Union Sulphur and Oil Corp.

UNION SULPHUR AND OIL CORPORATION 19 effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction in this case.2 Accordingly, we shall dismiss the present petitions. Order IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petitions filed in the case be, and they hereby are, dismissed. 8 Cf. Dorn's House of Miracles, Inc., 91 NLRB 632; Hollow Tree Lumber Company, 91 NLRB 635. UNION SULPHUR AND OIL CORPORATION and LOCAL No. 407, INTERNA- TIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS, AFL, PETITIONER. Case No. 15-RC-560. May 7,1952 Supplemental Deeision and Direction of Election On January 31, 1952, the Board issued a Decision and Order 1 in the above-captioned matter, finding that the unit requested by the Peti- tioner, limited to the Employer's gas and oil operations in southwest- ern Louisiana, was inappropriate, and that the unit should also in- clude the Employer's employees at its operations in southeastern Texas. Although the Petitioner was willing to represent the larger unit found to be appropriate, as its showing of interest was not suffi- cient to justify holding an election in the larger unit, the Board dis- missed the petition. On April 1, 1952, the Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, in which it alleged that it now has obtained a sufficient number of designations to entitle it to participate in an election among the Em- ployer's employees in the larger unit. The Board having determined administratively that the Petitioner's showing of interest is sufficient under its Rules and Regulations to warrant a direction of election in this proceeding, and having con- sidered the Petitioner's motion for reconsideration and the Employer's reply thereto, the motion is hereby granted. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board further finds : 2 1 Union Sulphur and Oil Corporation . 97 NLRB No. 236. 2 The issues concerning the unit and the contentions of the parties were fully litigated at the hearing. The Employer does not contend that , since the hearing, there has been any change of conditions or circumstances affecting the employees concerned, or that it is in possession of newly discovered evidence not available at the hearing . The Board has held that there is no impropriety in making a unit determination upon a motion for reconsideration where the Employer is in no way prejudiced by such action . Foreman cb Clark, Inc., 98 NLRB 530. Under the circumstances , we believe that it would serve no useful purpose and would not be in the public interest to require the Petitioner to file a new petition . Cf. The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc., 98 NLRB 87. 99 NLRB No. 5. 20 DECISIONS OF 'NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD At the hearing.in this case, the parties were agreed as to the general composition of the unit, i. e., that a unit composed of all operating, production, and maintenance employees excluding office clerical em- ployees, professional employees, watchmen, guards, and all supervisors is appropriate. But the Employer would include and the Petitioner would exclude the drilling employees, the head rodman, and survey crews. The Employer would exclude and the Petitioner would in- clude the pushers, subforemen, and rotary drillers. The drilling employees work in groups in southwestern Louisiana and in southeastern Texas wherever needed. They frequently travel from Louisiana to Texas and spend from 3 to 4 months at one place. They share, however, the same benefits and privileges as the other employees. They frequently work on the same jobs with rig builders whom the Petitioner would include in the unit, and there is some inter- change between the drilling employees and those in the operating departments. We shall include the drilling employees in the unit.' The head rodman has no engineering or technical training. A high school education is sufficient for anyone to learn the duties of this classification within a week or two. He is hourly rated and his duties consist of handling the rod on running levels and keeping minor field notes which are ha>^ded_to, the instrumentman 4 None of the parties asserts, and the record does not indicate, that he possesses any super- visory authority. The survey crews, like the head rodman, need have no more training than a high school education. While their actual duties do not appear on the record, it appears that they are merely temporary employees picked up when needed at the site of the survey. We shall include the head rodman in the unit, but exclude the survey crews as casual employees. The pipe connection crew pushers, the workover rig pushers, the roustabout pushers, the rig builders sub foremen, and the rotary drill- ers each work with three to five employees, and in the absence of the foremen direct the work of these employees. Each of the pushers, subforemen, and rotary drillers makes effective recommendations as to the hiring and discharging of any of the employees with whom they work. Upon the entire record, we find that the pipe connection crew pushers, the workover rig pushers, the roustabout pushers, the rig builder subforemen, and the rotary drillers are supervisors within the meaning of the Act, and we shall exclude them from the unit. We find that all operating, production, and maintenance employees employed at the Employer's southwest Louisiana and southeast Texas gas and oil operations, including field clerks, drilling employees, and the head rodman, but excluding office clerical, professional, and tech- J. S. Abercrombie Co., 77 NLRB 712. The parties agree that the instrumentman should be excluded from the unit. TECHNICAL PORCELAIN AND CHINAWARE COMPANY 21 iiical employees, survey crew, watchmen, guards, pipe connection crew pushers, workover rig pushers, roustabout pushers, rig builders subforemen, rotary drillers, and,all other supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for purposes of collective bargain- ing within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this volume.] MEMBERS STYLES and PETERSON took no part in the consideration of the above Supplemental Decision and Direction of Election. ANTONE PAGLIERO, JOHN PAGLIERO, AND ARTHUR J. PAGLIERO, CO-PARTNERS, D/B/A TECHNICAL PORCELAIN AND CHINAWARE COM- PANY and CHEMICAL WORKERS UNION, LOCAL 266, MINE, MILL AND SMELTER WORKERS UNION. Case No. 20-CA-566. May 9, 1952 Decision and Order On November 1, 1951, Trial Examiner Irving Rogosin issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Inter- mediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds that no prejudical error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Intermediate Report, the exceptions, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner with the following additions and modifications. The Trial Examiner has found, and we agree, that the Respondent furnished aid and assistance to Local 165, National Brotherhood of Operative Potters, .AFL, in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) and (2) of the Act. Like the Trial Examiner, we base our finding in this respect upon the fact that the Respondent accorded continuing effect, after November 19, 1950, to a contract with Local 165 containing illegal union-security provisions. In the usual case of this sort the Board, as the Trial Examiner has recommended, orders that the respondent cease giving effect to such a contract, and withhold recog- 99 NLRB No, 4. 215233-53-3