Liberty Mutual Insurance Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 25, 1970

185 N.L.R.B. 734 (N.L.R.B. 1970)

734 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Liberty Mutual Insurance Company and Liberty
Mutual Sales Association , Petitioner. Case 2-RC-
15323
September 25, 1970
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, BROWN, AND JENKINS
Upon a petition duly filed on February 6, 1970,
under Section 9(c) of the National Labor Relations
Act, as amended, a hearing in this case was held
on March 6, 24, 25, and 26 and April 9 and 10,
1970, before Haywood E. Banks, Hearing Officer.
Pursuant to Section 102.67 of the National Labor
Relations Board Rules and Regulations, the above-
entitled matter was duly transferred by the Regional
Director for Region 2 to the Board for decision.
The Petitioner and the Employer filed briefs.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
Act, as amended, the Board has delegated its powers
in connection with this case to a three-member panel.
The Board has reviewed the Hearing Officer's rul-
ings 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 Employer is engaged in commerce within
the meaning of the Act, and it will effectuate the
purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.
2. The labor organization involved claims to repre-
sent certain employees of the Employer.
3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning
the representation of certain employees of the Employ-
er within the meaning of Section 9(c)(1) and Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Employer is primarily a casualty insurer,
engaged through direct selling, in marketing personal
lines of insurance and business lines of insurance
throughout the United States and Canada. Personal
lines insurance involves coverage of individuals buying
protection for personal belongings such as houses,
furniture, and automobiles. Business lines insurance
involves protection for commercial establishments
such as workmen's compensation and fire insurance.
The Employer has divided its sales operations into
two departments, personal lines and business lines,
and its salesmen tend to specialize as to the type
' We find without ment the Employer' s contention that the hearing
held herein pursuant to Sec 9(c)(1) of the Act denied the Employer
a fair and full hearing because the Hearing Officer is precluded from
making any recommendations with respect thereto See Utica Mutual
Insurance Co., 375 F 2d 129 (C A. 2), cert denied 389 U S 839
of insurance sold. Thus, personal lines salesmen sell
primarily to individuals, and the business lines sales-
men sell primarily to persons or legal entities engaged
in business.
The recruiting of salesmen is under the direction
of the director of recruiting and training located
at the Employer's headquarters in Boston. The forms
used in the recruitment of salesmen are prepared
in Boston and are used in both departments. All
prospective salesmen are given the same tests and
asked the same questions during job interviews. Sales-
men are hired on the basis of need and not on
the basis of qualifying for assignment in either the
personal or business lines. In its advertising, the
Employer merely specifies "salesmen" and does not
advertise separately for personal line salesmen or busi-
ness line salesmen. The starting salary and job descrip-
tions for both types of salesmen are the same. The
employees of both departments receive a salary plus
a commission or bonus arrangement on their sales.
Before an individual can sell insurance, he must
be licensed by the State in which he is going to
be employed. All matters concerning schooling to
prepare for the state examinations, such as the faculty
of the school, the place of the school, and the subject
matter to be taught are determined in the headquar-
ters, Boston office, and uniform training standards
are applied throughout the Employer's operating divi-
sions. All salesmen, no matter what type of insurance
they may eventually specialize in selling, must be
knowledgeable in both personal and business lines
of insurance in order to pass the same State licensing
examination.
The Employer has approximately 200 sales offices
with approximately 2,500 employees in eight operating
divisions within the United States and one operating
division in Canada. The Petitioner seeks a unit limited
to the approximately 109 personal lines salesmen
employed in the Employer's New York operating
division. There are approximately 13 sales offices
in the Division and the personal sales representatives
are distributed among all offices. The Division has
an overall manager and a separate sales manager
for the personal and business lines departments.
Although each sales manager is responsible for the
day-to-day operation of his department, the power
of the sales manager, as well as the division manager,
as to the transferring of the salesmen within or without
offices in his division and the granting or denial
of a wage increase is of a recommendatory nature
and must be approved by the appropriate office in
Boston. The personal line department, however, has
its own separate manual setting forth the rules, regula-
tions, and procedures of that department, its own
separate sales incentive awards, and holds separate
185 NLRB No. 104
LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE CO
sales meetings. In the majority of the New York
operating division where both business sales and per-
sonal sales agents are employed, the salesmen share
the same office. Although the record shows that
transfers between the personal and business sales
departments in the New York Division have been
miniscule and that point meetings between the two
departments are infrequent, each department can, and
does sell both lines of insurance, both departments
trade business contacts, and salesmen in the New
York Division not infrequently sell both lines of insur-
ance.
There appears to have been no history of collective
bargaining in the New York Division, and no showing
that personal line salesmen or business line salesmen
have ever bargained separately in any of the-Employ-
er's other divisions, or in the casualty insurance indus-
try.
The Petitioner contends that the personal line
salesmen have a mutuality of interests based upon
their selling speciality and administrative separation
which places them separate and apart from the busi-
ness line salesmen and that they, therefore, constitute
an appropriate unit for collective-bargaining purposes.
The Employer contends, inter alia, that the two selling
departments share common interests based upon their
recruitment, training, State licensing, and integration
of its operations which would cause disruptive effects
if its sales division were split into two separate groups
and that a unit limited to personal lines salesmen
would not result in a viable bargaining unit. We
agree with the contentions of the Employer.'
' However, we find without merit the Employer 's contention that
a nationwide unit of all its salesmen would be the only appropriate
unit We have long held that a statewide unit, which is geographically
coherent , is an appropriate unit for collective bargaining for insurance
salesmen See , e g , Metropolitan Life Insurance Co, 56 NLRB 1635,
Quaker City Life Co, 134 NLRB 960, 961 , enfd 319 F 2d 690 (C A
735
From the foregoing , and the record as a whole,
we are not persuaded that the personal lines salesmen
are a homogeneous group of employees who may
constitute an appropriate unit . The one consistently
discernible difference between the group of personal
line salesmen here sought and the business line sales-
men is the type of insurance they specialize in selling.
However , as noted above , each department sells the
other department 's lines of insurance, is expected
to and does trade business leads, and the salesmen
in the New York Division sell both lines of insurance.
Although the two departments have separate day-
to-day supervision and the salesmen tend to specialize
in selling one line of insurance throughout their
careers, we find that the common basis for their
recruitment , their shared training which requires
knowledge of both lines of insurance , the same State
licensing requirements , and the integration of the
departments ' selling and administrative operations
overshadow their separate mutuality of interests suffi-
ciently to preclude establishing personal lines salesmen
as an appropriate unit for collective -bargaining purpos-
es. Accordingly , we find that the requested unit is
inappropriate , and we shall dismiss the petition here-
in.'
ORDER
It is hereby ordered that the petition herein be
and it hereby is, dismissed.
4) In view of our decision herein, we find it unnecessary , and make
no determination , whether the technical sales employees should be included
in an appropriate statewide salesmen unit
' See, Metropolitan Life Insurance Co, 144 NLRB 149 Cf Sears
Roebuck and Co, 183 NLRB No 100, Sears, Roebuck and Co, 178
NLRB No. 91, Priceless Discount Foods, Inc, 157 NLRB 1143, Don
Allen Midtown Chevrolet, Inc, 118 NLRB 1337