The Life Insurance Co. of Virginia

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 15, 1963

143 N.L.R.B. 1343 (N.L.R.B. 1963)

THE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF VIRGINIA 1343
(e) Notify the Regional Director for the Twenty-first Region, in writing, within
20 days from the receipt of this Intermediate Report and Recommended Order, what
steps the Respondents have taken to comply herewith?
It is further recommended that unless on or before 20 days of the date of receipt
of this Intermediate Report and Recommended Order the Respondents notify the
said Regional Director, in writing, that they will comply with the above Recom-
mended Order, the National Labor Relations Board issue an order requiring them
to take such action.
3In 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 Respondents have taken to comply herewith."
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS OF LOCAL 792, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BRIDGE,
STRUCTURAL, AND ORNAMENTAL IRON WORKERS, AFL-CIO, AND TO ALL EM-
PLOYEES OF NICHOLS ENGINEERING & MATERIALS CO., INC.
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 you that:
WE WILL NOT restrain or coerce the employees of Nichols Engineering &
Materials Co., Inc., or of any employer, by threatening them with loss of em-
ployment, job opportunities, or any other form of reprisal, for filing unfair
labor practice charges against us with the National Labor Relations Board.
WE WILL NOT cause or attempt to cause Nichols Engineering & Materials Co.,
Inc., or any other employer over whom the Board would assert jurisdiction, to
discharge Raymond R. Mubi, or any employee, or to refuse employment to any
prospective employee, or otherwise to discriminate against any such employee
in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner restrain or coerce any such
employee or prospective employee in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act, except to the extent that such rights may be affected by
an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of
employment, as authorized in Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
WE WILL notify the above-named Company that we have withdrawn our
objection to the employment of Raymond R. Mubi, and the undersigned Union
will make whole Raymond R. Mubi for any loss of pay suffered as a result of
our discrimination against him.
LOCAL 792, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
BRIDGE, STRUCTURAL, AND ORNAMENTAL
IRON WORKERS, AFL-CIO,
Labor Organization.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative ) (Title)
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(KEITH H. DICKERSON , Business Agent)
This notice must remain posted for 60 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, 849
South Broadway, Los Angeles, California, 90014, Telephone No. Richmond 9-4711,
Extension 1031, if they have any question concerning this notice or compliance with
its provisions.
The Life Insurance Company of Virginia and Insurance Workers
International Union , AFL-CIO. Case No. 5-CA-2394. August
15, 1963
DECISION AND ORDER
On June 10, 1963, Trial Examiner A. Bruce Hunt issued his Inter-
mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
143 NLRB No. 128.
1344 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
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 Inter-
mediate Report. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the
Intermediate Report and a supporting brief.
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 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 arehereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter-
mediate Report and the entire record in the case, including the ex-
,ceptions I and brief, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and
recommendations of the Trial Examiner.
ORDER
The Board adopts as its Order the Recommended Order of the
Trial Examiner.
'We find no merit in Respondent 's exceptions. We have previously considered a re-
quest for review of the Regional Director's unit findings. We denied the request because
we were satisfied that the Regional Director properly applied the principles governing unit
determinations in this industry. As to Respondent's contention that it was denied due
process because the hearing officer excluded evidence relating to the Union's extent of
organization, such exclusion was not prejudicial to Respondent. Assuming that such evi-
dence would have shown that the Union was able to organize only the district office In
question, and had tried unsuccessfully to organize Respondent's employees on a broader
scale, such evidence would not have precluded the Board from finding that the employees
of the district office constituted an appropriate unit on the basis of the facts actually
found. The provisions of Section 9(c) (5) merely preclude the Board from finding a unit
to be appropriate where extent of organization Is the controlling factor in such determina-
tion. N .L R.B. v . Quaker City Life Insurance Company , 319 F. 2d 690 (C A. 4).
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This proceeding, in which the charge was filed on March 8, 1963, and the com-
plaint was issued on March 25, 1963, involves allegations that the Respondent, The
Life Insurance Company of Virginia, violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 29 U.S C. Sec. 151, et seq. On May 16,
1963, I conducted a hearing at Washington, D.C., at which all parties were repre-
sented by counsel. There were no witnesses. Oral argument and the filing of briefs
were waived. Upon the record, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE RESPONDENT
The Respondent, a Virginia corporation, has its principal office at Richmond,
Virginia, and is engaged in writing insurance in 26 States and the District of Co-
lumbia. During a representative 12-month period, the Respondent received in-
vestment and premium income in excess of $94,000,000, of which more than
$100,000 was received from points outside the Commonwealth of Virginia. There
is no dispute, and I find, that the Respondent is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the Act.
THE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF VIRGINIA
H. THE UNION
1345
Insurance Workers International Union, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization which
admits to membership employees of the Respondent.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The issue
The issue is whether the Respondent invalidly refused to bargain with the Union.
The refusal is admitted, but the Respondent insists that it was not invalid because
of errors allegedly made by the Board in a representation case in which the Union
was certified.
B. The refusal to bargain collectively
1. The appropriate unit
On January 10, 1963, in Case No. 5-RC-3974, the Board's Regional Director for
the Fifth Region found, contrary to the Respondent's contention, that the following
employees of the Respondent constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of col-
lective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act:
All weekly premium agents working out of or assigned to the [Respondent's]
district office in Petersburg, Virginia, excluding all other employees, cashier,
clerks, associate managers, district manager, guards, and supervisors within the
meaning of the Act.
Thereafter, the Respondent filed with the Board a 6-page request for review of
the Regional Director's determination. On February 1, 1963, the Board denied the
request. I am bound by the Board's decision (see Insurance Agents' International
Union, AFL-CIO (The Prudential Insurance Company of America), 119 NLRB
768, 772-773, reversed on other grounds 361 U.S. 477), and, therefore, I find that
the unit described above is appropriate.
2. The Union's majority status
On February 8, 1963, an election was conducted in Case No. 5-RC-3974 and a
majority of the employees in the unit voted for the Union. On February 18, the
Board certified the Union as the exclusive representative of all the employees in the
unit. Accordingly, I find that on February 18, 1963, and at all times thereafter, the
Union was and has been such exclusive representative.
3. The refusal to bargain
There is no dispute, and I find, that on February 28, 1963, the Respondent re-
jected a demand by the Union that the former bargain collectively and that since
that date the Respondent has continued its refusal to bargain. Its reason, as ex-
pressed in a letter of February 28 to the Union, is that the unit is inappropriate and
that "there were material and prejudicial errors committed in the conduct of the
hearing in" Case No. 5-RC-3974 Being bound by the Board's determination in
that case, I find, contrary to the Respondent's contention, that its refusal to bargain
violated Section 8(a) (5) and (1).
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The unfair labor practices of the Respondent set forth above, occurring in con-
nection with the operations of the Respondent described 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 com-
merce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices, I shall
recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and that it take certain affirmative
action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. It has been found that the
Union represented a majority of the employees in the appropriate unit and that the
Respondent refused to bargain collectively. Accordingly, I shall recommend that
the Respondent, upon request, bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive
representative of the employees in the appropriat unit.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the
case, I make the following-
1346 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the
Act.
2. All weekly premium agents working out of or assigned to the Respondent's
district office in Petersburg , Virginia, excluding all other employees , cashier, clerks,
associate managers, district manager , guards, and supervisors within the meaning
of the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining.
3. On February 18, 1963, the Union was, and at all times thereafter has been, the
exclusive representative of all employees in such unit for the purposes of collective
bargaining.
4. By refusing to bargain collectively and by interfering with , restraining, and
coercing employees in the exercise of their rights under the Act, the Respondent
has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within
the meaning of Section 8(a) (5) and ( 1) and Section 2(6) and (7).
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and
pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby recommend that the Respondent,
The Life Insurance Company of Virginia, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall:
I Cease and desist from:
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with Insurance Workers International Union,
AFL-CIO, as the exclusive representative of all employees in the appropriate unit.
(b) Interfering with the efforts of said labor organization to negotiate for or
represent the employees in the appropriate unit as the exclusive bargaining agent.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is necessary to effectuate the poli-
cies of the Act:
(a) Upon request, bargain collectively with Insurance Workers International
Union, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive representative of all employees in the aforesaid
unit and, if an understanding is reached, embody such understanding in a signed
agreement.
(b) Post at its place of business in Petersburg, Virginia, copies of the attached
notice marked "Appendix." I Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional
Director for the Fifth Region, shall, after being signed by the Respondent's repre-
sentative, be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by
it for at least 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all
places where notices to employees customarily are posted. Reasonable steps shall
be taken to ensure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any
other material.
(c) Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 20 days from the receipt
of this Intermediate Report, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith?
If this Recommended Order should be 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 notice. In the further event that the Board's Order be enforced 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."
2 If this Recommended Order should 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, we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL, upon request, bargain collectively with Insurance Workers Inter-
national Union, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive representative of all employees in
the following bargaining unit:
All weekly premium agents working out of or assigned to our district office
in Petersburg, Virginia, excluding all other employees, cashier, clerks, as-
sociate managers, district manager , guards, and supervisors within the
meaning of the Act.
LOZANO ENTERPRISES 1347
WE WILL NOT interfere with the efforts of Insurance Workers International
Union, AFL-CIO, to negotiate for or represent the employees in the bargaining
unit as the exclusive representative.
THE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF VIRGINIA,
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.
If the employees have any questions concerning this notice or whether the Em-
ployer is complying with its provisions , they may communicate with the Board's
Regional Office, Sixth Floor, 707 North Calvert Street, Baltimore , Maryland, 21202,
Telephone No. 752-8460, Extension 2100.
Lozano Enterprises and Los Angeles Typographical Union No.
174, affiliated with International Typographical Union, AFL-
CIO. Case No. 21-CA-5123. August 15, 1963
DECISION AND ORDER
On May 15, 1963, Trial Examiner William E. Spencer issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, 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 Inter-
mediate Report. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the
Intermediate Report and a supporting brief.
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 McCulloch and Members Rodgers and
Fanning].
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 Interme-
diate Report and the entire record in the case, including the exceptions
and brief, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommen-
dations of the Trial Examiner.
Our agreement with the Trial Examiner's conclusion that Respond-
ent violated its bargaining obligations under the Act is based on the
evidence which shows that after Fenton and Hardin completed ne-
gotiations on the contract and the contract had been referred to
Lozano, Fenton gave Hardin assurances in November and in December
that Lozano was considering the agreement, counseled him to wait,
and told him that the matter would work itself out. In neither of
these conversations did Fenton inform Hardin of any possible objec-
tions that Lozano may have voiced to Fenton privately, or indicate
143 NLRB No. 129.
717-67-64-vol. 143-86