Loffland Brothers Co.

I)t(IlSIONS O() NAFOl()NAI. IABOR REL.ATIONS BOARD) Loffland Brothers Company and Alaska Roughnecks and Drillers Association, affiliated with Interna- tional Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware- housemen and Helpers of America, Local 959, State of Alaska, Petitioner. Case 19 RC 8729 June 26, 1979 DECISION ON REVIEW AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION BY MEMBERS JENKINS, MURPhY, ANI) TRUESI)AI.E On March 17, 1978, the Acting Regional Director for Region 19 issued a Decision and Order in the above-entitled proceeding. In accordance with Sec- tion 102.67 of the National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended, Peti- tioner, Alaska Roughnecks and Drillers Association, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Team- sters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Local 959, State of Alaska, filed a timely request for review of his decision. By telegraphic order dated April 24, 1978. the Board granted Petitioner's request lor review. Peti- tioner filed a brief in support of its request, and the Employer filed a statement in opposition to Petition- er's request for review. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National abor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- tional l.abor Relations Board has delegated its au- thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has considered the entire record in this case with respect to the issues under review, including the briefs on review, and makes the fllowing find- ings: The Employer is a Texas corporation headquar- tered at Tulsa, Oklahoma, and is engaged in perform- ing contract drilling services throughout the United States and 14 foreign countries. Petitioner seeks to represent a unit of all the Employer's oil rig employ- ees in the State of Alaska. The Employer contends that the only appropriate unit is one which is com- posed of all its operations thoughout its four corners division, of which the State of Alaska is only a part. The parties stipulated at the hearing that any appro- priate unit determined by the Board should include the following classifications: derrickmen, motormen, floormen, pitwatchers, sewer plant operators, roust- abouts, and forklift operators. The parties also stipu- lated that the following classifications are to be ex- cluded from any unit found appropriate: superintendent of Alaska operations, rig superinten- dents, drillers, and expeditors. The parties disagree, however, over the supervisory status of the roust- about pusher and relief roustabout pusher, as well as the technical status and unit placement of electri- cians, mechanics, combination mechanic/electricians, and welders. Petitioner, contrary to the Employer, would include all these classifications. With respect to the scope of the unit, the Acting Regional Director agreed with the Employer that a unit limited to the Employer's State of Alaska em- ployees is not appropriate. In view of Petitioner's wish not to proceed to an election in a unit geographi- cally greater than that sought, the Acting Regional Director dismissed the petition. Thus, the Acting Re- gional Director did not consider the supervisory and technical issues. Petitioner argues on review, however, that the Acting Regional Director's decision reflects a lack of' understanding of the separate community of interest shared by the employees in Alaska. The Em- ployer contends that the Acting Regional Director's decision is correct and should be sustained. The Employer's operations in Alaska were, at times relevant, limited to a single drilling rig, rig 162. lo- cated 50 miles east of Prudhoe Bay on the North Slope. Consequently, Petitioner's requested unit. though described in geographical terms, was in effect a request for a single-rig unit, and we here limit our consideration to the appropriateness of rig 162 as a separate unit. Rig 162 is included in the fotur corners division. which is headquartered in Farmington, New Mexico.' The [Employer introduced considerable evidence in support of' its contention that a divisionwide unit is appropriate. owever. c\, en if such unit could he ap- propriate- and we reach no final conclusion on that point the appropriateness of a unit of lesser scope is not thereby necessarily precluded. The Board has held that single rigs in the Employ- er's western division constitute separate appropriate units.2 In reaching that result, the Board relied pri- marily on the operational autonomy of the individual rigs, particularly with respect to day-to-day control over employee-related matters, such as hiring, firing. and discipline. The Employer has shown no conse- quential limitations with respect to such matters in effect at rig 162. Ilere, as with western division rigs, the superintendents are primarily responsible for the day-to-day operations and have authority to hire and fire. Indeed, the isolation of rig 162 necessarily re- quires a high degree of local automony concerning day-to-day operations, particularly with respect to such matters as hiring, firing, and employee disci- l he tour corners din ision encompasses the Employer's operations in New Mexico, southern (Colorado, Ultah Nea;lda. Oregon. Washington, and Alaska. 2 See I.offtland Broherr (ompalnv. 235 NLRH 154 11978) 243 NLRB No. 14 74 I.O"'I.AN) BROS. CO.() pline.t Consequently. we disagree with the Acting Re- gional D)irector's conclusion concerning the scope ol the unit and find that the employees of rig 162 are a separate, identifiable group with a distinct commu- nity of interest and thus constitute a separate appro- priate unit. The Roustabout Pusher and Substitute Roustabout Pusher Contrary to Petitioner. who seeks their inclusion in the unit, the Employer would exclude the roustabout pusher and his substitute as supervisors. The roustabout crew is composed of three roust- abouts and the pusher, who receives slightly higher pay than that of other members of the crew, but who works the same hours and, apart from pay, receives the same benefits. The crew is engaged in performing common labor around the drilling rig. These duties include stacking mud, shoveling snow, rolling casings, and helping to move drill pipe and other equipment. The rig superintendent assigns the tasks to be per- formed by the crew, and it is part of the pusher's job to assign specific jobs to members of the crew and to see that the work is done properly. However, he spends the majority of his time performing the same work as other members of the crew and. as testified by Rig Superintendent Hensen, most of the tasks per- formed by the roustabout crew are "routine." Thus it appears that the pusher acts in a very limited sphere in giving directions to the crew and is primarily a conduit in carrying out the tasks that have been as- signed by the rig superintendent. Consequently, from the foregoing we find that the pusher's direction of the crew is a ministerial function and does not rise. especially in view of the essentially routine nature of the work involved, to the level of responsible direc- tion. There is, however, some evidence that the pusher on one occasion has discharged an employee without consultation with the rig superintendent. The single instance of an actual discharge occurred about a year before the hearing in this case and was clearly con- trary to the discharge procedure in ef fect at the time of the hearing. As Superintendent Hensen testified. the established practice is for the pusher to bring such matters to the attention of the rig superintendent. who then makes an independent investigation and de- termination before final action is taken. Indeed, Hlen- sen described this isolated instance of discharge as an I The Acting Regional Director found that the Employer's onsite supers i- sors, the rig superintendents. do not have the authority to discharge person- nel without the approval of the next higher authority. This conclusion is contrary to the testimony of James D. Hensen, Jr.. rig superintendent of rig 162, who has been employed by l.offland Brothers for approximately 13 years and who stated he did have the authority to hire and fire rig crew personnel. 'unusual situation." noting that the dischargee was already on a plane and gone from the drilling site when the rig superintendent learned of it. In any event, in view of the record as a whole, we do not consider this isolated incident suffticient to establish supervisory authority here. Consequently. we find that the evidence does not show that the pusher has the authority either to discharge or to make effective recommendations concerning disciplinle.4 In sum, the record shows that the roustabout pusher and his relief' who has the sarnle duties and responsibilities. are leadmen rather than statutor su- pervisors. Accordingly, we shall include them in the unit. Thile Electrician. the Mechanic, the ('ombination Mechanic/ Electrician. and the \'elder The Employer contends, contrary to the position taken by Petitioner, that the foregoing employees are technicals who should he excluded from an unit found appropriate. These employees are engaged in rig maintenance work and are necessari versatile and highly skilled. Hlowever. the expertise necessary for their work can be acquired through on-the-job experience, aned there is no showing that their work requires any specialized training acquired through technical school or college courses or their equivalent. Rather, the most important criterion in hiring these employees is varied rig experience. Further, the rec- ord shows that these employees are engaged essen- tially in perfirminig the customary work--although possibly on a quite highls skilled level -of their crafts. Accordingly, we find in these circumstances that the electrician, mechanic, mechanic/electrician. and welder are not technical employees. Thus, as they are part of the rig work force under the rig superin- tendent's supervision, we shall include them in the unit.' In view of all the foregoing we find that the follow- ing employees of the Employer working on rig 162 constitute a unit appropriate tfr the purposes of col- lective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(h) of the Act: 4There also was estimony that the pusher would have the authority to discharge a roustabout ho is drunk on the ob: however. the Board has conslstently held that uthority to discharge hich is limited to flagrant violation of common working conditlons. such a being drunk, is insufficient by itself to establish supervisory status. See (;real rlakr' iomin (rnpanl, 168 NLRB 695. 700 (19671. and Southern Indusiries Copans,, et al. 92 NLRB 998. 999 1000 (1950) Moreoser. there was no eidence that such aulhorillt has been exercised here 'How eser. een assuming such employees are techniclls. the mployer has notl hereb made out a case for their exclusion. as t appears. as stated. that the) are part of the rig work force. thit there is no history of their exclusion triom an) unit ol rig emplosees. and that no union seeks to repre- sent them separately. Sec The Shcfld (Corp,ranion. 134 NI.RB 1101 (19611 7S I)E('ISIONS 0I- NAIIONAI. ABOR RlLAlIONS BOARI) All employees, including derrickman, motormen, floormen, pitwatchers, sewer plant operators. roustabouts. forklift operators, roustabout push- ers, substitute roustabout pushers, electricians, mechanics, combination mechanic/electricians, and welders employed by the Employer on Rig No. 162, but excluding superintendent of Alaska operations, rig superintendents, drillers, expedit- ers. office clerical employees, guards and all other supervisors as defined in the Act. [Direction of Election and E.xcelsior tbotnote omitted ftrom publication.] 76