The Life Insurance Co. of Virginia

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 26, 1945

62 N.L.R.B. 1444 (N.L.R.B. 1945)

In the Matter of THE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF VIRGINIA and
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF INDUSTRIAL AND ORDINARY INSURANCE
AGENTS' UNION No. 22264, AFL.
Case No. 8-R-1795.=Decided July 26, 1945
Mr. S. J. Hilton, of Richmond , Va., for the Company.
Messrs. J. N. Cummings and Rene J. DeLorine, of Detroit, Mich., for
the Union.
Harold M. Humphreys, of counsel to the Board. •
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION,
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a petition duly filed by American Federation of Industrial and
Ordinary Insurance Agents' Union No. 22264, AFL, herein called the
Union, alleging that a question affecting commerce had arisen concerning
the representation of employees of The Life Insurance Company of Vir-
ginia, Richmond, Virginia, herein called the Company, the National Labor
Relations Board provided for an appropriate hearing upon due notice before
John W. Irving, Trial Examiner. Said hearing was held at Cleveland,
Ohio, on May 21, 1945. The Company and the Union appeared and par-
ticipated.' All parties were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to exam-
ine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the
issues. At the hearing, the Company moved to dismiss the petition and the
Trial Examiner referred the motion to the Board for determination. For
reasons set forth in Section 1V, infra, the motion is denied. The Trial
Examiner's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error
i United Office & Professional Workers of America, CIO, appeared at the healing and moved to
intervene Since it failed to establish that it has an interest in the employees herein concerned, the
Trial Examiner denied the motion Although Notice of Htaring was served upon Industrial & Ordi-
nary Insurance Agents' Council, AFL, and International Union of Life Insurance Agents, neither
appeared
62 N. L. R. B, No. 199.
1444
THE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF VIRGINIA 1445
and are hereby affirmed. All parties were afforded an opportunity to file
briefs with the Board.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
The Life Insurance Company of Virginia is a Virginia corporation hav-
ing its principal office, known as the Home Office, in Richmond, Virginia.
It is licensed to conduct business in 18 States and in the District of Colum-
bia, and is engaged in the business of ordinary and weekly premium
insurance in 12 States and the District of Columbia. The business of the
Company is managed and directed by its directors lnd officers located at
the Home Office. As of December 31, 1944, the Company's accumulated
assets consisted of cash, securities, real estate, mortgage loans secured by
real estate located in 20 States and the District of Columbia, and other
assets, all amounting in value to $154,156,982.07. In 1944, the Company
spent $43,850.39 for postage, telephone, telegrams, and express service.
For the same period, the Company spent $24,355.71 for traveling expenses
of its Agency supervisors. At the end of 1944, it had in force and effect
policies amounting in value to $747,556,513.
We find that the Company's operations affect commerce and that it is
engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations
Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
American Federation of Industrial and Ordinary Insurance Agents'
Union No. 22264, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, is a
labor organization admitting to membership employees of the Company.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The Company has refused to grant recognition to the Union as the
exclusive bargaining representative of certain of its employees.
A statement of a Board agent, introduced into evidence at the hearing,
indicates that the Union represents a substantial number of employees in
the unit hereinafter found appropriate'
We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning the
representation of employees of the Company, within the meaning of Section
9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
2 Sec Polish National Alliance of the United States of America v N L R B , 322 U. S. 643
3 The Field Examiner reported that the Union submitted 39 application cads, and that the names
of 32 persons appearing on the cards were listed on the Company's pay roll of Api it 16, 1945, which
contained the names of 85 eniployecs in the allcgcd appropriate unit
1446 1)ECISiONNS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
The Company maintains six District Offices in the State of Ohio located
at Cincinnati, Cleveland, Columbus, and Toledo. Each District Office is
under the supervision of a district manager who is aided by an assistant
manager. The managers and assistant managers regularly direct the work
of other employees and have the authority effectively to recommend changes
in the status of employees. At each District Office there are also a clerical
staff and cashiers. The Union seeks to represent only the weekly premium
agents employed at all the District Offices in Ohio.
While the Company does not appear to contest the inherent appropriate-
ness of the State-wide unit sought, recognizing that it conforms to the
grouping usually found by us to be proper in the insurance field,' it points
to the fact that the Union now represents employees in four of its District
Offices in Detroit, Michigan, and argues that the petition should be dis-
missed because the Union intends to bargain collectively on the basis of a
unit consisting of both Detroit and Ohio employees. We perceive no reason
to dismiss the petition predicated solely on a matter which lies in the future
and which may not come to pass if the Union is apprised of the meaning of
our determination. As requested by the Union, we shall find appropriate a
unit restricted to Ohio agents. We contemplate, therefore, that these
employees will be bargained for by the Union only as a separate group
In addition, the Company contends that the employees in Ohio cannot
properly be represented as a separate unit by a union which already repre-
sents its Detroit employees, asserting that a separate local is needed to
fulfill this requirement. With this position we cannot agree. Separate
representation of two units of insurance agents by a single labor organiza-
tion is, in our opinion, entirely feasible.
We find that all weekly premium agents of the Company in the State
of Ohio, excluding clerical employees, cashiers, district managers, assistant
managers, and all other supervisory employees with authority to hire, pro-
mote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of
employees, or effectively recommend such action, constitute a unit appro-
priate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of
Section 9 (b) of the Act
V. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
We shall direct that the question concerning representation which has
arisen be resolved by an election by secret ballot among the employees in
the appropriate unit who were employed during the pay-roll period imme-
diately preceding the date of the Direction of Election herein, subject to
the limitations and additions set forth in the Direction.
4 See Matte, of Metaopohtan Lafe Iusu,ancc Company. 56 N. L R. B. 1635.
TILE LII F, INSURANCE COMPANY OF VIRGINIA 144/
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
By virtue of and pursuant to the power vested in the National Labor
Relations Board by Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, and
pursuant to Article III, Section 9, of National Labor Relations Board
Rules and Regulations-Series 3, as amended, it is hereby
DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation to ascertain representatives
for the purposes of collective bargaining with The Life Insurance Company
of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, an election by secret ballot shall be con-
ducted as early as possible, but not later than thirty (30) days from the
date of this Direction, under the direction and supervision of the Regional
Director for the Eighth Region, acting in this matter as agent for the
National Labor Relations Board, and subject to Article III, Sections 10
and 11, of said Rules and Regulations, among the employees in the unit
found appropriate in Section IV, above, who were employed during the
pay-roll period immediately preceding the date of this Direction, including
employees who did not work during the said pay-roll period because they
were ill or on vacation or temporarily laid off, and including employees in
the armed forces of the United States who present themselves in person at
the polls, but excluding any who have since quit or been discharged for
cause and have not been rehired or reinstated prior to the date of the elec-
tion , to determine whether or not they desire to be represented by American
Federation of Industrial and Ordinary Insurance Agent's - Union No
22264, AFL. for the purposes of collective bargaining.