supervision of the general manager of the
manufacturing department at San Francisco, but under the immedi-
ate direction of the plant manager at El Segundo. Employees in the
manufacturing department include technical and professional em-
ployees, who are rated as "unclassified" employees, and ordinary pro-
duction and maintenance employees, rated by the Company as "clas-
sified" employees, but more commonly known as hourly paid em-
ployees.
The Oil Workers contends that all classified production and main-
tenance employees at the Company's El Segundo refinery, including
employees of the California Research Corporation, but excluding all
office and clerical employees, telephone operators, cafeteria employ-
ees, office janitors, photo reproduction employees, militarized guards,
technical, professional, and administrative employees,l" foremen op-
erators A and C and job foremen B, characterized as shift foremen,
the main pump house oil dispatcher, all employees for whom the
Boilermakers presently bargains under contract, and other employees
10 Cf utter of Pacific Gas and Electric Company, 40 N L. R. B. 591.
"The employees in these work categories proposed by the Oil workers for exclusion
from the unit are employees not generally classed as refinery production employees , and are
usually excluded from units of production and maintenance refinery workers. The S. E. A.
included in its bargaining unit all or most of these categories, but since we have found the
S E A a company-dominated organization, we give little weight to the type of bargaining
unit it fostered It is further against our established practice to include in production
and maintenance units militarized guards and technical and office employees . All clerical
employees of the Company are subject to common office supervision and are frequently
Interchanged , and all employees in the administration building are physically separated
from refinery workers.
478 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
in the marketing department , in the building operations department
and at the San Pedro Terminal . The Independent would include in
the production and maintenance unit employees at the San Pedro
Terminal and would place employees of the California Research
Corporation in a separate bargaining unit apart from other produc-
tion and maintenance employees . The Engineers takes no position
as to employees at the San Pedro Terminal or employees of the.Cali-
fornia Research Corporation . The Plumbers seeks a unit of all pipe
fitters and their helpers , lead burners , instrument men, and welders
working in the pipe-fitting department at the El Segundo "refinery
doing maintenance and construction work and fabricating work from
blueprints and sketches , but excluding all employees included in the
Boilermakers ' contract . l2 The Culinary Workers confines its interest
to cafeteria employees at the refinery 13 The Oil Workers would ex-
clude cafeteria workers from its production and maintenance unit;
the Independent would include them.
The Company bargains with the Boilermakers for employees within
its craft jurisdiction at the El Segundo refinery and with other
craft organizations , with respect to employees subject to their respec-
tive jurisdictions , at other refineries of the Company . Nye found in
the prior representation proceeding affecting the Company 's Rich-
mond employees 14 that no single type of unit has been adopted in
the oil industry in California . For this reason , in view of the sev-
eral contentions of the , labor organizations , parties hereto, the scope
of their organization among the Company's employees , and the bar-
gaining on a craft basis at other refineries , we shall hold separate
elections among employees in the three groups of employees pro-
posed as separate bargaining units, and we shall make our final de-
termination of the appropriate unit or units for the employees con-
cerned when the results of the election shall have been disclosed.,'
We shall include in one voting group all cafeteria workers at the
El Segundo refinery, excluding supervisory employees , in accordance
with our usual definition of that term . The Culinary Workers and
the Independent are the only labor organizations claiming to repre-
sent these employees , and we _ shall provide that they may participate
in the election to be held among cafeteria workers.
12 The record discloses that welders are' included in the Boilermakers ' contract. The
Plumbers does not desire to include in its unit any welders covered therein.
13 The Company opened its cafeteria to employees generally on June 19 , 1945, the day
on which the hearing closed . Employees working therein fall within work categories
usually found in cafeterias.
14 See Matter of Standard Oil Company of California , 58 N. L R. B. 560, noted in foot-
note 3 , above.
15 The Carpenters proposed no clearly defined unit and, as noted in footnote 5, above,
offered no proof of its representation among the Company 's employees . Under these cir-
cumstances , we shall not attempt to carve out from the residual voting group employees
subject to the Carpenters ' craft jurisdiction.
STANDARD OIL COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA 479
We shall include in a second voting group all pipe fitters and pipe-
fitters' helpers, lead burners, and instrument men, and welders working
in the pipe-fitting department and doing maintenance and construc-
tion work and fabricating work from blueprints and sketches, ex-
cluding supervisory employees and all employees presently repre-
sented by the Boilermakers. The Oil Workers, the Independent, and
the Plumbers each claims to represent these employees, and we shall
provide that these three labor organizations may participate in the
election among them.
We shall include in a third residual group production and mainte-
nance employees. The labor organizations interested in representing
these employees generally agree with respect to the categories of
employees proposed for inclusion by the Oil Workers. The Oil
Workers and the Independent disagree, however, with respect to the
inclusion of employees of the California Research Corporation and
employees at the San Pedro Terminal.
California Research Corporation is a wholly owned subsidiary of
the Company and is engaged in testing equipment and in general
research. The division of this subsidiary at the El Segundo plant
works closely with the manufacturing department.and ordinary pro-
duction and maintenance workers who carry out the plans of the
highly trained professional and technical employees, who direct the
work, are sometimes interchanged with ordinary refinery workers.
We included employees in the California Research Corporation work-
ing at the Richmond plant in the three voting groups of employees
at that plant and we included certain craft employees of California
Research Corporation in appropriate craft units with employees of
the Company at the Richmond refinery. The inclusion of employees
of the California Research Corporation working at the El Segundo
plant in a unit with production and maintenance employees of the
Company at that refinery appears not inappropriate. On July 26,
1945, however, a new petition for investigation and certification of
representatives in Case No. 21-R-2988 was filed by the Independent,
alleging that employees of California Research Corporation in a
system-wide group constitute an appropriate unit apart from em-
ployees at the Company's refineries. Pending our investigation of
this petition, we shall make no finding with respect to the unit or
units appropriate for employees of California Research Corporation,
reserving our decision with respect to the inclusion of any such em-
ployees in the unit covering employees in the El Segundo refinery
until we have fully considered the new petition. We will exclude
employees of California Research Corporation from the voting group
of production and maintenance employees at the El Segundo refinery.
The San Pedro Terminal is a department of the manufacturing
division at the El Segundo refinery, although located some 18 miles
480 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
distant from the refinery proper. From 45 to 50 production and
maintenance employees working under a foreman and assistant fore-
man, subject to the supervision of the manager at the El Segundo
refinery, perform at the San Pedro Terminal substantially the same
type of work as that performed by production and maintenance em-
ployees at the refinery. There are also employed at the San Pedro
Terminal 5 or 6 employees working in the marine department who
have no direct concern with the operational work of the manufac-
turing division. We will include production and maintenance em-
ployees of the manufacturing department at the San Pedro Terminal
in the same voting group with such employees at the El Segundo
refinery.
With respect to the proper placement of shift foremen, the par-
ties disagree. The Oil Workers contends that shift foremen are
supervisory employees and should therefore be excluded, as such,
from any bargaining unit for employees of the Company. The
Plumbers would include shift foremen in its proposed unit. In the
elections held among production and maintenance employees in the
Richmond plant, we included foremen described as foremen oper-
ators A, B, and C, known as "shift" foremen, on the ground that
these employees at the Richmond refinery had no effective power to
make recommendations affecting the status of employees under them.
The instant record, however, shows that shift foremen at the El
Segundo refinery make merit increases and that their recommenda-
tions have weight to affect the status of employees working under
them. Under these circumstances , we shall exclude shift foremen
from voting in the elections which we shall direct.
We shall include in the third residual voting group all classified
production and maintenance employees in the manufacturing depart-
ment at the Company's El Segundo refinery, including employees at
the San Pedro Terminal, but excluding employees of the California
Research Corporation, all office and clerical employees, telephone'oper-
ators, office janitors, photo reproduction employees, militarized
guards, technical, professional, and administrative employees, all em-
ployees represented by the Boilermakers, employees in the marketing
department and employees in building operations department, fore-
men operators A and C and job foremen B, commonly known as shift
foremen, the main pump house oil dispatcher, all cafeteria employees,
all pipe fitters and pipe-fitters' helpers, lead burners, instrument men,
and welders working in the pipe-fitting department and doing mainte-
nance and construction work and fabricating work from blueprints
and sketches, and all other supervisory employees. We will provide
that the Oil Workers, the Engineers, and the Independent, all of whom
claim to represent these employees, participate in the election among
this residual group.
STANDARD OIL COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA
V. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
481
As noted above, we find that the questions concerning representa-
tion which have arisen may best be resolved by separate elections by
secret ballot.
At its El Segundo refinery the Company employs school boys or
minors to work during the summer vacation in tasks suited to their
strength and experience. In general , these employees do not operate
equipment, but serve as helpers in various departments. Most of these
employees return to school, when the fall term opens, but some of
them remain and become permanent employees. The Oil Workers
would exclude the minors from its proposed bargaining unit. Since
the summer is now far advanced, it appears that minors who intend
to terminate their employment and return to school in the fall have
little interest in their employment status at the refinery and can be
readily identified. Those who remain in the refinery will of course
share employment interests with other employees. We will make no
distinction between minors doing temporary work and employees doing
permanent work, so far as the scope of any unit is concerned. We
will, however, provide that minors or school boys working during the
summer who do not intend to remain at the refinery on the opening
of school in the fall shall be ineligible to vote in the elections.
The Engineers contends that no election should be held among em-
ployees at the El Segundo refinery until the force and effect of the
Company's unfair labor practices have been dissipated. As noted
above, the Company has refused to comply with our order in Case No.
21-C-2167. Union organization has, however, progressed in spite of
the Company's unfair labor practices. Since a substantial number of
employees at the El Segundo refinery has indicated a desire for collec-
tive bargaining, we will not delay the elections until the Company
may see fit to comply with our order.
The Company contends that if any election is to be held at this time
employees in the armed services for whom it has current addresses
should be permitted to vote by mail. At the hearing, the Oil Workers
stated that it had no objection to their participation in the election.
We desire that all employees who fall within the description of the
voting groups have an opportunity to vote so far as it may be practi-
cable. We shall provide that employees in the armed services who
present themselves at the polls may vote in the elections. For reasons
which we have set forth in a prior decision, we will make no provision
that employees in the armed services may vote by mail.1e Employees
on military leave, as the Company contends, retain their status as
employees. We see, however, no reason to delay the elections until
10 See Matter of Aline Safety Appliances Company , 55 N L . R B. 1190
482 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
their return and thus postpone the opportunity of employees presently
at work in the refinery to designate a bargaining representative.
When it is demonstrated that servicemen have returned to their em-
ployment with the Company in numbers sufficient to comprise a sub-
stantial percentage of employees in any appropriate unit in which we
have certified a collective bargaining representative, a new petition
for investigation and certification of representatives may be filed with
the Board, thus enabling employees presently in the armed services to
affirm or change the bargaining representative selected in their
-absence.
Those eligible to vote in the separate elections which we shall now
direct shall be all employees in the respective voting groups described
in Section IV, above, who were employed during the pay-roll period
immediately preceding the date of the issuance of this Decision and
Direction of Elections, subject to the limitations and additions set
forth in the Direction.
DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
By virtue of and pursuant to the power vested in the National Labor
Relations Board by Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act,
and pursuant to Article III, Section 9, of National Labor Relations
Board Rules and Regulations-Series 3, as amended , it is hereby
DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation to ascertain representa-
tives for the purposes of collective bargaining with Standard Oil Com-
pany of California, El Segundo, California, separate elections 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 Twenty-first Region,
acting in this matter as agent for the National Labor Relations Board,
and subject to Article 111, Sections 10 and 11, of said Rules and Regu-
lations, among employees in the three groups described below, who
were employed during the pay-roll period immediately preceding the
date of this Direction, including employees who did not work during
said pay-roll period because they were ill or on vacation or tempo-
rarily laid off, and including employees in, the armed fo•ces of the
United States who present themselves in person at the polls, but ex-
cluding school boys and minors who are working during the summer
vacation and expect to terminate their employment and return to
school when it opens in the fall and employees who have since quit or
been discharged for cause and have not been rehired or reinstated
prior to the date of the elections :
(1) All cafeteria employees at the El Segundo refinery, excluding
all supervisory employees with authority to hire,-promote , discharge,
discipline , or otherwise effect changes in the status of employees, or
STANDARD OIL COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA 483
effectively recommend such action, to determine whether they desire to
be represented by Culinary Workers and Bartenders Union, Local
814, or by Independent Union of Petroleum Workers, for the purposes
of collective bargaining, or by neither;
(2) All pipe fitters and pipe-fitters' helpers, lead burners, instru-
ment men, and welders at the El Segundo refinery, who are working
in the pipe-fitting department doing maintenance and construction
work and fabricating work from blueprints and sketches, excluding
all employees represented by International Brotherhood of Boiler-
makers, Iron Shipbuilders, Welders and Helpers of America, shift
foremen, and any other supervisory employees with authority to hire,
promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status
of employees, or effectively recommend such action, to determine
whether they desire to be represented by United Association of
Plumbers and Steamfitters, or by Oil Workers International Union,
or by Independent Union of Petroleum Workers, or by none; and
(3) All classified production and maintenance employees in the
manufacturing department at the Company's El Segundo refinery,
including employees at the San Pedro Terminal, but excluding em-
ployees of the California Research Corporation, office and clerical
employees, telephone operators, office janitors, photo reproduction
employees, militarized guards, technical, professional, and adminis-
trative employees, all employees represented by International Broth-
erhood of Boilermakers, Iron Shipbuilders, Welders, and Helpers of
America, employees in the marketing department and employees in
the building operations department, foremen operators A and C and
job foremen B, commonly known as shift foremen, all cafeteria em-
ployees, all pipe fitters and pipe-fitters' helpers, lead burners, instru-
ment men, and welders working in the pipe-fitting department and
doing maintenance and construction work and fabricating work from
blueprints and sketches, and all other supervisory employees with
authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect
changes in the status of employees, or effectively recommend such
action, to determine whether they desire to be represented. by Oil
Workers International Union, or by Independent Union of Petroleum
Workers, or by International Union of Operating Engineers, for the
purposes of collective bargaining, or by none.
MR. GERARD D. REILLY took no part in the consideration of the
above Decision and Direction of Elections.
[See, infra, 63 N. L. R. B. 889, for Supplemental Decision and
Amended Direction of Elections.]
662514-46-vol 63-32