Peoples Life Insurance Co. of Washington, D. C.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 14, 1947

75 N.L.R.B. 48 (N.L.R.B. 1947)

In the Matter of PEOPLES LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF WASHINGTON,
D. C. and AMERICAN FEDERATION OF INSURANCE SUPERVISORS' UNION
No. 23891, A. F. L.
Case No. 5-C-2,229.-Decided October 14, .19 7
Mr. Sidney Grossman, for the Board.
Mr. Joseph F. Castiello, of Washington, D. C., for the respondent.
Mr. George L. Russ, of Washington, D. C., for the Union.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
On January 7, 1947, Trial Examiner Peter F. Ward issued his Inter-
mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
respondent had unlawfully refused to bargain with the Union as the
collective bargaining representative of a unit of its supervisory em-
ployees previously found appropriate by the Board,l and recommend-
ing that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative
action, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached
hereto.
Since the issuance of the Intermediate Report herein, the National
Labor Relations Act has been amended so as to exclude "any indi-
vidual employed as a supervisor" from the definition of "employee"
contained in the Act 2 Supervisory employees are therefore now out-
side the coverage of the Act. We are therefore of the opinion, without
considering the merits of the case, that it would not effectuate the
policies of the Act, as amended, to require the respondent to take any
remedial action in this case, which involves nothing except a refusal
to bargain.3 Accordingly, we shall dismiss the complaint.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the complaint against the respondent,
Peoples Life Insurance Company of Washington, D. C., Washington,
D. C., be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
I Matter of Peoples Life Insntonce Company of Waelnngton . D C, 68 N L. R B 863.
The Union won the election and was certified by the Board on July 26, 1946.
2 Section 2 (3) and ( 11) of the Act , as amended.
8 Matter of Westcnghouso Electric Corporation 75 N L R B 1 • L A. Young Sp, m g &
Wire Corporation v. N L R. B, 163 F. (2d) 905 ( C. A.-D C.) 1.
75 N. L. R. B , No. 6
48
PEOPLES LIFE INSURANCE CO. OF WASHINGTON, D. C. 49
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
Mr. Sidney Grossnwn, for the Board.
Mr. Joseph F. Castiello, of Washington, D. C., for the Respondent.
Mr. George L. Russ, of Washington, D. C., for the Union.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a charge duly filed by American Federation of Insurance Supervisors'
Union No. 23891, A. F L, herein called the Union, the National Labor Relations
Board, herein called the Board, by its Regional Director for the Fifth Region
(Baltimore, Maryland), issued its complaint dated December 16, 1946, against
Peoples Life Insurance Company of Washington, D. C., herein called the Re-
spondent, alleging that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in un-
fair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (1)
and (5) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat.
449, herein called the Act. Copies of the complaint, accompanied by notice of
hearing and copies of the charge were duly served upon the Respondent and the
Union.
With respect to the unfair labor practices the complaint alleges in substance
that: (1) all staff superintendents and special ordinary superintendents em-
ployed in all the Respondent's District offices located in the city of Washington,
D. C., namely, District #1, and District #2, but excluding all general managers,
agents, office clerks, and cashiers, constitute a unit appropriate for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining, within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act;
(2) since on or about October 18, 1946, and all various occasions thereafter,
the Respondent has refused to recognize and to bargain collectively with the
Union as the exclusive bargaining representative of the Respondent's employees
in the unit designated by the Board as appropriate for the purposes of collec-
tive bargaining, notwithstanding a majority of said employees in such appro-
priate unit by secret ballot conducted on July 17, 1946, selected said Union as
their collective bargaining representative and said Union was so certified by the
Board as such representative on July 26, 1946; (3) since on or about July 26,
1946, and continuously down to the date of the issuance of the complaint, the
Respondent has dealt directly and individually with its employees in the unit
described above; and (4) by the acts described above, the Respondent inter-
fered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
Thereafter and on or about December 27, 1946, the Respondent filed its an-
swer in which it admitted certain allegations of the complainant but denied that
it had commited any unfair labor practices In substance, the answer admitted
that the Union had been certified by the Board as the exclusive representative
for the purposes of collective bargaining of the employees in a unit found to be
appropriate by the Board, and that it had refused to bargain collectively with the
Union for the following reasons:
a. That the unit described in said Complaint is legally inappropriate since
the staff superintendents and special ordinary superintendents are not em-
ployees within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
b. The Supervisors' Charging Union is not independent of the Union rep-
resenting the non-supervisory agent-employees.
c. The Supervisors' Charging Union and the Union of the Respondent's non-
supervisory agent-employees are both affiliated with the Industrial and
Ordinary Insurance Agents Counsel, and are all for practical purposes one
and the same.
By stipulation of the parties the record in the Matter of Peoples Life Insur-
ance Company of Washington, D. C., Case No. 5-R-2162, including the transcript
50 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and the exhibits, the Board's Decision and Direction of Election and the Board's
Certification of Representation, was incorporated into and made part of the
record herein.
Pursuant to notice a hearing was held in Washington, D. C , on January 3,
1947, before Peter F. Ward, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Chief
Trial Examiner. The Board, the Respondent, and the Union were represented
by counsel. Full opportunity to be heard, and to examine and cross-examine
witnesses, was afforded all parties. At the close of the evidence, counsel for the
Board made a motion, in which he was joined by counsel for the Respondent,
to conform the pleadings to the proof on formal matters. The motion was granted.
At the close of the hearing, counsel for the Respondent moved that the complaint
be dismissed; ruling thereon was reserved by the undersigned and it is hereby
denied. All parties were given an opportunity to argue orally before the un-
dersigned Counsel for the Board and the Respondent availed themselves of
this opportunity. The parties were afforded an opportunity to file proposed find-
ings of fact and conclusions of law and briefs with the undersigned which
was waived by the parties.
Upon the entire record in the case the undersigned makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Peoples Life Insurance Company of Washington, D. C., incorporated in the
District of Columbia, maintains its office in Washington, D C It is engaged
in the business of insuring the lives of its policy holders. In the operations of
its business, the Respondent maintains 3t; district offices and 19 sub-offices in
the States of Maryland, West Virginia, Delaware, Ohio, and in the District of
Columbia. The Respondent employs approximately 180 persons in its home
office and approximately 1100 in its field offices. Of the 1100 in the field offices,
approximately 99 employees are employed in District #1 and District #2 offices
of Washington, D C, involved in these proceedings. Of these, 15 are engaged
as staff superintendents and 2 as special ordinary superintendents. The Res-
pondent's assets total approximately $35,000,000, which consist largely of cash,
bonds, mortgages, and real estate and which assets are maintained by the Res-
pondent in accordance with the various State laws to meet policy reserves. Res-
pondent has approximately 1,105,000 policies in force with a total face value
of $330,000,000 The Respondent admits that it is engaged in commerce within
the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
American Federation of Insurance Supervisors' Union No 23891, affiliated with
the American Federation of Labor, is a labor organization, admitting supervisory
employees of the Respondent to membership'
III THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The refusal to bargain
1 The appropriate unit
On June 21, 1916, after a hearing duly held, the Board issued a Decision and
Direction of Election 2 wherein it found, contrary to the contentions of the
I Findings in this section are based upon a stipulation of the parties entered into at the
heaung herein
2 Matter of Peoples Life Insurance Company of Washington, D. C., 68 N. L. R. B. 863.
PEOPLES LIFE INSURANCE CO. OF WASHINGTON, D. C. 51
Company,' that all staff superintendents and special ordinary superintendents in
all the Respondent's District offices located in the city of Washington, D. C.,
namely, District #1 and District #2, but excluding all general managers, agents,
office clerks, and cashiers, constituted a unit appropriate for the purposes of col-
lective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. On the basis
of the foregoing and the entire record herein, the undersigned finds that the
above-described unit constitutes a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective
bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
2 Representation by the Union of a majority in the appropriate unit
On July 17, 1946 , pursuant to the Board 's Decision and Direction of Election,
dared June 21, 1946 , an election was held among the employees in the above-
found appropriate unit at which an overwhelming majority of said employees
by secret ballot selected the Union as their bargaining representative . By order
dated July 26, 1946 , the Board certified the Union as the exclusive bargaining
representative of the employees in said unit . The undersigned accordingly finds
that on and at all times after July 26, 1946 , the Union was the duly designated
bargaining representative of a majority of the employees in the aforesaid bar-
gaining unit, and , pursuant to Section 9 (a) of the Act , the Union was on July
26, 19'!6, and at all times thereafter , has been and now is the exclusive representa-
tive of all employees in the aforesaid unit for the purposes of collective bargaining
with respect to rates of pay, wages , hours of eniplo^ment , and other conditions
of employment.
3. The refusal to bargain
The complaint alleges, the Respondent's answer admits, and the undersigned
finds, that on or about October 18, 1946, and at various times thereafter, the Union
requested the Respondent to bargain collectively with respect to rates of pay,
wages, hours of employment, or other conditions of employment, and that on or
about October 22, 1946, and at all times thereafter, down to and including the
date of the issuance of the Complaint, the Respondent refused and continues to
refuse to bargain collectively with the Union. The undersigned accordingly finds
that Respondent on October 22, 1946, and at all tunes thereafter, has refused
to bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive representative of its
employees in an appropriate unit and has thereby interfered with, restrained,
and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7
of the Act.
B. Interference, restraint, and coercion
The complaint alleged, inter alia, that the Respondent has, since on or about
July 26, 1946, and continuously to the date of the issuance of the Complaint, in
violation of Section 8 (1) of the Act, dealt directly and individually with its
employees in the appropriate unit concerning rates of pay, wages, hours of
employment, and other conditions of employment.
3 The Respondent , both in the prior Representation proceedings and herein , contended
that the unit described in the Complaint is "legally inappropriate since staff superintend-
ents and special ordinary superintendents are not employees within the meaning of the
National Labor Relations Act," and that the Union herein and the Union of the Respond-
ent's non -supervisory agent-employees are both affiliated with the same parent Union,
thereby raising the identical issue determined by the Board in Matter of Jones J- Langhlua
Steel Corporation , 66 N L R B. 386 (decided March 6, 1946 ), which decision is re-
affirmed by the Board in the Matter of Jones and Laughlin Steel Corporation , 71 N L R B
1261 ( decided December 30, 1946 ). Since the foregoing decisions are controlling here, the
Respondent ' s contentions in this connection are without merit. It is so found
52 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Respondent in its answer categorically denied the foregoing allegations,
but at the hearing stipulated that it:
has continued its practice of dealing unilaterally and directly with the
individual employees of the unit found appropriate by the Board in Case
No. 5-R-2162, without consultation or discussion with the Union, of all
matters pertaining to wages, hours, and working conditions of the employees
in said appropriate unit.
The Respondent contends, in effect, that since it, in good faith, deems the
unit found appropriate by the Board, to be `legally inappropriate,"' it is justified
in continuing its former practice of dealing unilaterally with its employees and
without consultation or discussion with the Union. This contention is without
merit' The undersigned accordingly finds that by the conduct above described
the Respondent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
IV. 1 IIE EFFECT OF TIIE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON CO\IMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in Section III, above, occurring in
connection with the operations of the Respondent described in Section I, above,
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.
V. THE REMEDY
Since it has been found that the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor prac-
tices, it will be recommended that It cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. It has been
found that the Respondent has refused to bargain collectively with the Union
as the exclusive representative of its employees in the appropriate unit; it will
be recommended that Respondent upon request bargain collectively with the
Union.
Because of the basis of the Respondent's refusal to bargain, is indicated in the
facts found above, and because of the absence of any evidence that danger of
other unfair labor practices is to be anticipated from the Respondent's conduct in
the past, the undersigned will not recommend that Respondent cease and desist
generally from the commission of unfair labor practices Nevertheless, in order
to effectuate the policies of the Act, the undersigned will recommend that the
Respondent cease and desist from the unfair labor practices found and from in
any manner interfering with the efforts of the Union to bargain collectively
with it.'
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire record in the
case, the undersigned makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1 American Federation of Insurance Supervisors' Union No 23891, affiliated
with the American Federation of Labor, is a labor organization within the me1.n-
ing of Section 2 (5) of the Act
2. All staff superintendents and special ordinary superintendents employed in
4 Since this contention was litigated in the prior proceedings above referred to and
determined adversely to the Respondent, the undersigned finds it unnecessary to discuss
the contentions further hei em
6In the Matter of Arundel Corporation and International Union of Maine and Ship-
building Workers of America, CIO, Local 113, 59 N I. R B 505
6 See N L. R B v Express Publishvig Company, 312 U S 426.
PEOPLES LIFE INSURANCE CO. OF WASHINGTON, D. C. 53
namely , District #1 and District #2, but excluding all general managers , agents,
office clerks , and cashiers , constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of col-
lective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
3 American Federation of Insurance Supervisors ' Union No. 23891 , A. F. L,
was on July 26 , 1916, and at all times thereafter , has been the exclusive repre-
sentative of all the employees in the aforesaid unit for the purposes of collective
bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 ( a) of the Act
4 By refusing on or about October 22 , 1946 , and at all times thereafter, to
recognize and to bargain collectively with American Federation of Insurance
Supervisors ' Union No. 23891, A F. L , as the exclusive representative of all its
employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit, the Respondent has engaged in and
is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (5) of the
Act. ,
5. By interfering with, restraining , and coercing its employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the Respondent has engaged
in and is engaging in unfair labor practices , within the meaning of Section 8
(1) of the Act.
6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 2 ( 6) and ( 7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, and upon
the entire record in the case, the undersigned recommends that the Respondent,
Peoples Life Insurance Company of Washington, D. C., its officers, agents, suc-
cessors, and assigns shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Refusing to recognize and to bargain collectively with American Fed-
eration of Insurance Supervisors' Union No. 23891, A. F. L., as the exclusive
representative of all staff superintendents, and special ordinary superintendents
employed at all of the Respondent's District offices located in the city of Wash-
ington, D. C., namely, District #1 and District #2, but excluding all general
managers, agents, office clerks, and cashiers ;
(b) Engaging in like or related acts of conduct interfering with, restraining,
or coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights to self-organization, to
form labor organizations, to join or assist American Federation of Insurance
Supervisors' Union No. 23891, A. F. L., or any other labor organization of their
choosing and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bar-
gaining or other mutual aid or protection as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the undersigned finds will ef-
fectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Upon request, bargain collectively with American Federation of Insur-
ance Supervisors' Union No. 23891, A. F. L., as the exclusive representative of all
its employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit;
(b) Post in its various offices in the District of Columbia copies of the notice
attached to the Intermediate Report marked "Appendix A." Copies of said
notice, to he furnished by the Regional Director for the Fifth Region, after being
signed by the Respondent's representative, shall be posted by the Respondent
immediately upon receipt of this Intermediate Report;
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Fifth Region, in writing, within
ten (10) days from the date of the receipt of this Intermediate Report what steps
the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
It is further recommended that unless on or before ten (10) clays from the
receipt of this Intermediate Report, the Respondent notifies said Regional Di-
7609 7 2-48-vol 75-5
54 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
rector in writing that it will comply with the foregoing recommendations, the
National Labor Relations Board issue an order requiring the Respondent to take
the action aforesaid.
As provided in Section 203 39 of the Rules and Regulations of the National
Labor Relations Board, Series 4, effective September 11, 1946, any party or
counsel for the Board may, within fifteen (15) days from the date of service
of the order transferring the case to the Board, pursuant to Section 203 38 of
said Rules and Regulations, file with the Board, Roclianibeau Building, Washing-
ton 25, D. C., an original and four copies of a statement in writing setting forth
such exceptions to the Intermediate Report or to any other part of the record
or proceeding (including rulings upon all motions or objections) as he relies upon
together with the original and four copies of a brief in support thereof ; and
any party or counsel for the Board may, within the same period, file an original
and four copies of a brief in support of the Intermediate Report. Immediately
upon the filing of such statement of exceptions and/or briefs, the party or counsel
for the Board filing the same shall serve a copy thereof upon each of the other
parties and shall file a copy with the Regional Director. Proof of service on
the other parties of all papers filed with the Board shall be promptly made as
required by Section 203 65. As further provided in said Section 203 39, should
any party desire permission to argue orally before the Board, request therefor
must be made in writing to the Board within ten (10) days from the date of
service of the order transferring the case to the Board.
PETER F. WARD,
Trial Examiner.
Dated January 7, 1947
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommendations of it Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that :
We will bargain collectively upon iequest with American Federation of
Insurance Supervisors' Union No 23891, A F L , as the exclusive repre-
sentatives of all employees in the bargaining unit described herein with
respect to wages, rates of pav, hours Of employment, or other conditions
of employment, and if an understanding is reached, embody such under-
standing.in a signed agreement The bargaining unit is.
All staff superintendents and special ordinary superintendents in all of
the Respondent's District offices, namely, District #1 and District #2, but ex-
cluding all general managers, agents, office clerks, and cashiers
We will not in any manner interfere with the efforts of the above-
named union to bargain with us or refuse to bargain with said Union as the
exclusive representative of all our employees in the above-described appro-
priate unit
We will not deal directly and individually with the employees in the ap-
propriate unit concerning rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, or
other conditions of employment.
PEOPLES LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF WASHINGTON, D C.
Dated ------------------ By ------------------------- -----------------
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must
not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.