Metropolitan Life Insurance Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsMar 22, 1965

151 N.L.R.B. 885 (N.L.R.B. 1965)

METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY 885 All our employees are free to become or remain , or refrain from becoming or remaining , members of the above-named Union , except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring union membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment as authorized by Section 8(a) (3) of the Act. AMERICAN TRAILER & EQUIPMENT CORP. AND ITS BRUNSWICK BODY WORKS DIVISION AND BRUNSWICK TRAILER SERVICE, Employer. Dated------------------- By------------------------------------------- (Representative) ( Title) NOTE.-We will notify Charles Swiatocha, James Hefferty, John Pobicki, George Casey, John McGhee, Jack Killinger, and Matthew Gondera, if presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States, of their right to full reinstatement upon application in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training and Service Act of 1948, as amended , after discharge from the Armed Forces. 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, 614 National Newark Building, 744 Broad Street, Newark, New Jersey, Telephone No. Market 4-6151, if they have any questions concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company and Insurance Work- ers International Union, AFL-CIO. Case No. 1-CA-4822. March 22, 1965 DECISION AND ORDER On February 16, 1965, Trial Examnier Paul Bisgyer issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that Respondent had engaged in and was engaging 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, Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three- member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Fanning and Brown]. 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 Examiner's Decision, the exceptions, and the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner. 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 151 NLRB No. 108. '886 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ,orders that Respondent, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended 'Order. TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION AND RECOMMENDED ORDER ON GRANT- ING GENERAL COUNSEL'S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEAD- INGS AND DENYING THE RESPONDENT'S CROSS-MOTION STATEMENT OF THE CASE This is one of the many cases involving the refusal of Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, herein called the Respondent, to bargain collectively with Insurance Work- ers International Union, AFL-CIO, herein called the Union, in order to test the appropriateness of the employee unit for which the Union was certified by the Board as the exclusive bargaining representative. The complaint issued by the General Counsel 1 alleges that this refusal to bargain violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended. In its answer, the Respondent admits the Union's certification following a Board-conducted election and its rejec- tion of the Union's bargaining request, but denies the commission of any unfair labor practices on the ground that the certified bargaining unit is inappropriate. On January 18, 1965, the General Counsel filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings. Thereafter, on January 28, 1965, Trial Examiner Paul Bisgyer issued an order to show cause directed to the Respondent, with notice to the other parties, requiring the Respondent to file a response in writing with the Chief Trial Examiner in Washington, D C., on or before February 10, 1965, setting forth the reasons why the General Counsel's motion for judgment on the pleadings should not be granted; why a Trial Examiner's Decision and Recommended Order should not be issued, sustaining the allegations of the complaint and granting the appropriate remedy; why the notice of hearing heretofore served upon the parties should not be canceled; and why such other and further relief as may be just and proper should not be ordered. In reply, the Respondent filed on February 3, 1964, a statement in opposition to motion of General Counsel for judgment on the pleadings and cross-motion for judgment on the pleadings, in which it requests denial of the General Counsel's motion, dismissal of the complaint, and revocation of the Union's certification as the collective-bargaining representative of the employees involved herein. Upon consideration of the motion papers, pleadings, order to show cause, the Respondent's opposing statement and cross-motion, and upon all the proceedings heretofore had herein, I find that no genuine issue of any material fact is here presented warranting a hearing. As for the legal issues and remedy, I find that they can be decided without the necessity of holding a hearing. Accordingly, the notice of hearing scheduled for March 8, 1965, is hereby canceled. With respect to the merits of the General Counsel's motion and the Respondent's cross-motion, I find that the General Counsel is entitled to judgment and that the cross-motion should be denied, for the reasons more fully set forth below. On the basis of my above rulings, the entire record in this case, and all the proceed- ings heretofore had, I make the following: FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT; THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED There is no question, and I find, that the Respondent, which is engaged in the business of selling and issuing life, industrial, and personal health insurance policies, is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act and that the Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. II. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES The undisputed evidence establishes the following: On December 1, 1964, the Union, having won a Board-conducted election, was certified by the Regional Director in Case No. 1-RC-8041 as the exclusive collective- bargaining representative of the Respondent's employees in a unit composed of: All Metropolitan Insurance consultants, canvassing regular and office account agents attached to the Company's Charter Oak District Office, in Hartford, Con- 1 The charge was filed by the Union on December 10, 1964, and a copy was served on the Respondent the same day. METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY 887 necticut, excluding all independent agents, retired agents, managers, assistant man- agers, cashiers, clerical employees, secretaries, professional employees, guards, watch- men, and all supervisors as defined in Section 2(11) of the Act. Notwithstanding the Union's certification, the Respondent since about December 3, 1964, has continuously refused the Union's request for recognition and to bargain collectively for the employees in the above-described unit concerning rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other terms and conditions of employment. In defense, the Respondent challenges the appropriateness of the unit, as it had unsuc- cessfully done in the earlier representation case,2 and for this reason contends that it is under no duty to recognize or bargain with the Union. As the Respondent is well aware, a Trial Examiner is not free to ignore a prior Board ruling or determination, except in unusual circumstances not here present .3 Moreover, it has been settled long ago that, absent newly discovered or previously unavailable evidence, a unit issue determined in a representation proceeding may not be relitigated in a subsequent unfair labor practice case alleging the employer's refusal to bargain with respect to such unit .4 Accordingly, I must find that the Respondent, by refusing to recognize and bargain collectively with the Union as the duly certified representative of the Respondent's employees in an appropriate unit, violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. III. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the Respondent, set forth in section II, above, occurring in con- nection with its operations set forth in section I, above, 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 commerce and its free flow. IV. THE REMEDY Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I recommend that the Respondent cease and desist from engaging in the unfair labor practices found and take certain affirmative action designated to effectuate the policies of the Act. To remedy the Respondent's unlawful refusal to fulfill its statutory obligation, I recommend that it bargain on request with the Union as the exclusive representative of its employees in the appropriate unit described above and, if an understanding is reached, embody such understanding in a signed agreement. I also recommend that the Respondent post in its Charter Oak district office in Hartford, Connecticut, the notice attached to this Decision as an appendix. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. All Metropolitan Insurance consultants, canvassing regular and office account agents attached to the Company's Charter Oak District office in Hartford, Connecti- cut, excluding all independent agents, retired agents, managers, assistant managers, cashiers, clerical employees, secretaries, professional employees, guards, watchmen, and all supervisors as defined in Section 2(11) of the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act. 4. At all times material herein, the Union has been the exclusive bargaining representative of the employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act. 5. By refusing since about December 3, 1964, to recognize and bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive representative of the employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. 2 One question concerning the appropriate unit is now pending before the U.S. Supreme Court. N.L R B. v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, 379 U.S. 812 Two other cases involving this issue are also pending before the U S Supreme Court on petitions for certiorari. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company v. N.L.R B., Docket Nos. 56 [380 U.S. 523] and 229 [380 U.S. 525]. s Insurance Agents' International Union, AFL-CIO (The Prudential Insurance Com- pany of America), 119 NLRB 768, 772-773. * Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company v. N.L.R.B., 313 U.S. 146. 888 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. RECOMMENDED ORDER Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, it is ordered that the Respondent, Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Hartford, Connecticut, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Refusing to recognize and bargain collectively with Insurance Workers Inter- national Union, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive representative of the Company's employ- ees in the unit described below, concerning rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of employment: All Metropolitan Insurance consultants, canvassing regular and office account agents attached to the Company's Charter Oak district office in Hartford, Connecti- cut, excluding independent agents, retired agents, managers, assistant managers, cashiers, clerical employees, secretaries, professional employees, guards, watchmen, and all supervisors as defined in Section 2(11) of the Act. (b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining , or coercing employees in the exercise of their bargaining rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which is necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Upon request, bargain collectively with the above-named Union as the exclusive representative of its employees in the above-described unit concerning rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of employment and, if an understanding is reached, embody such understanding in a signed agreement. (b) Post at its Charter Oak district office, in Hartford, Connecticut, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 5 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for Region 1, shall, after being duly signed by the Respondent's representative, be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof and maintained by it for a period of 60 consecutive days thereafter in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. Notify the Regional Director for Region 1, in writing, within 20 days from the receipt of the Trial Examiner's Decision, as to what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith .6 6In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, the words "a Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "the Recommended Order of it Trial Examiner" In the notice. In the further event that the Board's Order be en- forced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Decision and Order." e In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, this provision shall be modified to read: "Notify said Regional Director, in writing , within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith." APPENDIX 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, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that: WE WILL NOT refuse to recognize and bargain collectively with Insurance Workers International Union, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive representative of the Company's employees in the unit described below, concerning rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of employment All Metropolitan Insurance consultants, canvassing regular and office account agents attached to the Company's Charter Oak district office in Hartford, Connecticut, excluding independent agents, retired agents, man- agers, assistant managers, cashiers, clerical employees, secretaries, pro- fessional employees, guards, watchmen, and all supervisors as defined in Section 2(11) of the Act. MEYERS BROS . OF MISSOURI, INC. 889 WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of their bargaining rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. WE WILL bargain collectively, upon request, with the above-named Union as the exclusive representative of our employees in the above-described unit concerning rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of employment and, if an understanding is reached, we will embody such under- standing in a signed agreement. 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, Boston Five Cents Savings Bank Building, 24 School Street, Boston, Massachusetts, Tele- phone No. 523-8100, if they have any questions concerning this notice or com- pliance with its provisions. Meyers Bros. of Missouri , Inc. and Automotive, Petroleum and Allied Industries Employees Union, Local 618, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware- housemen & Helpers of America and United Industrial Work- ers of North America of the Seafarers International Union of North America, Atlantic, Gulf, Lakes and Inland Waters Dis- trict, AFL-CIO, Party to the Contract. Case No. 14-CA-3279. March 22, 1965 DECISION AND ORDER On October 29, 1964, Trial Examiner Morton D. Friedman issued his Decision in the above-entitled case, finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Exam- iner's Decision. Thereafter, the above-named Party to the Contract, hereinafter referred to as U.I.W., filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and a brief in support of the exceptions. An answering brief was filed by the Charging Party. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three- member panel [Members Fanning, Brown, and Jenkins]. 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 Examiner's Decision and the entire record in this case, in- cluding the exceptions and briefs, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner, to the extent consistent herewith. 151 NLRB No. 101.