Metropolitan Life Insurance Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 23, 1968

172 N.L.R.B. 1257 (N.L.R.B. 1968)

METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company and In-
surance Workers International Union , AFL-CIO,
Petitioner . Case 30-RC-846
July 23, 1968
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
By CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS
FANNIING AND ZAGORIA
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of
the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a
hearing was held before Hearing Officer John F.
Groth.l After the close of the hearing, the Peti-
tioner and the Intervenor, International Union of
Life Insurance Agents, filed briefs with the Board.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
Act, the National Labor Relations Board has
delegated its powers in connection with this case to
a three-member panel.
The Board has reviewed the Hearing Officer's
rulings made at the hearing and finds that they are
free from prejudicial error. They are hereby af-
firmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board
finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within
the meaning of the Act and it will effectuate the
purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to
represent certain employees of the Employer.
3. The Employer and the Intervenor are parties
to a contract covering the employees involved
which contains the following article XX:
This Agreement shall be effective as of May
27, 1966 and shall expire May 31, 1968 unless
either party shall notify the other in writing at
least sixty days prior to May 31, 1968 of its
desire to negotiate for a new Agreement. If
either party requests the other so to negotiate,
this Agreement shall remain in force for an ad-
ditional period not to exceed ninety days
beyond the date on which it would otherwise
terminate, and it shall terminate at that time
unless a new Agreement shall have been en-
tered into.
The Intervenor contends that the contract is a bar
to the petition, which was filed on March 13, 1968.
The Intervenor contends that the above provision
merely "provides for early termination (May 31)
upon the silence of both parties"; that the Inter-
I the hearing and pursuant to Section 102 67 of the National Labor
Relations Board Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended, the Regional
Director issued an order transferring the case to the National Labor Rela-
tions Board for decision
172 NLRB No. 137
1257
venor's letter to the Employer dated February 5,
1968, expressing its intent, in conformity with arti-
cle XX, to terminate the contract, automatically
triggered the provisions of that article so as to make
the contract effective an additional 90 days until
August 29, 1968; and that the petition was there-
fore untimely. We find no merit in this contention.
The Board has expressed the desirability of giving
rival unions a definite time guide as to when to or-
ganize, and that employees should know when to
seek a change of representatives if they so desire.2
This time guide has always been computed from the
expiration (or automatic renewal) date on the face
of the contract. The contract in this case provides
on its face that it will expire May 31, 1968, subject
to an extension, at the request of either party, for a
period "not to exceed ninety days ... unless a new
Agreement shall have been entered into." Such an
interim arrangement pending the negotiation and
execution of a new agreement cannot change the
expiration date for purposes of the timely filing of a
petition.' The petition was filed within the period
60 to 90 days before the expiration date of the con-
tract, May 31, 1968, and was therefore timely.4 Ac-
cordingly, we find that a question affecting com-
merce exists concerning the representation of cer-
tain employees of the Employer within the meaning
of Sections 9(c)(1) and 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Petitioner requests an election in a unit
limited to all agents of the Employer selling indus-
trial life insurance who are attached to district of-
fices, and to detached offices attached to district
offices, in the State of Wisconsin. The Employer
agrees that this unit is appropriate. There is no
dispute as to the composition of the unit. The Inter-
venor contends that, during 25 years of bargaining
history, separately certified units of agents in
Wisconsin and Minnesota have merged into a single
appropriate unit. There are approximately 390
Wisconsin agents and 179 Minnesota agents in-
volved.
The Employer is a New York corporation en-
gaged in the sale of life insurance throughout the
country. It conducts these operations through a
system of regional offices, district offices attached
to regional offices, and detached offices attached to
district offices. Some of its agents are organized in
units of a State, a single district office with its
detached offices, or a geographical cluster of dis-
trict and detached offices, while other agents are
unorganized. The Intervenor was certified as the
bargaining representative of all of Employer's
Deluxe Metal Furniture Company, 121 NLRB 995, 1001
' See John L,ber & Co, 123 NLRB 1 174
4 Leonard Wholesale Meats, Inc, 136 NLRB 1000
354-126 O-LT - 73 - pt 2 - 8
1258 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
agents attached to district or detached offices in the
State of Wisconsin in 1942; it was certified for a
separate unit of agents in Minnesota in 1943 and
1949. The Intervenor has been the contract
representative of both units since that time.
Since the inception of bargaining the separately
certified state units have sent one union team to
negotiate with one management team in the same
place at the same time. Union bargaining teams are
appointed by the International president and both
States are represented by them. They negotiate
with high company officers in New York. With one
minor exception, identical terms have been arrived
at for both Wisconsin and Minnesota,5 but separate
contracts have been drawn up when agreement was
reached and submitted to the Intervenor's member-
ship for ratification. The Intervenor added together
all votes from both States to determine the results.
In their 1962 agreement the parties altered the
certified unit descriptions to conform more closely
to the Employer's administrative organization.
Since then unit placement of employees has been
determined by the location of the district office
rather than the location of the detached office, so
that some Wisconsin detached office employees are
now in the Minnesota unit, and some Minnesota
and Michigan detached office employees are in the
Wisconsin unit. Employees living near the Wiscon-
sin-Minnesota border often sell insurance in both
States, but to do so must obtain separate state
licenses. There is little or no transfer or interchange
of agents between district offices.
An extension agreement entered into by the
parties in 1959, and drafted at the 1 1 th hour before
expiration, expressly refers to "the Minnesota bar-
gaining unit and the Wisconsin bargaining unit." In
1962 the Employer published both agreements in a
single booklet for the first time. However, the
booklet contains a statement on the inside front
cover that the single printing was "For con-
venience," although the Intervenor orally protested
the inclusion of this statement. The Intervenor em-
ploys a single letter to give notice of an intent to
terminate the contracts, but in its 1968 letter
referred to "agreements" in the plural.
Notwithstanding the uniformity of terms and
provisions of the separate contracts, and the total-
ing of votes from both units for ratification pur-
poses, we find no clear mutual intent to effect the
consolidation of the certified units into a single
overall unit . Intervenor 's bargaining teams are
selected to insure representation from each State.
From the start the parties have drafted separate
agreements for the two statewide units. The con-
tract recognition clauses have never purported to
merge these units into a single unit. Instead, the
1959 extension agreement expressly refers to two
bargaining units; and in 1962 the unit descriptions
in the recognition clauses were adjusted to shift em-
ployees from one unit to the other unit, thus main-
taining their separate identities.
Upon the above facts and the record as a whole,
we find that the centralized bargaining procedure
has been employed for convenience only, and that
the separate Wisconsin unit is appropriate.6
Accordingly, we find that the following em-
ployees of the Employer constitute an appropriate
unit for purposes of collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act:
All employees of the Employer selling industri-
al life insurance who are attached to district of-
fices and to detached offices attached to dis-
trict offices in the State of Wisconsin, includ-
ing canvassing, regular and office account
agents, but excluding independent agents,
retired agents, metropolitan insurance con-
sultants (formerly ordinary representatives),
managers, assistant managers, cashiers, clerical
employees, secretaries, and other persons not
agents.
[Direction of Election' omitted from publica-
tion. ]
' Only in 1950 was there a difference in terms One contract allowed 20
days' and the other 30 days' leave of absence for union business
"See Swift & Company, 124 NLRB 50, Remington Office Machines, 158
NLRB 994
' In order to assure that all eligible voters may have the opportunity to be
informed of the issues in the exercise of their statutory right to vote, all
parties to the election should have access to a list of voters and their ad-
dresses which may be used to communicate with them Excelnor Un-
derwear Inc , 156 NLRB 1 236, N L R B v Wyman -Gordon Co, 394 U S
759 Accordingly, it is hereby directed that an election eligibility list, con-
taining the names and addresses of all the eligible voters, must be filed by
the Employer with the Regional Director for Region 30 within 7 days of the
date of this Decision and Direction of Election The Regional Director shall
make the list available to all parties to the election No extension of time to
file this list shall be granted by the Regional Director except in extraordina-
ry circumstances Failure to comply with this requirement shall be grounds
for setting aside the election whenever proper objections are filed