Champlin Refining Co.

In the Matter of CHAMPLIN REFINING COMPANY and OIL WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, LOCAL 220, C. I. O. Case No. R-5075-Decided April 03, 1943 Messrs. Nathan Scarritt and Joe N. Champlin, of Enid, Okla., for the Company. Mr. Tom McCormick, of Tulsa, Okla., and Mr. L. H. Kunkel, of Enid, Okla., for the Union. Mr. Robert Silagi, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION STATEMENT OF THE CASE I Upon a petition and an amended petition duly filed by Oil Workers International Union, Local 220, C. I. 0., herein called the- Union, .alleging that a question affecting commerce had arisen concerning the representation of employees of Champlin Refining Company, Enid, Oklahoma, herein called the Company, the National Labor Rela- tions Board provided for an appropriate hearing upon due notice before H. Carnie Russell, Trial Examiner. Said hearing was held at Enid, Oklahoma, on March 26, 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 evi- dence bearing on the issues. The Trial Examiner's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. On April 2, 1943, the Company filed a brief which the Board has considered. Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following : FINDINGS OF FACT I. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY Champlin Refining Company is a New Mexico corporation licensed to do business in the State of Oklahoma. The Company maintains 49 N. L. R. B., No. 5. 37 38 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD its principal office and-place of business in' Enid, Oklahoma, where it is engaged in the producing, transporting, refining, and marketing of ,petroleum and petroleum products. - The Company runs approxi- mately 12,000 barrels of crude oil daily through its refinery, 20 to 40 percent of which is produced by the Company, the balance being pur- chased from'other oil companies. 'About 12,000 barrels of refined products are processed daily of which 31.72 percent is sold in Okla- homa and 68.28 percent is sold in other States. The Company fur- nishes to the United States Government, under contract, quantities of alkylate, an essential ingredient in aviation gasoline used by the armed forces. It also supplies petroleum products for the lend-lease program. The Company admits that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act. II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Oil Workers International Union, Local 220, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, is a labor organization admit- ting to membership employees of the Company. III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION I On March 2, 1943, the Union requested recognition from the Com- pany as the exclusive bargaining representative for all employees in the Company's traffic department. Although during the course of discussion the Company intimated that it would accord the Union recognition provided it represented a inajority of the employees in- volved, no definite agreement was reached. At a conference about a week later the Union repeated its request, this time including the employees in the motor transport department in the proposed bar- gaining unit.- The Company refused to grant the Union's request stating that it did not believe such a unit to be appropriate. A statement of a Field Examiner of- the Board, introduced into evidence at the hearing, indicates that the Union represents a substantial 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. I The Field Examiner reported that the Union submitted 10 authorization cards, all of which bore apparently genuine original signatures ; that all the names of the persons appearing on the cards were listed on the Company 's pay roll nearest March 17, 1943, which contained 17 names in the appropriate unit ; that 5 cards were dated in January 1943, and 5 cards were dated in February 1943. CHAMPLIN R,EiFINQNG ' COMPANY 1 39 IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT The Union seeks a unit composed of all employees in the traffic department and motor transport department , excluding supervisors, foremen,,.and clerical employees. The traffic department was estab- lished in 1920 when the Company started to operate its refinery and bought its own tank cars. This department is charged with the maintenance and the traffic movement of tank cars. It employs 12 men who are mechanics on various phases of railroad car repair. The motor transport department was established in 1935 as an out; growth of the Company 's sales , department and as an adjunct to a pipe line which had just been constructed from the refinery in Okla- homa to Iowa. ' It employs 4 truck drivers who spend a considerable portion of their time making interstate hauls. During 1934 the Company's refinery employees and its traffic de- partment employees went out on strike. The refinery employees returned to work after several weeks and executed a contract which was signed by the Union's predecessor on their behalf. The traffic department employees , most of whom were members of the Railroad Brotherhood craft unions, remained out on strike for a considerably longer period of time. Consequently, when the contract was signed, they were omitted from the contract unit. In 1936 and in 1942, the contract, with minor changes, was renewed and each time reference was made only to refinery employees . The Union now claims that the traffic department is included in the contract since it is part of the refinery. A witness for the Company testified that employees of the traffic department were always considered to be excluded from the contracts . Under all the circumstances we find that employees of the traffic department are not part of the present contract unit. The motor transport department having come into existence after the exe- cution of the first contract, could obviously not have been intended to be included in the contract unit. The Company contends that a unit of traffic department and motor transport department employees is not an appropriate one. Volu- minous exhibits and other evidence were introduced to show the sepa- rate identities and functional differences of the two departments. The record shows, however, that the departments are interrelated in that they are both engaged in the transportation of petroleum and are supervised by the same traffic manager. There is also some indica- tion that there has been an interchange of employees between the two departments. On one occasion , during a slack season, several truck drivers were put to work in the traffic department for a few months. There is also evidence to show that on at least two occasions the traffic department performed certain maintenance work on the trucks, although the Company insists that these were isolated instances. I 40 DECISIONS' OF NATIONAL ' LABOR RELATIONS BOARD From all the evidence and because of the fact that the employees of these two departments constitute a residuary group, we' find that their interests are substantially so similar as to constitute them a single appropriate unit.2 There remains but one further matter on which the Company and the Union are in disagreement, namely, the exclusion of certain indi- viduals from the appropriate unit. The parties agree, and we find, that W. J. Barnes, the traffic manager, and L. L. Bracher, tank car shop foreman, are supervisory employees and shall be excluded. The Company desires to include Arthur A. Hayes and 0. J. Hammond in the unit. The Union desires their exclusion on the ground that the- former is a supervisory employee, and on the ground that the latter is a clerical employee. Hayes. The admitted facts with respect to him are that he works on the air brakes in the tank car shop, of the traffic department and also. inspects the'tank cars generally, making notations on their sides as to the work to be performed. The other employees in the shop use his notations as the basis for making their repairs. The Union contends that he is an assistant foreman; the Company, however, denies this and claims that he has no more authority than any other employde in the traffic department. During the comparatively few times that the foreman is absent, Hayes' acts in his place but possesses no authority to recommend hiring or discharging. We find that Hayes is not a supervisory employee and shall include him in the appropriate unit. Hammond. The' Company admits that Hammond devotes two- thirds of his time to clerical duties in the tank car shop, the' balance of his time being spent. in repair work. Since the Union's claim, that shop clerks have always been excluded from the refinery unit in its contracts with the Company, was uncontroverted, we find that Hammond is primarily a clerical employee and shall exclude him from the unit.3 We find that all employees of the Company employed in the traffic department and motor transport department, but excluding super- visors, foremen, clerical employees, W. J. Barnes, L. L. Bracher, and U. J. Hammond, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining 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 2 See Matter of Detroit Incinerator Company and Local 508, International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers (A. F. L.), 45 N . L R. B. 414. a See Matter of Lshue Plantation Company, Ltd . and Ahuksns Terminal and Waterfront Workers Association, Local No. 2174x4, 19 N. L. R. B. 130; also Matter of Salisbury Cotton Mills and Textile Workers Union of America, affiliated with the 0. 1. 0., 39 N L. R. B 210. CHAMPLIN REFINQNG COMPANY 41 employees in the appropriate unit who were employed during the pay-roll period immediately preceding the date of the 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 Rela- tions Board Rules and Regulations-Series 2, as amended, it is hereby DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation to ascertain representa- tives for the purposes of collective bargaining with Champlin Refining Company, Enid, Oklahoma, an election by secret ballot shall be con- ducted 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, Section 10, of said Rules and Regulations, among the employees in the unit found appropriate in Section IV, above, who were em- ployed 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 those employees who have since quit or been discharged for cause, to, determine whether or not they desire to be represented by Oil Workers' International Union, Local 220, C. I. 0., for the purposes of collective bargaining.