Stanolind Oil and Gas Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 26, 1951

95 N.L.R.B. 619 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

STANOLIND OIL AND GAS COMPANY 619
3. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 2 ( 6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Respondent has not discriminated as to the hire and tenure of employ-
ment of Opal Hayes, Laura Wingate, Katherine It. Johnson , Viola M. Boyd,
Katherine C. Johnson, Nelma Harvey, Willard Johnson, or Jensie Heck in viola-
tion of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
[Recommended Order omitted from publication in this volume.]
STANOLIND OIL AND GAS COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL UNION OF
OPERATING ENGINEERS, AFL, PETITIONER . Case No. 39-RC-285.
July 26,1951
Supplemental Decision and Certification of Representatives
On May 31, 1951, pursuant to the Decision and Direction of Elec-
tion issued by the Board in the above-entitled proceeding on May 3,
1951, and amended on May 24, 1951, an election by secret ballot was
conducted under the direction and supervision of the Regional Direc-
tor for the Sixteenth Region.
At the close of the election, a tally of.ballots was furnished the
parties by the Regional Director. The tally shows that there were
approximately 93 eligible voters and that 83 ballots were cast, of
which 39 were for the Petitioner, and 33 against the Petitioner, and
11 were challenged. No objections to the conduct of the election were
filed by either of the parties.
Inasmuch as the number of challenged ballots could affect the out-
come of the election, the Regional Director, in accordance with the
Board's Rules and Regulations, conducted an investigation and, there-
after, on June 8, 1951, issued and served upon the parties his report
on challenges. On June 25, 1951, the Employer filed exceptions to
the Regional Director's report.
In his report on challenges, the Regional Director found that Peggy
J. Brown, Ora L. Breetz, and Margaret G. Wilson, challenged by
the Petitioner, were plant clerical employees and within the appro-
priate unit and therefore eligible to vote in the election. He rec-
ommended that the challenges to their ballots be overruled. No ex-
ceptions having been filed to his findings and recommendations with
respect to these three employees, we adopt his findings and recommen-
dations with respect to them.
The Regional Director further found that Kitty R. Blackburn,
Frederick B. Davis, William C. Erwin, Nancy L. Fish, Robert R.
Freeman, Charles J. Kleb, Jr., Conway D. Odom, and William B.
Reeves, Jr., also challenged by the Petitioner, were in fact office cleri-
95 NLRB No. 79.
620 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
cal employees and recommended that the challenges to their ballots
be sustained . The Employer took exception to his finding and recom-
mendation urging that these employees are "plant " clerical , rather
than "office" clerical, employees and thus eligible to vote in the
election.
In the original and amended decisions issued in this case , the Board
specifically included "plant clerical" employees in the appropriate
unit for production and maintenance employees. In the amended de-
cision the Board expressly excluded "office clerical" employees from
the appropriate unit . The amended decision was issued for the express
purpose of clarifying the unit placement of all clerical employees in
accordance with Board policy , because the record was not entirely
clear as to the location and duties of all clerical workers . The agreed
job descriptions and the work locations of the eight disputed employ-
ees listed above indicate that they work , not in the plant proper, but
in the plant administrative building adjacent to the plant proper,
doing secretarial work for employees who work in the various ad-
ministrative building offices . The record thus conclusively establishes
that these eight disputed employees are Office clerical , and not plant
clerical employees , as we employ these terms .' We therefore find that
they are not within the unit. Under these circumstances , we agree
with the Regional Director , and find , contrary to the contention of the
.Employer, that these employees are not eligible to vote in the election,
and we sustain the challenges to their ballots. The. ballots are there-
fore invalid.
Inasmuch as the counting of the valid ballots of Brown, Breetz,
and Wilson will not affect the results of the election , we find it un-
necessary to count their ballots.
Inasmuch as the Union has secured a majority of the valid votes
cast, we shall certify the Union as the exclusive bargaining representa-
tive of all employees in the appropriate unit.
Certification of Representatives
IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that International Union of Operating En-
gineers, AFL, has been designated and selected by a majority of the
employees of the Employer in the unit heretofore found by the Board
to be appropriate, as their representative for the purposes of collective
bargaining and that, pursuant to Section 9 (a) of the Act, the said
organization is the exclusive representative of all employees in such
'National Cash Register Company, 95 NLRB 27. Goodman Manufacturing Com-
pany, 58 NLRB 531.
TAMPA SAND & MATERIAL COMPANY, INC. 621
unit for the purposes of collective bargaining, with respect to rates of
pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of employment.
CHAIRMAN HERZOG and MEMBER MURDOCK took no part in the con-
sideration of the above Supplemental Decision and Certification of
Representatives.
TAMPA SAND & MATERIAL COMPANY, INC. and UNITED STONE AND
ALLIED PRODUCTS WORKERS or AMERICA, CIO, PETITIONER. Case
No. 10-RU-1052. July, 26, 1951
Second Supplemental Decision and Order
On December 8, 1950, the Board issued a Decision and Direction
'of Election in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that a unit of all
employees at the Employer's concrete products plants at Tampa,
Florida, excluding office and clerical employees, professional em-
ployees, guards, watchmen, and supervisors as defined in the Act,
was appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.' On January 8, 1951, the Peti-
tioner won the election thereby directed by a vote of 134 to 3. Of a
total of 170 ballots cast, 31 were challenged. The majority of the
challenged ballots was cast by employees whose inclusion in the unit
was first disputed by the parties at the time of the election, and had
not been formally resolved by the Board's Decision and Direction. As
the challenged ballots were insufficient in number to affect the results
,of the election, the Petitioner was thereafter certified as representa-
tive of the employees in the stated unit 2
On March 13, 1951, the Petitioner requested that the Board clarify
the certification by the specific inclusion of employees at the Em-
ployer's asphalt plant, and cement finishers, laborers, and truck drivers
assigned from the sand yard main property of the Employer to various
I Tampa Sand ,f Material Company, Inc ., 10-RC-1052, not reported in printed volumes of
Board decisions . 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 [ Chairman
Herzog and Members Murdock and Styles].
2 The Intervenor , Local 925 of the International Union of Operating Engineers, AFL,
filed objections to the conduct of the election on the ground . that the Board agent conduct-
ing the election erroneously notified certain employees whose inclusion in the unit was
in dispute , that lie would challenge their ballots . The objections were investigated by the
Regional Director for the Tenth Region who thereafter issued his report in which he
found that the objections raised no substantial or material issues with respect to either the
conduct or results of the election and recommended that they be dismissed . No exceptions
having been filed to the report of the Regional Director, the findings therein and the
recommendation to dismiss were adopted by the Board . In making his report, the Regional
Director specifically did not make any finding on the issue of whether the challenged
employees were properly within the bargaining unit found appropriate . Tampa Sand h
Material Company, Inc ., 10-RC-1052 ( Supplemental Decision and Certification ) not re-
ported in printed volumes of Board decisions.
95 NLRB No. 76.