Monumental Life Insurance Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 30, 1948

77 N.L.R.B. 432 (N.L.R.B. 1948)

In the Matter of MONUMENTAL LIFE INSURANCE Co., EMPLOYER and
INDUSTRIAL & ORDINARY LIFE INSURANCE AGENTS COUNCIL, A. F.
OF L., PETITIONER
Case No. 13-RC-71.Decided April 30, 1948
Sonnenschein, Berkson, Lautmann, Levinson and Morse, by Mr.
Jack I. Levy, of Chicago, Ill., for the Employer.
David D. Carmell, by Mr. Lester Asher, of Chicago, Ill., for the
Petitioner.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed,' hearing in this case was held at Chicago,
Illinois, on February 10, 1948, before Gustaf B. Erickson, hearing
officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from
prejudical error and are hereby affirmed.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three-elan panel consisting
of the undersigned Board Members."
Upon the entire record in this case, the National Labor Relations
Board makes the following :
' The Employer moved to dismiss the petition in this proceeding on the ground, inter aha,
that it was filed before the Board had decided a prior representation proceeding In the
prior proceeding, the United Office & Professional Workers of America, CIO, petitioned
the Board for investigation and certification of representatives, the present petitioner intei-
vening therein A pieheaung election was conducted on June 13, 1947. The hearing was
held on July 8, 1947 On December 19, 1947, before a decision had been rendered, petitioner
filed the petition in the instant case However, on January 13, 1948 the Board issued its
decision and order in the earlier case, dismissing the petition foi failure on the part of the
CIO union to comply with the filing icduirements of Section 9 (f), (g), and (h), without
prejudice to the Intervenor to file a petition in its own behalf illatteh of Monumental
Life Insurance Company, 75 N L R B 776.
The dismissal of the earlier petition terminated the earlier proceeding, and the present
motion was made after such termination The earlier case does not affect the propriety of
the present pioceeding. The Employei's motion is, therefore, without merit, and hereby
denied.
*Houston, Reynolds, and Gray.
77 N. L. R. B., No. 72.
432
MONUMENTAL LIFE INSURANCE CO.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
433
Monumental Life Insurance Company, a Maryland corporation, has
its principal office and place of business, known as the Home Office,
in Baltimore, Maryland. It is licensed to engage in and is engaged in
the business of life, health, and accident insurance in 13 States
of the United States and in the District of Columbia, and has insur-
ance in force in every State in the United States.
The Company manages and directs its-business, issues all policies
of insurance, and makes practically all payments of claims from its
Home Office in Baltimore, Maryland. The District Offices remit weekly
to the Home Office on ordinary life and weekly premium business.
The present proceeding concerns the Company's industrial insur-
ance agents in the State of Illinois. During the year 1947, the Dis-
trict Offices of the Company located in the State of Illinois collected
from the policyholders and transmitted to the Home Office approxi-
mately $500,000 in premiums.
We find that the Company is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Petitioner is a labor organization affiliated with the American
Federation of Labor, claiming to represent employees of the Employer.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The Employer refuses to recognize the Petitioner as the exclusive
bargaining representative of employees of the Employer until the
Petitioner has *been certified by the Board in an appropriate unit.
We find that a question affecting commerce exists concerning the
representation of employees of the Employer, within the meaning of
Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
We find that all industrial insurance agents who are attached to and
work out of the Company's District Offices in the State of Illinois,2
'At the hearing, and in the brief in support of its motion to dismiss, the Employer
argued that the petition did not allege a bargaining unit which was appropriate . It con-
tended that the unit sought included agents who although attached to the St Louis, Mis-
souri, District Office of the Employer , actually worked in East St Louis, which is in the
State of Illinois , that these agents were already members of a unit controlled by an existing
434 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
excluding supervisors as defined by the Act, managers, assistant man-
agers, cashiers, and clerical employees, constitute a unit appropriate
for bargaining purposes within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of
the Act.'
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining with Monumental Life Insurance Com-
pany, Chicago, Illinois, an election by secret ballot shall be conducted
as early as possible, but not later than thirty (30) days from the date
of this Direction, under the direction and supervision of the Regional
Director for the Thirteenth Region, and subject to Sections 203.61
and 203.62 of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regula-
tions-Series 5, among the employees in the unit found appropriate in
Sectioil IV, above, who were employed during the pay-roll period
immediately preceding the date of this Direction, including employees
who did not work during said pay-roll period because they were ill
or on vacation or temporarily 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 exclud-
ing employees on strike who are not entitled to reinstatement, to deter-
mine whether or not they desire to be represented by Industrial &
Ordinary Life Insurance Agents Council, A. F. of L., for the purposes
of collective bargaining.
contract , and that the Board had ruled in the prior case that the appropi late unit excluded
the East St Louis agents
While the petition does describe the bargaining unit sought as "all the industrial
insurance agents of the Company, in the State of Illinois." the attorney for the Petitioner,
at the hearing , made it amply clear that the unit sought was the unit which the Board has
already found appropriate in its decision in the prior proceeding , and did not include the
agents working in the East St. Louis area with headquarters in St. Louis, Missouri. We,
therefore , find no merit in the Employer 's contention.
a Matter of Monumental Life Insurance Company, 75 N L. R. B. 776, and cases cited
therein.