Oklahoma State Union of the Farmers Educational and Cooperative Union of America

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 28, 1950

92 N.L.R.B. 248 (N.L.R.B. 1950)

In the Matter of OKLAHOMA STATE UNION OF THE FARMERS' EDUCA-
TIONAL AND COOPERATIVE UNION OF AMERICA, EMPLOYER and OFFICE
EMPLOYEES UNION, LOCAL 249, AFL, PETITIONER
Case No. 16-RC--545.Decided November 28,1950
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 Elmer Davis, hearing
officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case , the Board finds :
1. The Employer , commonly known as the Oklahoma Farmers'
Union, is a State branch of the Farmers' Educational and Cooperative
Union of America , usually referred to as the National Farmers'
Union, by which it is chartered .' Both organizations exist primarily
for the promotion of the interests of farmers . The Employer admits
to membership farmers and other residents of the State of Oklahoma
in certain occupations whose interests are deemed related to those of
farmers.2
For over 25 years, the Employer has engaged in writing insurance
on members ' farm property and crops in the State of Oklahoma upon
a mutual assessment plan. As of January 1 , 1950, it had in force
property insurance in the amount of $93,000,000 . As of the date of
the hearing, there was in full force and effect approximately $750,000
worth of hail and crop insurance . Approximately $700,000 of prop-
erty insurance, primarily on cotton gins located in Oklahoma, and
I The National Farmers Union is incorporated in the State of Texas under a statute
permitting laborers and farmers to incorporate for their mutual benefit . The Employer
is not incorporated in any State.
The National Farmers' Union has no authority under its charter to exercise control
over the purely business ventures of its State branches . However, it has the power
to revoke their charters and prohibit their subsequent use of the name "Farmers Union"
in connection with any of their ventures.
2 As of December 31, 1949, the Employer had approximately 31,000 members , each of
whom pays annual dues in the amount of $2.50, of which $ 1 is forwarded to the central
offices of the National Farmers Union at Denver , Colorado . In return for this $1 payment
the National Farmers' Union mails to each member of the Employer copies of its paper
"National Union Farmer" published in Denver . Each member also receives the "Oklahoma
Union Farmer " published by the Employer.
92 NLRB No. 68.
248
OKLAHOMA STATE UNION, ETC. 249,
approximately $375,000 of hail and crop insurance is reinsured an-
nually through Southern Lloyds of San Antonio, Texas, and Lloyds.
of London, respectively.
The Employer also acts as agent for the National Farmers' Union-
Automobile and Casualty Company of Denver, Colorado. The Em-
ployer receives 25 percent of each premium for its services as agent,.
retains 10 percent, and issues to the local soliciting agents its own
check for 15 percent of the premium. The average premium is $30'
a year. There are approximately 10,000 of these policies outstanding.
Before 1948, the Employer also wrote fire and tornado insurance on..
rural churches, schools, and business property, mostly in unincorpo-
rated towns in Oklahoma. A question having been raised as to the-
authority of the Employer to write this type of insurance, its execu-
tive committee decided to organize a separate insurance company and_
to transfer outstanding policies of this type to the new company. The-
Union Mutual Insurance Company was accordingly organized.3 At.
the present time, two of the three officers of the Employer are also.
officers of Union Mutual. The third officer of Union Mutual is a mem-
ber of the executive committee of the Employer. As of December 31,.
1949, Union Mutual had in effect policies aggregating $6,067,862..-
Over $5,000,000 of this amount is reinsured through Southern Lloyds.-
One of the major purposes of the Employer, as set forth in its con-
stitution, is to assist the members in buying and selling. In further-
ance of these purposes, the Employer, until January 1, 1949, directly-
operated a supply division which sold supplies, such as farm machin-
ery, wire steel, and household appliances, exclusively to its own mdm--
bers. For the stated purpose of securing "a more favorable position
under the Federal Revenue Code," the Employer discontinued these:
direct operations, pursuant to a resolution adopted in convention, and
sponsored a new organization, known as the Oklahoma Farmers"
Union Supply Association, which took over the above-described activi-
ties.' The present officers of the Supply Association are identical with,
those of the Oklahoma Farmers' Union. The Supply Association-
maintains a sales department in the building occupied by the Em-
ployer, and a warehouse in the immediate vicinity, for which it pays-
rent to the Employer. Total purchases of the Oklahoma Farmers' •
Union Supply Association, in 1949, amounted to approximately-
$343,930. The Employer estimated that 75 percent, or $257,947, rep
3 Under the General Insurance Act of 1945, 36 O. S. 1941 § 371 et seq.
4 The resolution provided for a meeting of the members of the Employer, who were-
the only patrons of its supply division, for the purpose of setting up the new organization
to which the assets of the supply division were to be transferred. It also authorized the-
incorporation of the words Farmers' Union in the name of the new organization provided`
the latter limited membership to members of the Employer. The bylaws of the Oklahoma-
Farmers' Union Supply Division so provide.
929979-51-vol. 92-18
250 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
resented purchases made outside the State. All sales, however, were
made within the State.
In 1945, under the Employer's auspices, the Oklahoma Farmers'
Union Cooperative was organized as a marketing cooperative- with
capital stock. The Employer transferred to it a grain elevator and
other property and took in exchange nonvoting preferred stock in the
amount of $80,0Q0. There are only 16 shares of voting stock outstand-
ing. Of these, the Employer owns 1 share and the remaining 15 are
owned by the various locals of the Employer. The Cooperative is
engaged primarily in the processing, sale, and distribution of mixed
feeds. It is also engaged in the wholesale marketing of various other
products important to farmers and operates an elevator in Oklahoma
City .5 Unlike the other organizations which the Employer sponsors,
the Cooperative serves the general public as well as members of.the
Employer. The Cooperative made no purchases outside the State in
1949..Of total sales in that year, amounting to approximately
$606,000, $15,000 represents sales of products shipped to purchasers
outside the State.
Contrary to the Employer's contention, this Board has never de-
clined to assert jurisdiction over an employer because it is a fraternal
organization" or a cooperative operated for the benefit of its mem-
bers? Except for hospitals, the present Act grants no exemption to
nonprofit organizations." We have therefore applied the same juris-
dictional criteria to fraternal and cooperative organizations as to pri-
vate businesses operated for profit. We find that the Employer's busi-
ness operations, whether considered separately or together with those
of its satellite organizations, bring it within the coverage of the Act.
The Employer, Union Mutual Insurance Company, Farmers Union
Supply Association, and Oklahoma Farmers' Union Cooperative are
closely associated organizations having related managements and
serving for the most part the same group of members. Because of this
interrelationship, the Board has considered the businesses of all four
organizations in deciding how its jurisdictional discretion should be
exercised. Farmers Union Supply Association made purchases from
out-of-State sources in excess of $250,000 during 1949; Oklahoma
8 The organization of the Cooperative is in accord with a provision of the Employer's
constitution which states that it recognizes the necessity of the producer to carry business
operations, on the cooperative plan, into the distributing as well as the productive field,
whereby we shall be able by taking our own production to the consumer , to eliminate all
unnecessary labor and profits ." The Cooperative was organized under Chapter 38, S. L.
1937, 2 0. S. 1941, § 361-361 (y).
6 Association Canado -Americaine, 72 NLRB 520 ; Polish-American Alliance of the United
States of America, 322 U. S. 643.
7 Baldwin County Electric Membership Corporation , 89 NLRB 704; Buckeye Rural
Electric Co-Operative , Inc., 88 NLRB 196; Wawina Co-op Society, 79 NLRB 1243.
8 Section 2 ( 2) of the amended Act.
OKLAHOMA STATE UNION, ETC. 251
Farmers' Union Cooperative made out-of-State sales in the same year
in excess of $12,500. Under the test recently enunciated in The Rut-
ledge Paper Products, Inc. case 9 this inflow and outflow together are
sufficient to justify taking jurisdiction without considering other fac-
tors which might warrant assertion. Accordingly, we find that it will
effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction over the
Employer.
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain em-
ployees 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 Petitioner seeks to represent a unit limited to the office
employees of the Employer in its main office in Oklahoma City, ex-
,eluding insurance solicitors and employees of its various locals located
throughout the State of Oklahoma. The Employer's unit position is
not clearly defined, but it would apparently include the insurance
solicitors in the unit with the main office employees, and exclude the
individuals discussed below.
There are approximately 30 clerical employees in the Oklahoma
'City office, and 700 insurance solicitors, most of whom are secretaries
-of the Employer's locals. The Oklahoma City office exercises no
direct supervision over the solicitors. The latter are not required to
spend any given amount of time in soliciting; do not report to the
Oklahoma City office in person; and are compensated solely on the
basis of a $3 fee for each policy sold. We find that the insurance
solicitors do not possess sufficient community of interest with the other
,employees to be included in the unit. We shall exclude them.
The parties agree to the exclusion of the officers of the Employer
and apparently agree, although this is not entirely clear in the record,
to the exclusion of William M. Franklin, manager of the insurance
department; Jesse Mason, manager of the department handling the
Employer's agency for the National Farmers' Union Automobile and
Casualty Company; and Henry B. Nall, head of the auditing depart-
ment. In any event, the record clearly establishes that all three are
supervisors. We shall exclude them.
The Employer would also exclude as supervisors Rose Shear, Golda
Peebles, and W. L. Marquette.
Rose Shear is employed in the insurance department. The Em-
ployer testified that she is the assistant manager of this department
.and is paid $220 per month. The average salary range of the em-
ployees in'the unit, most of whom perform clerical work, is $135 to
9 91 NLRB 625.
252 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
• $165 per month . The manager of the Insurance Department also acts
as attorney to the Employer. A great deal of his time is spent on
work not immediately related to that of the department . It is clear
that Miss Shear has hired new employees and responsibly directed
other clerical help in her department. We find that she is a super-
visor. As such, we shall exclude her from the unit.
Golda Peebles is employed in the membership department at a.
salary of $200 per month . There are only two other permanent em-
ployees in the department ; the highest paid of these receives $135.
per month . Mrs. Peebles lays out the work for the other two employ-
ees. At certain periods of the year it is usually necessary to employ
temporary help in the department . Mrs. Peebles conceded that when -
ever she reported the need for extra help , she had been authorized to.
go ahead and get them. Although it is not clear from the record that,
she does the actual employing , it seems clear that she has the power-
effectively to recommend . Accordingly, we find that she is a super--
visor. We shall exclude her from the unit.
W. L. Marquette is a clerk in the hail and crop insurance depart -
ment. The manager of this department died recently and Marquette-
has been performing some of his functions. However, he has not been.
designated as acting manager and there is no evidence that the Em-
ployer intends to promote him to manager . We shall include him in_
the unit.
The Employer would additionally exclude Edward Stringer, W. G..
Marr, Raymond Adams , Ima Bromley, Ross Thomas, and Virginia.
Gahan.
Raymond Adams is secretary to the secretary -treasurer of the Em -
ployer. He testified that, in addition to taking dictation , he handles
all correspondence with Lloyds, maintains minutes of . the executive
meetings, and does the filing on matters which he handles. It is not,
clear on what grounds the Employer would exclude him, except a
suggestion that he is regarded as a confidential employee. There is no,
evidence that his work has anything to do with the labor relations of
the Employer . We shall include him in the unit.
Edward Stringer and W . G. Marr are employed as adjusters of
insurance claims . It is not entirely clear whether the Employer seeks
to exclude Marr. There is little description of Marr's duties, but
nothing to indicate that they differ from those of Stringer. The
latter, in addition to adjusting insurance claims, solicits applications
for insurance . He also assists in getting new members and in setting
up locals. He is paid $60 biweekly and receives additional compensa-
tion in the form of fees for insurance sold by him. He testified, with-
out contradiction , that he spends 50 to 75 percent of his. time in the.
OKLAHOMA STATE UNION, ETC. 253
office . Although the work of Stringer, and presumably that of Marr,
is not identical with that of any other employees in the office, and
their working conditions and manner of compensation are not pre-
cisely similar, their interests on the whole are sufficiently similar to
-those of the other office employees to warrant their inclusion in the
-unit. Accordingly, we shall include them.
Ima Bromley is educational director at a salary of $220 a month. She
-keeps the locals informed on the education programs of the Employer
.and the National Farmers' Union, through correspondence, trans-
mission of material prepared by *the National Farmers' Union, and
participation in some of the meetings of the locals. She testified,
without contradiction, that 76 percent of her time is spent in the
office and the remaining 24 percent at meetings of the locals. She has
no assistants.
Miss Bromley testified that almost all the time she. spends in the
-office is taken up with writing routine letters, which she herself
types. Occasionally, when her work piles up, the president at Miss
.Bromley's request authorizes a stenographer or typist from one of the
other departments to do some typing for her.10 Miss Bromley cannot,
however, order anyone to perform the work.
Although it is evident that Miss Bromley's work calls for the exer-
cise of more individual initiative than is required of most of the em-
ployees in the unit, and she is remunerated accordingly, we find that
:she spends a substantial portion of her time in performing duties
closely related to those of other employees in the office.- Accord-
ingly, we shall include her in the unit.
Ross Thomas is carried on the payroll as assistant make-up man at
a salary of $200 per month. He is engaged mainly in preparing edi-
torial copy for the Oklahoma Farmer, published by the Employer,
and seeing the paper through the press. He also makes himself
generally useful about the office and occasionally does stenographic
work for the Employer's president. We find he has sufficient interests
in common with the other employees to justify his inclusion in the
unit. We shall include him.
Virginia Gahan is a clerk-typist in the membership department.
The Employer opposes her inclusion in the unit on the ground that
she is the daughter of its president. We shall exclude her from the
unit for this reason 12
10 On a few occasions in the past persons recommended by Miss Bromley have been tem-
porarily employed to help with her correspondence.
S1 In this connection , it should be noted that many of the clerks in the various insurance
departments are not mere typists, but know how to prepare without specific instruction
the proper policy for the different types of applications.
12 Punch Press Repair Corp., 89 NLRB 854; Association Canado-Americaine, 72 NLRB
520.
254 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
In its brief, the Employer also urges the exclusion of F. L. Hierony-
mus and Gaston Boman, full-time organizers receiving $150 per month
and expenses. These names do not appear on the payroll submitted by
the Employer. The record appears to indicate that they are field
employees whom the Petitioner does not seek to include in the unit.
Accordingly, we shall exclude them.
The parties also appear to be in agreement on the exclusion of
Ann Frohm as a temporary employee. Miss Frohm operates a PBX
telephone exchange. A new telephone system which will be installed
soon will eliminate Miss Frohm's job. The parties further agree to
the exclusion of the janitor-watchman, Virgil Shaw. We shall exclude
both these employees.
We find that the following employees of the Employer constitute a
unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act:
All office employees of the Employer at its Oklahoma City, Okla-
homa, offices, excluding the temporary PBX operator,13 the janitor-
watchman, and all supervisors as defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
MEMBER REYNOLDS took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Direction of Election.
Is Ann Frohm.