Continental Oil Co.

CONTINENTAL OIL COMPANY 165 CONTINENTAL OIL COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF BOILERMAKERS, IRON SHIP BUILDERS AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, AFL, PETITIONER. Case No. 16-RC-705. July 12,1951 Decision and Order Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before John F. White, hearing officer. 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 Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Members Houston, Reynolds, and Styles]. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds : 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. 2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent employees of the Employer.' 3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the represen-. tation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, for the following reasons: The Petitioner wishes to add to its established unit of boilermakers and welders all employees classified as, or doing the work of, riggers in the Employer's refinery at Ponca City, Oklahoma. Both the Inter- venor and Employer object to the proposed severance. On October 1941, on the basis of consent elections, the Petitioner was selected to represent the Employer's boilermakers and welders while the Intervenor was designated the representative of a residual group of production and maintenance employees. Since 1941 the Intervenor has bargained for these employees, including the riggers, and in a decision issued in 1944 the Board refused, in view of this collective bargaining history, to entertain a petition by a rival union seeking to break up the residual unit into several.units, including one composed of riggers only.3 At presentiithe riggers, four inn number, are covered by the existing contract between the Employer and the Intervenor. I I The Employer and Petitioner each moved that certain statements by the other be expunged from the record. These motions were referred to the Board by the hearing officer. In view of the nonprejudicial nature of the protested statements, the motions are denied. 9 Independent Oil Workers Union of Oklahoma, CUA, hereinafter called the Intervenor, was permitted to intervene at the hearing. _ $ 55 NLRB-1157. In that case the Board dld, however, direct an election for the entire r a dfial unit which was won by the Intervenor herein , resulting in its certification on October 13, 1944. 95 NLRB No. 22. 166 DECISIONS OF •NATIONAL, LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The work of the riggers' is.priinarily concerned with the tying oit of. heavy equipment to be lifted: ,by, cranes or other devices and with directing the lifting and placement operations. There is no appren- ticeship program for the riggers, and in the past such employees have- been recruited as helpers froni"the 'laborer group in the residual unit.. The advance from beginner to that of first-class rigger has taken, in one instance, no more than 5 months, though the average period is nearer a year. There is no particular area in the plant where the riggers work but they are employed on various jobs throughout the whole refinery and perform their tasks in conjunction with numer- ous other groups and crafts, including the boilermakers and welders. During periods of slack work, some of the riggers have returned temporarily to,their` former laborer jobs in the plant. Such inter- change is aided by the seniority system, which provides for a rigger acquiring seniority not only in his rigger classification but plant wide as well. The immediate supervision of the riggers is separate from that of boilermakers a.nd•welders. They enjoy the same benefits and working conditions as the other employees in the residual production and maintenance unit, and though they may be paid better than the average production and niaiintenance employee, the wages of the first- class rigger are less than those 6f*' the second-class boilermaker or welder. The work of the riggers differs•substantially from that of the boiler- makers and welders who are eingaged primarily in flame and electric cutting, heating, and welding. It is true, as the Petitioner sought to demonstrate, that the riggers. work in conjunction with the boiler- makers and welders, but such a fact merely establishes that in some operations there is a functional relationship between the work of the two groups of employees. It, does not establish that there is any similarity in the skills exercised by the riggers and the boilermakers and welders 4 Furthermore, it appears from the evidence that most of the riggers'time is spent working with groups and crafts other than the boilermakers and welders. In view of the entire record, we believe that the riggers do not con- stitute a skilled craft group., We further conclude that the riggers hay skills dissimilar to those of the boilermakers and the welders. We perceive, therefore, no justification for severing the riggers.from the- production and maintenance unit and combining them with the boilermakers and welders s tlcco,rdingly, we find that. the proposed unit is inappropriate, and shall therefore dismiss the petition. 4.T.he Dobeckman Company, 90 NLRB hp }3.r. . e Armstrong-. Cork Company, 89 NLRB 29,ft; Reynolds.. Metal Company, 84 .NLRB 85- r" 6 Davis & Farber Machine Company, 93 NLRB 372 ; Irvington Yarnislt & ,Snsttlat,or Company, 84 NLRB 25. , .HOLLISTER, & , COMPAA7:Y . i 167 Order IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition herein be, and it hereby is' dismissed. JOSEPH AND ALICE GABRIEL D/B/A HOLLISTER & COMPANY and INTER- NATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS, STATIONARY LOCAL 39, AFL, PETITIONER. Case No. 20-RC-1115. July V, 1951 Supplemental Decision and. Direction of Election Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Robert V. Magor, hear- ing officer. 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 Act, the Board has delegated its powers in coniiection with this case to a three-member panel [Members Houston, Reynolds, and Styles]. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds : 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act' 2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain employees of the Employer. 3. The question affecting commerce exists concerning the represen- tation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section :9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 4. The Petitioner seeks a unit consisting of the Employer's station- ary engineers and ice pullers at its Hollister, California plant, exclud- ing supervisors. The Employer does not object to the unit sought. The. Employer is engaged in the manufacture and sale of. ice. The Employer's plant consists of a locker room, a cold storage room, a .cutting room, and a room known as the "ice plant," where the em- ployees sought by the Petitioner are engaged in manufacturing ice, loading ice into trucks, taking temperature and gauge readings, and operating the fork lifts. These employees are also called upon to do the work necessary for the operation of the cold, storage room. ' In its Decision and Order of December 7, 1950 , in this case ( 92 NLRB No. 99), the Board dismissed the instant petition on jurisdictional grounds. Subsequently, on February 19, 1951, the parties filed a stipulation that the record be reopened and that the Board consider additional evidence supplied in the stipulation relating to the Employer' s operations in commerce . An additional stipulation containing further com- merce data was submitted by the parties on May 2, 1951. Pursuant to these stipulations the Board has reopened the record and has determined , on the basis of the stipulated evidence , that the Employer during 1950 supplied services and goods valued in excess of $50 ,000 to employers each of whom annually ships more than $25,000 worth of goods out of State. We find, therefore, contrary to our finding in the Decision and Order of December , 7, 1950, that it would effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction in this case . Hollow Tree Lumber Company, 91 NLRB 635 . Accordingly, the Decision and Order of December 7, 1950, is hereby vacated, and the petition is reinstated. 95 NLRB No. 23.•