Sunray Oil Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 14, 1943

53 N.L.R.B. 1321 (N.L.R.B. 1943)

In the Matter of SUNRAY OIL COMPANY and OIL WORKERS INTER-
NATIONAL UNION (CIO) ,
Case No. 16-R-747.Decided December 14,1943
Mr. Edward Howell, of Tulsa, Okla., for the Company.
Mr. B. T. Kirby, of Oklahoma City, Okla., for the Union.
Mr. Joseph W. Kulkis, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon petition duly filed by Oil Workers International Union,
(CIO), herein called the Union, alleging that a question affecting
commerce had arisen concerning the representation of employees of
Sunray Oil Company, Tulsa, Oklahoma, herein called the Company,
the National Labor Relations Board provided for an appropriate
hearing upon due notice before Robert F. Proctor, Trial Examiner.
The hearing was held at Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, on November 12,
1943. The Company and the Union appeared, participated and were
afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine
witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues, and to file
briefs with the Board. The Trial Examiner's rulings made at the
hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
Sunray Oil Company, an Oklahoma corporation, is a wholly owned
subsidiary of the Sunray Oil Corporation, a Delaware corporation.
The Company has its principal office in Tulsa, Oklahoma, and is en-
gaged in the production, sale, and distribution of crude oil and
natural gas, and the refining and marketing of crude oil and its
byproducts in and about the States of Oklahoma, Texas, Kansas, and
53 N. L. R. B., No. 239,
1321
1322 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
New -Mexico. This proceeding involves the Company's production
operations in the immediate vicinity of Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.
During, the first 6 months of 1943, the Company produced crude oil
and natural gas valued at $1,657,901.61, of which $1,083,270.85 or 65
percent was produced and sold within the States where produced.
During the same period, the Company manufactured and sold from
its refinery at Allen, Oklahoma, products valued at $1,923,366.62, of
which $513,008.91 or 27 percent was sold within the State of Okla-
homa and the remainder sold and delivered to States other than the'
State of Oklahoma. The Company admits, and we find, that it is
engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor
Relations Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Oil Workers International Union, affiliated with the Congress of
Industrial Organizations, is a labor organization admitting to
membership employees of the Company.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
On or about September 12, 1943, the Union advised the Company
that it represented a majority of the Company's production and main-
tenance employees at Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, and requested recog-
nition as their exclusive bargaining agent. The Company refused
to recognize the Union unless and until the Union has been certified
by the Board in an appropriate unit.
A statement of the Field Examiner of the Board, introduced into
evidence at the hearing, indicates that the Union represents a substan-
tial number of employees in the unit hereinafter found appropriate.'
We find that a question affecting commerce has 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
The Union contends that all production and maintenance em-
ployees engaged in the Oklahoma City District of the Company, ex-
cluding supervisory and clerical employees, constitute an appropriate
unit. The Company, while-not disagreeing with the specific composi-
tion of the unit, contends that the system-wide unit is more
appropriate.
The Company is an integrated oil pool system divided, 'for organiza-
tional purposes, into several districts, each under the direction of a
The report of the Field Examiner shows that the Union submitted 24 authorization'
cards bearing apparently genuine signatures of persons whose names appear on the Sep-
tember 15, 1943, pay roll of the Company, which contains the names of 35 persons within
the alleged appropriate unit
SUNRAY OIL COMPANY 1323
district superintendent. The conditions of employment are substan-
tially uniform throughout the entire system, and transfers of em-
ployees are made both intra- and inter-districally; however, intra-
districal transfers of personnel are usually of a temporary character,
whereas transfers between- districts have customarily been of a more
permanent nature, and involve a change in pay roll.
Past labor relation matters have been referred to district superin-
tendents for disposition, subject to review of general headquarters
of the Company. The jurisdiction of the Union has been limited to
the employees of the Company in the Oklahoma City District, and it
has not attempted to organize employees other than those in that
district. We are of the opinion that the extent of which the Union
has organized the employees of the Company and the administrative
set-Lip of the Company indicates the present feasibility of the district
unit.2 Our finding, in this regard, does not preclude a later finding
that a larger, more inclusive unit is appropriate.
We find that all production and maintenance employees engaged
in the Oklahoma City District of the Company, excluding the field
engineer , clerical employees, and all supervisory employees with au-
thority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline or otherwise effect
changes in the status of the employees, or effectively recommend such
action, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bar-
gaining, within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
V. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
We shall direct that the question concerning representation which
has arisen be resolved by an election by secret ballot among the em-
ployees in the appropriate unit who were employed during the pay-roll
period immediately preceding the date of our Direction of Election
herein, subject to the limitations and additions set forth in the
Direction.
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
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, it is hereby
DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation to ascertain representa-
tives for the purposes of collective bargaining with Sunray Oil Com-
pany, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, an election by secret ballot shall be
2 Matter of Texas Empit e Pipe Line Company , 19 N. L . R. B. 631.
2 Both parties agree that this employee should be excluded , but on different grounds; the
Company contending that he is a technical employee and the Union contending that he is a
supervisory employee . We do not deem the determination of this disagreement necessary
since either ground would warrant his exclusion. -
1324 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
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 Sixteenth Region , acting in this matter
as agent for the National Labor Relations Board, and subject to
Article III, Sections 10 and 11, of said Rules and Regulations, among
the employees in the unit found appropriate in Section IV, above,
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
temporarily laid off, and including employees in the armed forces of
the United States who present themselves in person at the polls, but
excluding employees who have since quit or been discharged for cause
and have not been rehired or reinstated prior to the date of the election,
to determine whether or not they desire to be represented by the Oil
Workers International Union (CIO), for the purposes of collective
bargaining.
11IR. GERARD D. REILLY took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Direction of Election. -