The Texas Co.

THE TEXAS COMPANY 197 pipeline at terminals in various cities many miles apart. The employees at each terminal are much more intimately connected with other employees in their own geographical areas who are engaged in distribution of petroleum products transported by other means, than they are with the other pipeline terminal employees with whom the majority places them. The lack of employee interchange between the terminals, the absence of common supervision over them, and the difficulties engendered in bargaining by ignoring the Employer's administrative ar- rangements all convince us that a unit combining these three terminals is inappropriate. Indeed, a fourth one is already separate. We would order elections in 3 separate units, each confined to 1 terminal. THE TEXAS COMPANY and OIL WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, CIO, Petitioner . Case No. 10-RC-2198 . April 17, 1953 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Morgan C. Stanford, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Murdock and Peterson]. Upon the entire record in this case ," the Board finds: 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. 2. The labor organization involved claims to represent cer- tain employees of the Employer. 3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 ( 6) and (7) of the Act. 4. The Petitioner seeks a unit of all employees at the Company' s Tampa Sales Terminal. The requested unit in- cludes, together with operating and maintenance employees, a group of clerical employees who have been bargained for as a single unit since approximately 1937. The Employer contends that all the clerical employees should be excluded from the unit. The record discloses that the clerks in question are primarily office clericals . Their duties are to check, prepare , and tabulate stock records and forms, keep records of equipment at the "The Employer 's motion to correct the record, received on February 16. 1953. and the Petitioner's response thereto (containing a request for modification of one correction re- quested by the Employer), received on February 20. 1953, are hereby granted, and the record is hereby corrected as requested in the motion and response. 104 NLRB No. 26. 283230 0 - 54 - 14 198 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD terminal, prepare loading outlines and billing, receive the cash receipts from the delivery men, and perform other duties of general office clerical nature. They rarely perform manual work, and except for inventory and stock checking, they have a minimum of work contact with the operating and maintenance employees. It is apparent that the interests and working condi- tions of the office clerical employees are separate and distinct from those of the operating and maintenance employees. We shall, therefore, establish the office clerical employees in a separate unit, 2 notwithstanding their historical inclusion in a single bargaining unit together with the operating and mainte- nance employees.I There is also involved herein the unit placement of the follow- ing specific classifications of employees: Senior clerk McAtee: The Petitioner and the Employer both contend that this employee should be excluded from any unit found appropriate herein, because he collects the cash receipts from the delivery drivers andtherefore has a fiduciary relation- ship to the Employer. Upon these facts, we find no basis in the record for excluding McAtee, and we shall accordingly include him in the office clerical unit.4 The dispatcher: The Petitioner contends the dispatcher is a supervisor of the terminal truckdrivers, because, among other duties, he assigns their routes and work shifts. The record discloses, however, that in making these assignments the dispatcher exercises little, if any, independent judgment; rather he follows closely the instructions of the terminal superintendent and assistant superintendent who determine the drivers' routes and shifts in the first instance. We find, there- fore, that the dispatcher is not a supervisor, and in view of the essentially clerical nature of his duties, we shall include him in the office clerical unit.' The zone manager's steno-clerk: The Petitioner would ex- clude this employee from any unit found appropriate herein on the ground that he has no community of interest with the other nonsupervisory employees at the terminal. The record shows that this employee works under the direction of the zone manager in a building separate from the other employees here involved, that the zone manager and his steno-clerk are con- cerned entirely with sales, and that they have little contact with the other personnel at the terminal who are engaged in the distribution of the Employer's products. We shall therefore exclude the zone manager's steno-clerk from any unit found appropriate herein. In accordance with the foregoing, we find that the following groups of employees constitute separate units appropriate for the purpose of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act: 2 Gulf Oil Corporation, 100 NLRB 1007. S Kohler Company, 93 NLRB 398. 4American Locomotive Company , Alco Products Division, 92 NLRB 115. SSocony-Vacuum Oil Company , Incorporated, 100 NLRB 90. AMERICAN FACTORS, LTD. (HILO BRANCH) ,199 (A) All employees of the Texas Company's Tampa, Florida, Sales Terminal, excluding office clerical employees, salesmen, professional employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. (B) All office clerical employees of the Texas Company's Tampa, Florida, Sales Terminal, including senior clerkMcAtee and the dispatcher, but excluding the zone manager's steno- clerk, all other employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. [Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication.] AMERICAN FACTORS, LTD. (HILO BRANCH), AMERICAN FACTORS, LTD. (KONA BRANCH), HILO TRANSPORTA- TION & TERMINAL CO., LTD., HONOLULU IRON WORKS d/b/a HILO IRON WORKS and FEDERATION OF HAWAII WORKERS (IND.), Petitioner. Cases Nos. 37-RC-163, 37-RC- 164, 37-RC-165, and 37-RC-166. April 17, 1953 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS Upon petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held before A. L. Wills, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.' Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Members Houston, Styles, and Peterson]. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds: 1. The Employers are -engagedincommercewithinthemean- ing of the Act. 2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent cer- tain employees of the Employers. 3. Questions affecting commerce exist concerning the repre- sentation of employees of the Employers within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. The Intervenor urges that the petitions herein are barred by its contracts with the Employers. The Employers took no position on this issue. When the petition in Case No. 37-RC-166 was filed on January 9, 1953, the proposed unit was covered by a contract between the Intervenor and Hilo Iron Works having an ex- piration date of January 27, 1953, and a 60-day automatic 1 The Intervenor , Miscellaneous Manufacturing and Service Workers, International Long- shoremen's and Warehousemen 's Union, Local 155, requested, prior to the hearing, that the hearing officer disqualify himself because of alleged bias and, at the hearing, sought a con- tinuance on the ground that this request was still pending . We find that the hearing officer properly refused to disqualify himself or to grant the continuance . See Angelus Chevrolet Co., 88 NLRB 929..Moreover , we reject theIntervenor 's contention, advanced in its brief, that the hearing officer 's rulings at the hearing reflect bias or hostility toward the Intervenor. 104 NLRB No. 22.