American Service Bureau

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 9, 1953

105 N.L.R.B. 485 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

AMERICAN SERVICE BUREAU 485
As neither the number of votes cast for the Association nor the
number of votes cast for no union constitutes a majority of the
total valid votes cast, a second election would be conducted
among the eligible employees in the two -plant unit to determine
whether or not they wish to be represented by the Association.
The practice of pooling the votes in Globe elections is not an
entirely new idea of the Board.' We believe that this procedure
would result in unit findings of the Board which conform to the
desires of the employees and would therefore better effectuate
the intent and purpose of the Globe election doctrine.
9 See for example Pacific Gas and Electric Company, 3 NLRB 834; New York Evening
Journal, Inc., 10 NLRB 197, 209.
AMERICAN SERVICE BUREAU and INSURANCE AND ALLIED
WORKERS ORGANIZING COMMITTEE, CIO, Petitioner.
Case No. Z1-RC-2954. June 9, 1953
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Floyd C.
Brewer, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made
at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby
affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning
of the Act.
2. The Employer moves to dismiss the petition upon the
ground that there exists a local of the Petitioner admitting to
membership employees of the Employer, and that this local,
which the Employer contends is the real party in interest, has
not complied with the filing requirements of Section 9 (f), (g),
and (h) of the Act. Although the record discloses that literature
has been distributed in the name of a proposed local and one
witness declared himself to be the appointed shop steward of the
group whom Petitioner seeks to represent , the record fails to
establish the existence of a local possessing any formal
organization , charter , bank accounts, officers , or any other
characteristics indicating an ability to function as a labor
organization within the meaning of the Act. Under these
circumstances we find, contrary to the contention of the
Employer, that there is no local or subsidiary body of the
Petitioner admitting the employees involved herein to mem-
bership and, accordingly, we regard compliance by the Peti-
tioner alone as sufficient.' Moreover, the express intention
of the Petitioner to establish a local, in the event of success
lAs the record and the Employer's brief fully present the issues involved herein and the
positions of the parties, the Employer's request for oral argument is hereby denied
2 General Box Company, 89 NLRB 1439, 1441
105 NLRB No. 63
486 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
in any Board-directed election, does not alter the finding.
Whether or not the officers of any local which may be estab-
lished will comply with the Act is conjectural and, in this
respect, the Employer's questioning of the fact of compliance
is at best premature.3
The labor organization herein involved claims to represent
certain employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the
representation of employees of the Employer within the
meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Petitioner seeks a unit of the investigators employed
at the Employer's Los Angeles, California, office. The Employer
does not oppose the composition of the proposed unit but
maintains that the petition should be dismissed because the
employees sought are confidential employees, such as the
Board normally denies representation, and because the
Petitioner also represents insurance sales agents whose
employment status and earnings are affected by the inves-
tigations made by the employees in the proposed unit. In
support of its position, the Employer contends that to permit
representation of investigators and agents by the same inter-
national union, even though such representation would be in
separate units and by different locals, would necessarily give
rise to divided loyalty, a result inimical to the spirit and
purpose of the Act.
The Employer is not itself engaged in the insurance business
nor does it employ insurance agents. Its operations are
confined to making investigations, on a fee basis, for various
insurance companies engaged in the business of underwriting
life and accident and health risks. The employees involved
herein conduct the investigations and make written reports
thereon which are sent by the Employer to the clients. The
investigations fall within four general classifications: (1)
Investigations of applicants for positions as insurance sales
agents; (2) investigations of applicants for policies of life and
accident and health insurance; (3) investigations of claims for
benefits covered by the foregoing types of insurance; and (4)
miscellaneous, i.e., credit investigations of applicants for
mortgages from insurance company mortgages departments.
No recommendations are made in the reports of any of these
investigations.
The record supports the Employer' s contention that the
investigations can and do have a definite effect on the employ-
ment status or earnings of insurance agents. Thus, the refusal
by an underwriter to issue a policy as a result of investigation
made by one of the employees involved herein results in loss
of commission to the agent who obtained the application.
Similarly , an agent may be refused employment as a result of
investigation. Any irregularities on the part of an agent
discovered by an investigator may result in the discharge of
the agent.
3Sopth Jersey Gas Company, 102 NLRB 194.
AMERICAN SERVICE BUREAU 487
It is urged by the Employer that the confidential nature of the
work performed by the investigators requires their undivided
loyalty, and that by reason thereof, the Board should exercise
its discretionary authority to limit choice of bargaining
representatives so as to prevent possible impairment of such
loyalty which could conceivably ensue from representation by
the Petitioner of both the investigators and insurance agents."
We agree that the work of the employees herein requires their
undivided loyalty, but in balancing the interest of the Employer
and the employees in light of the applicable policies of the Act,
we find no cogent reason for us to limit the full freedom,
normally contemplated by the Act, of employees to select
representatives of their own choosing.' In our opinion the
Employer's argument--that representation of the investigators
by the same union that now represents the insurance agents
would result in conflicting interests and possible undermining
of the loyalty of the investigators- -is entirely speculative and
without record foundation. In disposing of similar arguments
to restrict the choice of bargaining representatives we have
held that self-organization for collective bargaining is not
per se incompatible with efficient and faithful discharge by
employees of their duties.6
Nor do we agree with the Employer that the nature of the
work of the investigators makes applicable the restriction
imposed by the Act upon the representation of guards. We have
held that employees who guard property not belonging to their
own employer are not guards within the meaning of the Act
and have refused to impose upon such employees the statutory
restriction applicable to guards.T That holding is controlling
here because the work of the investigators is not performed
for the protection of their own employer.
We find, therefore, that the following employees of the
Employer constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of
collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of
this Act:
All regular employees and regular part-time employees
employed at or working under the supervision of the Employer's
Los Angeles, California, office, excluding office clerical
employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act.'
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
Chairman Herzog took no part in the consideration of the
above Decision and Direction of Election.
4 We find without merit the Employer's additional contention that the investigators are con-
fidential employees within the Board's definition of such. These employees do not participate
in or effect, or assist those who participate in or effect, the Employer' s labor - relations
policies. Phillips oil company, 91 NLRB 534.
5Cf. N. L. R. B. v Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation, 331 U.S. 416, 422-423
6Dravo Corporation, 52 NLRB 322, 327; Allis-Chalmers Manufacturing Company, 70
NLRB 348.
7Brinks, Inc., 77 NLRB 1182, and subsequent cases.
8The unit description is in accordance with the stipulation of the parties made on the
record at the hearing
291555 0-54-32