Richfield Oil Corporation and the Oil Workers'' International Union Records

Collection Number: 5372

Kheel Center for Labor-Management Documentation and Archives, Cornell University Library


DESCRIPTIVE SUMMARY

Title:
Richfield Oil Corporation and the Oil Workers'' International Union Records, 1954-1955
Collection Number:
5372
Creator:
Richfield Oil Corporation;
Oil Workers' International Union
Quantity:
0.5 linear ft.
Forms of Material:
Records (documents).
Repository:
Kheel Center for Labor-Management Documentation and Archives, Cornell University Library
Abstract:
Briefs and petitions in the case of Richfield Oil Corporation and Oil Workers International Union before the National Labor Relations Board, 1954, and Richfield Oil Corporation vs. NLRB, United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, 1955.
Language:
Collection material in English


ORGANIZATIONAL HISTORY

An NLRB case involving the expansion of the area of compulsory bargainable issues. The company had unilaterally promulgated a Stock Purchase Plan and had refused to bargain with the union over it, claiming that is not encompassed by the terms "wages" or "other conditions of employment" within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act, but is merely an incentive to employees voluntarily to invest in company stock.
Upon charges of unfair labor practices filed by the Union the General Counsel of the NLRB by the Regional Direcotr for the Twenty- First Region (Los Angeles) issued a complaint on November 16, 1953 against the Company. In February, 1954 all parties entered into a stipulation which set forth an agreed statement of facts and executed a Motion to Transfer Proceeding to the Board, in which the parties waived their right to a hearing and the issuance of an Intermediate Report, etc. The Board then heard oral arguement on July 22, 1954. A decision in favor of the Union was handed down on October I8, 1954 stating that stock purchase plans were a bargainable issue, not a managerial prerogative; because, according to its interpretation, "wages" comprehends all emoluments of value which may accrue to employees because of their employment relationship.
The Company then appealed to the District of Columbia - Circuit Court of Appeals, which upheld the decision of the NLRB, and finally to the U.S. Supreme Court, which denied certiorari.

COLLECTION DESCRIPTION

Briefs and petitions in the case of Richfield Oil Corporation and Oil Workers International Union before the National Labor Relations Board, 1954, and Richfield Oil Corporation vs. NLRB, United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, 1955.
SUBJECTS

Names:
Richfield Oil Corporation.
Oil Workers International Union.

Subjects:
Oil industry workers -- Labor unions.
Collective labor agreements -- Oil industries
Stock options.

Form and Genre Terms:
Records (documents)


INFORMATION FOR USERS

Access Restrictions:
Access to the collections in the Kheel Center is restricted. Please contact a reference archivist for access to these materials.
Restrictions on Use:
This collection must be used in keeping with the Kheel Center Information Sheet and Procedures for Document Use.
Cite As:
Richfield Oil Corporation and the Oil Workers'' International Union Records #5372. Kheel Center for Labor-Management Documentation and Archives, Cornell University Library.

CONTAINER LIST

Container
Description
Date
Box 1 Folder 1 1954
Before the NLRB
Box 1 Folder 2 1954
Before the NLRB
Box 1 Folder 3 1954
Before the NLRB
Box 1 Folder 4 1954
Before the NLRB
Box 1 Folder 5 1954
Before the NLRB
Box 1 Folder 6 1954
Before the NLRB
Box 1 Folder 7 1954
Before the NLRB
Box 1 Folder 8 1954
Before the NLRB
Box 1 Folder 9 1954
Before the NLRB
Box 1 Folder 10 1954
Before the NLRB
Box 1 Folder 11 1955
Before the Court of Appeals
Box 1 Folder 12 1955
Before the Court of Appeals
Box 1 Folder 13 1955
Before the Court of Appeals
Box 1 Folder 14 1955
Before the Court of Appeals
Box 1 Folder 15 1955
Before the Court of Appeals
Box 1 Folder 16 1955
Before the Supreme Court
Box 1 Folder 17 1955
Before the Supreme Court