Lion Oil Co.

In the Matter of LION OIL COMPANY, EMPLOYER and OIL WORKERS' INTERNATIONAL UNION, CIO, PETITIONER Case No. 15-R--2264.-Decided March 'If, 1948 Messrs. J. Davis, B. L. Allen, J. E. Howell and D. Salyers, of El Dorado, Ark., for the Employer. Mr. W. M. Akin, of Kilgore, Tex., and Mr. C. A. Partin, of El Dorado , Ark., for the Petitioner. DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION Upon a petition duly filed, hearing in this case was held at El Dorado, Arkansas, on December 19, 1947, before Andrew P. Carter, 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 I. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER The Lion Oil Company is a Delaware corporation having its main office in El Dorado, Arkansas. It conducts its business of refining and distributing, oil and oil products, and of manufacturing chemicals, in Texas, Louisiana, Arkansas, Mississippi, and Kansas. The Employer annually receives about $1,000,000 worth of raw materials and supplies from sources outside the State where they are used; products sold outside the State where they are produced amount annually to ap- proximately $15,000,000 or $20,000,000. We find that the Employer is engaged in commerce within the mean- ing of the National Labor Relations Act. 1 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-man panel con- sisting of the undersigned Board Members [ Chairman Herzog and Members Reynolds and Murdock]. 76 N. L. R. B., No. 88. 565 566 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD H. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED The Petitioner is a labor organization affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations 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 until the Petitioner has been certified by the Board in an appropriate unit. The Employer moved to dismiss the petition on the ground that the Board has no jurisdiction because no evidence was presented at the hearing to show that the Petitioner represents a substantial number of employees in the unit which the parties have agreed is appropriate. However, as the Board's authority to conduct an investigation under Section 9 (c) of the Act is no manner dependent upon the Peti- tioner's showing of prima facie representative interest, we have affirmed the hearing officer's denial of the Employer's motion. Matter of 0. D. Jennings c6 Co., 68 N. L. R. B. 516. The Employer further contends that the petition should be dismissed because the Congress of Industrial Organizations, with which the Petitioner is admittedly affiliated, has not complied with the filing requirements of Sections 9 (f) and (h) of the Act. We have affirmed the hearing officer's denial of the motion to dismiss for the reasons detailed in Matter of Northern Virginia Broadcasters, Inc., 75 N. L. R. B. 11. The Employer also argues that, as the record does not affirmatively show that the Petitioner has complied with the requirements of Sec- tion 9 (f) and (h), the petition should be dismissed. In view of the language of those sections, however, precluding the Board from inves- tigating any question concerning the representation of employees where the requirements have not been met, the matter of compliance is clearly one for the Board to determine in any manner suited to the circumstances. As the official records of the Board indicate that the Petitioner has complied with the requirements of those sections, the hearing officer's denial of the Employer's motion to dismiss was proper. Finally, the Employer contends that the petition should be dismissed because the true bargaining agent of the employees, a local of the Petitioner not a party to this proceeding, has not been shown to have complied with the provisions of Section 9 (f) and (h). We have affirmed the hearing officer's denial of this motion on the ground that the compliance status of the local chartered by the Petitioner is not in LION OIL COMPANY 567 issue in this proceeding since the petition herein was filed by the Inter- national. Matter of 117arshawsky & Co., 75 N. L. R. B. 1291. We find that a 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 Act. IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT We find, in substantial accord with the agreement of the parties, that all field gaugers, gang pushers, pumpers, pump repairmen, meter repairmen, welders, line-walkers, truck drivers, pipeliners and all other employees in the Employer's pipeline division in the South Arkansas area, but excluding clerical employees and supervisors, con- stitute 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 purposes of collective bargaining with Lion Oil Company, El Dorado, Arkansas, 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 Di- rector for the Fifteenth 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 Sec- tion IV, above, who were employed during the pay-roll period immedi- ately 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 reinstated prior to the date of the election, and also excluding em- ployees on strike who are not entitled to reinstatement, to determine whether or not they desire to be represented by Oil Workers' Interna- tional Union, CIO, for the purposes of collective bargaining.