The Texas Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 5, 1940

21 N.L.R.B. 110 (N.L.R.B. 1940)

In the Matter of THE TEXAS COMPANY and BUILDING SERVICE
EMPLOYEES LOCAL UNION No. 75
Case No. B-1684.-Decided March 51 19140
Oil Production, Manufacture, and Marketing Indvsti y-Investigation of
Representatives: controversy concerning representation of employees: refusal
by employer to recognize petitioning union unless Board determined majority
status and had jurisdiction to make such determination for building -service
employees ; stipulation as to-Jurisdiction - sustained : building-maintenance
operations as part of Company 's interstate business-Unit Appropriate for
Collective Bargaiwing : 'all building-service employees , including janitresses, head
janitor, janitors , watchmen , matron, elevator starter, and elevator operators ;
stipulation as to-Election Ordered
Mr. L. N. D. Wells, Jr., and Mr. V. Lee McMahon, for the Board.
Mr. James H. Pipkin, of Houston, Tex., for the Company.
Mandel d Combs, and Mr. Albert Stein, of Houston, Tex., and
Mr. Herbert Thatcher, of Washington, D. C., for the Union.
Miss Grace McEldowney, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On June 6, 1939, Building Service Employees Local Union No. 75,
herein called the Union, filed with the Regional Director for the Six-
teenth Region (Fort Worth, Texas) a petition, and on December 5,
1939, an amended petition, alleging that a question affecting com-
merge ,had, arisen concerning ,the-representation of employees of The
Texas Company, Houston, Texas, herein called the Company, and
requesting an investigation and certification of representatives pur-
suant to Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat.
449, herein called the Act. On December 5, 1939, 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 Re-
lations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 2, issued an order, and
on December 19, 1939, an amended order, directing an investigation
and authorizing the Regional Director to conduct it and to provide
for an appropriate hearing upon due notice. Pursuant to notices
21 N. L. R. B., No. 18.
110
THE TEXAS COMPANY 111
duly served upon the Company and the Union, a hearing was held
on January 16, 1940, at Houston, Texas, before Albert L. Lohrn, the
Trial Examiner duly designated by the Board. The Board, the
Company, and the Union were represented by counsel and partici-
pated in the hearing. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and
cross -examine witnesses , and to introduce evidence bearing on the
issues was afforded all parties.
At the hearing counsel for the Company moved to dismiss the
petition for lack of jurisdiction, on the ground that the work of the,
employees involved in the proceeding is purely local in its nature,
regardless of the character of the Company's business as a whole.
The Trial Examiner did not rule on this motion . For the reasons
set forth below , the motion is hereby denied . During the course of
the hearing, the Trial Examiner made several rulings on motions
and on objections to the admission of evidence . The Board has
reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds that no preju-
dicial errors were committed . The rulings are hereby affirmed.
On February 6, 1940, a hearing was held before the Board at
Washington, D. C., for the purpose ' of oral argument. Both the
Company and the Union appeared and presented argument. The
Company also filed a , brief which has been considered by the Board.
Upon the entire record in the proceeding , the Board makes the
following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
The Texas Company, a Delaware corporation with its principal
business and executive offices in New York City and Houston , Texas,
is engaged in producing , manufacturing , and marketing crude oil
and its products . It operates approximately 8,000 wells and 23 re-
fineries situated in several States, . and markets its products through
dealers in all States . It owns and controls all of the stock in a
number of subsidiary corporations engaged in one or more phases
of the oil industry in the United States and a number of foreign
countries . In 1938, according to its franchise tax return , 13.337 per
cent of its business was intrastate and 86.663 per cent interstate in
character . It is capitalized at over $250,000,000, and its gross re-
ceipts for 1938 were in excess of $280,000,000.
In Houston , Texas, the Company owns and operates for the use
of its second largest executive office, a 13 -story office building cover-
ing one-quarter city block and containing 253 office rooms . In it are
employed approximately 750 persons , exclusive of the building -service
employees involved in this case . The entire building, except for a
112 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
cigar and soft drink stand on the main floor, is occupied by the
Company and its subsidiaries.
The employees for whom a bargaining unit is sought are the 48
persons engaged in the work of cleaning and servicing this building.
They include 18 janitresses, a head janitor, 20 janitors, 2 watchmen,
a matron, an elevator starter, and 5 elevator operators. There is no
doubt that the Company is engaged in commerce within the meaning
of the Act, but the Company contends that the work of these em-
ployees is purely local, without substantial relation to trade, traffic,
and commerce among the several States, and thus no question affect-
ing commerce has arisen in this proceeding.
We see no reason for regarding the building-maintenance opera-
tions of the Company as entirely separate and distinct from the rest
of its business. The office building here involved is owned and
operated by the Company not as a separate enterprise, but to house
its second largest executive office. Except for a small space on the
first floor, the entire building is occupied by the Company's offices.
We are impressed by the fact that the Company itself finds it expe-
dient to maintain its own office building from which a substantial
part of the operations of its vast interstate enterprise is directed.
Manifestly no large office building can long be operated without
building-service employees, such as those here involved.
It is obvious, moreover, that a labor dispute between the building-
service employees and the Company could seriously interfere with
the comfort, convenience, safety, and efficiency of the 750 executive
and clerical employees who work in the building. It is also clear
that a picket line outside the building might seriously impede, if not
actually paralyze, all business handled through the Houston office,
while a strike of the building-service employees easily might lead
to sympathetic strikes and other disturbances among the numerous
other employees of the Company throughout its vast enterprise.
We do not regard the status of building-service employees in the
Company's executive office building as materially different from that
of maintenance and janitorial employees 1 in a large plant manu-
i Maintenance and janitorial employees and watchmen frequently are included in the
scope of Board certifications and orders In Matter of American Potash & Chemical Cor-
poration and Borax & Potash Workers Union No. 20181, 3 N. L R. B. 140, the Board di-
rected reinstatement with back pay of a "relief janitor" found to have been discriminated
against. Tbd Board's Order was subsequently enforced by the court. National Labor Rela-
tions Board v. American Potash and Chemical Corporation, 98 F (2d) 488 (C. C. A. 9),
cert. denied, 306 U. S 643 Board orders directing that collective bargaining be carried
on with representatives of both production and maintenance employees have been enforced
by the courts . National Labor Relations Board v. Piqua Munising Wood Products Com-
pany, 109 F (2d) 552; National Labor Rotations Board v. Louisville Refining Co, 102 F
(2d) 678 (C. C. A. 6). In a recent case the Board ordered the reinstatement of a night
watchman found to have been discriminated against Matter of Lansing Company and
International Union, United Automobile Weriers of America, Local No. 182, 20 N L R B
434.
THE TEXAS COMPANY 1 13
factoring or processing goods which flow in commerce. It is clearly
as important to the Company that its executive office building be
maintained in such condition that the conduct of business is facili-
tated rather than hampered. Since operation of the office building
is an integral part of the Company's enterprise, we are not impressed
by the contention that the services of the employees involved do not
relate directly to the flow of goods in commerce. We think it clear
that the employees come within the protection of the Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Building Service Employees Local Union No. 75 is a labor organ-
ization affiliated with the American Federation of Labor. It admits
to membership employees of the Company who are engaged in the
cleaning, maintenance,' and upkeep of the Company's building in
Houston, Texas.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
It was stipulated at the hearing that the Union had requested the
Company to bargain with it as the representative of the building-
service employees, but that the Company was unwilling to do so
unless the Board determined that the Union represented a majority
of the employees in the proposed unit and had jurisdiction to make
such determination. In all its dealings with the Union, the Com-
pany had taken the position that the Board did not have jurisdic-
tion and that the employees involved were not covered by the Act.
We find that a question has arisen concerning the representation
of employees of the Company.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION UPON
COMMERCE
We find that the question concerning representation which has
arisen, occurring in connection with the operations of the Company
described in Section I above, has a close, intimate, and substantial
relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, and
tends to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce
and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
At the hearing a stipulation between counsel for the Board and
-the Company was introduced, in which the building-service employees
' 2 The , word "maintenance" In so far as the jurisdiction of the Union , is concerned applies
only to cleaning and upkeep , and does not include repair work . Carpenters, engineers,
electricians, plumbers , painters , and other craftsmen are not admitted to membership
114 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of the Company were listed and classified according to their work,
with a description of the duties of each group. The Union contends
that all employees in the classifications on the list should be included
in the appropriate unit, and all others excluded. Those included
would be janitresses, head janitor, janitors, watchmen, matron, eleva-
tor starter, and elevator operators.3 The Company takes no stand
on the appropriate unit.
We find that the building-service employees of the Company who
are employed in its building at Houston, Texas, including janitresses,,
head janitor, janitors, watchmen, matron, elevator starter, and ele-
vator operators constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of
collective bargaining with the Company, and that such unit will
insure to employees of the Company the full benefit of their right to
self-organization and to collective bargaining and otherwise effectuate
the policies of the Act.
VI. THE i)ETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
The parties agreed that the stipulation referred to in Section V,
above, included the names of the 44 building-service employees on
the Company's pay roll on the day of the hearing, and also 4 extra
employees who were accustomed to working for the Company during
the absence of regular employees, but who were not actually at work
on that day.4 These four employees are included within the bar-
gaining unit. It was testified that 29 of the 48 employees were
members of the Union. The Company, however, requested an elec-
tion if the Board should determine it had jurisdiction of the matter.
We find that the question concerning representation can best be
resolved by means of an election by secret ballot. Since the parties
made no clear indication as to what pay-roll period should be used
to determine eligibility to participate in the election, we shall follow
our usual practice in this regard.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire
record in the case, the Board makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. A question affecting commerce has arisen concerning the repre-
sentation of employees of The Texas Company, Houston, Texas,
within the meaning of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of
the National Labor Relations Act.
3 In its Petition the Union described the bargaining unit which it claimed as appropriate
as "building service workers employed in the cleaning and servicing of The Texas Company
office building."
4 The four extra employees included in the stipulation are Mrs. Chronister, Mrs. What-
ley, and Mrs Kennedy, janitresses , and Mrs. Locascio , elevator operator.
THE TEXAS COMPANY 115
2. All building-service employees of the Company employed in
its building at Houston, Texas, including janitresses, head janitor,
janitors, watchmen, matron, elevator starter, and elevator operators,
constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargain-
ing, within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the National Labor
Relations Act.
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 Re-
lations Act, and pursuant to Article III, Section 8, of National
Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 2, as amended,
it is hereby
DiI;rCTED that, as part of the investigation authorized by the
Board to ascertain representatives for the purposes of collective
bargaining with The Texas Company, Houston, Texas, an election
by secret ballot shall be conducted as early as possible but not later
than thirty (30) days from the date of this Direction of Election,
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, Section 9, of said
Rules and Regulations, among all building-service employees of
the Company employed in its building at Houston, Texas, including
janitresses, head janitor, janitors, watchmen, matron, elevator starter,
and elevator operators, who were employed by the Company during
the pay-roll period next preceding the date of this Direction of
Election, including employees who did not work during such pay-roll
period because they were ill or on vacation, and employees who shall
have since been temporarily laid off, but excluding employees who
shall have since quit or been discharged for cause, to determine
whether, or not they desire to be represented by Building Service
Employees Local Union No. 75, for the purposes of collective bar-
gaining.