James C. Ellis

In the Matter of JAMES C. ELLIS, SOLE OWNER, D/B/A JAMES C. ELLis (OIL PRODUCTION), EMPLOYER and INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF FIREMEN & OILERS, AFL, PETITIONER Case No. 11-R-100.-Decided February 7, 1.947 Messrs. E. B. Anderson and G. H. Cunningham, of Owensboro, Ky., for the Employer. Mr. Harold L. Colvin, of Louisville, Ky., for the Petitioner. Miss Eleanor Schwartzbach, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION Upon a petition 1 duly filed, hearing in this case was held at Owens- boro, Kentucky, on December 10, 1946, before Clifford L. Hardy, hear- ing oficer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. After the hearing the Employer filed a motion requesting that the Board dismiss the petition on jurisdictional grounds. The motion is hereby denied for the reasons stated in Section I, infra. Upon the entire record in the case, the National Labor Relations Board makes the following : FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF TIIE EMPLOYER James C. Ellis, an individual, operating in Kentucky under the name of James C. Ellis (Oil Production), produces crude petroleum oil from land in Kentucky owned by himself and leased from third persons. During the past 12 months, Ellis produced over 10,000 barrels of oil. A small amount of the oil was purchased at the wells by Owens- boro Ashland Company, and transported through its pipe lines. The largest amount of the oil was purchased at the wells by Producers Pipe Line Company, a Delaware corporation doing business in Kentucky, 'The petition and other formal papers aie hereby amended to show the correct name of the Employer. 72 N. L. R. B., No. 83. 474 JAMES C. ELLIS (OIL PRODUCTION) 475 and transported by pipe line to Owensboro, Kentucky, where it was placed in barges and towed to Louisville, Kentucky. There it was de- livered to Louisville Refining Company, a concern engaged in inter- state commerce.' We find, contrary to the contention of the Employer, that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.3 IT. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED The Petitioner is a labor organization affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, claiming to represent employees of the Employer. III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION The Employer refuses to recognize the Petitioner as the exclusive bargaining representative of employees of the Employer. We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning the representation of employees of the Employer, within the meaning of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT The parties are in substantial accord that the appropriate unit should include production and maintenance employees of the Em- ployer engaged in the Production of oil in the fields adjacent to Owensboro, Kentucky, excluding administrative, clerical, technical, and supervisory employees. The parties disagree as to the status of district foremen.4 The Employer contends that district foremen are supervisory employees to be excluded from the unit. The Petitioner contends that the district foremen are leadmen, having no supervisory authority, and that they should be included in the bar- gaining Unit. Each district foreman,' is in charge of approximately 12 leases, covering an area of about 2 square miles, and supervises from 15 to 20 employees. Foremen instruct and supervise the men working under them, and supply extra men and equipment when needed. They re- ceive 25 percent more wages than pumpers, the only salaried men on the working crews. They recommend the hire and discharge of em- ployees, and their recommendations carry weight. Inasmuch as it 2 N L R B v. Loaiswlle Refining Co, 102 F. (2d) 678, 679 (C. C A. 6), modifying 4 N L. R B 844, cert denied 308 U . S. 568. 3 N L R B v. Fainblatt, et at., 306 U. S 601,,602-609; Matter of J. T. Martin, et al. 70 N L U . B 1172, Matter o f Quick Industrie8, Inc, 69 N. L. R . B. 760; Matter of Trini- dad Brick and Tile Company , 67 N. L. R B 1351 * At the time of the hearing Elmer Reardon, Ernest Swift, and William Al . Swift were classified as district foremen District foremen are called head roustabouts by their crews. 476 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD appears that district foremen are supervisory employees within our definition of the term, we will exclude them from the bargaining unit. We find that all production and maintenance employees of the Employer engaged in the production of oil in the fields adjacent to Owensboro, Kentucky, excluding administrative, clerical and technical employees, district foremen, and all other supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of employees, or effectively recommend such action, 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 ^ urposes of collective bargaining with James C. Ellis, sole owner, d/b/a James C. Ellis (Oil Production), Owensboro, Kentucky, 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 Ninth Region, acting in this matter as agent for the National Labor Relations Board, and subject to Sections 203.55 and 203.56, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 4, among the em- ployees 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, and including employees in the armed forces of the United States who present themselves in person at the polls, but excluding those employees who have since quit or been discharged for cause and have not been rehired or reinstated prior to the date of the election, to determine whether or not they desire to be represented by Inter- national Brotherhood of Firemen & Oilers, AFL, for the purposes of collective bargaining.