Atlantic Refining Co.

952 DECISIONS OF -NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD able mill workers, but excluding, office and clerical employees,5 sales- men, retail store employees, guards," foremen, and all other super- visors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. Order IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition filed in Case No. 10-RC-1436 be, and it hereby is, dismissed. - [Text of Direction of Election omitted- from publication in this volume.] . In accord with the apparent agreement of the parties, we shall exclude J. A. Fort, whose duties are those of an office clerical employee, and M. H. Skelley, a draftsman, who works in the millwork office. 6 See footnote 4, supra. ATLANTIC REFINING COMPANY and ATLANTIC INDEPENDENT UNION, PETITIONER. Case No. 16-RC-768. October 18,195,1 Decision and Direction of Elections Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before H. Carne Russell, 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 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 Reynolds.] Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds : 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act. 2. The Petitioner and Oil Workers International Union, the Inter- venor, are labor organizations claiming to represent certain employees of the Employer. 3. The question concerning representation : The Petitioner currently represents employees of the Employer under a contract which by its terms covers the Employer's operations on a Nation-wide basis, with certain exclusions. The Intervenor, how- ever, presently represents the employees in the Employer's East Texas Oil Field," and it is these employees for whom the Petitioner is seek- ing to be certified as representative in this proceeding. The Inter- 'The Intervenor is the certified representative of the East Texas Oil Field employees, having been successful in several consent elections in this unit The most recent of such elections resulted in certification of the Intervenor on June 10, 1948. 96 NLRB No. 135. ATLANTIC REFINING COMPANY 953 venor does not assert its contract as a bar to this proceeding,2 but con- tends that the unit for purposes of this case should embrace not only the East Texas Oil Field employees but also those in the Employer's North Lansing Gas Field, arguing that the North Lansing employees are an accretion to its East Texas units The Petitioner, on the other hand, asserts that the North Lansing Gas Field is covered by the'terms of its own Nation-wide contract, and that this contract constitutes a bar to the raising of a question of representation as to the North Lan- sing employees. The Intervenor's contention that the North Lansing employees are an accretion to its East Texas unit is based on evidence that North Lansing is a newly opened field, operated under the supervision of the district superintendent who has charge of the East Texas Oil Field, and manned by employees obtained from the East Texas Oil Field. The Intervenor showed that orally on January 9, 1951, and by letters dated January 16 and April 17, 1951, it requested the Employer to recognize it as representative of the North Lansing employees by virtue of its contract covering the East Texas Oil Field unit, but the Employer refused such recognition on the ground that the North Lansing operation was covered by its contract with the Petitioner. The record discloses that the North Lansing Gas Field is a new field, whose discovery was completed by the Employer in September 1949. The employees now operating that field were transferred there from the East Texas Oil Field on January 8, 1951. However, for reasons more fully set forth in paragraph numbered 4, infra, we find that the North Lansing employees are not merely an accretion to the East Texas Oil Field unit. On the other hand, we further find that as the North Lansing Field is clearly a new operation which was not in existence at the time the Petitioner's contract was made,4 that con- tract does not bar a present determination of representatives on behalf of the North Lansing employees.r, We find that a question affecting commerce exists concerning the representation of employees of the Employer, in both its East Texas Oil Field and North Lansing Gas Field, within the meaning of Sec- tion 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 2 Nor does the contract appear to constitute a bar, because the petition herein waa timely filed in the light of the contract's automatic renewal provisions. 3 There are at present approximately 120 production and maintenance employees in the East Texas Oil Field and 4 in the North Lansing Gas Field. d The Petitioner's current contract became effective on March 30, 1946. The record shows several amendments relating to wages and other substantive provisions since that date. 5 Reynolds Metals Company, 82 NLRB 1414; Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company, (Special Products Plant C), 80 NLRB 1347; General Metals Corporation, Pacific Fittings Ditxsion, 95 NLRB 1490, and cases cited therein. 954 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 4. The appropriate unit : As set forth above, the Petitioner seeks to • represent a unit com- posed of the production and maintenance employees at the Employer's East Texas Oil Field. The Intervenor would include in this unit the employees of the Employer's North Lansing Gas Field. The Em- ployer agrees with the Petitioner that the unit should be limited to its East- Texas Oil Field. A further dispute exists as to the inclusion of automotive field me- chanics. The Petitioner seeks to include this category in the unit of East Texas Oil Field employees. The Intervenor and Employer would exclude them. The Employer's operations in this area consist of two administra- tive districts known as the East Texas and the Northeast Texas Dis- tricts. The East Texas Oil Field lies in the East Texas District, and occupies a territory approximately 65 miles long and from 5 to 7 miles wide. The North Lansing Gas Field is about 7 miles long and a mile and a half wide, roughly paralleling the East Texas Oil Field and about 3 or 4 miles from it at the closest point. The North Lansing Field is operated with a labor force of four regular employees who were transferred from the East Texas Field. Although for account- ing and tax purposes the Employer has assigned the North Lansing Field to its Northeast Texas District, its operations are presently under the supervision of the superintendent and foremen of the East Texas Oil Field." There are substantial differences in the operations of the two fields. The North Lansing Field produces gas, obtaining it from a different formation deeper than that underlying the East Texas Field, which produces principally oil. The East Texas oil is obtained either by natural flow or artificial lift. The gas in the North Lansing Field flows under pressure from the wells 24 hours a day. The operator at the well must keep in hourly contact by telephone with a dispatcher who directs him in regulating the flow of gas. He also must keep watch on gauges, check charts, lubrication valves, and drain off water from tanks. Although the employees transferred from the East Texas Oil Field had experience as oil pumpers, the different require- ments of high pressure gas operation have required much additional training. The Employer estimated that it would require from 1 to 11/2 years for them to become fully familiar with the gas field operations. 6 The Employer asserts that it is expecting to expand its production in the North Lansing Gas Field, and that, when this is accomplished , it will separate the North Lansing operation into a new autonomous district . This will depend, however, upon the Employer's success in bringing in new gas wells. It is thus apparent that both time within which this expansion will occur and its successful achievement are speculative and a matter of uncertainty. ' ATLANTIC REFINING COMPANY 955 . In these circumstances, we find that the North Lansing Gas Field is not a mere accretion to,the Employer's East Texas Oil Field opera- tions. In view, however, of the North Lansing Field's geographical proximity and common supervision, we believe that the North Lansing employees may appropriately form part of a unit with those in the East Texas Oil Field. On the other hand, they may likewise form part of the broader unit now represented by the Petitioner. We shall therefore make no final determination at this time, but shall first ascertain the desires of the employees as expressed in the elections hereinafter directed." There remains for consideration the unit placement of the auto- motive field mechanics. There are two such employees who are under the supervision of the Employer's transportation manager, located at its Dallas, Texas, office. These employees are not attached to either the East Texas Oil Field or to the North Lansing Gas Field, and have not been included in the East Texas unit represented by the Intervenor. They perform their services at the direction of the transportation manager wherever their services are required in the State of Texas and at the Employer's operations outside the State. They have no con- tacts with the employees of either the East Texas Field or the North Lansing Field. As these employees have no community of interest with either of the voting groups in the elections hereinafter directed, we find that the automotive field mechanics should be excluded from these voting groups." We shall direct that separate elections be held among the employees in the following voting groups : (a) All production and maintenance employees at the Employer's East Texas Oil Field, excluding office and clerical employees, tech- nical employees, automotive field mechanics, and all supervisors as defined in the Act. (b) All employees at Employer's North Lansing Gas Field, exclud- ing office and clerical employees, technical employees, and all super- visors as defined in the Act. If a majority of the employees in either voting group select the Petitioner, that group will be taken to have indicated its desire to be part of the Petitioner's employer-wide unit. If a majority in each voting group select the Intervenor, they will be taken to have indi- cated their desire to be represented in a unit including both the East Texas Oil Field and the North Lansing Gas Field. [Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication in this volume.] v Great Lakes Pipe Line Company, 92 NLRB 583. e McCoy Company, 92 NLRB No. 89