Cities Service Oil Co.

In the Matter of CITIES SERVICE OIL COMPANY (PA.), EMPLOYER and OIL WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, CIO, LOCAL #337, PETI- TIONER Case No. 2-R-7896.-Decided December 10, 1947 Messrs. George H. Colin and Alfred Takiff, of New York City, for the Employer. Mr. D. R. Stewart, of New York City, and MYlr. James Carrigan, of Elizabeth , N. J., for the Petitioner. DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION Upon a petition duly filed, hearing in this case was held at New York City on July 31, 1947, before Bertram Diamond, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from preju- dicial error and are hereby affirmed. Upon the entire record in the case, the National Labor Relations Board makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER Cities Service Oil Company (Pa.) is a Pennsylvania corporation engaged in the business of refining and marketing petroleum products. It operates a refinery in Linden, New Jersey, with which we are con- cerned in this proceeding. During the past year, the Employer pur- chased, for processing at its Linden refinery, raw materials valued in excess of $1,000,000, of which more than 90 percent was shipped to the refinery from points outside the State of New Jersey. During the same period , the Employer produced finished products. at its Linden refinery valued at more than $1,000,000, of which approximately 50 percent was 'shipped to points outside the State. The Employer admits, and we find, that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act. 75 N. L R. B, No 58. 468 CITIES SERVICE OIL COMPANY (PA.> 469 H. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED The Petitioner is a labor organization, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, claiming to represent employees of th_q Employer. III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION The Employer refuses to recognize the Petitioner as the exclusive bargaining representative of employees of the Employer until the Petitioner has been certified by the Board in an appropriate unit. We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning • the representation of employees of the Employer , within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT The Petitioner seeks a unit consisting of all chemists employed at the Linden, New Jersey, refinery of the Employer, excluding super- visors. The Employer contends that the chemists involved in this proceeding are supervisors and therefore are outside the coverage of the Act. The Employer has a laboratory at the Linden refinery which is under the supervision of a resident chemist, Gonzales. Assisting Gonzales in the supervision of the laboratory is another chemist, Siegel, who is in charge of the asphalt department, a division of the laboratory. Both Gonzales and Siegel are admittedly supervisors. Subordinate to Gonzales and Siegel are two chemists, Cohen and Cook, four junior chemists, two first class testers, a still man, and several helpers. The Petitioner seeks to include only chemists Cohen and Cook in its unit;. all other non-supervisory employees in the laboratory are included in ,c production and maintenance unit now separately represented by the Petitioner. Cohen and Cook are both engaged in making qualitative and quan- titative chemical analyses, Cohen of gasoline and light fuel, Cook of asphalt and related products. In the course of their work, the two chemists sometimes require the assistance of other laboratory workers in making certain tests. Cohen generally requires such assistance- about once a month. He usually clears with Gonzales as to which laboratory assistant is to make the test, and then gives the sample material to be tested to the designated employee. The person perform- ing the test reports the results to Gonzales, who, in turn, routes them to Cohen. Cook's projects require the performance of 5 to 10 tests daily. These tests are run on one of the experimental stills in the room 470 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD in which Cook works, by one of the junior chemists, in the asphalt department. If the results of a test appear inaccurate to Cook, he may request that it be repeated. The junior chemists who do the testing for Cook also do testing in connection with production operations. For these tests they receive samples from a still man, who is admittedly a non-supervisory production employee, and who may, also, request repetition of a test. Cook is not authorized to alter testing schedules or priorities established by Gonzales or Siegel. It is conceded that neither Cohen nor Cook can effect changes in the status of employees and that only Gonzales and Siegel can authorize payment for overtime work. Although the Employer asserts that Cohen and Cook are expected to report instances of inefficient or un-• satisfactory testing by other laboratory employees, the two chemists have never made, nor have they been instructed to make, such reports. Under all the circumstances, we find that Cohen and Cook are not supervisors within the definition of the Act. Accordingly, we find that all chemists employed at the Linden, New Jersey, refinery of the Employer, excluding supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. DIRECTION OF ELECTION As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the pur- poses of collective bargaining with Cities Service Oil Company (Pa.), Linden, New Jersey, 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 Second Region, and subject to Sections 203.61 and 203.62, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations- Series 5, among the employees in the unit found appropriate in Section IV, above, 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, but excluding those employees who have since quit or been discharged for cause and have not been rehired or rein- stated prior to the date of the election, to determine whether or not they desire to be represented by Oil Workers International Union, CIO, Local #337, for the purposes of collective bargaining.