The Standard Oil Co.Download PDFNational Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsApr 29, 1964146 N.L.R.B. 1189 (N.L.R.B. 1964) Copy Citation THE STANDARD OIL CO. (OHIO) (AKRON DIVISION) 1189 ping department employees and the janitress ,' and excluding office employees and all guards, professional employees , and supervisors , as defined in the National Labor Relations Act. WE WILL NOT offer any proposals for a contract or for clauses or changes in a contract or in working . conditions except directly to said union and will not make any changes concerning them except after first notifying, consulting with , and negotiating in good faith with said Union concerning the same.. WE WILL NOT try to discredit the Union by going back on promises to or agreements made with it , or by making promises to or agreements with the Union, with the preconceived intention of. backing out on them. WE WILL NOT threaten to close . the plant . rather than comply with our obligation to notify and bargain with the union in respect to any change of working conditions. WE WILL NOT promise any of our employees benefits to induce them, or threaten any of our employees with more stringent conditions , or discrim- inate against them in respect to our policy concerning leaves of absence or any other policy, in order to coerce them , into abandoning the Union in favor of dealing individually with us. WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with the efforts of said Union to represent you and to bargain for and negotiate working conditions on your behalf , nor will we in any other manner seek to obstruct the bargaining process. WE SHALL respect your rights under the National Labor Relations Act and shall make every reasonable effort to give the bargaining relationship with the Union a fair chance to succeed by bargaining with it in an honest ef- fort and with a genuine intention of arriving at an agreement , and by re- ducing to writing and signing any agreement we arrive at, and honoring its terms. WABANA, INC., Employer. Dated------------------- By------------------------------------------- (Representative ) ( Title) This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting, and must not be altered , defaced , or covered by any other material. If any employees have any questions concerning what the above notice means or requires, they may get in touch with the Board 's Regional Office , 614 ISTA Center, 150 West Market Street , Indianapolis , Indiana , Telephone No. Melrose 3-8921, in person, by telephone , or by mail. The Standard Oil Company ( Ohio ) (Akron Division ) and Akron- Youngstown Petroleum Workers The Standard Oil; Company (Ohio ) (Youngstown Division) and Akron-Youngstown Petroleum Workers. Cases Nos. 8-RC-4745 and 8-RC-4747.• April 29, 1964 SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER On June 22 and August 10, 1962, respectively, Akron-Youngstown Petroleum .Workers, the Petitioner herein, was certified as collective- bargaining representative of two identical bargaining units of opera- tions and maintenance employees of 'the Akron and Youngstown sales divisions of the Employer, including, among others, drivers. On November 6, 11963, the Petitioner filed separate motions to clarify certifications with respect to whether certain individuals classified as "distributors" and "consignment distributors" in .the Employer's 146 NLRB No. 148. 1190 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Akron and Youngstown sales divisions were included in the respec- tive certified units. Thereafter, the Board issued an order remanding the proceeding to the Regional Director for the Eighth Region to con- duct a hearing on the issues raised by Petitioner in its requests for clarification. A hearing was held at Akron and Youngstown, Ohio, between January 28 and February 6, 1964, before Hearing Officer Nora Friel. The Hearing Officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with these proceedings to a three-member panel [Members Leedom, Fan- ning, and Brown]. Upon the entire record in these cases, the Board finds : In the Akron sales division, there are 4 distributors and 2 consign- ment distributors and, in the Youngstown sales division, there are 18 distributors known as tank truck distributors. Of the 72 employees in the certified unit at Akron, 32 are company drivers, and of the 52 employees in the certified unit at Youngstown, 36. are company drivers. Company drivers operate tractor-trailers owned by Employer, are paid on an hourly basis, and serve gas stations, industrial plants, and other heavy consumers with large storage tanks. The distributors in issue use small tank trucks and serve farm and residential consumers who have limited storage capacity. Both classes of distributors. operate under an agreement with the Employer by which they sell and deliver Standard Oil products for which they are paid on a com-. mission basis. The chief distinctions between the distributors and the consignment distributors lies in the ownership of the trucks they drive-the distributors owning theirs and the consignment distributors leasing theirs from the Employer-and in the fact that consignment distributors operate only in the peak season during the winter months. The Petitioner contends that persons working under the titles of "distributor" and "consignment distributor" are drivers within the unit description and employees rather than independent contractors. The Employer contends that distributors of both types are inde- pendent contractors and, in any event, have an insufficient community of interests with the employees in the unit to justify their inclusion in the unit. The record indicates that persons in the categories of distributors were not on the eligibility list and did not vote in the election which resulted in certification of the Petitioner, although the Employer had utilized the services of distributors prior to the advent of the Union. Neither the contract executed subsequent to the current certification nor any previous contract with predecessors of the Petitioner covered. distributors of either type. An officer of the Petitioner testified at LOCAL 58, INT'L BROTHERHOOD ELECTRICAL WORKERS 1191 the hearing that it had not occurred to union representatives that distributors might be employees rather than independent contractors until he was so advised by the union attorney in the fall of 1963. It thus appears that there was an intent to exclude those in question from the certified units and that the distributors have been without representation since. Clarification of a certification or amendment of a unit description may be in order where a new employee classification has been created, or an employer's operations have been expanded subsequent to a cer- tification, and the employees involved are normal accretions to the certified unit.' Here, however, the categories of distributor and con- signment or fuel oil distributor are not new, since they antedate the certification by many years, and it is not even alleged that their duties have undergone such change as would be tantamount to the creation of a new classification. Thus, even if the distributors were found to be employees rather than independent contractors, a question we need not decide, we believe that they do not constitute an accretion to the existing unit. The proper procedure for accomplishing Peti- tioner's purpose in the instant matter is a petition filed pursuant to Section 9(c) of the Act, seeking an election rather than a motion for clarification,' and we shall therefore dismiss the instant proceedings. [The Board dismissed the motions for clarification of certifications in Cases Nos. 8-RC-4745 and 8-RC-4747.] 'Brockton-Taunton Gas Company , 132 NLRB 940. 2 Westinghouse Electric Corporation , 142 NLRB 317. Local 58, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO and Guardian Building Company. Case No. 7-CD-90. April 29, 1964 DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE This is a proceeding pursuant to Section 10(k) of the National Labor Relations Act, following a charge filed on June 26, 1963, by Guardian Building Company, herein called the Employer, alleging that Local 58, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL- CIO, herein called IBEW or Respondent, had violated Section 8(b) (4) (D) of the Act. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held be- fore Hearing Officer Harry D. Camp, beginning on October 25 and ending on October 31, 1963. All parties appeared at the hearing and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross- examine witnesses , and to adduce evidence bearing on the issues. The rulings of the Hearing Officer made at the hearing are free from 146 NLRB No. 144. Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation