Metropolitan Life Insurance Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 26, 1970

181 N.L.R.B. 814 (N.L.R.B. 1970)

814 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company and Insurance
Workers International Union , AFL-CIO. Cases
13-CA-5981 and 13-RC-9051
March 26, 1970
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND
ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS
BROWN AND JENKINS
On April 20, 1964, the National Labor Relations
Board issued a Decision and Order in Case
13-CA-5981,' wherein it found that Metropolitan
Life Insurance Company (herein called Respondent
or Company) had engaged in and was engaging in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(a)(5) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act,
as amended, by failing and refusing to bargain with
Insurance Workers International Union, AFL-CIO,
as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative
of its employees.' On June 3, 1966, the Board
granted, upon agreement of the parties dated May
27, 1966, the Company's motion to reopen the
record in the above numbered cases in order to take
additional evidence concerning the changes in
Respondent's operations with regard to
Metropolitan insurance consultants (MICs) and to
reconsider the unit determination, which included
the MICs in the unit with [debit] agents. In
remanding the case, the Board specified that it was
to be only on the limited grounds set forth in the
Respondent's motion.
On November 10, 1969, Trial Examiner Samuel
Ross issued his Supplemental Decision in the
consolidated cases finding, on grounds fully detailed
in said Supplemental Decision, that changes had
been made in Respondent's organizational and
operating structure since the Board's earlier
decisions in these cases, but that these changes did
not justify a finding that the unit heretofore certified
was no longer appropriate. He therefore concluded
that the unit in question was still appropriate for the
purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning
of Section 9(b) of the Act, and that by refusing to
recognize and bargain with the Union as the
exclusive representative of the Metropolitan
insurance consultants in the said appropriate unit,
the Respondent has continued to engage in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5)
and (1) of the Act. The Trial Examiner
recommended that the Board reaffirm and reinstate
'146 NLRB 972
On October 14, 1963, in Case 13-RC-9051, not reported in Board's
published volumes, the Board certified Insurance Workers International
Union, AFL-CIO as the exclusive representative of
All Metropolitan insurance consultants and all canvassing agents, and
regular and office account agents of the Employer at the District Offices
and detached offices located within the city limits of Chicago, Illinois,
but excluding retired agents, managers , assistant managers, watchmen,
and supervisors as defined in the Act
its Decision and Order in Case 13-CA-5981, as set
forth in the attached Supplemental Decision.
Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the
Trial Examiner's Supplemental Decision and a brief
in support thereof. The Charging Party filed a brief
in support of the Supplemental Decision.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a
three-member panel
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial
Examiner made at the reopened hearing and finds
that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings
are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the
Trial Examiner's Supplemental Decision, the
exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in this
case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions,
and recommendations of the Trial Examiner, as
modified herein.
While finding that the unit certified by the Board
was still appropriate, the Trial Examiner also found
that two new "ordinary offices," opened in the city
of Chicago since 1963, in which no agents were
employed but in which 38 of the Respondent's 196
Metropolitan insurance consultants are stationed
and work under the supervision of MIC Managers,
have a community of interest with their counterparts
in the District Offices and also with other agents,
and are encompassed within the "intendment" of the
Board's unit finding and certification. He therefore
recommended that the description of the certified
unit be appropriately modified.
We find merit in the Respondent's contention that
the Trial Examiner exceeded the scope of the
remand in determining that the two new "ordinary
offices" are appropriately included within the
certified unit. It is clear that our remand was
limited to the reconsideration of the factors on
which the Board originally relied in finding that
MICs were an appropriate part of the certified unit
and to determine whether these factors are still
relevant in view of Respondent's changes in
organizational and operational structure. Our
remand called for no clarification of the unit
description so as to enlarge the unit by the inclusion
of groups of employees established after the issuance
of our earlier decisions in these cases Nor can we
find that any such issue was raised or litigated in
this proceeding. If clarification of the unit is sought,
it should be upon an appropriate petition. We
therefore do not adopt the Trial Examiner's
recommendation that the unit be clarified, and we
find on the record before us, contrary to the Trial
Examiner, that the Respondent is not obligated to
bargain with the Union with respect to the
Metropolitan insurance consultants at the two new
"ordinary offices."
In view of the foregoing and on the record as a
whole, we find that the unit which we heretofore
found appropriate in Case 13-RC-9051 is an
181 NLRB No. 133
METROPOLITAN LIFE INS CO 815
appropriate unit for the purposes of collective
bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the
Act.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that Respondent,
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Chicago,
Illinois, its officers, agents, successors , and assigns,
comply with all provisions of our order previously
issued herein on April 20, 1964.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S SUPPLEMENTAL
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
SAMUEL Ross, Trial Examiner. On April 20, 1964, the
Board issued a Decision and Order in Case l3-CA-5981 '
In that decision the Board found that Metropolitan Life
Insurance Company (herein called the Respondent or the
Company) had engaged in and was engaging in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and
(1) of the National Labor Relations Act by failing and
refusing to bargain with Insurance Workers International
Union, AFL-CIO (herein called the Union), which
previously had been certified by the Board on October 14,
1963, (Case No 13-RC-9051), as the exclusive
collective-bargaining representative of all the insurance
agents and the Metropolitan Insurance Consultants
employed at the Company's district and detached offices
within the city limits of Chicago, Illinois On June 3,
1966, the Board granted upon consent the Company's
motion to reopen the record in the above-numbered cases
to receive and "consider additional evidence in connection
with the unit determination therein and to reconsider said
unit determination," but limited said reopening, receipt of
additional testimony, and reconsideration, to the "limited
grounds set forth in the [Company's] motion."
Pursuant to due notice, the reopened hearing was held
before me in New York, New York, on July 15, 1969
Upon the entire record,' and after due consideration of the
briefs filed by the Company and the Union, I make the
following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I BACKGROUND
These proceedings were initiated by the filing of a
petition with the Board by the Union on November 23,
1962, for certification as the collective-bargaining
representative of all the Company's "debit insurance
agents and Metropolitan Insurance Consultants
assigned to and working out of District Offices in the City
of Chicago, Ill " The Company contended that the unit
sought by the Union was inappropriate for collective
bargaining purposes in two respects (1) that its
geographic scope was too limited and the smallest
appropriate unit should include all the specified agents in
the State of Illinois, and (2) that the Company's
Metropolitan Insurance Consultants (herein called MIC's)
should be excluded from the appropriate unit because of a
lack of community of interest between said consultants
and the Company's regular agents, and for other reasons.
The Board rejected both of these contentions,' and as
previously noted, the Union, after receiving a majority of
the valid votes cast, was certified on October 14, 1963, as
the representative of the Company's employees in the
following unit:
All Metropolitan Insurance Consultants and all
canvassing agents, regular and office account agents of
the Employer at the District Offices and detached
offices located within the city limits of Chicago,
Illinois, but excluding retired agents, managers,
assistant managers, watchmen, and supervisors as
defined in the Act
In order to test the validity of the Board's unit
determination, the Company thereafter refused to honor
the Union's certification, and the unfair labor practice
charge, complaint and the previously noted Board decision
in this case followed.
At the time the Board issued its decision and order in
this case, a number of other cases involving the Company
and the Union were pending in various stages of litigation
in which the Company was seeking to overturn Board
decisions which similarly had rejected the Company's
contention that the smallest unit which is appropriate
under its organization is a statewide unit ° Several of those
cases eventually went up to the Supreme Court and were
remanded by the Court to the Board for articulation of
the specific reasons for its various unit determinations 5
Subsequently, the Board issued a Supplemental Decision
and Order on February 11, 1966, in the Woonsocket,
Rhode Island, case, supra, articulating its reasons for the
various geographic unit determinations in the cases
involving the the Company and the Union 6
Following that decision, on May 27, 1966, the
Company and the Union entered into an agreement to
settle "all outstanding controversies and litigation growing
out of bargaining unit issues now pending before the
National Labor Relations Board " By the terms of that
agreement, the Union agreed to withdraw its unfair labor
practice charges in 34 pending cases, with the exception
only that the charge in the instant case would be
"withdrawn only with respect to agents selling industrial
and other forms of life insurance " The Company agreed
to move immediately to reopen the record in the instant
case to seek "reconsideration of the Board's determination
that Metropolitan Insurance Consultants are properly
included in the unit." The Company further agreed that
upon the Board's approval of the withdrawal of the
charges in the other cases, and the granting of its motion
to reopen the record in this case, it would recognize the
Union as the exclusive representative of the Company's
insurance agents employed in 37 specified geographic
units, including those in the City of Chicago, Illinois.
Since then, the Company and the Union have entered into
'146 NLRB 972
The record in this case also includes the record made at the initial
hearing in Case 13-RC-9051, and the record made at the supplemental
hearing in Case I-CA-4038 before Trial Examiner Harold X Summers In
respect to the inclusion of the record in the latter case, see Metropolitan
Life Insurance Company (Woonsocket, R 1), 156 NLRB 1408, 1411,
fn 9
'Metropolitan Life Insurance Company. 144 NLRB 149
'Apparently, none of such cases involved the additional issue in this case
of the propriety of the inclusion of Metropolitan Insurance Consultants in
a unit with canvassing, regular, and office account agents
'See N L R B v Metropolitan Life Insurance Company. 380 U S 438
'156 NLRB 1408
816 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
collective-bargaining agreements for all employees in the
unit here involved, excepting only Metropolitan Insurance
Consultants
organizational and operating changes listed in the
Company's motion to reopen the record in the instant
cases
11. THE ISSUES PRESENTED
As previously noted, the Board's order of June 3, 1966,
which granted the Company's motion to reopen the record
in the instant cases, did so "on the limited grounds set
forth in the motion." The grounds set forth in the motion
were that "since the date of the hearing in this case, there
have been vital and fundamental changes in the
Company's organizational and operating structure
affecting Metropolitan Insurance Consultants," and that
"reconsideration" of the prior unit determination in the
light of those changes "would compel the Board to
exclude Metropolitan Insurance Consultants from any unit
which includes agents."
The Company's motion listed four changed
circumstances to support the contention that MIC's
should not be included in a unit with other agents. The
changes so listed were as follows
1. The Board's decision to include MIC's in a unit with
other agents was based in part "on the line of progression
from agent to Metropolitan Insurance Consultant" (144
NLRB at 152) At the time of the original hearing in the
representation case, 95 percent of the MIC's were persons
who formerly had been agents Presently, most of the
MIC's are persons who had never been employed by the
Company in any capacity Thus, the "line of progression"
basis for the decision of the Regional Director and the
Board assertedly no longer exists.
2. The Board's earlier decision also was based in part
on the "similar supervision" of MIC's by the District
Office Manager and Assistant Managers who also
supervised other agents At the present time, supervision
of MIC's by the District Office Manager assertedly "is
now minimal," and MIC's are directly supervised by unit
managers who do not supervise other agents, and whose
title now is Metropolitan Insurance Consultant Manager
3. Both the Board and the Regional Director in part
based their prior decisions on "the frequent contacts"
between MIC's and agents, which in turn was based in
part on their joint attendance at weekly Friday meetings
conducted by the District Office Manager. This weekly
joint meeting has been discontinued, thereby assertedly
reducing the amount of contact to "minimal "
4. Finally the Company urges that the Board and the
Regional Director "disregarded evidence of the
Company's plan to open offices where exclusively
Metropolitan Insurance Consultants would be housed." At
the present time, the Company has opened two such
offices in Chicago and plans more.
The testimony regarding these changes which assertedly
require exclusion of the MIC's from the previously
determined appropriate unit will be considered and
determined, infra
111. THE EVIDENCE ADDUCED AT THE REOPENED
HEARING
The only witness at the reopened hearing in these cases
was A. Roger Maynard, the Company's senior
vice-president in charge of staff operations of the
Marketing and Field Management Division, who also was
the only witness at the prior representation hearing. The
following is a summary of his testimony regarding the
1. Line of progression
In January 1963, when Mr Maynard testified in the
representation case, the Company employed 113 MIC's in
the City of Chicago, 95 percent of whom formerly had
been employed by it as agents. As of June 30, 1969, the
number of MIC's employed by the Company in Chicago
had risen to 196, but only 47 of them had previously
worked for it as agents ' "Many of our [the Company's]
agents who temporarily became MIC's have returned to
the position of agent And so today our [the Company's]
policy is to seek persons [for the position of MIC] from
outside the business . for the sale of ordinary
insurance."8 However, the position of MIC admittedly is
still open to the Company's agents, a limited number of
them continue to seek that position, and there is no rule
which bars an agent from becoming an MIC.
2 Supervision of MIC's
The organizational and operational changes instituted
since the representation case hearing are called "line
management" by the Company According to Mr
Maynard, before the advent of line management, MIC's
were "primarily directed by the District Manager," who
also supervised regular agents. Previously, he was
responsible "for the recruiting, training and supervision of
each Metropolitan Insurance Consultant, as also each
agent in the district." Today, recruiting, training and
supervision of MIC's is the direct responsibility of
persons, formerly called assistant managers, who now are
known as Metropolitan Insurance Consultant Managers,
and like responsibility for the other agents is by persons
who also were previously called assistant managers, but
now bear the title of Agency Managers.' The District
Manager's primary responsibility today, according to Mr
Maynard, is the direction and supervision of the MIC
Managers and Agency Managers. With two minor
exceptions, all of the 196 MIC's in Chicago today are
directly supervised by 40 MIC Managers,'" and all but 2
of the 612 agents in Chicago today are supervised by 71
Agency Managers'' According to Mr Maynard, prior to
the advent of line management, "the assistant manager
supervised both agents and MIC's in whatever ratio the
individual [district office] situation might be " Maynard
also testified that "the MIC Manager, with the
collaboration and agreement of his [District] Manager has
the power to appoint MIC's under certain circumstances "
However, the Company's current Manual of
'As of the same date, the Company also employed 612 agents in the City
of Chicago
'The quotes above and hereinafter are from Mr Maynard's testimony,
unless otherwise specified
'MIC Managers and Agency Managers are collectively called Unit
Managers
"One Agency Manager in the Winnemac District Office supervises six
MIC's in addition to his regular agents, and another Agency Manager in
the Irving Park District Office supervises three other MIC's along with
other agents
"One agent in the Groveland District Office is supervised by an MIC
Manager and one other agent in the Chicago North District Office is
likewise supervised by an MIC Manager
METROPOLITAN LIFE INS CO.
Instructions for District Management' 2 does not quite
accord with Mr Maynard's testimony regarding the
asserted changes in the responsibility of the District
Director in respect to recruiting, hiring, training and
supervision of MIC's and other agents. In these respects
the manual states as follows-
Clause 50 - Management
B Duties - A District Manager is responsible for
the supervision and training of the personnel in his
District. An Agency (M I C.) Manager is to aid his
District Manager as he may be directed.
Clause 52 - Agents
A. Appointment of Agents - The success of any
Manager depends to an important degree upon his
ability to secure suitable candidates for vacancies in his
agency staff
Appointments are made by the District Manager,
except as indicated below."
Other provisions of the manual disclose that the District
Manager retains close supervision and responsibility over
all the personnel, including agents and MIC's, who work
in his District Office '
3 Frequency of contacts between MIC's and agents
At the 1963 hearing in the representation case, there
was testimony that the District Manager conducted
weekly meetings on Friday of his entire sales force,
including MIC's and other agents. In addition, separate
meetings were conducted each week by the assistant
managers (now titled Agency Managers or MIC
,Managers) with the agents assigned to their respective
staffs The latter meetings still occur, and they are
required by the Respondent's Manual of Instructions for
District Management to "be staggered so that only one
unit [of MIC's or agents] will be in the Office at a
time." 11
According to Mr Maynard, since the advent of line
management, joint meetings conducted by the District
Manager of both MIC's and agents occur very
infrequently, are limited to four times a year, "and even
in such instances he [the District Manager] must secure
the permission from his superior, a Regional Manager, for
any such meeting" However, the Respondent's Manual of
Instructions for District Management provides in this
regard as follows:' 6
District meetings may be held whenever there is a
specific reason for conducting such a meeting and a
clear advantage can be gained.
The Manual further provides that permission is not
required from the Regional Manager for such meetings,
unless "four or more meetings have already been held
during the calendar year," or the expense of a meeting
room other than the District Office exceeds $25.
"Union's Exh I
"The exceptions refer only to applicants 50 years of age or over and
individuals with prior life insurance sales experience, as to whom prior
approval is required from the Regional Manager
"See for example , clauses 52 E, F, G, and H
"A unit consists of one Agency or MIC Manager and his staff of about
five MIC's or 8 agents
"Union Exh 1, clause 50-D
4. Physical facilities
817
At the time of the 1963 representation case hearing, the
typical arrangement of District Offices was for MIC's to
be housed in one large room without private offices, and
for other agents to be in another large room. There were
at that time a few instances of private rooms "for
extremely outstanding MIC salesmen " Since 1963, the
Respondent has been remodeling its District Offices, and
MIC's now occupy private or semi-private offices," and
have private telephone numbers The other agents are still
housed in a large room, and use the District Office
telephones when necessary.
In 1963, the Respondent had two "ordinary offices,"
one in Boston and the other in New York City, where
only MIC's and no agents work on the sales staffs At
that time, the Company contemplated setting up ordinary
offices in Chicago, but had not yet done so. Since then,
two such offices have been opened in Chicago, and 38 of
the 196 MIC's employed in that city are assigned to those
offices, where they are supervised by 7 MIC Managers
IV. ANALYSIS OF THE RECORD IN RESPECT TO THE
ASSERTED CHANGES
As previously noted, the issue presented for
determination herein is whether, as contended by the
Company, the changes in its organizational and operating
structure since the Board's 1963 decision in Case
13-RC-9051 require the exclusion of MIC's "from any
unit which includes [other] agents." The Board's decision
to 'nclude MIC's in the unit with regular and office
account agents was based primarily on the "overriding
consideration" of "the community of interest" of such
employees.' 8 The finding of community of interest in turn
was based on the similar nature of the work and
compensation of MIC's and other agents, "the line of
progression" from MIC to agent, their "similar
supervision," and "frequent contacts "
1 As previously noted, the Board in part based its
finding that a community of interest existed between
MIC's and other agents on the line of progression from
agent to MIC, and it noted in this regard that 95 percent
of the MIC's employed in Chicago formerly had been
agents. The Company contends that "the line of
progression relied upon by the Regional Director and the
Board [in their earlier decisions in this case] no longer
exists,"" because only 47 (25 percent) of the 196 MIC's
currently employed in Chicago were formerly agents of
the Company, and because nationwide, the Company
presently hires most (90 percent) of its MIC's "directly
from outside our business."'"
Contrary to the Respondent's contention, I find that
the line of progression from agent to MIC still exists.
Admittedly, the position of MIC is still open to agents,
and a limited number of agents continue to seek to
become MIC's Indeed, the Company's Manual of
Instructions for District Management exhorts District,
"See Company Exhs I and 2 which are plat plans of the Lake Park,
Chicago, Illinois, and the Dearborn , Illinois, District Offices, respectively
"The quotes are from the Decision of the Regional Director which the
Board affirmed in this regard
"Respondent ' s Brief, p 16
"Mr Maynard testified that only 437 (or II percent ) of the 3,992 MIC
positions filled in 1968 nationwide were filled by agents of the Company
He furnished no similar comparative figures for the MIC positions filled in
1968 in the unit here involved , the City of Chicago
818 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Agency, and MIC Managers to promote qualified and
interested agents to MIC s and offers "promotion
awards" to the managers who accomplished such
"promotions It The fact that currently a smaller
percentage of MIC's were formerly agents is thus
obviously not due to the lack of availability to the agents
of that ' promotion ' One quite apparent reason for the
reduced percentage of former agents who are currently
MIC's is the fact admitted by Mr Maynard on
cross-examination that `Many of our agents who
temporarily became MIC's have returned to the position
of agent And so today our policy is to seek persons from
outside the business for the sale of ordinary
insurance " Whatever the reason for the current reduced
percentage of MIC's who were former agents, since the
position of MIC is still open o them, it follows that there
has been no change since % Board s 1963 decision in
respect to the line of progression from agent to MIC I
therefore reject as without merit the Company's
contention that the line of progression no longer exists
2 The Board also based its finding of community of
interest between MIC's and agents in part on their
"similar supervision " The Regional Director s specific
findings in respect to supervi.on which the Board
affirmed were as follows
MFC s are under the supervision of district managers
and assistant managers who also supervise agents and
office account agents In some instances, where
there are more than four MIC s in an office, the office
may have an assistant manager who would supervise
only MIC's Very few of the offices have this number
The Respondent contends that since the advent of line
management , "common supervision of agents and MIC's
no longer exists,"" and it bases this contention on the
testimony of Mr Maynard that currently all MIC's,
except for the minor exceptions previously noted, are
recruited, trained and supervised by MIC Managers, that
"a parallel situation applies for agents and Agency
Managers," and dhat the District Managers who formerly
had responsibility for recruiting, training and supervising
both MIC's and agents, no longer have that obligation
The record does not support the premise upon which
the Respondent base this contention of dissimilar
supervision Contraro the implication of Mr
Maynard's testimony, the provisions of the Company's
Instruction Manual for District Management previously
quoted and cited" clearly disclose that the District
Manager continues to be primarily responsible for the
recruitment, appointment, training and supervision of both
MIC's and agents, notwithstanding that he receives
assistance in these functions from his Agency and MIC
"The Manual at L M 5 states as follows Promotions
Promotions come as rewards to the men who recervc them and to their
immediate supervisors An essential part of District management
responsibility at all levels is to build men who are capable of promotion
As an added incentive to management promotion awards are made to
compensate for the loss of men who are promoted out of the base
compensation group
Promotion to MIC Agency Managers are rewarded for MIC
promotions (except within their own Units) in the same manner as for
promotion to Agency/MIC Manager It is the Agency / MIC Managers
responsibility to bring to the attention of the District Manager any Agent
who expresses interest in the MIC program It is the responsibility of the
District Manager and the MIC Manager to discuss with the Agency
Manager any Agent they believe should be considered for the MIC
program
"Respondents Brief p 19
manager It is further significant in this regard that when
the Board previously considered the supervisory changes
affected by the Company through its adoption of lint,
management, it approved the following findings of Trial
Examiner Harold X Summers 24
The instant record is replete with testimony as to the
present status of the district manager Upon a
consideration of the whole, I find that generally
speaking, his responsibilities and authority have
remained unchanged under line management but that
to the extent they have changed, they have increased
e g , subject to specified restrictions, he may now
appoint agents and Metropolitan Insurance consultants
from among applicants, and he may now resolve
compensation disputes between agents in his district
subject to appeal to the regional manager The only
other change whereas, formerly, the larger part of
his salary was based on the business in force in his
district, now it is largely based on new business
The assistant managers, under a new name, have
additional responsibilities Now known as agency
managers or as Metropolitan Insurance consultant
managers (or collectively, as unit managers) they each
furnish day-to-day supervision over a unit of
approximately five to eight agents or Metropolitan
Insurance consultants, respectively The unit managers
who are responsible to the district manager meet with
their units as a whole once per week (a substitute for
the former Friday meetings) and individually at least
once more each week
The status of agents and Metropolitan Insurance
consultants has remained unchanged with the advent of
line management (As indicated, they are however,
more directly under the supervision of the unit
managers than in the old setup )
Under the new structure I find the function and role
of the district office remain unchanged it still is the
company's primary sales unit The authority of the
district manager, to the extent it has changed, has been
enhanced, despite the creation of regions and the
district manager's greater accountability to his
immediate superior Even the assignment of unit
managers to supervise units of agents and Metropolitan
Insurance consultants has, in the words of the company
president, freed the district manager to provide
attention to planning and to selective management '
and to adapt his district office program to local
conditions
And, finally, I find, there had been no change in the
status of district office employees, vis-a-vis each other,
the employees of other district offices, or - except for
closer supervision by unit managers - representatives
of management ,
In the light of that decision which also accords with the
record in this case I find that MIC's and agents continue
to be supervised by District Managers, and that in this
respect, their supervision has remained ' similar
"See fn 14 supra Also see Union Exh I L M pp 3 4
"Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (Woonsocket R II 156
NLRB 1408 1428 1429 Although the issue involved in the Woonsocket
case was the geographic scope of the appropriate unit the finding therein
regarding supervision of MIC s and agents are relevant to the question
herein of the inclusion of MIC s in a unit with other agents of the
Company
0
METROPOLITAN LIFE INS. CO. 819
It is true that in a sense it can literally be said that
MIC's and agents have dissimilar immediate supervision
since each MIC Manager directly supervises a staff of
about five MIC's and no agents, and each Agency
Manager similarly supervises a staff of about eight agents
and no MIC's. However, if that is so, it must also be said
that each such little group of agents and/or MIC's has
dissimilar supervision, since each such complement of
employees has a different Agency or MIC Manager. Thus
viewed, the Respondent's contention if carried to its
logical conclusion would require not only the exclusion of
MIC's from any unit containing agents (which the
Respondent here seeks), but also would require separate
units for each separate staff of MIC's and each separate
staff of agents, because each such staff has a•separate and
different (and thus dissimilar) immediate supervisor. It is
significant that despite "dissimilar" supervision, the
Respondent has not sought any such fragmentation of the
unit in respect to its agents To the contrary,
notwithstanding the many District Offices, District
Managers, and thus dissimilar supervision involved, the
Company's consistent contention heretofore has been that
the smallest appropriate unit of agents should be a
statewide unit . In most plants of any consequence,
different departments generally are supervised by different
foremen Despite such "dissimilar supervision," Section
9(b) of the Act specifically recognizes that plant-wide, and
even employer-wide, units of employees are appropriate
for collective bargaining purposes. Indeed, cases in which
the Board, with subsequent Court approval, has certified
all production and maintenance employees in a plant are
legion In view of all the foregoing, and in the light of the
District Managers' supervision of both MIC's and agents,
I am not persuaded that separate units of MIC's and
agents are required because the immediate supervision of
MIC's is by MIC Managers, and that of agents is by
Agency Managers
3. The Respondent finally urges that by discontinuing
the District Managers' regular Friday meeting with MIC's
and agents, and by providing MIC's with private or
semi-private offices, most of the "frequent contacts"
between MIC's and agents (on which the Board relied,
inter alia , for finding a community of interest) have been
eliminated.
Frequent contacts between persons quite obviously is an
element which tends to and assists in establishing a
community of interest between them However, the
converse of that proposition is not also true, for it is
equally obvious that the absence of contacts between
persons does not, in and by itself, establish a lack of
community of interest between them.
Under the Company's new line management
instructions, each unit or staff of MIC's and agents meets
with its MIC or Agency Manager, respectively, once a
week, and "Reporting times [are] staggered so that only
one Unit [is] in the office at a time." Thus, there is now
not only infrequent contact between MIC's and agents
who work in the same district office, but there is also
infrequent contact between the MIC's in one unit with
those in another, and similarly between agents who work
in different units.
The Respondent has never before contended that
frequency of contact is an essential to a finding of
community of interest In fact, as previously noted, it has
heretofore consistently maintained that the smallest
appropriate unit of agents was a statewide unit . Clearly,
such a unit would include agents employed at great
distances from each other many of whom quite probably
have no contact at all with each other
I conclude from the foregoing that although "frequent
contacts" no longer is a factor upon which the community
of interest between MIC's and agents may be based, the
infrequency of contacts does not require the exclusion of
MIC's from the unit with other agents of the Company.
V. CONCLUDING FINDINGS
In my view, the changes that have occurred in the
organizational and operating structure have not destroyed
the community of interest between MIC's and other
agents, and do not justify a change in the appropriate unit
previously found by the Board My reasons for this
conclusion are as follows-
The Respondent's Manual 'of Instructions for District
Management contains the following under the heading
"Interpretation of the Rules"
Every person duly authorized to solicit for insurance
for the Company is included in the term "Agent.
The MIC's and the other agents in the unit 'found
appropriate by the Board are all "Agents" of the
Company within the meaning of this "interpretation."
They all "solicit insurance' for the Company." MIC's
concentrate on the sale of life insurance in amounts
exceeding $1,000, personal, accident and health insurance,
business insurance, group life insurance, pension plans and
estate planning coverage. Before their title was changed to
Metropolitan Insurance Consultants, MIC's were called
ordinary agents. The premiums for the insurance sold by
MIC's are generally paid by mail and this is known as
premium notice business. Regular and office account
agents also are authorized to sell the same forms of
insurance as MIC's However, they engage principally in
the sale of what is generally termed industrial insurance in
a prescribed geographic area , and in the periodic
collection of the premiums for such insurance at the
homes of the policyholders.
It is apparent, and there is no contention to the
contrary, that both MIC's and agents are all salesmen
employed by the Company. There is no evidence that the
wages and other fringe benefits of MIC's and agents,
which the Board found "similar" in its prior decision,
have changed. There is, moreover, no evidence of any
change since 1963 of the status of MIC's and other agents
in the Company's hierarchy, nor of any change in their
functions, with the single exception that the Company
discontinued the sale of weekly premium industrial
insurance several years ago, and thereby reduced the
amount of time which agents must expend in the
collection of premiums. In the light of all the foregoing,
the Board's decision in North Carolina Mutual Life
Insurance Company," on- which the Regional Director
relied for his earlier unit finding in this case , still is
apposite There the Board said at pp 625-626-
The 'writing and servicing of insurance policies itself
creates a community of interest shared by -the two
groups of agents despite the differences in the technique
of servicing industrial and ordinary life insurance
policies.
In the light of that decision, and since the- Company's
MIC's and agents in the City of Chicago still perform
similar work, for the same' employer, with the same
working conditions and compensation, I find that they
continue to have a community of interest which makes the
"109 NLRB 625
820 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
inclusion of both in the same unit appropriate for the
purposes of collective bargaining under the Act.
VI THE TWO NEW ORDINARY OFFICES
As previously noted, since the Board's prior decision in
the instant cases, the Company has opened two new
"ordinary offices" in the City of Chicago in which no
agents are employed, and at which 38 of the 196 MIC's in
Chicago are stationed and work under the supervision of 7
MIC Managers.16 The Respondent's brief (p. 22) states
categorically that since the unit previously certified by the
Board refers only to MIC's (and agents) employed in
"District Offices and detached offices," it "clearly" does
not include the MIC's who work in these two new
"ordinary offices." I do not agree. I regard the MIC's in
these new offices as having a community of interest both
with their counterparts in the district offices, and also with
the other agents who sell insurance policies, and I further
regard them as encompassed within the intendment, if not
the language , of the Board 's certificate in the
representation case. However, to avoid later confusion and
further dispute regarding their inclusion in, or exclusion
from, the unit, I will recommend that the description of
the unit be appropriately clarified.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The bargaining unit heretofore found appropriate in
Case 13-RC-9051 is still an appropriate unit for the
purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of
Section 9(b) of the Act, notwithstanding the changes
affected by Respondent in its organization and operating
structure since January 1963.
2. By refusing on and after April 20, 1964, the date of
the Board's prior Decision and Order in Case
13-CA-5981, to recognize and bargain with the Union as
the exclusive representative of the Metropolitan Insurance
Consultants in the said appropriate unit, the Respondent
has continued to engage in, and is engaging in, unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and
(1) of the Act
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of
law, I recommend:
I That the description of the certified appropriate unit
in Case l3-RC-9051 be clarified to read:
All Metropolitan Insurance Consultants and all
canvassing agents, regular and office account agents of
the Employer at its offices located within the city limits
of Chicago, Illinois, but excluding retired agents,
managers, Agency Managers, MIC Managers,
watchmen and supervisors as defined in the Act
2 That the Board reaffirm and reinstitute its Decision
and Order in Case 13-CA-5981
"There is no evidence as to whether these offices were staffed by
transfers from the Company ' s existing district offices, by new hires, or by
a combination of both There is also no evidence as to the nature and
identity of the person or persons who exercise overall supervision of these
ordinary offices