Hondo Drilling Co. N.S.L.

416 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Hondo Drilling Company N.S.L.' and Local 826, International Union of Operating Engineers, AFL-CIO.2 Case 16-RC-4369. May 8,1967 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS FANNING, BROWN, AND JENKINS Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a hearing was held before Hearing Officer Irene Hammond of the National Labor Relations Board. The Hearing Officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. A brief was filed by the Employer. Upon the entire record3 in this case, the Board finds: 1. The Employer is a New Mexico corporation engaged in the drilling of oil wells for oil producing companies with its principal office and place of business at Midland, Texas. During the past 12- month period, it performed services of a value in excess of $50,000 for customers outside the State of Texas, and during this same period it purchased materials valued in excess of $50,000 directly from sources outside the State of Texas.' Accordingly, we find, based upon the foregoing, that the Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act and that it will effectuate the purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein. 2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain employees of the Employer. 3. 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.5 4. The Petitioner has requested a unit of all oil drilling employees employed by Hondo out of its Midland, Texas, office. At the hearing, the Petitioner clarified its unit position by indicating that the geographic scope of its unit request encompasses all of the Employer's drilling operations in the area referred to as the Permian Basin.6 The parties are in agreement with respect to the inclusion and exclusion of various job classifications in the unit. However, the Employer contends that the scope of the unit should be limited to those counties in Texas and New Mexico where it generally performs its i Herein referred to as Hondo or the Employer 2 Herein referred to as the Petitioner or the Union 3 The Employer's request for oral argument is hereby denied, as in our opinion the record and brief adequately present the issues and the positions of the parties The foregoing was stipulated by the parties at the hearing 5 The Employer moved to dismiss the petition, contending that under Sec 9(c)(1)(A) of the Act and the Board's Rules and Regulations, the petition is defective on its face because it fads to indicate the approximate number of employees in the unit and whether or not the unit petitioned for is supported by a substantial drilling operations . We find no merit in this contention . The Employer admittedly bids on drilling jobs available throughout the Permian Basin and does not seek to limit its operations to those counties in which it recently has been engaged in drilling work. Accordingly, as the Employer considers the whole Permian Basin as within the scope of its activities , we see no justification for confining the unit to a smaller geographic area. On the basis of the foregoing , we find that the following employees of the Employer constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act: All derrickmen, motormen, and floorhands, otherwise referred to as roughnecks , employed by the Employer in drilling operations in the area generally known as the Permian Basin, but excluding all tool pushers , drillers, office employees, technical employees , guards, professional employees, and all supervisors as defined in the Act. 5. The parties are in disagreement with respect to voter eligibility requirements. The Petitioner has requested that the Board find eligible to vote all employees who have been employed by Hondo for a minimum of 10 days during the previous fiscal year. The Employer contends that , because of the transitory nature of the employment and high turnover among its employees, voting eligibility should be limited to those individuals actually employed at the time of the election. The eligibility problems presented here are best illustrated by an examination of the Employer's mode of operation. Hondo performs oil drilling operations under contract with major oil companies . Although Hondo at times bids on exploratory or "wildcat" drilling jobs, it is currently performing development work in proven oil fields. Hondo owns and operates five drilling rigs, two or three of which are in operation at any given time. Each such rig employs a four-man crew , a driller and three crew members, known as roughnecks . As a rig is generally operated on a three-shift basis, it requires the services of three drillers and nine roughnecks in its day-to-day operations . The Employer's superintendent is in charge of overall operations . The superintendent assigns to each rig an individual known as a tool pusher who exercises immediate supervision over the operations of the rig to which he is assigned. The tool pusher has the responsibility for securing the necessary number of drillers for the job; the drillers showing of interest At the hearing, the Petitioner, over Hondo's objection , moved to amend its petition to list the approximate number of employees then employed by Hondo The Petitioner's motion to amend its petition is hereby granted Furthermore, as we are administratively advised that the Petitioner had an adequate showing of interest among the employees of Hondo who were employed at the time the petition was filed, we find no merit in the Employer's contentions Accordingly, the Employer's motion to dismiss is denied 6 The Permian Basin, located in west Texas and east New Mexico , encompasses some 95 ,000 square miles. 164 NLRB No. 67 HONDO DRILLING CO. 417 in turn are permitted to hire their own crew of roughnecks.' If a driller is terminated or quits voluntarily before the job is completed, his crew is automatically discharged. Hondo is classified as a "small rig company" because its equipment is capable of drilling only to a depth of 11,000 feet. The length of time necessary to complete a drilling job may vary from a minimum drilling time of 10 days to a maximum of 30 days. But, on the average, a drilling assignment requires 18 days. When the particular job has been completed, the rig is "stacked" (taken out of service) until such time as the Employer's needs require that it be transferred to a new drilling site. When the rig is again placed in operation, it may be stationed at a site many miles distant from its former location and, as a consequence, a sizeable number of the crew members are hired in the general area of the new drilling site. Although the Employer states that it keeps no list or roster of employees and that at the completion of a job its employees are terminated, it admits that enough of its key people remain available to permit it to provide operating crews for two rigs.8 There is no doubt, however, that Hondo experiences a high turnover among its employees and that many of those employed are transients who do not seek reemployment in the oil drilling industry. In the past fiscal year, Hondo maintained an almost continuous operation with at least one rig operating on 342 of 366 days and two or more rigs working on 276 days. During this period, Hondo employed a total of 224 roughnecks and the average time worked per roughneck was 34 days. Although 53 of the 224 roughnecks worked on two or more rigs during this time, averaging 88 days per man, 71 roughnecks worked less than 10 days, and 104 of the total complement of 224 employees voluntarily quit their employment with Hondo before the completion of the job for which they were employed. As demonstrated by the foregoing, the employment practices in the oil well drilling industry differ substantially from those found elsewhere. For this reason, particular care must be taken to insure that our determination of voter eligibility takes into account the special pattern of employment evidenced here. As indicated, above, although Hondo maintains an almost continuous drilling operation, the amount of time spent on a single drilling job is relatively short. Not all those employed by Hondo have a continuing interest in, or an expectancy of, reemployment as is indicated by the high turnover among its employees. However, all employees who have not been terminated for cause or who have not quit voluntarily before the completion of the particular job are considered eligible for reemployment with Hondo. Moreover, a significant number of these employees have maintained a continuing interest in employment with Hondo, as is evidenced by the fact that they have accepted reemployment and have worked a substantial number of days during the year. Upon examination of the record in this proceeding, we conclude that neither the Petitioner's nor the Employer's eligibility proposal meets the requirements of the situation. The Petitioner would include as eligible to vote all employees who have worked for Hondo a minimum of 10 days during the past fiscal year. Yet, under such a formula, it is possible, in the circumstances of this case, that the employees' rights to choose whether or not they desire representation would be decided by individuals who no longer have an interest in future employment with Hondo. As previously mentioned, the evidence reveals that almost one-half the total work force quit voluntarily or were terminated for cause prior to the completion of the job for which they were employed by Hondo, and under the Employer's current policy they are not eligible for reemployment. However, under the standard proposed by the Petitioner, such individuals would be permitted to vote, if they otherwise satisfied the requirement of 10 days' minimum employment. Also eligible to vote under such a standard would be an undetermined number of former employees who have no recent employment record with Hondo and who in many cases may have secured regular employment elsewhere. By the same token, the eligibility proposal advanced by the Employer is so restrictive that its application would preclude from voting employees who by happenstance are not currently employed, but who have a reasonable expectation of future employment with Hondo. If, as the Employer contends, all of its employees are terminated at the completion of the particular job and have no reasonable expectancy of future employment with Hondo, there would be merit in its proposal to limit eligibility to those actually employed at the time of the election. Contrary to the Employer's contention, however, the record establishes that a number of these roughnecks work for Hondo on a regular basis, and an even greater number have a history of substantial employment with Hondo, thus in our judgment indicating the likelihood of future employment with this Employer. While we are mindful of the inherent difficulties in attempting to define or determine what constitutes a continuing employment interest in the circumstances of this case, it is our responsibility under the Act to devise an eligibility formula which will protect and give full effect to the voting rights of those employees who have a reasonable expectancy of future employment with Hondo. Such a standard must not be so broad in application, however, that it will permit the question of union representation to ' In agreement with the parties , we have excluded tool pushers and drillers from the unit. 8 The operation of two rigs would require the services of 18 roughnecks, 6 drillers, and 2 tool pushers. 418 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD be decided by those individuals who have no likelihood of reemployment with the Employer. In our opinion, the desired result can be best achieved by fashioning an eligibility formula which excludes from voting those who have quit voluntarily or who have been terminated for cause prior to the completion of the job for which they were employed, and those who do not have a recent history of substantial employment with the Employer. Accordingly, we find it will effectuate the purposes of the Act to limit eligibility to all roughnecks who have been employed by the Employer for a minimum 9 The Employer's motion for the right to election challenges is granted only to the extent indicated by our Decision herein and by the Board's usual challenge procedures In all other respects, the motion is hereby denied 10 We find no merit in the Employer's motion to require the Petitioner to file a new showing of interest in the expanded unit It is the Board's policy, in cases involving fluctuating operations, to require a showing only among those employed at the time the petition is filed See Trenton Foods, Inc , 101 NLRB 1769 Moreover, in view of the eligibility formula we have fashioned herein, it would be patently unjust to impose such a requirement Accordingly, the Employer' s motion for an expanded showing of interest is denied " In view of the nature of the employment in this industry, we direct that both the Union and the Employer cooperate to the fullest extent with the Regional Director for Region 16 in the of 10 working days during the 90-calendar-day period preceding the issuance of our Decision and Direction of Election herein, and who have not been terminated for cause or quit voluntarily prior to the completion of the last job for which they were employed,9 as well as all roughnecks whose names appear on the Employer's payroll list immediately preceding the issuance of the Regional Director's Notice of Election in this proceeding.10 [Direction of Election" omitted from publication.] preparation and compilation of an election eligibility list containing the names and address of all eligible voters. In addition, we shall require that an election eligibility list containing the names and addresses of all known eligible voters be filed by the Employer with the Regional Director for Region 16 within 7 days after the date of this Decision and Direction of Election, and that a supplemental list containing the names and addresses of the remaining eligible voters be filed by the Employer with said Regional Director within 7 days after the issuance of the notice of election by the Regional Director No extension of time to file these lists shall be granted by the Regional Director except in extraordinary circumstances Failure to comply with these requirements shall be grounds for setting aside the election whenever proper objections are filed Excelsior Underwear Inc., 156 NLRB 1236.