Mars Oil Co.

MARS OIL COMPANY 669 experienced employee engaged in routine direction, and as such, eligible to participate in the election for lithographic production em- ployees herein directed. Hood, in charge of the bindery, spends 65 percent of her time in bindery work and the remainder in the opera- tion of the bindery, including work assignments to, and the instruction of, 2 to 15 bindery employees; she also recommends the hire and dis- charge of employees, and her recommendations, although separately investigated, are generally followed. We find, contrary to the In- tervenor's contention, that Hood is a supervisor as defined in the Act, and therefore not eligible to vote in the elections for printing depart- ment employees herein directed. The following employees constitute the voting groups: (a) All lithographic production employees, including Harold Eaton, but excluding Floyd Ashley and other supervisors as defined in the Act. (b) All printing department employees, excluding lithographic production employees and Neva Hood, Floyd Ashley, and other super -visors as defined in the Act. If a majority of the employees in voting group (a) vote for the Petitioner, they will be taken to have indicated their desire to con- stitute a separate bargaining unit, and the Regional Director is in- structed to issue a certification of representatives to the Petitioner for that unit, which the Board, under such circumstances, finds appro- priate., If a majority of the employees in voting group ( a) and a majority of employees in voting group (b) vote for the Intervenor, the Regional Director is directed to issue a certification of representa- tives to the Intervenor for a unit which includes the employees in both voting groups and which the Board, under such circumstances, finds appropriate. [Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication in this volume.] ' Danner Pre8s of Canton, Inc., 91 NLRB 237. MARS OIL COMPANY AND LUNAR OIL COMPANY and OIL WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, CIO, PETITIONER. Cases Nos. 30-RC-739. and 30 R'C-759. December 1,195E Supplemental Decision and Certification of Representatives On June 13, 1952, pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Electi,;dn' issued by the Board herein on May 26, 1952,1 an election by secret 1 Not reported in printed volumes of Board decisions. 101 NLRB No. 134. 670 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ballot was conducted under the direction and supervision of the Re- gional Director for the Seventeenth Region. At the conclusion of the election, a tally of ballots was furnished the parties by the Regional Director. The tally shows that there were approximately 31 eligible voters, and that 23 votes were cast, of which 10 were for the Petitioner, 9 were against the Petitioner, and 4 were challenged. As the challenged ballots could affect the results of the election, the Regional Director, in accordance with the Board's Rules and Regu- lations, conducted an investigation and thereafter, on August 14, 1952, issued and served upon the parties his report on challenged ballots, finding that Chester I. Thompson, J. Wiley Hartley, Oliver H. Browning, and T. E. McFarlane were supervisors within the meaning of the Act, and recommending that the challenges to these ballots be sustained. The Employer duly filed exceptions to the Regional Director's report. On September 9, 1952, the Board issued an order directing hearing on challenged ballots and remanded the case to the Regional Director for the purpose of conducting a hearing on the issues raised by the Employer's exceptions. The hearing was held on September 29 and October 2, 1952, before Clyde F. Waers, hearing officer. The Employer and Petitioner appeared and participated. On October 17, 1952, the hearing officer issued and served upon the parties his report on challenged ballots, in which he recommended that the challenges be sustained. The Employer filed exceptions to the hearing officer's report. The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the hearing officer at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the hearing officer's report, the exceptions filed by the Employer, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the hearing officer's findings, conclusions, and recommendations, to the extent that they are con- sistent with this Supplemental Decision.2 We agree with the hearing officer's finding that Thompson, Hartley, McFarlane, and Browning,3 whose votes were challenged at the elec- tion, are supervisors within the meaning of the Act, and therefore were not eligible to vote in the election. The record shows that these persons are managers at gas stations operated by the Employer in Denver, Colorado. Some of the stations are open 24 hours a day on a 3-shift basis; and some operate on a 2-shift basis. Aside from the managers, there are approximately 30 employees for the 5 stations. • None of our substantive findings herein are based on the affidavit of T. E . McFarlane which was introduced into the record as an exhibit. • Browning is not now employed by the Employer. MARS OIL COMPANY 671 When the occasion arises, part-time help' is also employed. The managers receive salaries of $250 per month and the other employees are paid $190. The latter employees receive commissions only on their own oil sales, whereas the commissions paid managers are based on the total oil sales at their respective stations. Only the managers attend monthly dinner meetings given by the Employer, where per- sonnel problems are discussed, and at which Henry Kaiser, who is the district manager in charge of the Denver operations, is also present. Although Kaiser does all the hiring for the 5 stations, one of the managers has effectively recommended the dismissal of employees who have falsified accounts or have reported to work in an intoxicated condition. The record is also clear that the managers responsibly direct the work of the employees at their station, regard- less of the shift assignments. In view of the foregoing, and on the basis of the entire record, we find that the station managers of the Employer are supervisors within the meaning of the Act,4 and we hereby sustain the challenges to the votes of Thompson, Hartley, McFarlane, and Browning. A4 the Petitioner has received a majority of the valid votes cast in the election, we shall certify it as the bargaining representative of all employees in the appropriate unit. Certification of Representatives IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Oil Workers International Union, CIO, has been designated and selected by a majority of all service station employees of the Employer's Denver, Colorado, operations, including truck drivers, but excluding part-time employees, the station man- agers, the district manager, and all other supervisors as defined in the Act, as their representative for the purposes of collective bar- gaining, and that, pursuant to Section 9 (a) of the Act, the said organization is the exclusive representative of all such employees for the purposes of collective bargaining with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of employment. MEMBERS HOUSTON and STYLES took no part in the considera- tion of the above Supplemental Decision and Certification of Representatives. * Goar Service and Supply Co., 85 NLRB 219; Shell Oil Company, 90 NLRB 371; Super Teat Oil Co., Inc., 97 NLRB No. 116.