American Liberty Oil Co.

368 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD of existing contracts, and will probably require the Board and its Regional Directors to apply a more lenient policy with respect to en- tertaining petitions filed months in advance of what is now regarded as an appropriate time to institute proceedings looking towards a determination of representatives. It seems to me that the rule now adopted will stimulate early rival activity, because the union seeking to challenge the incumbent representative will find it necessary at all times to be able to make a claim of representation and support it by a petition within 10 days 20 and a showing of interest, lest it be foreclosed by the execution of a premature-extension agreement. Moreover, as the Board will not be able to justify dismissing petitions filed in midterm of an existing contract by pointing out that the pre- mature-extension doctrine provides a predictable time for ,filing rival claims, I believe many petitions which now would be dismissed as untimely will be processed or allowed to remain on file. The neces- sary result, in my opinion, will be to prolong rival organizing cam- paigns and thus detract from stability in bargaining relationships. In view of the foregoing, I would find that the premature-extension rule is applicable here and, as I would therefore find the new agree- ment between the Employer and the Intervenor not a bar, I would proceed to a determination of representatives. 20 General Electric X-Ray Corporation, 67 NLRB 997 AMERICAN LIBERTY OIL COMPANY and A. L. SPANN, PETITIONER and OIL WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, CIO . Case No. 16-RD-11a. July 23,1954 Decision and Direction of Election Upon a decertification petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Charles Y. Latimer, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. 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 certain em- ployees of the Employer. The petitioner asserts that the Oil Workers International Union, CIO, hereafter referred to as the Union, the recognized representative of employees herein concerned, is no longer their exclusive representative as defined in Section 9 (a) of the Act. 3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning representation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 109 NLRB No. 52. AMERICAN LIBERTY OIL COMPANY 369 4. The Employer, a Delaware corporation, operates a branch office and plant at Mount Pleasant, Texas. It is engaged in the business of oil and gas production and the transportation of petroleum prod- ucts. In 1942, as a result of a consent election, the Union was certi- fied as the bargaining representative of the operating and mainte- nance employees. In 1943, by virtue of a consent election, laboratory employees were included in the unit. From 1947 to 1951, the Em- ployer began acquiring trucks and established, about a mile distant from the refinery, a garage shop. In 1951, the Employer constructed a garage shop on company property at the same site as the refinery. The instant petition is concerned with mechanics and helpers in the garage. On April 30, 1952, the Union called a strike at the Mount Pleasant refinery which continued for approximately 15 days, after which many of the employees returned to work. Subsequently, the Union filed unfair labor practice charges against the Employer. On Febru- ary 11, 1953, the Regional Director and the Employer entered into a unilateral settlement agreement which the Union appealed unsuccess- fully to the General Counsel. In the settlement agreement, the Em- ployer agreed to bargain with the Union relative to the bargaining unit described as follows : "all operating and maintenance employees including mechanics and helpers at the company's Mount Pleasant, Texas, refinery, excluding office and clerical employees, transport trucking employees, supervisors, professional employees, porters, warehousemen, and watchmen." (Emphasis supplied.) Negotiations followed and resulted in a contract dated December 14, 1953, cover- ing the unit described above. The contract provided that it should remain in effect for 1 year from date, provided that it shall only remain in effect as to the garage me- chanics and helpers who are employed in the garage shop until February 11, 1954, at which time the contract shall automatically terminate only as to said garage mechanics and helpers... . The Union, by letter dated February 12, 1954, notified the Employer of its desire to extend and modify the contract as it applied to garage mechanics and helpers, and to include them in the agreement cur- rently in effect for the operating and maintenance employees. The Employer replied suggesting that if in fact the Union did represent the garage classification, a Board election would be the most appro- priate and satisfactory proof of that fact. On March 3, 1954, the petition herein was filed, requesting decertification of the Union for a unit of mechanics and helpers in the garage. The garage shop is a separate building at one end of which is lo- cated the office of the garage foreman, the garage warehouse, and the motor repair ,room. 370 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD At the head of the Employer's supervisory hierarchy is the re- finery manager and his assistant. Immediately below them are three supervisors on the same level: the refinery superintendent, the office manager, and the trucking department superintendent. The truck- ing department is composed of truckdrivers, hostlers, mechanics and helpers, and one warehouseman. The hostlers and truckdrivers are under the direct supervision of the trucking department superin- tendent as is the garage foreman, who supervises the mechanics and helpers. There are 17 mechanics and mechanics' helpers. (The term "help- ers" includes wash and grease men and servicemen.) Their duties are to repair trucks and tank trailers, wash, grease, and paint, and do general overhauling of the trucks and truck trailers. They perform no work outside the garage shop unless there is a breakdown of one of the transport trucks in the refinery area. The garage has its own warehouse and the employees of the shop their separate bathhouse located in the garage building. There has never been any interchange or transfer of employees from the garage to the refinery or vice versa. The refinery maintenance department employees come into the garage building only when building repair is necessary. Numerous signs are posted around the garage area stating "garage employees only." The mechanics and helpers have no contact with refinery employees; it is the duty of the hostlers to take the trucks into the refinery for load- ing. The Employer does not have a formalized on-the-job training program, but the normal progression in the garage shop is from wash and grease man to serviceman to mechanic to chief mechanic. The Petitioner contends there is no community of interest between the mechanics and helpers and the refinery employees; that their in- terest is with the drivers and hostlers if there exists a community of interest between them and any other group. He contends that the mechanics and helpers have a statutory and constitutional right to vote on the question of representation. The Union asserts that placement of the mechanics and helpers in the operating and maintenance unit by the settlement agreement was right and proper; that historically the Union has represented garage mechanics and helpers at oil refineries; and, that the employees sought herein do not comprise a distinctive homogeneous craft group and are therefore not entitled to a separate election. The Employer contends that the garage is a departmental unit en- tirely independent of and unrelated to the refinery operation. In view of the general dissatisfaction that this group has evidenced con- cerning the settlement agreement and resulting contract, the Em- ployer urges that an election be directed. In view of the fact that the mechanics and helpers were added to the operating and maintenance unit as a result of a unilateral settle- PABST BREWING COMPANY 371 relent agreement and without opportunity to express their desires in a representation election and in view of the brief period of less than 3 months during which they were covered by the bargaining contract for the overall unit, we conclude there has not been an effective merger of the mechanics and helpers with the certified unit. Inclusion in the operating and maintenance unit for such a short period of time cannot foreclose an effective protest from the employees concerned or render inappropriate an other-,w-ise appropriate unit confined to such employees. The nature of the work of the mechanics and helpers, their lack of interchange with operating and maintenance employees, their sepa- rate supervision, and dissimilar working conditions convinces the Board that the mechanics and mechanics' helpers are a departmental group who may properly constitute a separate bargaining unit for the determination of a question concerning representation. Accordingly, the Board finds that all Inechiuiics and mechanics' helpers in the garage shop at the Employer's Mount Pleasant, Texas, operation, excluding the operating and maintenance employees, office clerical employees, truckdrivers and hustlers, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act may constitute a unit appropriate for the pur- poses of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. We shall direct an election among these employees. If a majority of the employees vote against the Union, the latter organi- zation will be decertified as representative of the Employer's me- chanics and mechanics' helpers. If, however, a majority of the employees east their ballots for the Union, they will be taken to have indicated their desire to be a part of the operating and maintenance unit and the Union may bargain for the mechanics and mechanics' helpers as part of that unit. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] 1 Allen Wales Adding Machine Division of the National Cash Register Company, 94 NLRB 1288. PABST BREWING COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL UNION OF UNITED BREWERY, FLOUR, CEREAL, SOFT DRINK AND DISTILLERY WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, AND ITS LOCAL UNION No. 77, PETITIONER. Case No. 13-RC-3868. July 23, 195. Decision and Direction of Election -Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National L; bor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Irwin M. Lieberman, hear- 109 NLRB No. 54 i 334811-33-vol. 109-2.5