Shell Oil Co. of California

In the Matter of SHELL OIL CO MPANY OF CALIFORNIA and INTERNA- TIONAL ASSOCIATION OF OIL FIELD, GAS WELL AND REFINERY WORK- ERS OF AMERICA, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, INTER- NATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF BOILEI MAKERS, IRON SHIPBUILDERS AND HELPERS, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF BLACKSMITHS, DROP FORGERS AND HELPERS, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, and WELDERS INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION, INTERVENER Cases Nos. C-152 and R-10.Decided May 24, 1937 Oil Producing and Refining Industry--Unit Appropriate for Collective Bar- gaining: geographical differences ; history of collective bargaining relations with employer ; organization of business-Representatives: proof of choice : elec- tion-Collective Bargaining: refusal to recognize and negotiate with union as exclusive representative ; meeting with representatives but with no bona fide intent to reach an agreement-Company-Dominated Union: domination and interference with formation and administration ; contributing financial and other support; disestablished as agency for collective bargaining. Mr. Ralph T. Seward for the Board. McCutchen, Olney, Mannon d Greene, by Mr. Wm. E. Wright and Mr. Jay T. Cooper, of San Francisco, Cal., for respondent. Mr. Fred L. Phillips, of Long Beach, Cal., for International Asso- ciation of Oil Field, Gas Well and Refinery Workers of America. Mr. H. B. McMurry, of Los Angeles, Cal., for International Asso- ciation of Machinists. Mr. J. N. Davis, of Kansas City, Kan., for International Brother- hood of Boilermakers, Iron Shipbuilders and Helpers, and Interna- tional Brotherhood of Blacksmiths, Drop Forgers and Helpers. Mr. Amos H. Feely, of San Francisco, Cal., for International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers. Mr. C. Cardno, of San Francisco; Cal., for Welders International Association. Mr. David Persinger, of counsel to the Board. DECISION STATEMENT OF CASE In October, 1936, the International Association of Oil Field, Gas Well and Refinery Workers of America,,the International Association of Machinists, the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Shipbuilders and Helpers, the International Brotherhood of Black- smiths, Drop Forgers and Helpers, and the International Brother- 5727-37-vol. n-54 835 836 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD hood of Electrical Workers, hereinafter referred to as the Unions, filed a joint charge with the Regional Director for the Twenty-first Region (Los Angeles, California) against the Shell Oil Company of California, San Francisco, California, charging that Company with violation of Section 8, subdivisions (1), (2), and (5) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, hereinafter called the Act. On November 25, 1936, the Board issued a complaint against the Shell Oil Company of California, hereinafter referred to as respondent, alleging that respondent had committed unfair labor practices affect- ing commerce, within the meaning of Section 8, subdivisions (1), (2), and (5), and Section 2, subdivisions (6) and (7) of the Act, in that respondent had dominated and interfered with the administration of a labor organization known as Shell Conference Delegate Plan, and had contributed financial and other support to it, the acts of domina- tion, interference, and support being separately stated, and in that re- spondent refused to bargain collectively with the Unions as the ex- clusive representative of all employees covered by the classifications and wage schedules of the 1932 Memorandum of Terms, discussed hereafter. The complaint and accompanying notice of hearing were duly served upon the parties. Respondent filed an answer denying the allegations in the com- plaint, and alleging that the Act is unconstitutional and that the Board is without jurisdiction. On December 8, 1936, the Regional Director for the Twenty-first Region, in accordance with Article II, Section 19 of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 1, as amended, granted the motion of the Welders International Association, filed a few days prior thereto, to intervene. Notice of said intervention was duly served upon the parties. Respondent, on December 18, 1936, filed an answer to the said motion alleging substantially the same defenses as in its answer to the complaint. Pursuant to an amended notice of hearing duly served upon the parties, a hearing was begun December 10, 1936, and concluded Janu- ary 29, 1937, at Los Angeles, California, before Edwin A. Elliott, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Board. Respondent was represented by counsel and participated in the hearing. The Welders International Association, hereinafter called the Intervenor, was represented by its International president and -participated in the hearing. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues was afforded all parties.. On December: 18, 1936, the Board authorized the. Regional Di- rector for the Twenty-first Region to conduct an investigation and to provide for an appropriate hearing on a petition for investigation and certification of representatives filed with the Regional Director DECISIONS AND ORDERS 837 in August, 1936, by the Intervener, and, acting pursuant to Article III, Section 10 (c) (2) of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 1, as amended, further ordered that said hearing be consolidated with the hearing on the complaint. Respondent objected to the order of consolidation and the objection was over- ruled by the ,Trial Examiner. Respondent thereupon stipulated with the other parties that all evidence theretofore taken at the hearing on the complaint should constitute evidence in the consolidated mat- ter. The hearing proceeded with all parties participating. At the beginning of the hearing respondent objected to the juris- diction of the Board for the reasons set forth in the answer. The Trial Examiner overruled the objection. Objections to the introduc- tion of evidence were made by respondent and by the Board during the course of the hearing. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds that no prejudicial errors were com- mitted. The rulings are hereby affirmed. After the hearing the Board, acting pursuant to Article II, Section 37 (a) of National Labor Relations Board rules and Regulations-Series 1, as amended, ordered that the consolidated proceeding be transferred to it. Sub- sequently, respondent filed briefs and orally argued the case before the Board on March 11, 1937. Intervenor was represented and par- ticipated in the oral argument. Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following : FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE COMPANY AND ITS BUSINESS Respondent is a California corporation organized July 30, 1915, with its principal offices in San Francisco, California. Its original name was changed to its present name in 1928. It is substantially a wholly-owned subsidiary of Shell Union Oil Corporation, a Delaware corporation, with its principal offices in New York City. At the time of the events related hereinafter, Shell Eastern Petroleum Products, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Shell Union Oil Company, conducted a sales service, throughout the Middle Atlantic States. -During this same period the Shell Terminal Corporation operated deep-sea terminals on the Atlantic seaboard and engaged in the pur- chase of oil and oil products for shipment to foreign nations. On about November 2, 1936, the Shell Eastern Petroleum Products, Inc., and Shell Terminal Corporation were dissolved and their operations were taken over by Shell Union Oil Corporation. This marked the initial entry of the latter corporation into active business. The Shell Petroleum Corporation, a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Shell Union Oil Corporation, operates production fields, refin- eries and sales services throughout Texas and the Mid-Western 838 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD States. Shell Pipe Line Corporation, a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Shell Union Oil Corporation, operates pipe lines through the Mid-Western States. The Wolverine Petroleum Corporation, a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Shell Union Oil Corporation, oper- ates production fields and refineries within the State of Oklahoma. Respondent operates production fields, pipe lines, and refineries in the State of California, and sales services in the States of Califor- nia, Nevada, Montana, Idaho, Oregon, Washington, Utah, and Ari- zona, and in the Hawaiian Islands. The Shell Oil Company of British Columbia, a wholly-owned subsidiary of respondent, operates. refineries and sales services in British Columbia. The Shell Oil Company, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of respondent, operates sales services in New Mexico. The directorates of the Shell Union Oil Corporation and its subsidiaries are interlocking, as are the directorates of respondent and its subsidiaries. Respondent operates production fields, either owned or leased by it, in the Long Beach area, the Ventura area, the Santa Maria area, the Bakersfield area, and the Oilfields area, all in California. It operates a refinery at Martinez, in the San Francisco Bay area, and; two refineries jointly at Wilmington-Dominquez, in the Los Angeles Basin area. A pipe line system known as the Southern Pipe Line connects the southern production fields with the Wilmington-Domin- quez refinery. A pipe line system known as the Northern or Valley Pipe Line, connects the production fields at Bakersfield and Oil- fields with the Martinez refinery. Crude oil from the Ventura and Santa Maria production fields is shipped by sea to the Wilmington- Dominquez refinery. At the Martinez refinery are a deep-water ter- minal and a railway terminal, the latter connecting by branch line with the Southern Pacific Railway. The Santa Fe Railway has a branch line running into the Wilmington refinery, and connects by a local connecting line with the Dominquez refinery. Four miles from the Wilmington-Dominquez refinery, on an island in the San, Pedro Harbor, respondent maintains a deep-water terminal con- nected by pipe line with the refinery. Respondent owns a fleet of 500 railroad tank cars and leases from 10 to 100, depending on the demand of trade. Much of respond- ent's crude oil and finished products are shipped in tank cars other than those owned or leased by respondent and in tank steamers, wholly owned by persons other than respondent. Respondent oper- ates absorption plants at 'Signal Hill, Brea, and "Dominquez, in the Long Beach area, at Ventura, at El Capitan, in the Santa Maria area, and at Santa Maria. Subsequent to July 3, 1936, respondent opened and is now operating an absorption plant at Ten Section, in'the Bakersfield area, and a third pipe line. DECISIONS AND ORDERS 839 Respondent has a sales department which covers its sales opera- tions in California and neighboring states, with divisional head- quarters located at San Francisco, Sacramento, Oakland, and Fresno, California; Seattle and Spokane, Washington; Portland, Oregon; Salt Lake City, Utah; Phoenix, Arizona; and Honolulu. About one- half of the oil and oil products purchased by Shell Oil Company, Inc., are purchased from respondent. Shell Oil Company of British Columbia purchases substantially all its crude oil from respondent, refines the crude oil, and sells the finished products throughout British Columbia. Respondent also sells finished products to Shell Union Oil Corporation.' Respondent's organization, in so far as we are here concerned with it, is divided into five departments, with a manager in charge of each. These departments are production, pipe line, absorption plant, refinery, and automotive. The production employees are engaged in drilling wells, in the production of oil and gas from producing wells, and in the transmission of oil and gas, to the pipe lines. Oil and gas from a well pass into a trap, which separates the two, per- mitting the gas to flow through a meter into the pipe line connecting the well directly with the absorption plant. This so-called "wet" gas is passed through a process, whereby the gas is mixed with "lean" oil. The "lean" oil absorbs the gasoline vapors which are then separated from the "fat" oil by distillation and passed into a storage tank. The "dry" gas is ready for commercial consumption. The -oil has become "lean" again and is used for a repetition of this process. The gasoline extracted from natural gas is known as casing- head gasoline. It is passed from a storage tank by pipe line to the refinery where it is used for blending with gasolines distilled from crude oil. The crude oil in the trap passes into a flow tank where it is "bled" of water. Periodically the flow tank is emptied by pipe line into the lease tank where the oil is again bled and gauged. Oil from the lease tank passes through a pipe line to the field tank farm. In each of these three tanks gasoline vapors constantly rise and are collected and passed through pipe lines to the absorption plant to ,be merged with the casinghead gas in the extraction process. Crude oil is transferred from the field tank farms through pipe lines to the refinery. In some cases the flow is by gravity from the well to the refinery. In other cases the oil must pass through booster stations which, by means of pumps, supply the pressure necessary to force the oil through the connecting pipe line. The refining process, in brief, is in four stages-distillation, which produces 1 Prior to November, 1936 , respondent sold approximately 22 per cent of its products shown in the Tables, Appendix A, as sold "elsewhere " than to a point within the State of California, to Shell Eastern Petroleum Products , Inc., and Shell Terminal Corporation. Approximately the same quantities are now sold to Shell Union Oil Corporation 840 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD various grades of gasoline, kerosene and oils; chemical refining, which is necessary to change the distilled products into marketable products; a cracking process whereby the residue remaining from the distillation is broken down molecularly to a point where it can be put through the final stage of redistillation and chemical refining. The chemically refined products are stored at the refinery to await blending with each other and, in the case of distilled gasoline, with casinghead gasoline, in order to produce marketable products con- forming to general or particular specifications. The pipe line em- ployees are engaged in maintaining and operating the pipe lines and booster, or pump, stations. The absorption plant employees are engaged in operations connected with the absorption process in- ,eluding the operation of pumps where necessary to force the flow of gasoline and gas into the storage and distillation tanks and into the pipe lines. The refinery employees are engaged in the actual refining operations, in operating the necessary pumps, and in load- ing and unloading tankers, tank cars, tank trucks, freight cars, and trucks. The automotive employees are engaged in maintaining and operating the fleet of company trucks used for the transportation of pipe, repair parts, and other materials throughout respondent's properties. All shipments of respondent's finished products to points outside the State of California are made by rail or water, though many shipments within the State are made by tank trucks. The most important of the products manufactured at the Wilmington-Domin- quez refinery is gasoline. The most important of the products manu- factured at the Martinez refinery is lubricating oils. These are shipped in drums rather than in tanks and are known as package goods. Appendix A of this decision, which is hereby made part of these findings, includes a detailed analysis of interstate shipments of re- spondent's products and of the sources of respondent's raw materials. During 1935, 507,668,931 gallons of respondent's products are known to have been shipped by rail out of California into other States. This quantity constituted 36.80 per cent of respondent's total sales that year. During the first ten months of 1936, 514,619,558 gallons of respondent's products are known to have been shipped by rail out of California into other States. This quantity constituted 38.43 per cent of respondent's total sales during that period. The exact amount of respondent's products shipped by water out of California to other States, to Territories of the United States, and to foreign countries is not shown by the record, but it is apparent by reason of the facts stated in the note to Appendix A, that it is substantial. DECISIONS AND ORDERS IL' THE UNIONS 841 Each of the Unions is a labor organization affiliated with the American Federation of Labor. Prior to 1933, the Unions agreed to cooperate and to act jointly in all matters pertaining to relations with respondent. They have done so at all times since 1933. The Intervener is a labor organization not affiliated with the American Federation of Labor. It has about 55 members among the welders employed by respondent and covered by the 1932 Meni- orandum of Terms. It has a total membership of approximately 4,000, largely on the West Coast. III. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND The crucial issue in this case is the unit appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining. Respondent contends that, the electoral units from which the conference delegates have been annually se- lected constitute the appropriate collective bargaining units. The Unions contend that the state-wide unit which embraces all hourly paid employees, and those formerly paid by the hour, but placed on a salary basis since 1932, not in a supervisory capacity, engaged in the production, pipe line, absorption plant, refinery, and automo- tive departments is the unit appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining. Since it is material to the determination of the appro- priate unit, we must examine the history of respondent's collective bargaining relations with its employees. In 1917, President Wilson appointed a Federal Mediation Com- mission for the purpose of mediating labor disputes in the oil in- dustry during the period of the War. The Commission arranged general conferences between the oil companies operating in Cali- fornia and their employees represented by the International Asso- ciation of Oil Field, Gas Well and Refinery Workers of America, hereinafter called the Oil Workers. Annual agreements covering wages, hours and working conditions were entered into until 1921, at which time all employers except respondent decided to discontinue the general negotiations. A two week general strike was called. Respondent notified the Federal Oil Board, successor to the Com- mission, that it would meet with representatives of its own em- ployees. As a result respondent's employees did not join the gen- eral strike. The Federal Oil Board arranged a conference between respondent and its employees. Under the supervision of the work- men's committees, established the year before for the purpose of presenting grievances, the employees elected delegates to advise with the official of the Oil Workers who acted as representative of all employees at the conference. The Federal Oil Board presided at 842 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the conference. An agreement known as a Memorandum of Terms ,or, more briefly, an MOT, covering wages, hours and working con- ditions, was negotiated and signed. From 1921 to 1935, with the exception of the years 1922, 1924, 1933, and 1934, an MOT was negotiated under the auspices of the Federal Oil Board, but from 1923 to 1933 respondent refused to deal with any representative not an employee. The actual negotia- tions at each conference were carried on between an official of re- spondent and a spokesman selected by the delegates from among their own number. In 1933, the Federal Oil Board notified the delegates that under the provisions of the National Industrial Recovery Act they were entitled to an "outside" spokesman if they so desired. They selected an official of the Oil Workers. No MOT was signed that year be- cause respondent and its employees were unable to agree on the wage provisions. The following year respondent met with the delegates elected in 1933, and the Oil Workers objected. The Federal Oil Board sustained the Union's objections and the conference adjourned without having acted on a new MOT. In 1935 respondent met with the Oil Workers and negotiated an MOT for that year. Each MOT covered all the employees of respondent who were paid on an hourly basis, were not in a supervisory capacity, and were engaged in either the production, pipe line, absorption plant, refinery, or automotive departments. IV. THE UNIT During the period from 1921 to 1932, all bargaining had been carried on between respondent, represented by an official as spokes- man, and all elected employee delegates, represented by a spokes- man selected by them from among their number, except in 1921. At no conference did any electoral unit fail to send its designated quota of delegates. At the general election in 1924, held for the purpose of determining if the employees wanted a wage conference that year, several electoral units voted in favor of a conference but the vote was counted on a state-wide basis and a majority of all employees voted "Nay". No conference was held. The divisions of respondent's operations into electoral units was theoretically made by the Federal Oil Board up to 1925; from that year to 1932, each MOT provided that respondent shall designate the electoral units and the number of delegates to be elected from each, said designation to be approved by the Federal Oil Board. The 11 electoral units, established by 1928 and revived in 1936 by respond- ent, correspond to the major divisions of respondent's business or- DECISIONS AND ORDERS 843 ganization. The five divisions of the production department, the two divisions of the refinery department, and the two divisions of the pipe line department are geographically separate; the absorp- tion plant department includes all absorption plants located on various properties of respondent in different localities; the automo- tive department includes employees located at substantially all prop- erties of respondent. In only one instance has respondent bargained with a single elec- toral unit. This occurred in December, 1928, at which time the then newly established automotive department through its representatives requested a change in wage rates. Respondent made the change without consulting the delegates who had negotiated the 1928 MOT. At the wage conference in 1929, Willis George, spokesman for the delegates, protested the action of respondent the previous December as being contrary to "the spirit of the MOT" in that it permitted a minority group to overrule the will of the majority. Respondent agreed that the objection was well taken and at no time since has respondent attempted to bargain collectively with a single electoral .unit. Respondent contends that the fact that sub-committees of delegates have been appointed during each wage conference to confer with special representatives of respondent in regard to problems of par- ticular electoral units proves that respondent for many years has bargained collectively with each electoral unit rather than with all its employees covered by the annual MOT as a single group. It is sufficient to point out that in all instances any agreements reached between respondent and the sub-committees were subject to ratifica- tion, modification, or rejection by the full committee of delegates, that the final report was then presented to the management by the delegates' spokesman, that each MOT prior to 1935, with the excep- tion of the 1921 MOT, has been signed by all delegates present at the conference, and that each MOT as agreed upon established wages, hours, and working conditions applying to all employees represented at the conference and covering the state-wide operations of respondent. The 1936 MOT was an agreement with seven electoral units jointly, not a separate agreement with each unit, and the wage, hour, and vacation provisions were made effective as to all employees in all electoral units. Mr. Stair, vice-president of respondent, testified that a single MOT is more desirable than many. This appears to be obvious. If re- spondent should actually operate in accordance with its contentions in this case it would negotiate 11 different agreements, and a driller at Ventura might well receive substantially different wages than a driller at Santa Maria, 70 miles up the coast. Such conditions would 844 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD be bound to create intense dissatisfaction among a group of em- ployees who have long become accustomed to discussing collectively all their problems and to working under wages, hours, and condi- tions known to all and in the establishment of which all have had a voice. The above indicates respondent's reasons for putting into effect for all of its employees the wage, hour, and vacation provi- sions of the 1935 and 1936 MOTs at the same time it was vehemently contending that the parties with which it negotiated the MOTs did not represent all of its employees. In 1935, the Petroleum Labor Policy Board conducted a hearing to determine the appropriate unit to be used as a basis for counting the ballots cast in the December, 1934, election. The history of re- spondent's collective bargaining relations with its employees was presented together with respondent's views on the issue. The Pe- troleum Labor Policy Board held that the state-wide unit rather than the electoral unit was appropriate. Respondent objected to the Board's introducing the decision of the Petroleum Labor Policy Board into the record on the ground that the Petroleum Labor Pol- icy Board was established under the unconstitutional National In- dustrial Recovery Act and, therefore, that its acts are without legal significance. Whatever may be the legal significance of its acts, the fact remains that the Petroleum Labor Policy Board was an agency set up by the United States Government for the purpose of handling labor relations in the industry, and the conclusions of fact reached by it are worthy of consideration. Respondent is organized on a state-wide basis, and for many years has recognized a state-wide unit as not only the fairest, but the most efficient. The Unions requested that those employees covered by the 1932 MOT and since placed on a weekly salary, but whose work has re- mained substantially unchanged, be included if the ' Board should designate the state-wide unit as the proper unit. Respondent offered no objection. In view of these facts, we find that a unit composed of all of the employees of respondent in California, engaged in the production, pipe line, absorption plant, refinery, and automotive departments, paid on an hourly basis, and those previously so paid but placed on a salary basis since 1932, and not in a supervisory capacity, would insure to the employees the full benefit of their right to self-organi- zation and to collective bargaining, and otherwise effectuate the policies of the Act, and constitutes a unit which is appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of employment. DECISIONS AND ORDERS 845 V. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Domination and interference with the formation and adminis- tration of the Conference Delegate Plan According to respondent 's testimony, employees began discussing a new wage conference as early as February , 1936. One of respond- ent's vice-presidents testified that he was made aware of these dis- cussions by the personnel department and the divisional superintend- ents who are in close contact with employees . About April 7, 1936, the Unions requested a meeting with respondent to negotiate a new MOT but were put off . About the same time Willis George called pn Mr. Van Senden , vice-president of respondent, and asked him about the possibility of a new wage conference between respondent and the delegates. Mr. Van Senden testified that he told George that he could not give a definite answer at that time. Mr. Shireman, an employee at the Wilmington-Dominquez refin- ery, testified that about the first of May he' heard that George was circulating petitions at Ventura requesting a wage conference be- tween respondent and the employee delegates . No other testimony concerning these petitions was received at the hearing. Shireman further testified that he asked George to send him a copy of the petitions and that George did so. Shireman had additional copies typed, but before he could begin to pass them around the refinery a bulletin was posted which alleviated the necessity for doing so. This bulletin, dated May 5, 1936, and posted in all respondent's divisions, was in the form of a letter from Mr. Belither, president of respondent, to "All Employees" advising them that in accordance with their annual custom the time had arrived to hold a new wage conference. It suggested that immediate steps be taken and listed the electoral units and the number of delegates to be elected from each. The Unions heard of this bulletin and protested to respondent that it violated the National Labor Relations Act. Respondent thereupon published a second bulletin dated May 11, which was sub- stantially the same as the first bulletin. The Unions accordingly filed a charge with the Regional Director for the Twenty-first Region, Dr. Nylander, who wrote respondent on May 12 that the two bulletins should be withdrawn. Meanwhile, the workmen's committees at Martinez, Wilmington- Dominquez, Bakersfield, Oilfields, Long Beach, and the Signal Hill absorption plant met specially, in most instances at the request of respondent's division superintendents, to discuss the holding of an election in accordance with the provisions of the first bulletin. In each instance, except the absorption plant meeting, the superin- tendent informed the committee that it was "charged with the re- 846 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD sponsibility of holding the election". The exact meaning of "charged with the, responsibility" is not clear but it is clear from the testimony that most of the committeemen considered it in the nature of an -order. Despite this, several of the committees refused to hold an. -election unless they received a signed order in writing, because they believed that under the terms of the 1935 MOT the workmen's com- mittees had no authority to hold such an election. Mr. Tulin, mana- ger of the absorption plant department, arranged for representatives. from each plant to meet at Signal Hill. The record shows that he refused to inform them why they were to meet, but that they seemed to know without having been told. Some of the absorption plants refused to have anything to do with an election of delegates ; others, elected delegates and sent them to the conference. On May 15, respondent published a third bulletin which revoked the two previous bulletins. The next day respondent replied to Dr. Nylander's letter of May 12, in which he had suggested that the first two bulletins be withdrawn, and stated that it had at all times ques- tioned the scope of the Union's representation of its employees, but that it would bargain with the Unions unless and until its employees chose another bargaining agent. The Unions withdrew the charge they had filed and reported to their International offices that re- spondent had agreed to bargain with them and that the dispute was settled. On May 18, the Unions wrote to respondent asking that it set a date on which to meet with them. On May 25, respondent replied by a letter in which it said it would meet with the Unions on June 30, but that it still questioned the number of employees whom the Unions were legally authorized to represent. The letter set out in detail respondent's reasons for not extending full recognition to the Unions, the reasons having to do largely with the basis upon which the ballots in the 1934 election had been counted. The letter also reiterated respondent's statement to Dr. Nylander that it would bargain with the Unions unless and until the employees chose an- other bargaining agent. On May 26, a copy of the above letter was, posted in each division. On May 18, the workmen's committee at the Wilmington- Dominquez refinery wrote to Dr. Nylander asking what would be the effect of petitions signed by the employees prior to the with- drawal of the bulletins of May 5 and May 11. On May 21, Dr. Nylander replied that such petitions would have no weight because it was obvious that they had been circulated in accordance with the suggestions contained in the two bulletins referred to. Upon receiv- ing Dr. Nylander's reply, the workmen's committee decided to and did withdraw the petitions. According to the record these were the only petitions circulated prior to June 1, 1936. But about June DECISIONS AND ORDERS 847 1, six days after the publication of respondent's letter of May 25 to the Unions, petitions were being circulated in most divisions. "Company time", "company trucks" and "company telephones" were, frequently used as an aid by those most active in obtaining signa- tures. Respondent testified that it was unaware of this use of "company facilities", a use which is forbidden by express regulation. In most divisions petitions were passed around until about the middle of June. The only direct evidence indicating respondent's knowledge that the petitions were being circulated is the testimony of Mr. Harrold, an employee on the Northern Pipe Line, in which appears the following telephone conversation with his superintend- ent, Jenkins. "Hello !" "Hello, is this Harrold?" "Yes." "This is Jenkins. Say, listen Harrold, you can't stop them circulating that petition." "I am not trying to stop them." "Well, you can't stop them, nor nobody else can stop them." "Well, that is too bad." Harrold testified that Jenkins seemed angry. According to Mr. Jenkin's testimony, Harrold's foreman com- plained that Harrold was constantly talking about a petition during working hours and would pay no attention to his foreman's orders to stop. Mr. Jenkins agreed to speak to Harrold about this infrac- tion of rules but was not sufficiently interested to enquire what the petition was. Mr. Jenkins testified that the telephone conversation was as follows: "Is this Harrold?" "Yes." "You on duty?" "Yes." 4'Are you discussing things on duty with other men that are work- ing?" "Yes." "You are not supposed to do those things." This version of the conversation seems suspiciously mild in view of the superintendent's testimony that the conversation was occasioned by the refusal of an employee to obey his foreman. On June 15, mass meetings of the employees of many divisions were held. Typical of these meetings was that of the Wilmington- Dominquez employees at which delegates were elected to represent the refinery at the coming wage conference and were recognized by respondent as representatives of the refinery employees, despite the fact that only about 125 were present at the meeting, some of whom were not employees of respondent, and there were 889 employees in the electoral unit. It is doubtful if even a majority of those pres- ent actually voted, the vote on each delegate having been taken by "Ayes" and "Nays". On June 15, 16, and 17, respondent, by mail, arranged with the delegates to hold a wage conference in Los Angeles June 18 to 25. When the conference, opened Mr. Stair, vice-president of and spokes- man for respondent,, turned over to- respondent's personnel director all petitions which he had received. The petitions requested that the conference be held. They purported to be signed by approxi- mately 1,500 employees. The personnel director was instructed to 848, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD check the signatures against the gate cards to determine the validity of each, and against the payroll to determine that each signer was eligible to vote for delegates . He was further instructed to learn if each delegate was properly certified by "responsible" employees as the delegate actually selected by his electoral unit. The personnel director completed the check and made his final report on June 23, five days after the conference convened and only two clays before it adjourned. On the basis of his report some of the so-called delegates were not seated . On June 25 , respondent sent a general letter to "All Delegates"' setting out the terms of a new MOT to become effective 60 days after notice of cancellation of the 1935 MOT, except that the vacation clause was to become immediately retroactive as of June 1, 1936. The notice of cancellation had not been given at the conclusion of the hearing in this case and respondent testified that it did not know whether the 1935 MOT is still in force or not. It further testified that the wage schedules contained in the 1936 MOT were immediately put into effect as to all employees in all units, although no such agreement was made. Seven electoral units containing 1,626 employees were supposedly represented at the Los Angeles conference , but when we analyze this representation we find that not more than 862 workers could have been represented. We are unable to give serious consideration to even this number, in view of respondent's participation in the revival of the conference delegate plan.' B. The refusal to bargain On November 4, 1934, the Unions requested the Federal Oil Board to hold an election to determine the collective bargaining represen- tative for the employees. The Federal Oil Board turned the re- quest over to the Petroleum Labor Policy Board. The Petroleum Labor Policy Board announced that an election would be held December 10. Prior to the election , the Unions, the Petroleum Labor Policy Board, and respondent met together , and the Unions requested that their names be placed jointly on the official ballot to be voted for as a unit. The official ballot as finally made up permitted each employee to vote for the Unions , the employee delegate plan, indi- vidual bargaining , or the Intervenor . On December 1, the man- agement posted notices announcing the election to be held on Decem- ber 10 . On December 7, the official notice of the election by the Petroleum Labor Policy Board was posted. The election was held on December "10 and more than 78 per cent of the eligible employees cast ballots. The units in which the ballots were cast were sub- stantially the same as the traditional electoral units. The Unions received more than 51 per cent of the votes cast, this being 1,455 DECISIONS AND ORDERS 849 votes. The employee 'delegate system received 960 votes. Two hundred and thirty-four votes were declared void. The remaining votes were divided between individual represenation and the Inter- vener. The 1,455 votes received by the Unions amounted to more than 40 per cent of the total eligible votes. A question was raised as to whether the votes should be counted on a state-wide basis or by electoral units. The Petroleum Labor Policy Board held a hearing and on March 5, 1935, handed down its decision that the appropriate bargaining unit was the state-wide unit, and certified the Unions jointly as sole representative of all employees of respondent covered by the 1932 MOT. The workmen's committees of Oilfields and Santa Maria and the automotive department wrote to the Petroleum Labor Policy Board "on behalf of the employees" in their respective divisions and department protesting the designation of the Unions as sole bargaining representative of all employees. Willis George also wrote protesting the designation of the Unions. In his letter he states that he can see no reason why the traditional state-wide bargaining unit should have any bearing on the basis for counting the ballots in the 1934 election. In the 1934 election a majority of the employees in the appropriate unit indicated their choice of the Unions as their agent to bargain collectively with respondent. In 1936, respondent used considerable pressure to persuade its employees to designate the wage conference plan as their agent for purposes of collective bargaining. Respond- ent failed in this attempt. The record shows that no majority of the employees have at any time indicated a desire to change their bargaining agent, elected in 1934. Respondent conceded this fact when, in June, 1936, it offered to recognize the Unions as the repre- sentative of more than one-half of its employees. We find that since the 1934 election the Unions have been designated as their repre- sentative for the purposes of collective bargaining by a majority of the employees in a unit appropriate for such purposes, and, by vir- tue of Section 9 (a) of the Act, have been the exclusive representa- tive of all employees in the unit for the purposes of collective bar- gaining in respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of employment. In 1935, after the Unions had been certified by the Petroleum Labor Policy Board, respondent met with the Unions and stated that it would not recognize them as representing all the employees but that none the less it would negotiate with them. The confer- ence adjourned for a few weeks and on the day it reconvened the National Industrial Recovery Act was declared unconstitutional. Notwithstanding this, a new MOT covering all employees as usual was agreed upon, but for the first time since 1921 it was not signed. A few days later respondent sent the Unions a letter embodying an 850 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD agreement that the terms of the MOT were to be effective for a period of one year and that no strikes would take place during that time. Respondent requested the Unions to sign this letter and they did so. About April 7, 1936, the Unions requested a meeting with respond- ent to negotiate a new MOT but were put off. When respondent published its bulletin of May 5 the Unions protested, and when the bulletin of May 11 was posted they filed charges with the Board. As already set forth, the charge was withdrawn shortly after the bulletin of May 15 appeared, and on May 18 the Unions asked that respondent set a date on which to meet with them. Respondent agreed to meet the Unions on June 30. When the Unions appeared and asked to be recognized as representative of all employees in the five departments, except supervisors, respondent informed them that it had already signed an MOT with delegates who represented seven of the 11 electoral units and that respondent could deal with the Unions as representative of the Long Beach, Bakersfield, and Oil- fields divisions of the production department and the Martinez di- vision of the refinery department only. These four divisions con- tain 2,116 employees. The Unions refused the limited recognition and again filed charges with the Board. C. Conclusions regarding the unfair labor practices For ten years respondent refused the annual request of the con- ference delegates for an outside spokesman or for union representa- tion. In 1931, despite the depression which necessitated a 10 per cent wage reduction, respondent granted an increased vacation with pay rather than grant the demand for representation by the Unions. In 1935, respondent for the first time in 12 years did not sign the MOT but instead signed with the Unions a letter in which each party agreed to be bound by the MOT. The reason for such a change in the accustomed procedure can only have been to deny the Unions public recognition of the fact that they had represented the employ- ees in the negotiation of the MOT. Although for ten years each MOT had provided for a conference to be held when the MOT ex- pired, and although the Unions requested that such a provision be incorporated into the 1935 MOT, respondent refused, saying, "We must trust each other." The bulletins of May 5 and May 11, 1936, prove that respondent's opposition to union representation of its employees had not de- creased at the time when the alleged unfair labor practices occurred. Not being content with the effects produced by the first two bulletins, respondent, through its division superintendents, made clear to the. workmen's committees, for years regarded as the connecting link DECISIONS AND ORDERS ' 851 between respondent and its employees, that respondent was opposed to bargaining with the Unions and wanted the conference delegate plan revived. Under pressure .by the Board's Regional Director and by the Unions, respondent withdrew the bulletins of May 5 and May 11, but in less than a week thereafter published its letter of May 25 to the Unions. An employee, upon reading a posted copy of this letter in which respondent set forth in some detail its rea- sons for not being willing to recognize the Unions as bargaining agent of all its employees and in which respondent carefully stated that it would bargain with the Unions unless and until (italics ours) the employees chose another representative, would be hard put to reach any conclusion other than that his employer did not want to meet with the Unions but did want to meet with conference dele- gates. Such a statement by an employer is always sufficient to cause some employees actively to attempt to carry out the employer's sug- gestions. A week later petitions requesting a wage conference were being circulated throughout the different divisions of respondent's operations. Much loose talk was indulged in in the effort to obtain signatures. Company facilities were freely used for the same pur- pose in the face of published orders prohibiting their use. Re- spondent testified that in February it knew what its employees were talking about, but in June it had no idea that some were using com- pany facilities on company time in circulating petitions in accordance with company suggestions. For over two weeks some employees continued to solicit signatures for the petitions., On June 15, respondent wrote to many of the workmen's committees and arranged to hold a wage conference. In all, three weeks had been consumed since the letter of May 25 was published. Respondent was very careful to make a minute check of the authenticity of each signature to each petition after the wage conference was actually under way. These circumstances bear the mark of a feverish race against time. The reason for the haste with which the wage conference was arranged and pushed through to its doubtful conclusion is given in respondent's testimony that it does not know if the 1935 or the 1936 MOT is presently effective. The reason indicated is that respondent does not care which is effective; that the Los Angeles conference con- stituted an elaborate screen behind which to hide respondent's real reasons for refusing to bargain collectively with the Unions as agent for all its employees. If respondent had desired to bargain with the Unions in good faith and at the same time question the scope of their representation, it would have set an early date for a meeting with them when first 5727-37-vol. n--55 852 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD approached on April 7, 1936. The exact scope of the Unions repre- sentation could then have been determined in an equitable manner that would have satisfied both parties. Instead of fairly presenting to the Unions its objections, and ar- ranging for an equitable settlement of the question of representation, respondent used every effort to prevent collective bargaining with the Unions by persuading a number of its employees to select con- ference delegates under a plan dormant for three years. In order to have time to consummate its plan for entering into an agreement with delegates as representatives of a number of its employees, and thereby secure a superficially valid argument for not bargaining with the Unions, respondent advised the Unions of a date on which it would meet with them only when it felt certain that its plan would succeed. Only then did respondent notify the Unions that it would meet with them on June 30, 1936. The evidence shows that at no time during 1936 has respondent attempted to bargain with the Unions in good faith. We find that respondent revived the dormant conference delegate plan for its own purposes, and in so doing dominated and interfered with the formation and administration of a labor organization and contributed support to it. We find that respondent, by such acts, interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights to self- organization, to form, join, and assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining and other mutual aid and protection. We find that on June 30, 1936, and at all times thereafter, re- spondent has refused to bargain collectively with the Unions as the exclusive representative of all its employees in California engaged in the production, pipe line, absorption plant, refinery, and auto- motive departments, paid on an hourly basis, and those previously so paid but placed on a salary basis since 1932, and not in a supervisory capacity. By refusing to bargain collectively with the representative of its employees, respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. The activities of respondent set forth in Section V above, occurring in connection with the operations of respondent described in Section I above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and Territories and DECISIONS AND ORDERS 853 with foreign nations, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. - THE PETITION The finding above that the Unions have been designated by a majority of the employees in an appropriate unit operates as a certi- fication. The taking of a secret ballot pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the Act is therefore unnecessary, and the petition filed by the In- tervenor for investigation and certification of representatives will be denied. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact the Board makes the following conclusions of law : 1. The plan of employee representation in respondent's produc- tion, pipe line, absorption plant, refinery, and automotive depart- ments known as the conference delegate plan is a labor organiza- tion, within the meaning of Section 2, subdivision (5) of the Act. 2. By its domination and interference with the formation and administration of the conference delegate plan, and by contributing support to it, respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8, subdivision (2) of the Act. 3. The International Association of Oil Field, Gas Well and Refinery Workers of America, the International Association of Ma- chinists, the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship- builders and Helpers, the International Brotherhood of Blacksmiths, Drop Forgers and Helpers, and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers are each a labor organization, within the mean- ing of Section 2, subdivision (5) of the Act. 4. Respondent's employees in California, paid on an hourly basis, and those formerly paid on an hourly basis but placed on a salary basis since 1932, not in a supervisory capacity, engaged in the pro- duction, pipe line, absorption plant, refinery, and automotive de partments, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collec- tive bargaining, within the meaning of Section 9, subdivision (b) of the Act. 5. By virtue of Section 9, subdivision (a) of the Act, the Inter- national Association of Oil Field, Gas Well and Refinery Workers of America, the International Association of Machinists, the Inter- national Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Shipbuilders and Helpers, the International Brotherhood of Blacksmiths, Drop Forg- 854 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ers and Helpers, and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, having been jointly designated by a majority of the em- ployees in a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargain- ing, are jointly the exclusive representative of all the employees in such unit for the purposes of collective bargaining in respect, to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of employment. 6. By refusing to bargain collectively with the International As- sociation of Oil Field, Gas Well and Refinery Workers of America, the International Association of Machinists, the International Broth- erhood of Boilermakers, Iron Shipbuilders and Helpers, the Inter- national Brotherhood of Blacksmiths, Drop Forgers and Helpers, and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers jointly as the exclusive representative of its employees in the appropriate unit, respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8, subdivision (5) of the Act. 7. By interfering with, restraining and coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, respond- ent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8, subdivision (1) of the Act. 8. The unfair labor practices in which respondent has engaged and is engaging are unfair labor practices affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 2, subdivisions (6) and (7) of the ' Act. ORDER Upon the basis of the findings of fact and conclusions of law, and pursuant to Section 10, subdivision (c) of the National Labor Rela- tions Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that respondent, Shell Oil Company of California, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall; 1. Cease and desist from in any manner interfering with, restrain- ing, or coercing its employees in the exercise of their rights to self- organization, to form, join or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargain- ing and other mutual aid and protection; 2. Cease and desist from dominating or interfering with the for- mation or administration of the conference delegate plan,. or any other labor organization of its employees, or contributing financial ,or other support thereto; DECISIONS AND ORDERS 855 3. Cease and desist from, refusing to bargain collectively with the International Association of Oil Field, Gas Well and Refinery Work- ers of America, the International Association of Machinists, the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Shipbuilders and' Helpers, the International Brotherhood of Blacksmiths, Drop. Forgers and Helpers, and the International Brotherhood of Electri- cal Workers jointly as-the exclusive representative of all its em- ployees in California, paid on an hourly basis, and those formerly so paid but placed on a salary basis since 1932, not in a supervisory capacity, and engaged in the production, pipe line, absorption plant, refinery, and automotive departments, in respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment or other conditions of employment. 4. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act : (a) Withdraw all recognition from the conference delegate plan (under which wage conference delegates have been selected) as representative of any of its employees for the purpose of dealing with respondent concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, -rates of pay, hours of employment, or conditions of work, and disestab- lish the conference delegate plan as such representative ; (b) Upon request, bargain collectively with the International Association of Oil Field, Gas Well and Refinery Workers of Amer- ica, the International Association of Machinists, the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Shipbuilders and Helpers, the In- ternational Brotherhood of Blacksmiths, Drop Forgers and Helpers, and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Jointly as .the exclusive representative of all its employees in the appropriate unit in respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment or other conditions of employment ; (c) Post notices in conspicuous places throughout all divisions of the production, pipe line, absorption plaint, refinery, and auto- motive departments stating (1) that respondent will cease and desist in the manner aforesaid, and (2) that such notices will remain posted for a period of at least thirty (30) consecutive days from the date of posting; and (d) Notify the Regional Director for the Twenty-first Region in writing within ten (10) days from the date of this order what steps respondent has taken to comply herewith. 5. The petition for investigation and certification of representa- tives, filed by the Welders International Association, is hereby denied. 856 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD APPENDIX A TABLE I Source of materials used in manufacture or sold by Shell Oil Company (Year 1935) Percentage Of Total California Elsewhere Material Materials Percent Pounds Percent Pounds Percent Crude Oil ------------------------------- 72 08 9, 092,669,860 100 00 -------------- Natural Gasoline ------------------------ 3 09 390,439, 735 100 00 -------------- ---------- Fuel Oil--------------------------------- 21 49 2,652, 031,711 97 80 59,534, 231 2 20 Gasoline-------------------------------- 1 53 140,903,874 73 05 51,973, 369 26 95 Kerosene -------------------------------- . 02 2,714,834 91 40 255,422 8.60 Gas Oils------------- -------------------- . 49 57,133,593 92 96 4,326, 021 7.04 Asphalt, Road Oil and Colas------------ . 73 90, 482, 286 98 21 1, 648,040 1.79 Other Materials_________________________ . 57 47, 659, 040 66 25 24, 279, 068 33.75 Totals_____________________________ 100.00 12, 474, 034, 933 98 87 142, 016, 151 1 13 Natural Gas (M. C. F.) ----------------- ------------ 30,681 , 796 100.00 -------------- ---------- TABLE II Source of materials used in manufacture or sold by Shell Oil Company (January to September, 1936, Inclusive) Percentage Of Total California Elsewhere Materials Material Percent Pounds Percent Pounds Percent Crude Oil _______________________________ 67 91 6,741,402, 093 100 00 -------------- Natural Gasoline________________________ 2 95 292,754, 488 100 00 -------------- Fuel Oil--------------------- ------------ 25.60 2,456, 715,103 96 66 84,782,738 3.34 Gasoline________________________________ 2 26 165,210, 408 73 72 58, 892,892 26 28 Kerosene-------------------------------- -------- ---- 1,793 1 00 177, 632 99 00 Gas Oil--------------------------------- .36 34 , 721,626 97 95 , 727, 727 2 05 Asphalt, Road Oil and Colas------------ . 33 23, 935, 211 72 00 9,307, 415 28 00 Other Materials------------------------- . 59 37, 215, 734 63 61 21, 288, 263 36.39 Totals _____________________________ 100 00 9, 751, 956,456 98 24 175, 176, 687 1.76 Natural Gas (M. C. F.) ----------------- ------------ 25,278,218 100 00 -------------- ---------- DECISIONS AND ORDERS TABLE III Destination of products sold by Shell Oil Company (Year 1935) 857 Percentage Of Total California Elsewhere Products Product Percent Gallons Percent Gallons Percent Fuel and Industrial Fuel________________ 41 . 57 496,803, 719 86 62 76, 759,827 13 38 Crude Oil _______ ________________________ 8 66 68,560, 395 57 34 51, 001,801 42 66 Gasoline_______________________ __________ 33 06 185,434, 414 40 . 66 270,674, 873 59 34 Natural Gasoline________________________ 2 65 15,813 , 843 43 . 27 20,735,798 56 73 Kerosene 2 75 4 , 022,332 10 61 33,904,923 89.39 Lublicating Oils and Grease_____________ 1.32 8,191, 750 45 11 9,968, 065 54.89 Specialties & S. B P. Products---------- 34 3,191,324 67.34 1,547, 954 32.66 Shellane and Butane ____________________ . 26 1,712,705 48 39 1 , 828,853 51.61 Stove and Diesel Oil _____________________ 6 76 60,940,872 65 32 32,348,067 34.68 Asphalt, Road Oil , and Colas----------- 1.89 17,267, 059 6601 8, 890,180 33.99 Sludge Acid Fuel________________________ .28 3,801, 825 100 00 _ Products__________________________ . 46 1,291,1113 99.83 11,592 0.17 Totals_____________________________ 100 00 872, 031,931 63 20 507,668, 931 36.80 Natural Gas (M. C. F.) _________________ ---------- __ 25,557, 897 100. 00 ______________ ---------- Coke (tons)_____________________________ ---------- __ 13,310 99 . 68 43 .32 TABLE IV Destination of products sold by Shell Oil Company (January to October, 1936, Inclusive) Percentage Of Total California Elsewhere Products Product Percent Gallons Percent Gallons Percent Fuel and Industrial Fuel________________ 39. 14 448, 917, 736 85 66 75, 174, 555 14.34 Crude Oil_______________________________ 7 60 61,209, 488 60 13 40, 583,936 39.87 Gasoline_________________________________ 34.23 194, 317,177 42 39 264, 046,814 57.61 Natural Gasoline ________________________ 1.11 13,770, 025 92 70 1 , 084,909 7.30 Kerosene 4 49 4,997,721 8 31 55,173 , 386 91.69 Lubricating Oils and Grease_____________ 1 30 7,802,298 44 77 9, 626411 55.23 Specialties & S B. P Products---------- . 33 3,103, 046 69 23 1, 379: 082 30.77 Shellane and Butane____ ________________ . 17 1,841 , 871 82 92 379, 319 17.08 Stove and Diesel Oil_____________________ 8,39 58, 050,010 61 . 65 54,339,622 48 35 Asphalt, Road Oil & Colas____________ __ 2 30 17, 944, 501 58. 31 12, 830, 939 41.69 Sludge Acid Fuel________________________ .23 3, 088,987 100. 00 _ Other Products__________________________ . 71 9,470,627 99 99 585 0 01 Totals_____________________________ 100 00 824, 513,487 61 57 514,619, 558 38.43 Natural Gas (M. C. F) ----------------- ------------ 22,044, 281 100 00 ______________ ---------- Coke (tons) ----------------------------- ------------ 10,915 100 . 00 -------------- ---------- Note to Tables III and IV: Products delivered to a ship lying alongside a California wharf are included in Tables III and IV as destined to points within the State of California. However, this includes all crude oil purchased from respondent by Shell Oil Company of British Columbia as well as all crude oil and finished products shipped to the Hawaiian Islands and to foreign countries. Columns, appearing in the original tables as entered in the record by respondent, showing shipments f. o. b. California as portions of the total shipments from Call. fornia into other States , have been deleted because unnecessary to this decision. 858 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD [SAME TITLE] AMENDMENT TO DECISION AND ORDER August 13,1937 - On May 24, 1937, the National Labor Relations Board, herein referred- to as the Board, issued a decision (supra, p. 835, et seq.), in- cluding findings of fact, conclusions of law, and order, in the above entitled case. Thereafter the Board was advised by Oil Workers International Union that at, a convention of International Association of Oil' Field, Gas Well, and Refinery Workers of America, held in -Kansas City, Missouri, on June 7 to 12, 1937, its name had been changed to Oil Workers International Union-. - The Board was requested to amend the,Decision accordingly. The Board notified the respondent, Shell Oil Company of Cali- fornia, of this request and gave the Company five (5) days within which to object. No objection having been made, we hereby amend the Decision, including the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and order issued on May 24, 1937, by striking out, wherever it appears, the name "International Association of Oil Field, Gas Well, and Refinery Workers of America" and substituting therefor the name "Oil Workers International Union."