Cities Service Oil Co.

12 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Cities Service Oil Company and Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers International Union , Petitioner. Cases 16-RC-5002, 16-RC-5011, and 16-RC-5036 April 16, 1970 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS FANNING AND JENKINS Upon petitions duly filed under Section 9(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a hearing was held before Hearing Officer Thomas P. Sheridan. Following the hearing, and pursuant to Section 102.67 of the National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regula- tions and Statements of Procedure, Series 8, as amended, and by direction of the Regional Director for Region 16, this case was 'transferred to the National Labor Relations Board for decision. Thereafter, briefs were filed by the Employer and the Petitioner, which have been duly considered.' Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three- member panel. The Board has reviewed the Hearing Officer's rulings made at the hearing and finds that they are free from prejudicial error. They are hereby affirmed. Upon the entire record in this case, including the briefs of the parties, the Board finds: 1. The Employer-is engaged in-commeice within the meaning of the Act, and it will effectuate'the purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein. a ;' i` 2. The labor organization involved seeks` 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 Employer is engaged in the manufacture and sale of petroleum products throughout the United States. Its operations comprise eight separate and distinct "groups" and "divisions," each in the charge of an individual who reports directly to the company president. One "group," the Natural Gas Liquids Group, consists of, six operating divisions, one of which is the Natural Gas Liquids Operations Division (NGL). The NGL is responsible for the design, construction, operation, and maintenance of gas-producting facilities in various States. The individual facilities, employing from 2' to 28 employees, are under the direction of a plant superin- tendent (in some cases there is a common supervisor for several small plants) who reports directly to one of four area superintendents. Of the approximately 37 ' The Employer has also filed a motion requesting that the case be set for oral argument before the Board Since we believe that the record and the briefs adequately present the contentions of the parties, and in view of the fact that our decision adopts the Employer's position, we deny the motion facilities in the NGL, 2 are pipeline terminals and the remainder are gasoline facilities which convert natural gas and oil into commercial products such as propane, butane, and natural gasoline. Petitioner currently represents the employees in 20 of these facilities in a"single, multiplant unit , and the employees in 3 other plants in a single unit. With the exception noted below, there has been a long and exten- sive history of bargaining on a multiplant basis dating back to 1937, when the Employer first recognized Peti- tioner in a contractual unit of production and mainte- nance employees in eight of its Oklahoma plants. Subse- quent to this initial recognition, the parties agreed to include new' facilities in the then-existing contractual unit without Board elections. However, since approxi- mately 1958, the Employer has changed its position and now'demands proof of Petitioner's majority before extending recognition. 'If recognition is accorded, the Employer has insisted upon collective-bargaining negoti- ations before placing any new plant in the larger contrac- tual unit. However, as noted, three plants have not been so placed in the multiplant unit; instead, they constitute a separate three-plant bargaining unit. Thus, there are 2 bargaining units - the 3-plant unit and'the larger multiplant unit consisting of 20 plants. Of the remaining plants in the NGL, approximately 12 are unrepresented. One plant, a pipeline storage facility, is represented by the Teamsters. Petitioner seeks to represent three unrepresented plants located in Waco and Corpus Bay, Texas and Rodman, Oklahoma. It requests that the employees of each plant be granted the opportunity to determine whether they wish to be represented in the larger 20- plant unit. If a majority at any plant votes against representation, that plant will remain unrepresented In the event that its requests are denied, Petitioner has indicated that it does not seek to represent any of the plants on a single-plant basis. The Employer concedes that each of the three plants constitutes a separate appropriate unit and is willing to agree to elections on such a basis. The Employer opposes, howev- er, Petitioner's request for elections which will only permit employees of the three plants to be represented in the existing unit, arguing, inter alia, that the resultant multiplant unit would be an inappropriate unit for collec- tive-bargaining purposes, and therefore beyond the Board's power to create. The record establishes that the Waco, Corpus Bay, and Rodman facilities are located in 2 of the 4 geographic regions which encompass the' NGL division and are respectively located 150, 80, and 75 miles from the nearest plants in the larger 20-plant bargaining unit. The three plants are each under the immediate control of three different plant superintendents who are also responsible for other plants. The superintendents deter- mine for each plant the hours to be worked, vacation scheduling, overtime, and other immediate plant prob- lems. These superintendents in turn report to one of the four area superintendents. The plants in the 20- plant unit are scattered throughout the 4 geographic regions of the NGL. The plants in the proposed unit 182 NLRB No. 6 CITIES SERVICE OIL COMPANY have no special geographic relationship, nor do they comprise an administrative division of the Employer's operations. The record further establishes that employees through- out the Employer's operations share substantially similar fringe benefits, wages, hours, and other terms and condi- tions of employment, irrespective of whether they are represented for collective-bargaining purposes. Also, seniority is maintained on a companywide basis, and job applications for new vacancies are accepted through- out the Employer's operations. It is clear that the requested multiplant unit does not meet any of the normal criteria which might justify it as appropriate for collective-bargaining purposes- mutual consent of the parties, administrative coherence, geographic cohesiveness, or established bargaining histo- ry. In such circumstances, as more fully set forth in PPG Industries,2 single-plant units can be combined with a larger multiplant unit over the employer's opposition only if the record establishes that the resultant unit would be distinguished by such shared factors as com- mon terms and conditions of employment, substantial uniformity of wage systems and fringe benefits, substan- tial integration of operations, interchange of employees within unit lines, and the like. Here, there is no inter- change within the proposed unit and employee contact is extremely limited; the petitioned-for plants, located approximately 150, 80, and 75 miles from the nearest plants in the larger, multiplant unit, are autonomous and have no product integration with each other or with plants in the existing unit; and local plant superin- tendents are responsible for the day-to-day operations of the plants. While wages and benefits are similar at each plant in the proposed 23-plant unit, this is not a factor peculiar to these plants, since all employees in the NGL enjoy substantially the same benefits. Accordingly, we find that the employees of the peti- tioned-for plants and the existing 20-plant unit do not share a sufficient community of interest to warrant com- bining them into a single unit. .We further find, however, that each of the three plants constitutes a separate appropriate unit for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act. Accordingly, we will direct elections among the following employees and, if a majori- ty of such employees in any unit votes for Petitioner, the Regional Director will issue a certification of repre- sentative to such effect: (a) All operation and maintenance employees employed at the Employer's Waco, Texas, natural gaso- line plant, excluding all other employees, including office 13 clericals, guards, watchmen, and supervisors as defined in the Act. (b) All operation and maintenance employees employed at the Employer's Corpus Bay, Texas, natural gasoline plant, excluding all other employees, including office clericals, guards, watchmen, and supervisors as defined in the Act. (c) All operation and maintenance employees employed at the Employer's Rodman, Oklahoma, natural gasoline plant, excluding all other employees, including office clericals, guards, watchmen, and supervisors as defined in the Act. As Petitioner indicated at the time of the hearing that it did not desire to represent these plants on a single,-plant basis, it may withdraw its petitions if it does not wish to proceed to separate elections, in which case the following Direction of Elections will be disre- garded. [Direction of Elections3 omitted from publication.] CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH, concurring in part and dis- senting in part: I am unable to agree with the conclusion of my colleagues that the employees of the three plants herein should not be accorded the opportunity of deciding for themselves whether they desire to be represented in the larger 20-plant unit. My disagreement is based upon my belief that the employees of the three plants share a sufficient community of interests with those employees in the larger unit to warrant finding the resul- tant unit appropriate. I am, however, also in agreement with the additional finding of my colleagues that each of the three plants may constitute a separate appropriate unit and that elections may properly be directed at each plant. x PPG Industries, Inc , 180 NLRB No 58 In order to insure that all eligible voters may have the opportunity to be informed of the issues in the exercise of their statutory right to vote, all parties to the elections should have access to a list of voters and their addresses which may be used to communicate with them Excelsior Underwear Inc , 156 NLRB 1236, N L R B v Wyman- Gordon Company, 394 U S 759 Accordingly, it is hereby directed that elention eligibility lists, containing the names and addresses of all the eligible voters, must be filed by the Employer with the Regional Director for Region 16 within 7 days after the date of this Decision and Direction of Elections The Regional Director shall make the lists available to all parties to the elections No extension of time to file these lists shall be granted by the Regional Director except in extraordi- nary circumstances Failure to comply with this requirement shall be grounds for setting aside the elections whenever proper objections are filed