Civil Service Employees Association, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 23, 1970

181 N.L.R.B. 766 (N.L.R.B. 1970)

766 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Civil Service Employees Association , Inc. and Field
Staff Association , Petitioner . Case 3-RC-4740
March 23, 1970
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF
ELECTION
BY MEMBERS FANNING, BROWN, AND JENKINS
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of
the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a
hearing was held before John M. Shea, Jr., Hearing
Officer. None of the parties have filed briefs.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a
three-member panel.
The Board has reviewed the Hearing Officer's
rulings made at the hearing and finds that they are
free from prejudicial error. They are hereby
affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board
finds:
1. The parties stipulated the facts. Civil Service
Employees Association, Incorporated, hereinafter
called the Employer, is an employee representative
that engages in collective bargaining. It has about
175,000 members. It is not affiliated with any other
organization, nor does it negotiate contracts with
anyone outside the State of New York. Its
membership consists of employees employed solely
by the State of New York, or various other political
subdivisions thereof. The Petitioner is the
contractual representative for the employees in
question, and seeks herein to obtain a Board
certification.
The Employer sponsors a group insurance
program, the premiums for which amount to
approximately $6 million annually. The policies for
the program are issued by Travelers' Insurance
Company whose headquarters are located in
Hartford, Connecticut, and the local insurance agent
is located in Schenectady, New York. The
premiums are deducted from the
employee-members' wages. The State then issues a
check in the name of the local agent which is
transmitted to the Employer who then delivers it to
the local agent. The money is then transmitted by
the local agent to the carrier in Connecticut.
A question is presented as to the propriety of
asserting jurisdiction over the Employer on the
authority of the Oregon Teamsters case.' We are of
the opinion that jurisdiction should be asserted. In
Oregon Teamsters, jurisdiction over a union's
security fund was asserted on the basis of the
transmittal by it of $2 million annually in premiums
to an out-of-State insurance carrier.
'Office Employees International Union, Local No 11 v N L R B, 353
As the premium payments in the present case,
unlike those in the Oregon Teamsters case, were not
transmitted directly across State lines, they can
afford a basis for asserting jurisdiction only if they
constitute indirect "inflow" or "outflow" as these
terms are defined in the Siemons case.' That case
defines "indirect outflow" as "sales of goods or
services to users meeting any of the Board's
jurisdictional standards. " It is apparent that the
payment of premiums in connection with the
purchase of insurance policies does not constitute
the sale of goods or services.' However, "indirect
inflow" is defined in the Siemons case as "the
purchase of goods or services which originated
outside the employer's State but which he purchased
from a seller within the State who received such
goods or services from outside the State." As the
policies purchased by the Employer herein
"originated outside the employer's State" - in this
case, Connecticut, we find that the premium
payments constitute indirect inflow, and as the
amount thereof clearly meets the $50,000
outflow-inflow standard for nonretail enterprises, we
further find that the Employer is engaged in
commerce within the meaning of the Act and that it
will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert
jurisdiction.
2. The labor organization involved claims to
represent certain employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists
concerning the representation of employees of the
Employer within the meaning of Section 9(c)(1) and
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The parties stipulated to the appropriateness of
the unit set forth below. In view of the stipulation of
the parties and the entire record, we find that the
following employees constitute a unit appropriate
for the purposes of collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act:
All field representatives and collective-bargaining
specialists employed by the Employer whose
headquarters are located at 33 Elk Street, Albany,
New York, excluding all office clerical employees,
all managerial and technical employees, and all
guards and supervisors as defined in the Act.
[Direction of Election' omitted from publication.]
U S 313, on remand sub nom Oregon Teamsters ' Security Plan Office,
119 NLRB 207
'Siemons Marling Service , 122 NLRB 81
'Chain Service Restaurant , Local 11, AFL-CIO, 132 NLRB 960
'In order to assure that all eligible voters may have the opportunity to
be informed of the issues in the exercise of their statutory right to vote, all
parties to the election should have access to a list of voters and their
addresses which may be used to communicate with them Excelsior
Underwear Inc, 156 NLRB 1236, N L R B v Wyman-Gordon Company,
394 U S 759 Accordingly , it is hereby directed that an election eligibility
list containing the names and addresses of all the eligible voters, must be
filed by the Employer with the Regional Director for Region 3 within 7
days of the date of this Decision and Direction of Election The Regional
Director shall make the list available to all parties to the election No
extension of time to file the list shall be granted by the Regional Director
except in extraordinary circumstances Failure to comply with this
requirement shall be grounds for setting aside the election whenever proper
objections are filed
181 NLRB No. 115