John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 16, 1949

82 N.L.R.B. 179 (N.L.R.B. 1949)

In the Matter of JOHN HANCOCK MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COM-
PANY, EMPLOYER and NATIONAL FEDERATION OF INSURANCE AGENTS'
COUNCIL, AFL, PETITIONER
Case No. 1-RC-769 .-Decided March 16, 1949
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before a hearing
officer of the National Labor Relations Board. The hearing officer's
rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are
hereby affirmed.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this ease, to a three-man panel. *
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the National Labor Relations Act.
2. The labor organizations named below claim to represent employ-
ees of the Employer."
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer, within the meaning of Section 9
(c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act .2
4. The appropriate unit :
The Petitioner seeks a unit composed of all district agents employed
by the Employer in the United States, except those in Gary, Indiana,
and in the States of Illinois and Wisconsin, but excluding managers,
assistant managers, clerical employees, and all supervisors. The par-
ties agree that the bargaining unit shall include only district agents
of the Employer, but they differ with respect to the geographic scope
* Chairman Herzog and Members Houston and Gray.
' United Office and Professional Workers of America , CIO, herein called UOPWA, and
International Union of Life Insurance Agents, herein called the Independent , intervened
at the hearing.
2 Although the Employer has contracts with each of the unions involved herein, covering
substantially all of its district agents, as conceded by the parties at the hearing, none of
the contracts constitutes a bar to the present proceeding.
82 N. L. R. B., No. 16.
179
180 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of the unit. Thus, the Employer would include in the unit all district
agents in the United States except those employed in San Diego,
California, Wilkes-Barre and Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, Portland,
Oregon, Washington, D. C., and the State of Texas; UOPWA con-
tends that the appropriate unit should embrace all district agents em-
ployed by the Employer in the several States of the United States
and the District of Columbia; and the Independent contends that
the district agents in the State of Wisconsin should be excluded from
any unit found by the Board to be appropriate, but otherwise takes
no position.
The Employer presently employs approximately 5,800 district
agents throughout the United States. Of this number, 30 in Gary,
Indiana, and 330 in the State of Illinois have been since 1945, and are
now, bargained for by the Petitioner; and approximately 50 in the
State of Wisconsin have been since 1942, and are now, bargained for
by the Independent. The district offices in San Diego, Portland,,
Wilkes-Barre, Harrisburg, Washington, D. C., and the State of Texas,
employing approximately 200 district agents, have only recently been
established by the Employer and the representative status of these
agents is not clear. The remaining district agents employed through-
out the United States have been since 1945, and are now, bargained
for by UOPWA.s
As admitted by the parties at the hearing, the Employer's activities
are highly centralized and integrated, and the employees involved
possess similar interests and working conditions. These factors have,
in the past, led us to conclude that the ultimately appropriate unit in
the insurance business is on a company-wide basis, and we have,
therefore, always found appropriate the unit most nearly approxi-
mating a company-wide unit which the attending circumstances would
permit 4 The factors that we considered determinative in those cases
lead us to conclude that the company-wide unit urged by UOPWA
is the appropriate unit in the instant case.
We find, therefore, that all district agents employed by the Em-
ployer in the United States, excluding managers, assistant managers,
clerical employees, and all supervisors constitute an appropriate unit
for purposes of collective bargaining.
5. The Petitioner, UOPWA, and the Independent desire to partici-
pate in the election among employees in the unit herein found appro-
8 The bargaining history pertaining to the Employer's district agents is fully reviewed
in an earlier decision . Matter of John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Company, 64 N. L.
R. B. 451. Since our decision in that case , the district agents in the States of Iowa and
Nebraska have become a part of the unit bargained for by UOPWA.
4 Matter of John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Company, supra, and cases therein
cited.
JOHN HANCOCK MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY 181
priate by the Board. We shall therefore direct an election in the
appropriate unit and shall place these three international organiza-
tions upon the ballot. Their participation in the election, however,
is conditioned upon the full compliance with Section 9 (f), (g), and
(h) of the Act, by April 11, 1949, by each of their respective local
unions which have members among the employees of the Employer
within the unit herein found appropriate.5
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the
purposes of collective bargaining with the Employer, an election by
secret ballot shall be conducted as early as possible, but not later than
30 days from the date of this Direction, under the direction and super-
vision of the Regional Director for the Region in which this case was
heard, and subject to Sections 203.61 and 203.62 of National Labor
Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 5, as amended, among
the employees described in paragraph numbered 4, above, who were
employed during the pay-roll period immediately preceding the date
of this Direction of Election, including employees who did not work
during said pay-roll period because they were ill or on vacation or tem-
porarily laid off, but excluding those employees who have since quit
or been discharged for cause and have not been rehired or reinstated
prior to the date of the election, and also excluding employees on
strike who are not entitled to reinstatement, to determine whether they
desire to be represented, for purposes of collective bargaining, by
National Federation of Insurance Agents, Council, AFL, or by United
Office and Professional Workers of America, CIO, or by Interna-
tional Union of Life Insurance Agents, or by none.6
s Matter of Prudential Insurance Company of America, 81 N L. R B. 295. Chair-
man Herzog dissented from the Supplemental Decision in that case, but deems himself
bound thereby
6 Any participant in the election herein may , upon its prompt request to, and appkoval
thereof by , the Regional Director , have its name removed from the ballot.
838914-50-vol. 82-13