The Great Southern Oil Co.

In the Matter of THE GREAT SOUTIIERN OIL COMPANY, EMPLOYER and OIL WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, CIO, PETITIONER Case No. 17 RC^-548.Decided November 30, 19.4.9 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing in this case was held before Margaret L. Fassig, hearing officer of the National Labor Relations Board. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Houston and Gray]. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds : 1. The business of the Employer : The Employer, a Kansas corporation, is engaged in the production of crude oil, and operates approximately 85 producing oil wells of stripper classification in Greenwood County, and Butler County, Kan- sas. Approximately 37 percent of the outstanding capital stock of the Employer is owned by the Tide Water Associated Oil Company (Mid- Continent Division).' During the year 1948, the Employer produced a total of approxi- mately 87,982 barrels of crude oil. Of this amount, approximately 24,689 barrels of oil valued at about $63,885 were sold to the Skelly Oil Company, and approximately 63,293 barrels of oil valued at about $165,270 were sold to the White Eagle Oil Purchasing Company, In- corporated. All such oil was sold as crude oil at the lease tanks on the leases from which the oil was produced by the Employer. The crude oil purchased by the Skelly Oil Company was transported through that company's pipe-line system to its oil refinery at El Dorado, Kansas, where it was commingled with other crude oil pur- I At the hearing, the Industrial Relations Manager for the Tide Water Associated Oil Company, herein referred to as Tide Water, stipulated that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. 87 NLRB No . 43. 289 290 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD chased in eastern Kansas and, after processing,2 was manufactured into various petroleum products. Approximately 81 percent of these manufactured products was shipped outside the State of Kansas. The crude oil purchased by the White Eagle Oil Purchasing Com- pany, Incorporated, together with other crude oil purchased from the same general area of the Employer, was transported by the Socony Vacuum Oil Company, Incorporated, the parent company of the White Eagle Oil Purchasing Company, Incorporated, through its pipe- line system to its refinery at Augusta, Kansas, for processing.3 Ap- proximately 80 percent of the production from the Augusta, Kansas, refinery was shipped in interstate commerce. We find, contrary to the contention of the Employer, that it is en- gaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Rela- tions Act and that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction in this case.4 2. The labor organization involved claims to represent employees of the Employer. 3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa- tion of employees of the Employer, within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 4. The Employer and the Petitioner agree that all production and maintenance employees in and around the Employer's Sallyard, Kan- sas, operations, excluding clerical employees, the head roustabout, and all other supervisors, constitute an appropriate unit. The sole dis- pute between the parties is the Petitioner's contention that the re- quested employees should be added to the existing unit of refinery and production employees which it currently represents under contract with Tide Water, a stockholding company of the Employer. The record shows that the crude oil production operations of the Employer and Tide Water are functionally integrated. Thus, the production superintendent of Tide Water is also in charge of the Employer's production operations; pay scales, insurance benefits, and other employee privileges are substantially the same for both com- panies; production, pay roll, and other personnel records of the Em- ployer are kept at Tulsa, Oklahoma, at the offices of Tide Water; in several instances the same individuals function as management execu- tives of both corporations. The interrelation of these operational and personnel activities might, under other circumstances, indicate the 2 During the year 1948 , Skelly Oil Company processed a total of 9,160 , 600 barrels of .crude oil at its El Dorado, Kansas, refinery. 3 During 1948, Socony Vacuum Oil Company, Incorporated, processed a total of 8,960,000 barrels of crude oil at its Augusta, Kansas, refinery. 4 W. W. Holmes, Lottie Apple Holmes Haley, W. F. Siebold, E. I. Newblock, John H. Hill, and T. J. Haley, 83 NLRB 49 ; James C. Ellis, sole owner, d/b/a James C. Ellis (Oil Production), 72 NLRB 474. THE GREAT SOUTHERN OIL COMPANY 291 propriety of merging the employees of these two companies in a single unit as sought by the Petitioner . However, each corporation is a separate operating entity, and Tide Water is not a party to this pro- ceeding; there is also no history of collective bargaining covering the employees of the Employer and Tide Water. In view of the fore- going and upon the entire record in the case, we believe that the em- ployees of the Employer's Sallyard , Kansas, operations comprise a separate appropriate unit. In the event, however, that these em- ployees select the Petitioner as, their bargaining representative, and the Petitioner, the Employer, and Tide Water agree to bargain col- lectively for the employees of both corporations as a single unit, it will not be inappropriate for these parties to consolidate the two groups and to engage in bargaining upon such basis. We find that all production and maintentance employees of the Em- ployer in and around Sallyard, Kansas, excluding clerical employees, the head roustabout, and all other supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargain- ing within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. DIRECTION OF ELECTION As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the purposes of collective bargaining with the Employer, an election by secret ballot shall be conducted as early as possible, but not later than 30 days from the date of this Direction, under the direction and super- vision of the Regional Director for the Region in which this case was heard, and subject to Sections 203.61 and 203.62 of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations, among the employees in the unit found appropriate in paragraph numbered 4, above, who were employed during the pay-roll period immediately preceding the date of this Direction of Election, 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, and also excluding employees on strike who are not entitled to reinstatement, to determine whether or not they desire to be represented, for purposes of collective bar- gaining, by Oil Workers International Union, CIO. 877359-50-vol. 87-20