The Texas Co.

In the Matter of THE TEXAS COMPANY and OIL WORKERS INTER- NATIONAL UNION LOCAL #280 Case No. R-1157-Decided March 3, 1939 Crude Oil Production Industry-Investigation of Representatives : question concerning representation of employees : refusal of employer to bargain unless appropriate unit and duly designated representatives determined by Board- Unit Appropriate for Collective Bargaining : production employees in geographic district, including roustabouts, pumpers, clean-out drillers and helpers, truck drivers, laborers , and excluding head roustabouts, the district clerk, the junior engineer, and supervisory, clerical, and warehouse employees ; wide geographical coverage not controlling factor, district otherwise unified ; desires of employees- Representatives : proof of choice : signatures attested by witnesses-Certifica- tion or Representatives : upon proof of majority representation. Mr. Elmer P. Davis, and Mr. Alba B. Martin, for the Board. Mr. James H. Pipkin, of Houston, Tex., and Mr. John R. Ramsey, of Tulsa, Okla., for the Company. - Mr. Maurice Daly, and Mr. R. H. Stickel, of Tulsa, Okla., and Mr. T. H. Brown, of Drumright, Okla., for the Union. Mr. Sidney Sugerman, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES STATEMENT OF THE CASE On April 27, 1938, Oil Workers International Union Local 280, CIO, herein called the Union, filed with the Regional Director for the Sixteenth Region (Fort Worth, Texas) a petition alleging that a question affecting commerce had arisen concerning the representation of employees of The Texas Company, Cushing, Oklahoma, herein called the Company, and requesting an investigation and certification of representatives pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. On October 26, 1938, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, acting pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the Act and Article III, Section 3, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations- Series 1, as amended, ordered an investigation and authorized the Regional Director to conduct it and to provide for an appropriate hearing upon due notice. 11 N. L. R. B., No. 74. 925 926 DECISIONS OF NATTONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD On December 9, 1938, the Regional Director issued a notice of hearing, copies of which were duly served upon the Company and upon the Union. Pursuant to the notice, a hearing was held on December 15 and 16, 1938, at Cushing, Oklahoma, and, by stipula- tion of all the parties, at Tulsa, Oklahoma, on December 17, 1938, before Joseph F. Kiernan, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Board. The Board and the Company were represented by counsel, and the Union by its officers and agents; all participated in the hear- ing. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues was af- forded all parties. During the course of the hearing the Trial Ex- aminer made several rulings on motions and on objections to the admission of evidence. On January 10, 1939, the Company filed a brief, which the Board has considered. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds that no prejudicial errors were committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following : FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY The Texas Company is a Delaware corporation, having its prin- cipal office in New York City, and an office in Tulsa, Oklahoma. It has been engaged since 1927 in the production, refining, and distribu- tion of oil and oil products in the State of Oklahoma and elsewhere. The Company produces within the State of Oklahoma not less than 8,000 barrels of crude oil per day. In what it defines as the Cushing District of Oklahoma, the Company produces approximately 1,500 barrels of crude oil per day on a total of 69 leases. Of this produc- tion approximately 300 barrels are transported daily through a pipe line, not owned or operated by the Company, to its own refinery in Oklahoma known as West Tulsa Works.' While in transit through the pipe line, or at the refinery, the oil mixes with other crude oil either produced by the Company or purchased by it from other Oklahoma producers. None of the oil entering the refinery is received from outside the State. All crude oil received at the refinery is there processed. The capacity of the refinery is 15,000 barrels per day. Not less than 60 per cent of the finished products thereof are transported into States other than Oklahoma. At least 34 per cent of the purchases for the West Tulsa Works, including chemicals and machinery, are made outside the State. 1 See Matter of The Texas Company, West Tulsa Works and Oil Workers' International Union, Local No. 217, 4 N L. R. B. 182. THE TEXAS COMPANY ET AL. 927 The remaining 1,200 barrels of crude oil produced daily in the Cushing District by the Company are sold from its storage tanks at the site of the leases, at which point title evidently passes, to numer- ous other companies. The oil thus sold is run off into private pipe lines of the several purchasers or into common-carrier lines, even- tually to be commingled with other crude oil in main or trunk lines, way-station storage tanks, or refineries. Some quantity commingles in certain lines, tanks, or refineries with crude oil brought in from States other than Oklahoma; some of the commingled crude oil in certain other lines is destined for points outside the State, by way of pipe systems, tank cars, or trucks. . An average of 125 barrels of the Company's production in the Dis- trict leaves Oklahoma daily in its crude, commingled state. Ap- proximately 64 per cent of the products of the local refineries process- ing the remainder in such state are transported out of Oklahoma. Some of such products are sold f. o. b. local refinery, and some at their ultimate destination outside the State. II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Oil Workers International Union Local 280 is a labor organization affiliated with the Committee for Industrial Organization, admitting to its membership all production and maintenance employees of the Company, excluding supervisory, clerical, and warehouse employees. III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION In the middle of March 1938, the Union communicated with the Company for an appointment to confer for the purpose of collective bargaining. On March 26 and April 19, 1938, a committee of the Union, claiming to represent a majority of the Company's employees in the Cushing District, met with representatives of the Company for the purpose of collective bargaining. The Company stated that it did not know, but would welcome the Board's determining, what would comprise an appropriate unit for that purpose, and who should represent the employees therein. We find that a question has arisen concerning the representation of employees of the Company. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION UPON COMMERCE We find that the question concerning representation which has arisen, occurring in connection with the operations of the Company described in Section I above, has a close, intimate, and substantial 928 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, and tends to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. V. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT In its petition the Union alleges that "all production employees, exclusive of supervisory, clerical and warehouse employees" of the Company's production department, in its Cushing District, constitute an appropriate bargaining unit. In the course of the hearing the Union contended for a defined unit which would include only such field workers as roustabouts, pumpers, C. O. (clean-out) drillers and helpers, truck drivers, laborers, and Ex. (extra) laborers, excluding all such other employees in the District as the superintendent, fore- men, head roustabouts, and other "members of management." The Company claims to entertain no opinion and makes no sugges- tion or contention as to the appropriate unit, contenting itself merely to question the efficacy of the unit contended for by the Union, and .prays enlightenment in a novel problem hitherto undecided in the oil fields. The Company's domestic crude oil production department has five territorial divisions, each under a division manager. The Oklahoma- Kansas and Kentucky Division, with headquarters in Tulsa, Okla- homa, comprises the States of Oklahoma, Kansas, Kentucky, Illinois, and Indiana. That Division has 10 districts, of which 6 are within the State of Oklahoma, each under a superintendent, encompassing certain producing fields or pools within its confines. The Cushing District is in that Division, and wholly within the State of Oklahoma. The Cushing District is an arbitrary assemblage of pools or pro- ducing wells in an area without fixed geographical outline, extending approximately 130 miles east and west and 50 miles north and south. Neither the districts nor the pools within them are necessarily con- tiguous. Determinative factors in the creation of districts are road conditions, distance between pools, extent of operations, and general facilities of production and transportation. Districts may be en- larged or curtailed in scope, or stripper wells therein may be aban- doned and new wells brought in and developed. In other words, the outlines may fluctuate from time to time, as may the activity within them, either of which eventualities may necessitate the shifting and transfer of workers from one point to another. The Company employs in its production department in the six districts of Oklahoma a personnel of approximately 560, of whom about 480 are on the field pay roll. Of the latter number approxi- mately 91 attend production on the 69 operating leases within the. Cushing District. THE TEXAS COMPANY ET AL . 929 The unit described by the Union is homogeneous with relation to the interests of its constituents. It is characterized by a "community of thought" in its problems with management, despite the other dis- advantages of a wide-flung unit of such coverage. On the other hand, to enlarge further the geographical scope of the unit beyond the present limits of the Cushing District would, to some extent, deprive the workers of that cohesion necessary to effective exercise of their right to collective bargaining. Members of the Oil Workers Inter- national Union outside the Cushing District have not requested the petitioning Local 280 to act for them. There is no history of organi- zational activity to point the way. The Company queries whether a more narrowly bounded area might not more appropriately suit the purpose sought to be achieved : e. g., the concentration of employees around Drumright, the seat of Local 280, or at some particular production area. The Union answers that it would then have to deal with a foreman, who is subordinate to the district superintendent, and is without power to adjust grievances. As for the classifications of workers sought by the Union to be included in the appropriate unit, there appear no appreciable differ- entiations of interest, function, or vocation among such employees as would lessen the advantage of their organization. Indeed it seems a natural grouping. Testimony given by the Company designed to prove the contrary is not convincing. The sole remaining phase of the inquiry into the unit appropriate for the purpose of collective bargaining is whether those classifica- tions of workers admittedly in the production department, but sought by the Union to be excluded, ought properly to be included in their organization. The desires of the employees must be given great weight. Such acknowledged supervisory employees of the Company as the superintendent and foremen in the District should be excluded. The hearing developed a serious conflict of opinion as to employees designated as head roustabouts. The head roustabout supervises the work of from 3 to 15 roustabouts, working along with them in their defined duties, and directing their routine. While he has no power, of his own initiative, to hire or discharge, or to order major, expen- sive repairs or replacements of machinery, he makes recommendations as to such matters and executes consequent orders of the superin- tendent or foremen. He is paid at a slightly higher wage rate and for a longer workweek than his crew, the pumpers, truck drivers, or laborers. Where the sole labor organization involved so desires, we have followed the practice of excluding employees of a minor super- visory status from the appropriate unit. As the Union here desires the exclusion of head roustabouts as such employees, we shall exclude them accordingly. 930 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD G. A. Scott, the district clerk, performs purely clerical duties for the Company's Cushing District. He prepares and keeps time sheets and pay rolls, and alone, of all those employees considered for the appropriate unit, is paid on a monthly basis. His work is supervisory only to the extent indicated, but is so differentiated in character from that performed by the other employees as to warrant his exclusion from the unit. R. E. Couch, listed on one pay roll exhibit as a laborer, but on the latest as a junior engineer, and otherwise characterized as a "student engineer" doing a roustabout's work for field experience, is plainly in a separate category. He should be excluded from the appropriate unit. In the present state of organization in this field, and under all the circumstances of this case, we find that the production employees of the Company in its Cushing District, including roustabouts, pumpers, clean-out drillers and their helpers, truck drivers, laborers, and extra laborers, but excluding head roustabouts, the district clerk, the junior engineer, and all supervisory, clerical, and warehouse employees, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collec- tive bargaining and that said unit will insure to employees of the Company the full benefit of their right to self-organization and to collective bargaining and otherwise effectuate the policies of the Act. VI. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES The Union desires to be certified as exclusive bargaining repre- sentative for employees of the Company in the defined appropriate unit. It claims that the members of other locals of the Oil Workers International Union who are production employees of the Com- pany within the unit desire Local 280 to act for them in the premises. No other such local, and no other labor organization, has sought to bargain with the Company on behalf of such employees. Local 280 undertakes to bargain for them in that capacity through a committee designated by employees of the Company within the unit. The Company's November 30, 1938, pay roll in evidence, as amended, which was the last immediately preceding the date of the hearing, lists the names of 78 employees in the appropriate unit, including an "extra" laborer whose work is not shown by the record to be either irregular or temporary, although he is not listed on previous pay rolls in evidence 2 Forty-three application cards for membership in the Union, authorizing it to act for the applicants as a collective bargaining agency, were received in evidence. These bore 2 The pay roll lists 91 employees , of whom 5 are foremen, 6 are head roustabouts, 1 is a junior engineer, and 1 is a district clerk. THE TEXAS COMPANY ET AL. 931 dates or were sufficiently proven to have been signed within several days prior to the hearing. The signatures were duly verified and identified by the testimony of witnesses in whose presence they were affixed, four of whom besides identified their own respective signa- tures thereon. One of the 43 cards will be excluded, however, since it was signed by an ineligible not included in the appropriate unit. That is the card of James A. Lowe, who is described in the record as a head roustabout, a classification of employee excluded from the appro- priate unit. The remaining 42 cards evidence a clear and valid choice by a majority of the employees of the Company in the appropriate unit. We find that the Union has been designated and selected by a majority of the employees in the appropriate unit as their repre- sentative for the purposes of collective bargaining. It is, therefore, the exclusive representative of all the employees in such unit for the purposes of collective bargaining, and we will so certify. Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following : CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. A question affecting commerce has arisen concerning the repre- sentation of employees of The Texas Company, Cushing, Oklahoma, within the meaning of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act. 2. The production employees of the Company in its Cushing Dis- trict, including roustabouts, pumpers, clean-out drillers and their helpers, truck drivers, laborers, and extra laborers, but excluding head roustabouts, the district clerk, the junior engineer, and all supervisory, clerical, and warehouse employees, constitute a unit apppropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining, within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act. 3. Oil Workers International Union Local 280 is the exclusive rep- resentative of all the employees in such unit for the purposes of col- lective bargaining, within the meaning of Section 9 (a) of the Na- tional Labor Relations Act. CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES By virtue of and pursuant to the power vested in the National Labor Relations Board by Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Re- lations Act, and pursuant to Article III, Section 8, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 1, as amended, 932 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD IT IS ]HEREBY CERTIFIED that Oil Workers International Union Local 280 has been designated and selected by a majority of the production employees of The Texas Company, Cushing, Oklahoma, including roustabouts, pumpers, clean-out drillers and their helpers, truck drivers, laborers, and extra laborers in the Cushing District, but excluding head roustabouts, the district clerk, the junior en- gineer, and all supervisory, clerical, and warehouse employees, as their representative for the purposes of collective bargaining and that, pursuant to the provisions of Section 9 (a) of the Act, Oil Workers International Union Local 280 is the exclusive representa- tive of all such employees for the purposes of collective bargaining in respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other con- ditions of employment.