The Life Insurance Co. of Virginia

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 17, 1945

63 N.L.R.B. 397 (N.L.R.B. 1945)

In the Matter of THE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF VIRGINIA and
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF INDUSTRIAL & ORDINARY INSURANCE
AGENT'S UNION No. 22264, AFL
Case No. 8-R-1795
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION
AND
ORDER
August 17, 194,5
On July 26, 1945, the Board issued a Decision and Direction of
Election in the above-entitled proceeding,' finding that all weekly
premium agents of the Company in the State of Ohio constituted an
appropriate unit. On August 2, 1945, the Company. filed with the
Board a motion to "Reopen the case and Permit Counsel Oral Argu-
ment Before the Board," asserting that the said Decision is contrary
to the Act and to prior Decisions of the Board. In support of its peti-
tion the Company, in effect, reiterates two contentions made by it at
the hearing in this matter which the Board thereafter rejected.
In its first contention, the Company again admits the appropriate-
ness of the State-wide unit but asserts that, because the petitioner
also represents employees'in four of the Company's district offices in
Detroit, Michigan, the practical effect of the Board's unit finding
will be to join into a single unit the Detroit agents and the Ohio
agents. In our original Decision we adverted to the Company's pre-
occupation with matters which may never come to pass, if the Union
is. apprised of the meaning of our determination. We there said that
we contemplated that the Company's weekly premium agents in the
State of Ohio will be bargained for by the Union only as a separate
unit. We repeat that the concern of the Company over the possible
,insistence by the Union that the Company bargain in a unit different
-in scope from the State-wide'unit is unwarranted .2 If the Union wins
the election heretofore directed and is certified as the exclusive bar-
gaining representative of the employees in the appropriate unit, the
162 N. L . R. B. 1444.
2 No such intention has apparently been amnifested by the Union since the hearing.
63 N. L. R. B., No. 58.
397
398 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Company will have the right to insist on dealing with the Union on
the basis of that established unit.3
The Company's second contention is that the employees in the State
of Ohio cannot properly be represented by the petitioner, because the
petitioner is a local union having its offices in a different State. In
effect, the Company argues that a separate local in Ohio is required
before the Company's employees in that State may be represented as
a separate unit. We are unable to agree. The Board has never imposed
any "residential" requirement upon labor organizations seeking cer-
tification as statutory representatives; we can perceive no reason why
such a requirement would effectuate the policies of the Act.
Accordingly, we hereby deny the Company's motion to reopen and
to argue orally before the Board.
MR. GERARD D. REILLY took no part in the consideration of the above
Supplemental Decision and Order.
8 See Matter of Fairmont Creamery Company, 61 N. L. R. B. 1311.
V.