Middle Department Association of Fire Underwriters

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 27, 1959

122 N.L.R.B. 1115 (N.L.R.B. 1959)

MIDDLE DEPT. ASSOCIATION OF FIRE UNDERWRITERS 1115
clerks, warehousemen, and yardmen, excluding all production and
maintenance employees, office clerical employees, foremen, and su-
pervisors as defined in the Act.4
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication.]
4 The unit findings are in accord with agreements of the parties.
Middle Department Association of Fire Underwriters and Local
1115, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-
CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 22-RC-258. January °27, 1959
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Leonard Bass,
hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing
are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel [Chairman Leedom and Members Bean and Fan-
11111g].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer contends that it is not engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the Act, and is therefore not subject to the
Board's jurisdiction. The Employer is an unincorporated associa-
tion composed of 266 fire and property insurance companies, with
its principal office in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Its principal serv-
. ices for its member companies, and for approximately 78 partial
subscribers to its services, consist of development of rating sched-
ules for fire and related insurance risks, publishing of rules and
policy forms, preparation of fire and underwriting reports, and
examination of daily reports, binders, and other evidence of insur-
ance, to determine whether such coverage is in accord with rules
and rates filed with State insurance departments. It is licensed by
the States of Pennsylvania and Delaware to perform these services
for insurance companies, and admits to membership insurance com-
panies licensed to do business in those States. In 1957, it received
approximately $1,739,000 in assessments from companies and sub-
scribers for these services, in excess of $50,000 of which represented
assessments from companies doing business in more than one State.
In addition, the Employer also renders an electrical inspection serv-
ice on a fee basis to building contractors, public utilities, and mu-
nicipalities in the States of Pennsylvania, Delaware, New Jersey,
Maryland, Virginia, and West Virginia. In 1957 its income from
122 NLRB No. 130.
1116 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
this service was in excess of $1,832,000, of which approximately
$721,000 represented payments for inspection services performed in
New Jersey.
The Employer maintains 18 district offices in the 6 States where
the electrical inspection service is performed, mainly for the purpose
of providing necessary clerical assistance and a point of contract
between supervisors and inspectors. Other inspectors report to super-
visors who work out of their homes. Much of the district office
management is handled from the main office; leases for the district
offices are negotiated and executed by the treasurer at the main
office; and major expenditures for the district offices are made by
the main office in Philadelphia. Fees received by the inspectors for
electrical inspection services are deposited in bank accounts main-
tained at the district offices, from which point they are forwarded
to the home office.
On the basis of the foregoing it is clear and we find, that the
Employer's operations, including both its services to its member
companies and subscribers, some of whom at least operate in more
than one.State, and its interstate electrical inspection services, sub-
stantially affect commerce within the meaning of the Act, and that
the Employer is therefore subject to the jurisdiction of the Board.'
We further find that, as the Employer furnishes over $50,000 worth
of electrical inspection services outside the State of Pennsylvania,
where the Employer's principal office is located, its operations satisfy
the Board's jurisdictional standards for nonretail enterprises.2
The Employer contends further that, even if it is engaged in
commerce within the meaning of the Act and meets the Board's
jurisdictional standards, it is nonetheless not an employer subject to
the Act because it is a political subdivision within the meaning of
Section 2(2) of the Act. We find no merit in this contention. The
Employer is a privately organized association, setting its own labor
relations policies, doing its own hiring and firing, and handling all
its own personnel matters. The fact that the Employer, in con-
nection with its services to insurance companies, is required to be
licensed in Delaware and Pennsylvania; is subject to special statutory
regulation; and is required to notify the insurance commissioner of
uncorrected violations, do not establish that the Employer is op-
erating as an arm or subdivision of the State. Insofar as its in-
spection services performed for local governments are concerned,
which inspections comprise about one-fourth of all its inspections,
1 Cf. Associated Press v. N.L.R.B., 301 U .S. 100 ; Polish National Alliance , etc. v.
N.L.R.B., 322 U. S. 643.
2 Siemens Mailing Service, 122 NLRB 81. Contrary to the contention of the Employer,
it is immaterial in the application of the Board ' s jurisdictional standards that the
Employer may regard its electrical inspection services as a "sideline" or a public service,
or that the fees may be related only to the cost of furnishing the services.
MIDDLE DEPT. ASSOCIATION OF FIRE UNDERWRITERS 1117
it is clear the Employer is merely acting as a. contractor and in no
way becomes a part of the local government. Under all the cir-
cumstances, therefore, we find that the Employer is not a political
subdivision.'
We also find no merit in the Employer's contention that the Board
should not assert jurisdiction here because it falls within the class
of nonprofit enterprises over which the Board as a matter of policy
normally declines to assert jurisdiction. The Employer here, as-
suming that it is a nonprofit organization, is engaging in activities
of a commercial nature, both in its rating and insurance services,
and in its inspection services, since it performs its services as an
important part of the insurance business and as an important adjunct
to the building construction and public utilities business. It is
immaterial that an employer is a nonprofit corporation motivated by
considerations not strictly commercial where the activities themselves
are commercial in nature.' Accordingly, we find no basis for con-
cluding that the Employer is the type of nonprofit corporation over
which the Board has declined to assert jurisdiction.5
We therefore find, in view of the foregoing, that it will effectuate
the policies of the Act for the Board to assert jurisdiction in this
case.
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain
employees of the Employer.
3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the repre-
sentation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of
Section 9(c) (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act, for the fol-
lowing reasons :
Petitioner seeks to represent a unit composed of "all electrical
inspectors assigned to the North New Jersey field operations" of the
Employer. The Employer contends that the appropriate unit must
include all of its electrical inspectors, wherever located.
As stated above, the Employer maintains 18 district or field of-
fices, in 6 States; about 60 percent of the inspectors report to those
field offices, while other inspectors report to supervisors who work
out of their homes. As also noted above, the district offices, where
such have been established, exist mainly for the purpose of supply-
ing necessary clerical assistance and a place of contact between super-
visors and the inspectors, local office management being largely
handled from the main office. All inspectors are hired by the
Employer at its main office in Philadelphia, although local super-
visors may refer job candidates to the main office. A system of
3 See Toledo Board of Trade, 117 NLRB 1504, 1507; Great Southern Chemical Corpora-
tion , 96 NLRB 1013, 101.4.
4 Disabled American. Veterans, Inc., 112 NLRB 864.
6 Cf., e.g. , Armour Research Foundation, 107 NLRB 1052.
1118 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
promotions, which is uniformly applied throughout the Employer's
inspection operations, is formulated at the home office. Employee
benefits are uniformly applied in all district offices. While some
minor disciplinary problems may be handled informally by the
local supervisors, any serious disciplinary action is reported to the
main office where a review of such action is normally conducted.
The duties of the inspectors are uniform throughout the Com-
pany's operations, the standards for the inspections being established
by the National Electrical Code as supplemented by company in-
structions. Meetings of supervisors are held at the main office to
standardize methods, etc. In many cases, inspectors have been moved
from one district to another to fill in for emergency workloads, or
in cases of sickness; in most cases these transfers are within the
same State, but in some cases they have been interstate. Similarly,
permanent transfers have been made between districts and state
areas.
The unit described in the petition, as amended at the hearing,
would include all inspectors assigned to two supervisors. One
group of inspectors is under the supervision of DeLoach, who is in
charge of the East Orange office. The other inspectors involved
here are under the supervision of James, who is not connected with
any district office. 'hile five of the inspectors under James make
use of the secretarial services of the East Orange office, the others
use the Pottstown, Pennsylvania, office for this purpose, which office
is also apparently used by other inspectors under entirely different
supervision.
This, it appears that the employees sought by the Petitioner do
not conform to any administrative subdivision of the Employer's
operations, and the record fails to establish that these employees
have interests which differ in any way from those of the electrical
inspectors working in other areas. ' On the contrary, the skills re-
quired and the duties performed by electrical inspectors are the same
throughout the Employer's operations. Under the foregoing cir-
cumstances, particularly the marked centralization of the Employer's
operations, the absence of local autonomy in hiring and discharge,
and the central, control over wages, employee benefits, and all other
labor relations policies, we find that the unit sought is inappropriate
for collective-bargaining purposess and we shall therefore dismiss
the petition herein.
[The Board dismissed the petition.]
6 Liebmann Breweries, Inc., 92 NLRB 1740 , at 1742. For similar reasons , •a unit limited
to inspectors employed throughout the State of New Jersey, which the Petitioner would
accept as an alternative , is also inappropriate.