Humble Oil & Refining Co.

In the Matter of HUMBLE OIL & REFINING COMPANY and LOCAL 1002, OIL WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, CIO In the Matter of HUMBLE OIL & REFINING COMPANY and BROTHERHOOD OF RAILROAD TRAINMEN In the Matter Of HUMBLE OIL & REFINING COMPANY and INTERNA- TIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, DISTRICT #37 In the Matter of HUMBLE OIL & REFINING- COMPANY and INTERNA- TIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL No. 644 Cases Nos. R-5746 to R-5749 respectively.Decided October 27, 1943 .Messrs. E. E. Townes, Rex G. Baker, W. J. Barnes, and J. Q. Weatherly, all of Houston ,. Tex., for the Company. Mandell & Wright, by Mr. Herman Wright, of Houston, Tex., Messrs. W. B. Taylor and C. Massingale, of Fort Worth, Tex., and Mr. Clyde Johnson, of Goose Creek, Tex., for the Oil Workers. Fulbright, Crooker, Freeman d Bates, by Messrs. W. N. Arnold, Jr., and C. M. Fulton, of Houston, Tex., and Mr. H. G. Bailey, of Bay- town, Tex., for the Federation. Mr. C. H. Smith, of Fort Worth, Tex., Messrs. E. C. Hartrick, H. C. Durham, A. J. Oliver, and G. A. Pichot, of Baytown, Tex., Messrs. E. B. Morris and William Taylor, of Highlands, Tex., and Messrs. E. L. Hallman and F. T. Carroll, of Pelly, Tex., for the BRT. Messrs. E. H. Houser, W. L. Grant, and J. W. -Bay, of Houston, Tex., and Messrs. Frank Fields and Frank Bryant, of Goose Creek, Tex., for the IAM. Mr. L. W. Orton, of Highlands, Tex., and Mr. W. L. Ingram, of Fort Worth, Tex., for the IBEW. Mr. Robert Silagi, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon amended petitions duly filed by Local, 1002, Oil Workers International Union, CIO, herein called the Oil Workers, by Brother- 53 N. L. R. B., No. 25. 116 HUMBLE OIL & REFINING COMPANY 117 hood of Railroad Trainmen, herein called the BRT, by International Association of Machinists, District #37, herein called the IAM,1 and by International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local No. 644, herein called the IBEW, each alleging that a question affecting com- merce had arisen concerning the representation of employees of Hum- ble Oil & Refining Company, Baytown, Texas, herein called the Com- pany, the National Labor Relations Board consolidated the petitions herein and provided for an appropriate hearing upon due notice be- fore Bliss Daffan, Trial Examiner. Said hearing was held at Pelly, Texas, beginning on July 15 and concluding on July 24, 1943. The Company, the Oil Workers, BRT, IAM, IBEW, and Baytown Em- ployees Federation, herein called the Federation, appeared and par- ticipated. All parties were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and' to introduce evidence bear- ing on the issues. At the hearing, both the Company and the Federation filed formal pleas to the jurisdiction of the Board stating in substance that the current Appropriations Act 2 deprives the Board of jurisdiction and power to nullify an existing contract between the Federation and the Company dated January 26, 1943. The respective pleas to the juris- diction of the Board were considered by the Trial Examiner to be, in effect, motions to dismiss the petitions, and were referred to the Board for appropriate action. For the reasons set forth hereinafter, the motions are hereby denied. The Trial Examiner's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. All parties were afforded an opportunity to file briefs with the Board. Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following : FINDINGS OF FAT I. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY Humble Oil & Refining Company is a Texas corporation with its principal place of business in Houston, Texas. The Company is en- gaged in the production, purchase, and sale of crude petroleum, and in the manufacture from this crude petroleum of refined' petroleum products. The Company owns oil wells in the States of Texas, New Mexico, and Louisiana and also owns three refineries located in Texas. At its refinery in Baytown, Texas, with which this proceeding is solely concerned, the Company runs approximately 150,000 barrels of crude petroleum per day. Approximately 85 percent of the refined petroleum 1 Since the filing of its petition the IAM has reaffiliated with the American Federation of Labor. 2 National Labor Relations Board Appropriations Act, 1944, Title IV, Act of July 12, 1943, P. L. 135, 78th Congress , 1st Session. 118 produced at-the Baytown refinery is sold f. o. b., boat, or tank car, Bay- town, Texas, and is transported out of the State of Texas into inter- state and foreign commerce. We find that the Company is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act. II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED i - Local 1002, Oil Workers International Union, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, is a labor organization, ad- mitting to membership employees of the Company. Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen is a labor organization admit- ting to membership employees of the Company. International Association of Machinists, District #37, and Inter- national Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local No. 644, are labor organizations, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, which admit to membership employees of the Company. Baytown Employees Federation is a labor organization admitting to membership employees of the Company. DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION In 1937 the Federation and the Company entered into a contract whereby the Federation was recognized as the exclusive representative of all the Company's employees.3 By its terms, the contract was to remain in effect for 1 year and thereafter until canceled by either party upon sixty (60) days' written notice. A substantially similar contract was renegotiated in 1939 which, with supplements thereto, remained in effect until a contract dated January 26, 1943, became effective. About November 1942 the Federation commenced its nego- tiations with the Company for a new contract. On January 19, 1943, the Oil Workers addressed a letter to the Company declaring its intention of petitioning the Board for an election with a short time and warning the Company against contracting with the Federation, which, the Oil Workers claimed did not represent a majority of the Com- pany's employees. On January 22, the Federation informed the Company that the representations of the Oil Workers were untrue and insisted that the negotiations in progress be promptly concluded. On January 23, the Company replied to the Oil Workers, stating, in substance, that the decree of the Circuit Court of Appeals in Humble Oil c Refining Company v. N. L. R. B.,4 established the Federation as the bargaining agency of its employees at Baytown, and that by reason thereof the Company had dealt with and would 8 Employees in an administrative capacity , department foremen, and assistant depart- ment foremen were excluded from the contract unit. 4 113 F. (2d) 85 (C. C. A. 5), enf'g as modified 16 N. L. R. B. 112. HUMBLE OIL & REFINING COMPANY 119 , continue to bargain with the Federation. On or about January 26, 194< the Company executed the contract which is presently in effect and returned the instrument to the Federation's counsel for execution by the officers of the Federation. On February 16, the Oil Workers informed the Company that it represented a majority of the employees in the operating and maintenance departments of the Baytown refin- ery and requested recognition as their exclusive bargaining repre- sentative. On February 18, according to an admission in the brief filed by the Federation's counsel, the president and secretary of the Federation, acting upon authority of the executive council, and in accordance with the constitution and bylaws of that organization, signed the contract. On April 1, 23, and 29, 1943, respectively, the Oil Workers filed its original, first, and second amended petitions herein. Under these circumstances, the contract was unquestionably executed and became effective on a date after the Company had been put on notice of the majority representation claims of the Oil Workers and a request had been made for recognition by that organization. Therefore, the contention of the Federation and the Company that the contract of 1943 constitutes a bar to a present investigation of representatives is without merit.5 On April 22 and 23, 1943, BRT advised the Company that it repre- sented a majority of the employees in the railroad department and requested recognition as the collective bargaining representative on their behalf. On May 6, 1943, the IAM requested recognition as the representative of the employees 'within the unit it alleged to be ap- propriate. On May 11, 1943, the IBEW requested the Company to grant it recognition as the collective bargaining representative of the electric department employees. All of these requests were re- fused by, the Company on the ground that its contract with the r',--d- eration precluded it from granting recognition to any other labor organization. That contract covers the employees in the units sought by the three craft unions herein, and, as heretofore stated, it was executed in February, several months before the three petitioners in question presented their demands for recognition. Since, however, as we have found, the Oil Workers' petition raises a question concerning representation affecting the majority of employees in the unit covered by the contract, we find that the contract does not operate as a bar to proceeding upon the petitions of the BRT, IAM, and IBEW. In their pleas to the jurisdiction of the Board, the Company and the Federation assert that the restriction upon the expenditure of funds imposed upon the Board by the current Appropriations Act con- stitutes an effective bar to this proceeding. Since the restriction re- See Matter of Basic Magnesium, Inc., 48 N. L. R. B. 1310, also see Matter of Eicor, Inc., 46 N. L . R. B. 1035. 120 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ferred to has no application to a representation proceeding, we find no merit in this contention.6 A statement of a Board agent, introduced into evidence at the hear- ing, and statements made by the Trial Examiner, indicate that the unions represent substantial numbers of employees in the units here- inafter 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) c,f the Act. 6 Opinion of the Comptroller General , July 29, 1943. See Matter of Triangle Lake Lumber Company, 52 N. L R. B. 27. 4 The Field Examiner 's report shows that the Oil workers submitted in support of its petition 1,171 application-for-membership or authorization-for-representation cards, variously dated between March 1935 and April 1943. All cards bore apparently genuine original signatures. A comparison of the names on the cards against the Company's pay roll of March 31, 1943 , containing 4,855 names , 3,264 of which are names of employees within the unit alleged by the Oil workers to be appropriate, revealed that 802 names appearing on the cards correspond with names listed on the pay roll. During the course of the hearing an additional 70 application-for-membership cards were submitted by the Oil workers to the Trial Examiner. A check of these cards disclosed that 40 bore names of persons on the Company's pay roll . Subsequently the Oil workers submitted to the Re- gional Director ill additional cards, 32 of which checked against a Company pay roll of June 30, 1943. There is therefore,a total of 874 cards bearing the names of employees within the alleged unit of 3,264 , or about 26 percent. In a previous case involving the same parties , Matter of Humble Oil & Refining Co., 48 N. L. R. B. 1118, the Board found that the Company had violated Sections 8 (1) and (3) of the Act. To date there has been no compliance with the Board 's Order in this matter. In view of unremedied unfair labor practices of the Company , we shall entertain the petition of the Oil workers , although supported by a showing of representation less than that which we would require were there no special circumstances indicating that the petitioning union has been handicapped in its effort to secure signed designations as bargaining representative. See Matter of The American National Company, 27 N. L. R. B. 22; also Matter of Nevada-California Electric Corporation, 20 N. L. R. B 79 The BRT submitted 49 authorization cards dated in April 1943 , all of which bore apparently genuine original signatures. All names appearing on the cards were listed on the Company's pay roll of March 31 , 1943, which contained the names of 72 employees in the alleged appropriate unit. The IAM submitted 77 authorization cards, all of which bore apparently genuine original signatures The names of 54 persons appearing on the cards were listed on the afore- mentioned pay roll, which contained the names of 188 employees in the alleged appro- priate unit. The cards were dated between February and April 1943. An additional 73 authorization cards were submitted to the Trial Examiner during the course of the bearing. A check against the pay roll disclosed that 57 of these cards bore the names of persons on such pay roll. The IBEW submitted 50 authorization cards, all of which bore apparently genuine original signatures . The names of 45 persons appearing on the cards were listed on the pay roll mentioned above, which contained the names of 52 employees in the alleged appropriate unit. The cards were dated between February and April 1943. At the hearing 9 additional authorization cards bearing the names of persons on the Company 's pay roll were submitted to the Trial Examiner. ' The Federation , as intervenor , submitted 2,891 membership cards variously dated between 1937 and 1943. All cards bore apparently genuine original 'signatures and 1,657 cards bore the names of persons listed on the Company's March 31 , 1943, pay roll which contained the names of 4,662 employees within the unit which the Federation alleges to be appropriate. The Federation also submitted 267 additional cards to the Trial Examiner during the course of the bearings . The Trial Examiner's check reveals that 209 cards bore the names of persons on the Company's pay roll. HUMBLE OIL & REFINING COMPANY 121 IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNITS The Oil Workers petition, as amended at the hearing, seeks a unit consisting of all the Company's production and maintenance em- ployees at the Baytown refinery, excluding supervisory, clerical, plant protection, technical and research, and medical department employees, and employees at the Baytown Ordnance Works, Plancor 485, and Plancor 1082, as well as railroad employees, machinists, and electri- cians, which latter groups are sought by BRT, IAM, and IBEW, respectively. The Federation and the Company contend that the unit should correspond to that established in their existing agreement, that is, in substance, an industrial unit of all employees at Baytown, including those at Baytown Ordnance Works and the two Plancors, as well as those sought by BRT, IAM, and IBEW. Baytown Ordnance Works, Plancor 485, and Plancor 1082 are newly constructed plants, owned by the United States Government, and oper- ated by the Company. They are located immediately adjacent to the refinery in Baytown and are within the same common enclosure. Baytown Ordnance Works manufactures toluene, a base for TNT, and the Plancors produce butadiene and butyl for the manufacture of synthetic rubber. All these products are created from petroleum fractions supplied to the government plants by the refinery. The facilities of the refinery have been so altered, and the facilities of the government plants have been so constructed that they are mutually interdependent, and the shutting down of the government plants would cripple production in the refinery. The refinery can become a self-maintaining unit again only after another extensive and costly alteration. The operations performed at the government plants are the same as the operations performed in the refinery. Employees in both places have the same working conditions and seniority rights, receive the same company benefits, work the same hours, receive the same rates of pay and are required to have the same skills for like classifications. Considerably more than the nucleus of the force at each government plant was secured from the refinery. Supervision over all plants is closely integrated and production is, scheduled through a single coordination department on an over-all basis. At its Ingleside, Texas, refinery the Company also operates a buta- diene plant similar in all respects to the Plancors at Baytown. The Company and Oil Workers recently negotiated a contract for the re- finery which includes the employees of the butadiene plant. Baytown Ordnance Works has been in operation since October 1941, and employs some 500 individuals. As of the date of the hearing, 122 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Plancor 485 had about 300 out of a total expected complement of 440 employees and was expected to go into full operation sometime in August 1943. As for Plancor 1082 that plant is in the process of construction and will not go into production until December 1943, at which time it will employ about 500 persons. As of the date of the hearing, Plancor 1082 had but 4 employees assigned to its pay roll. Inasmuch as Plancor 485 has more than a majority of its total expected complement of employees, it presents no problem of expand- ing unit. As to Plancor 1082, the record establishes that a substantial number of its staff will be recruited from employees of the refinery or the other government-owned plants. In any event, the number of em- ployees to be hired at Plancor 1082 will not materially affect the total number of employees at Baytown.8 We find in view of the functional coherence and interdependence of all plants at Baytown, and the integrated supervision of these plants, that,any general production and maintenance unit of employees at the refinery should include the employees at the Baytown Ordinance Works and the Plancors. We turn now to a consideration of the categories of employees to be included in the unit. In addition to supervisory employees, as to whom the parties agree in principle, the Oil Workers would exclude from the unit plant protection, clerical, medical, technical, and research employees and the craft groups sought by the BRT, IAM, and IBEW.' The Federation and the Company would include each of the disputed categories except supervisors. The Federation relies heavily upon its present contract with the Company and the previous history of collec- tive bargaining to support its contention that only an all-inclusive unit is appropriate. We do not agree that the scope of the Federation's contracts concludes the issue., The Federation's present contract covers approximately 5,000 employees, widely divergent in skills, wages, and interests. While the history of collective bargaining is entitled to weight in making a determination of a unit, we have recently had oc- casion to point out that countervailing factors may determine that a. unit different from the one so established will better effectuate the pur- poses and policies of the Act The Federation seeks to represent in a single unit three distinct major groups of employees, manual workers, clerical workers, and technical and professional workers who, we have often found, are insufficiently allied in interest to be appropriately merged in the same unit for the purposes of collective bargaining. Moreover, clerical, professional and technical employees have uniformly been excluded 8 Cf Matter of Chase Brass t Copper Co , Ive , 47 N L R B 298. 9 See Matter of Indtanapoh 8 Power and Light Company, 51 N L. R B. 670; also see Matter of The Trailer Company of America, 51 N. L R B. 1106 , BUMBLE OIL & REFINING COMPANY _ 123 from units of production and maintenance employees found appro- priate by us in cases involving petroleum refineries in Texas and the immediate vicinity,10 including a recent case involving the Company's Ingleside refinery Il The history of self-organization and collective bargaining in the industry indicates the propriety of units correspond- ing, in general, to those herein proposed by the Oil Workers, the BRT, the IAM, and the IBEW, rather than the all-inclusive unit for which the Federation contends. Railroad employees; machinists; and electricians Each of the three craft unions here seeks a unit consisting, in the main, of highly specialized, skilled employees who are traditionally represented by craft unions. It is clear from an examination of foot- note 7, supra, that each of the craft unions represents a substantial number of employees in the units for which they petition. As we have indicated, the history of collective bargaining in the industry supports the establishment of such units if the employees concerned so desire'12 and we shall, accordingly, provide herein for self-determi- nation elections among the employees in the three groups in question. We shall' make no final determination of the unit or units at this time, but shall defer such determination pending the results of the elections hereinafter directed. The BRT petitions for the employees in the railroad department. Most of the crude oil used at the refinery is shipped to Baytown via pipe line. Prior to the war, refined petroleum products were shipped to their destination by pipe line, tanker or tank car. Since the war the Company has been forced to expand its shipping facilities and has therefore greatly increased its railroad department. This department is responsible for all switching, breaking up and assembling of tank car trains which are, then delivered to either the Missouri Pacific or Southern Pacific railroads. The employees of the railroad depart- ment perform the functions normally undertaken by the ground and 10 See Matter of The Pure Oil Company, 8 N. L. R. B 207; clerical employees excluded ; Matter of Magnolia Petroleum Company, 18 N. L. R. B. 380, professional, laboratory, and clerical employees excluded; Globe elections held for machine shop and boilermaker depart- ments ; Matter of Pan American Refining Corporation, 35 N. L. R. B. 725, clerical, technical, and research employees excluded ; Matter of The Texas Company, Port Arthur Refinery, 37 N L. -R B 932, clerical, technical, and first-aid employees excluded ; Globe elections for machinists, electricians, and boilermakers; Matter of Phillips Petroleum Company, 41 N. L R. B. 802, clerical and technical employees excluded; Matter of Gulf Oil Corpora- tion (Port Arthur Refinery), 47 N. L R. B. 327, separate units for electricians, machinists, railroad employees, and bricklayers previously found ; clerical employees, chemists, and graduate engineers excluded. "See Matter of Humble Oil it Refining Company, 44 N. L. R: B. 51$ There too, the Company had a history of several years of collective bargaining and a contract with a labor organization on a plant-wide basis. The Board nevertheless made a unit finding which is substantially the same as that herein founa appropriate. 12 See footnote 10, supra. 124 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL , LABOR RELATIONS BOARD locomotive crews of a freight yard of any standard railroad, except that they confine their activities to the plants in Baytown. No attempt has been made by the Oil Workers to organize the railroad employees because of their representation by BRT. We shall establish a sep- arate voting group for the railroad department employees. The IAM seeks to represent in a separate unit the employees in the machinist department maintained by the Company as part of the refinery. Included in this department are machinists, millwrights, helpers, machine operators, and toolroom men. On periodic occasions, machinists from the refinery are sent to do work in the government- owned plants, and, in addition, skeleton staffs of machinists are main- tained in the government plants who perform the same work as the refinery machinists. In view of our previous finding that a unit of production and maintenance employees must include employees at all plants in Baytown, we cannot permit the IAM to separate refinery machinists from other machinists. During the course of the hear- ing, the IAM amended its petition to include employees of the recla- mation and the blacksmith departments within the' unit it alleges to be appropriate. The Oil Workers contends that the employees in these two departments are not properly a part of the proposed machin- ists' unit. The reclamation department, in the repair of valves, broken and worn equipment, uses employees with skills far inferior to those in the machinist department. The blacksmith department, as its name indicates, constitutes an entirely different craft from the machinists. Although all three departments are under the super- vision of one foreman, there is no interchange of employees between the departments, nor are the departments contiguous. There is no policy of advancement from the' reclamation department to the ma- chinist department. Indeed, such a transfer entails the loss of seniority. The same holds true of interdepartmental transfers be- tween the machinists and the blacksmiths. We shall establish a sep- arate voting group for all employees of the machinist department and include therein all other machinists employed in the government plants, but we shall exclude the employees of the reclamation and blacksmith departments. The electricians also constitute a separate department in the refinery and are sought as a separate unit by the IBEW. As is the case with respect to the railroad employees and the machinists, the Oil Workers have not organized the electricians. The record is not clear as to whether the maintenance crews stationed in the government plants include electricians in their number. In any event, we shall establish a separate voting group for electricians and their helpers such as we found appropriate for the t machinists. HUMBLE OIL & REFINING COMPANY 125.. The production and maintenance employees It is now our established policy that militarized plant protection employees may not be included in a unit with any other employees 13 The plant protection employees of the Company are members of the Auxiliary Military Police. They will, accordingly, be excluded from the production and maintenance group. The office and clerical employees at the Baytown refinery are monthly salaried, in contradistinction to the hourly paid operating and maintenance employees. For the most part, they are located in the general office building which is separate and apart from the other buildings of the refinery. As their classification implies, they are engaged in either stenographic or clerical work. No attempt has been made by the Oil Workers to organize them and none has been accepted into membership in that organization. The technical em- ployees at the refinery are mostly college trained chemists, engineers, and draftsmen employed on a salaried basis. They, too, have not been organized by the Oil Workers. The employees in the medical department consist of a salaried physician, graduate nurses, and medical attendants and clerks who handle all medical problems and emergencies arising in the plant. It is apparent that the different types of work performed by these three groups, as distinguished from the production and maintenance groups, the traditional diver- gence in social outlook, and the essential dissimilarity in skills and function, are compelling reasons for their separation from each other, and we shall exclude them from the voting group of. production and maintenance employees. Both the evidence and the positions of the parties with respect to the identification of supervisory employees are unclear. Generally speaking, the Company draws a distinction between its supervisory employees who are on salary and those who are hourly paid, in that the former seem to exercise greater or more permanent authority than the latter. It is apparent that salaried supervisors for the, most part should be excluded from the voting groups, since they have at least the authority to recommend promotion, discharge, discipline, or change in status, for their subordinate employees. As to hourly paid employees who are allegedly supervisors, the Oil Workers and the Fed- eration agree upon the exclusion of the field supervisors and working .shop foremen listed in Appendix A hereto. Since both organizations agree that these individuals are supervisory employees, we shall ex- clude them from the production and maintenance voting groups. The Oil Workers does not regard stillmen, shift operators or treaters, zs See Matter of Dravo Corporation, 52 N L. R. B. 322. 559015-44-vol. 53-10 126 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD pump supervisors, or gang or labor pushers as sufficiently, high in the managerial hierarchy to warrant their exclusion from the unit. As to the gang pushers, a prior case involving the same parties 14 clearly establishes that they are such representatives of management that their interference with employees' self-organization is attrib-' utable to the employer as unfair labor practices. We shall, ac- cordingly, exclude them from the voting group. Both unions would ' apparently include in the voting group certain employees variously designated as shift supervisors, shift operators, or treaters, yet there is evidence indicating that they supervise the activities of from 15 to 25 employees, that they are empowered to make recommendations as to their subordinates, and, under certain circumstances, may lay them off.15 Among the hourly paid ein- ployees are certain "sliding" foremen, that is, journeymen first class, who have been temporarily elevated to the status of supervisors. It is impossible to determine from the present record either the extent or duration, of this group's authority. Similarly, the, record is con- fused with respect to stillmen and pumper supervisors. In view of the present state of the record and the fact that the supervisory status of said categories of employees in the petroleum refining in- dustry will be shortly adjudicated, we shall not make a present find- - ing with respect to supervisory employees other than the salaried supervisors, the hourly paid supervisors listed in Appendix A, and the gang or labor pushers, all of whom we shall exclude from the voting group. As to the remaining classifications of alleged supervisors, we hereby direct that their ballots be impounded until such time as their exact status can be determined 16 Upon the basis of the entire record, and in accordance with the fore- going findings of fact, we shall direct elections among the employees of the Company within the groups described below : 1. All'production and maintenance employees of the Company at the Baytown refinery, including employees of the Baytown Ordnance Works, Plancor 485 and Plancor 1082, and employees of the reclama- tion and blacksmith departments, but excluding the classification set forth in Appendix "A", office employees, clerks, plant protection em- ployees, ,technical and research employees, medical department em- ployees, railroad employees, machinists and electricians, and all super- visory employees with authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, 14 Matter of Humble Oil & Refining Company , 48 N. L R. B. 1118. 15 Cf. Matter of The Maryland Drydock Company , 49 N. L. R. B. 733; also Matter of Douglas Aircraft Company, Inc ., 49 N. L. R. B. 819. 19 Although we hereby exclude salaried supervisory employees from the voting groups, it is our intention that the alleged supervisors in the operating departments, such as still- men, shift supervisors , shift operators , treaters , pumper supervisors , etc., be permitted to vote even though their names may appear on the salaried pay roll. However, their ballots, along with those of other supervisory employees in dispute , shall be impounded pending a determination of their exact status. HUMBLE OIL & REFINING COMPANY 127 or otherwise effect changes in the status of employees, or effectively recommend such action, to determine whether they desire to be repre- sented by the Oil Workers or by the Federation, for the purposes of collective bargaining, or by neither. 2. All employees of the railroad department of the Company at Baytown, but excluding all supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of employees, or effectively recommend such action, to deter- mine whether they desire to be represented by BRT or by the Federa- tion, for the purposes of collective bargaining, or by neither. 3. All employees in the machinist department of the refinery, and all other machinists at Baytown, but excluding all supervisory em- ployees with authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of employees, or effectively rec- ommend such action, to determine whether they desire to be repre- sented by IAM or by the Federation, for the purposes of collective bargaining, or by neither. 4. All electricians and electricians' helpers in the electric depart- ment of the refinery and all other electricians and electricians' helpers at Baytown, but excluding all supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of employees, or effectively recommend such action, to deter- mine whether they desire to be represented by IBEW or by the Federa- tion, for the purposes of collective bargaining, or by neither. As stated above, there will be no final determination of the appro- priate unit or units pending the results of the elections. If the BRT, the IAM, or the IBEW receive a majority of the votes cast in their respective voting groups, the employees in said groups will constitute separate appropriate units. Those groups, choosing the' Federation will, together, constitute a single appropriate unit. V. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES We shall direct that the question concerning representation which has arisen be resolved by separate elections by secret ballot among the employees in the aforesaid voting groups who were employed during the pay-roll period immediately preceding the date of the Direction of Elections herein, subject to the limitations and additions set forth in the Direction. DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS 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 2, as amended, it is hereby 128 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD DmEoTEn that, as part of the investigation to ascertain representa- tives for the purposes of collective bargaining with Humble Oil & Refining Company, Baytown, Texas, separate elections by secret ballot shall be 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, act- ing 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 following groups of employees 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 any who have since quit or been discharged for cause and have not been rehired or reinstated prior to the date of the election : 1. Among all production and maintenance, employees of the Com- pany at the Baytown Refinery, including employees of the Baytown Ordnance Works, Plancor 485 and Plancor 1082, and employees of the reclamation and blacksmith department, but excluding the classi- fication set forth in Appendix "A", office employees, clerks, plant protection employees, technical and research employees, medical de- partment employees, railroad employees, machinists and electricians, and all supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote, dis- charge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of em- ployees, or effectively recommend such action, to determine whether they desire to be represented by Local 1002, Oil Workers Inter- national Union, C. I. 0., or by Baytown Employees Federation, for the purposes of collective bargaining, or by neither. 2. Among all employees of the railroad department of the Com- pany at Baytown, but excluding all supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of employees, or effectively recommend such action, to determine whether they desire to be represented by Brother- hood of Railroad Trainmen, or by Baytown Employees Federation, for the purposes of collective bargaining, or by neither. 3. Among all employees of the machinist department of the re- finery, and all other machinists at Baytown, but excluding all super- visory employees with authority to hire, promote, discharge, disci- pline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of employees, or effectively recommend such action, to determine whether they desire to be represented by International Association of Machinists, District #37, A.' F. of L., or by Baytown Employees Federation, for the purposes of collective bargaining, or by neither. HUMBLE OIL & REFINING COMPANY 129 4. Among all electricians and electricians' helpers in the electric department of the refinery and all other electricians and electricians' helpers at Baytown, but excluding all supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of employees, or effectively recommend such action, to determine whether they desire to be represented by Inter- national Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local No. 644, A. F. of L., or by Baytown Employees Federation, for the purposes of collective bargaining, or by neither. APPENDIX "A" Blacksmith Department, working shop foreman. Boilermaker Department, field supervisor. Brick Mason Department, brick mason foreman. Carpenter Department, field supervisor, working shop foreman, lumber yard foreman. Car Repair Shop, car repair shop supervisor. Garage Department, working shop foreman. Instrument Department, field supervisor, working shop foreman. Insulation Department, field supervisor. Labor Department, field supervisor. Paint Department, field supervisor. Pipe Department, field supervisor, pipe shop foreman. Reclamation Department, field supervisor, working shop foreman. Rigging Department, field supervisor. Sheet Metal Department, field supervisor. Welding Department, shop foreman, field supervisor. Lube Finishing Compound and Package, compound supervisor.