Continental Oil Black Co.

870 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD provided in the contract and will not be changed unless there should be some mutual agreement between us to our mutual advantage. We say "Mutual" and we mean "Mutual" for we are all friends and allies. We have a common interest in working together to please our customers so that we may sell our product and provide you with jobs which is the only real security. We believe that if you will take steps to choose representatives from each of your departments as suggested to meet with us regularly , we can assure you that we will continue to grow closer together, that we will always have a better and clearer understanding of each others problems , and that we will be able to work together always in a friendly way to further our mutual interests. This is about all we have to say. We want to be sure that I have made it clear, and I would also welcome the chance to have a discussion with you. As we see it, the main thing now is for you to arrange to choose your representatives in this plant from each department. For your convenience and information, the message just given you will be posted on the bulletin board for one week, and thereafter will be in our files but will be available to you. Before leaving you, are there any questions? RALPH B. BALDWIN CONTINENTAL OIL BLACK COMPANY (WESTLAKE, LOUISIANA PLANT) and LOCAL UNION 407, INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING EN- GINEERS, AFL, PETITIONER. Case No. 15-RC-854. January 30, 1953. Decision and Order Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before John E. Price, hear- ing 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 Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Members Houston, Styles, and Peterson]. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds : 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. 2. The labor organization involved claims to represent employees of the Employer. 3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa- tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, for the following reasons: The Petitioner requests a unit of all unit operators, and/or A oper- ators, and/or shift foremen, employed by the Employer at its West- lake, Louisiana, plant. However, the record establishes that the Peti- tioner in substance desires an addition of these workers to the already existing production and maintenance unit which it represents. 102 NLRB No. 86. CONTINENTAL OIL BLACK COMPANY 871 A consent election was held among the Employer's production and maintenance employees on July 11, 19521 Thereafter, on July 21, 1952, the Petitioner was certified as the bargaining representative of these employees. After the election, but prior to the certification, the A operators were told by the Employer that they were being made shift foremen. Since the certification, the Employer refused to bar- gain concerning these four shift foremen, contending that they are supervisors. The Petitioner thereafter filed the present petition.2 The sole question to be determined here is whether the shift foremen involved herein are supervisors. If they are not, they may properly be included in the already existing production and maintenance unit .3 The 4 individuals in question, who are hourly paid, received an in- crease in wages of 10 to 24 cents an hour when they were promoted and given the title of shift foreman on July 16, 1952. The Employer operates on a 3-shift basis. During the day shift, the plant superin- tendent and plant foreman are on the premises and the plant is in their charge. On this shift, the man classified as shift foreman is not responsible as a supervisor but is responsible only as an operator of his unit. This was also the extent of the A operators' duties and respon- sibilities while working on the second and third shifts prior to their receiving the title of shift foremen and wage increases. However, the shift foremen working the second and third shifts 4 are now respon- sible for the operation of the plant on their shifts and for 2 other men on their respective shifts. No other supervisor is present on these shifts 8 It is the responsibility of the shift foremen on the second and third shifts to see that the pellet tender and the utility crew man are on the job and if either of the latter does not report to work, the shift foreman has the duty to see that a man is sent out to replace him. The pro- duction of the pellet tender and the utility crew man on the second and third shifts is also the responsibility of the shift foreman. If the utility man fills his quota of "pulling black," he then reports to the shift foreman who tells him what other duties to perform. If the pellet works are jammed it is the responsibility of the shift foreman properly to shut down the plant. While the testimony is in conflict as to the exact extent of the shift foremen's other authority, one shift foreman testified without contradiction that he was told by the Em- 1 The Employer challenged the ballots cast in that election by the A operators , who are in issue in this decision , on the ground that these employees were being trained for supervisory positions. Their challenged ballots did not affect the results of the election. (Case No. 15-RC-761.)1 2 The Petitioner filed an unfair labor practice charge against the Employer , Case No. 15-CA-513, but subsequently withdrew that charge. 3 Continental Oil Company, 85 NLRB 827. 4 The shift foremen apparently rotate their work on shifts. 6 The Employer testified that the shift foremen were created in order to have someone responsible on the second and third shifts because of the danger of serious damage to equipment. 872 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ployer that he has the power to recommend the discharge of an employee. The Employer testified that weight would be given to the recommendations of the shift foreman. Under all the circumstances, we find that the shift foremen are supervisors within the meaning of the Act. Accordingly, we shall dismiss the petition herein. Order IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition filed herein be, and it hereby is, dismissed. CONSOLIDATED VULTEE AIRCRAFT CORPORATION , FORT WORTH DIVISION and AERONAUTICAL INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT LODGE No . 776, INTERNA- TIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS , AFL, PETITIONER. Case No. 16-RC-1153. January 30, 1953 Amended Decision and Direction of Elections On November 25,1952, the Board issued its Decision and Direction of Election 1 in the above-entitled proceeding directing a self-deter- mination election in a voting group consisting of all tool planners, tool designers, tool liaison employees, fabrication specification plan- ners, and tool service liaison men "A" and "B" at the Employer's Fort Worth, Texas, division. On December 8, 1952, the Petitioner filed with the Board a motion for clarification of the Board's Decision and Direction of Election seeking to have added to the voting group estab- lished therein all employees classified as tool and operations planners "A", "B", and "C". The Intervenor, Federated Independent Texas Unions, Aircraft Local 900, on December 24, 1952, filed a motion opposing the Petitioner's request that the tool and operations planners be added to the voting group as set forth in the Board's Decision and Direction of Election. Upon reconsideration of this case, and upon the entire record herein, the Board makes the following additional findings of fact: The foregoing classifications of tool and operations planners were established by the Employer in April 1952 in order to consolidate and expedite certain planning operations. These new classifications com- bined in one job the functions formerly performed by the tool plan- ners, who had been previously represented by the Intervenor, and those performed by installation planners "A" and a number of installation planners "B", who had been previously represented by the Petitioner. Y 101 NLRB 584. 102 NLRB No. 80.