Cities Service Oil Co.

470 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS dOARD Cities Service Oil Company and Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers International Union , AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case 16-RC-5918 November 27, 1972 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION By CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS FANNING 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 Jerry W. Dobbs on March 29, 30, and 31, 1972. 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. There- after, briefs were filed by the Employer and the Petitioner which have been duly considered. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding 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: I The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act, and it will effectuate the purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein. 2 The labor organization involved seeks to represent certain employees of the Employer. 3. A question affecting commerce exists concern- ing 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. One of its basic production divisions is the Natural Gas Liquids Group which consists of six operating divisions including the Natural Gas Liq- uids Operations Division which is the division involved herein. At the time of the hearing, there were within the Operations Division 37 gas-process- ing plants spread throughout the central and western parts of the country. In addition, there are four nonproduction facilities within this division that provide either storage facilities or maintenance work. The number of employees in each plant ranges from Cato Service Oil Company, 182 NLRB 12,13 a low of one at the Crowley, Louisiana, plant to the twenties at some of the larger plants. As to collective- bargaining units at the present time, there are three existing bargaining units, a 3-plant unit and a 21- plant unit represented by the Petitioner and a single- plant unit at the Lowell, Michigan, storage terminal represented by the Teamsters Union. The Petitioner seeks a unit composed of all unrepresented classified gas-processing plant em- ployees in the Operations Division of the Natural Gas Liquids Group at the remaining 16 operating plants. Alternatively, the Petitioner seeks a unit of all unrepresented classified employees in the Operations Division of the Natural Gas Liquids Group, or, stated differently, a unit including employees at 3 unrepresented facilities providing maintenance and storage which it would include with the 16-plant unit. The Employer contends that only separate units at each of the processing plants is an appropriate unit, and that a unit composed of all unrepresented gas- processing plant employees has no basis either in fact or law. The Employer, in support of its position, contends that each plant is a separate and distinct autonomous unit; that each plant produces different end products pursuant to individual operating or processing facilities tied in to each plant's source of supply which is unique to that plant; that each plant is separately supervised and at the plant level is operated without any effect or impact from or toward any of the other plants within the division, either as to personnel requirements or production; that there is no requirement that employees of one plant interchange or communicate with the employ- ees of another plant in the course of their employ- ment; and that even the end result of the production, i.e., the marketing of the finished product, varies from plant to plant, some plants distributing to local customers while the production of others goes into pipelines for transmission to more distant points. In addition, the Employer points out that in 1970, the Board, in another case i involving a petition by the Petitioner herein for a multiplant unit limited to three of the unrepresented plants, found: . . . The three plants are each under the immediate control of three different plant super- intendents who are also responsible for other plants. The superintendents determine for each plant the hours to be worked, vacation schedul- ing, 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 through out the 4 geographic regions of the NGL. The plants in the 200 NLRB No. 74 CITIES SERVICE OIL COMPANY 471 proposed unit have no special geographic rela- mitigated against our carving out a unit of three tionship, nor do they comprise an administrative plants also supports our present finding that the division of the Employer' s operation. multiplant residual unit is an appropriate unit. In I t 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 history. The Petitioner, in support of its request for a "multiplant" residual unit, contends that this unit will encompass all of the Employer's unrepresented employees in the NGL Operations Division. It further contends that the particular facts of this case support such a unit in that of the 16 unrepresented plants I of these plants is staffed by but one employee, 5 plants have but two employees, and 3 others have but three employees . As to the one-man plant, the Petitioner points out that under Board precedent, it would not be established as a separate unit, and that as to the two- and three -men units collective bargaining would be totally unrealistic. The Petitioner also contends that the record now before us clearly establishes sufficient facts to support the conclusion that a multiplant unit of the 16 unrepresented plants (plus the 3 plant support facilities) can either be a separate appropriate unit or alternatively that these plants can be merged into the existing unit if the employees so elect . In support of this contention , the Petitioner points out that there is little basic difference between any of the plants as to their products, methods of operation, personnel policies, and conditions of employment. In addition, the Petitioner points out that during the 2-year period prior to the hearing herein, there were 51 permanent transfers from one plant to another, that maintenance personnel go from plant to plant on a daily basis, that all new plants at startup generally are staffed by employees, either temporary or permanent, from existing plants both represented and unrepresented, and that plant superintendents have supervisory authority over plants both repre- sented and unrepresented. In view of the unusual circumstances of this case, we agree with the Petitioner that a unit of all of the Employer' s unrepresented employees would consti- tute an appropriate unit . Unlike the facts underlying our decision in 1970, the record now before us encompasses, not 3 plants carved out of a total of 16 unrepresented plants, but rather, all of these unrepre- sented plants. In our opinion , many of the facts that 1970, some of the factors relied on in rejecting the three-plant unit being added to the existing unit were that there was no interchange between the petitioned for plants and the existing unit , there was geographic separation, the plants were in effect autonomous, and day-to-day supervision was basically carried on at the individual plant level . At the same time the Board, in 1970, also relied on the fact that as to the three plants, wages, fringe benefits, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment were similar to the wages and benefits of all the Employer's plants in the division . We also noted that seniority is main- tained on a companywide basis, and the records then and now show that openings in new plants , as well as the existing unrepresented plants, are subject to being filled by employees from any other plant in the division bidding for the job. From the above, it is clear that our conclusion reached in 1970 was not, as contended by the Employer, predicated on the fact that the single- plant unit was the only appropriate unit . Rather, that Decision clearly shows that the three plants peti- tioned for possessed identity factors that would support separate appropriate units as well as multi- plant units that were not otherwise arbitrarily structured . We do not agree with the Employer's contention that the facts as they were presented then, as well as the facts in the record now before us, require the conclusion that the single-plant units are the only appropriate units. Rather , we are persuaded by the record before us that there are factors present that support the Petitioner's claim for a residual multiplant unit including all of the Employer's unrepresented employees in its Operating Division. All of these employees enjoy almost identical conditions of employment and fringe benefits; labor relations are centralized, there is a degree of interchange that is not insubstantial , and, although the various plants do possess some degrees of uniqueness, the record indicates that the basic skills required by a large majority of the employees are possessed and utilized by all of the employees regardless of which plant employs them. While not decisive for our conclusion herein, we are further persuaded by the Petitioner's contention that to find only single-plant units appropriate would in effect permanently deny to employees employed at one-man facilities any opportunity to participate in the collective-bargaining process or to refrain therefrom . The Board need only choose an appropri- 472 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ate unit; it is not required to select the most appropriate unit.2 As the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit said in N L.R.B. v. J. W. Wood Manufacturing Company, 466 F.2d 201 (August 23, 1972): There are a multitude of factors which the Board and the Courts have employed as indicia in cases where the issue has been single versus multi units, including: operational integration of the units; geographical proximity; authority of the local unit supervisor, especially with regard to matters that traditionally are the subject of collective bargaining, such as hiring, firing, discipline, rates of pay, hours of employment, and benefits; type of work done by the employees in the unit; numerical size of the units; uniformity of wages, hours, working conditions and benefits; contact between employees at one unit and those at other units; interchange of employees; centralization of labor relations and collective bargaining. One case will emphasize one or more factors, the next will place more importance upon other factors, and what is emphasized in one may be de- emphasized or distinguished in another. Harmon- izing the cases into a uniform pattern is not wholly feasible, because of the factual nature of the determination, the broad discretion in the agency [the Board] in making one of several acceptable choices, and the limited scope of correctly applied judicial review. Considering these factors, we believe that the purposes of the Act will best be effectuated by our directing an election among all of the Employer's unrepresented employees in a residual unit.3 As we have traditionally included all of the unrepresented employees in the residual unit, we shall include in the unit those employees located at the Chico, Texas, maintenance shop, the Loveland, Texas, mainte- nance shop, and the South Bend, Indiana, terminal. In accordance with these findings, we conclude that the following unit is appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act: All unrepresented classified employees of the Employer employed in the Operations Division of the Natural Gas Liquids Group including em- ployees employed at the Chico, Texas, mainte- nance shop, the Loveland, Texas, maintenance shop, and the South Bend, Indiana, terminal, excluding all other employees, guards and super- visors as defined in the Act. [Direction of Election and Excelsior footnote omitted from publication.] 2 State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v N L R B, 411 record, exhibits, briefs, and the Employer' s motion and hereby deny the F 2d 356, 358 (C A 7, 1969) request because the record, pleadings, and briefs adequately present the 3 The Employer, by motion filed September 13, 1972, has requested oral issues and positions of the parties argument on the issues involved herein We have considered only the