Standard Oil Co. of California

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 3, 1938

5 N.L.R.B. 750 (N.L.R.B. 1938)

n the Matter Of STANDARD OIL COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA and OIL
WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, LOCAL 299
Case No. B-265.-Decided March 3, 1938
Oil Producting and Refining Industry-Investigation of Representatives:
'Controversy concerning representation of employees; rival organizations; con-
troversy as to appropriate bargaining unit-Unit Approp? late for Collective
-Bargaining: inability to determine the appropriate bargaining unit - because of
lack of clear definition of the meaning of "trade jurisdiction " set out in the
Constitution and By-Laws of the various craft unions involved, and because of
failure to enumerate employees of the Company included within the "trade
jurisdiction" claimed ; unit confined to employees of only one of Company's
'refineries is inappropriate-Order: dismissing Petition for Investigation and
'Certification of employees in one refinery only.
Mr. David Sokol, for the Board.
Pillsbury, Madison & Sutro, by Mr. Felix T. Smith and Mr. J.
Howard Marshall, of San Francisco, Calif., and Mr. Max Felix, of
-Los Angeles, Calif., for the Company.
Mr. Fred L. Phillips, of Long Beach, Calif., for the Oil Workers
Union.
Mr. Thomas M. Carlson, of Richmond, Calif., and Mr. John Mc-
Cormick, of Oildale, Calif., for the S. E. A.
Mr. C. E. Edmonds, of Long Beach, Calif., for the I. A. M.
Mr. Amos H. Feely, of San Francisco, Calif., for the I. B.E. W.
Mr. Thomas Crowe and Mr. George Hoffman, of Kansas City,
Kans., for the Boiler Makers.
Mr. Hyman A. Schulson, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER -
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On June 9, 1937, Oil Workers International Union, Local 299,
herein called the Oil Workers Union, filed with the Regional Director
for the Twenty-first Region (Los Angeles, California) a petition al-
leging that a question affecting commerce had arisen concerning the
representation of employees employed at the El Segundo, California,
refinery of Standard Oil Company of California, herein called the
Company, and requesting an investigation and certification of rep-
750
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 751-
-resentatives pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Rela-
ti6ns Act , 49 Stat. 449 , herein called the Act. On July 24, 1937, the
Oil Workers Union filed an amended petition. On August 2, 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 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 August 19, 1937, the Regional Director issued a notice of hear-
ing, copies of which were duly served upon the Company , upon the
Oil Workers Union, upon the Standard Oil Employees ' Association,
herein called the S. E. A., upon the International Association of
Machinists , herein called the I . A. M., upon the International Brother-
hood of Electrical Workers, herein called the I. B. E. W ., upon the
International Brotherhood of Boiler Makers , Iron Ship Builders,.
Welders and Helpers of America, Local 351 , herein called the Boiler-
Makers, and upon the Metal Trades Council of the American Feder-
ation of Labor, herein called the Council, labor organizations claim-
ing to represent employees directly affected by the investigation.
Pursuant to the notice a hearing was held on August 30 and 31 and
September 1 and 2, 1937 , at El Segundo , California , before Clifford'
D. O'Brien, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Board. The-
Board, the Company, the- Oil Workers Union, the S. E. A., the
I. A. M., the I. B. E. W., and the Boiler Makers 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 parties.
Pursuant to notice , a hearing was held before the Board on Sep-
tember 21, 1937, in Washington, D. C., for the purpose of oral argu-
ment. The Company and the S. E. A. appeared by counsel and
participated in the oral argument . A brief was thereafter filed by
the S. E. A., which has received due consideration.
During the course of the hearing at El Segundo the Trial Exam-
iner made several rulings on motions and on objections to the admis-
sion of evidence . The Board has reviewed these rulings 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 is a Delaware corporation , organized on January
27, 1926, with its principal offices in San Francisco , California. It
'.752 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
is engaged in the production, refining, transportation, sale, and dis-
tribution of ,petroleum, oil, gas and the byproducts thereof. The
'Company owns or leases thousands of acres of oil producing lands
in the United States and in foreign countries. From its oil fields
it operates its own pipe lines to refineries within the State of Cali-
fornia, at El Segundo, Richmond, and Bakersfield. The Company
:also owns a number of subsidiaries which operate refineries at El
-Paso and at Colorado, Texas. The Company itself operates 21
seagoing vessels, 12 harbor vessels, several railroad tank cars, and
trucks, which aid in the transportation of its crude oil from pipe-line
,terminals to refineries and of its refined products from refineries to
points outside the State of California. Numerous other vessels, both
seagoing and harbor, are owned and operated by its subsidiaries as
.an integral part of its business.
During 1936 the Company produced approximately 52,050,000
'barrels of refined petroleum products, of which approximately
14,800,000 barrels (about 28 per cent) were shipped by the -Company
,out of California to other States, to Territories of the United States,
and to foreign countries. Of the remainder, approximately 14,-
^000,000 barrels, or about 371/2 per cent of the total production, were
shipped by others than the Company to States other than California.
'Thus, approximately 65 per cent of the Company's refined petroleum
products were shipped to points outside of California. Figures are
not available showing the exact proportions of the production of the
El Segundo refinery moving to States other than California because
-the Manufacturing Department's figures for the refineries at Rich-
mond, El Segundo, and Bakersfield are carried on a consolidated
basis. The products moving into interstate and foreign commerce
-move indiscriminately from the three refineries.
The crude petroleum utilized by the Company in its production
in 1936 was produced or purchased by it entirely in California. The
Company itself shipped no crude petroleum outside of California.
It delivered, however, during the year, approximately 3,731,000 bar-
-rels of crude petroleum to purchasers who transported it to States
-other than California.
The three refineries employ about 3,400 men, 1,300 at Richmond,
1,100 at El Segundo, and 1,000 at Bakersfield.
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
'Oil Workers International Union, Local 299, is a labor organization
-affiliated with the Committee for Industrial Organization, admitting
to its membership all employees of the Company at its El Segundo
refinery engaged in the production, transportation, refining, and
marketing of natural gas and petroleum products, excluding guards,
clerical, and supervisory employees.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 753
The Standard Oil Employees' Association is a labor organization
admitting to'its membership all persons employed by the Company
for a period of 30 days or over, excluding supervisory employees and
"chief clerks, assistant chief clerks, secretaries, and confidential clerks
to the management."
International Brotherhood of Boiler Makers, Iron Ship Builders,
Welders and Helpers of America, Local 351, is a labor organization
affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, admitting to its
membership all employees of the Company at its El Segundo re-
finery coming within its "trade jurisdiction" as defined in its Con-
stitution and By-Laws.' The Boiler Makers has a local union at
Richmond, California, admitting to its membership all employees of
the Company at its Richmond refinery coming within its "trade
jurisdiction" as defined in its Constitution and By-Laws. There is
no Boiler Makers local at Bakersfield, but the local of another union
at Bakersfield admits boiler makers at the Company's Bakersfield
refinery and adjusts grievances for its members.
International Association of Machinists is a labor organization
affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, admitting to its
membership all persons coming within its "trade jurisdiction" as
defined in its Constitution.2 Employees of the Company's El Se-
gundo refinery who are within the "trade jurisdiction" of the I. A. M.
are eligible to membership in Local No. 1235 of the I. A. M. at
Long Beach, California.
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers is a labor organi-
zation affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, admitting
to its membership persons employed at electrical work or in plants
manufacturing electrical appliances. Employees of the Company's
El Segundo refinery who are within the "trade jurisdiction" of the
I. B. E. W. are eligible to membership of I. B. E. W. locals at Long
Beach and Los Angeles, California.
III. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
The Oil Workers Union contends that all employees working at
the Company's El Segundo refinery, excluding supervisory and cleri-
cal employees and guards constitute the appropriate unit. The Com-
pany takes the position that all employees in the three refineries at
El Segundo, Richmond, and Bakersfield, excluding supervisory and
clerical employees, constitute a ,single appropriate unit. The S. E. A.
makes the same contention, subject to the qualification that, as it
urges in its brief, the American Federation of Labor craft unions
be permitted to continue to bargain for their members. The Boiler
1 Boiler Makers' Exhibit No. G (pages 92-95).
2Machinists' Exhibit No. 1 (pages V-X).
754 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Makers and the I. A. M. contend that all employees in the three re-
fineries who are within their respective "trade jurisdictions" con-
stitute separate bargaining units. The I. B. E. W. requests that all
employees within its "trade jurisdiction" be excluded from the ballot
in the event of an election.
Much substantial evidence was adduced in support of the conten-
tions of the S. E. A. and the Company for a State-wide unit, com-
prising the employees in all three refineries. Since 1933 the S. E. A.
has held several general conferences with the management of the
Company at the latter's principal office in San Francisco, California,
concerning rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, classifications,
and other conditions of employment of employees in all three re-
fineries. From time to time agreements have been arrived at covering
these employees. The Company's three refineries operate as one unit.
The volume and character of the products, the manufacturing opera-
tions, and the distillation, accumulation, and withdrawal of various
types of stock of each refinery are centrally controlled through the
Manufacturing Department's general manager's office in San Fran-
cisco. All accounting is upon the basis of the Manufacturing Depart-
ment (consisting of the three refineries) as a unit. All matters of
general policy are determined in the San Francisco offices. Wages,
hours, working conditions, classificatjons, and processes are similar
at all three refineries. There are frequent interchanges and transfers
of employees between them. An employee qualified to work at a par-
ticular classification in one refinery has no difficulty in doing the
work in the same classification in either of the other refineries. Other
large integrated oil companies operating on the Pacific Coast, such
as Shell Oil Company of California, Tide Water Associated Oil Co.,
of California, Richfield Oil Co. of California, Union Oil Co. of Cali-
fornia, and the Texas Company, have conducted collective bargaining
relationships with their employees on a State-wide basis.8
We are of the opinion, on the basis of the record, that a unit con-
fined to employees at the Company's El Segundo refinery and exclud-
ing similar employees at the other refineries, is not appropriate for the
purposes of collective bargaining.4 Since the petition filed in this
proceeding relates solely to employees at the El Segundo refinery, it
is not necessary to determine what would be the appropriate unit if
the petition were broader in scope.
As for the craft unions, it is clear that the I. B. E. W. is not seek-
ing certification; and it is not clear that the other two, the I. A. M.
See Matter of Shell Oil Company/ of California and International Association of Oil
Field, Gas Well and Refinery Workers of America, et al., 2 N. L. R . B. 825.
4Cf. Matter of Swift and Company and Packing house Workers Union. Local No.
4 N. L. R . B. 779; Matter of American Woolen, Cohpany, Nat'l and Providence Mills and
Independent Textile Union of Olneyville, 5 N. L. R . B. 144.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 755
;and the Boiler Makers, would desire an investigation and certifica-
tion of representatives of employees in the units which they claim as
appropriate if no other organization raised a question as to the rep-
resentation of the employees in these refineries. Even if this were
clear, there is again the obstacle that the petition upon which this
case is based does not include, in the unit alleged appropriate, any of
the employees in the Bakersfield and Richmond plants whom the
craft unions claim as being subject to their jurisdiction and in the
units for which they contend. Even if this difficulty could be cir-
cumvented, and even if we should hold that this case was a proper one
for the application of the procedure set forth in Matter of the Globe
Machine and Stamping Co., and Metal Polishers Union, Local No. 3,
International Association of Machinists, District No. 54, Federal La-
bor Union 187881 and United Automobile Workers of America,'
there would remain the additional fact that the record fails to furnish
us with any basis upon which we could determine the appropriate
craft groups. It appears that, within single pay periods, men are
frequently employed in numerous classifications, not only in different.
crafts, but even in different departments.6 None of the representa-
tives of the craft unions specifically described which employees or
which classifications of work are included within the meaning of the
term, "trade jurisdiction," as used in the Constitution and By-Laws
of his craft union so that it might be possible to determine accurately
the bounds of the craft unit contended for. Without a clear inter-
pretation of the meaning of the "trade jurisdictions" set out in the
Constitution and' By-Laws of 'these craft unions or an enumeration
of employees of the Company included within the "trade jurisdiction"
claimed we cannot define the craft groups in which separate elections
might be directed.
In short, within the scope of the unit proposed by the petition, no
unit has been suggested that we can fix upon as appropriate.
IV. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
Since as stated in Section III we are unable to find an appropriate
unit within the scope of that alleged in the petition filed in this case,
we must find that no question has been raised concerning the repre-
sentation of employees of the Company in an appropriate bargaining
unit.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire
record in the case, the Board makes the following :
5 3 N 1, R B 294
6 BoardExhibit Nos 15 and 16
756 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
CONCLUSION OF LAW
No question concerning the representation of employees of Stand-
ard Oil Company of California in a unit which could be found ap-
propriate for the purposes of collective bargaining has arisen, within
the meaning of Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act.
ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusion of
law the National Labor Relations Board hereby dismisses the Petition
for Investigation and Certification filed by the Oil Workers Inter-
national Union , Local 299.