Metropolitan Life Insurance Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 16, 1971

191 N.L.R.B. 233 (N.L.R.B. 1971)

METROPOLITAN LIFE INS. CO.
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company and Insurance
Workers International Union, AFL-CIO, Peti-
tioner . Case 13-RC-9051
June 16, 1971
ORDER CLARIFYING CERTIFICATION
BY MEMBERS BROWN, JENKINS, AND KENNEDY
In a Decision on Review issued August 21, 1963, the
Board found in agreement with the Regional Director
for Region 13 that, based on the line of progression
from agent to Metropolitan Insurance Consultant,
hereafter also called MIC or consultant, the frequent
contact between the two groups, and their similar
supervision, the MICs should be included in the unit
found appropriate. On October 14, 1963, the Regional
Director certified the Petitioner as the exclusive collec-
tive-bargaining representative of the Company's em-
ployees 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.
After proceedings held in which the Company was
found to have refused to bargain in violation of Section
8(a)(5) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended,' the Board, by order dated June 3, 1966,
granted the Company's motion to reopen the record in
that proceeding on the limited ground set forth in the
Respondent's motion, to wit, that since the initial deci-
sion in the representation'case there had been changes
in the Company's organizational and operational struc-
ture which would compel the Board to exclude the
MIC's from any unit which included agents. Specifi-
cally, the Respondent alleged that the "line of progres-
sion"' from agents to consultants no longer exists since
most of the consultants are persons who have never
been 'employed by the Company in any capacity; that
the MIC's are separately supervised by unit managers;
that the Friday meetings, on which rested the Board's
finding that there was frequent contact between MIC's
and agents, have been discounted; and that the Com-
panyhas plans to house the MIC's separately from the
agents, as manifested by the two such offices opened in
the city of Chicago.
By' Supplemental Decision and Order dated March
26, 1'970,2 the' Board adopted the Trial Examiner's
finding that the alleged changes did not require the
233
exclusion of the MIC's from the unit found appropri-
ate. The Trial Examiner found that company policy
still indicates that the position of MIC is open to
agents, although only a limited number of agents con-
tinue to seek to become MIC's and therefore the line of
progression from agent to MIC still exists; that the
district manager, who previously had overall super-
vision of MIC's and agents, continues to be primarily
responsible for the recruitment, appointment, training,
and supervision of both the MIC's and agents; that
separate and intermediate supervision by unit manag-
ers is not conclusive on the question of the appropriate-
ness of the larger unit; and, finally, that, although the
changes in structure have eliminated the frequent con-
tacts between MIC and agent by eliminating the Friday
meetings and providing the MIC's with private and
semiprivate offices, the absence of frequent contacts
does not in all cases establish an absence of community
of interest. The Trial Examiner noted that the infre-
quent contact existing between MIC and agent is not
necessarily determinative of the community of interest,
since such infrequency of contact also -exists between
MIC's themselves in the various offices of the Com-
pany, and certainly it cannot be said that such infre-
quent contact among MIC's is evidence of a lack of
community of interest among them. The Trial Exam-
iner concluded, in light of Board precedent' and since
the MIC's and agents in the city of Chicago still per-
form similar work, with the same working conditions
and compensation as before, that they continue to have
a community of interest which makes the inclusion of
both in the same unit appropriate for the purposes of
collective bargaining under the Act.
The Trial Examiner went on to find, however, that
because the MIC's in the two new "ordinary" offices,
which had opened in the city of Chicago since the
Board's original unit determination, had a community
of interest with their counterparts in the,district offices,
as well as with the agents, they were encompassed
within the "intendment," if not the language, of the
Board's certification. He therefore recommended that
the unit description be clarified to avoid later confusion
as to whether the MIC's in the new ordinary offices
were or were not to be included in the unit. The Board
did not adopt that recommendation of the Trial Exam-
iner on the sole ground that his determination went
beyond the scope of the limited remand. We noted that
if clarification, of the unit was called for it should be in
a separate proceeding initiated upon proper petition.
But, as indicated, we reaffirmed our determination that
the unit heretofore found appropriate in Case 13-RC-
146 NLRB 972.
181 NLRB No 133 ' North Carolina Mutual Life Insurance Company, 109 NLRB 625
191 NLRB No. 54
234 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
9051 , which included the MIC 's, was an appropriate
unit 4
On a subsequent motion by the Union the Board by
order dated July 15 , 1970, severed the above-entitled
representation proceeding from the companion com-
plaint case (Case 13-CA-5981 ) and ordered that a
hearing be held before a duly designated hearing officer
for, the purpose of clarifying the certification in the
representation case.
Pursuant to the Board 's order, a hearing was held
before Hearing Officer William D. Boetticher. Both
parties appeared and participated in the hearing.
Pursuant to the provisions for Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended , the Na-
tional 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 Hearing
Officer made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial
error was committed . They are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case including the
briefs of the parties , the Board finds:
Currently there are five new "ordinary" offices, or
all-MIC offices , in the city of Chicago . Of the more
than 200 MIC 's in Chicago, 91 are assigned to the all
MIC offices . These offices were initially staffed by the
transfer of MIC 's and agents, who desired a transfer
and were found acceptable as MIC's, from the district
combination offices and by new hires .' The opening of
the all-MIC offices has not resulted in any changes in
the functions , duties, compensation, or benefits of the
MIC's. The MIC's concentrate, as they did before, on
the sale of life insurance in amounts exceeding $ 1,000,
on accident and health insurance, business insurance,
group life insurance , pension plans , and estate planning
coverage . Agents, however, as had been pointed. out,
are also authorized to sell the, same forms of insurance
as are the MIC's , although their primary function is to
sell industrial insurance not in excess of $1,000, and,
unlike the premiums for ordinary insurance which are
collected by ' mail, premiums for industrial insurance
are collected on a periodic basis at the home of the
policyholder.
The Employer's arguments for the exclusion of the
all-MIC offices from the certified unit rest on the asser-
tions that : (1) the offices are physically separate; (2)
there is virtually no contact among personnel from the
various offices ; (3) there is separate supervision, since
the all-MIC offices have been under the supervision of
their own district managers ; (4) there are no transfers
or interchanges of employees among the various offices,
interchange in fact being forbidden by company poli-
181 NLRB No. 133. We find without merit Employer's contention that
the Board should now reconsider the inclusion of MIC's with agents in the
combination offices
' Apparently ' the vacancies created in the combination offices by the
transfers were filled by new lures of both consultants and agents.
ties and practices ; and (5) the training of MIC's is
separate . But, we do not regard such a change in orga-
nizational or operational structure alone which leads to
a physical separation of some employees or a change in
supervision and employee contacts because of such
physical separation destructive of the community of
interest that we have found to exist between the MIC's
and agents . As was noted in our original representation
decision , 95 percent of the MIC's employed in Chicago
had formerly been agents , and, contrary to the Em-
ployer's contention, there is no , persuasive evidence in
the present record that the line of progression from
agent to MIC no longer exists . For one thing , the Em-
ployer concedes that the new ordinary offices were
started in part with agents . And, for another , while the
Employer maintains that it no longer has a policy to
encourage the transfer of agents from combination
offices to the all -MIC offices, since it is no longer re-
garded as a promotion for the agent, such policy is not
reflected in its "Manual of Instructions for District
Management ." Whether referred to as a promotion or
as a "competitive" transfer, as the Employer now pre-
fers to call it, the line of progression from agent to
consultant is not precluded. The manual , as the parties
have stipulated , still guides the policies of the Com-
pany . The manual specifically provides:
It is the Agency/MIC Manager 's 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 consid-
ered for the MIC program.
Insofar as the manual shows , the desirability of promo-
tion from agent to MIC has not lessened, if, as the
manual discloses , both the Agency and MIC managers
are eligible for a "promotion award" where such pro-
motion takes place . In addition , the manual indicates
under its "General Rules," that there are duties and
responsibilities as well as certain fringe benefits that are
common to both consultants and agents.
We are persuaded, on the record as a whole, that
notwithstanding the physical separation of some MIC's
from the combination offices, there still exists a com-
munity of interest , lodged essentially in the facts that
the nature of the product sold by agents and consult-
ants is basically the same , that is, insurance ; that the
MIC's in the all-MIC offices have a community of in-
terest with the MIC 's in the combination offices; and
that the line of progression from agent to MIC is still
open . Accordingly , we grant the Union 's petition for
clarification and hereby clarify the unit by including
the MIC's in the all-MIC offices in the certified unit.
METROPOLITAN LIFE INS. CO. 235
ORDER
It is hereby ordered that the certification heretofore
issued in Case 13-RC-9051 be, and it hereby is, cla-
rified by specifically including in the appropriate unit
the Metropolitan Insurance Consultants employed in
the all-MIC offices within the city of Chicago, Illinois.