Denver Producing & Refining Co.

In the Matter of DENVER PRODUCING & REFINING COMPANY, EMPLOYER and OIL WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, C. I. 0., PETITIONER Case No. 16-R-1964.Decided January 19,1948 Messrs. Stanley B. Catlett and Otto F. Thompson, of Oklahoma City, Okla., for the Employer. Messrs. Loyd A. Haskins and W. R. Paara, of Cushing, Okla., for the Petitioner. DECISION AND ORDER Upon a petition duly filed, hearing in this case was held at Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, on April 23, 1947, before Glenn L. Moller, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial 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 Denver Producing & Refining Company, a Delaware corporation with its principal offices in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, is engaged in the exploration for and the production of crude petroleum and the refining of petroleum products. The Employer conducts operations in several adjoining States including the State of Oklahoma in which it owns and operates a refinery, located at West Edmond, Oklahoma. The Employer produces annually- at its West Edmond refinery fin- ished petroleum products valued in excess of $400,000, of which ap- proximately 20 percent is shipped to points outside the State of Okla- homa. We find that the Employer is engaged in commerce within the mean- ing of the National Labor Relations Act. II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED The Petitioner is a labor organization affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, claiming to represent employees of the Employer. 75 N. L. R. B., No. 108. 873 874 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD III. THE ALLEGED APPROP11IATE UNIT The Petitioner contends that all non-supervisory field production and refinery employees of the Employer at its West Edmond, Okla- homa, operations, including truck drivers and their, helpers,' but ex- cluding employees engaged in drilling operations, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining.' The employer, on the other hand, contends that the unit claimed is inappropriate upon the ground that the unit, to be appropriate, should be system- wide in character, coextensive with the Employer's operations, and should include employees engaged in drilling operations. The Employer is a relatively small independent oil company, whose operations are divided into three departments : drilling, production 3 and refining. Of these operations, one or more is carried on at each of the five operating areas of the Employer, all located within the adjoining States of Texas and Oklahoma. The operations of the Employer, wherever located, are governed by one over-all management and personnel policy formulated by the president and the secretary of the Employer at its main office in Oklahoma City from which all field operations are centrally administered without any divisional organization, based upon geographical or other considerations. The evidence discloses that, in harmony with its policy of centralized con- trol and the integration of activities with respect to the employees in the various oil fields, the Employer maintains throughout its organiza- tion uniform wage rates and working conditions for employees in like classifications; and that, while temporary interchange of em- ployees is infrequent, the transfer of employees is effected between the various field locations according to the needs of the Employer and the desires of the employees themselves. We are of the opinion that, in view of the functional interrelation- ship, the centralized control under the main office of the Employer, the transfer of employees under the conditions stated above, and the similarity of skills and working conditions among the employees in the various oil fields of the Employer, a more inclusive unit of non- supervisory employees than that claimed by the Petitioner is required for effective use of the right of collective bargaining.4 Because it ' The Petitioner would include truck drivers and their helpers, although their activities are not limited to the West Edmond operations. 2 There are about 33 non -supervisory employees in the unit claimed by the Petitioner as compared with approximately 85 similar employees in the entire operations of the Employer 3 Production as used in the Employer 's operation refers to those activities which are involved in harnessing and.servicing an oil well upon completion of drilling operations. , A The fact that certain of the Employer's fields are located in different States does not prevent their inclusion within a single unit . See Matter of Hamilton Gas Corporation, 72 N. L R B. 269 ; Matter of The Stanolind Oil and Gas Company, 67 N L R B. 375; Matter of The Texas Company, 63 N. L. it. B. 1334; and Matter of Tide Water Association Oil Company, 60 N. L. it. B 256. DENVER PRODUCING & REFINING COMPANY 875 appears that the proposed unit is restricted to a portion of an operating area, we find that it is too limited in scope and not sufficiently autono- mous to be appropriate for the purpose of collective bargaining.5 The inappropriateness of the unit sought is further evidenced by the re- quested inclusion of employees whose interests extend beyond the West Edmond operations,6 and the exclusion of drilling employees who, the record discloses, have substantial interests in common with the West Edmond production employees. As we have found that the unit sought by the Petitioner is not appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining, we find that no question affecting commerce exists concerning the representation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act. We shall, therefore, dismiss the petition. ORDER Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in these proceedings, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the petition for investigation and certification of representatives of employees of Denver Producing & Refining Com- pany, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, filed herein by Oil Workers Inter- national Union, C. I. 0., be, and it hereby is, dismissed. 6 See Matter of Radaomarane Corporation of America , 75 N. L. It. B. 651. See footnote 1, supra.