Mid-Continent Petroleum Corp.

182 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 5. By the said refusal the Respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced her employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, and thereby engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices , within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. 6. By forming, dominating, and interfering with the administration of the Rehrig Employees Benefit Group, and by contributing financial and other support to it, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (2) of the Act. 7. By interrogating her employees regarding their union memberships and sympathies, by threatening the employees with reprisal if they became or re- mained members of the Union, by promising benefits if the employees repudiated the Union, and by otherwise interfering with, restraining, and coercing her em- ployees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the Re- spondent has engaged in, and is engaging in, unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.' 8. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. [Recommendations omitted from publication in this volume.] MID-CONTINENT PETROLEUM CORPORATION and TEAMSTERS, CHAUF- FEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS, LOCAL UNION No. 144, A. F. L. Case No. 35-CA-281: May 19,1952 Decision and Order STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon a charge filed on July 9, 1951, by Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers, Local Union No. 144, A. F. L., herein called the Union, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, herein called respectively the General Counsel and the Board, by the Regional Director for the Ninth Region (Cincinnati, Ohio), issued a complaint dated February 13, 1952, against Mid-Continent Petroleum Corporation, herein called the Respondent, alleging that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) and (5) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, herein called the Act. Copies of the charge, com- plaint, and notice of hearing, were duly served upon the Respondent and the Union. With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged in substance that the Respondent (1) on and since May 14, 1951, has continuously failed and refused to bargain with the Union, and has withdrawn recognition from the Union, as the exclusive representa- tive of its employees in an appropriate unit, although the Union 99 NLRB No. 40. MID-CONTINENT PETROLEUM CORPORATION 188 had been certified by the Board as the representative of the employees in such unit on March 12, 1951; and (2) such acts and conduct consti- tute unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) and (5) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. Thereafter, on March 5, 1952, all the parties entered into a stipula= tion which sets forth an agreed statement of facts. The stipulation further includes provisions that: (1) The stipulation and attached exhibit, together with the charge, complaint, notice of hearing, and affidavits of service of the charge, complaint, and notice of hearing, shall constitute the entire record herein and shall be filed with the Board; (2) Respondent withdraws its answer previously filed herein and waives its right to file an answer, without prejudice; (3) the par- ties waive their right to a hearing before a Trial Examiner of the Board and the issuance of an Intermediate Report of a Trial Ex- aminer, and agree that the stipulation shall be the sole evidence re- ceived or considered by the Board; (4) the parties, within a stated period, may file with the Board motions and supporting briefs with respect to this proceeding; and (5) the provisions of Section 10 (e) and (f) are not waived by the stipulation. The Respondent thereafter timely filed a motion to dismiss the charge and complaint herein, and a supporting brief. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its powers'in connection with this proceeding tc a three- member panel [Members Houston, Styles, and Peierson.] The aforesaid stipulation is hereby accepted ai.d made a part of the record herein, and, in accordance with Section 102.50 of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 6, the proceeding is hereby transferred to, and continued before, the Board. Upon the basis of the aforesaid stipulation and the entire record in the- case, and upon full consideration of the Respondent's motion and brief,, the Board makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT Respondent is a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, having its general offices at Tulsa in the State of Oklahoma, and having division offices and bulk plants in various States of the United States, including an eastern division office and bulk plant at Terre Haute in the State of Indiana, at which division office it is engaged in the business of selling, transporting, and distributing gasoline and fuel oil to various, purchasers at points in the States of Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, and Missouri. Respond. 184 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR, RELATIONS BOARD ent, in the course and conduct of its business, causes and at all times material herein has caused, substantial quantities - of - the materials, supplies, and equipment-'itssod- by it to be purchased and'transpor'ticl in interstate commerce from and through other States of the United States into the State of Indiana to its Terre Haute plant. The Respondent admits, and we find, that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. H. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED The Union is a labor organization, admitting to membership em- ployees of the Respondent. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The refusal to bargain 1. The representation case On or about January 31, 1951, the Union, pursuant to Section 9 (a) and (c) of the Act, filed with the Board its petition for certification of representatives in the unit described below (Case No. 35-RC-484). On or about February 15, 1951, the Union and the Respondent en- tered into an agreement for consent election, which agreement was approved by the Regional Director for the Ninth Region on February 19, 1951. Pursuant to this agreement, an election by secret ballot was conducted by the Regional Director on behalf of"the Board on March 2. 1951. The tally of ballots showed that there were six eligible voters in the unit, and that a majority of the valid votes were cast for the Union, specifically four were cast for, and two against, the Union. No objections to the election were filed by the Respondent within the period designated in the Board's Rules and Regulations. On March 12, 1951, the Regional Director, on behalf of the Board, duly issued the Board's certification of representatives, certifying that the Union, pursuant to Section 9 (a) of the Act, was the exclusive rep- resentative of all the Respondent's employees in the unit described below for the purposes of collective bargaining in respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of employment. 2. The appropriate unit The parties agree, and we find, that all truck drivers operating from Respondent's Terre Haute, Indiana, bulk plant, excluding office and clerical employees, owner drivers, warehousemen and supervisors, guards, and professional employees as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. MID-CONTINENT PETROLEUM CORPORATION -155 3. Representation by the Union of a majority in the appropriate unit As previously indicated, the Union, after winning the election con- ducted on March 2, 1951, was certified on March 12, 1951, as exclusive bargaining representative of the above unit, comprising six employees. Thereafter, the employment of one of the six employees in the unit was terminated without any unfair labor practices on the part of the Respondent and a replacement, William Bond, was hired by the Re- spondent on or about April 16, 1951. On April 18, 1951, Bond, and, on April 26, 1951, Alfred A. Miller and Dan C. Boyll, two other em- ployees in the unit, without any unfair labor practices on the part of the Respondent, delivered to the Respondent separate letters stating in substance that they did not want the Union, or any other labor organ- ization, as their bargaining representative. The Respondent, after the Board certification of March 12, 1951, had entered into collective bargaining negotiations with the Union. However, on or about May 14, 1951, after it received the above three letters from its employees, the Respondent withdrew recognition from the Union as no longer representing a majority of the six em- ployees in the unit. Since that date, and at all times thereafter, the Respondent has failed and refused to recognize the Union as the ex- clusive bargaining representative of its employees in the unit certified by the Board as described above, and to bargain collectively with the Union, although the Union has requested it to do so. In its brief and motion to dismiss, the Respondent seeks to justify this refusal to bargain with the Union shortly after the latter's certifi- cation, essentially on the grounds that the Union's alleged loss of ma- jority status occurred without unfair labor practices by the Re- spondent and, in view of such loss of majority status, no obligation to bargain existed. It relies, in this connection, mainly on N. L. R. B. v. Vulcan Forging Co., 188 F. 2d 927 (C. A. 6). We find no merit in these contentions. The Board has consistently held, with the approval of the great weight of court decisions that, in the absence of special circumstances; a certification of representatives must be honored for a reasonable period, usually at least 1 year following the certification, even though there may be some evidence of a repudiation of the certified union by the employees in the appropriate unit.' The alleged repudiation of the Union in this case, by means of the letters mentioned above, can- not constitute such "special circumstances" within the certification year as to impair the Union's representative status.2 'See Ray Brooks, 98 NLRB 976; L. L. Majure Transport Company, 95 NLRB 311; N. L. R. B. v. Benson Hosiery Malls, Inc., 195 F. 2d 350 ( C. A. 5), and numerous cases cited in those decisions. a Ibid. 186 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Accordingly, we find that on March 12, 1951, and at all times there- after, the Union, was and now is the exclusive bargaining representa- tive of the employees in the above-described unit for the purposes of collective bargaining with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours, and other conditions of employment. 4. The refusal to bargain The Respondent admits, and we find, that on or about May 14, 1951, it withdrew recognition from the Union as no longer represent- ing a majority of the employees in the unit and since that date has refused to recognize and bargain with the Union, although the Union has requested it to do so. The Respondent's contention that the Union lost its representative status has been decided adversely to the Re- spondent above. We find that the Respondent, on or about May 14, 1951, and at all times thereafter, refused to bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive representative of employees of the Re- spondent in an appropriate unit, in violation of Section 8 (a) (5) of the Act, and has thereby interfered with, restrained, and coerced its'employees in the exercise of their statutory rights in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) .8 IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES The activities of the Respondent set forth in Section III, above, occurring in connection with its operations described in Section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce. V. THE REMEDY Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, we shall order it to cease and desist, therefrom and to take certain affirmative action which will effectuate the policies of the Act. Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire record in this case, the Board makes the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAw 1. Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers, Local Union No. 144, A. F. L., is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. For the reasons fully set forth above , the Respondent's motion to dismiss is hereby denied. MID-CONTINENT PETROLEUM CORPORATION 187 2. All truck drivers operating from the Respondent's Terre Haute, Indiana, bulk plant, excluding office and clerical employees, owner drivers, warehousemen and supervisors, guards, and professional em- ployees as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. 3. Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers, Local Union No.444, A. F. L., was on March 12, 1951, certified as, and has at all times thereafter been, the exclusive representative of all employees in the aforesaid unit for the purposes of collective bargaining, within the meaning of Section 9 (a) of the Act. 4. By refusing on or about May 14, 1951, and at all times there- after, to bargain collectively with Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware- housemen and Helpers, Local Union No. 144, A. F. L., as the exclusive representative of all employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of section 8 (a) (5) of the Act. 5. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. 6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. Order Upon the entire record in this case and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, Mid-Continent Petroleum Corporation, Terre Haute, Indiana, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall : 1. Cease and desist from : (a) Refusing to bargain collectively with Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers, Local Union No. 144, A. F. L., as the ex- clusive representative of all truck drivers operating from Respondent's Terre Haute, Indiana, bulk plant, excluding office and clerical em- ployees, owner drivers, warehousemen and supervisors, guards, and professional employees as defined in the Act. (b) In any other manner interfering with the efforts of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers, Local Union No. 144, A. F. L., to negotiate for, or to represent, the employees, in the aforesaid bar- gaining unit as their exclusive bargaining agent. 2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act : 188 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LA$OR RELATIONS BOARD (a) Upon request, bargain collectively with Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers, Local Union No. 144, A. F. L., as the exclusive representative of the employees in the aforesaid bargaining unit, with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours, and other conditions of employment, and if an understanding is reached embody such understanding in a signed agreement. (b) Post at its plant in Terre Haute, Indiana, copies of the notice attached hereto marked "Appendix A." 4 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Ninth Region, shall, after being signed by the Respondent's representative, be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof and maintained by it for sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (c) Notify the Regional Director for the Ninth Region, in writing, within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps the Re- spondent has taken to comply therewith. Appendix A NOTICE To ALL EMPLOYEES Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that : WE WILL BARGAIN collectively upon request with TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS, LOCAL UNION No. 144, A. F. L., as the exclusive representative of all employees in the bargaining unit described herein with respect to wages, rates of pay, hours, and other conditions of employment, and if an understanding is reached, embody such understanding in a signed agreement. The bargaining unit is : All truck drivers operating from Respondent's Terre Haute, Indiana, bulk plant, excluding office and clerical em- ployees, owner drivers, warehousemen and supervisors, guards, and professional employees as defined in the Act. 4 In the event that this order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, there shall be substituted for the words, "Pursuant to a Decision and Order," the words, "Pursuant to a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order." WORTHINGTON PUMP AND MACHINERY „CORPORATION 189 WE WILL NOT engage in any acts in any manner interfering with the efforts of TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS, LOCAL UNION No. 144, A. F. L., to negotiate for, or represent, the employees in the bargaining unit, described above. MID-CONTINENT PETROLEUM CORPORATION, Employer. By ---------------------------------------------- (Representative ) (Title) Dated -------------------- This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. WORTHINGTON PUMP AND MACHINERY CORPORATION and INTERNA- TIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF FIREMEN , OILERS, HELPERS AND MAIN-' TENANCE MEN, LOCAL 55, PETITIONER. Cases Nos. O-BC-t433 and 2-RC-2498. May 19,195,0 Supplemental Decision and Order On February 28, 1951, the Board issued its Decision and Direction of Elections in the instant case, finding that the contract 1 between the Employer and the United Steelworkers of America, CIO, and its Local No. 1833, herein referred to jointly as the Intervenors and separately as the International Union and Local No. 1833, contained an unlawful union-security clause and therefore was not a bar to the proceedings.2 In so deciding, the Board found it unnecessary to pass upon the other contract bar issues involved in the case. On March 20,1951, the Board denied the motions of the Employer and the Inter- venors to reconsider its decision. On March 30, 1951, elections were held; the Petitioner obtained a majority of the valid votes cast in the two units found appropriate, one consisting of powerhouse employees, the other of yard service employees. As the result of court litigation instituted thereafter by the Employer challenging the legality of the Board's holding that the contract was not a bar,3 the Petitioner was not certified. On December 31, 1951, the Board issued its decision in Charles A. Krause Milling Co., holding that the Worthington Pmap decision 'The contract in question , dated June 15, 1950, was for a 2-year term, with a 60-day automatic renewal clause. 2 93 NLRB 527. 8 97 F. Supp. 656 (D. C. S. D. N. Y.). * 97 NLRB 536. 99 NLRB No. 24.