The Texas Pipe Line Co.

THE TEXAS PIPE LINE COMPANY 837 The Texas Pipe Line Company and Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers International Union, AFL-CIO The Texas Pipe Line Company and Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers International Union , AFL-CIO. Corses Nos. 23-RC- 1358 and 16-R1l1-176. December 17, 1959 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION Upon separate petitions duly filed under Section 9(c) of the Na- tional Labor Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held before John F. Burst, 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 Leedom and Members Jenkins and Fanning]. 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 employees of the Employer. 3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa- tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 4. The Employer, a wholly owned subsidiary of Texaco, is engaged in the transportation of crude oil and petroleum products by pipe- line in the States of Louisiana, Texas, Illinois, Indiana, Oklahoma, and Montana and employs approximately 538 employees. The Em- ployer's pipeline system is divided, for organizational purposes, into five divisions which operate crude oil trunk and gathering lines and two divisions which operate refined product lines. The Petitioner in Case No. 23-RC-1358 has, at various times, been certified as bargaining representative for a number of separate units of employees in the Employer's system, consisting of operating and maintenance employees in each of six of the Employer's divisions. The Union was certified in the Oklahoma division in 1944, in the north 'T'exas division in 1946, and in the Basin division in 1955. In the sum- mer of 1957 these three divisions were merged into a single division which was designated the Wichita Falls division. The Union was certified in the south Texas division (now the Houston division) in 1944, in the east Texas-Louisiana division (now the Lafayette divi- sion) in 1947, and in the Montana division in 1945. The Employer's system, in addition to the divisions enumerated above, includes a Salem division, which operates both crude oil and product lines in 125 NLRB No. 1101. 535828-60-vol. 125-54 838 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the States of Illinois and Indiana. There is no bargaining history in the Salem division. The Employer's two product lines, the Hearne products division and the Evangeline products division, located, re- spectively, in the States of Texas and Louisiana, are likewise without a history of collective bargaining. All collective-bargaining agreements between the Employer and the Union have expired or been terminated by one of the parties on 60 days' notice pursuant to their terms except for the one covering em- ployees of the Montana division, which is subject to termination by either party on 60 days' notice prior to September 15, 1959. The Employer asserts that the Montana division contract bars an elec- tion in a systemwide unit. In view of our unit determination herein, we find it unnecessary to pass upon the Employer's contract-bar contention. In Case No. 16-RM-176, the Employer seeks a unit of all operating and maintenance employees of the Wichita Falls division. As in- dicated above, that division resulted from the merger of three pre- existent divisions which had been separately certified as appropriate bargaining units by the Board. In support of its unit request the Employer contends that the division possesses the autonomy enjoyed by other divisions of the Company previously found by the Board to be separately appropriate. The Union contends that the systemwide unit sought in its petition is appropriate because of the similarity of job classifications, work- ing conditions, and employee benefits throughout the Employer's various divisions and because of the existence of systemwide seniority. Although the Union seeks certification in a systemwide unit it is will- ing to represent an alternative unit limited to the Texas and Louisiana pipeline operations of the Employer. We view the Union's alternative position as an effort to consolidate the units which it has represented severally into a single bargaining unit. The geographical remoteness of the Montana and Salem divi- sions persuades us that they may not properly be included in a single unit with the Texas and Louisiana operations of the Employer.' Employees of the Hearne and Evangeline divisions have not been represented by the Union. It is contrary to Board policy to add previously unrepresented groups to presently represented units with- out a self-determination election.' We will not direct an election among the employees of the Hearne and Evangeline divisions, how- ever, because the Union has made no showing of interest among them 3 We find it unnecessary, therefore, to determine whether the employees of the Hearne and Evangeline divisions properly may be included in 'Lumber Fabricators, Inc., 110 NLRB 187; TV. E. Stewart, et al., d/b/a Stewart Oil Company, 100 NLRB 4. a Great Lakes Pipe Line Company, 92 NLRB 583, 585. a Montana-Dakota Utilities Co., 110 NLRB 1056, 1058. THE TEXAS PIPE LINE COMPANY 839 a larger unit. The petition, insofar as it relates to these employees, is hereby dismissed without prejudice to a new petition supported by a proper showing of interest. The remainder of the Employer's operation consists of three in- tegrated and adjoining crude oil divisions-the Wichita Falls and Houston divisions in Texas and the Lafayette division in Louisiana. These divisions are engaged in substantially identical operations. Their employees are represented by the same local of the petitioning Union. Working conditions, job classifications, and employee bene- fits in the three divisions are similar and there has been some inter- change of personnel among these divisions. We find, accordingly, that the employees of the Wichita Falls, Houston, and Lafayette di- visions constitute an appropriate unit. Supervisory contentions The Union would include in the unit, and the Employer would exclude as supervisors, the following employees : Mechanical maintenance foreman : There are four men in this classification-two located in different cities in Louisiana and two in east Texas. They are charged with overall responsibility for all mechanical installation and maintenance in their respective districts where they assign work to employees, process grievances , discipline employees, and keep time records of employees assigned to them. They receive a monthly salary with no provision for overtime pay and attend supervisors' meetings. In the past they have been excluded from the contractual bargaining units. We find that mechanical maintenance foremen are supervisors and exclude them from the unit. Electrical maintenance foreman: Two electrical maintenance fore- men in the Wichita Falls division are responsible for the installation and maintenance of electrical equipment throughout the division and are under direct supervision of the assistant division manager. There is also one such foreman in the Lafayette division. No em- ployees are regularly assigned to work with them but varying num- bers of employees are assigned to assist them as the need arises, at which times they assign and direct the work of such employees and instruct them in electrical operations. Electrical maintenance fore- men have authority to grant time off and to suspend employees. Unlike the employees assigned to them, they receive a monthly salary and do not receive overtime pay. They receive the same salary as the highest paid gang foreman in the division and they attend super- visors' meetings. On the basis of the foregoing facts we find that electrical maintenance foremen are supervisors within the meaning of the Act and exclude them from the unit. Chief main line engineers : These men are assigned to various stations along the Employer's pipeline system and are the sole repre- 840 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD sentatives of management in large areas under their jurisdiction in which they engage, and inspect the work of independent contractors. They direct the work both of relief assignments and of employees regularly assigned to them at stations to which employees are regu- larly assigned. They also hire temporary employees when needed. When labor gangs are operating at a station chief main line engineers are in charge of the gang foremen, who are conceded to be supervisors, and instruct them concerning the work to be performed. Their monthly salary is comparable to that of gang foremen, they receive no overtime compensation, they determine their own working hours, and attend supervisors' meetings. We find that chief main line engi- neers are supervisors and we, accordingly, exclude them from the unit. Area supervisor: The Union disputes the supervisory status of one area supervisor stationed at New Iberia, Louisiana. The record in- dicates this area supervisor assigns and directs the work of three dis- trict gaugers and usually of one mechanic first class. He surveys and makes recommendations, which are invariably acted upon, with respect to the amount of work to be performed by district gaugers. Through the gang foremen, he also directs the work of labor gangs assigned to his area. He receives a monthly salary which is substantially higher than the compensation of employees under his direction, he receives no overtime compensation and he attends supervisors' meetings. He grants or denies time off and receives and acts upon grievances. We find that this area supervisor is a supervisor within the meaning of the Act and exclude him from the unit. We find, in accordance with the foregoing, that the following employees of the Employer constitute a unit appropriate for the pur- poses of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act : All operating and maintenance employees of the Employer's Wichita Falls, Houston, and Lafayette divisions excluding office clerical, technical and professional employees, guards, mechanical maintenance foremen, electrical maintenance foremen, chief main line engineers, and all other supervisors as defined in the Act. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] Edward Aaron Corporation and Amalgamated Meat Cutters & Butcher Workmen of North America, Food Handlers Local 425, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 17-RC-3034. December 17, 1959 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 William J. Cassidy, hearing 125 NLRB No. 92.