North America Assurance Society of Virginia, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 14, 1964

145 N.L.R.B. 1751 (N.L.R.B. 1964)

NORTH AMERICA ASSURANCE SOCIETY OF VIRGINIA 1751
which "admits to membership employees other than guards," without
regard to the situation at the particular plant involved. Accordingly,
in the first cases interpreting Section 9(b) (3), the Board held that
there was indirect affiliation where a nonguard union was affiliated
with the AFL or CIO, without determining if there was an AFL or
CIO union representing any nonguard employees in the same plant.10
The Board was concerned only with whether there was such affiliation,
and not with whether the guards would be faced with a conflict of in-
terest or loyalty at their particular plant. In our opinion, the mere
fact that "indirect affiliation" is found here through continuing aid
and assistance from a nonguard union rather than through "direct
affiliation" with an international nonguard union is not a sufficient
distinction upon which to base a different result.
We find that in this case there is "indirect affiliation" between the
Petitioner and Teamsters Local 743 within the meaning of Section
9(b) (3) and that the Petitioner is not entitled to Board certification.
Accordingly, the Employer's motion is granted.
[The Board revoked the certification heretofore issued to the Har-
vester Guards Union as the collective-bargaining representative of all
plant guards, patrolmen, and fire equipment inspectors of Interna-
tional Harvester Company, Wisconsin Steel Works, Chicago, Illinois,
and dismissed the petition.]
10 Schenley Distilleries , Inc., Old Quaker Division , 77 NLRB 468; General Motors
Corporation, Cadillac Motor Car Division , 77 NLRB 1029
North America Assurance Society of Virginia , Inc. and Insurance
Workers International Union , AFL-CIO. Case No. 5-CA-29523.
February 14, 1964
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon a charge duly filed on July 19, 1963, by Insurance Workers
International Union, AFL-CIO, against North America Assurance
Society of Virginia, Inc., herein called the Respondent, the General
Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board duly issued and served
upon the Respondent a complaint and notice of hearing, dated July
23, 1963. The complaint alleged that Respondent had engaged in and
was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the
meaning of Section 8(a) (1) and (5) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, herein called the Act.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged in
substance that since on or about July 15, 1963, the Respondent refused
to bargain with the Union as the duly certified exclusive collective-
145 NLRB No. 167.
1752 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
bargaining representative of the Respondent 's employees in a unit of
all combination or debit insurance agents.
On September 6, 1963, all parties to this proceeding entered into a
stipulation wherein they agreed to waive hearing , Intermediate Re-
port of Trial Examiner, the filing of exceptions and briefs before
the Board , and oral argument before the Board . The parties also
agreed that the stipulation , together with the charge, complaint, and
notice of hearing, and answer constitute the entire record in the case.
On September 12, 1963, the Board, pursuant to Section 102.50 of the
Board 's Rules and Regulations , Series 8, as amended , approved the
aforesaid stipulated record in lieu of hearing and granted the parties'
request to transfer the proceeding directly to the Board.
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 Leedom, Fanning, and Brown].
Upon the basis of the aforesaid stipulation , and the entire record
in the case , the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT AND THE LABOR
ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The parties have stipulated that Respondent is engaged in com-
merce and that the Union is a labor organization.
II. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The appropriate unit
All combination or debit insurance agents attached to or working
out of District Office #83 in Newport News, Virginia, excluding all
clerical employees, managers, professional employees, guards, watch-
men, and supervisors within the meaning of Act, constitute a unit
appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
B. The certification of the Union as exclusive bargaining
representative
Following a petition filed on February 14, 1963, by the Charg-
ing Party herein in Case No. 5-RC-4093, the Board by a decision
dated April 24, 1963 ( Member Leedom dissenting ) directed that an
election be held among the Respondent 's employees in the appropriate
unit described above. On May 20, 1963, in an election by secret ballot
conducted under the supervision of the Regional Director for the
Fifth Region, a majority of the employees selected the Union as
NORTH AMERICA ASSURANCE SOCIETY OF VIRGINIA 1753
their representative , and on May 29 , 1963, the Regional Director
certified the Union as the exclusive bargaining representative of the
employees in the appropriate unit.
C. The refusal to bargain
On June 4, 1963 , the Union by letter to the Respondent requested
that Respondent meet with a negotiating committee for the purpose
of collective bargaining. By letter dated June 5, 1963, Respondent
acknowledged receipt of request, stating that the letter was being re-
ferred to Respondent's general counsel. By letter dated July 11,
1963, the Union repeated its demand that Respondent bargain
pursuant to said certification . By letter dated July 15, 1963, Re-
spondent refused the Union's demand to bargain pursuant to the
certification on the ground that it did not believe that the decision of
the Board was a correct one.
On the basis of the foregoing , we find that Respondent has since
July 15, 1963, refused to bargain collectively with the Union as the
exclusive representative of its employees in the unit found appropri-
ate by the Board, and that Respondent by such refusal has en-
gaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the mean-
ing of Section8 ( a) (5) and (1) of the Act.
III. TIIE EFFECTS OF TIIE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth above, occurring in con-
nection with its operations , have a close , intimate, and substantial
relation to trade, traffic , and commerce among the several States, and
tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce
and the free flow of commerce.
IV. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (5) and ( 1) of the Act,
we shall order the Respondent to cease and desist therefrom . We shall
further order it, upon request, to bargain collectively with the Union
as the exclusive representative of all employees in the appropriate
unit, and, if an understanding is reached, to embody such under-
standing in a signed agreement.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the en-
tire record in the case, we adopt the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF L Aw
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce and the Union is a labor
organization within the meaning of the Act.
1754 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2. All combination or debit insurance agents attached to or work-
ing out of District Office #83 in Newport News, Virginia, excluding
all clerical employees, managers, professional employees, guards,
watchmen, and supervisors within the meaning of the Act, constitute
a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining.
3. The Union, since the date of its certification, May 29, 1963, has
been and now is the exclusive representative of all employees in the
aforesaid appropriate unit for purposes of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9 (a) of the Act.
4. By refusing, on and since July 15, 1963, to bargain collectively
with the Union as the representative of the above employees, Re-
spondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices
affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8(a) (5) and (1)
and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
ORDER
Upon the entire record in this case , and pursuant to Section 10(c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended , the National Labor
Relations Board orders that the Respondent , North America Assur-
ance Society of Virginia , Inc., Newport News, Virginia , its officers,
agents, successors , and assigns , shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with Insurance Workers Inter-
national Union, AFL-CIO, as the duly certified exclusive bargain-
ing representative of its employees in the following unit :
All combination or debit insurance agents attached to or working
out of District Office #83 in Newport News , Virginia, excluding
all clerical employees , managers, professional employees , guards,
watchmen, and supervisors within the meaning of the Act.
(b) Interfering with the efforts of the Insurance Workers Interna-
tional Union , AFL-CIO, to negotiate for or represent the employees
in the said appropriate unit as the exclusive bargaining agent.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is necessary to effec-
tuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Upon request , bargain collectively with the said certified union
as the exclusive bargaining agent in the appropriate unit, with respect
to rates of pay, wages , hours of employment , or other conditions of
employment , and, if an understanding is reached , embody such under-
standing in a signed agreement.
(b) Post at its District Office #83 in Newport News, Virginia,
copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix ." I Copies of said
notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Fifth Region,
I In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of
Appeals, there shall be substituted for the words "A Decision and Order " the words "A
Decree of the United States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order."
NORTH AMERICA ASSURANCE SOCIETY OF VIRGINIA 1755
shall , after being duly signed by the Respondent 's representative, be
posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by
it for 60 consecutive days thereafter , in conspicuous places, including
all places where notices to its employees are customarily posted. Rea-
sonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said
notices are not altered , defaced, or covered by any other material.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Fifth Region, in writing,
within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent
has taken to comply herewith.
MEMBER LEEDOM, dissenting :
In the representation case which is the predicate for my colleagues'
decision in this case , I indicated my disagreement with the unit find-
ing, relying upon the reasons stated in the dissenting opinion in
Quaker City Life Insurance Company, 134 NLRB 960. I adhere to
this position . Consequently, I would not find that the Respondent
violated the Act by refusing to bargain with respect to what I consider
to be an inappropriate unit.
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations
Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended , we hereby notify our employees that :
WE WILL, upon request, bargain with Insurance Workers In-
ternational Union, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive bargaining repre-
sentative of all employees in the bargaining unit described below
concerning wages, rates of pay, hours of employment , and other
conditions of employment and, if an understanding is reached,
embody it in a signed agreement . The bargaining unit is :
All combination or debit insurance agents attached to or
working out of District Office #83 in Newport News, Vir-
ginia, excluding all clerical employees , managers, profes-
sional employees , guards, watchmen , and supervisors within
the meaning of the Act.
WE WILL NOT interfere with the efforts of the Insurance Work-
ers International Union, AFL--CIO, to nego£ iate for or represent
the employees in the said appropriate unit as the exclusive bar-
gaining agent.
NORTH AMERICA ASSURANCE
SOCIETY OF VIRGINIA, INC.,
Employer.
Dated---------------- By-------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
1756 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the
date of posting, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any
other material.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional
Office, 707 North Calvert Street, Baltimore, Maryland, Telephone No.
752-8460, if they have any question concerning this notice or com-
pliance with its provisions.
Harold Brown Company and District Lodge No. 37, International
Association of Machinists , AFL-CIO . Case No. ^M-CA-1605.
February 14, 1964
DECISION AND ORDER
On October 15, 1963, Trial Examiner Ramey Donovan issued his
Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that Respondent
had engaged in certain unfair labor practices but recommending that
the complaint be dismissed in its entirety, as set forth in the attached
Trial Examiner's Decision. The Trial Examiner also found that Re-
spondent had not engaged in other unfair labor practices alleged in
the complaint. Thereafter, the General Counsel filed exceptions and
a supporting brief.'
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 Leedom, 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 Trial Ex-
aminer's Decision, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in
this case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom-
mendations of the Trial Examiner with the following additions and
modifications.
The Trial Examiner found that during the course of the Union's
organizing campaign Respondent's president, Brown, made a state-
ment to employee Purdy to the effect that even if the Union won an
election it would not be "coming in." The Trial Examiner found that
this statement constituted a violation of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act.
Nevertheless, because the Union had been certified and the Trial Ex-
aminer believed that the Respondent had recognized it, he recom-
mended that the complaint be dismissed on the ground that a remedial
order would not be appropriate under the circumstances.
We agree with the Trial Examiner that Respondent's statement to
Purdy constituted a violation of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act. How.
1 Respondent did not file any exceptions to the Trial Examiner 's Decision.
145 NLRB No. 164.