Metropolitan Life Insurance Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 22, 1964

147 N.L.R.B. 69 (N.L.R.B. 1964)

METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY 69
,image (line work) of one size and thickness, standardized paper of
one surface- and-thickness, and one preprepared ink. For this work,
employees can be trained within 2 to 4 weeks.
All employees, except the IBM typists, at the Philadelphia plant
-work in an open production area, under the supervision of one fore-
man. They all have the same hours, fringe benefits, holidays, and
vacation and insurance benefits. None of the employees is hired to,
operate,one piece of equipment or to serve in any one capacity. Ac-
cording to the Employer's testimony, an employee is hired for a
specific "bottleneck." Further, according to the Employer, as the
imprinting service must often be performed on short notice, an effi-
cient operation depends on cross-training and the use of employees
where they are needed.4
In these circumstances, particularly in view of the fact that the im-
printing operation is relatively simple, and absent any showing that
the employees engaged in the imprinting process are required to pos-
sess any substantial special skill, training, 'or experience, we find that
they do not constitute an appropriate lithographic production unit.'
Having found that a lithographic production unit is not appropriate
herein, we also find that the bindery, stock, shipping, and receiving
employees do not constitute an appropriate residual unit. We further
find that only an overall production and maintenance unit at the
Philadelphia plant is appropriate. As no union seeks to represent
such broader unit, we shall dismiss the petitions.
[The Board dismissed the petitions.]
4 Exhibits introduced into 'the record show that some employees perform several different
functions.
5 See General Motors Corporation, GM Photographic Engeneersnq Center, 143 NLRB 647.
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company and Insurance Workers
International Union, AFL-CIO. Case No. I-CA 4367. May 22,
1964
DECISION AND ORDER
On January 23, 1964, Trial Examiner William F. Scharnikow issued
his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that Respondent
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company had engaged in and was engag-
ing in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that it cease
and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth
in the attached Decision. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions
to the Decision.
147 NLRB No. 8.
70 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Mem-
bers Fanning and Brown].
The Board has considered the Decision and the entire record in the
case, including the Respondent's exceptions, and hereby adopts the
Trial Examiner's findings, conclusions, and recommendations.
In finding that Respondent violated Section 8 (a) (5) and (1) of the
Act, we note the recent decision of the United States Court of Appeals
for the First Circuit in Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. v. N.L.R.B.,
327 F. 2d 906 (C.A. 1). In that case, the court stated that it was
"handicapped . '.. by the Board's failure to articulate specific rea-
sons for its unit determination" (327 F. 2d at 909), and concluded
that in finding appropriate a unit limited to the insurance agents work-
ing in a single district office the Board had been controlled by the ex-
tent of the union's organization, contrary to the mandate of Section
9(c) (5) of the Act. With all due deference to the Court of Appeals
for the First Circuit, we believe that our representation decision in
that case articulated the reasons supporting our unit finding; the
decision itself was not-controlled by the extent of the union's organi-
zation. We note also that the First Circuit's decision conflicts with
an earlier decision of the Fourth Circuit (N.L.R.B. v. Quaker City
Life Insurance Company, 319 F. 2d 690), and also with subsequent
decisions of the Third and Sixth Circuits in cases virtually identical
with that before the First Circuit (Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. v.
N.L.R.B., 328 F. 2d 820 (C.A. 3) ; Metropolitan Life Insurance Co.
v. N.L.R.B., 330 F. 2d 62 (C.A. 6)). However, in the event that the
reasoning underlying our representation decisions herein may have
been misunderstood, we shall again spell out the factors and considera-
tions which led us to conclude that units limited to (a) the district
office in New London, Connecticut (together with the detached office
at Westerly, Rhode Island), and (b) the district office at Meriden,
Connecticut, constitute separate units appropriate for the purpose of
collective bargaining.
In the representation proceeding,' the Respondent and the Union
stipulated that the facts with respect to the geographic scope of the
unit were identical to those established in a prior proceeding involv-
ing the same parties, .Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, 138
NLRB 565 2 The Respondent's operations as set forth therein are
as follows :
The Company is engaged in the sale and issuance of various types
of insurance policies and does business throughout the United States
1 The instant case involves two separate units, arising out of two separate petitions which
were consolidated for the purpose of hearing and later severed for the purpose of decision.
This is the representation decision which was upheld by the Third Circuit in Its
Metropolitan decision, supra, 328 F. 2d 820.
METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY 71
and Canada. It maintains its principal office in New York, New York,
and, for administrative purposes, it has divided its offices throughout
the United States into 14 territorial divisions. Each such division is
headed by a superintendent of agencies who reports directly to a com-
pany vice president. The district offices sought to be represented here
by the Union are included in Respondent's eastern territory, which
encompasses Connecticut and most of New York State.' The unit
sought to be represented by the Union in Case No. 1-RC-7331 would
include the company district office in New London, Connecticut, and
any offices administratively detached, here the Westerly, Rhode
Island, office. The unit sought in Case No. 1-RC-7313 includes the
Company's district office in Meriden, Connecticut.4
The Company's business operations are highly centralized, and poli-
'cies and procedures are established at the home office which governs
the management of the district office and the duties and functions of
the agents. The superintendent of agencies, whose office is located in
New York, has the responsibility for seeing that the offices in his
territory operate in accordance with these company directions, and in
the course of his duties, the superintendent of agencies makes periodic
visits to the offices in his territory.
Each district office has a manager in charge, who is the immediate
supervisory authority over the agents in the office. Agents are re-
quired by company regulations to perform all of their work through
and subject to the general supervision and direction of the manager of
the district office to which they are assigned. The manager normally
solicits applications for openings in his district, and, although he does
not have the authority to hire an individual applicant, he may recom-
mend that such action be taken. In carrying out his function as a re-
cruiter, the manager accepts the prospective agent's application, con-
ducts a personal interview, and orders a retail credit and medical
report. The application, together with the manager's recommenda-
tion, is then forwarded to the superintendent of agencies in New York
who makes the final determination. New agents receive their initial
training in New York and are then assigned to a, district office where
they receive additional training under the guidance and direction of
the manager and assistant manager. Although the agent spends the
greater part of his time in his assigned territory selling industrial
and other types of insurance, he is required to report to the district
office twice a week and whenever the manager so directs. One day each
week is devoted to a general meeting, at which the manager explains
s Although the detached office here involved is located in Westerly , Rhode Island, in the
Company's New England territory , it is under the administrative control of the New
London, Connecticut , district office, from which it is detached . For the purposes of this
Decision , we shall consider the Westerly office as an extension of the New London district
office. See Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, 138 NLRB 734, 736.
& There are no offices detached from the Meriden district office.
72
i
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS' BOARD
to his agents the latest company directives. The manager regularly
reviews the agent's performance and although he has no authority to
terminate an agent's'appointment, the manager may accept. the agent's
resignation, if tendered, or he may recommend to the superintendent
of agencies that the agent be terminated: The manager may order an
audit of the agent's accounts whenever he feels it is necessary and, in
the event of a deficiency of $75 or more in the agent's accounts, the
manager is required to suspend him until further notice.
All labor relations policies are established at the home office and all
agents are subject to the same wage policies, employee benefits, and
working conditions. All bidding on job openings' is limited to the
agents of the particular district office where the opening occurs. There
is virtually no interchange or transfer. of agents among the various
district offices and there is no business or social contact among agents
except on the individual district office level. There is no history of
collective bargaining affecting the employees involved in the instant
proceeding.
These facts demonstrate that each district office is a separate ad-
ministrative entity through which the Company conducts its business
operations. Thus, the district office is a distinctive administrative sub-
division created by the Company for the purpose of carrying on its
business in the most efficient manner; each office operates in many re-
spects as a complete, self-contained, and autonomous unit; there is
separate immediate control and supervision by the district manager in
each office; there is virtually no transfer or interchange of employees
among offices; and the agents within each office enjoy common work-
ing conditions. As the individual district office 'is thus appropriate;
and as no labor organization is seeking a broader unit, we reaffirm our
findings below that the New London and Meriden district offices con-
stitute separate units appropriate for the purposes of collective bar-
gaining. N.L.R.B. v. Quaker City Life Insurance Company, supra;
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company v. N.L.R.B., supra.
This is not to say, of course, that a number of units larger than
those here found appropriate would not also be appropriate. To the
contrary, we have found that various groupings of district offices, if
based on cogent geographic considerations, are appropriate for the
purposes of collective bargaining and have directed elections in such
units where the union has so requested.5 Moreover, it is clear, that,
when we give effect to the union's request in determining which one of
several overlapping appropriate units of different sizes should be cer-
5 See the following Metropolitan Life Insurance Company cases : 138 NLRB 565 (2 dis-
trict offices in Wilmington, Delaware) ; 138 NLRB 512 ( 6 district offices in Cleveland,
Ohio, and 3 suburban offices ) ; 138 NLRB 734 ( 1 district office in Sioux City, Iowa, and
2 detached offices ) ; 144 NLRB 149 (33 district offices in Chicago, Illinois ). And see
Equitable Life Insurance Company, 138 NLRB 529 (two district offices in Cleveland and
a detached office in Lorain , Ohio).
METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY 73
tified, we are not allowing ourselves to be controlled by the extent of
the union's organization, in violation of Section 9(c) (5) of the Act.
For that section prohibits only the establishment of a bargaining unit
which would not be appropriate when judged by traditional criteria.'
Since either -a single district office or a grouping of such offices where
they are geographically related would be appropriate under tradi-
tional criteria, to grant the union's request for one or the other of
these otherwise appropriate units does not violate Section 9(c) (5).'
The units approved herein included a class of employees, known as
Metropolitan Insurance Consultants (MIC's), Who were not involved
in the prior decisions. We note that in the representation hearing
herein, the Regional Director, in including the MIC's relied upon the
record of proceedings in an earlier case involving this respondent
(Metropolitan Life Inslrance Company, Case No. 13-RC-9130, not
published in NLRB volumes), which record was also incorporated
into the record of the proceedings herein by stipulation of the parties.
The parties agreed that, with minor changes, the factual and legal
issues regarding the MIC's were essentially similar to those in the
earlier case. This record showed the MIC's are engaged principally
in the sale of insurance in amounts exceeding $1,000. They sell per-
sonal accident and health, business, and group life insurance, pension
plans, and estate planning coverage, whereas regular and office account
agents are principally engaged in the sale of what is generally termed
"industrial" insurance. Generally, the MIC's and other agents have
the same supervision; wages and other fringe benefits are similar for
both. Ninety-five percent of all MIC's were formerly employed as
regular or office account agents. Based upon the line of progression
from agent to MIC, the frequent contact between the two groups, and
their similar supervision, the Regional Director found that a com-
munity of interest existed between the MIC's and the other agents
included in the unit found appropriate. The Board agreed that the
MIC's appropriately belonged in the unit. Metropolitan Life In-
surance Company, 146 NLRB 967, see Metropolitan Life Insurance
Company, 144 NLRB 149.
I The vice intended to be cured by Section 9 (c) (5) was, in the words of Senator Taft,
the use of extent of organization "where all valid tests fail to give the union what it
desires ." 93 Cong . Rec. 6860; 2 Legislative History of the LMRA, 1947 (G.P . O. 1948),
1625 . It is settled law, however, that extent of organization may legitimately be a factor
in a Board unit determination , so long as it is not controlling . H. Rept . 245 on H . R. 3020,
80th Cong., 1st sess. , 1 Leg. Hist . LAIRA 328-329 ; N.L.R.B. v. Quaker City Life Insurance
Company, 319 F. 2d 690 , 693-694 ( 'C.A. 4) ; Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. v. N.L.R.B.,
328 F. 2d 820 , 826-827 ('C.A..3), company petition for certiorari filed April 8, 1964
( No. 982, October Term 1963).
P We have often stated that it is our policy not to compel a labor organization to seek
representation in a larger unit unless the unit requested is itself inappropriate . See, e.g.,
Dixie Belle Mills, Inc ., 139 NLRB 629 , 631; P. Ballantine & Sons, 141 NLRB 1. 103, 1107.
Bagdad Copper' Company, 144 NLRB 1496; Gordon Mills, Inc., 145 NLRB 771 . For the
reasons stated above, however, this is a far cry from our giving controlling weight to the
extent of the Union 's organization.
74 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
As the units involved herein are appropriate, we find, in agreement
with the- Trial Examiner, the Respondent's admitted refusal to' bar-
gain with the Union was violative of Section 8 (a) (5) and (1) of
the Act.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby - adopts as its
Order, the Order recommended by the Trial Examiner, and Orders
that the Respondent, Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, its offi-
cers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in
the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order, with the modifications set
forth below :
1. The following paragraph 1(b) is added to the Recommended
Order :
(b) Interfering with the efforts of the Insurance Workers
International Union, AFL-CIO; to negotiate for or represent the
employees in the said appropriate units as the exclusive bargain-
ing agent.
2. The following is substituted for the first indented paragraphs
beginning "WE WILL NOT refuse to ..." in. Appendixes A. and B
attached to the Decision : -
WE WILL NOT interfere with the efforts of the Insurance Work-
ers International Union, AFL-CIO, to negotiate for or represent
as exclusive bargaining agent the employees in the bargaining
unit described below.
TRIAL EXAMINER 'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On December 5, 1963 , the complaint in the present case was issued against, and
served upon , the Respondent , Metropolitan Life Insurance Company , on the basis of
charges filed and served upon the Respondent on November 6, 1963 , by Insurance
Workers International Union, AFL-CIO, herein called the Union . The complaint
alleges in substance:
(1) That all employees of the Respondent in each of two specifically described
units of employees, constitute a separate and distinct unit appropriate for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended , 29 U.S.C., Sec. 151, et seq., herein called the Act.
(2) That, on or about September 27, 1963, a majority of the employees in each
of the aforesaid two units designated or selected the Union as their representative
for the purposes of collective bargaining , in secret elections conducted under the
supervision of the Regional Director for the First Region of the Board.
(3) That on October 7, 1963, the Union was certified by the Board as representa-
tive of the employees in each of the two aforesaid units.
(4) That on or about October 14, 1963, the Union requested the Respondent,
and on or about October 23, 1963, and at all times thereafter , the Respondent has
refused, to bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive representative of all
the employees in each of the two aforesaid units. -
(5) That by its refusal the Respondent has committed unfair labor practices
affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 8(a) (5) and ( 1) and 2 (6) and (7)
of the Act.
METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY 75
In its answer to the complaint;-the- Respondent (a) by its silence with respect
thereto, admits certain allegations - of the complaint setting forth the Union's filing
and service of its charge , the corporate status and nature and extent of the Respond-
ent's business as it affects commerce,. and the status of the Union as a labor organi-
zation; and (b) expressly admits that the.Unio n received a majority of the ballots
cast by employees in the election conducted by the Regional Director in each of the
units described in the complaint , that the Board certified the Union as bargaining
representative of the employees in, each of these units, -and that the Union has re-
quested the Respondent, but the Respondent has refused, to bargain collectively with
the Union as representative of the employees in said units. The Respondent, how-
ever, generally denies all other allegations of the complaint , including those relating
to the appropriateness of the bargaining units described in the complaint, the status
of the Union as exclusive representative of all the employees in each of these units,
and the commission by the Respondent of any unfair labor practices within the
meaning of the Act. Finally, as affirmative defenses , the Respondent also expressly
denies that either of the employee units constitutes a unit appropriate for collective-
bargaining purposes within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act, and asserts that,
"the National Labor Relations Board violated Section 9(c)(5) of the Act in deter-
mining -that [these] units . .. were appropriate units for collective-bargaining pur-
poses by giving controlling effect to the extent to which the employees had organized."
On December 23, 1963, the General Counsel filed and served upon the Respondent
a motion for judgment on the pleadings. In support of his motion, the General
Counsel summarized the essential allegations of the complaint and the Respondent's
answer, and added a further allegation that, on-August 30, 1963, the Board, in Deci-
sions and Directions of Elections in Cases Nos. 1-RC-7313 and 7331, had found
that the employees in each of the units described in the complaint constituted a unit
appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Sec-
tion 9(b) of the Act. The General Counsel contends in substance that the only issues
which the Respondent now seeks to raise by its answer relate to the appropriateness
of the units described in the complaint, and are therefore issues which have already
been litigated before, and determined by, the Board in the representation proceedings.
Accordingly the General Counsel prays in its motion that, in the premises and with-
out holding a hearing, findings of fact should be made, conclusions of law should be
reached, and an order be issued against the Respondent upon, and in full accordance
with, the allegations of the complaint.
On January 3, 1964, counsel for the Union also filed,.and served upon the Re-
spondent , a motion for judgment on the pleadings , adopting as its grounds those
which are set forth in the General Counsel's motion.
The motions having been referred to me [Trial Examiner William F. Scharnikow]
by the Chief Trial Examiner, on January 6, 1964, I issued and caused to be served
upon the Respondent and the other parties a telegraphic order directing the Respond-
ent, on or before January 13, 1964, to state what, if any, newly discovered evidence
or other evidence unavailable at the time of the representation proceedings, it in-
tended to present at a hearing in the instant proceeding, and also to show cause, if
any it had, why the motions of-the General Counsel and the Union for judgment on
the pleadings should not be granted.
On January 7, 1964 , counsel for the Respondent filed its statement of opposition to
the General Counsel's motion and its cross-motion for judgment on the pleadings.
In substance, the Respondent admitted that, in Cases Nos.. l-RC-7313 and 7331, the
Board had found the units alleged in the complaint to be appropriate; that a majority
of the employees in each unit having selected the Union as their representative in a
secret ballot election , the Regional Director certified the Union as exclusive bargain-
ing representative of the employees in each unit; and that, since about October 14,
1963, the Respondent has refused to bargain with the Union "on the grounds that
each unit was clearly inappropriate under Section 9 of the Act." The Respondent
affirmatively asserted that, in determining the bargaining units to be appropriate, the
Board acted arbitrarily and capriciously, was controlled by the extent to which the
employees had organized in violation of Section 9(c) (5) of the Act, and improperly
included insurance consultants in a unit of agents "because, as the evidence in both
representation proceedings demonstrates, the Union cannot and will not fairly repre-
sent these employees." Upon these asserted bases, the Respondent prays that the
complaint be dismissed and the Board's certifications of the Union be revoked.
On January 7, 1964, counsel for the Respondent in a letter replying to my order to
show .cause, affirmed the statements and prayers set forth in its foregoing opposition
and cross-motion and requested consideration of "the transcripts and briefs referred
,to in the representation cases herein, namely, Case No. 1-RC-7313 (Meriden,
Conn.) and 1-RC-7331 (New London, Conn.)."
76 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On January 14, 1964, by telegraphic order served upon the parties, I canceled the
hearing set for January 20, 1964, and set aside the notice of hearing, because it ap-
peared to me "from the pleadings, the Respondent's opposition and cross-motion for
judgment on the pleadings; and the Respondent's response to my order to show cause
of January 6, 1964, that there are no issues of fact nor offers of evidence, nor argu-
ments on the merits other than those previously presented to_ and decided by the
Board in the representation proceeding." I further advised the parties that my rulings
on the cross-motions and my Decision and Recommended Order, including findings
of fact and conclusions of law, were being prepared and would be filed and served' in
due course.
Rulings on Motions
For the reasons stated in my telegraphic order of January 14, 1964, I now grant
the motions of the General Counsel and the Union for judgment on the pleadings
and deny the cross-motion of the Respondent for dismissal of the complaint.
The issue of appropriateness of the bargaining units has already been admittedly
litigated by the parties and decided. by the Board in the representation proceedings,
the Respondent proffers no further evidence or additional argument upon the issue,
and there is therefore no reason nor justification for relitigating the issue, particu-
larly before a Trial Examiner upon whom the Board's existing determinations of unit
are binding. Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company v. N.L.R.B., 313 U.S. 146; Metro-
politan Life Insurance Company, 142 NLRB 491; Metropolitan Life Insurance Co.,
141 NLRB 1074; Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, 141 NLRB 337; N.L.R.B.
v. American Steel Buck Corp., 227 F. 2d 927 (C.A. 2); N.L.R.B. v. Botany Worsted
Mills, 133 F. 2d 876 (C.A. 3); N.L.R.B. v. West Kentucky Coal Company, 152
F. 2d 198, 200-201 (C.A. 6), cert. denied 328 U.S. 866. Since the allegations of the
complaint with respect to the appropriateness of the units are thus supported by the
Board's decisions in the representation cases, and since all the other material factual
allegations of the complaint are expressly admitted, or admitted by the Respondent's
failure to deny them, I make the following findings of fact, conclusions of law, and
recommendations upon the basis of the Board's determinations of units in the repre-
sentation cases and upon, and in accordance with, the allegations of the complaint
and the applicable principles of law and well-established policy.
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
1. Respondent is and has been at all times material herein a corporation duly
organized under and existing by virtue of the laws of the State of New York.
2. At all times herein mentioned, Respondent has maintained its principal office
and place of business at 1 Madison Avenue, in the city of New York, borough of
Manhattan, and State of New York; and maintains a district office in the city of
Meriden, county of New Haven, and State of Connecticut, hereinafter called the
Meriden office; and maintains a district office in the city of New London, county of
New London, and State of Connecticut, hereinafter called the New London office,
with its detached office in the city of Westerly, county of Washington, and State of
Rhode Island.
3. Respondent in the course and conduct of its business causes, and continuously
has caused at all times herein mentioned, substantial amounts of various types of
insurance to be sold in interstate commerce in each of the States of the United States.
Respondent derives annually from the interstate sale of insurance an amount exceed-
ing $1,000,000 of which more than $50,000 is remitted from its Connecticut offices.
4. The aforesaid Respondent is and has beenengaged in commerce within the
meaning of the Act.
5. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the
Act.
6. All Metropolitan Insurance consultants, and canvassing, regular, and office ac-
count agents of the Employer, selling industrial life and other forms of insurance,
and employed at the Employer's district office in Meriden, Connecticut, but exclud-
ing all independent agents, retired agents, managers, assistant managers, cashiers,
clerical employees, secretaries, professional employees, guards, watchmen, and all
supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of
collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act.
7. All Metropolitan Insurance consultants, and canvassing, regular, and office ac-
count agents of the Employer selling industrial life and other forms of insurance and
employed at the Employer's district office in New London, Connecticut, and its de-
tached office in Westerly, Rhode Island, but excluding all independent agents, retired
agents, managers, assistant managers, cashiers, clerical employees, secretaries, pro-
METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY 77
fessional employees, guards, watchmen, and all supervisors'as defined in the Act, con-
stitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning
of Section 9(b) of the Act. •
8: On or about September 27, 1963, a majority of the employees in each of the
units described in paragraphs 6 and 7 by secret elections conducted under the super-
vision of the Regional Director for the First Region of the Board, designated or
selected the Union as ctheir representative for the purposes of collective bargaining.
On October 7, 1963, the Union was certified by the National Labor Relations Board
as representative of the employees in each of the units described in paragraphs
6 and 7.
9. At all times material herein the Union has been the representative for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining of a majority of the employees in each of the, said
units, and by virtue of Section 9(a) of the Act, has been and is now the exclusive
representative of all the employees in each of said units for the purposes of collective
bargaining in respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, or other condi-
tions of employment.
10. On or about October 14, 1963, the Union requested Respondent to bargain
collectively in respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, or other condi-
tions of employment, with the Union as the exclusive representative of all the em-
ployees of Respondent in the units described above in paragraphs 6 and 7.
11. On or about October 23, 1963, and at all times thereafter, Respondent did re-
fuse and continues to refuse to bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive
representative of all the employees in each of the units described above in para-
graphs 6 and 7.
12. By the acts described above in paragraph 11 Respondent did engage in and is
engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a) (5) of the Act.
13. By the acts described above in paragraph 11 and by each of said acts, Respond-
ent did interfere with, restrain, and coerce and is interfering with, restraining, and
coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the
Act and thereby did engage in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8(a)( I) of the Act.
14. The activities of Respondent, described above in paragraph 11, occurring in
connection with the operations of Respondent, described above in paragraphs 2 and 3,
have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among
the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing com-
merce and the free flow of. commerce.
15. The acts of Respondent, described above, constitute unfair labor practices
affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8(a) (1) and (5) ' and Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
Since" it has been found that the Respondent has. engaged in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8(a) (1) and (5) of the Act, I will recommend that
it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action in order to effectuate
the policies of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and upon
the entire record in the case, it is recommended that the Respondent , Metropolitan
Life Insurance Company, its officers, agents , successors, and assigns , shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively in good faith concerning wages, hours, and
other terms and conditions of employment , with Insurance Workers International
Union , AFL-CIO , as the exclusive representative of all employees in each of the
following appropriate units:
First: C
All Metropolitan Insurance consultants , and canvassing , regular, and office account
agents of the Employer , selling industrial life and other forms of insurance , and em-
ployed at the Employer 's district office in Meriden, Connecticut . but excluding all
independent agents, retired agents, managers , assistant managers , cashiers, clerical
employees, secretaries, professional employees, guards, watchmen, and all supervisors
as defined in the Act. .
Second:
All Metropolitan Insurance consultants, and canvassing , regular, and office account
agents of the Employer selling industrial life and other forms of insurance and em-
ployed at the Employer's district office in New London , Connecticut , and its detached
78 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
office in Westerly, Rhode Island, but excluding all independent agents, retired agents;
managers, assistant managers, cashiers, clerical employees, secretaries, professional
employees, guards, watchmen, and all supervisors as defined in the Act. -
2. Take the following affirmative action which it is found will effectuate the policies
of the Act: '.
(a) Upon request, bargain collectively with the, above-named Union as the exclu-
sive representative of all employees in each of the foregoingcappropriate units, and
embody in a signed agreement any understanding reached with respect to the em-
ployees in each of these units.
(b) Post at its district office in Meriden, Connecticut, copies of the attached notice
marked "Appendix A," and also post at its district office in New London, Connecti-
cut, and its detached office in Westerly, Rhode Island, copies of the attached notice
marked "Appendix B." 1 Copies of said notice to be furnished by the Regional
Director for the First Region, shall, after being duly signed by the Respondent be
posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof and be maintained by it for 60 con-
secutive days thereafter in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to
employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respond-
ent that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the First Region, in writing, within 20 days
from the receipt of this Decision and Recommended Order, what steps the Respond-
ent has taken to comply herewith?
IIf this Recommended Order Is adopted by the Board, the words "a Decision and
Order" shall be substituted for the words "the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner"
in the notices. If the Board's Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court
of Appeals, the notices will be further amended by the substitution of the words "a
Decree of the United States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order" for the words "a
Decision and Order."
2 If this Recommended Order Is adopted by the Board, this provision shall be modified
to read: "Notify the Regional Director for the First Region, in writing, within 20 days
from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith."
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO -ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively with Insurance Workers Inter.
national Union, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive representative of the employees in
the bargaining unit described below.
WE WILL, upon request, bargain, with the above-named Union, as the exclu-
sive representative of all the employees in the bargaining unit described below
with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions
of employment, and, if an understanding is reached, embody such an under-
standing in a signed agreement. -
The bargain unit is:
All Metropolitan Insurance consultants, and canvassing, regular, and
office account agents of the Employer, selling industrial life and other
forms of insurance, and employed at the Employer's district office in
Meriden, Connecticut, but excluding all independent agents, retired agents,
managers, assistant managers, cashiers, clerical employees, secretaries, pro-
fessional employees, guards, watchmen, and all supervisors as defined in
the Act.
METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By------------------ - - --------------
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted 'for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. -
Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 24 School
Street, Boston, Massachusetts, Telephone No. 523-8100, if they have any questions
concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions. - -
PAINTERS DISTRICT COUNCIL NO. 3, ETC.
APPENDIX B
79
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively with Insurance Workers Inter-
national Union, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive representative of the employees in
the bargaining unit described below.
WE WILL, upon request, bargain with the above-named Union , as the exclu-
sive representative of all the employees in the bargaining unit described below
with respect to rates of pay, wages , hours of employment , and other conditions
of employment, and, if an understanding is reached , embody such an under-
standing in a signed agreement.
The bargaining unit is:
All Metropolitan Insurance consultants and canvassing , regular, and
office account agents of the Employer selling industrial life and other forms
of insurance and employed at the Employer's district office in New London,
Connecticut, and its detached office in Westerly, Rhode Island, but exclud-
ing all independent agents, retired agents, managers, assistant managers,
cashiers, clerical employees, secretaries , professional employees , guards,
watchmen, and all supervisors as defined in the Act.
METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting,
and must not be altered , defaced, or covered by any other material.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 24 School
Street , Boston, Massachusetts, Telephone No. 523-8100, if they have any questions
concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions.
Painters District Council No. 3, Brotherhood of Painters, Deco-
rators and Paperhangers of America , AFL-CIO [Central
States Painting and Decorating Company ] and Ernest L.
Miller, Jr. Case No. 17-CB-359. May 2, 1964
DECISION AND ORDER
On September 18, 1963, Trial Examiner Thomas S. Wilson issued
his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Re-
spondent had not engaged in the unfair labor practices alleged in the
complaint and recommending that the complaint be dismissed in its
entirety, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision.
Thereafter, the General Counsel filed except-ions to the Trial Exam-
iner's Decision and a supporting brief, and the Respondent filed a
brief in support of the Trial Examiner's Decision.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at
the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial Ex-
aminer's Decision, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in
147 NLRB No. 12.