John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 27, 1944

57 N.L.R.B. 700 (N.L.R.B. 1944)

In the Matter of JoHN HANCOCK Mu'ruAL LIFE INsuRANCE COMPANY
`and UNITED OFFICE AND PROFESSIONALRKERS'OF A I ERICA,_C. 1. 0.
Case No. 1-R-1744.Decided July 27, 1944
Messrs. Malcolm C. Young and Samuel A. Fitch, of Boston, Mass.,
for the Company.
Grant & Angoff, by Mr. Sidney S. Grant, of Boston, Mass. , for-the
UOPWA.
Mr. Paul T. Burke, of Holliston, Mass .,, for the `National'.
Mr. Robert Silagi, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed, by United Office and Professional Work-
ers of America, C. I. 0., herein called the UOPWA, alleging that a
question affecting commerce had arisen concerning the representation
of employees of John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Company,.
Boston, Massachusetts, herein called the Company, the. National La-
bor Relations 'Board' provided for an appropriate hearing upon due,
notice before John W. Cod'daire, Jr., Trial Examiner. Said hearing
was held at Boston, Massachusetts, on' May, 2, and May 6; 1944. The
Company, UOPWA, and - National Industrial Insurance Agents'
Union, herein called the National ' appeared and participated. • All
parties were afforded full, opportunity to be heard, to examine and
cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on -the
issues. The' Trial Examiner's rulings in, at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. All parties were
afforded opportunity to file briefs with:the Board.
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 in Boston, Massachusetts. It
is engaged in insuring the lives of its policyholders on the mutual in-
57 N. L. R. B., No. 115.
700
JOHN 'HANCOCK MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE - COMPANY 701
suraxice plan and in investing its funds . "On December 31, 1938, -the
Company was, in terms of amount of-insurance in force, sixth-largest
and, in terms -of assets, the seventh largest United States life insur-
ance -company. On-December 31, 1937, the Company had more than
8 million policies "i i"force' with a total face value of more than 4.bi1-
lion :dollars , and its- policyholders, who resided in all States of the
United States and in many foreign countries, numbered approxi-
mately 5,600,000.
The Company's business is managed and directed by directors and
officers located at the home office in Boston. Thus, the terms and con-
ditions 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 insur-
ance in force are acted upon at the home office. All policies of insur-
ance 'and all checks covering, disbursements by the Company are ex-
ecuted 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 considerable
extent deals with its policyholders through the medium of general
agents and district offices. As of December 31, 1937, the Company had
51 general agents located in 31 States and the Territory of Hawaii,
and 369 district offices in 341 States, the District of Columbia, and
the Territory of Hawaii.
On December 31, 1938, the Company's assets, consisting of cash,
bonds of the United States Government and its political subdivisions, -
railroad, and railroad equipment bonds, public utility bonds, indus-
trial bonds, stocks , notes secured by mortgages on real, estate, real es-
tate, and premium notes and loans to policyholders, totaled more than
929 million dollars: Most of the Company's cash is kept on deposit in
commercial banks throughout the country. On December 31, 1937, it
had more than 21 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. 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 fore- .
closure. The value of such property owned by the Company as of
December 31, 1938, exceeded 84 million dollars. The Company man-
this property through 68 agents and farm correspondents in vari-
ous States of the United States. During 1937 the Company purchased
furniture, fixtures, and mechanical equipment having a value of
$223,324.78. All such purchases were made in Boston, Massachusetts,
7OL -, ,FDECISION^S ;oF -•NATIONAL LABOR , RELATIONS - BOARp-,s
. and,app'roximately 36 percent of such items were delivered td and,used
in--district offices in Massachusetts and- other States. During the same
year the Company spent $323,744 for postage, telephone, telegraph,
.and express services, and $66,183 for-the traveling expenses..af=mss
.supervisors.
We find that the Company is,r®ngaged in commerce within the
meaning of the Act..'
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED -
United'Oflice and Professional Workers of America, affiliated with
the Congress of.Industrial Organizations, is a labor organization ad-
mitting to membership employees of the Company.
National Industrial Insurance Agents' Union, an unaffiliated labor
organization, admits to membership employees of the Company.
III. THE ALLEGED QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION; THE ALLEGED
APPROPRIATE UNIT
Pursuant to a proceeding initiated by the UOPWA, on June 6, 1938,
the Massachusetts Labor Relations Commission rendered a decision
which determined the following unit as appropriate for collective
bargaining with the Company : "all industrial insurance agents en-
gaged in the transaction of the industrial insurance business and oper-
ating out of eleven district offices and one sub-district office located in
Greater Boston .. " 2 One of the offices enumerated was the
Brighton district office which covered agents working in Brighton,
Brookline, Newton, and Wellesley, all suburbs within the metropolitan
.area of Boston. Thereafter, in February 1942, the Company and the
UOPWA entered into an agreement covering the unit established in
1938. Upon the termination of said contract, National petitioned the
Massachusetts Labor Relations Commission for certification as the
collective bargaining representative of the'industrial agents in Greater
Boston, and UOPWA appeared as intervenor in the,case. An election
held in March 1943 resulted in the certification of National as bargain-
ing representative.3 This certification covered the same unit as was
established, by the decision rendered in 1938, with exception of the
I The above findings of fact are taken from Matter of John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance
Company, 26 N. L. R B. 1024, decided August 23, 1940, in accordance with a stipulation
signed by all parties Said stipulation provides that the facts contained in the cited
case shall not be deemed ' irrelevant solely by reason of the lapse of time since the date
thereof.
2 Matter of John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Company, Cases Nos C. R. 20, 21, 22,
and 30 _
2 The certification declared that National was the exclusive collective bargaining repre-
sentative of 'all the industrial insurance agents working out of the following offices of
the Company: Boston #1, Boston #2, Brighton , Cambridge, Hyde Park, Malden, Quincy,
Roxbury, Somerville , Wakefield, Waltham, Wellesley and Weymouth
JOHN HANCOCK MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY 703
exclusion of the Brockton office, concerning -which no issue was raised
by either union, since it is outside the .15-mile radius ,generally con-
'strued' as the limits,of Greater Boston, and was represented by 4 dif-
ferent local of the United Office and Professional Workers of America.
.On June 7,1943, the Company and National executed a contract,for
a, term of 2 years which covered the offices located in Greater Boston.
,Specifically included in the unit was the Company's, district office in
Brighton. During the month of November 1943, after consultation
-with National and upon giving assurances that the measure was not
intended to change its bargaining relations with National nor work
hardships upon the agents affected, the Company established a new
district office in Newton. The Newton office was created by dividing
territory covered by the Brighton district office into two parts and by
making, some minor adjustments in contiguous areas . `Those agents
whose debits remained within the territory covered by the Brighton
office continued to report there and the 28 agents whose debits com-
prised the Newton area reported to the new - office .- In addition, the
Wellesley suboffice, which had formerly been attached to Brighton, was
;transferred to Newton.
Sometime during January 1944, the petitioner requested bargaining
rights from the Company with a view toward representing the in-
dustrial.agents in Newton. The Company refused to recognize the
•,UOPWA until it -had been certified by the Board-in ,an appropriate
unit.
The Company and National oppose the unit sought by the UOPWA
on two grounds, first, that it is inappropriate, and second, that the
Newton agents are covered by their contract of June 1943, which bars'
a,,Rpresent investigation into the question concerning representation.
UOPWWA, on the other hand, maintains that Newton is a newly estab-
lished district office not specifically mentioned in any prior certification
or contract, and hence outside the purview of the unit contemplated by
the agreement between the Company and the National. We do not
agree with the position adopted by the petitioner. The record shows
that administrative realignments of the district offices of the Company
are not infrequent but take place whenever demanded, by the neces-
sities 'of business growth. Moreover, as indicated above, the change
in administrative arrangement was accomplished after an agreement
thereon had been reached between the Company and National whereby,
all the employees affected by the district shift were to remain part of
the unit covered by the contract. Thus, the agents presently operating
out of Newton who had been included in the bargaining unit when
they were part of the Brighton district office, remained part of the
unit currently represented by National. They are, therefore, covered
by the existing contract . Furthermore, we note that collective bar-
I
704 DECISIONS OF -NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
gaining'in Greater Boston,between the Company and the'unions'has
always proceeded 'upon the basis, of -a unit which was metropolitan,
not district-wide, in'scope. We 'are of the opinion, therefore, that the
district unit petitioned 'for is inappropriate. This view is consonant
with, our recently adopted policy of avoiding the creation of units for
,insurance' agents smaller than -State-wide in scope in the -absence of
'unusual circumstances.' Since the contract between the Company and
National does 'not expire -until June 7, 1945, and since, in any event,
the unit -proposed in this proceeding is not appropriate for the pur-
poses of collective-bargaining, we find that no question has arisen con-
cerning the representation of employees of the Company -and shall,
therefore, dismiss the petition filed herein.
ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire
record in this proceeding, the-National Labor'Relations Board hereby,
orders that the petition for investigation and certification of represent-
atives of employees of John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Com-
pany, Boston, Massachusetts, filed by United Office and Professional
Workers of America, C. I. 0., be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
4 See Matter of Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, 56 N'. L. R. B , No. 1635 ' and No.
1642; also Matter of Washington National Insurance Co:, 57 N . L. R. B. 227 ,'and Matter
of The Life Insurance Company of Virginia , 57 N. L. R. B. 279.