National Labor Relations Bd. v. Stanolind Oil & Gas Co.

• Decision Date: 11 November 1953
• Docket Number: No. 4651.,4651.
• Citation: 208 F.2d 239
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit
• Parties: NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD v. STANOLIND OIL & GAS CO.

208 F.2d 239 (1953)

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD v. STANOLIND OIL & GAS CO.

No. 4651.

United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit.

November 11, 1953.

Robert H. Hurt, Washington, D. C. (George J. Bott, General Counsel, David P. Findling, Assoc. General Counsel, A. Norman Somers, Asst. Gen. Counsel, and Samuel M. Singer, Washington, D. C., on the brief), for petitioner.

Karl H. Mueller, Ft. Worth, Tex. (J. W. Howard, Tulsa, Okl., and Harold E. Mueller, Ft. Worth, Tex., on the brief), for respondent.

Before BRATTON, HUXMAN and MURRAH, Circuit Judges.

MURRAH, Circuit Judge.

After a representation hearing on the petition of Oil Workers International Union, CIO, pursuant to Section 9(c)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 61 Stat. 136, 29 U.S.C.A. § 151 et seq., the National Labor Relations Board found that Stanolind Oil and Gas Company's Elk Basin repressuring plant employees constituted an appropriate bargaining unit within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act. And after an election under Section 9(c)(1)(B) in which the Union was successful, the Union was certified as the collective bargaining representative for the employees in the unit.

When Stanolind refused to bargain collectively with the Union as the representative of the defined unit, the Board conducted a complaint hearing under 10(b) of the Act, pursuant to which it again determined that the employees in Stanolind's Elk Basin repressuring plant constituted an appropriate bargaining unit within the meaning of Section 9(b); and that by refusing to bargain collectively with the Union as representative of the unit, Stanolind was guilty of unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(5). When Stanolind refused to comply with the Board's conventional orders based upon its findings and conclusions, the Board brought this 10(e) enforcement proceedings.

Stanolind's refusal to bargain is based solely upon its contention made throughout the proceedings that the employees in the Elk Basin repressuring plant are not an appropriate bargaining unit, and that the findings of the Board to that effect are clearly arbitrary and capricious and without adequate support in the record. That is the sole issue for determination here.

Under Section 9(b) of the Act, "the Board may decide that all employees of a single employer form the most suitable unit for the selection of collective bargaining representatives, or the Board may decide that the workers in any craft or plant or subdivision thereof are more appropriate." Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co. v. National Labor Relations Board, 313 U.S. 146, 152, 61 S.Ct. 908, 912, 85 L.Ed. 1251. The determination of an appropriate bargaining unit necessarily involves a "large measure of informed discretion and the decision of the Board, if not final, is rarely to be disturbed." Packard Motor Car Co. v. National Labor Relations Board, 330 U.S. 485, 491, 67 S.Ct. 789, 793, 91 L.Ed. 1040. The judicial function is confined to a guaranty against arbitrary and irrational Board action. Universal Camera Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board, 340 U.S. 474, 71 S. Ct. 456, 95 L.Ed. 456; May Department Stores Co. v. National Labor Relations Board, 326 U.S. 376, 66 S.Ct. 468, 90 L. Ed. 495; National Labor Relations Board v. Williams, 4 Cir., 1952, 195 F.2d 669; National Labor Relations Board v. Tri-State Casualty Ins. Co., 10 Cir., 1951, 188 F.2d 50; National Labor Relations Board v. Continental Oil Co., 10 Cir., 1952, 179 F.2d 552.

The evidence before the trial examiner showed that Stanolind has divided its oil producing operations into four geographical and organizational divisions, which are subdivided for functional purposes into districts, then into areas embracing groups of producing fields and facilities. Its Elk Basin repressuring plant is in the Big Horn Basin-Lander District of the Producing Department in the Rocky Mountain Division. This division, with its offices at Casper, Wyoming, embraces all of Stanolind's operations in Montana, Colorado, Utah, and Western Nebraska, and employs approximately 523 production workers.

Stanolind shows a history of division-wide collective bargaining since 1937 and 1938 in its other three divisions. And Board decisions in two of these divisions reveal approval of division-wide bargaining units on the basis of factors also appearing in this case. The Board did approve a plant employee unit in Stanolind's Salt Creek Field in the Rocky Mountain Division in 1937. But Stanolind explains that this unit was approved as appropriate purely on the basis of the organization of the employees in the plant, a factor no longer controlling under the 1947 amendment which provides, "In determining whether a unit is appropriate for the purposes specified in subsection (b) of this section the extent to which the employees have organized shall not be controlling." 29 U.S.C.A. § 159(c)(5). The plant employees at Stanolind's Brownsville,...