The Prudential Insurance Co. of America

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 21, 1953

106 N.L.R.B. 237 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

THE PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA 237
interstate commerce which require employees to join, maintain their membership in, or
obtain or retain working permits from this Union as a condition of hire or employment,
except to the extent that such agreement may be authorized under the proviso to Section
8 (a) (3) of the Act.
WE WILL NOT cause or attempt to cause the Contractors of Bloomington-Normal,
their officers, agents, successors, or assigns, to discriminate against employees or ap-
plicants for employment in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of
the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL immediately notify J. L. Wroan &Son in writing and furnish copies to Delvyn
Smith and Elvin G. Jacob, that we do not object to, but on the contrary now request, that
company to employ Delvyn Smith and Elvin G. Jacob.
WE WILL make Delvyn Smith and Elvin G. Jacob whole for any loss of earnings they
may have suffered because of the discrimination against them.
LOCAL NO. 63, UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF
CARPENTERS AND JOINERS OF AMERICA, AFL,
Labor Organization.
Dated ................ By.................................... ................................. .......................
(Representative ) (Title)
............................................
KENNETH PEARL
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not be altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
THE PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA,
Petitioner and INSURANCE AGENTS' INTERNATIONAL
UNION, LOCAL NO. 10, A.F.L. and ASSOCIATED LIFE
INSURANCE AGENTS OF MARYLAND. Case No. 5-RM-244.
July 21, 1953
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Henry L.
Segal, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at
the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby
affirmed.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the
Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to
a three -member panel [Members Houston,Styles, andPetersonl.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the mean-
ing of the Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent
certain employees of the Employer.
3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the
representation of employees of the Employer within the meaning
of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act for the
following reasons:
Insurance Agents' International Union, Local No. 10, A.F.L.,
an intervenor, herein called Local 10, contends that it has a
contract with the Employer which bars this proceeding. Asso-
106 NLRB No 55.
2 38 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ciated Life Insurance Agents of Maryland, another Intervenor,
herein referred to as Associated, also urges that the contract
is a bar, and, further, that the contract rights had been assigned
to it by formal action of the membership of Local 10. Alterna-
tively, Associated argues that, if the Board fails to find that
it is the contractual successor to Local 10, the Board should
direct an election because a schism has occurred within
the ranks of Local 10. The Employer takes no position with
respect to these contentions.
On June 11, 1943, Federal Local 23007, the predecessor to
Local 10, was certified by the Board as the exclusive bargain-
ing representative for all district agents of the Employer
whose debits were located in Maryland. At the same time,
sister locals were separately certified as the bargaining
representatives for agents in Virginia, Delaware, and the
District of Columbia. These locals, which were directly
chartered by the American Federation of Labor, executed
separate contracts with the Employer for some years there-
after. In 1946, the National Federation of Insurance Agents'
Council, herein called the Council, was established by the
American Federation of Labor to correlate the activities of
the various locals. In 1949, the Council was certified as the
bargaining representative for agents in a 31-State unit which
excluded the Maryland, Delaware, Virginia, and District of
Columbia units.' In that year, the Council executed a contract
with the Employer covering the employees for which it was
certified. Concurrently, Federal Local 23007 executed an
identical agreement, covering the Maryland unit, jointly with
the separately certified locals who signed for their respective
units. In May 1951, the Council was granted an international
charter by the American Federation of Labor and assumed
the name of Insurance Agents' International Union, herein
called the IAIU.Z Federal Local 23007 was then designated
as Local 10.
During negotiations in 1951 with the Employer for a master
agreement covering its 31-State unit, the IAIU successfully
induced the Virginia, Delaware, and District of Columbia locals
to relinquish their local autonomy over bargaining matters
and to be included in the master agreement. Local 10, however,
declined to do so and, after separate negotiations with the
Employer, executed a contract with it on February 18, 1952,
which was to run to March 4, 1954. The Local 10 contract,
although identical with the master agreement regarding sub-
stantive terms, provided that checked-off dues were to be
remitted directly to Local 10, and only Local 10 committeemen
were authorized to handle the grievances of its members.
On March 7, 1952, the IAIU filed with the Board a motion to
consolidate units by including the Maryland unit, represented
by Local 10, in its multistate unit. Shortly thereafter, at a
meeting of Local 10 called for that purpose, its membership
resolved to retain its separate autonomy and to oppose the
180 NLRB 1583, supplemented by 81 NLRB 295
2 The IAN did not intervene in this proceeding.
THE PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA 239
IAIU motion. On April 10, 1952, over the protest of Local 10,
which wanted a determination of the controversy on the merits,
the Board granted the IAIU request to withdraw the motion to
consolidate. The following day, the IAIU notified Local 10 that
it would not seek to compel consolidation, but exhorted Local 10
to accede to consolidation voluntarily.
During the early part of 1952, the IAIU engaged in negotiations
with the Employer with respect to an agreement regarding
the sale of a new sickness and accident policy which the
Employer contemplated offering to the public. These negotia-
tions apparently dragged on for several months without a
definitive agreement being reached. On June 30, 1952, the
president of Local 10 informed the IAIU that its members
were desirous of concluding an agreement concerning the
sale of this type of insurance because of the additional com-
missions they would derive therefrom, and that it had begun
negotiations on its own behalf with the Employer concerning
the matter. The president of Local 10 also inquired whether
the IAIU contemplated reconvening its negotiating committee
to meet with the Employer on this subject. After an exchange
of correspondence , in which the IAIU cautioned Local 10 not
to negotiate separately with the Employer over the new
insurance plan, the membership of Local 10 voted over-
whelmingly to accept the Employer's proposals relative to the
sale of the sickness and accident insurance, and a supplemental
agreement was executed between Local 10 and the Employer
embodying these proposals. Immediately thereafter, the IAIU
was notified by Local 10 of the action thus taken.
At a meeting of the IAIU executive board in November 1952,
it adopted a resolution calling upon Local 10 to submit to
inclusion in the nationwide unit or be expelled from the IAIU.
This resolution was communicated to the president of Local 10
on December 5, 1952, with instructions that a meeting of
the local be called within 10 days for the purpose of having
the members repudiate its former position and agree to be
governed by the nationwide agreement. Accordingly, a regular
Local 10 membership meeting was called for December 12.
It was immediately preceded by a meeting of the Local's
executive board, which voted 14-3 to recommend to the mem-
bership rejection of the IAIU directive. At the regular meeting,
attended by approximately 43 out of a total membership of
181,' 40 members voted to poll all members as to whether
they desired to accept or reject the IAIU proposal. Ballots
were thereupon mailed to the members together with notifica-
tion that a regular meeting was scheduled for January 9, 1953,
for the purpose of tabulating the results of the poll.
At the January 9 meeting, which was attended by approxi-
mately 70 members, the votes were opened and counted, and
revealed that 135 members voted to reject the IAIU directive,
19 voted in favor of it, and there was 1 void ballot. A motion
was made and carried by a vote of 56 to 10 to disaffiliate
from the IAIU and to form the Associated, to assign the Local
3Usual attendance at such Local 10 meetings averaged 23 members.
240 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
10 contract as well as all assets and property to the Associated,
to accept all officers of Local 10 as officers of the Associated,
to dissolve Local 10 and return its charter to the IAIU, and
to inform the Employer and the IAIU of the action taken. It
was then agreed to conduct a mail ballot among all members
of Local 10 to determine whether or not action taken on
January 9 was agreeable. A special meeting was scheduled
for January 14 for the purpose of tabulating the results of
this poll, which revealed that 124 members voted in favor of
the motion, 33 voted against it, and 1 ballot was void. The
IAIU and the Employer were notified of the results of the
poll.
Since the meeting of January 9, 1953, the Associated has
held regular scheduled meetings attended by the same number
of members as previously attended Local 10 meetings, at
least 145 of the 180 members of Local 10 canceled their
checkoff authorizations with the Employer and designated the
Associated as the recipient of their dues, and the Associated
has requested recognition by the Employer. The Employer
refused to re*ognize the Associated, but agreed to process
grievances with the Associated's grievance committeemen in
their individual capacities, and they have been thus handling
grievances on behalf of their members.
On January 13, 1953, the IAIU, having been apprised of the
disaffiliation action of January 14, voted to suspend Local 10,
its officers, and executive board, and to appoint a trustee.
The IAIU sent out forms to the members of Local 10 asking
them to reaffirm their loyalty to the Local, and also requested
recognition by the Employer. On March 27, 1953, Local 10
held its first meeting called by the trustee and the IAIU
president, at which 4 of the normal complement of 8 officers
were selected and grievance committees for a few Maryland
districts were appointed. Neither the minutes of this meeting,
nor those of a subsequent meeting of Local 10, reveal the
number of members who attended.
On February 6, 1953, after receiving the conflicting claims
to representation of its Maryland agents, the Employer sent
letters to the IAIU and the Associated in which it stated that
the organizations should present their claims to the Board
for determination of the issue. Meanwhile, the Employer
withheld the use of the bulletin boards and held the checked-off
dues in escrow. After neither organization availed itself of
the Board's processes to determine the validity of their rival
claims, the Employer filed the instant petition.
In The Louisville Railway Company case,4 under circum-
stances closely paralleling those herein, the Board held that
the assignment of a contract by a local, to which its inter-
national was not a signatory, to a newly formed successor
labor organization, did not destroy the continuing identity
of the contractual bargaining representative, and that the
490 NLRB 678.
THE PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA 24 1
assigned contract between the successor and the employer
constituted a bar . Finding that no schism had occurred under
those circumstances , the Board stated that that case was
analogous to decisions in which it held that a mere change of
affiliation of the contracting union did not disturb the con-
tinuing identity of the contractual bargaining agent, and noted
that--
The fact that at a later date a faction of [the local] sought
to repudiate its assignment of the contract and reestablish
[the local] as the representative of the employees of the
Employer, does not disturb the stability of the bargaining
relationship between the Employer and the [successor],
nor create a 'schism'. At the hearing in this proceeding,
[the local ] contended that it now represents approximately
245 employees who had previously joined [the successor].
The position of [the local ], therefore , is substantially the
same as that of any rival union which seeks designation
as a representative of an Employer ' s employees at an
inappropriate time.
We believe that our decision in the Louisville case, and
related decisions , $ is controlling here. In the instant case,
Local 10 alone had been certified as the exclusive bargaining
representative of the Employer ' s Maryland agents, and had
separately bargained for and executed the contract here
involved . After the membership of Local 10 voted to disaffiliate
from the IAIU, dissolve Local 10, and assign its contract to
the newly formed Associated , the Associated succeeded to
the contract with the Employer . Accordingly , the attempt by
the minority group which remained in Local 10 to repudiate
the assignment and breathe new life into the Local, in our
opinion, placed Local 10 in "substantially the same [position]
as that of any rival union which seeks designation as repre-
sentative of an Employer ' s employees at an inappropriate
time."
On the basis of the foregoing , and the entire record in this
proceeding , we find, contrary to the contention of Local 10,
that the Associated succeeded to the existing contract with
the Employer and is currently the administrator of that con-
tract. Accordingly, we conclude that the contract is a bar and
we shall therefore dismiss the petition.6
[The Board dismissed the petition.]
5 See , e.g , Chesapeake & Potomac Telephone Company, 89 NLRB 231.
6In view of this conclusion , we find it unnecessary to pass upon the Associated 's alter-
native contention that a schism has occurred within the ranks of Local 10
Likewise , while the Associated and Local 10 requested at the hearing that the Board
adjudicate their respective rights in the property and assets of Local 10 , in accordance with
our usual policy, we shall not pass upon this matter.