Equitable Life Insurance Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 11, 1962

138 N.L.R.B. 529 (N.L.R.B. 1962)

EQUITABLE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY 529)
Equitable Life Insurance Company and Insurance Workers Inter-
national Union, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 8-RC-4590:
September 11, 1962
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 Nora Friel, hearing officer.-
The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prej-
udicial 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 labor organization involved claims to represent certain em--
ployees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the, representa-
tion of certain employees of the Employer within the meaning of See -
tion 9(c) (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The appropriate unit :
The Petitioner seeks a unit of debit insurance agents at the Em--
ployer's two district offices located in Cleveland, Ohio, and its detached
office in Lorain, Ohio. The parties are in agreement with respect to-
the unit inclusions and exclusions. However, the Employer contends
that Petitioner's unit is too limited in scope. The only units con-
sidered to be appropriate by the Employer would encompass all its-
offices in either (1) companywide, (2) divisionwide, or (3)' statewide,
(Ohio) unit.
The Employer has its principal office in Washington, D.C'., and is
engaged in the sale of life insurance in seven States and the District
of Columbia. All of the Employer's district offices are under the
general, overall supervision of its district agents department. For
administrative purposes, the district offices are further separated into-
two administrative divisions, each of which is headed by a division
superintendent. The offices sought by Petitioner are included in divi-
sion II, which encompasses all offices located in the States of Delaware
and Ohio.
The Petitioner's unit would include both of the Employer's district
offices located in the city of Cleveland and its detached office in Lorain,
1 The Employer objected to the hearing officer 's exclusion of evidence pertaining to the
organizational activities of the Petitioner The Employer seemingly takes the position
that the excluded evidence would have established that the scope of the unit requested
by the Petitioner was determined by the extent of the Petitioner's organizational campaign
among the employees . The findings hereinafter made show that, in reaching our decision,
as to the appropriate unit, we do not give controlling weight to the extent of Petitioner's,
organizational activities . Accordingly, the hearing officer's rulings were not prejudicial.
See The Employers' Liability Assurance Corporation, Ltd., 117 NLRB 92.
138 NLRB No. 70.
530 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Ohio, some 28 miles distant from Cleveland. The detached office in
Lorain is detached from, and under the administrative control of, the
Cleveland West office, one of the two district offices sought by the Peti-
tioner. The next closest office is in Akron, Ohio, which is approxi-
mately 30 miles from Cleveland. Although the Employer's home of-
fice has established rules and procedures governing the operations of
the offices and duties of its agents, each district office has a manager
and each detached office an associate manager, who exercise immediate
supervisory authority over the employees in the office? The district
manager normally recruits new agents. In this capacity, he accepts
applications from and interviews prospective agents. The applica-
tion, along with the manager's recommendation, is forwarded to the
home office where the final action is taken. If the applicant is hired,
he is assigned to a district office where he is given an intensive 13-week
training program under the guidance and direction of the district
manager and one of the office's staff managers. Although the manager
does not have the authority to discharge an agent, he may recommend
that such action be taken. The manager may order an audit of the
agent's accounts whenever he thinks it necessary, and in the event of
an apparent shortage in the agent's accounts, the manager is instructed
not to allow the agent to handle cases until the matter is thoroughly
investigated.
The agents sought by the Petitioner are assigned debit territories
where they principally sell industrial-type insurance. The debit agent
reports to the office 3 days a week, 1 day of which is set aside for the
manager's weekly meeting, at which he explains new company policy
and procedure. There is virtually no interchange or transfer of
agents among the district offices, and there is no business or social
contact among agents except on the individual office level. All labor
relations policies are established at the home office and all agents are
subject to the same wage policies, employee benefits, and working con-
ditions. There is no recent bargaining history.'
On the basis of the foregoing, and the entire record, we find that
the individual district office is in effect a separate administrative
entity through which the Employer conducts its business operations,
and therefore is inherently appropriate for purposes of collective
bargaining. Although we have found that the individual district
offices may constitute separate appropiate units, we do not believe that
such a finding should preclude the grouping of such offices where such
grouping is justified by cogent geographic considerations. Therefore,
2 The parties have agreed to exclude the managers and associate managers from the unit,
apparently on the theory that they are supervisors within the meaning of the Act.
8 The most recent collective -bargaining agreement affecting the employees here involved
was between the Employer and Industrial and Ordinary Agent's Council ( AFL), a predeces-
sor of the Petitioner. This agreement , which covered a statewide unit of debit agents,
expired in 1949 . In 1960 , the Petitioner went to an election in a statewide unit of debit
agents, but there was no resultant bargaining history.
EQUITABLE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY 531
as the Petitioner is seeking a unit comprising all of the Employer's
offices in a separate and distinct geographic area in the city of Cleve-
land, Ohio , and as there is no recent history of collective , bargaining
and no union seeks a broader unit , we find that such a unit may be
appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining ' Further, we find
that as Employer's detached office in Lorain , Ohio , is administratively
linked to the Cleveland West office , it may properly be included in
any unit which also includes the office from which it is detached.'
Accordingly , we find that the following employees of the Employ-
er's Cleveland East and Cleveland West district offices, Cleveland,
Ohio , and its detached office located in Lorain , Ohio , constitute a unit
appropriate for collective -bargaining purposes within the meaning of
Section 9 (b) of the Act :
All debit insurance agents, excluding office clerical employees, can-
vassers, canvassing agents, collectors , regular ordinary agents, guards,
district managers , associate district managers , staff managers, and
all other supervisors as defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
MEMBERS RODGERS and LEEDOM, dissenting :
The Union here seeks-and the majority is finding appropriate-
a unit of debit agents employed by the Employer in its two separate
district offices in Cleveland, Ohio, and the detached office in Lorain,
Ohio. We would dismiss the petition, not only because the unit is
less than statewide in scope and therefore inappropriate (see our
dissenting opinion in Quaker City Life Inswranee Company 134
NLRB 960), but also because the location of these offices, the factor
relied upon by the majority, is not a cogent reason for grouping these
debit agents into one unit. As the majority points out, the district
offices operate independently of one another, the debit agents employed
in these different offices have separate, immediate supervision, there
is virtually no interchange or transfer between the offices, and there
is no business or social contact between the debit agents in the district
offices. Thus, there is lacking here evidence that these debit agents
employed in these different offices share a community of interest, with
respect to the unit sought, warranting establishment of such a unit.
It appears to us that this unit is one based upon extent of
organization.
For the foregoing reasons, we would dismiss the petition. See our
dissenting opinion in Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, 138
NLRB 512.
4 Dfetropoaztan Life Insurance Company, 138 NLRB 512
5 Cf The Travelers Insurance Company, 116 NLRB 387.
662353-63-vol 138-35