E. W. Saybolt & Co.

51 0 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD CHARLES M. SMYTHE, JOSEPH H. McCABE, AND MARIE C. HOLSTEIN, d/b/a E. W. SAYBOLT & COMPANY and OIL WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, CIO. Case No. 39-CA-324. June 11, 1953 DECISION AND ORDER Upon a charge filed on April 2, 1953, by Oil Workers Inter- national Union, CIO, herein called the Union, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the General Counsel, by the Regional Director for the Sixteenth Region (Fort Worth, Texas), issued a complaint dated April 15, 1953, against Charles M. Smythe, Joseph H. McCabe, and Marie C. Holstein, d/b/a E. W. Saybolt & Company, herein jointly 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) of the National Labor Relations Act, herein called the Act. Copies of the charge, complaint, and notice of hearing were duly served upon the Respondent and the Union. With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleges in substance that (1) on or about March 30, 1953, and at all times thereafter, the Respondent refused to bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive bargaining rep- resentative of its employees in an appropriate unit, although a majority of said employees had selected the Union as their collective-bargaining representative; and (2) since on or about March 30, 1953, the Respondenthas interferedwith, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. On April 24, 1953, the Respondent filed an answer , admitting certain allegations of the complaint, but denying that it had engaged in any unfair labor practices. The Respondent also moved that the complaint be dismissed. For the reasons hereinafter stated, the request for dismissal is hereby denied. On April 21, 1953, all the parties, desiring to obviate the need for a hearing, entered into a stipulation which set forth an agreed statement of facts. The stipulation provided that the parties waived their rights to a hearing before a duly authorized Trial Examiner; that the Board may make findings of fact and conclusions of law, and issue an order based upon the agreed facts; and that the charge, the complaint, the notice of hearing, the answer, and the stipulation shall constitute the entire record. The stipulation is hereby approved and made a part of the record herein and, in accordance with Section 102.50 of the National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations, the proceeding is hereby transferred to and continued before the Board. As provided in the stipulation, the Respondent filed a brief with the Board. 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, Murdock, and Peterson.] 105 NLRB No. 69. E. W SAYBOLT & COMPANY 511 Upon the basis of the aforesaid stipulation , the Respondent's brief, and the entire record in this case , the Board makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT The Respondent is engaged in the inspection of petroleum products . Its main office is located in Elizabeth , New Jersey, and other offices are maintained in port cities throughout the United States , including Houston , Texas, which is involved in this proceeding , and various foreign countries . In the continental United States, the Respondent operates three principal divisions, the Atlantic , the Pacific , and the Gulf Coast. The Gulf Coast Division , which extends from Brownsville , Texas, to Jackson- ville, Florida, has a head office at Houston, Texas . For the fiscal year 1952 , the Respondent ' s gross income from services performed in the Gulf Coast Division amounted to in excess of $ 700,000. The Respondent admits, and we find , that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED The Union is a labor organization which admits to member- ship employees of the Respondent. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES On January 6, 1953, the Union filed a petition for certification of representatives for a unit of certain employees of the Respondent.' Thereafter , a hearing was held before a duly authorized hearing officer , at which time all parties were granted full opportunity to offer and adduce evidence bearing onthe issues, to state their positions on the record , and to file briefs with the Board . On February 20, 1953 , the Board issued its Decision and Direction of Election in the following unit found to be appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining: All petroleum inspectors of the Employer ' s Houston District operations at Houston , Freeport , and Texas City, Texas, also known as Stations Nos. 23, 24, and 27, respectively , excluding all other employees and supervisors as defined in the Act. Of the approximately 16 eligible employees who voted in the election , 10 voted for the Union and 6 against . On March 18, 1953, the Union was certified as the exclusive bargaining representative in the unit set forth above. On March 30, 1953 , in response to a request for bargaining negotiations , the Respondent notified the Union that it refused to recognize or deal with it on the ground that the unit certified lCase No 39-RC-550. 512 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD by the Board was inappropriate. In contesting the unit finding of the Board, the Respondent contends that the Board improperly gave controlling significance to the extent of the Union's organization and that the entire Gulf Coast Division extending from Brownsville, Texas, to Jacksonville, Florida, constitutes the only appropriate unit. While a broader unit might be appropriate, it does not necessarily follow that a subdivision thereof may not also be appropriate.2 As indicated in the Decision and Direction of Election, the following factors establish the appropriateness of a unit limited in scope to the Respondent's Houston District operations: all the employees in the unit work within a small geographical area and are widely separated from the other inspectors in the Gulf Coast Division; the infrequent transfers of personnel in and out of the Houston District, which functions for certain purposes as an adminis- trative subdivision;' the absence of a history of collective bargaining on a broader basis; and the fact that no labor organization is seeking to represent the employees on a division-wide basis. In view of the foregoing and for other reasons appearing in the Decision and Direction of Election, we find no merit in the Respondent's contention and adhere to our prior unit determination. On the basis of the entire record, we find that by refusing to bargain with the Union as the exclusive bargaining represent- ative on or about March 30, 1953, and thereafter, the Respondent violated Section 8 (a) (5) of the Act. By such conduct, the Respondent also interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE It is found that the activities of the Respondent, set forth in section III, above, occurring in connection with the operations of the Respondent described in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and com- merce among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. V THE REMEDY It having been found that the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices, it will be recommended that it cease and 2 The Board's power to establish such units is specifically supported by the language of Section 9 (b) of the Act, which provides that the Board shall decide in each case whether "the unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining shall be the employer unit, craft unit, plant unit, or subdivision thereof." (Emphasis supplied ) $Although, according to Respondent's witnesses, each of the three stations within the unit have separate managers with hiring authority, the record shows that instructions to the Freeport and Texas City stations are relayed through the manager of the Houston sta- tion. For the purpose of facilitating its inspection service, the Respondent, in a letter to its customers, listed its "Houston District Personnel" setting forth the name of a "man- ager " and the names of the inspectors who are assigned respectively to the Houston, Free- port, and Texas City stations. This letter also requested that all correspondence regarding inspection services be directed to the "Houston District Office." E W. SAYBOLT,C. COMPANY 513 desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act . It having been found that the Respondent has refused to bargain collectively with the Union as ` the exclusive representative of its employees in an appropriate unit, it will be ordered that the Respondent upon request bargain collectively with the Union. Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Oil Workers International Union, CIO , is a labor organi- zation within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 2. All petroleum inspectors of the Respondent ' s Houston District operations at Houston , Freeport , and Texas City, Texas, also known as Stations Nos. 23 , 24, and 27, respectively, excluding all other employees and supervisors 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. The Union was on and after March 30, 1953 , 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 March 30 , 1953, and at all times thereafter, to bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive repre- sentative of all its employees in the unit described in paragraph 2, above, 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 the 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, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the Re- spondent , Charles M. Smythe, Joseph H. McCabe, and Marie C. Holstein , d/b/a E . W. Saybolt & Company, Houston, Texas, their agents , successors , and assigns , shall: I 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Refusing to bargain collectively with Oil Workers Inter- national Union, CIO, as the exclusive representative of its employees in the following unit: All petroleum inspectors of the Respondent ' s Houston District operations at Houston , Freeport , and Texas City Texas, also known as Stations Nos. 23, 24 , and 27 , respectively, I 514 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD excluding all other employees and supervisors as defined in the Act. (b) In any like or related manner interfering with the efforts of Oil Workers International Union, CIO, to negotiate for or represent the employees in the aforesaid unit as exclusive bargaining agent. 2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Upon request, bargain collectively with Oil Workers International Union, CIO, as the exclusive bargaining agent of all employees in the bargaining unit described above, with respect to wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, and other conditions of employment, and if an understanding is reached, embody such understanding in a signed agreement. (b) Post at its operations at Houston, Freeport, and Texas City, Texas, copies of the notice attached hereto, marked "Appendix A".4 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Sixteenth Region, shall, after being duly signed by the Respondent, be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof and maintained byitfor sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter inconspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (c) File with the Regional Director for the Sixteenth Region, within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, a report in writing setting forth the manner in which the Respondent has complied with the foregoing Order. 4in 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 " 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 Oil Workers International Union, CIO, as the exclusive repre- sentative of all employees in the bargaining unitdescribed herein with respect to wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or other terms or conditions of employment, and if an understanding is reached embody such under- standing in a signed agreement. The bargaining unitis: All petroleum inspectors of the Houston District oper- ations at Houston, Freeport, and Texas City, Texas, also THE SUN COMPANY OF SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA 515 known as Stations Nos. 23, 24, and 27, respectively, excluding all other employees and supervisors as defined in the National Labor Relations Act. WE WILL NOT in any manner interfere with the efforts of the above -named union to bargain collectively with us or refuse to bargain with said union as the exclusive representative of the employees in the bargaining unit set forth above. E. W. SAYBOLT & COMPANY, Employer, Dated ............... By .................................................... (Representative ) (Title) This notice must remain posted far 60 days from the date hereof, and must not be altered , defaced, or covered by any other material. THE SUN COMPANY OF SAN BERNARDINO , CALIFORNIA and THOMAS L. MULLINS THE SUN COMPANY OF SAN BERNARDINO , CALIFORNIA and JOSEPH A. BENNETT . Cases Nos. 21-CA - 1365 and 21-CA- 1507. June 11, 1953 SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER On March 6 , 1953, the Board issued its Decision and Order' in the above -entitled cases finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and ordering that it cease and desist therefrom and take cer- tain affirmative action designed to effectuate the purposes of the Act. On April 8, 1953, the Respondent filed with the Board a motion for an order to reopen the record and for permission to adduce additional evidence and for reconsideration of the Board ' s Order of March 6 , 1953. The General Counsel, on April 23 , 1953, filed a memorandum in opposition to the Re- spondent ' s motion to reopen . On May 8, 1953, the Respondent filed a reply to the General Counsel's memorandum. 2 1. In its motion , the Respondent requested that the record be reopened for the purpose of taking written interrogatories of Ralph W . Davis, the Respondent ' s vice president , concerning the discharge of Joseph A. Bennett . The Respondent stated that: Davis suffered a heart attack on September 7, 1952 , and was 1103 NLRB 359. 2 The Respondent 's request for oral argument is hereby denied as the record , the Re- spondent's exceptions and brief, and the motions and replies thereto, in our opinion, ade- quately present the issues and the positions of the parties. 105 NLRB No. 60.