Phillips Petroleum Co.

PHILLIPS PETROLEUM COMPANY 895 of any employees, or effectively to recommend such action, and as their direction of employees is routine and does not require the exercise of independent judgment, we find that they are not supervisors within the meaning of the Act, as contended by the Petitioner, and they are, therefore, included. Accordingly, we find the following employees of the Employer con stitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act: All production and maintenance employees at the Employer's Raleigh, Goldsboro, Dunn, Oxford, and Henderson, North Carolina, establishments, including laboratory workers Oxford fieldmen quality control employees, addressograph girls, routemen and route super- visors, assistant supervisors, the Oxford assistant manager, and filling and receiving department supervisors, but excluding agricultural laborers at the Employer's farm, office clerical employees, guards, managers, the assistant superintendent at Goldsboro, and all other supervisors as defined'in the Act. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] 8 8 As we have directed an election in a larger unit than that requested by the Peti- tioner, we shall permit the Petitioner to withdraw from the election , upon written notice to the Regional Director, within 10 days from the date of the Decision. Phillips Petroleum Company and Bert H. Rose, et al., Petitioners and Eastern Idaho Metal Trades Council and Affiliated Local Unions, AFL-CIO. Case No. 19-RD-177. February 28, 1961 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION Upon a decertification petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Thomas K. Cassidy, 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 Fanning and Kimball]. 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 Petitioners, a group of individual employees of the Em- ployer, assert that the Union, which is currently recognized by the i Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers International Union , AFL -Od0, hereinafter called the Intervenor, was permitted to intervene on the basis of an adequate showing of interest. 130 NLRB No. 76. 896 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Employer as the representative of the employees involved herein, is no longer such representative, as defined in Section 9(a) of the Act? 3. The Petitioners seek a decertification election in a unit composed of employees in "unit B" at the Employer's Idaho Falls, Idaho, plant. The Employer and the Union moved to dismiss the petition on grounds of contract bar. The Employer operates a number of facilities for the Atomic En- ergy Commission at its Idaho Falls plant. The record shows that the Employer and the Union have entered into a series of successive collective-bargaining agreements covering the so-called "unit B" em- ployees, i.e., the employees connected with the Employer's bus opera- tion, the heavy equipment repair shop, the warehouse, cafeteria, and the service station. One such agreement was executed October 1, 1959, and made effective from October 13, 1959, to October 13, 1960, with provision for annual automatic renewal, unless either party gave no- tice at least 60 days prior to the terminal date of its desire to amend or terminate the contract. By letter dated August 2, 1960, the Union appropriately informed the Employer of its desire to negotiate a new contract. On August 11, 1960, the Petitioners filed the instant peti- tion, seeking a decertification election among the approximately 210 employees in "unit B" at the Employer's Idaho Falls plant. On August 19, 1960, the Regional Director dismissed the petition for lack of an adequate showing of interest. In late August 1960, the Em- ployer and Union commenced negotiating for a new contract, and on September 21, 1960, the parties reached an agreement, effective from that date, subject only to subsequent ratification by the Union within 7 days 3 In the meantime, on August 31, 1960, the Petitioners re- quested review of the Regional Director's dismissal. In its appeal decision of October 3, 1960,4 the Board determined that the Petition- ers' showing of interest was, in fact, valid and acceptable, and ordered reinstatement of the petition for further action by the Regional Director. The hearing in this proceeding was held on October 25, 1960. The Employer and Union contend that the petition is barred by their contract of September 21, 1960, on the ground that the date the Board reinstated the petition, not the date of filing, should be control- ling for contract-bar purposes. We do not agree. In the Deluxe 2 At the hearing, the Union challenged the Petitioners' showing of interest on the ground that it was not current, and further, that the authorization cards had been procured through fraud or by coercion or duress The hearing officer properly refused to permit these contentions to be litigated, and informed the Union that any evidence in its possession supporting its allegations should be submitted to the Regional Diiector within 5 working dais from the close of the hearing No such evidence ii as submitted, we are adminis- tratii ely satisfied that the Petitioners have made an adequate showing of interest in the unit found appropriate heiein See 0 D Jennings & Company, 68 NLRB 5116 3The iecoud reflects that this agreement was appiopiiately ratified by the Union within the designated peiiod 4 Not published in NLRB volumes. FLORIDA TILE INDUSTRIES, INC. 897 Metal case,5 the Board in its general reexamination of contract-bar policy, dealt specifically with the issue raised here, holding that "the filing date of the original petition is controlling . . . where a favor- able ruling is made on a petitioner's appeal from a Regional Director's dismissal of a petition." Thus, as the August 11, 1960, date is control- ling here, the petition is clearly timely for it was filed before execution of the 1960 agreement and more than 60 but less than 150 days before the renewal date of the 1959 agreement.' Accordingly, we find that 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. The motion to dismiss on grounds of contract bar is, therefore, denied. 4. We find, in accordance with a stipulation of the parties, that the following employees of the Employer in "unit B" constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act:' All transportation department employees, warehouse, procurement, and property disposal depart- ment employees, cafeteria employees, and heavy equipment repair shop employees, at the Employer's Idaho Falls, Idaho, plant, but ex- cluding office clerical employees, administrative and professional em- ployees, draftsmen, casual employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] 5 Deluxe Metal Furniture Company, 121 NLRB 995 , 1000, footnote 12. 6 Ibid. at 1000. 7 The unit described herein is not only the recognized unit, but is substantially identical with that found appropriate in Phillips Petroleum Company, 107 NLRB 1207, 1211. Florida Tile Industries, Inc. and International Hod Carriers, Building & Common Laborers of America, Local Union 1240 and International Union of Operating Engineers, Local Union 925, AFL-CIO,' Joint-Petitioners. Case No. 12-RC-1085. Feb- ruary 28, 1961 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 Frank James Kruzich, hear- ing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. 1 This name appears as amended at the hearing. 130 NLRB No. 103. 597254-61-vol 130-58