Metropolitan Life Insurance Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 13, 1962

138 N.L.R.B. 565 (N.L.R.B. 1962)

METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY 565
Moreover, even if the Regional Director was clearly wrong in con-
cluding that the new Irvine plant is, in and of itself, the only appro-
priate unit, I think that the employees in this plant should not be
blanketed into the existing bargaining unit without a self-
determination election. The employees in the new plant have never
before been represented in a collective-bargaining unit. There are
only 14 of them, whereas there are some 130 employees in the presently
existing unit. In these circumstances, it is obvious that what my
colleagues are doing deprives the employees in the new plant of any
meaningful opportunity to remain unrepresented if they so wish.
See The Zia Company, 108 NLRB 1134.
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company and Insurance Workers
International Union , AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 4-RC-
4865. September 13, 1962
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Joseph F. Rosenthal, hearing
officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from
prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record 1 in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain
employees 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.
4. The appropriate unit :
The Petitioner seeks a unit of the Employer's two district offices
located in the Wilmington, Delaware, metropolitan area. The Em-
ployer contends that the appropriate unit should consist of either (1)
all its offices in the United States; (2) all offices in its Atlantic Coast
territory; or (3) all' its offices in the State of Delaware. Otherwise,
the parties are in agreement as to the composition of the unit.
The Employer is engaged in the sale and issuance of various types
of insurance policies and does business throughout the United States
and Canada. It maintains its principal office in New York, New
1 Because, in our opinion, the record and briefs adequately set forth the issues and
positions of the parties , the Employer's request for oral argument is hereby denied. Also,
for the reasons hereinafter stated , the Employer' s motion to dismiss the petition on the
grounds that the unit petitioned for is, inappropriate is hereby denied.
'1-38'NLRB No. 73.
566 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
York, and, for administrative purposes, it has divided its offices
throughout the United States into 14 territorial divisions. Each such
division is headed by a superintendent of agencies who reports di-
rectly to a company vice president. The offices sought by the Petitioner
are included in the Employer's Atlantic Coast territory, which en-
compasses the States of Delaware and Maryland, the city of Phila-
delphia, Pennsylvania, and all of the State of New Jersey, south of
the cities of Bayonne and Elizabeth.
The Petitioner's unit would include both of the Employer's district
offices in the Greater Wilmington, Delaware, metropolitan area. The
Employer's closest office to these, and its only remaining office in the
State of Delaware, is located in Dover, which is 46 miles from Wil-
mington. The Employer's business operations are highly centralized
and policies and procedures are established at the home office which
governs the management of the district office and the duties and func-
tions of the agents. The superintendent of agencies, whose office is
located in New York, has the responsibility for seeing that the offices
in his territory operate in accordance with these company directions,
and in the course of his duties, the superintendent of agencies makes
periodic visits to the offices in his territory.
Each district office has a manager in charge, who is the immediate
supervisory authority over the agents in the office. Agents are re-
quired by company regulations to perform all of their work through
and subject to the general supervision and direction of the manager
of the district office to which they are assigned.2 The manager nor-
mally solicits applications for openings in his district, and, although
he does not have the authority to hire an individual applicant, he may
recommend that such action be taken. In carrying out his function as
a recruiter, the manager accepts the prospective agent's application,
conducts a personal interview, and orders a retail credit and medical
report. The application, together with the manager's recommenda-
tion, is then forwarded to the superintendent of agencies in New York
who makes the final determination. New agents receive their initial
training in New York and are then assigned to a district office where
they receive additional training under the guidance and direction of
the manager and assistant manager. Although the agent spends the
greater part of his time in his assigned territory selling industrial
and other types of insurance, he is required to report to the district
office twice a week and whenever the manager so directs. One day
each week is devoted to a general meeting, at which the manager ex-
plains to his agents the latest company directives. The manager reg-
ularly reviews the agent's performance and although he has no au-
thority to terminate an agent's appointment, the manager may accept
2 The parties have agreed to exclude the managers and assistant managers from the
unit , apparently on the theory that they are supervisors within the meaning of the Act.
METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY 567
the agent's resignation, if tendered, or he may recommend to the
superintendent of agencies that the agent be terminated. The man-
ager may order an audit of the agent's accounts whenever he feels it
is necessary and, in the event of a deficiency of $75 or more in the
agent's accounts, the manager is required to suspend him until further
notice.
All labor relations policies are established at the home office and
all agents are subject to the same wage policies, employee benefits,
and working conditions. All bidding on job openings is limited to
the agents of the particular district office where the opening occurs.
There is virtually no interchange or transfer of agents among the
various district offices and there is no business or social contact among
agents except on the individual district office level. There is no his-
tory of collective bargaining affecting the employees involved in the
instant proceeding.
In view of the foregoing, and the entire record, we find that the
individual district office is in effect a separate administrative entity
through which the Employer conducts its business operations, and
therefore is inherently appropriate for purposes of collective bargain-
ing. However, as we have previously stated,' this finding does not
preclude the grouping of such offices where such grouping is justified
by cogent geographic considerations. Therefore, as the Petitioner is
seeking a unit comprising all of the Employer's offices in a separate
and distinct area, the Wilmington, Delaware, metropolitan area, and
as there is no history of collective bargaining covering employees in
these offices and no union seeks a broader unit, we find that such a
unit may be appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining'
Accordingly, we find that the following employees at the Employer's
district offices in the Metropolitan Wilmington, Delaware, area, in-
cluding the Brandywyne and Kirkwood offices, constitute a unit ap-
propriate for collective-bargaining purposes within the meaning of
Section 9 (b) of the Act:
All debit insurance agents, including all canvassing regular and
office account agents selling industrial life insurance and other forms
of insurance sold by the Company, but excluding independent agents,
retired agents, Metropolitan Insurance consultants, managers, as-
sistant managers, cashiers, clerical employees, secretaries, professional
employees, guards, watchmen, and supervisors as defined in the Act.'
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
MEMBERS RODGERS and LEEDOM, dissenting :
3 ifetropol tan Life Insurance Company, 138 NLRB 512
4 Ibid.
5 The unit description appears as amended and stipulated to at the hearing.
568 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
For the reasons stated in our dissenting opinions in Quaker City
..Life Insurance Company, 134 NLRB 960, Metropolitan Life Insur-
,ance Company, 138 NLRB 512, and Equitable Life Insurance Com-
pany, 138 NLRB 529, we would find the unit sought inappropriate
and dismiss the petition.
Piezo Manufacturing Corp. and District #15, International
Association of Machinists. Case No. 2-CA-6367. September
14, 1962
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER
On December 10, 1959, the Board issued a Decision and Order in
the above-entitled case,' finding, inter alia, that the Respondent had
laid off certain employees in violation of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act,
and ordering it to make them whole for any loss of pay suffered by
reason of its discrimination against them. The Board's Order was
enforced by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Cir-
cuit on May 8,19612
On September 29, 1961, the Regional Director for the Second
Region issued a backpay specification, and, on October 24, 1961, the
Respondent filed an answer thereto. Upon appropriate notice issued
by the Regional Director, a hearing was held before Trial Examiner
Paul Bisgyer for the purpose of determining the amounts of backpay
due the claimants.
On May 7,1962, the Trial Examiner issued his Supplemental Inter-
mediate Report, attached hereto, in which he found that the claimants
were entitled to specific amounts of backpay. Thereafter, the General
Counsel filed exceptions to the Supplemental Intermediate Report
and a brief in support thereof.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel [Members Rodgers, Fanning, and Brown].
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.
The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the entire
record in this case, including the Supplemental Intermediate Report,
and the exceptions and brief, and hereby adopts the findings,' con-
clusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner.
1125 NLRB 686
N L.R B. v. Piezo Manufacturing Corporation, 290 F. 2d 455.
In its brief, the General Counsel argues, in effect, that the Trial Examiner erred in
considering the Respondent' s decline in business in determining the amounts of backpay
due the claimants. More specifically, the General Counsel contends that Respondent's
loss of large Government contracts after January 23, 1959, "as a result of being removed
from an approved Government contractor list," was caused by the discrimination against
138 NLRB No. 69.