Phillips Petroleum Co.

PHILLIPS PETROLEUM COMPANY 813 Crawford immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equiva- lent positions, without prejudice to their seniority and other rights and privileges, and .make them whole for any loss of pay they may have suffered by reason of Respond- ent's discrimination against them by payment to them of sums of money equal to that which they normally would have earned as wages from the dates of discrimina- tion to the date of an offer of reinstatement, less their net earning during such period. Said backpay shall be computed on a quarterly basis in the manner established by the Board in F. W. Woolwor4h Company, 90 NLRB 289. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the case, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Marval Poultry Company, Inc., is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America, Local 504, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. By discriminating against Glen Hinkel and Maynard Crawford, the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a) (3) and (1) of the Act. 4. By discharging Jean Dove on or about June 29, 1959, the Respondent did not engage in any unfair labor practice within the meaning of the Act. 5. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act. 6. The aforesaid practices affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. [Recommendations omitted from publication.] Phillips Petroleum Company, Petitioner and Local 323, Inter- national Union of Operating Engineers, AFL-CIO.' Case No. 15-R-1201. November 29, 1960 ORDER DENYING MOTION Pursuant to a consent determination of representatives issued by the Board on January 23, 1945 , the International Union of Operating Engineers, AFL-CIO,2 was certified as the exclusive representative of all employees of the Petitioner's production department in the Smackover, Arkansas, field, with certain exclusions . Thereafter, in 1945, and since that time, the parties have negotiated working agree- ments which included unit operator and gangpusher as nonsupervisory classifications, the last of which was effective until June 30, 1960. On March 16, 1960, the Petitioner filed a motion to amend determination of representatives requesting the removal of unit operators and gang- pushers from the bargaining unit because they are supervisors. On March 31, 1960, Local 323, International Union of Operating Engi- neers, filed an answer thereto asserting that such employees are not supervisors and that their classifications have always been included in the contract. The Union requested that the Petitioner's motion be denied, or, in the alternative, that a hearing be held thereon by the Board. 1 As stipulated by the parties at the hearing. 8 The parties stipulated that Local 323 is the same identical labor organization as that which was certified. 129 NLRB No. 90. 814 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD On April 28, 1960, the Board remanded the case to the Regional Director directing that a hearing be held for the purpose of taking testimony with respect to the alleged supervisory status of unit oper- ators and gangpushers. Both parties appeared and participated at, the hearing held before Hearing Officer Vivan E. Burks. The hear- ing officer's rulings made at the hearing 3 are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. Pursuant to Section 3(b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its powers herein to a three-member panel [Chairman Leedom and Members Jenkins and Fanning]. Upon the entire record, the Board finds: The Smackover, Arkansas, operation of the Employer, engaged in the production of crude oil and gas, is an integral part of the Em- ployer's worldwide operation. Unit operators and gangpushers work there 'under the supervision of the service and maintenance super- intendent and two foremen. Each unit operator has a three-man crew and performs similar or identical duties as each of these men who are classified as well-service roustabouts. Together, they repair and maintain subsurface equip- ment in the oil wells, being equally paid $2.65 per hour. While unit operators are generally considered to be more skilled and experienced than their crew members, they have not been told by management that they are, in fact, supervisors nor given any oral or written instruc- tions as to the duties of a supervisor. Since the men under them are also experienced on the job, and they generally look at the same job report each morning, it is not necessary for unit supervisors to tell them what has to be done. In one instance, a unit operator had not attended, for at least the last 3 years, foremen's meetings held once every 2' months. The same operator testified that he did not have the authority to discipline, promote, fire, or suspend anyone, or to effec- tively recommend any of these actions, and knew of no other unit operator who had done so. Unit operators are not allowed, on their own independent judgment, to work their men more than 30 minutes overtime and even then do, In its brief to the Board following the hearing , the Union moved to dismiss the Employer's motion to amend the certification on the grounds that the motion may not be considered by the Board under the provisions of Section 9(c) of the Act , that no question concerning representation exists, and that the motion is barred by its current contract with the Employer. As the Union recognizes , the Employer does not now seek to question the Union's representative status It has not filed a petition . Consequently , the Board's contract-bar rules designed to deal with situations involving questions concerning repre- sentation are not applicable to the present matter. Rather the Employer here seeks only a clarification or amendment of an outstanding certification Clearly, it is within the Board's authority to decide the issue thus raised by the Employer , for as the Board has previously stated , its power to issue certifications under Section 9(c) necessarily implies the authority to police such certifications by clarification or amendment The Bell Telephone Company of Pennsylvania, 118 NLRB 371 , 373 Further , the Board will exercise its power in this regard even though no question concerning representation exists . Mississippi Time Company, 124 NLRB 884 Accordingly , we find no merit in the Union's motion to dismiss and it is denied. SCHWOB MANUFACTURING COMPANY 815 not order, but only ask, them to work. Since, generally the respective foremen come around on the job during the day, or in any event can usually be contacted by telephone , unit operators are required to com- municate with them to obtain permission or clearance for their crews to work more than 30 minutes overtime because of very stringent company regulations requiring justification of such work. Each gangpusher has a crew of from one to four men under him. Their duties are to repair and maintain the surface equipment, such as derricks, pumps, and trunklines . When a gangpusher reports for work in the morning, he is given orders by his supervisor and told where to go and what to do. Like unit operators , gangpushers are re- quired to work physically with their men. One pusher testified that he had never been told that he was a supervisor and had never dis- ciplined or discharged anyone nor recommended any such action. Neither had he ever recommended anyone for hiring. He had never attended , nor been asked to attend , the supervisory meetings held every 2 months. Most of his men had worked so long that they knew the job as well as he did. Permission to leave the job because of sick- ness had to be obtained from their common supervisor . Again like unit operators, the gangpushers have no authority, without clearance from a supervisor, to finish a job if it requires more than just a few minutes of overtime work. We find that whatever leadership responsibilities may be exercised by the unit operators and gangpushers described herein, they are very minor at best. Their direction of the work of the men under them is routine in nature and does not require the use of their independent judgment inasmuch as the jobs are planned in advance for them and they all work under common supervision . In view of the foregoing, we find that the unit operators and gangpushers do not possess super- visory authority within the meaning of the Act and should remain included in the previously certified unit.' Accordingly , we shall deny the instant motion to remove them from the bargaining unit because they are supervisors. [The Board denied the motion.] * Solar Electric Corporation, 128 NLRB 35; Lamperaft Ind4,stries, Inc., et al, 127 NLRB 92 ; West Virginia Pulp and Paper Co., 122 NLRB 738, 739, 744-747, 753-756. Schwob Manufacturing Company and Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, AFL-CIO. Cases Nos. 10-CA-4169, 10- CA-4309, and 10-CA-4343. November 30, 1960 DECISION AND ORDER On April 28 , 1960, Trial Examiner George J. Bott issued his Inter- mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding , finding that the Re- 129 NLRB No. 101.