Carl B. King Drilling Co.

CARL B. KING DRILLING CO. Carl B . King Drilling Co.' and Local 826, International Union of Operating Engineers , AFL-CIO,2 Petitioner. Case 16-RC-4367. 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 William L. Jerome. 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 record in this case,3 the Board finds: 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. 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 Sections 9(c)(1) and 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 4. The Petitioner seeks a unit of all oil well drilling employees employed by King out of its Midland, Texas, office. At the hearing, the Petitioner indicated that the petition was intended to encompass all drilling operations of King in the area known as the Permian Basin.4 The Employer contends that the geographic scope of the unit requested is too broad and that the unit should be confined to those counties in the Permian Basin in which the Employer has recently been operating. We find no merit in the Employer's contention. Admittedly, the Employer bids on drilling jobs available anywhere throughout the Permian Basin and does not seek to limit its operations only to those counties where it is now performing work. Accordingly, we see no justification for limiting the unit to an area smaller in size than that which the Employer considers to be within the normal scope of its activities. The parties are in agreement with respect to the inclusion and exclusion of the various classifications of employees, except as follows: Tool pushers: The Employer would exclude the tool pushers from the unit on the ground that they are supervisors. The Petitioner has taken no position with respect to their status. The uncontroverted record testimony establishes that tool pushers are in charge of the overall operations at the drilling site and that they have the authority to hire and i Herein referred to as King 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 164 NLRB No. 68 419 discharge employees. Accordingly, we find that tool pushers are supervisors within the meaning of the Act, and we shall exclude them from the unit. Drillers: The Employer contends that drillers are supervisors and should be excluded from the unit. The Petitioner takes no position on this question. The record establishes that drillers have and exercise the authority to hire employee members of their crew and that they also have the authority effectively to recommend the discharge of such employees. Accordingly, we find that the drillers are supervisors within the meaning of the Act and exclude them from the unit. The truckdrivers: The Employer contends that the truckdriver should be excluded as a supervisor. The Petitioner takes no position on his status. The record discloses that the truckdriver in addition to driving duties is in charge of maintenance of equipment. The truckdriver hires his own assistant, termed a swamper, and also has the authority to discharge this employee. Accordingly, we find the truckdriver to be a supervisor within the meaning of the Act and exclude him from the unit. 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, and all truck swampers employed by the Employer in drilling operations in the area generally known as the Permian Basin, but excluding all tool pushers, drillers, the truckdriver, office employees, technical employees, guards, professional employees, and all supervisors as defined in the Act. 5. The principal area of disagreement between the parties is with respect to voter eligibility requirements. The Petitioner has requested that the Board find eligible to vote in this election all employees of King whose names appear on the Employer's payroll list preceding the election and all employees who were employed by King at any time during the 90-day period preceding the filing of the instant petition and who were not, discharged for cause or who did not quit voluntarily before the completion of the job for which they were employed. The Employer contends that because of the transitory nature of the employment and the high turnover among its employees, voting eligibility should be limited to those individuals actually employed at the time of the election. To determine the eligibility question before us, it is necessary to consider the nature of the Employer's drilling operations and their effect upon its employment practices. issues and the positions of the parties ' The Permian Basin is located in west Texas and eastern New Mexico and encompasses some 95,000 square miles 298-668 0-69-28 420 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The Employer performs oil well drilling operations under contract with major oil companies. It is principally engaged in development work in proven oil fields, as opposed to exploratory or "wildcat" drilling. King owns and operates four heavy-duty oil rigs which have the capability of drilling to a depth of 20,000 feet. The operation of such a rig requires the services of a crew comprising a driller and four crew members who are generally referred to as "roughnecks." As operations are carried out on a 3- shift basis, each rig requires a work force of 15 men, 3 drillers and 12 roughnecks. The Employer assigns to each rig an individual known as a "tool pusher," who is responsible for the overall direction and supervision of the operation. The tool pusher also has the responsibility for hiring drillers. The drillers in turn hire their own crews and in the event a driller is terminated or voluntarily quits prior to the completion of a job, his crew is automatically terminated. The Employer was engaged in continuous drilling operations for the period from July 19, 1965, to July 31, 1966, and during this time it averaged 1.81 rigs and a work force of 22 roughnecks. The record shows that under normal conditions a rig will operate at least 60-70 days at one location and that it may operate for as long as 293 days at one drilling site. At no time during this period did the Employer have more than 3 rigs in operation and as a result the maximum number of roughnecks employed at any given time was 36. The usual practice is for the driller to hire the roughnecks for his crew. If a roughneck quits or is terminated for cause before the completion of the job, he is not acceptable for reemployment by King. On the other hand, if a roughneck does stay to the completion of the job and has otherwise performed to the satisfaction of the driller, he is considered eligible for reemployment on the next drilling job. During the period from July 19, 1965, to July 31, 1966, King employed a total of 174 roughnecks. Of this number, 21 were employees who are regularly available for work with King and who work an average of 201 days per year. Of the remaining 153 roughnecks employed, 89 percent had no prior employment history with King. The average number of days worked by the 174 roughnecks was 44 days, and only 48 roughnecks of the total employee complement worked 44 or more days. The Employer has a hospitalization and vacation program for its employees. To qualify for hospitalization benefits, a roughneck must work at least 180 days over a 2-year period and accept employment when work is available. To qualify for vacation benefits, a roughneck must accumulate 350 days of accrued time and be continually available for S Hondo Drilling Company N S.L , 164 NLRB 6 The Employer's motion for the right to election challenges is granted only to the extent indicated by our Decision herein and by employment with King. Only approximately 12 roughnecks are currently receiving these benefits. As indicated above, the Employer experiences a high turnover among its employees. However, it is also clear that a portion of the work force remains available for employment with King and has a reasonable expectancy of reemployment. Because of the competing considerations of high turnover and the continuing interest in employment with King demonstrated by a significant portion of the work force, it must be concluded that both the Petitioner's and the Employer's eligibility formulas fail to meet the requirements of the situation presented here. The Petitioner would find eligible to vote all employees whose names appear on the Employer's payroll list preceding the date of the election and all employees who were employed by King at any time during the 90-day period preceding the filing of the petition and who did not voluntarily quit or were not discharged for cause prior to the completion of the job for which they were employed. However, such a formula requires only that the employee have the briefest employment history with the Employer and fails to take into account the length of time that may have elapsed since the employee worked for King. On the other hand, the Employer's proposal that only those actually employed at the time of the election be permitted to vote would, if applied, deny the right to vote to employees who have a reasonable expectancy of reemployment with King. In reaching this conclusion, we have considered the Employer's contention that all roughnecks not actually employed are considered to be in termination status. However, we can find no merit in such a contention when the record evidence clearly establishes that the Employer maintains a work force of roughnecks who are regularly available for employment. We have recently considered the employment patterns in the oil well drilling industry in a case5 very similar to the one now before us, and we found it necessary to resolve the question of voter eligibility by fashioning a new eligibility rule to meet the problems of this industry. For the reasons stated in that decision, we belive that such a formula is also appropriate in the circumstances of this case. Accordingly, we find eligible to vote all roughnecks who have been employed by the Employer for a minimum 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 who have not quit voluntarily prior to the completion of the last job for which they were employed.6 We also find eligible to vote all roughnecks whose names appear on the Employer's payroll immediately preceding the Board's usual challenge procedures In all other respects, the motion is denied CARL B. KING the issuance of the Regional Director's notice of election in this proceeding.7 Finally, the Employer argues that the Board should not apply its Excelsior rule8 in the circumstances of this case. It contends that the application of this rule would permit the Union to "round up" former employees who have no continuing interest in or reasonable expectancy of employment with King and cause them to vote in this election. We find no merit in this contention. The eligibility formula we have applied in this case has been carefully drafted to insure that only those employees having a reasonable expectancy of employment with King will be eligible to vote. Thus, ' 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 We are administratively satisfied that the Petitioner has made an adequate showing of interest in such a unit 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 8 156 NLRB 1236 8 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 preparation and compilation of an election eligibility list DRILLING CO. 421 in our judgment, there is no valid reason for withholding from the Union the names and addresses of the eligible voters. Rather, the nature of employment in the oil well drilling industry presents a compelling reason for requiring the parties to cooperate with the Regional Director by supplying to him the names and current addresses of eligible employees to the extent that such information is in their possession, and that the information supplied to the Regional Director be made available to all parties to this proceeding. Accordingly, we shall apply our Excelsior rule in this case. [Text of Direction of Election9 omitted from publication.] containing the names and addresses 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 bats 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