Atlas Life Insurance Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 21, 1951

94 N.L.R.B. 742 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

742 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ATLAS LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY and LOCAL No. 948, INTERNATIONAL
UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS . Case No. 16-CA-304. May 21,
1951
Decision and Order
On February 19, 1951, Trial Examiner C. W. Whittemore 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 copy of the
Intermediate Report attached hereto. 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 Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection
with this proceeding to a three -member panel [Chairman Herzog and
Members Reynolds and Murdock].
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed . The Respondent 's request for oral argu-
ment is hereby denied, inasmuch as the record and brief , in our opinion,
adequately present the issues and positions of the parties . The Board
has considered the Intermediate Report, the exceptions and briefs,
and the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the findings, con-
clusions , and recommendations of the Trial Examiner.
Order
Upon the entire record in the case and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations
Board hereby orders that the Respondent, Atlas Life Insurance Com-
pany, Tulsa, Oklahoma, its officers, agents , successors, and assigns,
shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with Local No. 948, Interna-
tional Union of Operating Engineers , as the exclusive representative
of all its employees at the Atlas Life Building, Tulsa, Oklahoma, who
are required to hold a city engineer 's license and are engaged in the
operation and maintenance of the heating , ventilating , air condition-
ing, and other machinery in the building, excluding office and clerical
employees , elevator operators , janitors, janitresses , watchmen, guards,
and supervisors as defined in the Act.
(b) Interrogating its employees concerning their union member-
ship, activities , or sympathies.
94 NLRB No. 103.
ATLAS LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY 743
(c) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining,
or coercing its employees in the exercise of their right to self-organiza-
tion, to form labor organizations, or to join or assist Local No. 948,
International , Union of Operating Engineers, or any other labor
organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their
own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of
collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain
from any or all of such activities, except to the extent that such right
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.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Upon request, bargain collectively with Local No. 948, Inter-
national Union of Operating Engineers as the exclusive representa-
tive of all the employees in the above-mentioned appropriate unit
with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, or other
conditions of employment, and embody any understanding reached
in a signed agreement.
(b) Post at its building in Tulsa, Oklahoma, copies of the notice
attached hereto, marked Appendix A.' Copies of said notice, to be
furnished by the Regional Director for the Sixteenth Region, shall,
after being signed by the Respondent's representative be posted by
the Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and maintained by
it for sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places,
including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted.
Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said
notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(c) Notify the Regional Director 'for the Sixteenth Region in
writing, within ten (10) days from the date of this Order what steps
Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
Appendix A
NOTICE To ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations
Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that :
WE WILL NOT engage in any acts in any manner interfering
with the efforts of LOCAL NO. 948, INTERNATIONAL UNION OF
'In the event this Order is enforced by decree of a United States Court of Appeals,
there shall be inserted before the words "A Decision and Order" the words , "A Decree of the
United States Court of Appeals Enforcing "
744 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
OPERATING ENGINEERS, to negotiate for or represent the employees
in the bargaining unit described below :
WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees concerning their union
membership, activities, or sympathies.
WE WILL bargain collectively, upon request, with the above-
named union as the exclusive bargaining representative of all em-
ployees in the bargaining unit described below with respect to
wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or other conditions of
employment, and, if an understanding is reached, embody such
understanding in a signed agreement. The bargaining unit is :
All employees at the Atlas Life Building, Tulsa, Okla-
homa, who are required to hold a city engineer's license and
are engaged in the operation and maintenance of the heating,
ventilating, air conditioning and other machinery in the
building, excluding office and clerical employees, elevator op-
erators, janitors, janitresses, watchmen, guards, and super-
visors as defined in the Act.
ATLAS LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY,
Employer.
By -------------------------------------
(Representative ) (Title)
Dated --------------------
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
Intermediate Report
Mr. James R. Webster, for the General Counsel
Messrs. Jack E. Campbell and-Harry D. Moreland, (Doerner, Rinehart
Stuart) of Tulsa, Okla., for the Respondent.
Mr. C. C. Callicoat, of Tulsa, Okla, for the Union.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a charge duly filed by Local No. 948, International Union of Operating
Engineers, herein called the Union, the General Counsel of the National Labor
Relations Board, herein respectively called the General Counsel and the Board,
by the Regional Director for the Sixteenth Region (Fort Worth, Texas), issued
a complaint dated December 14, 1950, against Atlas Life Insurance Company,
Tulsa, Oklahoma, herein called the Respondent, alleging that the Respondent
had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce
within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) and (5) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of
the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 61 Stat. 136, herein called the
Act. Copies of the charge, the complaint, and notice of hearing were duly served
upon the Respondent and the Union.
With respect to the unfair labor practices the complaint alleges, in substance,
that the Respondent: (1) in June 1950 refused to bargain collectively with the
Union as the exclusive representative of its employees in an appropriate unit ;
ATLAS LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY 745
(2) interrogated its employees concerning their union affiliations; and (3) by
this conduct interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exer-
cise of rights guaranteed by the Act.
On January 4, 1951, the Respondent filed its answer, in which it denied that
it had engaged in the unfair labor practices alleged.
Pursuant to notice a hearing was held at Tulsa, Oklahoma, on January 17,
1951, before the undersigned Trial Examiner, duly designated by the Chief Trial
Examiner. The General Counsel and the Respondent were represented by coun-
sel, the Union by an official. All participated in the hearing. Full opportunity
to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence
bearing upon the issues was afforded to all parties.
At the conclusion of the hearing ruling was reserved upon a motion by the
Respondent to dismiss the complaint. Disposition of this motion is made in the
findings, conclusions, and recommendations appearing below. Counsel for Gen-
eral Counsel waived opportunity to argue orally and to file briefs. Counsel for
the Respondent argued orally and has filed a brief with the Trial Examiner.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Trial Examiner makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Atlas Life Insurance Company is an Oklahoma corporation, having its princi-
pal office and place of business in Tulsa, Oklahoma, and is engaged in the life
insurance business and the operation of an office building, in which its own
business is housed- and conducted. It is licensed to do business in Oklahoma,
Texas, Arkansas, Kansas, Missouri, Oregon, and California. Throughout these
States it has in effect insurance in excess of $75,000,000.
Although the Respondent denies that the Board has jurisdiction, it concedes
that its present operations and employee relations are substantially the same
as in 1949. On May 20, 1949, in its Decision and Direction of Election in Case
No. 16-RC-330 (unpublished) the Board determined that the Respondent "is
engaged in commerce within'the meaning of the Act."'
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Local No. 948, International Union of Operating Engineers is a labor organiza-
tion admitting to membership employees of the Respondent.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
The Refusal to Bargain; Interference, Restraint, and Coercion
Following the Board's decision above referred to, an election was held among
the Respondent's employees. The Union, which was the petitioner in that
case, lost the election.
A year later, on June 15, 1950, C. C. Callicoat, business representative of the
Union, called upon Johnson D. Hill, president of the Respondent, and requested
' In that case the Board found : "The Employer urges that its operation of the Atlas
Life Building, which is involved in this proceeding , has only a remote effect upon com-
merce . However, the Employer , which concededly is engaged in interstate commerce, has
its home office in the building and leases the remaining space in the building to other
commercial tenants, some of which are engaged in interstate commerce . We find that
the operation of the Atlas Life Building is not separable from the Employer ' s other
activities and, therefore , that for the purposes of this proceeding , the Employer is
engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act."
746 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
that he bargain with the Union. The next day Johnson sent the following
letter to the Union :
On yesterday Mr. C C Callicoat called on me and requested my Company
sign an agreement under the terms of which he would be a bargaining repre-
sentative for our building engineers.
Since his visit I have checked the situation with our building engineers
and find that they are all members of your union All of the craft work
in the Atlas Building is done by union representatives, including the painters
and carpenters, so as far as I can find out the unions have everything there
is to have in our operations.
We have no problems on any score, and therefore no need for a representa-
tive. We only have four engineers whom we see personally every day, and
it would be rather fantastic to have an intermediary represent us in any,
possible conversation with these few men whom we know better than an
intermediary would ever know. We anticipate no difficulties of any kind,
unless they are artificially created by entii ely extraneous activity
Since both the union members and the Company seem to be getting along
fine, we have no current occasion to appoint anyone for the purpose of settling
difficulties which do not exist.
On August 17, 1950, the Union filed with the Board a petition for representa-
tion in Case No. 16-RC-59S, claiming as appropriate the same unit found to be
appropriate by the Board in the preceding representation case. On September 21
the Union withdrew its petition and on the same clay filed its charge in the
instant proceeding, alleging refusal to bargain A representative of the Board
wrote to Hill concerning the matters raised in the charge. On October 5 Hill
replied as follows :
I have your letter of yesterday concerning a charge you say was filed by
Mr. C C. Callicoat and which I did not know existed. I had what I thought
was a very pleasant visit with Mr. Callicoat, and supposed he had gone back
to finish his medical education by this time.
We employ union men belonging to unions other than the Engineer's union,
and I think have always been considered a good friend to the Union move-
ment. Our organization, along all lines, is too small from any standpoint to
either require or justify more than we have been doing. I do not have
before me a copy of my letter to which you refer, but it is my recollection
that after Mr. Callicoat's visit I inquired of our engineers whether or not
they were members of the Union and they told me that they were. I also
made inquiries as to the union scale of pay and saw to it that we were
paying this scale Since there did not seem to be any occasion for argument
about any subject I wrote the letter which apparently you have.
As stated above, we have always been considered a friend of Labor, and
I have personally done some good turns for the organization as a whole,
particularly when as a member of the Legislature I took care of nuisance
legislation.
It is my personal feeling that there is still no occasion for any argument,
and if there is going to be one I should withdraw from the picture and refer
the whole matter to our Legal Department. I think that unless and until
there is some complaint from some of our employees there is really nothing
to talk about and trust you will agree with me. I am not advised as to the
jurisdictional questions involved, but do not intend that any statement of
mine should have any bearing on such questions one way or another.
ATLAS LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY 747
'Thereafter the complaint was issued. The complaint alleges, the Board found
in Case No. 16-RC-330, the Respondent offered no convincing evidence to the
contrary, and the Trial Examiner concludes and finds that a unit of the Re-
spondent's employees appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within
the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act consists of :
All employees at the Atlas Life Building, Tulsa, Oklahoma, who are re-
quired to hold a city engineer's license and are engaged in the operation and
maintenance of the heating, ventilating, air conditioning and other machinery
in the building, exclusive of office and clerical employees, elevator operator,
janitor, janitress, watchmen and supervisory employees.
The complaint alleges, facts stipulated by the parties establish, and the Trial
Examiner concludes and finds that by June 1, 1950, a majority of the employees
in the above-described unit had designated the Union as their representative for
the purposes of collective bargaining. It is therefore concluded and found that
on June 1, 1950, and at all 'times since then, the Union has been the exclusive
representative of all the employees in the said unit for the purposes of collective
bargaining in respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, or other
conditions of employment.
The two letters of Hill, above quoted, plainly establish and the Trial Examiner
concludes and finds: (1) that on June 16, 1950, and thereafter, the Respondent
refused to bargain with the Union; (2) that the Respondent interrogated em-
ployees as to their membership in the Union; and (3) that by such refusal and
interrogation the Respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its em-
ployees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in Section III, above occurring in
connection 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 ob-
structing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
v. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices,
the Trial Examiner will recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take
certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Since
it has been found that the Respondent has refused to bargain with the Union as
the exclusive representative of its employees in the appropriate unit, it will
be recommended that upon request the Respondent bargan collectively with
the Union.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact, and upon the entire record in
the case, the Trial Examiner makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Local No. 948, International Union of Operating Engineers, is a labor
rirganization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2 All of the Respondent's employees at the Atlas Life Building, Tulsa, Okla-
homa, who are required to hold a city engineer's license and are engaged in the
operation and maintenance of the heating, ventilating, air conditioning and other
machinery in the building, exclusive of office and clerical employees, elevator
748 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
operator , janitor, janitress , watchmen , and supervisory employees , constitute
a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning
of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
3. Local No . 948, International Union of Operating Engineers , was on June 1,
1950, and at all times since then has been the exclusive representative of all
employees in said unit for the purposes of collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9 (a) of the Act.
4. By failing and refusing to bargain collectively with the Union as the
exclusive representative of its employees in the appropriate unit the Respondent
has engaged . in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning
of Section 8 (a) (5) of the Act.
5. By interfering with , restraining , and coercing its employees in the exercise
of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act the Respondent has engaged in
and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1),
of the Act.
6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 2 ( 6) and ( 7) of the Act.
[Recommended Order omitted from publication in this volume.]
FARBER BROTHERS , INC. and INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTO-
MOBILE, AIRCRAFT AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF
AMERICA, UAW-CIO. Case No. 32-CA-12;0. May V, 1951
Decision and Order
On January 17, 1951, Trial Examiner Louis Plost issued his Inter-
mediate 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 copy of the Inter-
mediate Report attached hereto. The Trial Examiner also found
that the Respondent had not engaged in certain other unfair labor
practices alleged in the complaint, and recommended dismissal of
those allegations. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the
Intermediate Report and a supporting brief. In addition, the Re-
spondent requested oral argument. However, because the record and
brief, in our opinion, adequately present the issues and positions of
the parties, the request for oral argument is hereby denied.
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 [Members Houston, Murdock, and Styles].
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
94 NLRB No. 111.