Tide Water Associated Oil Co.

In the Matter of TIDE WATER ASSOCIATED OIL COMPANY and Om WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, C. I. O. Case No. 16--R-1070.-Decided February P^, 1945 Mr. J. C. Young, of Tulsa, Okla., for the Company. Mr. H. L. Campbell, of Fore Worth, Tex., Mr. W. F. Noell, of Ponca City, Okla., and Messrs. C. M. Florence, William R. Sturge, W. T. Blanton, and Roy Dorsey, all of Drumright. Okla., for the Union. Mr. Louis Monas, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION STATEMENT OF TIIE CASE Upon a petition duly filed by Oil Workers International Union, C. I. 0., herein called the Union, alleging that a question affecting, commerce had arisen concerning the representation of employees of Tide Water Associated Oil Company, Houston, Texas, herein called the Company, the National Labor Relations Board provided for an appropriate hearing upon due notice before Lewis Moore, Trial Ex- aminer. Said hearing was held at Tulsa, Oklahoma, on December 7, 1944. The Company and the Union appeared and participated. All parties were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues. 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 FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY Tide Water Associated Oil Company is a Delaware corporation engaged in the production, refining and transportation of crude oil as wdll as the marketing of crude oil and its refined products. The Company's Mid-Continent Division has its principal office at Houston, 60 N. L. R. B., No. 73. 356 TIDE WATER ASSOCIATED OIL COMPANY 357 Texas, and operates six producing districts in Oklahoma and Kansas, a pipe line at Seminole, Oklahoma, and a refinery at Drumright, Oklahoma, with which we are solely concerned. In addition, the Mid-Continent Division also operates pipe lines and producing leases in six other States. During the 6 months immediately preceding the filing.of the petition herein, the Mid-Continent Division used in its operations raw materials valued in excess of $100,000, less than 10 percent of which was received from points outside the State of Okla- homa. During the same period the Mid-Continent Division produced and sold goods valued in excess of $100,000, representing more than 50 percent of its total production, which were shipped to points outside that State. 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, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, is a labor- organization admitting to membership employees of the Company. III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION The Company has refused to grant recognition to the Union as the exclusive bargaining representative of certain of its employees until the Union has been certified by the Board in an appropriate unit. A statement of a Board Field Examiner, 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. IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT The Union urges as appropriate a single unit embracing all em- ployees in the Mid-Continent Division's producing and refining de- partments 2 in the States of Oklahoma and Kansas, excluding first and second class machinists, machinist helpers, tool room men, black- smiths, plant guards, office and technical employees, and supervisory employees. The Company, however, maintains that two units are I The Field Examiner reported that the Union submitted 9 authorization cards, and a check-off list of 177 employees whose names appeared on the Company's pay roll, and that there are 354 employees in the unit alleged to be appropriate At the hearing, a representative of the Union testified that, of the 186 designations submitted, 61 or 62 were for employees in the producing department, which employs 106 persons. 2 The pipe line department is considered auxiliary to the refining department. 358 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD appropriate, one limited to employees in the Mid-Continent Division's producing department in the States of Oklahoma and Kansas, and the other to employees in this division's refining department in the State of Oklahoma.3 The Company has recognized the Union as the representative of its members among the employees 'in the unit which it now seeks, in- formally since September 1934, and by written agreement since July 28, 1941.4 Bargaining upon this basis has been conducted by the Company and the Union since 1934, with the"Mid-Continent Divi- sion's employees in the producing and refining departments in the States of Oklahoma and Kansas treated, for the most part, as a single unit. Moreover, since at least 1935, working rules were distributed by the Company, applicable in large measure to all such employees as one group. The Company states there is no functional interrelation between the producing and refining departments, each operating under the super- vision of a separate manager, no interchange of employees between them, and no true community of interest between the employees of one and those of the other. Nevertheless, the Company's final posi- tion of record was that the employees of these two departments should be permitted, in separate elections, to determine for themselves whether one or two units are appropriate, thus indicating that it concedes the feasibility of a single unit. Its past bargaining relations with the Union, while not controlling, also attest to this fact. We observe, fur- thermore, that the unit sought is well-defined, covers all employees, with certain exclusions, in two contiguous States, and that the Union represents a substantial number of employees in each department. From the foregoing facts, we conclude and find that all employees of the Company in its Mid-Continent Division's producing and refin- ing departments in the States of Oklahoma and Kansas, excluding first and second class machinists, machinist helpers, tool room men, blacksmiths, plant guards, office and technical employees, and all su- pervisory employees with authority to hire, promote, discharge, dis- cipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of employees, or effec- tively recommend such action, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act s 3 The refining department of the Mid-Continent Division has no branch in Kansas There were introduced into evidence two contracts between the Company and the Union„ one dated July 28, 1941 , and the other March 1, 1944, -both reciting that the Union wag "acting on behalf of such Employees of the Company , except Supervisory , Office and Technical , who are members of the 011 Workers International Union, and who are located in the Producing, Refining and Pipe Line Departments in the States of Oklahoma and Kansas. ' See Matter of Shell Oil Company of California, 2 N. L. R B 835 ; and Matter of Waggoner Refining Company, Inc., 6 N. L. R. B. 731. TIDE WATER ASSOCIATED OIL COMPANY V. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES 359- 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 the Direction of Elec- tion herein, subject to the limitations and additions set forth in the Direction. The Regional. Director, in conformity with customary practice, may conduct the balloting, in whole or in part, by mail, if such pro- cedure is deemed by him to be expedient. 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, as amended, it is hereby DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation to ascertain representa- tives for the purposes of collective bargaining with Tide Water Asso- ciated Oil 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, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director. for the Sixteenth Region, acting in this mat- ter 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 preced- ing the date of this Direction, including employees who did not work during the 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 elec- tion, to determine whether or not they desire to be represented by Oil Workers International Union, C. I. 0., for the purposes of collective bargaining.