The Prudential Insurance Co. of America

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 26, 1942

46 N.L.R.B. 430 (N.L.R.B. 1942)

In the Matter of THE PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA-
BRANCH OFFICES , TOLEDO , Omo and AMERICAN FEDERATION OF IN-
DUSTRIAL AND ORDINARY INSURANCE AGENTS' UNION No. 23039,
TOLEDO, Omo (A. F. OF L.)
Case No. R-'44,20.Decided December 06, 1942
Jurisdiction : life insurance industry.
Investigation and Certification of Representatives : existence of question: stipu-
, lation as to ; election necessary.
Unit Appropriate for Collective Bargaining : 'all licensed industrial agents of
Company employed in its district offices located in Toledo, including. the sub-
,district office 'in Bryon, Ohio, but excluding superintendents, assistant super-
intendents, clerks, and cashiers, notwithstanding Company's contention for a
state-wide agents' unit.
1 Ulr. John Robert Hill, for the Board.
Mr. Milo J. Warner, of Toledo, Ohio, for the Company.
Mr. Herbert S. Thatcher and Mr. George L. Russ, of`1Washington,
D. C., for the Union.
Mr. Robert E. Tillman, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon petition duly filed by American Federation of Industrial
and Ordinary Insurance Agents' Union No. 23039, Toledo, Ohio (A. F.
of L.), herein called the Union,' alleging that a question affecting
commerce had arisen concerning the representation of employees of
The Prudential Insurance Company of America, herein called the
Company, at its branch offices in Toledo, Ohio, the National Labor
Relations Board provided for an appropriate hearing upon due notice
before Edward G. Smith, Trial Examiner. Said hearing was held
at Toledo, Ohio, on October 15 and 16, 1942, and at New York City
on October 19, 1942. The Company and the Union appeared, partici-
I The Union' s name appears herein as it was amended at the hearing
46N.L R B,No 54.
430
THE PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE COMPANY1 0F: ,'AMERICA 431
pated, and,were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and
,cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the
issues.2 The Company moved at the hearing that the petition of 'the
Union be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Ruling on this motion
was reserved for the Board. In view of the findings of fact set forth
in Section I, infra, the motion is hereby denied. The Trial' Examiner's
rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are
hereby affirmed. On November 2 and 3, 1942, respectively, the Com-
pany and the Union filed briefs which the Board has considered.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
'The Prudential Insurance Company of America is a New Jersey
corporation maintaining its Home Office and principal place of busi-
ness in Newark, New Jersey., The Company is engaged in the busi-
ness of insuring the lives of its' policyholders' on" the participating
plan, and in the various operations incident thereto, in the 48 States,
the District of Columbia, the Territory of Hawaii, and 9 Provinces
of the Dominion of Canada. Subject to the supervision of its Board
of Directors, the Company's business is managed and directed by
officers located at its Home Office.
On^ December 31, 1941, the Company was the second largest United
States life insurance company in terms of assets and the amount of
insurance in force. On that date the Company's assets totaled, $4,556,-
'and it had 31,960.286 policies, having a 'total face amount
of $19,549,175,369, in force with 20,000,000 policyholders. The Com-
pany's assets largely consist of cash, bonds,,stocks, mortgages, real
estate, and notes. Most of the cash is deposited in commercial banks
.and trust companies throughout the United States.: All the securities
.are delivered to it in the State of New Jersey and, are, for the most
part kept at .the Home Office. Aside from its Home Office and housing
,property-in Newark,,New Jersey, the Company owns no real estate
except such as it-acquires from time to time through mortgage ,fore-
closures or by conveyance in lieu of mortgage foreclosures. On Decem-
ber 31,1941;=the Company had outstanding loans secured by real estate
located in 47 States and the Dominion of Canada. The Company
,manages its real estate'through"230'•managing, agents and 255 local
farm"supervisors' in 39 States of the United States;, the District of
Columbia, and-"6 Canadian Provinces: - The Comp'ahy-also has 8 loan
On;Dec ber 17, 1942, ,'tbe'Umted'Ofece and Professional Workers of America, C_ 1 0,
filed a'motion't'o intervene ' in'thhis proceeding and asked that the record'be 'reopened. This
motion was denied.
432 'DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD'
'correspondents, 26 branch offices and 443 authorized brokers in 47
States, the District of Columbia, and Canada. From the foregoing,
it is clear that in addition to insuring the lives of its policyholders
.the Company engages in a diversified and widespread investment
business.
During 1941 the Company purchased furniture, fixtures, and me-
chanical equipment having a value of $445,146.01,• most of which was
purchased ,and used in the State of 'New Jersey. During the same
period the Company purchased paper and other stationery supplies
having, a value of $673,452.87, most of which was likewise purchased
and used in the State of New Jersey. In the same period the Com-
-pany spent $1,329,502.73 for postage, telephone, telegraph, and express
services, and $711,259.55 for traveling expenses. In connection with
its business, the Company owns and operates a printing plant at
Newark, New Jersey. During 1941 the Company printed material
having a value of $1,370,849.12, of which 37.4 percent was used in other,
States-than New Jersey, and .5 percent was used in Canada.
On December 31, 1941, the Company employed 40,758 persons of
whom 23,144 \ were agents selling insurance and otherwise dealing
with policyholders in 48 States, the District of Columbia, the Terri-
tory of Hawaii, and the Dominion of Canada. Approximately 17,800
of the Company's agents are classed as industrial agents. Of these,
approximately 1,167 are'stationed in Ohio. Most directly involved
in this proceeding are the Company's 3 district offices in Toledo and
subdistrict office in Bryan, Ohio, where approximately 116 industrial
agents are employed.
We find that the Company is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.'
IT. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
American Federation of Industrial and Ordinary Insurance
Agents' Union No. 23039, Toledo, Ohio, is a labor organization af-
filiated with Industrial and Ordinary • Insurance- Agents' Council,
herein called the Council, and with the American Federation of Labor
and admits to membership employees of the Company.
M. THE QUESTION OONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The parties stipulated that a question concerning representation
has arisen in that the Union requested recognition of the Company
as the exclusive representative of certain Toledo employees and that
3 Matter of John Hancock Mutual . Life Insurance Company and, American Federation
of Industrial and Ordinary Insurance-Agents Union No. 21571, East St. Louis and Vicinity,
Illanotis , et al, 26 M.L. R. B. 1024.
THE PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA 433
the Company refused to recognize the Union on the ground that the
proposed unit was inappropriate.
'A statement of a Field Examiner of the Board, introduced in
evidence at the hearing, indicates that the Union represents a sub-
stantial number of employees in the unit hereinafter found •appro-
priate.4
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.
'IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
The Union requests a unit of all licensed industrial agents of the
Company employed in its district offices located in the city of
Toledo, Ohio, excluding superintendents, assistant superintendents,
clerks, and cashiers. This proposed'unit includes agents working out
of a' subdistrict office in Bryan, Ohio. , The Company objects to the
proposed unit solely because it is limited to the Company's Toledo
and Bryan agents, and contends that the appropriate unit should
comprise all 'its licensed industrial agents employed in the State of
Ohio.
For administrative puiposes, the Company is divided into 11 major
subdivisions. One of these, the Industrial Agencies Department,
directly' supervises the industrial insurance business` of the Company.
This department has its field offices in the United States and Canada
divided into 5 geographical groups. Each group, in turn has been
split into 4.divisions with no attempt made to follow State lines. The
resulting 20 divisions have been subdivided into a' total of 450 dis-
tricts.
Parts of 3 divisions, comprising a total of 31 districts, extend into
and geographically `divide the- State of Ohio. Three district offices,
each with 34 to 38• agents, are located in Toledo. Under .the super-
vision of one bf the Toledo offices is a subdistrict office 'situated in
Bryan', Ohio, where 6 agents are employed.' Each, of the 3• district
offices is headed by a superintendent. The 3 superintendents are
wholly independent,of one, another -and have no superior of -lower rank
than the manager of the entire division of which the 3 Toledo districts
(and, the Bryan subdistrict) form it small segment.
The 'Co`mpany, iii support of its contention that a State=wide unit
of its industrial agents is appropriate , argues that the hours, wages,
working conditions,- and the extent of the control exercised by the
4 The Field Examiner stated that the Union submitted 66 authorization cards to him,
all bearing apparently valid signatures ; and that signatures on 65 of -the cards checked
with names - on,a current pay .roll of the Company which listed 11.1 employees in the unit
hereinafter found appropriate.
e There are no subdistrict offices attached to the, other two Toledo districts.
504086-43-vol 46 28
434 DECISIONS ' OF - NATIONAL "LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Home Otffice are substantially', similar as respects ' all its industrial
agents in Ohio. Furthermore, these agents - are all. subject -to the
uniform insurance regulations and laws of the' State . of Ohio. One
such law forbids' any discrimination by an insurance company among
its policyholders. The Company argues further that its collective bar-
gaining relations with labor organizations in other States', has been
upon a State-wide unit basis e
The Board has found State-wide units of industrial agents to. be
,appropriate -upon petitions filed 'by United Office and Professional
Workers of America, C. I. 0., and an unaffiliated labor organization,
where no other labor organization was contending for a smaller
,unit.? However, the locals established by the A. F. of L. to organize
industrial insurance agents have not attempted to organize insur-
ance companies upon a State-wide unit basis, but rather have confined
their efforts to the district office or offices of a single company located
in, a single city. The Board has many times found such units to be
appropriate 8 Partly as a result thereof, A. F., of L. locals` have
approximately, 60 contracts with 24 insurance companies covering
industrial agents in approximately 60 city-wide units!
The first attempts of A. F. of L. locals to organize industrial agents
-employed by the Company in Ohio began at Toledo, and Local 23039,
which is here involved, was chartered on December 18,1941. Its juris-
8 As of the time of the hearing the Company recognized United Office and Professional
Workers of America, C . I. 0., as the exclusive representative of its industrial agents in
State-wide units in New ' York and Michigan , and recognized an unaffiliated , union in a
similar unit in Wisconsin . The Company ' had entered into, or had evidenced its willing-
ness to enter into, consent election agreements with the former union providing for elec-
tions in State-wide units in Kentucky , Massachusetts, New Jersey , and Washington.
,Furthermore , United Office and Professional Workers of America, C. I. 0., had indicated
its intention to fie an amended petition with the Board for a State-wide unit in Pennsylvania.
7Matter of Metropolitan Life Insurance Company and International Union of Life Insur-
ance Agents , Locals 1. 2, 3, 4, 5, 39, 41, 43 N L. R B 962; Matter of Colonial Life Insur-
ance Company of America and United Office cE Professional Workers of America, C. I. 0.,
-42'N. L . R. B. 1177. ,
8 In the following cases, where the size of the unit was in dispute, the Board found
one or more city-wide units to be appropriate : Matter of Home Beneficial Association of
Richmond, Va. and Industrial and Ordinary Insurance Agents ' Council, 17 N. L. R. B.
1027 Matter of John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Company 'and American Federation
.of Industrial and Ordinary Insurance Agents Union No. 21571, East St. Louis and Vicinity,
Illinois, et al., 26 N. L . It. B. 1024. In the following cases , where the size of the unit was
undisputed ,. the Board found one or more city-wide units to be appropriate: Matter, of
Washington Branch of the Sun Life Insurance Company of America and Industrial and
^Ordinary Insurance Agents Union No: 21354, Industrial and Ordinary Insurance Agents
Council, 15 N. L. R B. 817 ; Matter of Equitable Life Insurance Company, Washington,
D., 0, 1003 K St., N. W , and 1712 L St., N . W., Washington, D. O. and Industrial and
Ordinary ' Insurance Agents Union' #21354 and Industrial ' and Ordinary Insurance Agents
-Council, 21 N 'L. It. B 37; Matter of Life Insurance Company of Virginia, Richmond, Vir-
ginia and Industrial and Ordinary Insurance Agents ,Union # 21354 and Industrial and Ordi-
nary Insurance Agents Council, 24 N.'L'R. B. 411 ; Matter of Life Insurance Company of Vir-
ginia and The American Federation of Industrial and Ordinary Insurance - Agents Union
No 223064, et al, 29 N. L R B. 246; Matter of Life Insurance Company of Virginia ,• Branch
Ofice, Roanoke, Virginia and American 'Federation of-Industrial & Ordinary Insurance
Agent's' Union ' No. 22e57 of Roanoke, Virginia, at al., 38 N. L. R. B .- 20; ef. Matters' of
.Suprc'nr Liberty ,Life Insurance Company and American Federation of Industrial and,
Oidinary' Insuiante Agents No.120817, A . F.` of L., 32 N. L. R B.'94.
THE PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA 435
diction is confined to the Company's Toledo districts (including the
Bryan subdistrict). Since that time other locals have been, established
in other cities in Ohio. Two such locals, by letters dated October 29,
1942, have informed the Company that they claim, respectively,- to
represent majorities of the Company's industrial agents in district
offices in Akron and in Canton, Ohio."
Since the council contemplates extending its organizational efforts to
other districts in Ohio, the Company urges that it be given a reasonable
time to organize throughout the State, after which time it should file
a petition for a State-wide unit or seek a consent election agreement
with the Company upon such a basis. Pursuant to a stipulation of
the parties entered into at the hearing, the president of the council,
subsequent to the hearing, advised the Board as to the number of au-
thorization cards which the council had obtained front • employees of
the Company in Ohio exclusive, of those from Toledo and Bryan em-
ployees. The figures were 20 cards in Canton and 29 in Akron. As
indicated previously,- the Company employs approximtitely 1,167 in-
dustrial agents in Ohio. It appears, therefore, that employees in only
6 of the 31 districts 'in- Ohio have 'thus' far been organized by the
council.
The Union contends that employees working together in a single
city have more community of interest than -employees who seldom,
if ever, come into contact with one another. It contends further that
the Company's Bryan agents, although not working in Toledo, should
be in one unit with the Company's Toledo agents, because they are
under the supervision of one of the Toledo district offices.'
Under all the circumstances of this case we are of the opinion and
find that the policies of the Act can best be effectuated by making
collective bargaining an immediate possibility for the employees of
the Company in the three district offices of Toledo and, the subdistrict •
office of Bryan, Ohio. Our finding' does not preclude a later finding
that a State-wide or larger unit is appropriate for collective bargain-
ing purposes. We therefore find that all licensed industrial agents
of the Company employed in its district offices located in the. city of
Toledo, Ohio, including the subdistrict office in Bryan, Ohio, but
excluding superintendents, assistant superintendents, clerks, and
cashiers, constitute a unit appropriate 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 em-
I In a motion filed after the hearing the Company asked that these two letters be made
a part of the record. The motion 'is hereby granted and the letters accordingly are incor-
porated into the record.
436 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ployees in the appropriate unit who were employed during the pay-roll
period immediately preceding the date of our Direction of Election,
subject'to the limitations and additions set forth therein. '
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-2, as, amended, it is hereby
DrxEc'r that, as part of the investigation to ascertain representa-
tives for the purposes of collective bargaining with The Prudential
Insurance Company of America at its branch offices in Toledo, Ohio,
an election by secret ballot shall be conducted as early as possible, but
,not later than thirty (30) days from the date of this Direction of Elec-
tion, 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, Section 10, of said
Rules and Regulations, among the employees .in the unit found appro-
priate 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 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, to determine whether or not they desire to be
represented by American Federation of Industrial and Ordinary In-
surance Agents' Union No. 23039, Toledo, Ohio (A. F. of L.), for the
purposes of collective bargaining.