John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 23, 1940

26 N.L.R.B. 1024 (N.L.R.B. 1940)

In the Matter of JOHN HANCOCK MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY
and AMERICAN FEDERATION OF INDUSTRIAL AND ORDINARY INSUR-
ANCE AGENTS UNION No. 21571, EAST ST. LOUIS AND VICINITY,
ILLINOIS
In the Matter Of JOHN HANCOCK MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY
and INDUSTRIAL INSURANCE AGENTS UNION LOCAL No. 84 OF THE
UNITED OFFICE AND PROFESSIONAL WORKERS OF AMERICA
Cases Nos. R-1 747 and R-1 748.-Decided August 23, 1940
Jurisdiction : life insurance industry.
Disturbance of insurance company's business of making large loans
to industry, railroads, public utilities, and consumers' credit enterprises
would constitute a burden on the nation's commercial life.
Investigation and Certification of Representatives : existence of question: dis-
pute as to appropriate unit; denial of employment relationship; election
necessary.
Unit Appropriate for Collective Bargaining : all industrial insurance agents in
each of two district offices of the Company, including junior agents, but
excluding supervisory, clerical, and maintenance employees.
Junior agents engaged in work similar to that of regular agents included
over objection of union.
Definitions:
Industrial insurance agents employed under contract providing for min-
imum salary and requiring them to devote all their time to the Company's
business are employees within the meaning of the Act.
Practice and Procedure:
Statement in Board's usual notice of hearing that it appears to the Board
that a question affecting commerce concerning the representation of employees
has arisen does not constitute a determination of whether such a question
does exist.
Mr. Bernard L. Alpert and Mr. Alan F. Perl, for the Board.
Mr. William Marshall Bullitt, of Louisville, Ky., and Mr. Byron K.
Elliott, Mr. Harold J. Taylor, and Mr. A. T. Collier, of Boston, Mass.,
for the Company.
Mr. Herbert S. Thatcher, of Washington, D. C., for Local No.
21571.
Boudin, Cohn & Glick-stein by Mr. Leonard B. Boudin, of New
York City, for Local No. 84.
Mr. Robert D. Allen, of counsel to the Board.
26 N. L. R. B., No. 105.
1024
JOHN HANCOCK MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
1025
On August 7, 1939, American Federation of Industrial and Ordi-
nary Insurance Agents Union No. 21571, East St. Louis and Vicinity,
Illinois,' herein called Local No. 21571, filed with the Regional Direc-
tor for the Fourteenth Region (St. Louis, Missouri), a petition
alleging that a question affecting commerce had arisen concerning
the representation of employees in the East St. Louis, Illinois, dis-
trict office of John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Company, Bos-
ton, Massachusetts, herein called the Company, and requesting an
investigation and certification of representatives pursuant to Section
9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called
the Act. On January 17, 1940, the National Labor Relations Board,
herein *called the Board, acting pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the Act,
and Article III, Section 3, of National Labor Relations Board Rules
and Regulations-Series 2, ordered an investigation and authorized
the Regional Director to conduct it and to provide for an appropriate
hearing upon due notice.
On August 12, 1939, and February 16, 1940, Industrial Insurance
Agents Union Local No. 84 of the United Office and Professional
Workers of America,' herein called Local No. 84, and together with
Local No. 21571, herein sometimes called the Unions, filed with the
Regional Director for the Second Region (New York City) a petition
and an amended petition, respectively, alleging that a question affect-
ing commerce had arisen concerning the representation of employees
in the Hoboken, New Jersey, district office of the Company, and
requesting an - investigation and certification of representatives
pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the Act.
On February 29, 1940, the Board, acting pursuant to Article III,
Section 10 (c) (1), of National Labor Relations Board Rules and
Regulations-Series 2, as amended, ordered that both proceedings
herein be transferred to and continued before the Board and that they
be consolidated for the purposes of hearing.'
3 Incorrectly designated in the formal papers herein as The Industrial & Ordinary Insurance Agents
Union No. 21571, affiliated with the A. F. of L.
2 Incorrectly designated in the formal papers herein as Industrial Insurance Agents Union, Local 84,
affiliated with the U. O. P. W. A., CIO.
3 Through an inadvertence the order consolidating the cases recited that it was made pursuant to Article
III, Section 10 (c) (2), instead of Article III, Section 10 (c) (1 ), of said Rules and Regulations . We hereby
correct said order of consolidation Hunt pro tune so as to provide that it is made pursuant to Article III,
Section 10 (c) (1), of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 2, as amended. Al
though the Company objected to the order of consolidation as originally made, it does not appear that it
was prejudiced thereby.
1026 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On March 4, 1940, the Board issued a notice of hearing, copies
of which were duly served upon the Company and upon the Unions.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held on March 20, 21, 23, 25, and
26, 1940, at Boston, Massachusetts, and on April 16, 1940, at New
York City, before E. G. Smith, the Trial Examiner duly designated
by the Board. The Board, the Company, Local No. 21571, and Local
No. 84 were represented by counsel and participated in the hearing.
Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses,
and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues was afforded all
parties.
At the hearing the Company excepted to the order directing
investigation and hearing in Case No. R-1747, the order transferring
the cases to the Board and consolidating the cases, and the notice of
hearing, on the ground that said orders and notice allegedly deter-
mined that a question affecting commerce concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Company had arisen, without affording to
the Company an opportunity to be heard on such issue. The Trial
Examiner reserved rulings on these exceptions for the Board. We
find the exceptions to be without merit. They are hereby overruled.
At the hearing the Company also made motions to dismiss these
proceedings and rulings thereon were likewise reserved for the Board
by the Trial Examiner. The motions to dismiss are hereby denied.
During the course of the hearing the Trial Examiner made several
rulings on other motions and on objections to the admission of evi-
dence. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner
and finds that no prejudicial errors were committed. The rulings
are'hereby affirmed.
Pursuant to leave granted by the Board, the Company filed a brief
with the Board on May 20, 1940, Local No. 21571 filed a brief on
May 28, 1940, and the Company filed a reply brief on June 4, 1940.
On May 28, 1940, pursuant to request therefor by the Company and
Local No. 21571, and notice to them and to Local No. 84, a hearing
was held before the Board in Washington, D. C., for the purpose of
oral argument. Counsel for all said parties appeared and participated
therein.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Company is a Massachusetts
corporation having its principal office, referred to by the Company
as and herein called the home office, in Boston, Massachusetts. It is
engaged in insuring the "lives of its policyholders on the mutual
insurance plan and in investing its funds.
JOHN HANCOCK MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY 1027
On December 31, 1938, the Company was, in terms of amount of
insurance in force, the sixth largest and, in terms of assets, the
seventh largest United States life insurance company.4
On December 31, 1937, the Company had more than eight million
policies in force with a total face amount of more than four billion
dollars and its policyholders, who resided in all the States of the
United States and in many foreign countries, numbered approximately
five million six hundred thousand.
The Company's business is managed and directed by directors and
officers located at the home office. Thus the terms and conditions
of the various policies of insurance offered by the Company are
determined and all investments of the Company's funds are made
by such officials at the home office. All applications for insurance
and claims, applications for loans, and other matters pertaining to
insurance in force are acted upon at the home office. All policies of
insurance and all checks covering disbursements by the Company
are executed at the home office.
The Company does business in 38 States, the District of Columbia,
and the Territory of Hawaii. It. sells insurance and to a consider-
able extent deals with its policyholders through the medium of gen-
eral agents and district offices.5 As of December 31, 1937, the Com-
pany had 51 general agents located in 31 States and the Territory of
Hawaii, and 369 district offices in 34 States, the District of Columbia,
and the Territory of Hawaii.
Some of the policies sold by the Company are simple contracts of
insurance entered into by the Company and its policyholders. How-
ever, most, if not all, of the policies sold by the Company contain a
number of investment features in addition to the basic contract of
insurance.
The Company, being a mutual insurance company, is owned and
controlled by its policyholders. As owners of the Company, the
policyholders participate in its earnings in much the same manner
as do stockholders of a stock corporation. From 1929 to 1938 such
earnings paid to policyholders as dividends amounted to more than
fifteen million dollars per year. In addition, the Company sells a
variety of endowment and annuity contracts which contemplate the
payment of money to the insured during his lifetime and in that
respect represent investments by the policyholders. All policies con-
tain so-called "non-forfeiture" provisions, pursuant to which the
policy, after payment of premiums for a certain period, acquires a
stated cash value of which the policyholder may avail himself in sev-
4 The total assets of all United States life insurance companies in 1937 was approximately $26,283,000,000.
5 General agents operate under contract with the Company, maintain their own offices, hire and compen-
sate their own soliciting agents, and sell insurance for the Company on a commission basis. No employees
or agents of general agents are involved in these proceedings. District offices are maintained and operated
directly by the Company. It is with employees in such offices that these proceedings are concerned.
1028 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
eral different ways. Surplus distributions may, under some policy
provisions, be left on deposit with the Company to accumulate at not
less than a specified rate of interest. Many forms of policies provide
optional methods of settlement upon maturity, pursuant to which the
proceeds thereof may be left on deposit with the Company to accu-
mulate at not less than a specified rate of interest or may be payable
in partial payments under various installment plans.
The Company's assets, which are derived from premium payments
and earnings on its investments, are invested by it in a large number
and variety of securities. Since each policyholder of the Company
is the owner of a proportionate share of those assets, it follows that
through its investment program the Company affords to each policy-
holder a diversity of investments not usually available to the indi-
vidual investor through the direct purchase of securities.
From the foregoing brief outline of the nature and extent of the
Company's insurance business it is apparent that, in addition to in-
suring the lives of its many policyholders, the Company renders a
diversified and nation-wide investment service.
On December 31, 1938, the Company's assets, consisting in part of
the following, totalled more than nine hundred twenty million dollars:
Cash---------------------- -------- $34,209,414.00
United States Government bonds--------------- 101, 915, 620. 96
Bonds of United States political subdivisions----- 124, 602, 996. 87
Railroad and railroad equipment bonds ---------- 38, 131, 332. 12
Public Utility bonds-------------------------- 177, 958, 066.60
Industrial bonds ------ ------- ----------------- - 36, 217, 702. 49
Stocks-------------------------------------- 21, 127, 240. 35
Notes secured by mortgages on real estate------- 163, 724, 550. 83
Real estate---------------------------------- -91, 585, 984. 88
Premium notes and loans to policyholders------- 91, 785, 173. 94
Most of the Company's cash is kept on deposit in commercial banks
throughout the country. On December 31, 1937, it had more than
twenty-one million dollars on deposit in 361 banks located in 36
States, the District of Columbia, and the Territory of Hawaii.
All securities purchased by the Company are delivered to it in
Boston and, with the exception of small amounts on deposit with
various State authorities, are kept at the home office. Securities are
purchased by the Company from licensed dealers in securities or, in
many cases, directly from the issuing companies.
From 1934 to 1938 the Company annually had available for invest-
ment more than one hundred thirty-six million dollars. In 1937 its
funds available for investment totalled $161,538,917.37 and it daily
invested an average of $466,122.00. In 1938 it invested more than
eighteen million dollars in public utility bonds purchased directly from
the issuing companies, and more than fourteen million dollars in bonds
JOHN HANCOCK MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY 1029
purchased directly from companies engaged in the business of financ-
ing automobile sales on a nation-wide basis and large manufacturing
and packing corporations.
As stated above, on December 31, 1938, the Company's investment
in real estate mortgages and notes secured thereby was $1 . 63,724,550.83.
Of that sum more than nine million dollars was invested in mortgages
on such property as commercial hotels, general stores, office buildings,
department stores , automobile sales showrooms , storage garages, ware-
house buildings , and automobile service stations . The Company has
48 loan. ' correspondents in 23 States and the District of Columbia
through whom its mortgage investments are made.
Aside from its home office property,- the Company owns no real
estate except such as it acquires through mortgage foreclosure or by
conveyances in lieu of such foreclosure . The value of such property
owned by the Company as of December 31, 1938, was $84,429,586.88.
The Company manages this property through 68 agents and farm
correspondents in various States of the United States.
In 1.937 the Company purchased furniture , fixtures, and mechanical
equipment having a value of $223,324.78. All such purchases were
made in Boston, Massachusetts , and approximately 36 per cent of
such items were delivered to and used in district offices in Massachu-
setts and other States. In 1937 the Company spent $323,744 for
postage and telephone, telegraph, and express services, and $66,183
for the traveling expenses of its supervisors.
The nature and extent of the facilities which insurance companies
afford to the commercial life of the nation are so well known as to
require neither proof nor discussion . Insurance companies generally,
and the Company in particular , as stated by it in its Agent's Manual,
perform a " distinguished public service . . . through wide distribu-
tion of funds under a program of diversified investment ." The amount
of money annually invested by insurance companies in commercial
enterprises of almost every description is huge; that its withdrawal
from the money market would seriously impair that free flow of capital
and credit which is essential to the commercial life of the United States
is beyond question.
The prominent. place of the Company in the insurance business in
the United States is clear from the foregoing . So also is it clear
that the Company , by its loans totalling hundreds of millions of
dollars to industry and railroads, to power companies , telephone
companies , and other public utilities , to companies engaged in large-
scale financing of automobile sales, and to other commercial enter-
prises, makes a contribution to the nation 's commercial and industrial
life and transportation systems which , if disturbed , would paralyze
much of the nation's commercial life.
323429-42-vol. 26-66
1030 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
We find that the operations of the Company have a close , intimate,
and substantial relation to trade, traffic , commerce , and transporta-
tion among the several States.
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
American Federation of Industrial and Ordinary Insurance Agents
No. 21571, East St. Louis and Vicinity, Illinois, is a labor organiza-
tion affiliated with the American Federation of Labor. It admits to
membership industrial insurance agents, herein sometimes referred to
simply as agents, employed by the Company in its East St. Louis,
Illinois, district office, excluding supervisory, clerical, and mainte-
nance employees.
Industrial Insurance Agents Union Local No. 84 of the United
Office and Professional Workers of America is a labor organization
affiliated with the Committee for Industrial Organization.' It ad-
mits to membership industrial insurance agents employed by the
Company in its Hoboken, New Jersey, district office, excluding junior
agents and supervisory , clerical, and maintenance employees.
III. THE QUESTIONS CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
In the latter part of June 1939 , a representative of Local No.
21571 conferred with the manager of the Company's East St. Louis
district office and requested recognition of Local No. 21571 as the ex-
clusive collective bargaining representative of the industrial insur-
ance agents employed in that district office. The Company's district
office manager advised Local 21571 that he was without authority to
grant such recognition and that the matter should be taken up with
the Company's home office. Thereafter, Local No. 21571 wrote to
the president of the Company requesting similar recognition. The
Company replied that the industrial insurance agents in the Com-
pany's East St. Louis district office did not constitute a unit appro-
priate for the purposes of collective bargaining . On February 23,
1940, representatives of Local No. 21571 again wrote to the Company
requesting exclusive recognition which the Company, on February
26, 1940, refused.
On February 8, 1940, Local No. 84 wrote to the Company requesting
a meeting with it for the purpose of negotiating a contract covering
the terms and conditions of employment of industrial insurance
agents employed by the Company in its Hoboken district office. On
February 10, 1940, the Company refused this request.
The Company 's reasons for its refusals to meet and bargain with
the Unions, as stated in its letters to them, were that the Company
was not subject to the provisions of the Act, that the Act does not
6 Now the Congress of Industrial Organizations.
JOHN HANCOCK MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY 1031
apply to the individuals whom the Unions claim to represent,', that
the units claimed by the Unions are not appropriate for the purposes
of collective bargaining, and that the Company did not know that
the Unions had been designated by a majority of the agents in the
claimed units as their respective representatives for the purposes of
collective bargaining.
We find that questions have arisen concerning representation of
employees in the East St. Louis and Hoboken district offices of the
Company.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE QUESTIONS CONCERNING REPRESENTATION UPON
COMMERCE
We find that the questions concerning representation which have
arisen, occurring in connection with the operations of the Company
described in Section I above, have a close, intimate, and substantial
relation to trade, traffic, commerce, and transportation among the
several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and
obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE APPROPRIATE UNITS
The claims of the Unions as to representation of the Company's
•agents are mutually exclusive, Local No. 21571 contending that all
ordinary 8 and industrial insurance agents employed in the East St.
Louis, Illinois, district office of the Company, excluding junior agents e
and supervisory, clerical, and maintenance employees, constitute an
appropriate unit, and Local No. 84 contending that all industrial
insurance agents employed in the Company's Hoboken, New Jersey,
district office, excluding junior agents, managers, assistant managers,
and clerical, supervisory, and maintenance employees, constitute an
appropriate unit. Except for the junior agents whom the Unions
desire to have excluded from the unit, there is no dispute between the
parties as to the desired exclusions.
Although the Company does not deny, except as indicated below,
that industrial insurance agents, including junior agents, may alone
constitute an appropriate unit, it claims that a unit consisting of
agents in only one of the Company's district offices is inappropriate.
The Company further claims that industrial insurance agents are
7 The Company's contention that its industrial insurance agents are not employees within the meaning
of the Act is discussed in Section V, infra.
8 Insurance agents under contract with the Company's general agencies engage exclusively in the sale of
ordinary insurance and are known as ordinary insurance agents. No agents so engaged work in the Com-
pany's district offices which employ only industrial agents. We think, therefore, that the term "ordinary
and industrial insurance agents" was employed by Local No. 21571 in contemplation of the fact that
industrial insurance agents may, and sometimes do, in addition to their other functions, sell ordinary
insurance. In order to avoid any confusion, however, we shall hereinafter omit the term "ordinary" from
the definition of the unit claimed by Local No. 21571 to be appropriate.
0 There are no junior agents in the East St. Louis district office.
1032 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
independent contractors and are therefore not employees within the
meaning of the Act.
An industrial insurance agent enters into an "Agent's Agreement"
with the Company, pursuant to which he agrees to devote his "whole
time to the business of the company, to promote its success and wel-
fare, to conserve its established business, and to conform to its
instructions, rules and requirements." His duties consist of solicit-
ing applications for all types of insurance sold by the Company and
collecting premiums on all policies of insurance "charged" to him.
Under the terms of the agent's agreement, he has no right to retain
any part of the amounts be collects, but is required to pay over such
amounts to the Company without deduction of commissions that
may be due thereon. He is required to make reports at specified
times to the Company's district office relative to the policies of insur-
ance charged to him and to keep true accounts of the business
handled by him on forms and in books provided by the Company
for that purpose. The compensation an agent receives for collecting
premiums on industrial insurance is referred to in the agent's con-
tract as either a "collection commission" or a "collection salary,"
depending upon the amount of his collections. An agent is in effect
guaranteed by the Company a minimum compensation of $18.00 per
week. The agent's agreement further provides that all books, rec-
ords, and supplies furnished to the agent by the Company remain
the property of the Company. It specifically denies to agents the
right to hire assistants, or, without permission of the Company, to
advertise. By the terms of the agent's agreement, all relationships
between the Company and the agent may be terminated by either
the Company or the agent at any time.
Although, as we have previously held,10 the status of an individual
as an employee or otherwise cannot be conclusively determined by
a contract which, by its terms, purports to establish a particular re-
lationship, we note that one of the forms of industrial insurance
agent's agreement, used by the Company before the adoption on
July 1, 1938, of the form presently in use, repeatedly referred to the
"employment" of the agent and to his entire remuneration as a
"salary," whereas the term "employment" does not appear in the
present form of agent's agreement. The Company makes no claim
that the status of its industrial insurance agents or their relationship
with the Company is different under the present form of agent's
contract from what it was under the old. We note further that
in the present form of district manager's contract, the industrial
insurance agents of the Company are referred to as "employees."
Industrial insurance agents are required to furnish bonds to the
Company for the faithful performance of their duties. The Com-
" See Matter of Edward F. Reiehelt et at. and Chicago Fur Workers Union, Local No. 45, 21 N. L. R. B. 262.
JOHN HANCOCK MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY 1033
pany maintains and makes contributions to retirement and group
insurance plans in which agents participate, and, based upon their
individual records and length of service, grants vacations to agents.
The Company lists agents as employees in its reports to the Bureau
of Internal Revenue under the Social Security Act 11 and, in some
States in which it does business, participates in behalf of its indus-
trial insurance agents in workmen's compensation programs.
It thus appears that the industrial insurance agents bear all the
indicia of Company employees. Their work is a functional part of
the business of the Company and they are subject, in a large measure,
to the control and right of control of the Company as to manner
and mode of its execution. We find that the relationship between
the Company and its industrial insurance agents is that of employer-
employee and that the industrial insurance agents are employees
within the meaning of Section 2 (3) of the Act.12
The Company contends that the unit appropriate for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining consists of all its industrial insurance
agents, including junior agents, in all its district offices throughout
the United States. It is the Company's position that its method of
doing business, as well as the nature of the duties and method of com-
pensation of its agents, preclude the establishment of a smaller unit.
As stated above, the general management of the business of the
Company is lodged in the home office. The home office promulgates
general and specific rules, regulations, and instructions governing the
activities of the various district offices. All decisions relative to
such personnel matters as the form of the agents' agreement, the fix-
ing of agents' compensation, and the hiring, discharging, or dis-
ciplining of agents are made at the home office. The Company enters
into one form of agreement with all the industrial insurance agents
employed by it. That agreement calls for the performance of the
same duties by the agents and provides the same rate of compensation
in all cases. Because of the similarity of their work, the Company
can and occasionally does transfer agents from one district office to
another without giving such transferees additional training or
instructions.
On the other hand, the evidence discloses that from a practical
standpoint a district manager exercises considerable discretion in the
management of his particular. district office. His recommendations
to the home office with respect to the hiring or discharging of agents
are generally followed. He assigns debits 13 to the agents in his
1149 Stat. 620.
12 See Matter of Seattle Post-Inteltigencer Department of Hearst Publications, Inc. and Seattle Newspaper
Guild, Local No. 88, 9 N. L. R. B. 1262. Cf. Matter of Washington Branch of the Sun Life Insurance Company
of America and Industrial and Ordinary Insurance Agents Union No. 21354, Industrial and Ordinary Insurance
Agents Council, 15 N. L. R. B. 817.
13 A debit is a group of industrial insurance policies outstanding within a given area which are assigned
to an agent for the purpose of collection of premiums,
1034 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD_
office and, when necessary , determines the method whereby a debit is
divided and reassigned , after authority from the home office to make
such division has been obtained . He fixes the time when agents must
report to the district office and arranges their vacation schedule. He
also has authority to adjust minor collection shortages . Either at
the direction of the home office or on his own initiative , the district
manager inaugurates and conducts promotional campaigns for new
business . The district manager is also called upon to exercise con-
siderable discretion in the application of the Company 's various rules
and regulations to specific matters arising in his particular district
office. It-is thus apparent that the district manager exercises author-
ity as to a number of matters which may well be the subject of col-
lective bargaining ,
14 and that agents' working conditions , affected
as they are by various geographical and economic factors, are not
absolutely uniform throughout the Company's many district offices.
The territory over which Local No. 21571 claims jurisdiction is
the same as that served by the Company's East St. Louis district
office, and the only agents of the Company admitted to membership
in Local No. 21571 are those who work in that district office.
The jurisdiction of Local No . 84 includes "all employees of agency
offices in Hudson County, New Jersey," in which territory the Com-
pany maintains three district offices, including the one at Hoboken.
However, in support of its contention that the agents in the Hoboken
district office alone constitute an appropriate unit, Local No. 84
showed that its members who are employed there maintain separate
union records , conduct separate union meetings , have their own union
officers and grievance committee, and have- on several occasions,
through their separate grievance committee, attempted. to negotiate
with the Company relative to grievances arising in the Hoboken
district office.
Although there is no history of successful collective bargaining
between either of the Unions and the Company , other locals with
which the Unions are affiliated have organized and bargained with
various other insurance companies on a city-wide basis. The Unions
concede that , under other circumstances, a unit consisting of agents
employed in more than one district office of the Company might well
be appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining . However,
they claim that the agents in the East. St. Louis and Hoboken offices,
on whose behalf, respectively, unions affiliated with the American
Federation of Labor and the Congress of Industrial Organizations
seek to bargain collectively, should not be denied the right to bargain
collectively merely because the Unions have as yet not secured author-
izations from the agents in other offices of the Company author-
14 Even were this not so, there is nothing to prevent such bargaining on the part of the agents in one dis-
trict office directly with the home office of the Company.
JOHN HANCOCK MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY 1035
izing one of the Unions to act as their representative. We recog-
nize the validity of this contention and find that units consisting
of the agents in the Company's East St. Louis and Hoboken offices,
respectively, would make collective bargaining for them immediately
possible and insure to them the full benefit of their right to self-
organization and collective bargaining and otherwise effectuate the
policies of the Act.15
The Company desires the inclusion of junior agents in the unit
whereas the Unions desire their exclusion. When an agent first enters
the employ of the Company, he is referred to as a junior agent. He
enters into a junior agent's contract'with the Company for a "trial
or apprentice period" of not to exceed 26 weeks. At the expiration
of that period, if he continues his employment with the Company,
he becomes a regular or senior industrial insurance agent, and enters
into a regular agent's agreement with the Company. Approximately
95 per cent of the junior agents employed by the Company ultimately
become-regular industrial insurance agents. The only real distinction
between the two classifications is that junior agents are subjected to
closer supervision by the district and assistant district managers and
do not participate in the Company's retirement plan. We do not
think that the added supervision required for these newly hired agents
essentially differentiates them from' the regular or senior agents.
They do not participate in the retirement plan. solely because it was
started prior to the adoption of the junior agent system. and accord-
ingly does not provide for junior agents' participation therein. We
find that junior agents should be included in the appropriate unit.
We find that all the industrial insurance agents of the Company
in its East St. Louis, Illinois, district office, including junior agents,
but excluding supervisory, clerical, and maintenance employees, con-
stitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining,
and that said unit will insure to employees of the Company the full
benefit of their right to self-organization and to collective bargaining
and otherwise effectuate the policies of the Act.
We further find that all the industrial insurance agents of the
Company in its Hoboken, New Jersey, district office, including junior
agents, but excluding managers, assistant managers, and clerical,
supervisory, and maintenance employees, constitute a unit appropri-
ate for the purposes of collective bargaining, and that said unit will
insure to employees of the Company the full benefit of their right
to self-organization and to collective bargaining and otherwise effec-
tuate the policies of the Act.
15 See Matter of Home Beneficial Association of Richmond, Va. and Industrial and Ordinary Insurance
Agents' Council , 17 N. L. R. B. 1027.
1036 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
VI. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
We find that the questions concerning representation which have
arisen can best be resolved by elections by secret ballot. We shall
direct that the employees eligible to vote therein shall be those in the
respective appropriate units during the respective pay-roll periods
immediately preceding the date of the Direction of Elections herein,
including employees who did not work during the respective pay-roll
periods because they were ill or on vacation , and employees who
were then or have since been temporarily laid off, but excluding those
who have since quit or been discharged for cause.
Upon the basis •of the above findings of fact and upon the entire
record in the case, the Board makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Questions affecting commerce have arisen concerning the repre-
sentation of employees of John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance
Company in its East St. Louis, Illinois, and Hoboken, New Jersey,
district offices, respectively, within the meaning of Section 9 (c)
and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
2. The Company's industrial insurance agents, including junior
agents, are employees , within the meaning of Section 2 (3) of the
Act.
3. All the industrial insurance agents of the Company in its East
St. Louis, Illinois, district office, including junior agents , but ex-
cluding supervisory, clerical , and maintenance employees, constitute
a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining , within
the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
4. All the industrial insurance agents of the Company in its Ho-
boken, New Jersey, district office, including junior agents , but ex-
cluding managers , assistant managers, and clerical , supervisory, and
maintenance employees, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes
of collective bargaining, within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the
Act.
DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
By virtue of and pursuant to the power vested in the National
Labor Relations Board by Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act , and pursuant to Article III, Section 8, of National Labor
Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 2, as amended, it is
hereby
DIRECTED that, as part of the investigations ordered and conducted
by the Board to ascertain representatives for the purposes of col-
lective bargaining with John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Com-
pany, separate elections by secret ballot shall be conducted as early as
JOHN HANCOCK MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY 1037
possible but not later than thirty (30) days from the date of this
Direction, under the direction and supervision of the Regional
Director for the Fourteenth Region and the Regional Director for
the Second Region, respectively, acting in this matter as agents for
the National Labor Relations Board. and subject to Article III,
Section 9, of said Rules and Regulations:
(1) Among all the industrial insurance agents of John Hancock
Mutual Life Insurance Company in its East St. Louis, Illinois,
district office, who were employed by said Company during the pay-
roll period immediately preceding the date of this Direction, in-
cluding junior agents, those who did not work during such pay-roll
period because they were ill or on vacation, and those who were then
or have since been temporarily laid off, but excluding supervisory,
clerical, and maintenance employees, and those who have since quit
or been discharged for cause, to determine whether or not they desire
to be represented by American Federation of Industrial and Ordi-
nary Insurance Agents Union No. 21571, East St. Louis and Vicinity,
Illinois, for the purposes of collective bargaining.
(2) Among all the industrial insurance agents of John Hancock
Mutual Life Insurance Company in its Hoboken, New Jersey, district
office, who were employed by said company during the pay-roll period
immediately preceding the date of this Direction, including junior
agents, those who did not work during such pay-roll period because
they were ill or on vacation, and those who were then or have since
been temporarily laid off, but excluding managers, assistant managers,
clerical, supervisory, and maintenance employees, and those who have
since quit or been discharged for cause, to determine whether or not
they desire to be represented by Industrial Insurance Agents Union
Local No. 84 of the United Office and Professional Workers of America
for the purposes of collective bargaining.