American Automobile Association

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 4, 1979

242 N.L.R.B. 722 (N.L.R.B. 1979)

[)(ECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELAIIONS BOARD
American Automobile Association, Wisconsin Division
and Association of American Automobile Associ-
ation Sales Representatives, Petitioner. Case 30
RC 3473
June 4. 1979
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
By MEMBERS PFNEI.I.(), MURPIIY, AND TRUESDALE
A petition in the instant proceeding was duly filed
under Section 9(c) of the National Labor Relations
Act, as amended. As part of the settlement agreement
in an unfair labor practice proceeding involving the
same parties as those involved herein, the parties
stipulated and agreed that all representation ques-
tions raised by the petition in this proceeding would
be determined on the basis of the record and exhibits
previously submitted in Case 30 RC-3233, with the
parties reserving only the right to advise the Board by
letter (not brief) of any change in their previously
stated unit positions.' Subsequently, pursuant to Sec-
tion 102.67 of the National Labor Relations Board
Rules and Regulations and Statements of Procedures,
Series 8, as amended, and by direction of the Re-
gional Director for Region 30, this case was trans-
ferred to the National Labor Relations Board for de-
cision. Thereafter, a letter, as permitted under the
terms of the settlement agreement, was submitted by
the Employer and a reply letter was submitted by the
Petitioner.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has reviewed the Hearing Officer's rul-
ings made at the hearing in Case 30-RC-3233 and
finds that they are free from prejudicial error. They
are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in Case 30-RC 3233, in-
cluding the briefs filed therein, the stipulation noted
above, and the letters of position filed thereafter, the
Board finds:
1. The Employer, American Automobile Associ-
ation, Wisconsin Division, is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the Act and it will effectuate
the rirposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.
I In the earlier representation proceeding in Case 30 RC 3233, a petition
was duly filed by the Petitioner on October 27, 1977, and a hearing was
thereafter held on various dates from November 16 to December 13, 1977.
Following the hearing, the case was transferred to the Board for decision.
Before the Board issued its decision, a request to withdraw the petition was
filed and, on May 10, 1978, the Board granted this request with 6 months'
prejudice to the filing of a new petition. The Board denied a request to
reinstate this petition on November 14, 1978. Thereafter, the instant petition
was timely filed.
2. At the hearing in the initial representation pro-
ceeding. the Employer contended that the Petitioner,
Association of American Automobile Association
Sales Representatives, is not a labor organization as
defined by the Act. Specifically, the Employer em-
phasized that the Petitioner does not have a written
constitution or bylaws and has not yet collected dues
or initiation fees, expenses having been financed by
voluntary donations. However, despite this lack of
formality in its structure, the Petitioner may still be a
labor organization within the broad meaning given
that phrase in Section 2(5) of the Act. 2 In this regard,
the Petitioner, which was newly organized at the time
of the hearing, held a meeting in which its members,
the Employer's employees, elected a slate of officers,
discussed their common grievances, and evidenced an
unequivocal intention to bargain collectively with the
Employer over their wages, hours, and other terms
and conditions of employment. Accordingly, we find
that the Petitioner is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.'
3. A question affecting commerce exists concern-
ing the representation of certain employees of the
Employer within the meaning of Section 9(c)(1) and
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Employer is an automobile club with its ad-
ministrative headquarters located in Madison, Wis-
consin, and with 19 district offices located throughout
the State. For administrative purposes, these district
offices are grouped into four regions of Wisconsin:
northeast, northwest, southeast, and southwest. The
Employer's principal function is to provide its mem-
bers with routing maps, emergency road service, bail
bond service, and travel information. It also offers
casualty, automobile, fire, homeowner's, and boat in-
surance. Sales representatives operate out of the dis-
See, e.g., Advance Industrial Security, Inc., 225 NLRB 151 (1976); Yale
University, 184 NLRB 860 (1970).
' Following the filing of the instant petition, the Employer filed a letter
with the Board claiming, for the first time, that the Petitioner should not be
afforded the status of a labor organization under the Act because of an
alleged schism existing within its board of directors. As noted above, pursu-
ant to a stipulation between the parties, the record (including the briefs and
exhibits) from the earlier representation proceeding constitutes the entire
record herein, with the parties reserving "only the right to advise the Board by
letter of any change in their previously stated unit positions [Emphasis sup-
plied]." Here, the Employer seeks to raise a nonunit issue based on facts
which arose after the earlier representation case hearing. As this matter, as
alleged, was known to the Employer at the time it agreed to the stipulation,
it cannot now avoid that agreement by presenting an issue which is not
contained in the stipulated record and is not limited to the unit issues ad-
dressed in that earlier proceeding. See, e.g., Charles T Joyce, d/b/a Interna-
rional Kilchens, 189 NLRB 79 (1971). Accordingly, by the terms of the stipu-
lation, the Employer is barred from raising this matter.
Moreover, even were we to pass on the sufficiency of the Employer's con-
tention, we would deny it as laciong in ment. The facts, as alleged, merely
raise the existence of an internal union dispute, the nature of which does not
negate the Petitioner s status as labor organization under the Act. It is suffi-
cient that the Petitioner is an organization in which the employees partici-
pate and which exists for the purpose of dealing with the Employer concern-
ing wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment. Alto
Plastics Manufacturing Corporation, 136 NLRB 850 (1962).
242 NLRB No. 78
AMERICAN AUJOMOBII.E ASS()OCIAION
trict offices, selling club memberships and various in-
surance policies. They are compensated on a
commission basis. Most of their selling is done on the
road, but they are periodically assigned, on a rotating
basis, to operate inside their offices in order to handle
"walk-in" customers.
The Petitioner seeks a single unit of all sales repre-
sentatives at the Employer's two district offices in
Milwaukee, designated as Milwaukee North and Mil-
waukee South. The Employer contends that the
smallest appropriate unit is one that would include all
sales representatives in the Employer's southeast re-
gion, which consists of the two Milwaukee offices.
and offices in Racine, Kenosha, and Waukesha, Wis-
consin. The Employer would also include certain
other employees-part-time sales representatives.
sales secretaries, cashiers, assistant underwriters, and
insurance raters-whose work, it asserts, is related to
that of the sales representatives. The Petitioner would
exclude these employees from the unit.4
In support of its contention that only a regionwide
unit is appropriate, the Employer emphasizes recent
administrative changes in its organization which dem-
onstrate regional control over the five district offices
in southeast Wisconsin. The Petitioner argues that the
facts relied on by the Employer are outweighed by
the day-to-day autonomy that continues to exist at
the district office level.
In two prior decisions within the past I years, we
have found appropriate requested units covering only
the district sales representatives, and certain other
employees, at the Employer's Milwaukee sales offices.
First, in 1968, we directed an election in a unit oft'
sales representatives and floor salesmen at the Em-
ployer's then-single Milwaukee district sales office, re-
jecting the Employer's contention that the only ap-
propriate unit must include sales representatives in
other district offices throughout the State.' In finding
that the presumption favoring appropriateness of the
single district unit had not been rebutted, we empha-
sized that the Milwaukee office was separately super-
vised; the sales force in the Milwaukee office operated
in its own distinct geographic area; and there was
virtually no transfer of agents between district offices.
Two years later, the Employer opened a second sales
office in Milwaukee (herein referred to as Milwaukee
South), and a petition was filed seeking to represent
the sales representatives at both Milwaukee offices.6
4 The Employer has another district office in the southeast region referred
to as Milwaukee Downtown. However, no sales representatives or sales-
related personnel work at this location. Thus, the Employer does not contend
that there are any employees in this office who should be included within the
appropriate unit.
American Automobile Association. Wisconsin Division, 172 NLRB 1276
(1968).
'American Automobile Association, Wisconsin Disisn, 183 NLRB 48
(1970).
The Employer contended then, as it does now. that
changes made in its operations since 1968 reduced the
autonomy and independence of each district office
and, as a result, warranted the finding that the only
appropriate unit consisted of the five district offices in
the southeast area (two in Milwaukee, and one each
in Racine, Kenosha. and Waukesha). Upon examin-
ing these changes, we noted that, while the district
managers in Milwaukee were, unlike before, now an-
swerable to a person entitled "sales supervisor in the
southeast area," the other three district offices in this
area continued to be run by district managers who
had considerable autonomy and were only answer-
able to the main office in Madison. And, having
fbund that the two offices in Milwaukee continued to
function as a single administrative entity.7 and that
there was infrequent transfer of agents among the five
offices, we rejected the Employer's argument favoring
a five-office unit and found the requested unit of Mil-
waukee sales representative appropriate.
In the instant proceeding, the Employer again op-
poses a requested unit of sales representatives at the
two Milwaukee offices by contending once again that
the five district offices in southeast Wisconsin consti-
tute the only appropriate bargaining unit. According
to the Employer, unlike the situation in 1970, when
its southeast regional concept was in its infancy, it has
in the past 5 years substantially modified its adminis-
trative structure, grouping the 19 district offices into
the 4 regions noted above and withdrawing some of
the authority that previously had been vested in the
district managers and placing such authority in the
hands of various regional supervisors. In this regard
the record shows that at the time of the hearing, with
the exception of the two Milwaukee district offices,
district managers are no longer salaried employees.
They operate on a commission basis, as do the sales
representatives, and consequently spend much of
their time out of the office selling club memberships
and insurance policies. The district managers con-
tinue to perform routine administrative functions
and, with respect to sales, they continue to oversee
day-to-day office operations. While they no longer
exert day-to-da) control over such nonsales areas as
emergency road service, bail bonding, and travel,
these matters continue to be handled at the district
level, being performed by various department super-
visors.8
' The two offices served the same geographical areas as the single office
had serviced; the Mllwaukee South office was staffed by transfers from the
Milaukee North office: and the sales representatives at the two offices
shared a common insurance "pot "
I Since the last proceeding in 1970. the two Milwaukee offices have not
undergone the same administrative changes as the other district offices in the
region. Instead of district managers. each Milwaukee office is under the di-
rect control of a salaried sales supervisor who, orks inside the office on a
full-time basis ConsequentlN. in contrast to the district managers, sales su-
((ontnlnued)
723
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
In addition to the district manager's loss of author-
ity in nonsales matters, many of their sales-related
functions have been assumed by regional supervisors.
Thus, Neil Murray, the southeast regional sales man-
ager, has substantial authority over personnel deci-
sions affecting all sales representatives in the five dis-
trict offices. This includes the authority to hire, fire,
transfer, and discipline employees. In recruiting new
sales employees, Murray will instruct the district
manager when to place an ad in the newspaper and,
while Murray may not meet an applicant until the
final interview, the hiring decision cannot be made
without his approval. Additionally, Murray periodi-
cally implements regionwide policies by preparing
and distributing memorandums and directives to the
entire sales staff. In some of these personnel matters,
particularly interviewing, Murray is assisted by
George Hendricksen, assistant regional sales man-
ager.9
Administratively, regional control is further exer-
cised by Frank Karidis, southeast regional adminis-
trative services manager. While Kardis has no real
input into the personnel decisions affecting sales rep-
resentatives, he selects the sites and handles the leases
for the five district offices; he procures all office
equipment and furniture; he sets up contracting ar-
rangements for janitorial and maintenance services;
and he prepares the regional budget. He and Neil
Murray rarely visit the district offices, but they main-
tain frequent telephone contact with them.
With respect to employee benefits, all such benefits,
commissions, and salaries are determined by the
Madison office and are uniform throughout the State.
However, with regard to the Employer's periodic
sales meetings, due to conflicting testimony which we
cannot resolve, we are unable to determine whether
such meetings occur on a regional or districtwide ba-
sis. ml
In light of the above factors, the record would ap-
pear to support the appropriateness of the regionwide
unit as argued by the Employer. However, notwith-
standing the foregoing, we do not find these factors so
compelling as to require a finding that the southeast
region is the only appropriate unit. Rather, for the
reasons set forth below, we find that each single dis-
pervisors have greater day-to-day authority over the sales operations in their
respective offices. Both the sales supervisors and the district managers are
answerable to the regional-level supervisors. Presently, Carl Kiefer, former
distric, manager at Racine, is the sales supervisor at Milwaukee South. The
same position at Milwaukee north is now acant but, according to the Em-
ployer. Neil Murray, the southeast regional sales manager, plans to fill this
vacancy soon.
9 Southeast regional matters are not handled at a separate regional office.
Southeast regional supervisors and their assistants are located at the Milwau-
kee North and Milwaukee South offices.
10 Don Recosa, a sales representative of Milwaukee North, testified to the
existence of annual statewide and periodic districtwide meetings. He recalled
no meetings at the regional level. However, Neil Murray recalled holding
two to three regional sales meetings during the year.
trict office in the southeast region would also consti-
tute an appropriate unit for bargaining.
The record herein demonstrates that, despite the
changes in the Employer's administrative structure,
district managers still perform important managerial
functions. They initially screen job applicants and
have input into Murray's hiring decisions. They are
also consulted on matters dealing with employee
transfers and the relocation of district offices. And,
while large office expenditures must be approved at
the regional level, requests for such expenditures are
made by the district manager on behalf of the district
office. With respect to routine supplies involving
small expenditures, district offices can order these
supplies themselves. Similarly, the district office has
its own bank account and makes its own deposits;
employee requests for sick leave, vacation, and work-
men's compensation must be made to the district
manager before such requests are submitted to Mur-
ray and Karidis; work-related problems between
sales representatives are discussed and resolved at the
district level without regional intervention unless the
district manager is unable to handle the matter; and
district offices are fully expected to respond to emer-
gency situations on their own."
Furthermore, with respect to interchange-either
permanent or temporary-throughout the region, the
record shows only a minimal amount of employee
transfer during the past 5 years. Indeed, Assistant Re-
gional Sales Manager Hendricksen testified that the
Employer has no formal policy of transferring sales
employees on a regular basis. Of the transfers that
have occurred, most have been the result of promo-
tions. In a similar vein, in the course of the workday,
sales representatives from the different districts rarely
come into contact with each other. Each representa-
tive is given an assigned area of service and, as a
general rule, does not stray beyond this area in order
to make a sale.'
From the foregoing discussion and our review of
the entire record, it is evident that the presumption
favoring the appropriateness of the single district of-
fice unit has not been rebutted.'3 In this regard, in
1 In this latter regard, Kandis, the southeast regional administrative ser-
vices manager, testified that if, after a heavy snowfall, the snow clearance
contractors failed to show up at a district office, he would expect that office
to "grab the bull by the horns" and handle the situation.
1 There are certain circumstances in which sales representatives receive a
commission for making a sale to a customer who resides in another district's
territory. However, such situations are limited to those where the customer
makes the initial contact with the "foreign" district office. And, while the
sales representative would receive the commission, he would not be eligible
to receive a commission for the renewal of the policy. The policy would be
transferred to a district office nearer the customer's home.
13 See, e.g., Dun & Bradstreet, Inc., 240 NLRB No. 16 (1979); Bud's Food
Stores, Inc., db/a Bud's Thrift-T-Wise, 236 NLRB 1203 (1978); Buehler's
Food Markets, Incorporated, 232 NLRB 785 (1977); Pneumo Corporation,
d/b/a P & C (Cross Co.), 228 NLRB 1443 (1977); Allegheny Pepsi-Cola
Bottling Company, 216 NLRB 616 (1975).
724
AMERICAN AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION
order to overcome this presumption it must be shown
that the day-to-day interests of the employees at one
office location have merged with those of the employ-
ees at the other locations.' 4 This the Employer has
failed to establish. Day-to-day autonomy continues to
exist at each Milwaukee office under the immediate
supervision of a sales supervisor, as it does in the Ra-
cine, Kenosha, and Waukesha offices. under the im-
mediate supervision of a district manager.' Further-
more, the sales force in each district office operates in
its own distinct geographic area, and there is a lack of
substantial interchange and communication among
the sales representatives throughout the region.' 6 For
these reasons, together with the absence of any prior
collective-bargaining history on a larger scale, and
the fact that no other labor organization seeks to rep-
resent the employees in a broader unit, we conclude
that each single district office in the southeast region
constitutes an appropriate unit for collective bargain-
ing.'7
The Petitioner, however, seeks to combine two of
these district offices, Milwaukee North and Milwau-
kee South, into one unit. While we have previously
allowed two appropriate units to merge their separate
identities into a larger unit, the resultant unit should
encompass all similarly situated units in order to pre-
sent some geographic or administrative coherence.'
In excluding the sales representatives in Racine, Ke-
nosha, and Waukesha, the Petitioner's unit request
fails to meet this standard. A combined unit of Mil-
waukee offices does not encompass a cogent grouping
that can be justified on the basis of geographic con-
siderations. The distances between all five district of-
fices range from 12 to 30 miles and, while the Mil-
waukee offices are only 12 miles apart, travel time to
" See, e,g.. Renzertis Market. Inc.. 238 NLRB 174 (1978)
" It is apparent from reviewing the record and briefs that, according to the
parties, what is primanly at issue is the level of autonomy that continues to
exist at each district office in the face ofincreasing control from the southeast
region. In this respect, while the parties did not thoroughly contrast the day-
to-day authority exercised by the sales supervisors at each Milwaukee office
with the authority exercised by the district managers in the other three of-
fices, it appears as though the sales supervisors are more entrenched in the
day-to-day operations at their respective offices since they, unlike the district
managers, do not spend any time out on the road selling memberships and
insurance policies. As noted earlier, both the sales supervisors and the dis-
trict managers are answerable to the regional supervisors. See fn. 8. supra.
i6 See American Automobile Association, 172 NLRB at 1277.
7 This conclusion is not diminished by the fact that the district managers
in Racine, Kenosha, and Waukesha are frequently away from the office
engaged in selling activities. Routine operations in nonsales departments are
still ha: dled at the district level by various departmental supervisors. And,
with regard to sales-related matters, the district manager's continuous pres-
ence in the office appears to be unnecessary since the sales representatives,
the employees over whom the district manager has authority, also spend
much of their time out of the office selling membership and insurance poli-
cies. As noted, this situation does not exist at the Milwaukee offices where
immediate supervision is exercised by sales supervisors who do not engage in
selling activities.
i8See, e.g.. .Marriot In Flite Serilces, a Division o Malrriott Corporation.
192 NLRB 379 (1971); State Farm 3Mutual Automobile Insurance Company,
158 NLRB 925 (1966).
and from all five offices is nearly identical. Nor can a
cogent grouping be founded on SMSA statistics since
Waukesha, one of the district offices sought to be ex-
cluded by the Petitioner, is considered to constitute
part of the Milwaukee metropolitan area.'9 Further-
more, there is no special administrative connection
between the Milwaukee offices to distinguish them
from the district offices in Racine, Kenosha, and
Waukesha. Each Milwaukee office is separately oper-
ated by its own sales supervisor: the insurance pot,
which was formerly shared by the Milwaukee offices
in dividing renewal commissions, is no longer in exis-
tence:20 and, in its statewide production reports which
record employee production totals, the Employer
treats Milwaukee North and Milwaukee South as in-
dependent administrative entities.
Thus, in seeking a unit composed of only two of the
five district offices in the Employer's southeast region,
it is clear the Petitioner has asked for either too much
or too little. We conclude that, if the Petitioner wishes
to represent a unit composed of more than one dis-
trict office, such unit must include all district offices in
the southeast region. On the other hand, since we
have found that the individual district offices are ap-
propriate bargaining units here, and as the Petitioner
primarily seeks to represent only the sales representa-
tives employed in Milwaukee, we shall direct separate
elections at the Employer's Milwaukee North and
Milwaukee South offices.2'
Turning to the question of unit composition, the
Petitioner would exclude from the requested unit all
sales secretaries, cashiers, insurance raters, and assist-
ant underwriters. The Petitioner would also exclude
certain part-time sales representatives. The Employer
seeks to include all of the above employees.
With respect to the three part-time representatives
at the Milwaukee North office, the Employer's argu-
ment for including these employees in the unit is well
i9 See U.S. Bureau of the Census, "Statistical Abstract of the United
States: 1977" (98th ed.) Washington, D.C., 1977. While neither party intro-
duced such evidence at the hearing, we take administrative notice of these
statistics.
20 The relationship between the two Milwaukee offices is different today
from the way it was in 1970 when we found that the two offices functioned as
a single administrative unit. See American Automobile Association, Wisconsin
Division, 183 NLRB 48 (1970). Then, the Milwaukee South office had re-
cently opened in order to assume some of the workload in the Milwaukee
area that had been exclusively handled by the Milwaukee North office. This
southside office was largely staffed by employees from Milwaukee North,
and the sales representatives to the two offices shared a common insurance
pot from which they received commissions from the renewal of insurance
policies. Nine years have passed since the southside office was opened, and
we no longer consider it to be an administrative extension of Milwaukee
North. The southside office does not look to Milwaukee North for its em-
ployees and, as note", above, the common insurance pot has been discontin-
ued.
"1 At the hearing, the Petitioner indicated that it would represent any unit
(or units) of employees that the Board found to be appropriate for collective
hargaining
725
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
taken.2 2 All part-time representatives perform essen-
tially the same function as the full-time representa-
tives. Both groups of employees spend most of their
time out in their territories engaged in selling activi-
ties;2 3 each must meet a production quota and deter-
mine his or her own schedule to accomplish this goal
(the part-time quota is one-half of the full-time
quota); and both receive the same rate of commis-
sion. The part-timers work as many as 20 hours per
week and, in some instances, the quantity of sales by
part-time representatives has surpassed that of the
full-time representatives. In addition, there has been
substantial conversion of representatives from part-
time to full-time and from full-time to part-time sta-
tus. The part-time employees are also under the same
supervision as the full-time employees, participate in
the same sales contests, have the same probationary
period, attend the same meetings, and, like the full-
time representatives, are bonded. In light of these fac-
tors, we find that the part-time representatives are an
important and productive segment of the Employer's
work force and have a "substantial and continuing
interest in the petitioned-for unit to be elgible to vote
in a Board-conducted election."2 4
With respect to the three sales secretaries and the
two cashiers, we find merit in the Petitioner's conten-
tion that they be excluded from the unit.25 Sales secre-
taries are responsible, inter alia, for handling the tele-
phones, answering customer inquiries about
memberships, referring messages to the representa-
tives regarding potential sales, and gathering records
of delinquent policies which enable representatives to
receive commissions on the renewals. By and large,
these duties, although of great assistance to the sales
representatives, are basically clerical in nature. The
cashiers operate in a similar capacity. Their main re-
sponsibility, inter alia, is to receive all moneys from
the sales representatives, check this amount against
the receipts, record the transaction, and verify the ac-
curacy of all forms. Given these job duties, we see no
reason to alter our earlier decision in which we up-
held the Petitioner's request to exclude such employ-
ees from the unit.26 Then, as now, the sales secretaries
and cashiers do not sell insurance or club member-
ships; they are paid a salary rather than a commis-
22 There are no part-time sales representatives at Milwaukee South. While
the Employer also seeks to include the four part-timers at Racine and Keno-
sha, all employees at these offices have already been excluded under our unit
scope eutermination.
25 Unlike the full-time representatives, the part-timers do not sell insur-
ance. However, the record indicates that the sale of insurance by full-time
representatives constitutes only 20 percent of the Employer's business.
24 Farmers Insurances Group, 187 NLRB 844, 847 (1971).
25 The three sales secretaries are all located at the Milwaukee North office.
There are no other sales secretaries employed in any district office in the
southeast region. Of the two cashiers, one is located at Milwaukee North, the
other at Milwaukee South. The Milwaukee South cashier also doubles as a
sales secretary.
2 American Auromobile Associarion, 172 NLRB at 1277.
sion; they work inside rather than outside the office;
and they do not participate in the Employer's sales
membership training course. 27
The remaining employees-assistant underwriters
and insurance raters-are principally involved with
the Employer's insurance operations. With respect to
the two Milwaukee offices, Carol Thompson, an
assistant underwriter, constitutes the entire insurance
staff at Milwaukee South, and insurance raters Sue
Vold and Patricia Reinosch constitute the entire in-
surance staff at Milwaukee North. Tom Haley, also
located at Milwaukee North, is the southeast regional
insurance manager and, as stipulated by both parties,
is a supervisor under the Act. The raters and assistant
underwriters are salaried employees who assist the
representatives in the sale of memberships. They han-
dle customer inquiries and quote premiums over the
telephone; they receive and refer messages which aid
a representative in making a sale; upon a customer's
request they can alter a policy by changing the bene-
ficiary, providing a medical rider, or making an en-
dorsement; and, by maintaining customer files, they
are able to keep the representatives informed of a cus-
tomer's status.
In addition to the above, raters and assistant un-
derwriters directly assist the sales representative who
is assigned to sell inside the office.2" Thus, when the
representative is busy with a customer and a second
customer arrives, a rater or assistant underwriter may
answer that customer's inquiries until the representa-
tive is available. In fact, with respect to memberships
the record indicates that on rare occasions a rater
would even complete the sale, write up the member-
ship, and credit the "on duty" representative with the
commission. With respect to insurance policies, how-
ever, only the assistant underwriter-in this case
Carol Thompson-is licensed to assist the representa-
tive by making the sale and drawing up the policy. In
1968, the first proceeding involving these same par-
ties, these latter factors led us to conclude that certain
employees, referred to then as floor salesmen, be-
longed in the unit along with the sales representa-
tives.2 9 At that time we held:
In view of the line of progression from sales rep-
resentative to floor salesman, the frequent work-
ing contact between the two groups and their
common supervision, we conclude that the floor
salesmen should be included in the unit.3 0
27 The Petitioner also contends that Esther Piekarska, one of the three sales
secretaries, is also a confidential employee and a supervisor within the mean-
ing of the Act. Inasmuch as we have already excluded her as a sales secre-
tary, we need not reach these other two contentions.
' As noted above sales representatives mostly sell outside the office in a
designated territory. However, in order to accommodate "walk-in" custom-
ers, a sales representative is periodically assigned to a floor sales desk inside
the office.
29
American Automobile Association, 172 NLRB at 1276.
'ld. at 1277.
726
AMERICAN AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION
The Employer contends that the duties previously ex-
ercised by the floor salesmen are now performed by
assistant underwriters and raters who should similarly
be included in any appropriate unit. We disagree.
Upon reviewing the entire record, it is apparent
that assistant underwriters and raters have not as-
sumed responsibilities identical to those of the former
floor salesman. Rather, while today's insurance em-
ployees do, at times, directly assist the representatives
with office sales, most of their duties, as noted above,
are more closely akin to those of the sales secre-
taries.31 Accordingly, the line of progression from
sales representative to floor salesmen, a factor relied
on in our earlier discussion, has also changed. Today
as a reflection of the increased need for clerical as
opposed to sales experience, assistant underwriters
usually come from the ranks of sales secretaries and
raters. Lastly, the insurance employees and the sales
representative no longer share common supervision.
Based on the foregoing, it appears that the assistant
underwriters and the insurance raters do not share a
sufficient community of interest with sales representa-
tives to warrant inclusion in the petitioned-for unit.
Rather, the sales representatives themselves have suf-
ficiently distinct employment interests to justify a unit
of only such employees. They usually work outside
SI In fact, in district offices outside Milwaukee, raters usually double as
sales secretanes.
1 See, e.g.. Allstate Insurance Company, 118 NLRB 855 (1957).
rather than inside the office, they have separate super-
vision; they have no set hours; they have a different
method of compensation; and they are the only em-
ployees whose primary function is to seek out pro-
spective customers in order to sell club memberships
and insurance policies. Accordingly, we find that the
following employees have a community of interest
sufficient to constitute a unit appropriate for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining within the meaning of
Section 9(b) of the Act:
Unit 1: All full-time and regular part-time dis-
trict sales representatives employed by the
Employer at its Milwaukee North office, ex-
cluding office clerical employees, district man-
agers, sales managers. travel counselors, insur-
ance underwriters and assistants, guards and
supervisors as defined in the Act, and all other
employees.
Unit 2: All full-time and regular part-time sales
representatives employed by the Employer at
its Milwaukee South office, excluding office
clerical employees, district managers, sales
managers, travel counselors, insurance under-
writers and assistants, guards and supervisors
as defined in the Act, and all other employees.
[Direction of Elections and Excelsior footnote
omitted from publication.]
727