The Texas Co.

In the Matter of THE TEXAS COMPANY and BUILDING SERVICE EMPLOYEES LOCAL UNION No. 75 Case No. B-1684.-Decided March 51 19140 Oil Production, Manufacture, and Marketing Indvsti y-Investigation of Representatives: controversy concerning representation of employees: refusal by employer to recognize petitioning union unless Board determined majority status and had jurisdiction to make such determination for building -service employees ; stipulation as to-Jurisdiction - sustained : building-maintenance operations as part of Company 's interstate business-Unit Appropriate for Collective Bargaiwing : 'all building-service employees , including janitresses, head janitor, janitors , watchmen, matron, elevator starter, and elevator operators ; stipulation as to-Election Ordered Mr. L. N. D. Wells, Jr., and Mr. V. Lee McMahon, for the Board. Mr. James H. Pipkin, of Houston, Tex., for the Company. Mandel d Combs, and Mr. Albert Stein, of Houston, Tex., and Mr. Herbert Thatcher, of Washington, D. C., for the Union. Miss Grace McEldowney, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION STATEMENT OF THE CASE On June 6, 1939, Building Service Employees Local Union No. 75, herein called the Union, filed with the Regional Director for the Six- teenth Region (Fort Worth, Texas) a petition, and on December 5, 1939, an amended petition, alleging that a question affecting com- merge ,had, arisen concerning ,the-representation of employees of The Texas Company, Houston, Texas, herein called the Company, and requesting an investigation and certification of representatives pur- suant to Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. On December 5, 1939, 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 Re- lations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 2, issued an order, and on December 19, 1939, an amended order, directing an investigation and authorizing the Regional Director to conduct it and to provide for an appropriate hearing upon due notice. Pursuant to notices 21 N. L. R. B., No. 18. 110 THE TEXAS COMPANY 111 duly served upon the Company and the Union, a hearing was held on January 16, 1940, at Houston, Texas, before Albert L. Lohrn, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Board. The Board, the Company, and the Union were represented by counsel and partici- pated in the hearing. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses , and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues was afforded all parties. At the hearing counsel for the Company moved to dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction, on the ground that the work of the, employees involved in the proceeding is purely local in its nature, regardless of the character of the Company's business as a whole. The Trial Examiner did not rule on this motion . For the reasons set forth below , the motion is hereby denied . During the course of the hearing, the Trial Examiner made several rulings on motions and on objections to the admission of evidence . The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds that no preju- dicial errors were committed . The rulings are hereby affirmed. On February 6, 1940, a hearing was held before the Board at Washington, D. C., for the purpose ' of oral argument. Both the Company and the Union appeared and presented argument. The Company also filed a , brief which has been considered by the Board. Upon the entire record in the proceeding , the Board makes the following : FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY The Texas Company, a Delaware corporation with its principal business and executive offices in New York City and Houston , Texas, is engaged in producing , manufacturing, and marketing crude oil and its products. It operates approximately 8,000 wells and 23 re- fineries situated in several States, . and markets its products through dealers in all States . It owns and controls all of the stock in a number of subsidiary corporations engaged in one or more phases of the oil industry in the United States and a number of foreign countries. In 1938, according to its franchise tax return , 13.337 per cent of its business was intrastate and 86.663 per cent interstate in character. It is capitalized at over $250,000,000, and its gross re- ceipts for 1938 were in excess of $280,000,000. In Houston, Texas, the Company owns and operates for the use of its second largest executive office, a 13 -story office building cover- ing one-quarter city block and containing 253 office rooms . In it are employed approximately 750 persons , exclusive of the building-service employees involved in this case. The entire building, except for a 112 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD cigar and soft drink stand on the main floor, is occupied by the Company and its subsidiaries. The employees for whom a bargaining unit is sought are the 48 persons engaged in the work of cleaning and servicing this building. They include 18 janitresses, a head janitor, 20 janitors, 2 watchmen, a matron, an elevator starter, and 5 elevator operators. There is no doubt that the Company is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act, but the Company contends that the work of these em- ployees is purely local, without substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, and thus no question affect- ing commerce has arisen in this proceeding. We see no reason for regarding the building-maintenance opera- tions of the Company as entirely separate and distinct from the rest of its business. The office building here involved is owned and operated by the Company not as a separate enterprise, but to house its second largest executive office. Except for a small space on the first floor, the entire building is occupied by the Company's offices. We are impressed by the fact that the Company itself finds it expe- dient to maintain its own office building from which a substantial part of the operations of its vast interstate enterprise is directed. Manifestly no large office building can long be operated without building-service employees, such as those here involved. It is obvious, moreover, that a labor dispute between the building- service employees and the Company could seriously interfere with the comfort, convenience, safety, and efficiency of the 750 executive and clerical employees who work in the building. It is also clear that a picket line outside the building might seriously impede, if not actually paralyze, all business handled through the Houston office, while a strike of the building-service employees easily might lead to sympathetic strikes and other disturbances among the numerous other employees of the Company throughout its vast enterprise. We do not regard the status of building-service employees in the Company's executive office building as materially different from that of maintenance and janitorial employees 1 in a large plant manu- i Maintenance and janitorial employees and watchmen frequently are included in the scope of Board certifications and orders In Matter of American Potash & Chemical Cor- poration and Borax & Potash Workers Union No. 20181, 3 N. L R. B. 140, the Board di- rected reinstatement with back pay of a "relief janitor" found to have been discriminated against. Tbd Board's Order was subsequently enforced by the court. National Labor Rela- tions Board v. American Potash and Chemical Corporation, 98 F (2d) 488 (C. C. A. 9), cert. denied, 306 U. S 643 Board orders directing that collective bargaining be carried on with representatives of both production and maintenance employees have been enforced by the courts . National Labor Relations Board v. Piqua Munising Wood Products Com- pany, 109 F (2d) 552; National Labor Rotations Board v. Louisville Refining Co, 102 F (2d) 678 (C. C. A. 6). In a recent case the Board ordered the reinstatement of a night watchman found to have been discriminated against Matter of Lansing Company and International Union, United Automobile Weriers of America, Local No. 182, 20 N L R B 434. THE TEXAS COMPANY 1 13 factoring or processing goods which flow in commerce. It is clearly as important to the Company that its executive office building be maintained in such condition that the conduct of business is facili- tated rather than hampered. Since operation of the office building is an integral part of the Company's enterprise, we are not impressed by the contention that the services of the employees involved do not relate directly to the flow of goods in commerce. We think it clear that the employees come within the protection of the Act. II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Building Service Employees Local Union No. 75 is a labor organ- ization affiliated with the American Federation of Labor. It admits to membership employees of the Company who are engaged in the cleaning, maintenance,' and upkeep of the Company's building in Houston, Texas. III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION It was stipulated at the hearing that the Union had requested the Company to bargain with it as the representative of the building- service employees, but that the Company was unwilling to do so unless the Board determined that the Union represented a majority of the employees in the proposed unit and had jurisdiction to make such determination. In all its dealings with the Union, the Com- pany had taken the position that the Board did not have jurisdic- tion and that the employees involved were not covered by the Act. 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 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 At the hearing a stipulation between counsel for the Board and -the Company was introduced, in which the building-service employees ' 2 The , word "maintenance" In so far as the jurisdiction of the Union , is concerned applies only to cleaning and upkeep , and does not include repair work . Carpenters, engineers, electricians, plumbers , painters , and other craftsmen are not admitted to membership 114 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD of the Company were listed and classified according to their work, with a description of the duties of each group. The Union contends that all employees in the classifications on the list should be included in the appropriate unit, and all others excluded. Those included would be janitresses, head janitor, janitors, watchmen, matron, eleva- tor starter, and elevator operators.3 The Company takes no stand on the appropriate unit. We find that the building-service employees of the Company who are employed in its building at Houston, Texas, including janitresses,, head janitor, janitors, watchmen, matron, elevator starter, and ele- vator operators constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining with the Company, and that such 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 i)ETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES The parties agreed that the stipulation referred to in Section V, above, included the names of the 44 building-service employees on the Company's pay roll on the day of the hearing, and also 4 extra employees who were accustomed to working for the Company during the absence of regular employees, but who were not actually at work on that day.4 These four employees are included within the bar- gaining unit. It was testified that 29 of the 48 employees were members of the Union. The Company, however, requested an elec- tion if the Board should determine it had jurisdiction of the matter. We find that the question concerning representation can best be resolved by means of an election by secret ballot. Since the parties made no clear indication as to what pay-roll period should be used to determine eligibility to participate in the election, we shall follow our usual practice in this regard. 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, Houston, Texas, within the meaning of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act. 3 In its Petition the Union described the bargaining unit which it claimed as appropriate as "building service workers employed in the cleaning and servicing of The Texas Company office building." 4 The four extra employees included in the stipulation are Mrs. Chronister, Mrs. What- ley, and Mrs Kennedy, janitresses , and Mrs. Locascio, elevator operator. THE TEXAS COMPANY 115 2. All building-service employees of the Company employed in its building at Houston, Texas, including janitresses, head janitor, janitors, watchmen, matron, elevator starter, and elevator operators, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargain- ing, within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act. DIRECTION OF ELECTION 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 2, as amended, it is hereby DiI;rCTED that, as part of the investigation authorized by the Board to ascertain representatives for the purposes of collective bargaining with The Texas Company, Houston, Texas, an election by secret ballot shall be conducted as early as possible but not later than thirty (30) days from the date of this Direction of Election, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Sixteenth Region, acting in this matter as agent for the National Labor Relations Board, and subject to Article III, Section 9, of said Rules and Regulations, among all building-service employees of the Company employed in its building at Houston, Texas, including janitresses, head janitor, janitors, watchmen, matron, elevator starter, and elevator operators, who were employed by the Company during the pay-roll period next preceding the date of this Direction of Election, including employees who did not work during such pay-roll period because they were ill or on vacation, and employees who shall have since been temporarily laid off, but excluding employees who shall have since quit or been discharged for cause, to determine whether, or not they desire to be represented by Building Service Employees Local Union No. 75, for the purposes of collective bar- gaining.