Standard Oil Co. of California

STANDARD OIL COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA 67 Standard Oil Company of California, Western Opera- tions, Inc. and The Hawaii Teamsters and Allied Workers Union, Local 996, Petitioner. Case 37-RC-1934 May 31, 1974 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS FANNING, KENNEDY, AND PENELLO Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a hearing in this case was held before Hearing Officer Dennis R. MacCarthy on February 20, 1974. Following the hearing, and pursuant to Section 102.67 of the National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations and Statements of Procedure, Series 8, as amended, this case was transferred to the National Labor Relations Board for decision. 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. The rulings are hereby affirmed. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board makes the following findings: 1. 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 organizations involved claim to represent certain employees of the Employer.' 3. No question affecting commerce exists con- cerning the representation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9(c)(1). The Employer is engaged in the production, sale, and distribution of petroleum and petroleum prod- ucts in an area covering nine Western States,2 with this petition involving the employees in the market- ing department of Employer's Hawaiian field divi- sion. - Since 1946 the employees in this division, currently 167 in number, have been represented for collective-bargaining purposes by the Intervenor in a broader unit of approximately 2,600 employees covering Employer's entire multistate marketing division. Successive agreements have been reached by Employer and Intervenor since the onset of their relationship, with the most recent agreement execut- The Petroleum Workers Union, Independent, intervened on the basis of a collective-bargaining relationship with the Employer dating back to 1946. 2 Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Nevada, Oregon, Washington, and parts of Idaho and Utah. 3 "All classified employees and all unclassified employees in the ed in February 1974. The negotiations surrounding the latter provide the background for this petition which is supported by 130 members of the unit sought.3 On June 4, 1973, the Employer and Intervenor executed a collective-bargaining agreement which, by its terms, provided for a limited reopening of negotiations on base wages for certain office and technical personnel, to take place no earlier than September 1973. The agreement further provided that, in the event a reopening was requested, the collective-bargaining agreement would be terminated if further agreement on the reopened matter was not reached within 60 days. In July the Intervenor informed Employer of its intent to reopen; an initial informal meeting was held in August to discuss the possibility of agreement without formal reopening, but agreement was not reached and the contract was formally reopened. Four negotiating sessions took place in September and October with no agreement achieved. By its terms, the collective-bargaining agreement terminated upon completion of the 60-day period; however, negotiations on the reopened matter of wages continued. In December, Interve- nor's negotiators agreed to the Employer's proposals subject to a membership ratification. Ratification was defeated, with the employees of the Hawaii division, represented by Local 18 of Intervenor, voting to strike. However, the majority of the members in the multistate unit voted to take other "economic action." The Intervenor and Employer met again in two negotiating sessions in early January 1974. On January 7, 1974, the Intervenor filed a refusal-to-bargain charge against the Employ- er. The members of Local 18, dissatisfied with the decision of the overall membership not to strike, consulted with a representative of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters on the possibility of seeking separate representation and, on January 17, 1974, the instant petition was filed. Thereafter, the Intervenor and Employer reached agreement on the reopened matter and on February 12, 1974, the parties reinstated the collective-bargaining agree- ment originally executed on June 4, 1973, and Intervenor's unfair labor practice charges were withdrawn. Petitioner's petition had been filed prior to agreement and it was not consulted on this ratification. Petitioner does not dispute the existence of a long history of collective bargaining between Employer and Intervenor on a multistate, multiplant basis, but positions of special representative (sales), new car dealer representative, property representative, engineer, fuel & lubricants engineer, associate fuel & lubricants engineer, sales representative and automotive service repre- sentative in the Hawaii division of the marketing department " Sinular classifications comprise the broad unit covered by the current contract, which contains a maintenance -of-membership provision. 211 NLRB No. 10 68 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD contends that the employees of the Hawaii division are, nevertheless, entitled to separate representation because of an abandonment and/or failure of proper representation by the Intervenor. Employer and Intervenor, on the other hand, contend that Petition- er's argument is without merit and the admitted long history of bargaining in a multidivision unit renders Petitioner's unit request inappropriate. We agree. We have treated these same issues on two occa- sions in the past. In 1956, the same petitioner sought representation of a unit of employees limited to the Island of Oahu or, in the alternative, the employees in the entire Hawaii field division. In its decision4 dismissing the petition, the Board noted that the mere dissatisfaction of a group of employees with their representation did not, alone, warrant their severance from a broader unit. In 1968, a petition filed by the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers on behalf of these employees was similarly dismissed 5 on the same grounds. In support of its petition at the present time, Petitioner argues that the "mere dissatisfaction" of which the Board spoke in its earlier decision has become more widespread since that time, due in part to the internal organiza- tion of Intervenor and the latter's management of the recent negotiations depicted above. The Intervenor is organized generally along the same lines as Employer's administrative division; i.e., the employees in each field division are represented by a local union representing that division. Interve- nor has no permanent headquarters but, rather, operates out of the home of its current president. Each local also has a president who conducts the local's business from his home. The presidency of the Intervenor is rotated among the local presidents, with the remaining local presidents comprising the In- tervenor's board of governors. The Hawaii local president has, however, not been president of Intervenor since the latter's inception. Negotiations for each collective-bargaining agreement are con- ducted by the president, his subordinates, and members of the board of governors. All Intervenor's officers are also employees of the Employer. Petitioner contends that this type of operation does not facilitate meaningful collective bargaining, espe- cially for the employees located in Hawaii. The lack of what Petitioner characterizes as "trained profes- sional" union administrators has, allegedly, hindered the processing of grievances among the Hawaii employee complement. In addition, since the bulk of the employees in the multistate unit are located on the mainland, the Intervenor is not, according to Petitioner, attuned to the particular needs of the employees in Hawaii. Petitioner supports this latter assertion with the fact that the members of Local 18 voted to take strike action in the most recent contract negotiation only to be voted down by a majority of Intervenor's membership. We note, first, that while Intervenor's internal structure is somewhat unique given the extent of its membership, the record does not evidence any inability on Intervenor's part to engage in meaning- ful collective bargaining with the Employer. The most recent contract negotiations, which the record amply details, indicate the kind of bargaining on substantial matters which the Act was designed to facilitate. Both sides made meaningful concessions on subjects of importance. Negotiations on the part of Intervenor were conducted at times by the entire board of governors. At other times, less than the full board comprised the negotiating team, but the president of Local 18 was present at such sessions in a proportion not atypical of the other local presi- dents. The negotiations, contrary to Petitioner's claim, further evidence discussion of matters peculiar to the members of Local 18. Thus, a commitment was secured from the Employer to continue to honor Kamehameha Day as a holiday for the employees in Hawaii. Pay increases for terminal operators were negotiated and one-third of the employees affected by the negotiation were employees of the Hawaii field division. We cannot conclude on the record, then, that the internal structure of Intervenor does not enable it to engage in meaningful collective bargaining for its membership. The record does evidence a degree of dissatisfac- tion among the members of Local 18 with the grievance apparatus, but the record indicates that this dissatisfaction stems from a lack of "faith" in the Intervenor on the part of the employees in Hawaii and not a lack of concern on Intervenor's part. In response to the following question, "can you recall that there has ever been a single complaint where you have asked for cooperation out of Union Headquar- ters on the mainland where they have failed to respond," the president of Local 18, Petitioner's principal witness, responded in the negative. Finally, we find no merit in Petitioner's attempt to demonstrate the lack or abandonment of proper representation on Intervenor's part from the latter's refusal to go along with Local 18's recommendation for a strike action. We have long held that, assuming the appropriateness of the unit requested, a minority of employees cannot proffer their dissatisfaction with a contract executed by their representative as the sole basis for severance from the established unit.6 We conclude, then, that the record does not support Petitioner's contention that the Intervenor 4 116 NLRB 1762 5 Case 37-RC-1462, unreported. 6 Puerto Rico Steamship Association, 116 NLRB 418. STANDARD OIL COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA has abandoned or failed to provide proper represent- ation of the employees in the unit requested. Accordingly, as the unit requested by Petitioner is inappropriate because of the controlling collective- bargaining history on a broader basis, we shall dismiss the petition. ORDER 69 It is hereby ordered that the petition filed herein be, and it hereby is, dismissed.