Colonial Life Insurance Co. of America

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsJul 31, 1942

42 N.L.R.B. 1177 (N.L.R.B. 1942)

In the Matter of COLONIAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA and UNITED OFFICE & PROFESSIONAL WORKERS OF AMERICA, C. I O. Case No. R=3987.Decided July 31, 1942 Jurisdiction : industrial insurance industry. Investigation and Certification of Representatives : existence of question re- fusal to accord petitioner recognition until certified by the Board, election necessary Knit Appropriate for Collective Bargaining : all industrial insurance agents employed by Company in New Jersey, excluding supervisory employees, assist- ant managers , and home office inspectors White & Case, by Mr Chester Bordeau, of New York City, for the Company. Boudin, Cohn & Glickstein, by Mr. Leonard B. Boudin, of New York City, for the C. I. O. ' Mr. H S. Thatcher, of Washington, D C, for the A. F. of L. Mr. Mozart G Ratner, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon petition duly filed by the United Office & Piofessional Work- ers of America, C I 0., herein called the C. I. 0., alleging that at question affecting commerce had ai isen concerning the representation of employees of Colonial Life Insurance Company of America, Jersey City, New Jersey, herein called the Company, the National Labor Relations Board provided for an appropriate hearing upon due notice before Helen F Humphrey, Trial Examiner Said hearing was held at New York City, on June 25, 1942. The Company and the C. 1.6. appeared, participated, and- weie afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evi- dence bearing on the issues Industrial and Ordinary Insurance Agents' Council, A. F. of L., herein called the A. F. of L, filed an appearance for the purpose of stating its position on the issues in- volved. The Trial Examinei's rulings made at the hearing are free 42N L R B, No 215 1177 1178 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD floor prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed After the hearing the Company and the C 1 0 filed biiefs which the Boaid has con- sidered Upon the entice record in the case, the Boaid makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT I TI[E BUSINESS OF TITE COMPANY Colonial Life Insurance Company of America is a New Jersey corporation having its pimcipal, or home office , in Jersey City, New Jersey. In addition to its home office, the Company has over 50 district 'offices located in the States of New Jersey, New York, Connecticut, and Pennsylvania The Company 's business, which consists of in- suring the lives of its policyholdeis and investing its funds , is managed and directed by its directors and officers at the home office. On December 31, 1940, the Company had approximately 517,632 policies in force with a total face value of approximately $122,069,000, held by policyholders residing throughout the 48 States The Com- pany's assets as of December 31; 1940, consis ting of cash, bonds, stocks, notes, real estate, and other items , had' a value of approximately $21,600,000 The Company's cash is kept on deposit in 71 banks in the 4 States in which the Company does business . All the securities pur- chased by the Company aie delivered to its home office in Jeisey City, New Jersey, and aie kept in vaults in that city These securities are purchased from a laige number of brokers located in New York and New Jersey. The Company owns real estate in New York and New Jeisey, and real estate securing outstanding loans made by the Com- pany is located in the States of New Jersey, New York, and Pennsyl- vania From the foregoing, it is clear that in addition to insuring the lives of its policyholders, the Company engages in a diversified and widespread investment busifiess-" 4 < During 1940 the, Company pin chased appr oximately $11,222 00 worth of furniture , fixtures, and mechanical eqtnpmeiit for use in its business, approximately 68 peicent of which was used in a State or States other than that from which said equipment was shipped to the Company. During 1940 the Company pur chased-approximately $34,329 worth of paper and other stationery supplies; approximately 72 percent of which was purchased in the State of New York . Approxtiuately 85 percent of such paper and other stationery- supplies was -used in States other than the State in which it was purchased During 1940 the Company spent appioximately $18,953 00 for postage, telephone, telegraph and express service and approximately $19,837 00 for the tiavehng expenses of its supervisors. I - - COLONIAL LIFE INSURANCE-COMPANY OF AMERICA' 1179 The Company employs apploklmately 775 employees in the opera- tion of'its business Of the'total of 380 industrial insurance agents employed by the Company, 120' are employed, in New Jersey, 111 in New,Yoik, 138 in Pennsylvania, and 11 in Connecticut. - We find that the^Company is engaged-in commerce within the mean- ing of the National Labor Relations Act. II THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED United Office & Professional Workers of America is a labor organ- ization affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, admitting to membership insurance agents who sell both industrial and ordinary life Insurance 1 - III TIIE QUESTION CONCERNING, REPRESENTATION On March 3 1942, the C 1 O. requested recognition as exclusive bargaining agent for the employees of the Company in the unit herein- after found appropriate The Company declined to recognize the peti- tioner unless and until it had been certified by the Board. A statement of the Regional Director introduced in evidence at the hearing indicates that the C. I.O Iepresciits a substantial number of employees in the unit hereinafter found appropriate? We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning the representation of eiiiployees of the Company, within the meaning of Section 9 (c) `and'Section'2 (6) and '(7) of the National Labor Rela- tions Act JV TIIE ,APPROPRIATE, UNIT The C'I O requests au-nit--composed of-all of the industrial insur- ance agents_eminloyed by,the Company in its New Jersey offices The Company contends fora ui it'comprising' all of the industrial insur- ance agents in its employ The Company and the C I. 0 agree that supervisory employees including assistant managers and home office inspectors are to be excluded,from the unit found appropriate On January 18, 1938, the Industrial Insurance Agents' Union, Local 30, a local of the petitioning organization, herein called Local 30, filed a petition with the New York State Labor Relations Board in Which it I Industrial and Ordinary Insurance Ageats' Council, affiliated with the American Fed- eration of Labor, filed an apneaiance at the hearing solely foi the puipose of stating its position on the unit question herein involved It makes no claim to represent employees of,the'Compan4 in the unit hetelfiaftei found,appidpuate a Trhe Regional Director's statement shows that the Union submitted 49 authoii7ation cards, 47 of which were found to bean the apparently genuine' oiigmal signatules'of persons appealing on the Company s pay roll of Apiil 6, 1942 Theic are approximately 120 employees in the unit heteniaftel found applopiiate ` 1180 DECISION OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD contended that the appropriate unit for collective bargaining com- prised only the industrial insurance agents employed by the Company in New York City On January 29, 1940, this petition was withdrawn, and on March 8, 1940, the case was closed by the New York State Labor Relations Board. On August 29, 1940, the American Federation of Industrial Insurance Agents' Union, Local 22293, herein called Local 22293, filed aâ€¢ petition with the New York State Labor,Relations Board in which it alleged that the unit appropriate for.collective bargaining contained the industrial insurance agents employed by the Company in greater New Yoi k and Westchester and Nassau Counties On October 11, 1940, Local 30 filed a petition with the National Laboi Relations Board alleging that the appropriate unit included all indus- trial agents employed by the Company. On November 2, 1940, the Board refused to direct an investigation of this petition because Local 30 had not submitted substantial evidence of repiesentation in the unit claimed by it to be appropriates On November 25, 1940, Local 30 was granted peimission to intervene in the pioceeding then pending before the New York State Labor Rela- tions Board' In that proceeding it contended that the appropriate unit for collective bargaining included all industrial insurance agents employed by the Company. On December 27,1940, the New York State Labor Relations Board, with the consent of the parties, conducted an election to determine whether the industrial insurance agents em- ployed by the Company in greater New York, Westchester and Nassau Counties desired to be represented by Local 22293, or by Local 30, for the purposes of collective bargaining, or by neither. In this election 58 votes were cast for Local 22293, 6 for Local 30, and 29 for neither. Thereupon, on January 7, 1941, the New York State Labor Relations Board certified Local 22293 as the exclusive bargaining representative of all industrial insurance agents employed by the Company in the unit designated above. In March 1941, the Company entered into an exclusive bargaining contract with Local 22293 as representative of the agents in this unit. On December 20, 1940, the petitioner her em filed a petition with the National Labor Relations Board in which it alleged that the appropri- ate unit consisted only of industrial insurance agents employed by the Company in New Jersey 4 This petition was withdrawn by the Union on September 18, 1941, on the ground that the Union did not desire an election at that time The Company argues that a State-wide unit is inappioprlate because the employment circumstances and the woikmg'conditions of all of the Company's agents in all 4 States in which it-does business are sub- Case No II-R-1914 Case No II-R-2011 COLONIAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA 1181 stantially the same In support of this contention the Company points to the following facts : all agents are employed at the home office of the Company, although applications may be taken by the managers of the various branch offices The employment contracts between the Com- pany and each of its agents are identical Upon being employed by the Company all agents are required to take the same "research and review" courses which are conducted by the branch managers under the supervision of the home office in New Jersey. Promotions are passed upon by the home office, although they may be suggested by the managers of the branch offices. All agents are compensated in the some manner Agents are frequently shifted from one debit to another and from one branch office to another, and sometimes, although infre- agents are transferred from one State to another. Some of the agents are licensed to do business in more than 1 State, and al- though all but 3 of the 120 agents in New Jersey have debits exclusively in New Jersey, 2 have debits in Staten Island, New York, and 1 in Pennsylvania 5 The Company suggests that it must, for these reasons, treat all of its agents alike. The Company further contends that only a system-wide unit is ap- propriate because the Company's organization and field operations are geographically uniform It was testified that the officers of the Company supervise the activities of the agents directly from the home office The responsibilities of the officers of the Company are broken down by departments, industrial, intermediate, and ordinary rather than being divided on geographical lines. All inspectors employed by the Company operate directly from the home office and inspect offices in all four Statesin which the Company does business Although there is considerable variation among the insurance statutes of the States in which the Company operates, the Company conducts all its operations on the basis of the most restrictive statutes to which it is subject In addition, the Company argues that the C. I 0. has conceded that a system-wide unit is alone appropriate for this Company in previous proceedings before both the New York State Labor Relations Board and this Board, and that the C I 0. requests a State-wide unit now only because it has failed in its attempts to organize the agents of the Company in other States. The Company explains its consent to the election conducted by the New York State Labor Relations Board in a unit comprising the greater New York area and two adjoining coun- ties on the ground that at that time a strike was in progress and com- petition between the organizations there involved was disrupting the Company's business and, therefore, the Company desired the most expeditious settlement of the dispute. 5 The two agents with debits in New York which reported to the New Jersey branch office of the Company were excluded from the unit held appropriate by the New York State Labor Relations Board 1182 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD In support of its contention that a State-wide unit is appropriate in this, case, the C I 0 stated that it organizes industrial insurance agents on a State-wide basis because insurance agents are licensed by States and the legislatures of the various States control their working conditions and that the insurance departments of the various States are sometimes called upon to mediate disputes between agents and their employers With respect to the C I O's organizing policy, the record shows that the-Prudential Insurance Company consented to an election on that basis among its New York agents, and that a petition is now pending for an election among the Prudential agents in New Jersey. The C. I. O. Colonial State Organizing Committee and the State organizer have confined then effoits to agents of the Company em- ployed in New Jersey and union literature has been issued on that basis New Jersey locals can, admit to membership only New Jersey agents Attempts by the C. I. O. to organize Colonial agents in Connecticut were abandoned in 1938, and attempts to organize Colonial agents in New York were abandoned after the election of January 1941 The C. I 0 makes no claim to represent any of the Company's agents in other States, and it contends, that the New Jeisey agents should not be denied the benefits of collective bai gaining merely because its early organizational efforts among Colonial agents in other States have not been successful The A. F. of L maintains that a company-wide unit is inappro- priate at this time because it would mean that a large number of em- ployees of the Company who are now represented by it would be deprived of the benefits of collective bargaining, and because a deter- mination by the Board 'that a company-wide unit was appiopriate would jeopardize the status of the A F. of L as exclusive bargaining repiesentative of the Company employees in the greater New York ai ea. We are impressed by this contention Fuithermore, the map- propiiateness of a company-wide-unit at the present time is illustrated by our dismissal of the C L 'O petition on November 2, 1940, on the giound that no substantial showing of membership had been made. Under the circumstances of this case we are of the opinion and find that the policies of the Act can be best effectuated by making collective bargaining an immediate possibility for the employees of the Company in New Jersey 6 We therefoi e find that all of the industrial insurance agents employed by the Company in New Jersey, excluding super- Cf Matter of Home Beneficial Association of Richmond , Virginia, and Industrial and0 Ordinary Insuionce Agents' Council , 17 N E R B 1027 , Matte, of JoAn Hancock Mutual Life Insriiance Company and American Federation of Industrial and Oidinary Insuianee Agents' Union, No 215710, 26 N L It B 1024 , Matter of Life Insurance Company of Virginia and Ameitcan Federation of Industrial and Ordinary Insurance Agents' Union No 2226/1, 29 N L R B 246 See also, Mattes of Metropolitan Life Insuian,,e Company, 1 N Y S L R B 326 COLONIAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA 1183 visory employees, assistant managers and home office inspectors, consti- tute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. V TIIE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES We shall diiect that the question concerning representation which has arisen be resolved by an election by secret ballot among the em- ployees in the appropriate unit who were employed during the pay ioll period immediately preceding the date of this Direction of Elec- tion, subject to the limitations and additions set forth in the Direction. DIRECTION OF ELECTION By virtue of and pursuant to the power vested in the National Labor Relations Board by Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat 449, and pursuant to Article III, Section 8, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 2, as amended, it is hereby DIRECTED that, as pait of the investigation to ascertain representa- ti-ves for the purposes of collective bargaining with Colonial Life In- surance Company of America, Jersey City, New Jersey, an election by secret ballot shall' be conducted as early, as possible, but not later than thirty (30) days from the date of this Direction, under the direc- tion and supervision of the Regional Director for the Second Region, acting in this matter as agent for the National Labor Relations Board, and subject to Article III, Section 9, of said Rules and Regulations, among the employees of the Company in-the unit found to'be appro- priate in Section IV, above, who were employed during the pay-ioll period immediately preceding the date of this Direction of Election, including employees who did not work during such pay-i oil period because they were ill or on vacation, or in the active military service or training of the United States, or'tempoiarily laid off, but excluding' iliose who have since quit or been dischaigod for cause, to determine whether or not they desire to be represented by the United Office Professional Workers of America, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, for the purposes of collective bargaining. MR GERARD D REILLY took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Direction of Election.