Halliburton Co.

644 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the particular circumstances that existed here 29 In the total aspects of this case it appears clear to me that the Respondent amply demonstrated all of the essential elements in establishing its good faith, and I do not find that the company procedure and behavior, when reviewed in the light of the entire record , is sufficient to estab- lish that the Respondent refused to bargain, and accordingly did not violate Sec- tion8 (a)(5) and ( 1) of the Act. 1. The Respondent is and (7) of the Act. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of 2. The Union is a labor the Act. 3. The Respondent has complaint. not engaged in unfair labor practices as alleged in the [Recommended Order omitted from publication.] -9 Also note in the 1959-61 contract between the parties-article %I3, sections 1, 2, and 3. In this case the Union gave notice in March 1961 to modify the 1959-61 contract as aforestated . As far as this record is concerned this was the only notice given It is not clear to me how the provisions of sections 2 and 3 operate in relation to section 1 of article XIX, but as far as I can ascertain there never has been any 5-day notice to termi- nate as provided in section 2, and certainly the negotiations in question concerned modifi- cations of the prior contract . It may be that the terms of the previous agreement con- tinued beyond the contract ' s terminal date on May 31, 1961 , absent the invoking of the 5-day notice. However, without any specific contention or finding in this respect, never- theless, the previous contract was relied upon to some extent by the Union in discussions, and the adoption of notices for layoffs by the Company through the same contract must, therefore, be deemed valid under these circumstances. Halliburton Company 1 and Maritime Trades Council of Greater New Orleans and Vicinity, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 15-RC-92579. May 15, 1963 DECISION AND ORDER Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Jerry L. Gardner, Jr., hear- ing 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,2 the Board finds : 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. 2. The Employer contends that the Petitioner is not a labor organi- zation within the meaning of the Act, and is "fronting" for the Sea- 1 The name of the Employer appears as amended at the hearing. 2 On October 18, 1962, the Regional Director for the Fifteenth Region Issued a Decision and Order in which he found that the Petitioner was not a labor organization within the meaning of the Act and dismissed the petition in the instant case. On November 27, 1962, the Board, by telegraphic order, granted the Petitioner's request for review of that deci- sion. Thereafter, on November 29, 1962, the Regional Director by order transferred the entire case to the Board. Accordingly, we have proceeded upon the record to determine all material Issues raised in this proceeding . Nevertheless, we reject the Employer's con- tention that, in delegating its powers under Section 9, as amended , to Regional Directors, the Board exceeded its authority under Section 3(b) and that the latter section is unconstitutional. 142 NLRB No. 73. HALLIBURTON COMPANY 645 farers International Union.' The Petitioner, a recently formed trade union council, is composed of several local labor organizations in the New Orleans-Baton Rouge area. It services employees in the mari- time trades and allied industries and, inter alia, assists them in secur- ing better wages, hours, and other working conditions, and promotes the union organization of unorganized workers in these industries. The record reveals that the Petitioner has a constitution and bylaws, and has duly elected officers, chosen from the representatives of its constituent locals. Although individual employee members of the locals are not admitted to membership in the Petitioner, each local, according to the constitution, is entitled to two delegates who, along with the other delegates, decide the Petitioner's policies and conduct its day-to-day activities. The record also shows that the Petitioner has organized the employees of other employers and that contracts have been executed between such employers and the Petitioner's con- stituent local unions. In view of all the foregoing, and particularly the evidence that the Petitioner was established to organize and represent employees in collective bargaining, and employees in each of the member unions participate, through their representatives, in the affairs of the Petitioner, we find that it is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.' In our opinion, the fact that individual employees do not hold direct membership in the Petitioner does not negate such finding. 3. No 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, for the following reasons: The Petitioner seeks to represent a unit composed of all marine employees of the Employer who work and live aboard boats or barges, and would specifically include captains, mechanics, cooks, cementers, and equipment operators. The Employer contends that the requested unit is too limited in scope and is based solely upon the extent of the Petitioner's organizational efforts, asserting that the only ap- propriate unit or units should embrace both its marine, or offshore, employees and its onshore employees. Both parties agree, however, that the five classifications, whose specific inclusion is sought by the Petitioner, should be included in any unit that may be found by the Board to be appropriate. The Employer, a contracting firm, furnishes cementing, testing, and other services to oil-well drilling operators in various States of the 3 Seafarers International Union is a constituent member of the Petitioner . We find no merit in the contention that the Petitioner is "fronting " for this union. 'Metallic Building Company ( a partnership ), 98 NLRB 386, 387, 395; and Dinkier. St. Charles Hotel, Inc., 124 NLRB 1302, 1303. Cf. Jack T. Cox of Orange Belt Distract Council of Painters No. 48, et al. v . McCulloch, et al, 52 LRRM 2261 (C.A.D.C. ), which, in our opinion, is distinguishable on its facts. 646 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD United States and throughout the world . The employees involved are in the New Orleans division where the Employer conducts both land and offshore operations from six bases and three subbases in Louisiana. The overall supervision of divisional operations is vested in the Regional vice president and in the division manager. Four- teen field supervisors , who supervise both land and water jobs, re- port to the division manager. Although all hiring and firing is han- dled by the divisional office, the field supervisors may make recom- mendations concerning such personnel action. All payrolls, time, and personnel records are handled in the divisional office, where labor relations policies likewise are determined. The Employer utilizes the same processes in connection with its services to wells, regardless of whether they are located on land or offshore. The same kinds of pumping equipment, tools, and mate- rials are used in both operations. The Employer has 13 boats and 7 barges with sleeping quarters which are maintained for its marine operations . These vessels, like the trucks used principally in con- nection with land operations, have rig mountings. Each boat has a crew of 9, 6 of whom are on duty and 3 off, on a 24-hour-a-day basis, with a rotating schedule of 10 days on and 5 days off. Although the boats are registered with the U.S. Coast Guard, they are "under ton- nage" and no crew members are required to be licensed . The crew consists of a captain, who is skilled in navigation and familiar with the Coast Guard's "Rules of the Road," a cementer, equipment op- erators, mechanic, and cook. The barges, which are not self-propelled, have no captain or mechanic . Their crews rotate in the same manner as those of the boats. The records shows that all crew members, in- cluding the captain, must be capable of performing the service duties of their fellow crew members. The Employer has 20 to 25 "extra men" in various job classifica- tions who fill in where needed, depending upon the workload and absenteeism. They sometimes work in cement crews on land and offshore and also load and unload boats and assist with repair work. The Employer also has special cement crews that service offshore oil wells, many of which are located in the Gulf of Mexico. The latter operate the waterborne skid equipment , which consists of the same type of equipment as is used on land but mounted on drilling rigs, and are transported to the jobsites by either boat or helicopter. Cement crews, unlike the regular crew members aboard the boats and barges, do not live aboard the vessels but either sleep on the rigs or return to shore at night. Although testimony of the Employer's re- gional vice president that there is frequent interchange between land- based and marine employees was disputed by the Petitioner's rep- resentative, it is clear from the record that a substantial amount of interchange of personnel occurs, particularly between mechanics as- HALLIBURTON COMPANY 647 signed to shops on land and boat mechanics, and land-based cementers and cementers in boat crews. In support of its unit request, the Petitioner asserts that the em- ployees who work and live aboard the Employer's vessels constitute a functionally distinct and homogeneous group with separate identity and working conditions that differ from those of the shore-based employees. In this connection, the Petitioner urges that the marine employees, unlike the land-based employees, have long working hours and long tours of duty which sometimes last for 10 days. Because of this circumstance, it is alleged that they do not ordinarily work an '8-hour shift and are prevented from regularly spending their nights at home with their families. Moreover, the Petitioner alleges, the skills of the marine employees are somewhat different from those of the land-based employee because the former must have some knowlege of sea navigation and are required to perform their duties regardless of the rigors and hazards of foul weather offshore. In contrast, the Employer contends that, because of the substantial interchange of personnel between its land-based and marine employees within the New Orleans division, the close community of interests existing be- tween the two groups of employees, their common supervision, cen- tralized administration, and similarity of duties and functions, any -unit found to be appropriate should embrace both groups. We are persuaded that there is merit in the Employer's contention. It is clear from the entire record in this case that the Employer is engaged in the same functional activity, whether it is servicing off- -shore or on-shore oil wells. Apart from the adaptation of equipment to meet the requirements of marine operations, substantially the same type of equipment is used in both operations. Both groups of em- ployees utilize the same skills, there is a substantial amount of inter- change, and, except for differences resulting from the requirement that the marine employees live aboard vessels, have similar working 'conditions and common supervision. In view of all the foregoing, we -are of the opinion that a unit consisting of only the Employer's -marine employees is inappropriately limited in scope.' As the Peti- -tioner does not desire to represent any other unit and its showing of interest in any broader unit that might be appropirate is insufficient, we therefore shall dismiss the petition.' [The Board dismissed the petition.] MEMBER LEEDOM took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Order. e See Richfield Oil Corporation, 119 NLRB 1425. e Chairman McCulloch agrees that the Petitioner is a labor organization within the mean- ing of the Act, but dissents from the finding that a unit of the Employer's marine em- ployees is not appropriate . He believes that the record discloses differences in work and -employment conditions of the marine employees sufficient to justify their separate repre- sentation. Accordingly, he would direct an election in the unit sought by the Petitioner.