American National Insurance Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 30, 1986

281 N.L.R.B. 713 (N.L.R.B. 1986)

AMERICAN NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.
American National Insurance Company and United
Food and Commercial Workers International
Union, AFL-CIO, Successor to Insurance
Workers International Union , AFL-CIO. Cases
23-CA-9510 and 23-CA-9602
30 September 1986
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN DOTSON AND MEMBERS
JOHANSEN AND BABSON
On 8 August 1984 Administrative Law Judge
William A. Gershuny issued the attached decision.
The Respondent and the Union filed exceptions
and supporting briefs, the General Counsel filed a
brief in support of the judge 's decision and the Re-
spondent filed an answering brief to the Union's ex-
ceptions.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegat-
ed its authority in this proceeding to a three-
member panel.
The Board has considered the decision and the
record in light of the exceptions and briefs' and
has decided to affirm the judge's rulings,2 fmd-
ings,3 and conclusions and to adopt the recom-
mended Order as modified.4
' The Respondent has requested oral argument . The request is denied
as the record , exceptions, and briefs adequately present the issues and the
positions of the parties.
Y The Respondent excepts to the judge 's ruling that the Insurance
Workers International Union's disenfranchisement of the 2400 non-
member employees in the 3000 employee unit did not relieve the Re-
spondent of its obligation to recognize and bargain with the Union. In
light of the recent Supreme Court decision in NLRB v. Financial Institu-
tion Employees, 475 U .S. 192 ( 1986), we disagree . Therein, the Court held
that the Act does not require that nonmembers be permitted to vote in
union affiliation elections. Accordingly, we find , in agreement with the
judge, that the IWIU's exclusion of nonmember unit employees from the
merger vote does not preclude our finding a violation based on the Re-
spondent's refusal to recognize and bargain with the newly merged
entity . We agree with the judge , for the reasons stated in his decision,
that there is a continuity of identity between the IWIU and the post-
merger bargaining representative . We also agree with his finding that the
IWIU provided union members a fair and meaningful opportunity to
become fully informed about the proposed merger and to cast an in-
formed vote . Accordingly, we adopt the judge's findings that the Re-
spondent violated Sec. 8(aX5) by refusing to recognize and bargain with
the United Food and Commercial Workers after it had merged with the
IWIU.
3 In adopting the judge's finding that the Respondent's 9 December
1983 poll of employees violated Sec. 8(aXl), we rely solely on the fact
that the poll was not conducted by secret ballot as required by the
Board's decision in Struksnes Construction Co., 165 NLRB 1062 (1967).
We find it unnecessary , therefore, to pass on the judge 's finding that the
Struksnes guidelines have been modified by the courts to require that the
union must be notified when an employer wishes to poll its employees, or
that this action violated Sec. 8(aX5).
4 Although in his decision the judge "assum[ed] without deciding" that
the Employer had sufficient objective evidence indicating a loss of major-
ity support for the IWIU to conduct the poll , the judge's recommended
Order refers to the "absence of objective considerations ." In addition, al-
though the judge finds a violation in the Respondent 's refusal to provide
requested information to the Union , he fails to require any affirmative
action by the Respondent to remedy this violation . Accordingly , we have
modified the recommended Order to conform with the judge 's findings.
713
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the
recommended Order of the administrative law
judge as modified below and orders that the Re-
spondent, American National Insurance Company,
Galveston , Texas, its officers, agents, successors,
and assigns , shall take the action set forth in the
Order as modified.
1. Substitute the following for paragraph 1(a).
"(a) Polling or otherwise interrogating its em-
ployees about their union views in a manner consti-
tuting interference , restraint, or coercion."
2. Insert the following as paragraph 2(b) and re-
letter the subsequent paragraphs.
"(b) Provide information requested by the
Union, which is relevant and necessary to collec-
tive bargaining."
3. Substitute the attached notice for that of the
administrative law judge.
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found
that we violated the National Labor Relations Act
and has ordered us to post and abide by this notice.
WE WILL NOT poll or otherwise interrogate you
about your union views in a manner constituting
interference , restraint, or coercion.
WE WILL NOT refuse to recognize or bargain
collectively with United Food and Commercial
Workers International Union, AFL-CIO (Profes-
sional , Insurance, Finance and Health Care Divi-
sion), as the exclusive bargaining representative of
our employees.
WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively with
the Union (1) by unilaterally granting additional
compensation to debit agents and revising the con-
tractual grievance-arbitration procedures and (2) by
failing and refusing to provide requested informa-
tion relevant and necessary to collective bargain-
ing.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner
interfere with, restrain, or coerce you in the exer-
cise of the rights guaranteed you by Section 7 of
the Act.
WE WILL, on request, bargain collectively with
the Union as the exclusive bargaining representa-
tive of our employees and embody in a signed
agreement any understanding reached.
WE WILL rescind the grievance-arbitration pro-
cedures as revised by us in January 1984 and utilize
281 NLRB No. 105
714 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the grievance-arbitration provisions of the expired
contract for the processing of any grievance.
WE WILL provide information requested by the
Union, which is relevant and necessary to collec-
tive bargaining.
AMERICAN NATIONAL INSURANCE
COMPANY
Robert G. Levy, Esq., for the General Counsel.
James S. Cheslock, Esq. (Foster & Cheslock), of San Anto-
nio, Texas, for Respondent.
Edward P. Wendell, Esq., of Washington, D.C., for the
Charging Party.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
WILLIAM A. GERSHUNY, Administrative Law Judge.
A hearing was held in Galveston, Texas, on April 11-12,
1984, on complaint issued on December 5, 1983, as
amended February 8, 1984, alleging , principally, an un-
lawful refusal to recognize and bargain with the United
Food and Commercial Workers International, as succes-
sor by merger with the Insurance Workers International
Union, which had for many years been recognized as the
exclusive bargaining representative of Respondent's debit
agents nationwide. i
At issue is the validity of the merger and majority
status.
On the entire record, I make the following
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. JURISDICTION
The complaint alleges, the answer admits, and I find
that Respondent is an employer within the meaning of
the Act.
II. LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
The complaint alleges, Respondent concedes, and I
find that the Insurance Workers International Union,
prior to its becoming defunct on October 1, 1983, the ef-
fective date of the merger, was a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act; and that,
at all relevant times, the United Food and Commercial
Workers International union was also such an organiza-
tion.
III. UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Refusal to Recognize and Bargain with UFCW
1. Background
For many years , the Insurance Workers International
Union (IWIU) had been recognized as the exclusive bar-
gaining representative of Respondent 's debit agents na-
tionwide . Its most recent labor agreement with Respond-
ent, effective from January 3, 1981, to December 31,
1 Final briefs were filed July 30, 1984
1983, was a nationwide one, covering some 3000 debit
agents employed by Respondent in 234 district offices.
IWIU had similar nationwide contracts with 25 other in-
surance companies. Each such contract was negotiated
and administered by the IWIU, except that its 200 local
unions handled grievances at the informal local step
only.
Each local union had a mixed employer membership
within geographical boundaries. Respondent's agents
were covered by 38 such locals.
In August 1983, IWIU conducted a merger referen-
dum designed to elicit the vote of each employee cov-
ered by contract, regardless of union membership. Cur-
rent information on employee names and addresses was
requested and received from each employer, except that
Respondent submitted its list "late." The IWIU, accord-
ingly, mailed ballots to those of Respondent's employees
who were union members and to all employees of the
other 25 employers. Of the 10,156 ballots returned, there
were 8439 "yes" ballots in favor of the merger. The
merger became effective October 1, 1983, and IWIU
went out of existence.
Thereafter, Respondent refused to recognize the
United Food and Commercial Workers International
Union (UFCW) as the exclusive bargaining representa-
tive of its agents . These charges followed.
2. The referendum
The secret-ballot referendum was conducted by IWIU
on a nationwide, multiemployer basis2 and was intended
to elicit the vote of all employees covered by contract,
regardless of union membership.
The IWIU wanted to effectuate the merger on Octo-
ber 1, 1983, a date arbitrarily chosen by IWIU in the
sense that it was not mandated by law, by the union con-
stitution, or the merger agreement. Using October 1 as a
target date, the IWIU calculated that employee mailing
lists must be received from each employer and submitted
to a mailing label contractor in time for ballots to be
printed and mailed by the printer by August 11; and that
ballots must be received in a designated postal box in
Washington by midnight August 29 to be counted by the
printer and the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Serv-
ice. This schedule was incorporated in a memorandum of
understanding between the printer, the IWIU, and the
Service, which also contemplated both the expeditious
remailing of envelopes returned on account of inadequate
or erroneous addresses, as well as a possible extension
"for a reasonable time" of the deadline for receiving bal-
lots due to "some unexpected delay in the postal service
arising from causes beyond the control" of either the
printer or the Union.3
2 Although a different color ballot was used for each employer, there
is no explanation for this color -coding, as all ballots were commingled for
counting purposes.
2 Although the memorandum of understanding was belatedly signed by
the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service on August 19, the printer
on August 24, and the Union on August 30, IWIU President Pollack tes-
tified that he did not agree to a remalling or an extension of the deadline
and that such language was borrowed from another form and inserted by
the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service without his knowledge.
Continued
AMERICAN NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.
To implement this referendum procedure , the IWIU,
by identical letters dated June 15, requested each of the
26 employers to submit by July 6 the current names and
addresses of all employees represented , "regardless of
whether or not they are members of our Union or on
dues checkoff." This data was essential to the conduct of
the referendum , since IWIU had such information only
concerning its members. Timely responses were received
from 18 companies ; a second , written request was sent to
7 others, indicating that the IWIU would "wait" until
July 15 for the lists; by July 24, four additional lists were
received ; on July 25 , 3 companies with a total of 200 em-
ployees responded ; and by letter dated July 25 , mailed
from Galveston to IWIU headquarters in Washington,
Respondent submitted its list, which was received in the
afternoon of July 27.
None of the IWIU requests indicated that the lists
were for purposes of conducting a merger referendum.
Nevertheless , Respondent, by early July, had actual
knowledge of the pending merger referendum because it
had received the IWIU publication, "The Insurance
Worker," mailed in late June, which advised that the
IWIU's general executive board , in convention in early
June, had unanimously passed a resolution calling for a
referendum on the merger . Indeed , Respondent, since
early 1983 , had actual knowledge of a possible merger
with UFCW.
Respondent had received the June 15 request in its
corporate offices in Galveston about June 20 . Within a
week, its computer had produced a rough list which in-
cluded supervisors and other nonunit employees and did
not include ZIP codes . Respondent did not give a high
priority to this request and the initial deadline of July 6
was not met . The second request of July 11 was received
about Friday, July 15 . By the middle of the following
week, at the latest, Respondent had compiled an accurate
bargaining unit mailing list, because on Friday , July 21, it
mailed a memorandum to all unit employees urging them
to vote against the merger . Nevertheless , it delayed mail-
ing that list to IWIU headquarters in Washington until
the following Monday , July 25 . It was received on the
afternoon of July 27.
Because only 1 of the 26 mailing lists was sent in mail-
ing label form , IWIU contracted for the preparation of
mailing labels . The first lists (totaling 13,483 names) were
sent for labels on July 5 and were returned on July 19
for delivery to the printer the following day; other lists
(totaling 6782 names) were sent to the contractor on July
21 and were returned on July 27 for delivery to the
printer the same day . The lists (totaling 200 names) re-
ceived from three small companies on July 25 were re-
tained by the Union and labels were prepared by its
office personnel . The record is silent as to when these
200 labels were delivered to the printer . When Respond-
ent's list was not received , the IWIU computer was pro-
gramed to prepare labels for each of Respondent 's agents
who was a union member ; these labels were sent to the
printer.
Where, as here, the referendum procedure was the responsibility of Pol-
lack, who admittedly acted in close consultation with union counsel, he is
bound by the terms of the written agreement that he signed.
715
Ballots had been printed earlier in July and the mailing
of ballots and explanatory material was accomplished by
the printer by midnight August 11. A total of 26,305 bal-
lots were mailed to all unit employees of 25 companies;
only 622 agents of Respondent who were union members
were sent ballots . Approximately 2400 agents of Re-
spondent who were not members were not sent ballots
and had no other opportunity to vote in the merger ref-
erendum.
I take notice that Respondent 's list of 3000 names and
addresses could have been converted to labels by two
typists in an 8-hour day and could have been delivered
to the printer by Friday, July 29, at the very latest, 13
days before the mailing deadline . There is no evidence to
indicate that the printer was unable to stuff and post
3000 additional ballots without extending the August 11
deadline . In any event, there is no reason the deadline
could not have been extended by 1-2 days to ensure that
all employees of Respondent were sent ballots . Indeed,
both the Union and the printer contemplated the possibil-
ity of remailings and other delays that would have re-
quired extending the deadline . Nevertheless, IWIU Presi-
dent Pollack stated emphatically that he did not (abso-
lutely not) consider ways and means to accommodate the
late receipt of Respondent's mailing list.4
The record in this case is strongly suggestive of ac-
tions dictated more by anger than reason : on Respond-
ent's part, it consciously delayed mailing its list until it
could mail antimerger literature to its agents; on IWIU's
part, it flatly refused even to consider processing Re-
spondent's mailing list with the use of its own clerical
staff, temporary typists, or outside contractors. As a
result, 80 percent of Respondent's unit employees had no
opportunity to vote.
Their vote, it should be noted, could not have altered
the lopsided outcome of the referendum in any event.
3. Continuity of identity
The merger agreement guarantees the continued exist-
ence (a) of IWIU through establishment of the Profes-
sional , Insurance and Finance Division within UFCW,
utilizing the current IWIU staff; (b) of existing local
unions and area councils ; and (c) of collective-bargaining
relationships and dues structures . Following the merger,
these guarantees were implemented : Pollack, president of
IWIU, became associate director of the newly created
division and the four other IWIU officers became Pol-
lack's assistants . Their duties remained the same with
only a change of titles. Their successors are required to
come from the insurance industry . An insurance advisory
committee replaces the IWIU general executive board
and its functions and membership apparently are un-
changed . The IWIU's 200 locals remain unchanged in
structure, except that they now bear a modified number
and are chartered bodies of UFCW. IWIU members are
credited with prior membership standing for purposes of
UFCW election eligibility requirements.
4 Nor was the deadline extended to correct addresses on 480 ballots
returned by the postal service because of "undeliverability."
716 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The record evidence is clear and uncontroverted that
the merger has not affected contract negotiations and
contract administration. The same union personnel who
performed these activities before the merger continue to
do so afterwards, contracts continue to be ratified by
secret ballot at the local union level, contracts continue
to be executed by Pollack, and grievances continue to be
processed at early steps by the locals and thereafter by
the International through Pollack. No other UFCW offi-
cial has any authority to negotiate, ratify, or sign such
contracts.
From the standpoint of both unit members and em-
ployers, the merger effected no differences of signifi-
cance.
4. Majority status
Respondent had negotiated continually with IWIU
since 1947. During that time, its annual rate of turnover
among debit agents is estimated at 66 percent. The per-
centage of agents on dues checkoff was 29 percent in
1977 and 20 percent by October 1983; union records
reveal that only 600 of Respondent's 3000 debit agents
are union members. Grievances numbered 83 in 1978;
118 in 1979; 93 in 1980; 68 in 1981; 47 in 1982; and 44 for
the first 9 months of 1983. There is no evidence what-
ever that IWIU had withdrawn from its representational
obligations or that union members no longer were look-
ing to it for representation. Respondent's executive vice
president conceded that he "surely would have" bar-
gained with IWIU had the merger not taken place.
B. The December 9, 1983 Poll of Employees
Two months after the IWIU-UFCW merger of Octo-
ber 1 and 1 month after it unsuccessfully requested by
letter dated November 2, 1983, details concerning the
manner in which the merger referendum was conducted,
Respondent conducted a written poll of its unit employ-
ees. Five questions sought to discover if ballots, the
merger agreement, and the UFCW constitution had been
received by agents and if ballots were completed and re-
turned; one sought employee starting dates with the
Company; and the seventh asked whether "you want to
be represented by" UFCW. The poll was conducted in
each of Respondent's 234 district offices with all agents
assembled for an otherwise regularly scheduled office
meeting. Each was advised that he or she might refuse to
answer some or all the questions; that "no action will be
taken against you if you refuse"; and that the information
supplied would "be used by the Company to determine
its bargaining obligations." The 3000 individual question-
naires were subsequently reviewed by Respondent and a
summary of the answers was prepared. Objections of the
General Counsel and the Charging Party to the receipt
into evidence of these questionnaires and the summary,
principally on grounds of hearsay, were sustained and
the documents, designated Respondent's Exhibits 1(a)(l)-
(br. 234) and 12, were placed in a rejected exhibit file.5
6 The rejected summary reflects that, in response to question seven,
"Do you want to be represented by UFCW," 518 agents responded
"yes," 1409 "no," 134 "undecided," and 618 agents did not respond.
It is this seventh question, concerning the representation
desires of the debit agents , that is alleged to be violative
of Section 8(a)(1).
C. The Refusal to Furnish Information for Bargaining
Paragraphs 12, 13, and 15 of the complaint, as clarified
at the hearing, allege, Respondent at the hearing conced-
ed, and I find that by letters dated August 26 and Sep-
tember 28, 1983, respectively, the IWIU requested Re-
spondent to furnish information concerning wages and
benefits of unit employees and that Respondent has re-
fused to provide such information. This information was
relevant to contract negotiations, which would com-
mence about December 31, 1983, the expiration date of
the current agreement. By UFCW letter dated October
7, 1983, and signed by Pollack in his new capacity as as-
sociate director of the Professional, Insurance, Finance
and Health Care Division, notice was given that the con-
tract would be terminated and bargaining was requested.
By letter of October 31 from its attorneys, Respondent
declined that request.
D. The Unilateral Changes
Paragraphs 22 and 23 of the complaint allege, Re-
spondent at the hearing conceded, and I find that in
early January 1984, after expiration of the contract, Re-
spondent granted additional compensation to its debit
agents and revised its grievance-arbitration procedures.
Having previously refused to recognize the UFCW, Re-
spondent effected these changes unilaterally.
E. Discussion
Recent Board precedent teaches that for a union to
succeed to the representational rights of another union
with which it has merged and to be entitled to a bargain-
ing order at least two criteria must be met: first, all em-
ployees in the bargaining unit must be afforded the op-
portunity to participate in the merger vote, F. W. Wool-
worth Co., 268 NLRB 80 (1984); and second, the identity
and continuity of the bargaining representative must
have been preserved, Texas Plastics, 263 NLRB 394
(1982).
Respondent contends that the IWIU-UFCW merger
meets neither of those standards. Regarding the opportu-
nity of all unit employees to vote, Respondent contends
it is relieved of an obligation to bargain because 2400 of
its debit agents who are not union members were not
sent ballots and were not otherwise given an opportunity
to vote. That fact, of course, is not in dispute-only 600
of its 3000 agents who were union members were mailed
a ballot. The disenfranchisement of the nonmember em-
ployees, however, is hardly the sole responsibility of the
Union. Its election plan called for voting participation by
all unit employees, members and nonmembers. In imple-
menting that plan, it solicited mailing lists from all 26
employers and contracted for the printing and mailing of
labeled ballots and copies of the merger agreement and
UFCW constitution. Its election schedule was not an un-
reasonable one and all employers other than Respondent
were able to meet the Union's due date as extended. Re-
spondent, as found above, intentionally delayed the mail-
AMERICAN NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.
ing of its employee list until its own antimerger cam-
paign literature could be prepared and mailed . Of course,
to say that this delay was the sole cause of the disenfran-
chisement of 2400 of its employees would not be accu-
rate-the Union, had it been willing to improvise a 12th-
hour plan to prepare labels and deliver them to the print-
er for stuffing and mailing , could have obviated the bar-
gaining defense raised here . But its neglect does not re-
lieve Respondent from the consequences of its original
plan to interfere with what it knew was IWIU's sched-
uled merger election . Respondent was obligated to pro-
vide the Union with an accurate list of the names and ad-
dresses of bargaining unit members; its neglect in this re-
spect is no less "unlawful" because the complaint does
not specifically allege such an 8(a)(5) violation and does
not seek a specific information-furnishing remedy. The
complaint does allege a refusal to bargain and that al-
leged violation , under the circumstances here, includes
Respondent 's actions in preventing 2400 of its employees
from exercising the voting right afforded them by IWIU.
Respondent will not be relieved of its obligation to bar-
gain by virtue of its own unlawful conduct . Wellman In-
dustries, 248 NLRB 325 (1980).
Moreover, the failure to send ballots to 2400 of Re-
spondent's agents could not materially affect the out-
come of this vote, given the fact that the "yes" vote car-
ried with a 6700 vote majority.
Respondent also suggests that the vast majority of em-
ployees represented by IWIU who did receive ballots
were not afforded a meaningful opportunity to vote:
there were no union meetings at which employees could
ask questions about , and discuss, the merger . There is no
factual support for this contention . Delegates to the
union convention who adopted the merger resolution
had been elected by the membership , which was in-
formed of the merger discussions in The Insurance
Worker, the merger was of two international unions and
not of local unions; each employee represented by IWIU
(except , of course , Respondent's 2400 agents) received
together with the ballot a special edition of The Insur-
ance Worker, which contained a question -and-answer ar-
ticle by IWIU President Pollack answering frequently
asked questions concerning the merger, and a copy of
the merger agreement and UFCW constitution. The
merger referendum plan, I find , gave each unit employee
a fair and meaningful opportunity to become aware of
the advantages and disadvantages of the merger and to
cast an informed vote.
Respondent's additional contention that the UFCW is
a substantially and significantly different labor organiza-
tion from the IWIU similarly is unsupported by the un-
controverted evidence . At the local level, nothing but
the local union 's designation had been changed-bargain-
ing and grievance handling remained exactly the same
from the standpoint of not only procedure, but also per-
sonnel dealing with Respondent . The rights and privi-
leges of unit members remained unchanged . Again, at the
International level, nothing but the titles had been
changed. Pollack and his assistants , the prior IWIU offi-
cers, retained their exclusive authority within the UFCW
organization to negotiate , sign, and administer labor
agreements . Indeed , in the labor agreements negotiated
717
by Pollack subsequent to the merger , there appeared to
be no distinguishing factors. Accordingly, I find and con-
clude that UFCW (Professional, Insurance , Finance and
Health Care Division) succeeded to the representational
rights of the IWIU regarding Respondent 's bargaining
unit and that by refusing to bargain with UFCW Re-
spondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act.6
Paragraphs 21, 26, and 27 allege that the December 9
poll of employees to determine whether they desired
representation by the Union was violative of Section
8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act.
Employer-sponsored polls, whether conducted during
a union 's initial demand for recognition or, as here, in a
postrecognition period, are lawful if the employer (1) has
sufficient objective evidence of loss of union support and
(2) meets the procedural guidelines established by the
Board in Struksnes Construction Co., 165 NLRB 1062
(1967). NLRB v. A. W. Thompson, Inc., 651 F.2d 1141
(5th Cir . 1981). See also the recent decision in Mingtree
Restaurant v. NLRB, 736 F.2d 1295 (9th Cir . 1984), and
cases cited therein . The Struksnes guidelines , as modified
by the Fifth and Sixth Circuits, are six in number:
(1) the purpose of the poll is to determine the
truth of a union's claim of majority;
(2) this purpose is communicated to the employ-
ees;
(3) assurances against reprisal are given;
(4) the employees are polled by secret ballot;
(5) the employer has not engaged in unfair labor
practices or otherwise created a coercive atmos-
phere; and
(6) the union has been given notice of the time
and place of the poll.
Assuming without deciding that there existed sufficient
objective evidence of loss of union support , I neverthe-
less find that the December 9 poll failed to meet
Struksnes criteria in at least two respects-the poll was
not conducted by secret ballot and the Union was not
given notice of the time and place of the poll.
The questionnaire used by Respondent in the conduct
of its poll required each agent to sign it following the an-
swers and to return it to the appropriate district manag-
er. The votes were tabulated by Respondent at its head-
quarters . No secrecy was afforded the agents . Moreover,
the Union, admittedly, was not informed of the poll. Ac-
cordingly, I find and conclude that in conducting the
December 9, 1983 poll Respondent violated the Act as
alleged.
6 This conclusion also disposes of the information and unilateral
change allegations of the complaint and appropriate relief will be includ-
ed in the Order.
Respondent's remaining contention-that there were sufficient objec-
tive considerations (high rate of turnover , low percentage of checkoff,
few employees receiving ballots) to warrant the conduct of the Decem-
ber 9, 1983 poll and that the results of that poll (only 518 of 3000 em-
ployees surveyed affirmatively choosing representation ) established a
good-faith reasonable doubt of majority support-need not be considered,
as both the individual survey forms and the summary tabulation sheet
were not received in evidence. Respondent's request to reconsider my
ruling sustaining the objection of the General Counsel and the Charging
Party is denied.
718 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and
on the entire record , I issue the following recommend-
ed'
ORDER
The Respondent, American National Insurance Com-
pany, Galveston, Texas, its officers, agents , successors,
and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Polling or otherwise interrogating its debit agents
about their union views in a manner constituting interfer-
ence , restraint , and coercion and in the absence of objec-
tive considerations warranting a reasonable doubt of the
Union's continuing status as collective -bargaining repre-
sentative of the majority of its debit agents.
(b) Refusing to recognize or bargain with United Food
and Commercial Workers International Union, AFL-
CIO (Professional, Insurance, Finance and Health Care
Division), as the exclusive bargaining representative of
its debit agents.
(c) Refusing to bargain with the Union (1) by unilater-
ally granting compensation to debit agents and revising
the contractual grievance-arbitration procedures and (2)
by failing and refusing to provide requested information
relevant and necessary for collective bargaining.
(d) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
' If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Board's
Rules and Regulations , the findings, conclusions , and recommended
Order shall, as provided in Sec 102 48 of the Rules, be adopted by the
Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all pur-
poses
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) On request , bargain collectively with United Food
and Commercial Workers International Union, AFL-
CIO (Professional , Insurance , Finance and Health Care
Division) as the exclusive bargaining representative of its
debit agents and embody in a signed agreement any un-
derstanding reached.
(b) Rescind the grievance-arbitration procedures as re-
vised in January 1984 and utilize the grievance -arbitra-
tion provisions of the expired contract for the processing
of any grievance.
(c) Post at its Galveston , Texas office and at each of
its district offices copies of the attached notice marked
"Appendix."e Copies of the notice, on forms provided
by the Regional Director for Region 23, after being
signed by the Respondent 's authorized representative,
shall be posted by the Respondent immediately upon re-
ceipt and maintained for 60 consecutive days in conspic-
uous places including all places where notices to debit
agents are customarily posted . Reasonable steps shall be
taken by the Respondent to ensure that the notices are
not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20
days from the date of this Order what steps the Re-
spondent has taken to comply.
8 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court of
appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the Nation-
al Labor Relations Board " shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of
the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National
Labor Relations Board."