Peoples Life Insurance Co. of Washington, D. C.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 21, 1946

68 N.L.R.B. 863 (N.L.R.B. 1946)

In the Matter of PEOPLES LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF WASHINGTON,
D. C. and AMERICAN FEDERATION OF INSURANCE SUPERVISORS' UNION
No. 23891 , A. F. L.
Case No 5-R-2162.Decided June 21, 1946
Messrs. Joseph F. Castiello, Austin F. Canfield, and William T. Leith,
all of Washington, D. C., for the Company.
Mr. Herbert S. Thatcher, of Washington, D. C., for the Union.
Mr. Martin T. Camacho, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a petition duly filed by American Federation of Insurance
Supervisors' Union No. 23891, A. F. L., herein called the Union, alleg-
ing that a question affecting commerce had arisen concerning the repre-
sentation of employees of Peoples Life Insurance Company, Washing-
ton, D. C., herein called the Company, the National Labor Relations
Board provided for an appropriate hearing upon due notice before
Charles Y. Latimer, Trial Examiner. The hearing was held at Washing-
ton, D. C., on April 30, 1946. The Company and the Union appeared
and participated. All parties were afforded full opportunity to be heard,
to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence
bearing on the issues. At the hearing the Company moved to dismiss
the petition on various grounds discussed hereinafter. The Trial Ex-
aminer referred this motion to the Board. For reasons stated, infra, the
motion is hereby denied. The Trial Examiner's rulings made at the
hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. All
parties were afforded opportunity to file briefs with the Board.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
Peoples Life Insurance Company, incorporated in the District of
Columbia, maintains its office in Washington, D. C. It is engaged in
68 N L. R. B., No. 113.
863
864 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the business of insuring the lives of its policy holders. In the operation
of its business the Company maintains 32 district offices and 19 sub-
offices in the States of Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, Delaware,
and in the District of Columbia. The Company employs approximately
150 persons at its home office and approximately 900 in its field offices.
Of the 900 in the field offices approximately 110 employees are em-
ployed in District No. 1 and District No. 2 offices in Washington,
D. C., involved in this proceeding. Of these 14 are engaged as staff super-
intendents and two as special ordinary superintendents. The Company's
assets total approximately $30,000,000, which consists largely of cash,
bonds, mortgages, and real estate, and which assets are maintained by the
Company in accordance with various State laws to meet policy reserves.
The Company has approximately 1,100,000 policies in force with a total
face value of $300,000,000.
The Company admits, and we find, that it is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
American Federation of Insurance Supervisors' Union No. 23891
is a labor organization, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor,
admitting to membership employees of the Company.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
During the month of October 1945, the Union requested the Company
to recognize it as the collective bargaining representative of a group of
its staff superintendents and special ordinary superintendents. The
Company refused such recognition on the basis that these employees,
being supervisors, are not "employees" within the meaning of the Act.
The question as to whether or not supervisory employees fall within
the meaning of the Act has been considered in a number of previous
cases. The Board has found,' as have the courts,2 that the definitions
of "employer" and "employee" contained in the Act are not mutually
exclusive; that a supervisor, for example, is an "employer" when he
acts in the interests of his employer, but he is an "employee" when he
acts in his own interest, as when he seeks to better the terms and con-
ditions of his employment. Inasmuch as the staff superintendents and
special ordinary superintendents involved in this case are acting in their
own interests, we find that they are employees within the definition con-
tained in Section 2 (3) of the Act.-3
1 Matter of Federal-Mogul Corporation, 66 N L R. B. 532, and cases therein cited
2 N L R B v Armour and Company, 154 F. (2d) 570 (C. C A 10, Nov 5, 1945), 17
L. R R 372, Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation v N. L R B , 146 F (2d) 833 (C C. A 5),
N. L R B v Skinner & Kennedy Stationery Company, 113 F. (2d) 677 (C C. A 8).
8 Matter of The B. F. Goodrich Company, 65 N L. R B 294, and cases therein cited, Matter
of Federal -Mogul Corporation, supra
PEOPLES LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY 865
We, therefore, find that a question affecting commerce has arisen con-
cerning the representation of employees of the Company, within the
meaning of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
By an amended petition, the Union seeks a unit consisting of all staff
superintendents and special ordinary superintendents employed in all
the Company's district offices located in Washington, D. C., namely,
District No. 1 and District No. 2, but excluding all other employees
such as general managers, agents, office clerks, and cashiers.
As previously determined by this Board in Matter of Peoples Life
Insurance Commpany4 case, the staff superintendents and special ordinary
superintendents in these two districts are supervisory employees within
the usual definition of the Board. They each have directly under their
charge a staff of about six or seven industrial agents' and they in turn
are responsible to the district manager, the highest official in charge of
each district office.
The Company does not dispute the composition of the proposed unit,
but appears to rest its case entirely on the proposition that no unit of
its supervisory employees would be appropriate. For reasons stated in
previous decisions of this Board, we are of the opinion that these super-
visors, staff superintendents, and special ordinary superintendents, are
employees within the meaning of the Act who constitute a separate and
appropriate unit. Hence, we find this argument to be without merit.6
The Company further apparently maintains that due to the fact that
the Union and Industrial and Ordinary Insurance Agents' Union No.
23136, A. F. L., the bargaining representative of the rank and file agents
in the Company's employ, are both affiliates of the A. F. L.'s Industrial
Insurance Agents Council,7 the Union is legally incompetent under
4 59 N. L R B. 434 By agreement of the parties at the hearing , the record in this case
was incorporated in the present record in respect to the functions, duties, authorities, and
responsibilities of the personnel involved in the present proceeding
"As a result of an election in Matter of Peoples Life Insurance Company , Industrial and
Ordinary Insurance Agents' Union No 23316, A F. L., was certified by the Board as the
bargaining representative for the rank and file agents in these two districts.
E Matter of Simmons Company, 65 N. L R B. 984 ; Matter of L A Young Spring & Wire
Corporatwn, 65 N L . R. B. 298, Matter of The B. F. Goodrich Company, supra
T The jurisdiction of the Union as to membership under its charter is limited to supervisory
employees of insuiance companies but no insurance agent above or below the level of a staff
or special ordinary superintendent can become a member of the Union . The Union and the
Industrial and Ordinary Insurance Agents' Union No. 23316 , A F L, the collective bar-
gaining representative for the Company 's insurance agents below the aforesaid level, are both
affiliates of the Industrial Insurance Agents' Council . This Council , as stipulated at the
hearing , is an organization in the nature of an international union . It functions to aid and
assist those groups which are connected with it in organizational work, collective bargaining,
and related matters.
866 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the Act to represent its supervisory employees. This position, we find
to be equally without merit in view of our previous decisions."
We, therefore, find that all staff superintendents and special ordinary
superintendents employed in all the Company's district offices located
in the city of Washington, D. C., namely, District No. 1 and District
No. 2, but excluding all general managers, agents, office clerks, and
cashiers, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bar-
gaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
V. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
It was stipulated by the parties that the Union represents a majority
of the Company's supervisory employees within the unit herein found
appropriate. Nevertheless, in conformity with our usual policy we believe
that the policies of the Act would be best effectuated by resolving the
question as to representation by secret ballot.
We, therefore, shall direct that the question concerning representation
which has arisen be resolved by an election by secret ballot among em-
ployees in the appropriate unit who were employed during the pay-roll
period immediately preceding the date of the Direction of Election here-
in, subject to the limitations and additions set forth in the Direction.
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
By virtue of and pursuant to the power vested in the National Labor
Relations Board by Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act,
and pursuant to Article III, Section 9, of National Labor Relations
Board Rules and Regulations-Series 3, as amended, it is hereby
DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation to ascertain representatives
for the purposes of collective bargaining with Peoples Life Insurance
Company, Washington, D. C., an election by secret ballot shall be con-
ducted as early as possible, but not later than thirty (30) days from
the date of this Direction, under the direction and supervision of the
Regional Director for the Fifth Region, acting in this matter as agent
for the National Labor Relations Board, and subject to Article III,
Sections 10 and 11, of said Rules and Regulations, among employees
in the unit found appropriate in Section IV, above, who were employed
during the pay-roll period immediately preceding the date of this Direc-
tion, including employees who did not work during said pay-roll period
because they were ill or on vacation or temporarily laid off, and includ-
ing employees in the armed forces of the United States who present
8 Matter of Jones & Laughlin Stee l Corporation , Vesta- Shannopin Coal Div,sion, 66 N. L. R. B.
386; Matter of California Packing Corporation, 66 N. L R B 1461; Matter of The Texas
Company, 67 N L. R B. 452,
PEOPLES LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY 867
themselves in person at the polls, but excluding those employees who
have since quit or been discharged for cause and have not been rehired
or reinstated prior to the date of the election , to determine whether or
not they desire to be represented by American Federation of Insurance
Supervisors ' Union No. 23891, A. F. L., for the purposes of collective
bargaining.
MR. GERARn D. REILLY, dissenting:
For reasons stated in my dissenting opinions in Matter of Packard
Motor Car Company,9 and Matter of Jones & Laughlin Steel Corpora-
tion, Vesta-Shannopin Coal Division,10 I am constrained to dissent from
the majority opinion in this case.
' 61 N. L R B. 4.
66 N L. R. B. 386.
696966-46-56