Standard Oil Co. of California

STANDARD OIL COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA 475 ment purporting to be a copy of the Board's official ballot would no Ionger be permitted, unless such documents are completely unaltered in form and content. The Board recently reaffirmed this principle in a case involving almost the identical facts presented here. The Board held that even though the altered ballot be accompanied by propa- ganda material, its tendency to mislead is not neutralized nor is its use justified.' Nor can it be said that the first amendment of the Constitution or Section 8 (c) of the Act prevents the Board from foreclosing the use of its own official document for partisan advantage. Accordingly, in agreement with the Regional Director, we find that the Employer by circulating the marked ballot interfered with the employees' freedom of choice in the election, and we shall direct that the election be set aside and a new election held. [The Board set aside the election held April 22,1955.] [Text of Second Direction of Election omitted from publication.] Wallace and Tiernan, Incorporated, 112 NLRB 1352, and cases there cited. Standard Oil 'Company of California (Richmond Refinery, Rich- mond, California) and E. L. Nicholson, Petitioner, and Inde- pendent Union of Petroleum Workers (Unaffiliated)'. Case No. 20-RD 137. August 5,1955 DECISION AND' DIRECTION OF ELECTION Upon a petition duly, filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before L. D. Mathews, Jr,, 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 National Labor Relations Act. 2. The Petitioner, an employee of the Employer, asserts that Inde- pendent Union of Petroleum Workers, hereinafter referred to as the Union,, is no longer the bargaining representative as defined in Sec- tion, 9, ,(a) of the Act of the employees designated in' the petition: The Union is the certified and currently recognized representative -of the employees in the unit designated herein. 3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa- tion of certain employees of the Employer within the meaning of See- Lion 9 (c). (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. At the hearing, two unions, Office Employees' International Union, Local 243, AFL, and International Union of Operating Engineers, AFL, sought `to intervene as joint intervenors. The Petitioner- ob- jetted to the intervention of the, outside union on the ground that this 113 NLRB No. 53. 476 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD was a decertification of a specific union 'and not a representation pro- ceeding seeking a bargaining representative and that the interven- tion would confuse the issue. The Employer objected to the inter- vention of the outside unions for the reasons that they 'were participat- ing virtually as cross petitioners, and as such, were required to, make the necessary 30-percent showing of interest, which had not been done.' The hearing officer permitted these unions to participate in the proceeding as joint intervenors, but referred to the Board the question of intervention and their right to appear on the ballot. The Board has heretofore-considered the question of the right of an outside union to intervene in a decertification proceeding on the basis of less than a 30-percent showing of interest.2 A majority of the Board held that there appeared no sufficient reason for differenti- ating between decertification and other representation proceedings as regards the right of intervention. We affirm this principle, and in view of the fact that the joint intervenors have made some showing, we find that the motion to intervene was properly granted.' 4. The appropriate unit : The Union was certified by the Board in 1946 ' for a unit of office and clerical and technical employees. Collective-bargaining contracts have been executed between the parties covering the entire unit. The petition, as originally filed in the instant proceeding, called for the same unit as that certified and the subject of collective bargaining. At the hearing, the parties stipulated that as the technical employees had interests diverse from those of the office and clerical employees, the Board should permit the certified unit to vote in two groups, one consisting of office and clerical and the other of technical employees. The Petitioner, however, while agreeing to the stipulation, stated that he preferred to hold an election in the entire group. I I The record shows that of some 193 employees in the unit , the joint intervenors had a showing of 4 cards between them. 2 Calumet & Hecla, Inc , 105 NLRB 950. 8 Member Rodgers would deny the motion to intervene for the following reasons The purpose of a decertification petition is to afford employees an opportunity, in the words of Senator Taft, "to decertify a particular union" or "to decertify a union and go back to nonunion status , if the men so desire." Cong. Rec., Senate, April 23 , 1947, p 3954. The question concerning representation raised by such a petition is negative In character and is resolved by an election in which the sole issue confronting the employees is whether to continue the incumbent as their bargaining representative or return to a "nonunion status." ' In the light of these facts it Is manifestly improper to permit an outside union in search of a Board certification to intrude in a decertification proceeding To permit it is to sanction the resolution of an affirmative question of representation In a proceeding which Congress did not design for the purpose and to ignore the express pro- visions for such matters contained In the Act and in the Board's Rules and Regulations. Moreover , as pointed out by the dissent in the Calumet & Hecla, Inc , case, supra, inter- vention would confuse the issue in such a proceeding It is also noted that the result of the Board 's action in permitting intervention in this particular case is to provide out- side unions seeking a certification, and apparently unable to muster a sufficient showing to support a petition of their own for that purpose , a "free ride" on the showing of interest behind a petition filed by employees in order "to decertify a union and go back to non- union status." There is nothing in the Act , or In its legislative history, to suggest ap- proval of this anomalous result. - * Standard oil Company of California, No. 20-R-1740. (Not reported in printed volumes of Board Decisions and Orders.) STANDARD OIL COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA 477 In the past, we have directed separate elections for technical and clerical employees in a, decertification proceeding despite a history of collective bargaining on an overall basis.' This was done in con- formity with the Board's policy of not including technical employees in such unit if no objection was raised to such inclusion. Recently, however, the Board has reexamined the issue of the appropriate unit in decertification proceedings and has come to the conclusion that in decertification elections the existing bargaining unit alone is the ap- propriate unite We, therefore, find that the overall unit heretofore certified and bargained for by the parties, is here appropriate .7 The following employees of the Employer's Richmond, California, refinery, constitute a unit appropriate for purposes of collective bar- gaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act: All office and clerical employees on the classified payroll and all technical employees on the classified technical service payroll, includ- ing any helpers or assistants on the classified operating and main- tenance payroll assigned full time to assist such technical employees, in the manufacturing, purchase, and stores and motor transport de- partments at the Richmond Refinery, but excluding all employees represented by other labor organizations, employees having access to confidential labor relations matters, all employees of the industrial relations division of the manufacturing department, all confidential secretaries, guards, and all supervisors as defined in the Act. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] 'American Smelting and Refining Company, 80 NLRB 68 , 71 ; Standard Oil Company of California, 20-RD-90 issued December 8 , 1953 ( not reported in printed volumes of Board Decisions and Orders) 0 Campbell Soup Company, 111 NLRB 254. 4 Any participant in the election directed herein , may, within 10 days, upon its request- to and approval thereof by the Regional Director, have its name removed from the ballot. Standard Oil Company of California and California Exploration Company 1 and Homer E. Norton, Petitioner and Independent Union of Petroleum Workers (Unaffiliated ). Case No. 20-RD- 138. August 5,1955 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before David E. Davis, hearing offi- cer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed 2 i The name of the Employer was amended at the hearing as indicated herein. 9 The hearing officer referred to, the Board the question whether an outside -union, Inter- national - Union of Operating Engineers, AFL, could intervene in this proceeding. As the record shows that the Engineers made no showing of interest in the unit sought to be decertified , their intervention is denied in accordance with well -established Board prin- ciples. Cf. Standard Oil Company of California, 113 NLRB 475 . Member Rodgers joins in the denial of intervention herein for reasons stated in his footnote dissent in the afore- mentioned case. 113 NLRB No. 54. -