:...:. .iJSDLTS OF fi^£TT UHZ0!TX2A£I0:T ATTiiSIPl'S BY THZ

Ai'L-CIO, III mZ DUILi.XI7G i'l&lds

' 0. WJS;»X TEXAS

by

JAI{i:S S^uL BLAIK, B.B.A.

•*' A THESIS

.Hi ^ ' "

i-lA AG2l-i£NT

^ * i

.%

Submitted to the Grnduate ^'acuity of Texas Technological College i <- ::

in Part ial * ulf llli;ient of the hequireraents for

the Iregree of

i-;A£iT k 0/ BUSINGS ADIIINISTHiVTION

Api)roved

r -»'*-VX , *• J ^ J

AC

* < ^ • • .

1549 Mo. 53

^^'003U

* i

»

» • * *

• • /

ACKNOWLSDGI'IENTS

I am deeT>ly indebted to my father, Vernon Blain,

for his invaluable assistance in compiling much of the

material presented in this report; also, to my wife,

Camilla, for her patience and suggeetions*

11

-A, * ^ • * •

'J« '¥

.tm^^k^' TABLE 0? C0Nt»9TS

M«, .J ns

i:nployee Benefits Security '.forking Conditions Conclusion

111

ACK2IO;iL8!3C:;!9IT . . • • ii

LIST OP TA9X«53 • • • • v

LIST 0? ILLUSTHATZONS vi

Chapter

! • ' IHnOflUCTION [l 1 0

Statement of Problem • :*eed for Study lies ear ch Ilethods Limitations of Study Definition of Terms hypothesis Plan of Study

II. SUHVSr 0? LIT3RATU:i3 , * * . . ?

III. A P2^3P2CTIVE OF PETHOLITUM LABoi OHGAI^ZATION 8

Unionization of the National Scene The Local Union Areas of 'Jnlon Influence Conclusion

IV. TIZ DniLLIHG ITIDUSTiiY AND UNION 03GA:JI:2ATION I N TH^ SOUTHWEST 12

Part of a Process Union pnd Il-'nAgenient Relations Union Interest Conclusion

•

V. CO::DITIO::3 FAVOUABLS soh UI:IC:;I3ATION . . . 19

i r

v : . . - \ . : - : ^ . . \:z ..\.L2 SO:. UNIONIZATION . . 27 *

Ji^ i " l ty in Contacting Employees bv.olirl«g Orillin/5 Activity i n c l u s i o n

VXX. mZ XUOS*S AXTS:PTS AT OltCUHZZIITG HIDLAND-0D3SSA SBILLZIIG P ISONITSL . 3^

Primary Contact With the Union Present Status of the lUOi Imclicf«tions for Drilling 7irms Pea^s of Activity Conclusion

VIII. TUB S??ECTS OP UNIONIZATION;. ^0 #

Union Contracts % ' • Union Gnins

Areas of Union Difficulty Conclusion

IX. SUHKA Y AND CONCLUSIONS 51

SOtmcSS CONSULTED 53

Appendixes

I . LIST OF DRILLINC; CCNTaACTOHS SUF VETED . . . 55

I I . riA'IPOWZi HSqUiaSi'lENTS Fon KIDLA1;D-0D3SSA

IKILLING fi:iI13 57 I I I . WAG!J: SUHVSY or ;-:IJL;J;D-ODE3SA DRILLING

jir^z A3 OP AUGUST 23, 19^3 59

IV. COLLECTIVE 3A:*GAIi;r'G AGIISEKENT 61

V. COI'JPAiri WCilllNG AiiEZIIENT 7?

«

-t-

LIST OF TABL^ <.

Table

1. Average V/age elates for Various OcouTjatlons: Kidland and Of^essa, Texas, Ketronolitan Area 15

20 2. Bange of Wage Bates

3. Status of the Union as a Bargaining Agent . . 35

^. A Perspective of Negotiated VJcze Scales . . . i^B

V

• i •^\i\

i if:i^'"iyfy:^'^'--

LIST 07 ILLUSTHATIONS

Figure

1. Petroleum Process * . .

2. Chronology of Union Activity * .

3« A Trend in Floorhand's Wage Level

.'>/.

12

38

^ 4

.-"i

-S-.r,

vl

m

'hi. 'i:\»^l^ t- '. ^:;^.;;t

•f ' • j * ! ! * * \ '^f ' i *M4^«

"4,

J,/

Q B A R A Z

ZMTQODUCTZON

: '• y i

s*

". »y '

' tatariant of Problgra

Zn the past few yearst companies in the West

Texas* drilling Industry have become the target of

labor union's accelerated attempts at organizing oil­

field labor* Seldom before had orgahized labor posed

a piroblam to these petroleum firms. However9 it is

now apparent that the International Union of Operating

Btoginears, APL-CIO, has decided the drilling firme have

been ignored long enou^, and that the'time hae come to

begin serious unionization attempte of oilfield labor.

Bj simply observing one of the many drilling

units in operation throughout West Texas, it would be

a rare occasion to notice any sign of union activity*

This pecularity can be explained by two reasons: first,

the extent of unionization is relatively small, and

second, the formation of the work units is spread over

such a large area that it would only be by chance if a

unionized drilling unit were to be encountered.

Vhereas the public may not be aware of Increased

petroleum labor unionization, the impact has recently

been felt by the drilling firms in West Texas. In the

1

M ' f

future ycarc , lncrcar>edffl|abor, oyyui isat lon Will indeed

be an Important fac tor ithatMBagSMttt m a t OOnsldST. ,

HamA fay Study

Oddly eammlif there are many small oilfield con-

l raotors traotors that are tumware of the recent aotivities and

suecass of tha union organisers. Althou h the short-run

affects nay be ooaparatively mild, future management of

these firms will surely have to contend with organized

labor* Dhion bargaining in areas of wages.and benefits .

will also effect the non-unionized firms. It is well

said that *** . . strategies, tactics, and policies are

fomulated within a framework of forcee which conetitute

the firm's environment."^ In the same sense, the drill­

ing companies ehould know how they etand in their induetry

and lAiat pressures are being put on eimilar firms. Only

by being aware of conditions within the industry can

management hope to eurvive in a dynamic environment*

Somewhere, management needs to find a guideline for

action, or at least a picture of the industry with the

cause and effect relationships defined* Tlie intent of

this report is to give the "picture" of petroleum labor

organization so the individual contractor can make such

a comparison*

William J* Stanton, Fundamentals of Marketing: (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 196^), p. 30.

•.» .' *

T o Information used to compile this report will

cone from ;x)th n^rJlt^| and Secondary souroes. The primary

^ources^ffill•consist of personal interviews with upper-

aaiiagenent of thirty Midland-Odessa area drilling firms.

Both quantitative and qualitative information will be

gathered from these interviews. Appendix I presents a

listing of the drilling companies included in the survey;

* however9 there will be no other direct reference to indi-

vidual firms throuc^hout the report. One prerequisite for *

permission to use material provided by the drilling con­

tractors was to completely preserve their anonymity. This

request will be honored in every way possible.

Secondary sources of information will be the

liabraries of Texas Technological College and Odessa

Junior College. Information gathered in theee libraries

will serve as background' and historical material for the

diecuesion of macrounionization of petroleum labor*

Limitations of Study

There are two major limitations that must be con­

sidered in this report* First, there are forty-one

independent contractors in the Midland-Odessa area alone,

and it would be impractical to attempt to research and

interview each comnany* Second, and most important, is

the distance factor* Drilling aotivities and petroleum

fields are widespread over the state, and contractor's

offices are scattered accordingly*

^'^^pw

'ir

Ttm raiort:^iii|^ iial mMkf with thirty firms thAt

m a ^ iln#riii& locjftad la tha Nldlaad-Odaasa area. By

j^latfiatlnt raaaaMh ta auah a confined area, both limita-

tlema are irasolTed*

There are several terms used throughout the

drilling industry that should be understood in order to

ooapr^end this report. The "unit location" ie the actufld

place that the drilling unit has been erected and will

drill the well. Usually the drill site is many miles

from the home office and seldom within ten to twenty

miles of any town or city.

The operating personnel of the drilling unit is

designated as the unit "crew." Each crew is generally

made of five men:

(1) The "driller." He is the first line supervisor of the crew, and is given the authority and responsibility to operate the drilling controls and supervise the other crew members.

(2) The"rouf5hnecks." Two men who perform the manual work during drilling opera­tions and do a limited amount of maintenance work make up almost half of the crow. On extremely deep wells or in special situations, a third employee of this category is added to the crew.

(3) The "derrlckraan." In most cases, he Is ^ the highest paid, non-supervisory em­

ployee on the Crew. His Job Is to do all the work In the upper part of the derrick during drilling operations and

/

pr*THl*aiMLiiH»liliwo* for that pnrt of th* w t i . H* 1« i M r.tpon.tbl. for

• tHnliiiiltg' Wi* ^kpvr X«v.l aiad nlxtur. . JL.m^ ^f mt«r «Ad dflllias auA tt..d In th.

• ' ^ ^ . ' ' ' r ' • v.: ^ N ^ (1 ) Tha •i^toxttan*" Many oompattlai have

.•y^- eliminated this position from their drilling craw structure and no longer offer extra pay to men fulfilling the

- :€ ,:,§m>. raquirements of the position* Whenever a crew member occupies this position,

'-' his general duties say be defined as ' preventative maintenance of the power faaillties on the imit.

Each drilling imit operatee twentyrfour hours per

day; therefore, a unit hae a work force of three crews,

each working an eight-hour ehift. The three drillers are

responsible directly to the "tool pushW," a member of

middle management, who in turn ie responsible for the

entire operatione of his unit.

HytHDthesis

The investigation and researching of the labor

topic in the drilling firms of the Midland-Odessa area

should either prove or disprove the existence of three

major trends. First, the activity of unionized labor

should show a definite increase In the past few years.

Second, the management of drilling firms should have

begun to realize the impact of organized labor In areas

such as wages and fringe benefits. And third, this

study of drilling contractors should reveal the extent

of management's awareness of union tactics.

:>.itA -f''- .'. •'

»?

.$ Mt*- ?

<?'>

^ ..._ ipi-44rat aeatioa of the report, Chapters ZZZ

an^. ZttMAU offer a triirmfiussioa of organised ' w' 'i y

labor and the poaition.that jatroleun labor has occupied % ^,^^

OB the national, area, and local scale* In addition, a •' '.^^^y-

more preciai ictora^^f Wast Texas* drilling contractors

will be prlsiMM^ ^Conditions favorable for employee

uiiidiilsatioa will'be discussed in Chapter V, whereas the

condltibni unfavorable for unionization will be examined

in Chapter VI* Chapter VII will present a stimmary of

uhibh letivity for the period beginning January, 1966,

and ending in August of 1968. Chapter VIII will attempt

to exasdne the effects of unionization on the individual

firms and the industry as a whole.

,^i

rw

CHAPflR ZZ

SURVBt OP LZTSIATUHE

A majority Of the material included in this %

report was obtained through a survey of thirty Midland-

Odaaaa drilling firms. Therefore, secondary souroes of

literature were apariagly required J Several textbooks

uaed in management coursee at Texas Technological College

ware referred to in the writing of this report, as were «-

various publications of the United States Department of

Labor.

Throughout the report, frequent reference has

been made to two pamphlets published by the International

Union of Operating Engineers, APL-CIO. Both of these

pamphlets were available to the public and were obtained

from the Local 826 Union Hall in Odeesa, Texas.

. « <•!'$

:t\

'^.,. V t •*. I

'M.- '* ¥y'^ ' ' .

t'M4 y^mmm zzz

A msracTzvB OP rardOLEUN LABOR (AOANZZATZON * „ #•

r '^'^ * '

' ffBl««lg*tlaH BB th* Watlanal Soana

ie ab%alm a perspective of the unionization of

drilling firme, a deductive approach seems most appli-

cable* Aooording to recent figures published by the

'Department of Labor, total union membership stands at

approximately 19,125,000. Membership within the United

States currently includes 17t892,000 employees of various

trades, whereas the remainder are members of Canadian 2

unions. Although total union membership has been rising

sporadically since 1930, the'percentage of union members

as a part of the total labor force has steadily been

declining. In 1953, organized labor's membership reached

ite highest peak at 25*2% of the total labor force. After

an almost constant decline since that year, the percentage

• has fallen to only 22*7/ «

Organized labor in the petroleum industry has

historically comprised a small segment of total union

^.S. Departnent of Labor, Handbook of Labor Statistics, 1968 (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1968), p* 300.

IMA.

4 < t t

».

8

:• I . i>: ^.ct, the 19' 6 membership Of workers in

t . troif^um, c . >ical, and x^bbar industries totaled only 5?o,ooo o mployaaa* As a'paraantage of total union-*t^M% I ' ' S - 'M -'• T ' mt iL

iaaft wor^eers, thla category only accounted for 3«0;(.^

iMSh membership in the petroleum, chemical, and rubber

induatriea has been llowly increasing, but their percent­

age of total union membership has remained fairly constant.

In 196^, petroleum workers only accounted for 3*1^ of

total union m«Bbarahip, whereas in 1962, it,was 2*8^.

Neabarahip in 196' reached 562,000, but in the two year

span ending in December of 1966, membership had only risen

^ t o 570,000.5

9 ^ ^ A*tl»eug)i there are many \inion organizatione that

represent petroleum workers, the Oil, Chemical, and Atomic

Wbrkers International Union eeeme to be the largeet repre-

sentative tmion. Per an example of the OCAW*s bargaining

power, on December 31, 1968, "approximately 350 contracts

between the union and varioue oil compeuiiee^ covering

about 60,000 members will expire*"6

/ ' The Local Union

The drilling firms of the Midland-Odessa area

have been experiencing union pressure from Local 826,

ffr

'^Ibld, p. 298. 1

57.S. Department of Labor, Handbook of La'bor Statistics, 19^7 (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1967)* p. 253-

°"OCAW Loads Big Guns For Industry Bargaining," Oil and Gas Journal. July 25, 1968, p. 79.

' (-

10 Intrrnatlonal "nlon of Oner#tlng Sn.'^neers (ZUOB),

A:^L-CIO. Locni "^7^ of the roOE was chartered in Big

Sr>rin, , Texar^, in August Of i9'*3» The primary efforts •i

at unioniaatioii ware aimed at the more "industrial"

sa^ieats of the petroleoa companies, namely refineries

and carbon-black plants* According to union publications,

there.are now over forty contracts between Local 826 and

various employers* Included among this list are "Cosden,

FZNAt CSalf, Continental,. Cabot, Columbian Carbon, Standard 7

Warren, and Osark Mahoning."' Membership is listed as

"over 2,000t" and the projection for 1969 is to reach

3,000 meabars* There are presently eight full-time union o

representatives that serve in the Midland-Odessa area.

Areas of Union Influence

In addition to refineries and carbon-black plants,'

there have been several other axaaa of union attempts to

organize. Excluding the drilling firms for the moment,

pressure of 'organization has been placed on oilfield

casing-crew and well-servicing companies* Knowledge as

to the extent of unionization in these firms is indefinite

at this time; however, there are several firms who have •riMMWi

'Local 826, International Union of Operating Engineers, A^L-CIO, "Did You Believe There Would Be A Hnion of Drillers and Roughnecks?" (pamphlet stating history and accomplishments of Local 826, 102 N* Grant, Odessa, Texas), p. 4*

rncontiy c'- - rienccd union elections* (There ie little

doubt thrxt inbor union? have shown interest in organizing

the v:est rexnr* netrolenm industry* It would be difficult

to r>olnt out any one reason for the past lack of union

interest la drilling firms, although there are several

factors that tend to make unionization of rou£^ecks more

difficult* (Chapter VI will thoroughly discuss this

issue*) One factor leading, to the upswing of union activ­

ity may be the increasing role of petroleum-in Texas*

industry* Zn 1966, 17% of the distribution of employment 0

Within the state was in mining and petroleum.. Total labor

in thia area was more than three times greater them any

other Texas* industry division!^ |

Con9lu?t9^^

The purpoee of this chapter has been to develop

a macro view of unionization in the United States, observe

the role that petroleum workers have taken, and finally

develop an orientation towards the union Local with which

Midland-Odessa drilling firms must consider and possibly

bargain. A hypothesis has been proposed that unions have

begun serious attempts at organizing the "field" segments

of Texas* petroleum industry* The remainder of this

report will consider the drilling firms of the Midland-

Odessa area and the events that have occurred in this area

over the past two*years.

"u.S. Department of Labor, grr>loyment an . Earnlnp:s gtntlgtics for Sti D.C*: Government

>e artraent of Labor, Erployment an^ Earnln States PJid Areas: 19'39-196'J CV/ashlngton. iXii Printing Office, i5e>7), p. xiv.

W l ^ "

CHAPTER ZV

* '**

WE innmio IWCUMUY AND UNION ^^^ri^^^ oaoMUZAttoii m BIB SOUTHWEST -

Zf the entire petroleum industry were to be con­

sidered aa a line process, the drilling function would *

be listed as one of the primary aotivities. The model

presented in Figure 1 will better preeent this theory.

Betail Sales Petroleum

\

4 Transportation ** , ^ Locational

^ Servicee v ^ **-*«*». Servicee Bulk S a l e s v ^ . X

\ /\ \, Drilling Haf ining & / \ >/ Petrochemical / \ ^ Operatione / \ Special Servicee

\ , i/^ lit Consolidation &

Pre-processing

FIGURE 1

Petroleum Process

It is interesting to note that the drilling firms are a

member of a very highly unionized industry, especially

in the Southwest* A majority of refining operations have

been organized by the Oil, Chemical, and Atomic Workers

or other petroleum-oriented unions* Although much of

12

13

T^ctroicum t:.-.* . --—"^^jBijliiiifliit'^fti r^rt''^''^*i the tnaak-

inn: and dj i i .-= /. ''.<ii||- #f ', |M*r(iX«iaii ydroduata is still an

in d U p e m | ^ i : ; ^ u n n ] p ^ espeoially, unioni-

^^^^^gl^ of the eaeoeption*

0<her faoi

telationa

The drilling industry in Texas has yet to expe-^

ri^oa the impact of the tmion*s main weapon, the strike.

ROwavar, firms in the Pour Comers area of New Mexico and

ooaatal drilling operatione in Louisiana have not been

as fortunate.* Within the past few years, instances of

strikes have increased in these two areas and may result

in stronger union influence throughout Texas.

' Refining and petrochemical plants have not enjoyed

the t^nporary immunity from strikes experienced by Texas

drilling firms. One of the more publicized strikee in

West Texas was at the Shamrock-McKee Plant located in

Dumas, Texas. The dispute started on August 9, 1964, and

began an economic boycott of Shamrock products through­

out several neighboring states* Over three hundred

Shamrock workers went on strike and were replaced by

the company* Finally, after twenty-six months, the

dispute between the OCAW, Local ^kQ?^ and Shamrock Oil

and Gas Corporation was climaxed on October 11, 1966,

by withdrawal of the union*1^

lOnshamrock Dispute Ends," Moore County News (Dumas, Texas), October 13, 1966, p* 1*

s

^ . "1 .'

Ik

ot . .- .:or c trite., hitve X>c«n exp«rl«io.d by th.

oil cor.r-iny at Port Arthur, Texas, and the Firestone

^ trochcnicai'iCentl^ at OrangSt l^axas*^^ The Firestone

r trika oagai on aau4ry,20t 1967f and was not settled

until Hovtf&ber 20, 196?* It is obvious that drilling

firmst aa wall as all other members of the petroleum

induetry, should not underestimate the strength and

determination of local unions*

Two of the most probable causee of union interest

in petroleum employees are the higher-than-average wage

levelsand q u a ^ i ^ of pereonnel available fo^ organ^za-

tion. Jiaegafle nage levels Uk the Midland^Odeeea agea ^ /^

tend to remain below the average wages paid by drilling

firms. Table 1 presents a sample of average wage rates

v» 4.v> vAA'i4^^A-f\A^^o^ ^^^^ ^^mj^A^^A ))y tho United States

Department of Labor. The average wagee of drilling

personnel are included for comparison*

The average level of wages paid to drilling per­

sonnel tends to be higher or, at the least, comparable

to other occupations km »Ue Midland^Qduuua aattn» Union 0

success depends largely on income from local sources;

ll"Three Expelled. Fined by OCAW Local," Houston Chronicle (Houston, Texas), May 31, 1967, sec. C, p. 12.

12 U.S. Department of Labor, Area Wa/rn Survey;

The Kidland and Odessa* Texas. Metropolitan Area (Wash-ington, D . C : U.S. Government Printing Office, 1967), pp. 3-^.

W^ W^ •H^p'TTit^TT^.^.

15

TABLE 1

P*^^ / . C AVE-^ASB WAGE rUTES POa VABZOUS OCCUPATZOMSt

HZDLAND AND ODESSA, TEXAS, MSTROPOLZTAN AREA

Oooupatioa and Average Average Weekly Znduatxy DiTisioa Hourly Wage Earnings (40 hours)

*-«

•

Clarke, Nan, Accounting, Class A t3*52 /«;

teypuBch Operators,. * -Uoman, Class A 2*12

. Engineers, Stationary, Non-manufacturing 2.54

Mechanics, Automotive, Non-manufaoturlM 3*00

a Truckdrivers,

Non-manufacturing 2.12

Drillere 3*86 , ^ » . ««"

Derrickmen 2.94

Ploormen 2.83

Pootnotee:

^Includes all drivers that operate only within city or industrial area*

Weekly earnings based on a forty-hour week for comparison only.

^A majority of employees placed under these claeeifications would be working a fifty-six-hour week and average these higher weekly earninge.

•l'H.50

85.00

101.60 •

120.00 \0^^^

85.00

154.40^ 247.04

117.60^ 188*16^

113.20^ 181.20^

16 ti^rofore, It ir nosFibie that nn industry paying the Ughest \'o.,srs In r\n njpea is unavoidably creating an

ntnosDhere favorable to union interest* t

' • % •

It w>uld be an alaoat impossible task to accu-

ratelj aatimata the nuiiber of drilling firm personnel

avaiUbla for possible unionisation within the Mfcdlaad-

Odsapa area* However, to reaffirm the position of «

importance that drilling personnel occupies.in local

economy, the maximum manpower requVremente for the thirty

firms surveyed are 2,73^ roughneoke (includes floormen,

motozmen, and derrickmen) and 690 drilling eupervieors.

These figures are only approximations, of course. Appen­

dix II givee a detailed breakdown of the firms surveyed,

and inoludaas (1) The number of unite in operation per

firm,

(2) The approximate daily manpower require-mente per unit, and

(3) The anproximate manpower requirements oer firm.

Each column ie totaled to helt> give a better perspective

of the magnitude of drilling employment.

A matter of interest should be clarified at this

time. Union publications in the Midland-Odessa area con­

tinually stress a "Union of Drillers and Roughnecks."

However, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has

ruled time and time again that drillers are a member of

management and ineligible for membership in a roughneck's

17

>n.'L wdio.r.r, o: ihether drillers are includedin

leoti . aiv:nlninr; units, the approximate 2,700 rotigh-

:.LC< meu.oraiiip seeaia to be vary attractive to the lUOE*

Another aouroe of union interest in certain

drilling contractors is found in the companies that are "'-. .;*

divisions of larger, unionized firms not exdlusively in

the drilling business. Pressure has tended to descend

from the management hierarchy to local drilling manage-

.ment due to demands made by other unions. In two of the

drilling contractors surveyed, this appeared to be true.

It would seem that divisions of national drilling

companies would have a similar problem, espeoially because

of the homogeneity of labor. However, this does not seem

to be the case. Five of the firms surveyed were found

to be divisions of larger entities* Only two of these

national firms were unionized in other areas of their

operations, but the Hidland-Odeesa divisions reported no

pressures for unionization from their hierarchy. Like-

wise, these local divisions have experienced union

elections and feel that no pressure has been placed

on other divisions because of their difficulties*

^^"Driller-operators . . . held supervisory, not­withstanding that management had never 'spelled-out' their authority, since management held them responsible for evaluations and productivity of their respective crew-members, and they exercised authority to that end in maintaining efficiency of crew and effectively recom­mending replacements, although they gave crew only minimal directions a'bout their mechanical operations." (Colorado Well Service, I63 NLRB No. 101.)

''''Y 1

i f f

le

Tl;c content* a>f thla ohaptar have been threefold*

P 1 M V » tliere ) ^ been jia attempt to explain the role of

Hha d:ni11ag*fixu la relation to the entire petroleum

iadttstry* 'iaaond, a brief view of tiaiba activity in the

Southwest was offered, and its implications for Texas*

drilling ooatraatora Sttggeated* And last, union interest

in #tdlaiid-Odessa area roui^ecks appears to have been

caused bQT the wage level, number of' workers, and pressures

from external sources* The purpose of integrating this «

material has been to provide a background for understand­

ing management-union relations in the Midland-Odessa area.

. \r i

' f •,

C!!APT2B V .r

CONDZTZONS FAVOBABLE FOR tTNZONZZATION

The comparison of drilling wages to other wage

ecales within the TTIilTieail fidessm area strongly Indicates

that drilling firme are jnot lagging behind in wage levels.

The general oomolaint of union representatives seems to '

be baaed on the lack of uniformity of wagee among the

various oontractore* Qy requeeting an increase in the...

minimum "acceptable" scale, the TJOE hae attempted to

narrow the range* In April of 19671 a request was made

of several oontractore to increase their wage scalee to

"the following minimum ratee: Ploorhande, $2*75 Per

hour; Derrickmen and Motorm^n, $2*B5 per hour; and 14

Drillere, $3.75 par hour." It ehould be noted that

this requeet is still below the average rate paid by

local contractors.

The wage survey presented in Appendix III sup­

ports this standpoint of the union that there is a wide

wage differential for similar crew positions. Table 2

illustrates the breadth of present wage rates.

14 Letter from Kenneth Howell, Senior Business

Renresentative, lUOE, Big Spring, Texas, December 15, 1967*

19

IPPPPPWR^'"

f

20

TABLE 8 . -* • 4 '*..4 **

HAINIGS OF WAGE BATES*

^

Poaition

Driller

Motormaa

Darriokaan •

FXooxaaa

* Bl8h

•*.10

3.15

3.15

3.00

Low

•3. "SO

2.70

2.70

2.60

Vwrlatlon

* .50

.'»5

.'»5

.1*0

^Chis comparison is based on firms operating on a-seven-day workweek. Six firms included in the survey have a six-day workweek and have in­creased wages so that their employees may equal previous seven-day earnings*

One of the principal coneideratione that should

affect the determination of and changes in a firm*s

general level of wages is "wages and salaries paid for

comparable work by other firms in the labor market or

industry • • . ."^^ If drilling firms have not been 5;

particularly concerned with wage differentials as a

foothold for unionization, there are indications that

more attention should be given to the subject.

In the United States, for example, one primary

objective of unions has been to eliminate wage inequities

among competing firms or comDarable organizations within

£M area or industry. Another cause for Interest In

•^sul Pigors and Charles A. Myers, Perggpnnel Administration (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1965), p . '^71.

*«:'i,:v,_;•'(„ . .

wf

."•i 't'

f •* 'f * - - ' \ •

21

mtra-industry A ; a lavflji aar 1« iHMarlaed by referring

I ^ A x ^ ^ m ^ o f wagaa in contract disputes V a^liijaplMiirlMr# im tha Umitad atataat pro-

betoly oovariag only about 2 per oent of the "m^mmm fatUammts* Bat tha first ranking

criteria used by arbitrators in making ;^t decisions is of soma aigaifioaaoa« Aaaord*

. r ing to one study, arbitrators used wage A l ^ .«i«oiaa948oas aa a^baaia for their daoiaiona

in 60 per cent of the cases, and over SO ;i i>t> |Mnr cent at these ware intra^industry com­

parisons. 16

The issue of wage inequity hae not been ignored

completely throughout the drilling IMuetry, however.

One of the major souroee of educational and informational

material available to drilling oontractore, The Texas

Manufacturing Association, has voiced the need for equi-

table wages in many of its publications. One pamphlet

in particular has stressed that "Workers need to feel

they are being paid fairly for the work . . . in relation

to the true worth of the Job * . . and in relation to the

pay for other Jobs in the plant or community."^'

EmDloyee Benefits

I4any drilling contractors confronted with the

issue of wage inequities might defend their position by

claiming that their shortcomings in wages are "made-ap"

^ Ibld.. ,-p. 478.

^^E. W* I'cAlllster, A Personnel Prorram For The Small CoTTi'oany (Houston, Texas: Texas Manufacturer's Association, 19^6), p. 12.

22

by cortnin ^ rlnf e benefits. Althouafh this defense is

cprtninly trw^ In many enses. It is by no means universal*

The T.o!;t (detrimental example Of the opposite situation is

a firm that has tha lowest wage struoture and yet offers

no benefits whatsoever to its crew personnel. Approxi­

mately 80 per cent of the thig»r firms susnrsjred in the

mSLmiSgmam area offered hospitalisation and life

insurance to drilling personnel; however, this is the

only generalization that can be prQposed.

The individual firm*e approach to hospitalization

and life insurance benefite, regardless of how compre-

• hensive they may be, has one eerious drawback. Labor .'

mobility is Yexj hi^^ in a majority of contracting firms,

and whatever benefits an employee might accrue with one

employer may be lost whenever the unit on which he was

working becomes idle. Most firms give the employee a

"grace" period in which to return to work and still

retain the accumulated benefite. However, an employee

who earns a reputation of leaving Jobe to return to

another firm will probably find other contractors reluc­

tant to hire him*

The lUOS's 1968 Bargaining Policy recognizes *

this problem and proposes a Jointly Administered Health

and V/elfare Plan* Their proposal, of course, is that

the directing committee be made of management and union

representatives. In addition, the employers would be

»

\4 ¥?•

. I ' 23

p cor.:ibute;^3fe*i4x^illh^^ in their

.^.iiind*^^ ^eigardlaaa of management*s opinion

o ill liirliillar y&aiif the idea of acme industry-wide

^#I^Ail^llt:iM^^gNai la act faaaibla. Zn faot, management's

^laltiatiTa in thia area of fringe benefite could greatly

Improve tha drilUag induetry*a image and reduoe an area

of «Bployee diaaatiafaotion*

Security

!# One of the greatest factors leading to the disoon-

i tent of drilling unit personnel is lack of Job security.

Drilling activity is highly inconsistent, an& any unit in

partioular is likely to be out of operation for various

lengths of time. Whenever a unit ie shut down, with only

one exception, the employees are temporco^ily laid-off and

all wage payments terminated* The impact of such a system *

is obvious. To many students of management, the need for

security is considered basic for human psychological

health* As Abraham Maslow states, "Any thwarting or

possibility of thwarting these basic human goals . . *

is considered to be a psychological threat*"19 And one

of the foremost functions of the union has been to protect

its members against loss of Job security, or at least pro­

vide a feeling tliat some security exists.

l^Local 826, International Union of Operating Engineers, AFL-CIO, "19' '8 Bar/ralnlng Policy" (pamphlet stating bargaining goals for 1968 contracts of Local 826, 102 N. Grant, Odessa, Texas), p. 2.

l^Maneck S* Wadia, Man^ngement and the Behavioral - Sciences (Boston.: Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1968), p* 132*

:J S

2'»

. .-• cnl.- cxocpiion to tiio liB.dl*te tormlnation

o vnrcr. i .on Completion of a wall (pay for time not

Trorked) vras fouttd in one drilling firm that guaranteed

rifty«alx ho'irs "Security" pay. Zf, at the end of one

week, the unit . i not begun another well, all drilling '

personnel were laid-off. V. enever it is possible, hands I

With hie^er seniority are placed in vacant positions on

other units or given other types of work available. In

i^dition, several firms maintain active waiting lists in

order to ineure past employees first opportunity at any

Job openings within the firm* This practice is completely

voluntary on the part of non-union firms, and there has

been a tendency to avoid policies of "bumping" in/nearly

all the firms surveyed* ^

There seems to be no immediate solution to the

problem of employee security* High wa^e expenses make

down-time-pay unfoasible from the viewpoint of drilling

firms, and as of now, Union representatives have remained

mostly silent on the issue*

V/orkln/y Conditions

The term "working: conditions" in this discussion

will not encompass the more common meaninfj; referred to in

other segments of American Industry. Nearly all facets

of petroleum-field labor require llftln ^ heavy objects,

working under all types of weather conditions, and per­

forming unclean tasks. There is also a certain element

of danger to be considered. The problems to be discussed

If #t

under tM.s .ondiajl^i^^Fa peripherAl io drilling units.

although otheaPPibfalaiim-oriented companies certainly "il ='!Sli^8^&£^^- i n:.

Mava fcttia of the iaia problems* irit - '•../• # ' n*i "1 '

*, ;; Some of the Issues most frequently argued by the .. ^\

union are in the areas of crew transportation and driving

time. None of the 4Miv%y firms surveyed provided trans- ' ' • » • • • • - , - ^ _ - n ••. * ^ , , . , " • • • ' • • • • • ; . • - r * '

>. ^ . \ . , - . - . • • • ' "^ _r- 'hf *• . . - * . • - • •

portation to or from the drilling site in the Weet Texas

area* Union bargaining policy for 1968 proposes that the

driver (or owner) of the orew*s tz^nsportation for that

day be reimbursed .10 per mile for each mile from their

hama to the uiiit*8 location and return*^^ Three of the

drilling firms surveyed paid for the gasoline used for

transportation, whereas another firm pays a $5*00 driving

allowance per crew per day*

^* Pay for driving time is still another issue facing

' drilling firms* It must be admitted that although a crew

la only paid for eight hours of work, total time spent

in gathering members of the crew and driving to and from

the drilling location may require several more hours of

activity. The contractors are greatly affected by this

IJroblem. Drilling personne'l is often extremely scarce,

and if a ' seller's mar^^ot" Is created, contractors simply

cannot find labor to work on remote locations. One con­

tractor has attempted to attract labor by payln - j a ';10.00

• Local 826, International Union of Operating Engineers, AFL-CIO, "19 '8 Bargaining Policy," p. 3.

5*

^H

j !4^}^W-y''' '• 26 ner day livii^p allowM|it M d allowing crew members to live

in rxQoinmoda^^by^^i^p^ to their work. However, plans

1^ #i4 €MI o a j l j ^ atiSJ. have many disadvantages and

bean avoided by^a majority of drilling contractors.

"^ tiord in half of the drilling contractors seems

to be in order at this time* Much of their failure to rl^.,\'M,

provide benefits in the areas of transportation and driv-

ing time atoms from t)}e liability laws of Texae* In *''%.<<«'- '*- ' . , ^ . », » » .,

cazmin instances where a crew was traveling to or from yt-

work and experienced an auotmobile accident, lawsuits

were filed against ^he drilling firm whose employees

ware involved* Consequently contractors have been

eattramaly reluctant to provide trcuisportation or pay

in fear of resulting liability*

%§/l)P Conclusion

The purpose of this chapter has been to describe

and discuss the vario.us conditions that may lead to

unionization of drlllinr: firm personnel. There is pro­

bably no industry that has been developed to a point of

satisfying all the needs of its viorkers. llo attempt has

been made to nlaco blame on drilling contractors for fall­

ing to fulfill certain functions, nor has any endorsement

been given to the union'.'s bargaining policy, Tho Dolnt is

that certain need.s of cinoloyees have gone unattended and

"psychological threatc" do exist and create conditions

favorable for unionization in the petroleum companies of

West Texas.

•m

CHAPTER VZ

CQ1IDZTZC»IS UNFAVORABLE FOR UNZONZZATZON

V, the lack of fringe benefits was

shown to be partially due to hic h mobility that tended

to create a condition somewhat favorable to unionization;

Although worker mobility has been used to benefit union

efforts, it has sioultaneouely eerved to management*s .>

jAdvantage in two general situations.

First, many employees have usually migrated to

areas of highest drilling activity and have had little

reason to believe they would be returning to their former

Jobs. By the time a union could have convinced a rough­

neck to Join their organization, drilling activity in the

area mic^t have dropped and the employee be forced to seek

employment elsewhere. Therefore, from the worker's point

of view, to have invested time and money in trying to

unionize one employer would have been of little personal «

benefit, since he might receive no immediate return from

his investment. Of course, this reasoning has not been

characteristic of all drilling personnel, but It has been

known to occur in a noticeable number of cases.

28

The I"Od: reaegnized the problem of mobility and,

In tilt early P^rt of 1967, began a determined campaign

to change voter*e eligibility requirements for NLFiB

elections. On May 8, 19•')7, the NLIi3 ruled against the

Hondo Drillin<i (;oi.nar.y in fnvor of the lUOE and required

that:

In view of special employment pattern in oil drillino: industry characterized by high turnover of etinloyees, many of whom are trwn^lents unllkftly to seek further emoloyment, 3oard llm.yt d voter eLlglbillty to those currently emnToyed, end to tho.so who huve been eranloyed for a minimum of 10 days during a 90 calendar-day period nreced-ing issuance of D i D of E, and who hav^ not been terminated for cause or quit voluntarily prior to completion of last Job for whloi emDloyed. Thus, voting rights of tioso employees who have reasonable expectancy of future employment with emolbyer will be protected, whether or not actually employed at time of election, contrary to emoloyer's oropo.«?al. (Hondo Drilling Co. T3.S.L., l64 NI33 No. 67.)

This ruling has been met with great dissatisfaction by 0

drilling contractors. It has been claimed that "Conceiv­

ably, one man could work ten days each for nine different

comoanles in a ninety-day werlod, and thus be considered

an employee of all nine comi anles simultaneously."^^

Under the >ILrlB ruling, a worker vrould therefore be eli­

gible to vote in all nine elections.

The "' ondo liule" has undoubtedly had a great

effect on union success in the Perraiam Jasin. Since

?1 Letter from 7. ?•'.. Stevenson, Chairman of the

Alert Management Committee, Denver, Colorado, June 12, 1967. (Hlmeograohed.)

.* f

.fc-

29

o - y^m was •#liid#ed,lfeJitf twelve other NLR3

dici-i-):'- ?iave beeni^ed on the saii Srihcinle, both in

lill d fttnii and #ix¥icing corananies.^^ However, the pro­

blem of m^illty still exists, and it is doubtful that the

ZtJOE will ever rid itself of this source of worker aoathy.

Seoond, ae was also mentioned before, union

success depends largely on local income for growth and

survival. Membership dues are the major source of funds,

and contrary to the union's wishes, are not always paid

on time or with the best of regards* Unlike New Mexico,

Texas* law does not allow garnishment of wages, and unless

the union can negotiate a dues-check-off agreement with

management, there is no method of insuring the collection

of membershio dues. And, by refusing to allow any such

agreements, management has prevented the union's use of

another powerful weapon for insuring constant income.

The high mobility of labor combined with this problem

has created a distasteful situation for the petroleum

union. It should be proposed, therefore, that the ina­

bility to rely on sufficient income has probably been one

of the major detriments to union growth in tht Hiaiauif-

ea.

Difficulty in Contnctln/? mployep.'

From the union'r. viewpoint, a troublesome char­

acteristic of drilling operations has been the wide area

^^Ibld.

30

ic > the various unite^Ust perform their drilling

ion. A majority of tHa firms s«ff r«FBd had units

« » ^ 0O< aration thf^ttghout West Texas and Southern New

Hatico* One contractor reoorted that five of his units

were in the : io:f f;s of drilling new wells, yet none of

these units were within approximately one hundred miles

of'4Ha-^M4Alam*i4d«aa«™T'eff. *Two of the units were in

New Mexico, whereas each of the other three was operat­

ing in distant sections of West Texas.

l^like refineries or petrochemical plants, the

drilling contractors have had the advantage of spreading

personnel over a very broad area. In most instances,

union approaches and tactics have been successfully

flexed to meet the situation; however, a major problem

had been the added difficulty in contacting employees.

The increase -in both time and money required to carry on

a successful campaign has surely had a negative effect

on union success* Since drilling costs, i.e., trucking,

utilities, etc., have also tended to increase with dls-

t€mce, it is doubtful that drilling contractors have

purxx)sely soread their units over a larger area. Regard­

less of intent, this factor has remained a definite

disadvantage to the lUOE in their attempt to organize

drilling personnel.

Declining' Di-illing Activity

Whereas an expanding industry should offer a

union more favorable conditions for organization of

31

v-)r:>.>r-, f io oopo i t -.1 • : . ., ;oul.. be expected to

occ-r ".••: i»', ^.lius .,' n>rrif'ncing ^ decline In business i-

a . - « , . •

^ V* . . ^ ^ J • o th 6 several yeara., the petroleum

^^ the 'idi. -i \ Qieasa area have been greatly

affectc d by a gaaaral decline in national drilling

oporationa* The total footage drilled within the United

states fall to approximately 159,377,000 feet in 1966;

a-41^ 4acraasa of 22*1 million feet from the proceeding .,?4

year* The outlook of the World Petroleum Report is far

from fptimistio, and projections indicate "that drilling

aatj r ty 4i^ ^00^^/^o continue its downward trend. "^^

» The first response to the beginning of depression

in the drilling industry was a series of price-cutting

actions by many of the smaller contractors. Larger firms

attempted to maintain the higher bid level, and, although

they suffered short-run losses, were able to remain sol­

vent. Many of the contractors who consistently placed

low bids in an effort to keep all their units in operation

suffered heavy losses and were eventually forced into

bankruptcy. In i960. Just before the period of price-

cutting began, there were one hundred sixty-three ollwell

drilling contractors operating in the Permian Basin petro-

lexim fields.^^ However, by early 1968, this figure had

' r

^^Willlam C. Uhl, World Petroleum leport (New York: Mona Palmer Publishing Company, 19S7), p. 49,

^^C. L. Cooper, Midwest Oil Register (Tulsa, Oklahoma: By the Author, I960), pp. 4-476.

32

{/{

fn.

tl

TO\r

' onli oity-jne contractors and has still con-

to decline.-"^ Many of tha contractors who left

the drilling business durinior the "drilling depression"

^|had only one or two operational units, but as a combined

number, the loss was significant. Also, the major oil

comx>anies withdrew, practically all their drilling units

from the Permian Basin during the same period.

I > 'it Iffitti oe very difficult to determine the loss

in potential memberehip of petroleiUA unions as a result

of the decline in drilling units and activity. Aaeendiap

iite in epui'aeieHal •

thirty flTimi

atte fca eyegatien amui ^

the UUiaty fixmu, LliiUm U mgiUfl

ty^ttn fi f g Ar A AgQ^ If the drilling industry continues

its downward trend, as many think it will, the outlook

for both petroleum companies and their related unions

seems very unfavorable.

Conclusion

The purpose of this chaoter has been to present

and discuss various conditions that have created an

unfavorable atmosphere for union success in the drill­

ing firms of the Midland-Odessa area. It is doubtful

that any union has ever attempted to enter an industry

^ u r l !. Self, Pf r ian Basin Oil Directory (Kidland, Texas: Burmass Publishing Company, 1967), pp. 227-278.

Miii'iliilltiil' '''' '''-'' .\ ' £i&^iiK.

-r-' :vot oncountcrr"! rome condltiona unfavorable for

itr- -ro-th. inf orioation oo«piXa4" from the iidland-

c-'.on-p. nurvoy indioatea that tha ZaOE, Local 826, is

no excptlom

33

.M..

i.' ijfr ^

1 «

V -

. * • • . . iW'%.}^.,..

ft *)% ^ .

•I...' \

:yf'

'• -SVt;

CHAPTUI VZZ

Tit ZUOB* 3 ATT&iF^S AT ORGANIZING MIDLAND-ODESSA DUZLLING PISISOI BL

Until the nast few years, the drilling firms

of the Mi<^land-Odessa area had experienced little con­

tact with the lUOE* However, in June of 1966, Local

82S contacted the National Labor Relations Board and

filed a request for election to determine whether

tfiployees of an Odessa drilling firm wished to be

rei^resented by the lUOE. Although the union lost the

prixaary election, a steady movement to organize drill­

ing personnel had begun. In the following months,

drilling contractors were to find that their temporary

immunity"'to union pressure had come to an end.

Pr' sent Status of the IU02

The election 'held in Odessa in the summer of

19^6 marked the beginning of serious organizational

attempts by the lUOE. Twenty-six months have passed

since the "milestone" election, and the union has

wasted little time in making their position clear.

3k

W' "'

rrl:lo 3 ororontr? a opnclie^y|.4^w of tha^ tjiirty drilling

r i r . r .surveyed nnd t ^ advancementa made by Local 826.

TABLE 3 •«•.

STATUS OP THB UNION AS A BARGAINING AGENT

osition in regard to unionization

Save experienced elections:

Company won

Compcuoy lost

In litigation

Have not experi­enced elections

Number of firme

8

3

9

10

Per Cent of firms

26.7^

10.0^

30.0^

33.3<

TOTALS 30 100*0;

The eignificance of the lUOE's success should

not be underestimated. Of the thirty firms surveyed,

only one-third have escaped union elections, and there

are indications that this select group will continue to

decline as a percentage of total drilling comnanies.

The elections won by drilling firms have outnumbered

those won by the lUOE nearly three-to-one; however, nine

drilling companies and the union were still in litigation

Although there was little way of determining when tne

legal technicalities would be resolved, these cases in

litigation should become the key to union success or

failure.

3« ^J03 mibiications unicesitati,ngly clajim muoh

•'.or- succors t init -'as indicated by the survey of Midland-

c^^-er^ djTiaiin- fiWM. Zn nrasenting their "Status With

Contractori," tha union states that "The summer and early .

• fall of 196? aaw 24 MIBB elections held, with the Union ^ ' -^ii¥ * ^'-^

winning 14 and with the outcome of three still undeter-

itaid by the NLRB."** Of the firms surveyed, only one

could be placed under the classification of the "14 won,"

Kiharaas six elections were still undetermined by the NLRB*

On tha topio of new elections, the union has

also seamed too optimistic. Elections were stated to

have bean held this past summer "with .Sharp, Parker, 'in-

smith. Big West, Dual, Fortune, and Tucker" Drilling

Companies.^^ As of the end of August, no such moves

were made. It was also stated that "within the coming

weeks we will file petitions for new elections with 28

Tri-Service and Wharton." Whartpn Drilling Company

has yet to experience another election; however an elec­

tion was called on O^ri-Service Drilling in April, 1968*

It seems the union'was sinoere in promising one election*

Imt^lications for Drilllnp: Firms

The status of the lUOE as a bargaining agent for

drilling personnel has been claimed to include "a total

°Local 826, International Union of Operating Engineers, AFL-CIO, "Did You Believe There Would Be A Union of Drillers and Roughnecks?," p. 2.

^^Ibld.. p* 4.

^^Ibid.. p. 4.

*

37 of 33 - Elections, with the Union el**rl/ winning

18, and t-o cuill unresolved*"*' Assttilng the validity ^

of tiia^nion^f! olaia^^to aucaaaat what have these accom-«

f>lidliaanta iM&tually aaoat to tha drilling industry? The

thirtr fixMS iaoludid in tha survey represented a large

majority of tha operational drilling units in West Texas*

Of tha two hundred and twenty units controlled by these

46atraator8, only nineteen (8*7^) were found to be under •I

union bargaining agraem^ts* Roweter, the emphasis should

not be placed^ antirbly on the.present situation. Three

yaara ago, the IT70E had no record of importance as an

agent for drilling personnel. In fact, if a survey to

thia effect had been conducted before 1966, a majority

of Midland-Odessa contractors would have probably been

ignorant of the existence of any local petroleum union*

Even as late as August of 1968, several of the contractors

who had not been approached by union organizers gave the

impression that they knew and cared nothing about luiion

progress in their local industry* However, this group

was comprised of a small minority, and it would be safe

to predict that at least twenty drilling firms in the

Midland-Odessa area have become aware of the union's

existence and its sufficient power to demand attention*

29 Ibid., p. if.

»'/..

s:

38 Tr-^'-.r^ of Activity

ince thr i ^ i n n i ^ of union interest in drilling

personnel, tho XUOE has followed a rather consistent

pattam in timing alactioas* Zn 1966, six of thi» firms

surveyed experienced union elections, and five of these

occurred in the months of June, July, or August* The

peak of 196? union activity was again reached in July,

although September elections ran a close second in num-

bar* The majority of elections thus far in 1968 occurred *

early in the year, namely April and I4ay* Figure 2 pre­

sents a graphical chronology of union activity in the twenty firms that have experienced union elections.

•*•,.

llumber of firms in which elections

were called g^.i?"^

7

5 4

3

2

1966 1967 19'i8

Time Period (queurterly)

FIGURE 2

Chronology of Union Activity

39

|t is obvious that in the third quarter (July,

Auguat, and September) of I967, the ZUOE made its greatest • " • , . • ' '•''' - \

efforta at unionizing drilling personnel. If the trend

continues, * 1968 will have been a relatively poor year

for union growth. However, by the summer months of I969,

:4idland-0dessa area eontraotors should be prepared for

another series of union elections* Of'the firms surveyed,

eighteen will be orime targets for union organizers, sev­

eral for the second time* And since approximately six

months are remaining for contractors to "get their houses

in order," there should be no excuse for being unprepared

in 1969.

Conclusl,on •

A majority of the information presented in this

chapter was gathered from the survey of Midland-Odessa

area drilling contractors* Over the past two years, the

lUOE has steadily increased its efforts to unionize

drilling personnel> and unless some unforeseen event

occurs, the trend should continue. Although one-third

of the firms surveyed had not experienced union organi­

zation drives, there have been Indications that their

privacy may soon be challenged. The summer months of

1969 have been suggested as the next period of heavy

union activity, and it is the wise businessman who will

prepare himself beforehand.

:**ti:

w w

,' t

CtlAPTSft VZZZ •* • * _ > ( • . . . . ^ , . * - . • •

» . " • -

THE SPPEGTS OF UNZONZZATZON >. •

The survey of Midland-Odessa drilling contractors

included investigation and research into thirty firms;

however, only three of those opmpadies were found to

have union contracts* Considering the fact that there

were twenty-four NLRB elections in the early Fall of 1967

alone, it seems surprising that the survey did not uncover

a ouch larger percentage of collective bargaining agree­

ments.^^ Of the forty-one drilling contractors regularly

operating in the Permian Basin, only four firms have been

sttooessfully organized by the lUOE. Since three of these

four firms were among those surveyed, it should prove

interesting to compare the unionized to the non-unionized

companies.

The various contracts between Local 826 and the

three focal firms were found to be very similar in form

and content. The contracts being discussed in this

chapter all involve Texas* drilling companies and con­

sideration must be given to state laws* For example.

^^Ibid.. p. 2.

40

^y

coll-^otlve bargaining negotlationa M l t Mt center «

around garnishment of l i iS s cfl^jiPU^iiOS% I s i ^ *

Z0OS «on«c#Mpifi«) HJKTinel** d l m i n c eontmotor.

Wt'a^lNfiy llm»iMiawi with those studied in thii

^1 IwTeTt'howorrei ^ aartdin similarities do exist* Ajppen-

dlzas ZV and V are axaot reproductions of contracts

batwatfitwo Permian Basin drilling firms and Local 826

of tha lUOE* Of ooursa, tha anonymity of both firms ^Hi / . haa bean preserved* ;

'''- - • * " -

Vnion »^lng • Throua^ the process of negotiation with manage­

ment, tha lUOE has made certain gains for its members*

AltHouc^ union propaganda has tended to be overly opti­

mistic, these advancements cannot be ignored.

Practically all oilwell drilling units operate

on a continuous, twenty-four hour basis, and of the firms

surveyed, twenty-three required their employees to work

a seven-day week. The union has been reluctant to demand

a six-day week from the companies under contract; however,

they have succeeded in gaining t^^ days off (without pay)

for each emr loyee who has worked thirty consecutive days.

Although this is the first time that employees have been

guaranteed time off, it is doubtful that the contractors

felt much concern over granting this concession. In

practically all other firms, a worker may take time off.

fe4.

, t «•

42

iout > :, , ^ courpib JUT f'^ly asking a crew member

- uiotv.'-r a l e toiiio**4n hta plaoe. The person who

roniaaaa tha.n' fteint amaloyae iis still required to work

his usual shAtt, but by working the sixteen hours that

day, another eight hours of pay will be included in his

paycheck.

The union has not avoided this possibility.

Several contracts were found to require that any tine

worked in excess of eight hours in a twenty-four hour'

period be paid at the overtime rate. By instigating

this'^requirement, the unions have forced management to

diacourage the practice of employee's working in relief

of other crew's members. The union's line of reasoning

on this issue is difficult to follow. The employees

were benefiting from this practice in that they could

occasionally nlss a day's work and not .suffer beyond the

loss of pay* It seem.* questionable that the employees

of unionized ;Irmn benefited from this restriction, and

that by gaining on a minor issue, employee privileges

were lost.

Holiday T>ay

The degree of union success in. the area of pay

for holidays has varied rome '/'nat. One of the union's

first contracts with a drilling contractor st)eclfied

Christmas Day as the only paid holiday of the year, pro­

viding that both the d. y before and after Christmas Day

was worked by the employee. In several of the other

Wy^-m

oontrnots, hc'^jver, there were MplUiV'as sav^b'paid

^'^^^^^/»l|pv«iad, of ms^^mm^ d a ^ ^ o r e ahdl

€ry-af iM|^(&4^g^ f«iihlladl» At least three of

^ ^ # f ttiu ^o iijiiMia iaHo Mqaired double pay (twice the

artpl^^a*t oilarraat» atraight-time, hourly rate of pay) ^ fH' i^y'A - :":* i»j-

t ^ aniy m r k done on the specified holiday* Several of

the drilling contractors might argue that this was their

previous policy for holiday worki however, one unionized

firm retx>rted being forced to conoiide to the issue whereas • \ * •

- e had never pravioualy offered any holiday pay.

Drilling contractorp have traditionally been .'"

reluctant to allow bumping among their employees. Several

of the non-union companies reported that limited bunT)ing

was used in the case of employees with long work records,

but a large majority allovred no bumping whatsoever. Union

bargaining has had little effect on this practice, with

only one of the current contracts including provisions

for inter-unit bumping* In fact, the firm whose contract

allows bua'nin':: into an equal or lower Job classification

probably had the more liberal nollcies in this area even

before unlonl7r.tlon.

'3jttOM l.nT " "Cronus

Drilling firms have often paid a "bottom hole"

bonus to employees 'in an attempt to encourage workers to

remain at their "oresent Jobs until the drilling activities

on their particular well have been terminated. The bonus

it

m

44 ^0fiimfm ,.i*it

is co-. uted by "^^^^K^*^^« ^^^^1^iii^-«. W ^ 4 f

ias vrorked on a ^|i|iH^M t^^a|ii|^~im%^40^ar^^

^^ v e i y ^ ^ g H ^ l ^ ^ a o j^nua ia PAld |p hat, employee.

^,%^J;^<>^M^^ J^?#5el^JWs was found %bi|^J,ncl^ed in^three

upl^ aoal l aata, but COUI4 not be oouidared entirely as '

union ga|Uif||^np%|gia bonus was offered prior to unioni­

sation .i|n savaral companies. It should be remembered

that practloally all contracts included f etention of

BttQafita clauses, land many S^^soF the working agree-

manta ware actually in effect before negotiations began*

Ho|fever, at least one firm conceded to the union's demands

for tha bonus, whereas it had never before offered such

benefits, and other contractors suddenly found themselves

liable for these bonuses on all wells* Considering these

advancements, it would be difficult to deny union success

in this area of fringe benefit bargaining.

Minimum pav

Another gain made by union bargaining agents has

been the obtaining of pay for time worked by an employee

over the daily eight-hour shift. A minimum pay schedule

has been a strong bargaining demand by tho union, and at

least two contracts require that if an employee is

requested to work past ':1s regular shift, he be Daid

for at least four hours for- any r>erlod UT) to four hours

and for eight hours for any period exceeding four hours

up to eight hours. This agreement could be very costly

45

wo "•riirin "irn-, r-nociaii/ dnoe soma crews mi^^t

• r " ;. . cv<-rni hunr^red miles from fkiit homos to the rig

looatiton.' Anr legitimate causa of delay nbttld require

^ a aoiitracttir to par the retiring craw for four hours*

norV roflilrdless of how late the relief crew mie^t arrive*

Since tha contracts also require that each crewte pay-

pariod begin tipoa arriving at tha location, management

haa undoubtedly been placed in a raxr risky position by

this concession.

Areas of Union Difficulty

Ir»n?P9rt T W

None of the unionized firms included in the sur-

vey of Midlcmd-Odessa contractors had agreed to pay any

driving expenses or transport pay to their employees.

Several of the non-unionized drilling firme were found

to pay driving expenses; however, this was only in a

limited nuiober of cases. The 1968 Bargaining Policy of

the lUOS proposes that C .10 per mile driving exDenses

be paid, and all employees be paid driving time to and

from the rig location.'^ But it does seem doubtful that

the lUOE will achieve this goal in 196B.

:iop^ltalir:atlon and life insurance

Two of the three unionized drilling firms surveyed

have had contracts with the lUOE for approximately one

year, yet there have been no advancements in the area of

^^Local 826, International Union of Operating Engineers,.AFL-CIO, "1968 Bargaining Policy," p. 3.

'46

henl^ or lifo inov . nc,- . |»i n ) , ^ niU| |!ropose the.

^ . ^ ^ » % Ad||ini^^^ but no

^daflnlta atapa have been taken for its instigation.

•AtthMgh a large percentage of drilling oomponies were

found to offer life and hospitalization plans to their

employeea, the union has had little impact in improving

conditions. There is a very good indication that health

benefits will be one of the next major bargaining points

•••• '-yy-' ^-i y ' [ .

of the ZUOE. Several contracts had clauses regarding an induatry-wide health program, but as of August, 1968,-no

provisions were listed.

The six-dav work week eca

The "History of the Oil Patch Organizing Com­

mittee" claimed that various concessions negotiated with

drilling firms included "a 6-day work week with half the

contractors."^^ Although this statement loay be literally

true, it is '7&ry misleading. Two of the drilling firms

surveyed had signed union contracts in late 1967 or early

1968, but neither indicated any substantial pressure for

the six-day work week* The third firm's contract did call

for a six-day work week; however, this had been the policy

of that firm for t-.e past several years. Over half of

the unionized contractors may have a six-day work week,

but it does not seem proper to deem them "negotiated."

^^Local 82^, International Union of Operating Engineers, AFL-CIO, "Did You Believe There Would 3e A Union of Drillers and Roughnecks?," p. 2.

'^:-

47

;;-.T.'. -v 1 iln , ' olloy for I91J8 irono... *.flv.-4iijr

'•or' '• :, ' but ^oubtp cttili romaift idiatlMT the union

c-i «c I t>c .1 -^f^y^work week in the near future.

One of tha major proisosala of the lUOE for. 1968

bargaining with drilling contractors was the increase in

wage rates to the following levelst Drillers, $5*08 per *

hour; Derrickmen and Motormen, $3.81 per hour; and Floor-

handa, 93*63 per hour**^*. Before a.projection of the

suooaas of this proposal could be considered, a perspec-

• tiva of past union gains in the area of wages should be

astabliahad.

Siy cooiparing the wage scales of the unionized

firms in the Midland-Odessa area to various other wage

scales and the average wage scale, an interesting situa­

tion may be observed. Table 4 presents such a comparison.

According to the results of this study, the union has not

been a major determinant in the wage scales i>aid by the

Midland-Odessa drilling contractors* The average wage

rate was found to be approximately $ •l4 higher than

. wage rates paid by unionized firms operating on a seven-

day basis. Firm "C" appeared to be higher than the

average rate; however, this firm in particular was work­

ing a six-day week* Over one-half of the non-unionized

- - Local 826, International Union of Operating Engineers, AFL-CIO, "1968 Bargaining Policy," pp* 1-2,

^Ibid*. p. 1. f

w^

i f^

m

, 1

km^.. ' it6

Vn OF NEOOTZATID V A « SCALES

/^Ns« Oati|«MB9K ^ JasJMeteaa v^^^^MatonMOi " Hf loorhaad

Firm *'A," under ^ uaion aantraat

Firm "B," under union contract

Firm "C," under imion ooatract^

Araraga wage rate of firms in tha

•M :r i; • ^

y *^ *

«2.85

2.85

•«.85

2.75

•2.75

" \.

Hie^est wage rate of firms ia the survey

Lowest wage rate of firms in the survey

>*08'

2.9*

3.15*

2*70

2.9^

3.15*

2*70

2.75

2.96

2.83

3.00*

2*60

wages based on six-day work week

firms working a six-day week were paying higher wages

them comparable Firm "C." Tne lowest paying firm was

C *15 below its unionized counterparts in derriclcman's

and floorliand*s wages, and unionized Firm "B" was only

C *05 per hour above that same company in the motorman's

wage rate. Although the union might have negotiated

other wage scales. Firm "C did not change its wage

scale uT)on becoming unionized and has not increased

wages one cent since signing the contract in November

1967. In fact, Firm "C" was once considered a leader

«i.. .'* lafcfc

, • ' • ' '•

0^ #

in tmiges t h y o u g h o u | | M | ^ ^

uaMBMeia, i i s M i M l K s ^ w i i o '

'.^'lU^ 0iJpn *•• t, I , ''<--fe|i|5

%nf l ?'!M«iMi|lH t« i iaiioa ataita tMt «h.y •n.lotlatad • * •

-M^t% 7tMientt par hotir inclraast in plgr*35 with* dertain «

drilling contractors, the three firms surveyed showed no

signs of any wage level increases. Drilling firms have

seldom been able to successfully co-operate. in the areas

of wages, benefits, or length of wp'rk week. Therefore,

wage increases have been fairly consistent to insure, a

share of available labor. Figure 3 presents a typical

growth trend in floorhand*8 wages from 1963 to 1968. V

'^/^'i

S2*80

2.75

2.70

2.65

2.60

2.55

2.50

2.45

2.40

1963 1964 19^5 . 1966 1967 1968

FIGXIE 3

A Trend In Floorhand's Wage Level

^^Local 82'S, International Union of Operating Engineers, AFL-CIO, "Did You Believe There Would Be A Union of Drillers and Roughnecks?," p* 2*

V

' *..; h .Jn

,\y^' y*')

:«>*.;"

m'

50 '•i ' )

/.i.r: '.p- not forced v«4ga ratcs Within tha industry

\ - V> ' ny ograt; itt faot, iiaga rates of unionized

fiiM ^-^vi teimdad to baqome atatio* And it seems that

the Z90E*8 wage proposal has bean derived from what the

'union would 111 ** for tantial tiaalbere to believe*

Conclusion

• tnia ZUOE has successfully organized several hun-

'.rf:,"

dred roue^nack8 in the Midland-Odessa area, and currently

has bargaining agreements with at least three drilling

firms. *Through the process of negotiation, the union

has attained several benefits for its members seldom

before offered to oilfield drilling labor. Although the

number of unionized firms is relatively small, drilling .

contractors had best take notice of the developments

within their industry.

However, the union has not built itself a solid

foundation from i^ich to expand. Before these unionized

drilling firms are going to serve as a good example of

the union*s potential in collective bargaining, the

static condition of wages and other benefits must be

reversed. Instead of Just keeping within the average

wage scales, for example, the-union is going to have to

at least match the leading companies in the Industry.

By allowing non-union firms to stay ahead, the lUOE has

Probably missed a great opportunity for total organiza­

tion of oilfield labor.

h''*^

^ * . • • .

^t^jk.,,^

V-'*

^ • ^ i * | ^ '^\- ' *> '^\ftl(^ ^sm^y /lift t- » tv-^i*-'^ ^:i.,

.« / f"" * ^ s f * r f ^ ^ ^ . * ? ^ .--;-r*- '*?!': l*> . jr:'r-:> , # . ^•i.

m^W'V^. % ' - a a i f l t f t t t V ttWfl'/lAtt^W'ffHlTililfA W ^ ^ ' t . ^ • ilMIAEf i ro 001IGS0SZM8 ^ * , \ • • •

^ ^ Tha purpose of this report has bean to discuss the

role Of organized labor in the oilwell drilling industry

of Vest Texas, The past few years have been a period of .

increased union activity, yet many •drilling contractors

are not ,awara of union success in the petroleum industry.

Tha aurvay of thirty Midland-Odessa drilling firms indi-

cated that union organization attempts have definitely

bean on the iaoraase, and althou^ present union success

is low, there have been stronjs advancements made by the

lUOS*

Petroleum labor organizations have traditionally

played a minor role in total union activity in the United

States. Only approximately three per cent of national

labor union membership was found to be in petroleum or

related industries, but on a Texas' statewide basis, the

petroleum labor organizations have gained in importance.

The drilling firms of West Texas exist in an environment

both favorable and unfavorable to union opportunity.

These factors have been discussed throughout the report,

and the conclusion that neither management nor the union

holds an omnipotent position seems most applicable.

51

y», ,'*"

iik'ikl^JillS^'.

w

52

:3inc f - ru-.rir r of 1057, Local 826 has Obtained

'^4^.. -irciionr vrith tv enty Of the firms surveyed. How- •

ev^, only ten per cent of the firms were discovered to

Have collectiva bargaining agreements with the ZUOE* Zn

view of the fact that appTMtmately one-third of the

election raaulti ware found to have been in litigation,

the t m e significance of union success or failure cannot

yet be determined.

The union has made many claims of success in

bargaining with employers. One of*the purposes of this .

report wi s to determine the extent of union success and

the validity of several of those claims. In many areas,

the lUOE has certainly gained benefits for its members

through bargaining with management* However, the con­

tracts in effect at the time of the survey tended mainly

to include benefits Provided even before the union became

the bargaining agent for employees* Union publications

were not ^^rj clear ort this tonic, and indicated that the

lUOE gained the benefits a^ if they had never before been

offer M",*

Surtwisingly, several important union functions

have been largely ignored by Local 8?6 of the ILJOE. Most

obvious was the union's failure to negotiate any wage

increases in the three unionized firms surveyed. The

^f^se scalep o^ unionized firms are only average for the

area, as are several othpr benefits. As long as non-

unionized firms remain the wage and benefit leaders in

the drilling industry, the lUOE will probably find it

extremely difficult to totally organize oilfield labor.

-i%y ... lL' 1

f

A'y

*v.

w' y'

aOHmfla CONSULTED

\'^rr

\§ ^,M '$m^^'^^'^'

jM0^^\m^m. '^

t • « • in-fi

•*„. ».* * i # '. #. K JF^j. A- 4/;: I.

1 Cooper, C* L* Midwsst Oil uegtstur* Tulsa, Oklahoma; ' By tha Author, 19< 0*

P'lbUrhin.r Company, 1967• * m

^Uhl, William C* World Petrols 14 Report. New York: • - Mona Palmer Bi|»iishing Company, 1967*

Self, frirl H* K^..-n. * Texas;

n Srall facturer's

i " ml

4J^cAlli8t«r, 2 . W. A Personnel PrOi^jam For Th Con*>any. Houston, Texas: Texaa I'anu

^ ^ Assoc ia t ion , 1966.

5Figors,' Pau l , and Ififara^ Charlas A* Personnel Adnlnir-toation. New York: MoCiraw-:illl Book Company,

ystanton , William J . Fundamentols 0^ Ilarketln/r* New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 19^4.

Wadia, Ma neck S. Xanafcement an^ the Behavioral Sc iences . Boston: Allyn and bacon. I n c . , 1968.

Gov i H^Ptl n*^ ^^U.S. Department o^ Labor. Are^ fap:e ovrvcy; The Mldl' nd

rnd Od<»p?n. Te- nff, Iletro lit 'n Area. Washington. D.C: Governnent Printing Office, 1967.

/^'T.S. DeP'^rtnent of L' bor. :i: loymr>nt r\r\^ ' rnin s Statis­tics for 3t? tes and Areas; 1939-19^^6. V/ashington, D.C: Government Printing Office, 19' 7.

/J^U.S. Dewartnent of Labor. .landbook of L bor Statistics. 10.57. Washington, D.C: Government Printing Office, 19^7.

- U.S. Deuartment of Lnbor. 'landbook of L^bor Statistics. . 12^- Washington, D.C: Government Printing Office, 1968*

53

|yi<4it'h,ily£%

:ofeli, ::-nn^tht $< nior Business Representative, IU03, Bitt .iprlag, Texas* Latter written on December

,, . .. 15»19«7.

^ .^tefransoa, F« M*. Chairman of tha Alert Management Com­mittee, Denver, Colorado* Latter written June 12, 19<7* (NIAaogranhad*)

^Local 826, International Union of Operating Engineers, APL-CIO* "1968 Bargaining Policy,"Odessa, Texas.

•

Local 826, Zntematioaal. Union of 0^erating afigineers, AFL-CIO. "Did You Believe There Would Be A Union of Drillers and Soughneoks?," Odessa, Texas*

'tL-tv^vje^-unA

(f^OCAW Loads Big Guns For Industry Bargaining." Oil and ^ Gas Journal. July 15, 1968. p. 79.

(^Shamrock Dispute &id8," Iloore Couj ty News (Dumas, Texas), October 13, 1966.

(fThree Expelled, Pined by OCAW Local." Houston Clironicle ^ (Houston, Texas), May 31» 1967.

>»«i

• s *

'"K.

APPENDIX Z ,. 'H!" '^•tH

U LX8T OF DaZLLZNO CONTRACTORS SURVEYED

Name of Contractor

Ard SrilliaK Company

Big Waat Drilling Company

Brahaney Drilling Company

Tom Brown Drilling Company

Cactus Drilling Company

Capitan Drilling Company

Coral Drilling Company

Davidson Drilling Company «

Delta Drilling Company

Dixylin Drilling Company

Dual Drilling Company

FWA Drilling Company

llillin Drilling Company

Hondo Drilling Company

Johnn Drilling Company

Leatherwood Drilling Company

Loffland.Drilling Company

Karcum Drilling Company

MGF Drilling Company

55

. 1 , ,•

City and State

Midland, Texas «

Midland, Texas

Midland, Texas

Midland, Texas

Midland, Texas .'

Odessa, Texas

Midland, Texas

Midland, Texas

Odessa, Texas

Odessa, Texas

Midland, Texas

Midland, Texas

Odessa, Texas

Midland, Texas

Odessa, Texas

Kermlt, Texas

Odessa, Texas

Midland, Texas

Midland, Texas

.\rrr:jix i (continuod)

i6

Name of Contractor •r *

«

Kobla Orillimg Conoany

!!orwood Drilling Oompaay .

Ormaad Drilling Company ^ ... ', **

Parker Drilling Company

Robinson Drilling Company

Rod Hie Drilling Company-

Rowan Drilling Company

Sharp Drilling Company

Thompson Drilling Company

Tri-Service Drilling Company

Warton Drilling Company

'\? Si-.

City and State

Midland, Texas

l^dland, Texas

Odessa, Texas

Odessa^ Texas

Nidlaad, Texas

Midland, Texas

Midland, Texas

Midland, Texas

Midland, Texas

Midland, Texas

Odeesa, Texas

• t%r\

A i ENDZX ZZ

MANPOWER REqpZREMWW FOR MZDLAND-01»SSSA CBZLLZNG FZRMS

Operational Units Manpower Demands Par Firm Par Unit (3 shifts)

• ^

3 15

•3 12

3 15

3 12

3 15*

3 .. 12

3 15

* 15

* . 15

* 12

5 15

5 '" •* t :^\ !. ,(• 1 5

5 12

5 • 15*

5 12

6 12

6 15^

57

Vf

PMT. Firm

Lllsr. Boufl

9

9

f

9

9

9

9

12

12

12

15'

15

15

15

18

18

18

Ehnecl

36 .

27

26

27

36

27

36

48

48

35

60

60

45

60

54

54

72

^k. 1 ^ L4

58

APPSIDIX I I (contlnu»d)

On#*rntlonal Units Ilanpower Demands Manpower Demands Per Firm Per Uttit (3 shifts) Per Firm

. Drillers Roughnecks

7

7

7

8

10

10

11

12

13

13

lU

16

-2L

15'

15

15*

• * --a ly^

15* •

15

15

18^

18^

15

15

it54°

21

• 21

21 •

• ••. .'t! i k

30

30

33

36

39 •

39

42

48

.-22

84

84

84

96

120 .

120

132

144

195

195

168

192

-262

220 876 6 ^ 2739 9mStm 3 3 S SSSSSSS

®May vary to a four-man crew on shallow wells

Six-man crew on deep wells

^Twenty-eight units have five-man crews; three units have four-man crews

r.k"t

'A .r

. ^ A i APPENKX ZZZ . *

WAGE SroVJY OF MZDLAND-ODESSA DRZLLZMO FZRMS * •

AS OF AUGUST 2 ) , 1968

Vfork V . . k

(Aiqr*)

7 •

7

7 •

7

6

7

7

7

6-

7

7

7

7

7

7

7

7

Dri l ler

*3.75

•3 .85

3.75

4.00

4.00

3*60

3.85

3*84

4.00

3.80

3.85

3.70 •

3.60

3.75

3.84

4*06

3.75

B A T E

Motormaa

•

»2.75 .

3*10

2.85 •

2.85

2.85

2.80 •

2.76

2*85*.

OF P A Y

' ^Daaerickmaa

$2.85

2.85

2.85

3.10

3.00

2.80

2.85

3.00

3.00

2.80

2.85

2*85

2*80

2.80

2.86

3.06

2.85^

t

Floormaa

92.75 '

2.75

2.75

3.00

2.85

2.70

2.75

2*90

2.85

2.70

2*75

2*75

2*70

: ,2.70

2.76

2*92

2*75*

59

U&i..

60

APPENDIX III (continued)

Work '..'eelc

(Days)

6

7 7 7

7

? 7

7 ' 6

6

6 •

7

7

'Driller •

%h9^

3.75 3^90

3.60

• 3*60

3.92

3.85

3.90

4.20

4.10

4.10

3*80

4.10

R A T E 0

< Notanan

•3as - 2.75*

• •

4* 3.00 2*70

* \ ' • • • •

3.05 *

3.15

3.00

3*08* *

2. 90

3.10

F P A Y

Derriokmaa

. 13.15 •2*85*

3.00

2*70 .

!¥ e*9o 3.05

2.85

3.05

3.15

3.10

3.08*

2.90

3.10

Floormtt

$3.00

2.75*

2*90

2.60

2*80

2.94

/ 2 . 7 5

2.95

3.00

3.00®

2.96*

2.80

3.00

wages determined by union contract

belief Driller paid $3.55 per hour

^Beginning employee without experience paid $2*85 per hour

APPBMDZX ZV

«

COLLECTZVE BARGAITTZ G AGREEMENT

BBTirSSI^

AND

niTSrilfATIOriAL UNION O P OPSilATINGflSNGINEERS, APL-CIO * 0

• n i S AGilESHSNT i s entered into t h i s day of * . by and between .

( i lereinafter referred to as the 'Contractor"), and the Local ?^26. INTERNATIONAL UNION OP OPSHATING EITGITISSiiS,'*' AFL-CIO, (Hereinafter referred to as the "UNION").

AliTICLE I

RlgCOGNITION

The Contractor hereby recognizes the Union as tha Exclusive bargaining agent for all employees on matters relating to wages, hours, and other conditions of employment in the following unit: In the Permian Baein only.

All employees working for the Contractor excluding Guards, Truck Drivers, Production Employees, Supervisors, Office Clerical, and "Professional Employees."

ARTICL3 II

SCO?:; 07 V/O^K

Section 1. The scor)e of this Agreement Includes all work ^erTormed in the drilling process including rlgglng-uT), drilling, re-drllllrtg, repairing, testing, completing or putting on production, abandoning, or tearing out as such are performed in usual oilfield

• *

61

.»» 4l«i w r of aor ' t t of Hlfi i ld

(aaailaaa^ttmrito, as wall as _ teA^ualoadiagiaf,?«atarials, sup^

%yf?y*^*y^^W|iliMa»> «ad all other aork routed thereto f-m.^mM m^m^m^ nithia tho ^ob CUssifioatioa aa listed in

* • * # • * » JWfw* 2M

•.r«i

Sectieij 1. An employee has a grievance when he faala ha naa suffered a phyaical, financial or mental loaa as a raault of the Contractor's violation of this agraament or any State or Federal ^w.

Section 2. STIg ONE. Grievance will be taken up with the annropriate suoervieor either by the indivi­dual aanloyaa, the Rig Steward or a Union Representative.

STEP T ffl. Failing to reach an agreement on a grievance under Step 1 in five days, it shall be filed in writing with the Drilling Superintendent and the Union Represantative who shall attempt to settle the matter within ten (10) days.

STEP T31^. Failing to reach agreement in Step Two, either party desiring to arbitrate the matter shall notify the other in writing within thirty (30) days after failure to settle the matter in Step Two* In the event that the other oarty agrees to arbitrate the matter the procedure is set out in Step Four*

S T ^ FOUR. Within five (5) days after recsiving the other parties* agreement to proceed to arbitration as set forth in Step Three of Article III, the party requesting arbitration shall request the Federal Media­tion Conciliation Service to furnish a panel of five arbitrators. 3ach party shall strike one name alter­nately until the name of one person remains and .such T)erson shall be designate'^ as tha imisartlal arbitrator to decide the issue in dlsr)ute and T iose decision shall be final and binding. The expenses of the impartial arbitrator shall be shared equally by the Darties.

A.ITICL:; IV

B' Gi:"-:? ::^:>7snTATivi; AMP JOT^ ST!: ^ :.D

5rotlon 1* An authorized representative of the Union shall have reasonable access to the drill site

^

/ >f

63 ' «:1- - r-i \ -y^rr ' r t'i- 'lumoaaof a«ittllmg disputes.

« J ' " . ri-'-^aati «ii^'irrf«pninf each other neces-'uti*>' 10 m^ho'rn to perforin concerning the terms

» The Rig Steward shall be a working employee with aix |6) months* servioa with the Company, if s'tch employaaa are available oa the rig, selected by tha Union, who ahall, in addition to his regularly, aasigned work, be permitted to perfoxro during working hours, such of this Stewerd's duties as relate to the settlement of < isputes or resolution of grievances under the terms of this Agreement as described in Article III-Grievancee, and which cannot be performed outside of TTorkin:: hours, nroviding such duties do not. interfere with the safety, continuity or rate of progress of his work, or the work of other emnloye^ on the drilling project. T ia Union agrees that the Rig Steward's duties. shall bo performed aa expeditiously as possible and the Contractor agrees to allow the Rig Steward a reasonable amount of time for the- performance of his necessary duties subject to the conditione described in this Article. . uegar«*less of any other t rovislon of this Agreement, nC employee or Steward shall leave his Job w!iile his pre­sence is necessary for the safe and efficient operation of the drilling project* Tlie Steward shall report to -f « his Tool Pusher or the Driller at the time of leaving work to perform hia Steward duties and at the time of • * /^ his return to work upon completion of his Steward duties* At no time ahall the Steward leave the Eig location* The Union shall notify the Contractor in writing of the appointment of the Rig Steward, and the Contractor agrees that the Job Steward shall not be discharged, or laid off, for the performance of his necessary duties when performed in accordance with this Article.

To promote harmony between the Union and the Con­tractor, the Steward, without interrupting the progress of the work, shall be limited to and shall not exceed the following duties and activities:

(a) Work with the Contractor designated and authorized Supervisor in an attempt ' to resolve disputes prior to the appli­cation of the grievance procedure.•

(b) Report to his Union uepresentatlve infractions of the Agreement which have not been resolved between the ; agrieved employee and the Contractor's immediate available supervisor as described in Step One of Article Ill-Grievances*

kiii.'i.t.^-

I llllljl. Il

6tt

(o) .f*"

ReTK>rt t i a i s Union iiewaaaitptrt/WQ^ ^ ^ to t|i|afMiiMraotorU^«M«Hbtai aval * c<

V*,tfi

V

or .wt^mm^m^m^r t t ta i^yeiasitjwp i ^ :raoklaaa iisij^iipBiMriii'''

^piagavliif^iiliaMiSu^^ ^^ailiilg ip^antiai i«iai#llf| pvtvaia a#|'^k

V .^

iMbUacpwpaitF »•«

'^€%*^t^1l^t)% ••

^^^W^-^** "^ l^P^^^^lpWIBI^ w^

In * * ^ . - . I^"

' ' • • / K ^ :

d-- . ^ • s ?

ssmcoLg V *

Houna OP W9M

.t » J-A^

Saotlan i> Tha work week 4hall begin Sunday midnight and and at midnight tha following Siinday* The . first workday of the week shall begin at midnight Sunday and and at midaietht the followiitg Sunday, and each work­day tharaaftar will consist of twenty-four (24) consecutive hours beginning at the aame time each calendar day.

Seol 2. The regulfiuc work schedule for shift workers shall be cycles of eight (8) consecutive hours from 7sOO a.m. to 3 00 p.m., from 3>00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m., and from 11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.* The Employer will dis­cuss with the Union the need for any change in shift work schedule prior to establishment of any other schedule necessary to meet special requirements*

Section 1. The regular work hours for workers on a day schedule* shall be from 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon and from 12:30 to 4:30 p*m. The Contractor shall discuss with the Union the need for any change in the day work schedule prior to the establishment of any other schedule necessary to meet special requirements.

Section 4. The Contractor will attempt to arrange and maintain equitable work schedules within the limits imposed by drilling activity and the availability for employment of the men.

Section 5. An employee absent from work shall give his sunervisor reasonable advance notice before returning to work. Reasonable advance notice shall also be given vfr.en an employee desires time off.

Section ^. In the event that a rig on a seven-day work week schedule, operates thirty (30) consecutive days the Contractor will within the following ten (10) days provide each emoloyee two (2) consecutive days off without pay. Tlie Contractor,- in order to accomplish this, may

•*-.

I

65

cr^ \\'^\\ it jjr-'n tha.jrig for the necessary :. . >. oij;; -n '-tro, tx cw to.continae the rig in

«- 11: n. : . " t>3|.a r^m woutt relieve each crew for y-p K'') c^r until >aoh orew hid received their two (2) days Off. Tlip.Jil tractor will make avary effort to com­ply vith the ibbvif prbvisionsi hoiTever, both parties can foreaae tha possibijLitr of not being able to suspend drilling oneratioas and also not being able to obtain on extra crow. Jn this eVent the two (2) days off will be provided by suepending drilling onerations at the earliest opportunity*

Ceo tion 7. In the event that drilling activity is such that a rig may be operated continuously for a protracted period of time and at the discretion of the Contractor, this contract shall provide that the work reek may be nix days instead of seVen days. The day off will be Provided by two relief men, each working six days* These relief men shall relieve each Turkman ^or one day* Rates of pay shall be as set out in Exhibit "A" of this contract under the caption "six-day week." It is understood that in no event shall the Contractor be forced to pay these relief men overtime pay for the higher rated pay job classification.

Scotion 9. No employee shall be exoected to hold himself subject to call during off-duty hours*

Section 9. fiaployees will be permitted to make arrangementa jointly with other employees and their imme­diate supervisor whereby shifts may be traded or workover required, provided the Contractor is not required by this Agreement or by applicable law to pay time and one-half 'payments as a result of such shift trade.

ARTICLE VI

CO::P:2::3ATION

Wages shall be those set forth in Exhibit "A" and attached hereto as a part of this Agreement for the stand­ard job olasisi float ion noted thereon.*

ATITICLS VII

mmiiui: PAY-

Section 1* Time and one-half (1-1/2) the appli­cable straight time rate will be paid as overtime for:

%

66

* '* %

( - ) n<r : "^r^-or in rxcec^ Of eijjht ( 8 ) o 1-- IT any t^nty-four (24) hour ^-riod, cc^pt for hours worked in '"ccrdanoa>iiiii arrangements provided r^r ia Gection 9 of Article V*

W 'Hours in excess of forty (40) worked dtlring tha neriod 12t00 p*m* Sunday throu£^ to 12:00-p.m* the following S^inday, and not paid fpr as hours

-v^'worked in excess of eii^t (8) hours under Section 1 (a) above*

(o) Nothing in this section is to be con­strued as providing for tha pyramiding of overtime, premium pdgr*

ARTICLE VIII

NITTIM Jl! PAY AND R gPORTI TG TIMS

Section 1. When an employee reports to work and is not given an onoortunity to work he shall be paid for a full day's work. If an o&ployee is notified that no work ie available prior to his departure from the xx>int at which he normally is advised that work or no work is available, this section is not applicable.

Section 2. In the event that an employee is requested to.work after his original eight (8) hour shift he shall be oaid for four (4) hours for any period up to four (4) hours and for eight (8) hours for any period exceeding four (4) hours up to eight (8) hours*

Section 'B. If an employee shall stop work for reasons of his own and without the approval of the Con­tractor or his representative he shall be entitled to pay only for the hours actually worked*

Section 4, In no event shall an employee be entitled to any nay should he report for work unfit for work for any avoidable reason such as being under the influence of alcohol.

Section 5. It shall be the Contractor's or his representatives sole prerogative to decide when work is or is not available.

'••.X-}>

6t,

y\' *

# ^ SttOlABfil ^ fM.rol«loiiiAg x^oo|(nisad.holidaya •tl^^mn^vtni.»ipiojrfr« SiioriaJk Day,. Zadapiadanoa fttW*^^ iwrt Eaal| « Thankagiyi g Dsy, and Christmas

tl! '•

^^. yff^Qw ?' . EDtployaaa i«ho w»rk any of the above boiidnym will be paid for all hours *aotually worked at double time* or twice their currant straight time hourly rate of pay*

Sftotion > Mdthing in this Article shall make it obligatory for the Contractor tc( start or continue OT>erating on the above holidays and it shall be the Contractor's sola prerogative to start, continue, or su.*?nend'07>emtions. Zt will be the Contractor's normal policy not to operate on these holidays; however, if oircunstanoes arise making it impossible to adhere to.

. this policy, the union agrees to co-operate with the '' Contractor and employees will be paid as set out in Section 2 of this Article.

AUTICLE X

^30TT0?! TICLTS" BO!TUS

'Each crew member shall receive Il.OO for each day that he has worked on a designated well upon the coLiTjletlon of that well providing he does not quit or is not Tired for cause before the rig is stacked out or prepared to move to the next location.

ARTicLs :a

:: ctl'?n 1. All employees covered by this agree-r.cnt, •.''"O ar* or durln; the ps rio'* covered by thin ' . r- onont become .i'»:ibcrs of the union in good str.n.llnci, r,h«ll OS a con'^ltlon of employmrnt in the bargrinin^ unit describe-' In j\rtlcle I hereof remain monbers of tlie Union In good st' n' ln for tha duration of this agreement sub­ject to the provisions that at each annual expiration or rone:'r\l thereof, the employee may withdraw from union

,• 4;, -

ii^^:. II;

68

• ' ;• ivin^ Titten notice of withdrawal to the /.i \ c rtifiad A^n not lass than two (?) days before

^^ ii 'i ' ^ lr*i»P#'* x' before the expiration of any ^Jf 'T* •"MpU^^^a^^fciJ case may be* -for the injrpose of thiG Article aambershlT) in the Union shall be deemed to be naintalifit if en employee has not failed to psy, or to tender moiithly dues or initiation fees uniformly required as a condition of membership.

Section 2* T ie Contractor shall, upon written demand or the Union, terminate the employment of any employee who ^all, having become a member of the Union in good standing, fail to co oply with the provisions set out in Section 1 of this Article*

Seption ^. This Article does not apply Inhibited by law.

where

ARTICLE XII

'••..

?^2 aJlL AMD HIRING RTTLSS AND PR0CEDU7.ES

Section 1. Rotary Rigs. In the event that operations are to be started with a rig which is not in operation, the Contractor shall select drillers to operate, the rig during the various shifts. These drillers will then select crews from the men which the union indicates are available at the Union Headquarters in Hobbs, New Hexico. In the event that no men are indicated as avail­able within twenty-four (24) hours from the time men are requested, the Contractor or driller may obtain men where available.

Section 2. It is agreed that the only requisites for hiring a workman are ability, dependability, avail­ability and safe working habits. No discrimination of any kind shall be practiced by either the Contractor or the Union in the hiring of employees.

Section 3* In an emergency the Contractor shall have the right to protect its best interest by obtaining employees In the manner T iich in its opinion, is the most feasible to meet such a contingency.

Section '. The Contractor has In the past endeav­ored to emoloy man Trho have been previously satisfactorily emT)loyed and will continue to do so In the future within the limitations imposed on the Contractor by the avail­ability of drilling contracts and the availability of the men previously employed.

m

69 \.:iOLZ XIII

Mo •provisions. ;"

4 *

ARTICLE XZV

A Joint Safety Committee shall be established comooaed of an eoual number of representatives from the Industry and the Union* This committee shall adopt Industry Safety Standards relating to ways certain jobs should be done, the equipment to bf used, the condition of all equipment, number of men required, care of equip­ment. Safety IMucational Programs and etc. There shall be a Safety Inspector to check all rigs frequently.

ARTICLE XV

LIi-:iTATI0I?3

Section 1. Should any nart of this Agreement, or any provisions herein contained, be rendered or declared invalid by reason of any existing or subse­quently inaoted legislation, or by any decree of ajiy 'court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidation of such part or portion of this Agreement sh^ll not invali­date the renaining portions hereof* The remaining parts or provisions shall remain in full force and effect* • It is mutually agreed that \xnon any such invalidation, the Contractor and the Union will meet and negotiate 'nth reference to the parts or provisions thus invali-'ated.

Section 2. If at any time the Union or the ComT)any shall elect not to assert its rights under any r>rovlslon of this Agreement in the event of a breach thereof, such lack of action in this respect shall not be constned as a continued waiver of any rights under the provisions of this Agreement.

.\:iTI CL!3 XVI

^r^ITTgn ^TCTICE

TTritten notice required to be served.undqr the tarms of this Agreement shall be sufficiently served for

70

•rein V ;-n rocoivri certified r;tail» return . '^\ rinrt-^^^n prepaid.

TO .':• co;:jaACTon

IC T!fE tniZOM

,A,M»" • a^ , .

MM

'J Local 826 Znternational Union of Onereting Engineers

Box 1590 Big Spring, Texas 79720

. .r Tha date of receipt at the address stated above of suoh written notice shall be tha controll-ing date for all tnimosas* ^iS

^'t

ARTICLE XVII

Py^Op 9F ACpsmr^ .;,

Sec l on 1. This Agreement shall become effective 00 ' . and shall remain in effect through

. .and shall automatically renew itself for consecutiva three (3) month periods thereafter, unless either Party shall serve notice upon the other in writing of its desire to cancel or amend the Agreement at least sixty (60) days orior to the end of any such three (3) month oeriod.

Section 2. It is understood that this Agreement may be reooened at any time uPon the mutual agreement of the Contractor and the Union.

t. y* • "y'in^'

-f.' f t

K

71

jV- Ol-rr^^icotlon H««..r^v flt«.*l»ht Tim* 1>itw of PMT

SarM-Oay V..k Six-Dity W..k

.Derrickmen ^2.85 $3.00

fiaginamea 2.85 3.00

r r Floorman 2.75 2.85

Drillers 3.75 4.00

»

w *» ,' ..

*'<0 •^•

ijy-., , n -

fe1«

•V - ** ' •• '' t l -.'? • . .^-af:

cc:i»A!nr WRKIMG*AcftESJiffir^t .. i %-k

^ > • ,

BETWB97 • *

^yt^mtj. — " • - • — • ! ^ i ,' t*, »

f , .:' A N D ' ,:T': •y

I!:T£32IATZ0!?AL ONZON OP OPERATZNG WGZNEERS, AFL-CIO

TuIS AG?»B3iaiT made and entered into this ... ^ ^ ^ ^^ ' . at Texas, between ,_„. ,,... .,.,. ,.. .,„_ , with offices in . Texas, hereinafter designated as the "Company," and LOCAL 826,.. inTS*2IAT10nAL UNION OP OPERATING ENGINEExiS, of Big Spring, Texas, hereinafter designated as the "Union."

It is the general purpose of this Agreement to t trronote the mutual interests o^ the Company and its employees, and to irrovide for the operation of the Com­pany's business imder methods which will further, to the fullest extent possible, the safety of the employees, economy ajad effioiency of oparation, elimination of waste, maximum care of equipment, protection of property (both Company's and customers'), and avoidance of interruption of service work to the Company's customers. The parties to this Agreement will co-operate fully to secure the advancement and achievement o^ these purposes.

. AitTICLE I

.-i COC ITIOIT 07 Tp IOTT

oectlon 1* The Company recognizes Local 326, International Union of Operating Engineers, AFL-CIO, w!ilch was certified by the National Labor Relations Board on . * in case No. •. as

72

-'.,••.'•. . t

y.iy'- •

73

r

at.

•^r.j." Ttntlva of l'\r^ employ^#S' oC the -•r'^o-ir o** coiioctwo barj^aining with

^lor. ..: -.oy v;agr'r, houTG ••f'ciiployment and U 1

0 . 1 30- loionr o -noloymant in the bargaining unit .0-1 an>.r')-i;iate la SiSd CasS M<a ^ . tO«Wit;

All tUa implbyaaa of Emoloyer 'working out of 2mnloyar*8 ^ . Texas, facility, including amployeea working on rigs in the following Oounties: Yoakum, Terry, Gqines, Dawson, Andrews, Loving, Winkler, Ector, Midland, Glasscock, Reeves, Ward, Crane, Vpton, Eeagaa* Pecos, ft:«okett, Terrell, aa^ Martin (all in Texas), and Lea County, New Mexico and including tmok drivers and maintenance employees working at aiiployer*s 1, Texas, facility. ^ ^ ^

Excluded from the unit are: Office cleri­cal employees, • driHers, shop foremen, tr*ick foremen, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act.

Section 2. In case the Uhion shall be certified as the bargaining representative of additional bargain­ing units, or if recognition is extended to additional units without formal certification, the matter of includ­ing suoh unit or units, under the terms of this Agreement, or any new Agreement, will be discussed and negotiated at the time of such certification or recognition, if any, becomes effective. ot

ARTICLE II

MANAG 'iTSIT'S ^IIGITS AND FUNCTIONS

Section 1. The Union recognizes the exclusive right of the Company, subject only to such agreements as may be herein contained, to manage the business. "Sxcept as specifically abridged, delegated, granted or modified by this contract, all of the rights, powers. Prerogatives, and authority customarily and usually exercised by the Company to manage the business, includ­ing but in no wise limited to:

(a) Direct and control the work force;

(b) Assign jobs;

(c) Formulation of reasonable Company •I- : rules; ..;.... . r ^c, .. - .y..

(

t

<•

(d) '2i:'^,y^-r r\v' ii' Ci' lin'S' for Of^USC; jA

intu'-icti'^n o?>i aahnolbgic«l changes;

(r) iv ke aconomiaally bmsficial-changes ia^bualn<^s nraotices such as sub*-

k*; otttraoting out of work, and in the f^datarminins of tha number of employees reeuired to operate the business econqm-ically and efficiently. The Union and ComT»any recogniro that five (5) man crews are desirable on all work. How­ever, it is agreed that in order to be competitive, four (4) nan crews may be necessary on some jobs.

(g) Selecting management liKipervisor per­eonnel and in exercising final authority on any business question now having to do directly and primarily with matters specifically covered by and agreed upon in this contract;

ore retained by the Compax^.

on 2. The Company reserves the right at all times to be free from interfcirenoe regarding the persons, firms, and oorporatiotns from whom it makes purchases, and also with who:ii it makes contracts for the Company's ser­vices; and the Union agrees not to interfere in any respect trith si»ch purchases and contracts, or with the latTful and legitimate conduct of the business of the Com­pany.

Section 3* Except aa may be required in collec­tion of dues and delivering of notices concerning Union :.iatters to the Company for posting. Union business agents or ot'icr Union officials shall have no access to the eupioyees on Company time or property* Tnere will be no •distribution of literature or solicitation of members of the work unit on Company time by Union business represen­tatives or other Union officials, other than Rig or Shop Stewards, and Union representatives shall have no access to Company's rigs w!ien the rigs are located on properties belonging to third parties*

ARTICLE III

K2T5I'TTI0N 07 BSl^^ITS-

No working condition having to.do with health or safety, compensation, or monetary fringe benefits suoh as

\ .....

1-1.

754 gpun insuronc^ Prograaa, pjtofitffthrring ratiitaaaiitttrttiit. Mans -.1 safety awar^r ei|^a|?br thefsmpl^aaa at the tine o" aignlag this »lipi|si<iili4aHi|l ^ ahOTged except by

Jatnal ^mHmint^t^Mmlf&w^i^w$^'mAmi» |lM»iatizedNip%Hto^^^ iii^coa-Mimfen iiiW%la%i^lit'ilMfin# t z ^ coatributions te tha Oo«ialv«^t " Msy from j^mt ta*tair, as sat by the jMard of JQir atars af the Oompany* ^ i* *

'%,.<*»

A H T X ^ I V

The Union shall have the privilege of using space assigned by the (^moany in its clothes-changing dog house and in tha Oo<9paQy shQp,' for the posting qf «noticee and materials relative to Union business. Under no circum- ' stances.will notices of a controversial or political nature be ppsted by the Union.

ARTICLE V "

LAYOFFS. TT^;rTATI0!?3. B ' IPI G. RECALLS.

Ytr: .ills AND D3K0TI0NS

Seotion 1. Employees shall be deemed to haVe been laid off when the work is terminated and rig is shut down* If the rig then moves .and the employee chooses not to move with the rig he voluntarily terminates his employment, except employee with one year or more of continuous ser­vice with the Comoany may exercise his rights under Section 2 hereof if his crew leaves the town from which it drives*

Section 2. Imoloyee laid off with one year or more of continuous service with the ComT)any, may, if the 12mMoyer estimates the layoff will be for more than four­teen (14) daya or after they have been laid off for fou'»'teen (l4) days, t jmp the newest emoloyee driving from the same town on another rig, in equal or less classifi­cation. If there are no employees driving frcn the to vn which the I'Vi -o f employee can bumr), then he may bumr) a newer employee driving from any town, on another rig, in equal or less classification, nroviding, ha has the nec­essary experience, training, oersonal resnonslblllty and with consideration for the safety of the crew.

Section 3* The Employer shall recall laid-off employees, based on previous service with the Company,

f iWf\ '•'^fr

J - >•!:

'S#

f6 ke

^

1* ..«««. ii« *v«i« i^hrica Shall be offered ^ If ha ii available, i^en additional crew-

'aoayara ^iS|iiu;l$ teiva from tha town where the employee raaidas* ZflK f#i»tf%»ai^ld)lfi-^atr crewmen are needed, ha forfaita hia priority until the next crewman is needed*

S*lf«t^ilAI3J under this Section, the employees must keep a Oompa^adviaad as to his nlace of residence and resi-

dinea phone, so he may be contacted for work*

JL. Any employee may be demoted to a lessar classification, if in the judgment of the Company, hia perforttaace is below standard or his experience ia not adequate for the job classification*

4-y.

• v ••

Section ^* Tha Company ehall furnish to the Union within a reasonable period of time 'after each two-week pay period the names, address, rig number, and classification of all a^wly hired or recalled employees and a list of all

^ those terminated, stating that the employee was (a) fired * for causa* (b) voluntarily quit, (c) laid off for lack of work, or (d) b amped. .v*.

ARTICLE VI

COrj STTSATION

*>ction 1* Wage rates for work performed in par-ticul.' r lob classifications shall be those rates shown in Section 4 of this Article. Any amnloyee desiring to laarn the T^rk o"* a higher classification may be assigned work teapor.arily at a higher classification during a day and be nf-id at his regular classification as this is a method of *on tha job" training for advancement to a higher classi­fication*

Section ?• An e inloyee shall retain the classifi­cation •'urino the d. y for the Job which h« started out on even though ha may temporarily T)erform a job in a differ­ent classification for short oarlods of time.

Section ?. Over-time "nay of one and one-h^lf tines the straight tine baro rato shall be r pid for nil hours Tr)rked in ercess of forty ('lO) hours in any one rork week, Smoloyees ehall be com'oensated for over-tine on the basis of the classl**lcation rate for th« job at which thay are working during such over-time hours, sub­ject to the nrovisions of Section 1 and Section 2 above.

Section 4* All employees working off the Employ­er's premises shall go on pay status when they are on

.' I y y i ' .

4 <4i ••'*^ ,

f .• •

glPftBiri9iH%n . . . - B9Virty WPM Mfi .^•Driller -^.^^ o' /T $4.10 '

Belief Man > 3,40

Derrick Man 3.08

Itotozmaa . 3.08

Floorman * 2.96

.Truck-Driver • 2.02

Swamper 1.84 "v..

Welder • 2.62 ^

Mechanic - Engine 2*70

Yardman 2 * 54

Yardman (temporary) 2*06

••aig Crewman assigned to the yard 2*30

•Drillers, a? sunervisors, were excluded in the certi­fication and under this contract except as herein provided for in this Section; however, their wage scale and classi­fication are included In Article VI, Section 4 for informational purposes and may. Under Article V exercise the sane rights as other employees.

**rkig Crewmen may be assigned to the yard at the Company's ontlon, if the crewmen so desire when their rig is down or they may ererclse their rights under Article V if they desire.

A-iTICLS VII

VACATioM A:^D 'TOLIDAYS

Section 1* Commencing from and after January 1, 1968, employees shall earn a vacation of one week with

K*

'^^:/ 'hen they have v i c e , uT on t h e i r year thereafter^ tiT.05 tha enpl Coatinuoaa a SsT>ioyeor

, kignv aima hourly rate* dafinad as service to tha

tMi^iAsety (60) dayt li i «rap tion due

f-

LtfiP m-*

"^i^^^^^U^a »?^P*e a^^MvB ^^ 1^ ^ W M B 4

amployeea iMu ll aelact their vacations ^iMad oa aarvica to tha Qomnanyt except that Company opar-

> aiiag aonditioas are controlling as to when vacations may ba taken*

Section *!, Vaa^fcian cannot be carried over from -ona calendar year to another, «id must ba taken within tha year they are earned*

Section 4. Per the purpose'of this'Agreement Christmas Jiay will observed as a holiday. (Worked day

• before and digr after - paid one regular day) »

Section ^. All permanent employees shall be paid for eight (8) hours straight time for the holiday herein provided for*

Section 6. If an employee is required to work on the holiday ha shall receive pay for an additional eight (8) hours strai^t time.

T'.xyMiFi

• : • • ' - , - •

ARTICLE VIII

•»i !0 DISCRinriATTON

There shall be no discrimination by the Company or the Union against any employee because of their mem­bership or non-membership in the Union, or for any other reason.

ARTICLE IX

G.iizvArc2 T^0C2ur.n *

Section 1* A grievance unf'er this contract is a disTYute, clal.n or cor,olalnt, arising under and during the tern of this contract filed by either the complaining employee or an authorlT?'* representative of the bargaining unit. Jrievaiices are limited to matters o' interpretation or aoplicatlon of the provisions of this contract.

Section 2. 1*0 grievance shall be filed or pro-cas.'jed a^ter three (3) days of the employee's knowledge of the event or fact which is the basis of the grievance.

^ V ¥ irm

v.^ r i t a h'> I^- .^4 |Jft |M| |yM^^By ^ _ _ c;^ployee, oither b^SnLalmSui fmploy ie or br t Ha Rig or Shop S t e r M t ^ th#fOU4)HH^ « l^i ''» » ^^nn^iv: it£ wiMmlrspJMI fklliiiir fea raaoh. Ill agreement on #

ffWi ^ P K ^ ^ 1 in fiva^TsJ days.. a grievance shalJL mfdi ia:%il |ng by the ampWaa or his steitsrd with.

ipZ^ss' or ita aathorlKfid agent* and tha Onion business rapfaaaatative who ahall attempt to settle the matter wilhia Ian (10) 4aya*

Seetig^n 4. Any grievance not cart!ad to the next step by.the aapioyae or the Union rapresentatite within the prescribed tine limitsi or such extension idiioh may have bean agreed to, ahall ba automatically closed upon the baais of tha loat disposition, unless otherwise agreed by both parties. • .

•

Section ^. Either party may request arbitration of an unsettled grievance but arbitration is not required unless the opposite party consents and.the written sub­mission agreement is entered into detailing the dispute, issue, oroviaion or orovisions of the contract involved. Arbitration shall be limited to the interpretation of the specific provision or provisions of the contract set forth . in tha agreement to arbitrate. In the event the parties agree to arbitrate, the arbitration shall be accomplished as follows:

Within five (5) days of signing the agreement to arbitrate, party who proposed arbitration shall request the Federal Med­iation and Conciliation Service to furnish a panel of five (5) arbitrators* Each party shall strike one (1) name alternately until the name of one person remains and such person shall be designated as the impartial arbitrator to decide the issue in dispute and whose decision shall be final and binding* The expenses of the impartial arbitrator shall be shared equally by the parties*

Section 6* The Union.shall have the right to strike immediately upon refusal of the Company to arbi­trate.

ARTICLE X

LiIG AlTD STOP STE TAUDS

gpction 1. The Union shall select a Hig Steward on each rig and a Shop Steward in the shops and shall keep

.,«

• •lo',-

80

infor- od of the nomas o^ allJtewards, and t Lr n emnloy(>c5 ^t the Conpany.

: cti,on ?> ,,lheJfctenard will ba permitted to per­nor i eurlns working hoiri?a, auch of his Steward's duties aa^relate to the aettlmaent of disputes or resolution of P ?I^^?* under the terms of this Agreement and described in Article ZX, **Grievance Parocediu'e,*' and in the solici­tation of Union dues, provided such duties cannot be performed out aide of working hours, and further providing such dutiaa do not interfere with the safety, continuity or rate of progress of hia work, or the work of other employees on the project. The Union agrees that the Steward's duties shall ba performed as expeditiously as possible and the (Company agrees to allow tha Steward a reasonable amount of 'time for the performance of his necessary duties subject.to the conditions described in this Article. Regardless of any other provision of the Agreement no employee or Steward shall leave his job while his presence is necessary for the safe and efficient operation of the project and without first seciiring per­mission from his immediate supervisor.

Section 3. The Steward shall report to his immediate supervisor at the time of leaving his work to perform his Steward duties and at the time of his return to work upon completion of his Steward duties* If the Steward must perform his Steward duties during working hours, he should make arrangements with his immediate supervisor in advance, if at all possible, in order not to interfere with the work of the project to which he is assigned.

Section 4. The Steward shall be compensated for time lost during working hours in performing his duties, as set forth in Section 2 of this Article. The actual presenting and processing of grievances should be done after working hours.

Section 'S* The Company agrees that tho Steward shall not be diacharged, or laid off, because of the performance of his necessary duties when performed In accordance with this Article*

Section 6. To nromote' harmony between the Union and the Company, the Steward * lthout interrupting the progress of the work, should be limited- to and shall not exceed the following duties and activities:

' (a) Work with the Company's designated and authorized supervisor in an attempt to resolve disputes prior to the application of the grievance procedure.

t

.. . r.'

~i^ i^

{y >'''"- *

t f

laaaHlMMVtf..^.

^ ... ___.,-, feiipanJha^s,'"

immediately availabla saparvisox^ as described in Step i of Article ZX, Qrievaaaii Procadura**

Baport to his Union representative and to tha Company's immediately available supemsor any ttsployae covered by thia Agreement who is ^ acting in a reckless and unsafe I* manner endangering the health andr safety of other employees or thxgat-aniag potential damage to privaae ; or publia property. ,.%

ARTICLE XZ

HOU vS 07 WOnX

Section 1. ^ e work week shall begin at 12:01 a.m. SiJinday, and end at 12:00 midnight the following Saturday. The first workday of the week shall begin at 12:01 a.m. Sunday and end at midnight Sunday, and each worlcday therafter will consist of twenty-four (24) con­secutive hours begixming at the same time each calendar day.

Section 2. The regular work schedule for shift workers shall be cyclas of eight (8) consecutive hours from 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m., from 3^00 p»n, to 11:00 T).m., and from 11:00 p.m. to 7^00 a.m. The Employer will dis­cuss with the Union the need for any change in shift work schedule prior to establishment of any other schedule necessary to meet special requirements. ,

Section 3. Tlie regular work hours for irorkers on a day schedule, shall be from 3:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon and from 1:00 to 5:00 p.m. The Contractor will discuss with the Union the need for any change in the day work schedule prior to the establishment of any other schedule necessary to meet s'oecial requirements.

SectirOn 4. The Contractor will attempt to arrange and ioaintain equitable work schedules.

Section 5. An employee absent from TTork shall give hia supervisor reasonable advance notice before returning to work. Reasonable advance notice shall also be given when an employee desires time off.

k

;- .Jit''*

82

-li-!lLk;Lil . •'.cal PQ;:'iods. On each Shift there ;*' ' ^ -o- v ?-rioc; of not less than one-half (1/2) o'ir, a' t. T? ;iot Ircr f^nn three (3) hours and before not ::ore t.ian five an4 one-hrlf (5-1/2) hours of scheduled ^y^Tk time.

• ' < • • •

... . 8aptiQP 7> No emplosraa Ishatl be expecte4 to hold bimsalf subject to call during off-duty

* Employees will be pearmitted to make arrangements jointly with other employees subject to the ,< approval of their immediate supervisor whereby shifts "/• may be traded or workover required, provided the Contrac­tor is not required by thia Agreement or by applicable law to pay time and one-half payments as a result of such shift trade. </ ^

• A- •

Lon 9. The regular shift shall be six (6) . ' days on .and one (1) day off when working on rigs. The

' regular shift for work, in yard will be five (5; days on and two (2) days off.

"T^-'y-- -"-I '\ . .. •;. •' '• y- -A

ARTICLE XII

. pp':cv<lL 07 u ioN MI::3T;3

The ^nion represents to Company that the terms of this Agreement have been presentod at a regular meeting Of the Union duly called and that this Agreement has been ratified and adopted by a majority vote of the members of the Union, employed by .

! JI^U ARTICLE XIII

PSaiOD OF AGRSa-^JT •

T!iis /\greenent shall become effective on the date o" c::rci'.tlon !:areof and shall remain in effect for at least ninety (90) dr>:fn and thereafter unless either '^arty, in '.rritlng, by certified or registered wall, shall notiry the other party of its intention to amend, re-negotiate or terminate the contract. Tiion such notice of intention to anend, re-ne»jOtiate or terminate the contract is given, t'.ra tl;is Agreement shall terminate sixty (6o) dr ys from the da.te o^ such notice (but no less than ninety (90) days from date of execution of this Agreement) unless the parties shall agree to an extension of the contract beyond such date.

•i

-*.

Q3

.^iTICL3 XIV

NOTICES Seotion i. Wt*itten notice required to be served

un^or the terms of this agreement shall be served for all tpumoses herein wh' n received registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, postage prepaid* .

To the Employer:

«'4<

Tb the Union:

Local 826 •International Union of Operating Engineers P. 0* Box 1590 Big Spring, Texas 79720

Seotion 2. The date of receipt at the address stated above of suoh written notice shall be the con­trolling date for all purposes.

ARTICLE XV

rS CLAUSE

If any of the provisions of this Agreement shall be held invalid by any governmental agency of proper authority, such action shall not invalidate the other provisions contained herein.

ARTICLE XVI

SIGITATUR!23

IN 'llTilZoo '7:ii:i307, the parties have caused this instrument to be executed by their duly authorized repre­sentative, the day and year first above written*