The Employers' Liability Assurance Corp., Ltd.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 22, 1957

117 N.L.R.B. 92 (N.L.R.B. 1957)

92 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
any proffered evidence of unfair labor practices in a representa-
tion proceeding, thereby leaving to the aggrieved parties the
right to file charges under Section 10. . . .
This recognition of the dual functions bestowed upon the Board
by the Act does not mean, however, that the respective subject
matter of proceedings under Section 10 and proceedings under
Section 9 must be segregated into mutually exclusive compart-
ments for administering the Act. .. .
The full freedom to choose bargaining representatives which
the procedure set forth in Section 9 of the Act is intended to
insure would be limited drastically were the Board powerless to
determine which unions shall appear on the ballot in elections
directed thereunder and thus be available for choice by employees.
The absence of such power might well result in the defeat of one
of the prime objectives of the Act, the promotion of peaceful rela-
tions between employees and employers to the end that inter-
ferences with the free flow of commerce may be lessened thereby.
Accordingly, the Board has found, on many occasions, that the
purposes of the Act would best be effectuated by enlarging the
usual scope of its inquiry in a representation proceeding, and
considering matters pertaining to unfair labor practices.
[Emphasis supplied.]
It is therefore clearly apparent that the general rule applied by
the majority in this case was not intended, as the case cited above
makes clear, to preclude the Board from recognizing the obvious
fact that a labor organization controlled by supervisors, as is the
Independent, which is seeking certification by the Board, is incapable
of dealing with an employer at arm's length and must, therefore,
be denied a place on the ballot. Accordingly, for the reasons set forth
above and because the evidence contained in the record clearly shows
that the Independent is dominated and controlled by the Employer's
supervisors, I would, in accord with well established Board policy,
refuse to accord the Independent a place on the ballot in the election
directed in this proceeding.
The Employers' Liability Assurance Corporation , Ltd.' and Office
Employees International Union , Local 6, AFL-CIO, Petitioner.
Case No. 1-KC-11698. January 22, 1957
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 Thomas E. McDonald, hear-
1 The Employer 's name appears as amended at the hearing.
117 NLRB No. 24.
THE EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ASSURANCE CORPORATION, LTD. 93
ing 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 is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
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 a unit limited to the claims adjusters at the
Employer's Boston field office. The Employer contends that the unit
requested is inappropriate.
The Employer operates a nationwide insurance business . Before
1947 it operated through general agencies and offices that reported
directly to its top administrative division, the home office. In 1947
the Company instituted a program of decentralization and consolida-
tion, setting up regional departments as an intermediate link between
the field offices and the home office. But the Employer still maintains
some offices that are not administratively included in regional depart-
ments and continue to report directly to the home office. One of the
regional divisions created was the New England department which,
geographically, encompasses the New England States excepting
Maine, an area still reporting directly to the home office.
The New England department consists of several functional sub-
divisions, such as underwriting, agencies, and claims. The Employer
identifies the claims subdivision as the New England claim depart-
ment, consisting of a number of field offices located in various New
England cities. One of these field offices is in Boston. The Employer
contends that a unit limited to the Boston field office adjusters is in-
appropriate, asserting that the smallest appropriate unit of adjusters
involving those employed in the Boston office is one coextensive with
its New England claim department.
In support of its position the Employer relies primarily upon these
facts. The New England claim department coordinates the claims
functions of all the field offices within the department. Apparently
the regional superintendent of the claim department, its top super-
2 The Employer objected to the hearing officer's exclusion of evidence pertaining to the
Petitioner's methods and activities in organizing its employees . The Employer offered to
prove that the excluded evidence would have established that the scope of the unit re-
quested by the Petitioner was determined by the extent of the Petitioner's organizational
campaign among the employees . The findings hereinafter made show that in reaching our
decision as to the appropriate unit we do not give controlling weight to the extent of the
Petitioner' s organizational activities. In such circumstances the hearing officer's rulings
were not prejudicial. Kwikset Locks, Inc., 116 NLRB 1648.
3 The Employer has requested permission to present oral argument before the Board.
The Employer 's request is hereby denied as the record, including the briefs filed by the par-
ties, adequately presents the issues and positions of the parties.
94 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
visory official, ultimately approves all claims settlements and all coun-
sel fees in litigation matters originating in the field offices. He also
sets the maximum settlement limits for the adjusters in the field offices.
The regional superintendent has ultimate authority over the hire,
training, salary adjustments, and promotions of field office adjusters.
There is but one personnel official for the whole New England depart-
ment and all field office employees within the department's jurisdiction
consult him on grievances and personal problems. Department super-
visors maintain regular, direct personal contact with the field office
adjusters. The department keeps personnel files on all adjusters with-
in its jurisdiction , including attendance records on which the ad-
justers' vacation rights are based. The salary range for all adjusters
in the New England field offices is the same; however,- the range is
set by the home office for the various regional departments through-
out the country . During vacation periods and in emergencies field
office claims supervisors and adjusters interchange among the various
field offices ; but the adjusters do continue to report to their own field
offices. Approximately 15 adjusters trained initially at Boston no'
,work in field offices in other New England cities. All the adjusters
within the department are carried on one biweekly payroll and re-
ceive the same employee fringe benefits; however, all the employer's
home office employees are also under the biweekly payroll arrange-
ment and the employee benefits are companywide . In some instances
related claims are worked on by employees in different field offices;-
but in the event a case is transferred from one office to another, the
second field office settles the claim within its own discretion.
The duties of all New England adjusters are identical ; however,
this is true for all of the Employer's adjusters throughout the country.
The department conducts an annual New England claims conference
for the field office adjusters. There is no direct contact between the
field offices and the home office , and all information material from the
home office to the field offices is channeled through the New England
claim department. The department keeps the home office advised of
any personnel changes in the field offices and submits monthly reports
to the home office. The home office personnel records classify all the
employees in the New England department on a departmentwide
basis; there is no breakdown based upon the field offices in which the
employees work.
Some of the foregoing facts show only that the adjusters ' jobs with
this Employer include some companywide characteristics, as distin-
guished from single department distinctiveness. However, other facts
do indicate that a bargaining unit coextensive with the New England
department would be appropriate. At the same time the apparent
appropriateness of a departmentwide unit does not conversely negate
THE EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ASSURANCE CORPORATION, LTD. 95
the appropriateness of a less comprehensive unit grouping of the ad-
justers. In the recent Travelers Insurance case,4 the Board held that
the appropriateness of a unit of insurance claims adjusters depends
primarily upon whether it corresponds to a principal administrative
division of the employer's business. Thus, irrespective of the appro-
priateness of a departmentwide unit in this case, it is still necessary to
determine whether the unit sought by the Petitioner, limited to the
Boston field office, corresponds to the type of administrative division
contemplated by the Travelers Insurance case.
In this respect the record contains the following evidence. The
Boston field office generally operates within defined geographical
limits and is geographically separate from the other field offices in the
New England claim department. It has its own supervisory echelon.
The principal field office supervisor has the power to reject a salary
recommendation of a subordinate supervisor and thereby foreclose de-
partment consideration of the recommendation. He approves expense
ace,aunts before they are sent to the regional superintendent of the
claim department. He arranges the vacation schedule for the adjust-
ers in his office. The chief adjusters in the Boston field office, the
supervisors in immediate charge of the adjusters, may grant them time
off. Field office supervisors establish the individual adjuster's claim
settlement limits; those settlement limits differ for the various ad-
justers within the field office and may be changed by a higher field
office supervisor . Within the limits set each adjuster exercises his own
discretion in settling claims . The field office supervisors also assign
cases to the adjusters.
The adjusters in Boston receive their paychecks at their office where-
as other New England department adjusters receive their paychecks
at their own field offices or by direct mail from the home office. Ad-
j usters receive reimbursement for expenses at their respective offices,
some by check and some in cash. Each field office decides the amount
of its individual money reserve to attribute to cases the office processes.
The New England claim department field offices do not all have the
same maximum limit on their authority to settle claims.
In total picture the facts generally show that the Employer 's higher
administrative divisions, the home office and the New England de-
partment, establish companywide and even departmentwide policies
and that the respective field offices operate within that overall policy
framework. It also appears that the New England department merely
serves, in some of its functions, as a screening and funneling device
between the field offices and the home office. More significantly, how-
ever, the record establishes that the Boston field office is an autonomous
administrative unit geographically removed from the other New Eng-
4 The Travelers Insurance Company , 116 NLRB 387.
96 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
land field offices, containing a separate supervisory hierarchy and pos-
sessing a significant degree of independent authority in the settlement
of claims. We find, accordingly, on the record as a whole, that a unit of
the Employer's Boston field office claims adjusters is appropriate for
the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of the Trav-
elers Insurance decision.
Another issue in this case is the unit placement of three inside
adjusters working in the Boston field office. The Petitioner would ex-
clude them, but the Employer contends they should be included in the
same unit with the other adjusters. The inside adjusters work on
property damage claims only, do not leave the office, and do not have
expense accounts, whereas the main body of adjusters sought by the
Petitioned handle all types of claims, do most of their work outside
the office, and have expense accounts. On the other hand, all the ad-
justers perform essentially the same type of work and, like the other
adjusters, the inside adjusters exercise discretion in the settlement of
claims; also, all the adjusters have the same salary range and receive
the same employee benefits. We find, therefore, that the duties aned
working conditions of the inside adjusters are fundamentally like
those of the other adjusters and that the interests of all the adjusters
are closely allied. Accordingly, we shall include the inside adjusters
in the unit sought by the Petitioner.
The following employees constitute a unit appropriate for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of
the Act :
All investigator adjusters,5 including inside investigator adjusters,
at the Employer's Boston field office, excluding all other employees,
guards and supervisors as defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
6In its petition the Petitioner described the employees sought as claims adjusters. How-
ever, as the Employer classifies its claims adjusters as investigator adjusters , we have
identified the employees involved herein to conform with the Employer's job title.
Alfred Shaheen , Ltd. and ILWU, Local 142, affiliated with Inter-
national Longshoremen 's and Warehousemen 's Union, Inde-
pendent, Petitioner. Case No. 37-RC-340. January 23, 1957
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before David E. Davis, hearing
officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
117 NLRB No. 25.