State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 15, 1968

169 N.L.R.B. 843 (N.L.R.B. 1968)

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE CO. 843
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company
and American Communications Association,
Communications Trade Division , affiliated with In-
ternational Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America. Case
29-CA-1110
powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board
makes the following:
RULING ON THE MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT
February 15, 1968
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS
FANNING AND BROWN
Upon a charge filed by the American Communi-
cations Association, Communications Trade Divi-
sion, affiliated with International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Hel-
pers of America, herein called the Union, the
General Counsel of the National Labor Relations
Board, by the Regional Director for Region 29, is-
sued a complaint dated September 29, 1967,
against State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance
Company, herein called the Respondent, alleging
that the Respondent had engaged in and was engag-
ing in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8(a)(5) and (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of
the National Labor Relations Act, as amended. Co-
pies of the charge, complaint, and notice of hearing
before a Trial Examiner were duly served upon the
Respondent and the Union.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the
complaint alleges, in substance, that on September
15, 1967, the Union was duly certified by the Re-
gional Director for Region 29 as the exclusive bar-
gaining representative of the Respondent's em-
ployees in the appropriate unit and that, on or about
September 26, 1967, and thereafter, the Respond-
ent refused to recognize or bargain with the Union
as such exclusive bargaining representative,
although the Union requested the Respondent to do
so.
On October 25, 1967, the -Respondent filed an
answer, denying the commission of$'the unfair labor
practice alleged.
On November 24, 1967, the General Counsel
filed with the Board a Motion for Summary
Judgment, asserting that there were no issues of fact
or law which had not already been litigated before
and determined by the Board. Thereafter, on
November 28, 1967, the Board issued an Order
Transferring Proceeding to the Board and Notice to
Show Cause why the General Counsel's Motion for
Summary Judgment should not be granted. Pur-
suant thereto, Respondent filed a Statement in Op-
position to the Motion, and a Cross Motion.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its
' State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 158 NLRB
925
The record before us establishes that in Case
2-RC-14145 the Board in its Decision and
Direction of Election' found a unit composed of all
the Respondent's six claims offices in lower New
York State to be inappropriate, defining an ap-
propriate unit as those employees under the super-
vision of a divisional superintendent. The Board
stated that the unit of employees supervised by a
divisional superintendent was the smallest relative-
ly autonomous component of the Respondent's
business structure. Thereafter, the Union filed a
petition in Case 29-RC-751, seeking to represent
an appropriate unit of all field claim specialists and
field claim representatives assigned to Respond-
ent's Smithtown, Syossett, and Jericho, Long
Island, New York, offices, bringing all the offices
under a divisional superintendent. After a hearing,
the Regional Director, relying on the Board's ra-
tionale in the aforementioned case, issued a Deci-
sion and Direction of Election on August 4, 1967,
in which he found appropriate for bargaining a unit
of all field claim specialists and field claim represen-
tatives employed by the Respondent assigned to the
Smithtown, Syosset, and Jericho, Long Island,
New York, offices, excluding superintendents and
all other managerial and supervisory personnel,
clerical employees, and guards as defined in the
Act.
On August 17, 1967, the Respondent filed with
the Board a Request for Review of the Regional
Director's Decision and Direction of Election. The
Request was denied by the Board on September 1,
1967. _
On September 7, 1967, an election was held in
which a majority of the employees of the Respond-
ent in the appropriate unit selected the Union as
their representative for the purposes of collective
bargaining. The Union was certified on September
15, 1967. On or about September 19, 1967, the
Union requested that the Respondent bargain col-
lectively with it. This request was refused and, on
September 29, 1967, the Regional Director for Re-
gion 29 issued the complaint upon which these
proceedings are predicated.
In its Statement in Opposition to the Motion, the
Respondent argues in substance, that: (1) the unit
designated as appropriate by the Regional Director
is unstable and fluctuating because the number of
divisional superintendents has increased and em-
ployees are transferred from one division to another
169 NLRB No. 122
844 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and "the Divisional Claim Superintendent does not
have sufficient authority upon which to base a unit
determination"; (2) industrial chaos will occur by
virtue of having different unions in the same
metropolitan area representing different groups of
interchangeable employees doing the same job; (3)
the facts and circumstances of this case are such
that the Board's rule that issues determined in a
prior representation case may not be relitigated
should be relaxed to give the Board the opportunity
to properly consider all the circumstances sur-
rounding this matter; and (4) in any event Summary
Judgment is improper since such procedure is not
sanctioned by the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended , nor by the Administrative Procedure
Act. The Respondent in its Cross-Motion urges the
Board to transfer the case to a Trial Examiner for a
full hearing.
It is well settled that in the absence of newly
discovered or previously unavailable evidence, a
respondent in an 8(a)(5) proceeding is not entitled
to litigate issues which were or could have been
raised in the prior representation proceeding.2 The
circumstances of this case do not warrant a depar-
ture from this rule. It is also well settled that the
National Labor Relations Board may properly em-
ploy the Summary Judgment procedure.3 All other
contentions now made were raised in the Request
for Review and were considered and rejected by the
Board.
As all material allegations of the complaint have
either previously been found by the Board to be
supported or have been admitted in this proceeding
by the Respondent and there are no matters requir-
ing a hearing before a Trial Examiner, the General
Counsel's Motion for Summary Judgment is
granted and the Respondent's Cross Motion de-
nied. On the basis of the record before it, the Board
makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Com-
pany is engaged in the sale of automobile insurance.
The Respondent in the course and conduct of its
business operations for the preceding 12 months
received income, consisting of insurance premiums
in excess of $50,000, which were collected within
New York State and remitted to points outside the
State. The Respondent admits, and we find, that it
is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the
Act and it will effectuate the purposes of the Act to
assert jurisdiction herein.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
American Communications Association, Com-
munications Trade Division , affiliated with Interna-
tional Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America, is a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Representation Proceeding
1. The unit
The following employees of the Respondent con-
stitute a unit appropriate for collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act:
All field claim specialists and field claim
representatives employed by the Respondent
assigned to the Smithtown, Syosset, and
Jericho, Long Island, New York, offices, ex-
cluding superintendents and other managerial
and supervisory personnel, clerical employees,
and guards as defined in the Act.
2. The certification
On September 7, 1967, a majority of the em-
ployees of the Respondent, voting in a secret-ballot
election conducted among the employees in said
unit , under the supervision of the Regional Director
for Region 29, designated the Union as their
representative for the purposes of collective bar-
gaining with the Respondent. On September 15,
1967, the Union was certified as the exclusive col-
lective-bargaining representative of the employees
in the said unit and the Union continues to be such
representative.
B. The Request to Bargain and the Respondent's
Refusal
Commencing on September 19, 1967, and con-
tinuing to date, the Union has requested and is
requesting the Respondent to bargain collectively
with it as the exclusive collective-bargaining
representative of all the employees in the above-
described unit. On or about September 26, 1967,
and continuing to date, the Respondent did refuse,
and continues to refuse, to bargain collectively with
the Union as exclusive collective-bargaining
representative of all employees in said unit.
Accordingly, we find that the Respondent has,
since on or about September 26, 1967, refused to
bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive
bargaining representative of the employees in the
appropriate unit, and that, by such refusal, the
Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
s Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company v. N.L.R.B., 313 U.S. 146.. 3 Union Brothers, Inc., 162 NLRB 1505.
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE CO. 845
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE
UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in sec-
tion I and II, above, occurring in connection with
its operations described in section I, above, have a
close, intimate, and substantial relationship 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 com-
merce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged
in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Sec-
tion 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act, we shall order that it
cease and desist therefrom and, upon request, bar-
gain collectively with the Union as the exclusive
representative of all employees in the appropriate
unit, and if an understanding is reached, embody
such understanding in a signed agreement.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance
Company is an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the
Act.
2. American Communications Association,
Communications Trade Division, affiliated with In-
ternational Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America, is a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act.
3. All field claim specialists and field claim
representatives employed by the Respondent as-
signed to the Smithtown, Syosset, and Jericho,
Long Island, New York, offices, excluding superin-
tendents and other managerial and supervisory per-
sonnel, clerical employees, and guards as defined in
the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the pur-
pose of collective bargaining within the meaning of
Section 9(b) of the Act.
4. Since September 7, 1967, the above-named
labor organization has been the exclusive represen-
tative of all employees in the aforesaid appropriate
unit for the purpose of collective bargaining within
the meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act.
5. By refusing on or about September 26, 1967,
and at all times thereafter to bargain collectively
with the above-named labor organization as the ex-
clusive bargaining representative of all the em-
ployees in the appropriate unit, the Respondent has
engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act.
6. By the aforesaid refusal to bargain, the
Respondent has interfered with, restrained, and
coerced, and is interfering with, restraining, and
coercing employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed to them in Section 7 of the Act, and has
thereby engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of
the Act.
7. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and
(7) of the Act.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that the Respond-
ent, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance
Company, Long Island, New York, its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively concerning
wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of em-
ployment, with American Communications As-
sociation, Communications Trade Division, af-
filiated with International Brotherhood of Team-
sters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America, as the exclusive bargaining representative
of its employees in the following appropriate unit:
All field claim specialists and field claim
representatives employed by the Respondent
assigned to the Smithtown, Syosset, and
Jericho, Long Island, New York, offices, ex-
cluding superintendents, and other managerial
and supervisory personnel, clerical employees,
and guards as defined in the Act.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering
with, restraining, or coercing employees in the
rights guaranteed to them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which
the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the
Act:
(a) Upon request, bargain with the above-named
labor organization as the exclusive representative
of all employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit,
with respect to wages, hours, and other terms and
conditions of employment, and if an understanding
is reached, embody such understanding in a signed
agreement.
(b) Post at its Smithtown, Syosset, and Jericho,
Long Island, New York, offices copies of the at-
tached notice marked "Appendix."4 Copies of said
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director
for Region 29, after being duly signed by Respond-
ent's representative, shall be posted by the
Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and
be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days
thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all
places where notices to employees are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the
4 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 En-
forcing an Order "
846 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL
Respondent to insure that said notices are not al-
tered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 29,
in writing, within 10 days from the date of this
Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to
comply herewith.
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 you that:
WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively
with American Communications Association,
Communications Trade Division, affiliated
with International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America as the exclusive representative of the
employees in the bargaining unit described
below.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner
interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by
Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL, upon request, bargain with the
above-named Union, as the exclusive
representative of all employees in the bargain-
ing unit described below with respect to wages,
hours, and other terms and conditions of em-
ployment and, if an understanding is reached,
LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
embody such understanding in a signed agree-
ment.
The bargaining unit is:
All field claim specialists and field claim
representatives employed by us, assigned
to the Smithtown, Syosset, and Jericho,
Long Island, New York, offices, excluding
superintendents and other managerial and
supervisory personnel, clerical employees,
and guards as defined in the Act.
All of our employees are free to become, remain,
or refrain from becoming or remaining, members of
any labor organization, except as that right may be
affected by an agreement requiring membership in
a labor organization as a condition of employment,
as authorized in Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, as
amended.
STATE FARM MUTUAL
AUTOMOBILE
INSURANCE COMPANY
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative ) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecu-
tive days from the date of posting and must not be
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
If the employees have any question concerning
this notice or compliance with its provisions, they
may communicate directly with the Board's Re-
gional Office, 16 Court Street, Fourth Floor,
Brooklyn, New York 11201, Telephone 596-3535.