The Title Guarantee Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 1, 1952

97 N.L.R.B. 1497 (N.L.R.B. 1952)

THE TITLE. GUARANTEE COMPANY 1497
THE TITLE GUARANTEE COMPANY and BUILDING SERVICE EMPLOYEES
INTERNATIONAL UNION, AFL, PETITIONER . Case No. 5-RC-948.
-February 1, 1959
Decision and Direction of Election
Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before William C.
Humphrey, Jr., hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made
at the hearing are free from prejudical error and are hearby 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, Murdock, and Styles].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The business of the Employer :
The Employer, a Maryland corporation, is engaged in the business
of examining and insuring real estate titles. Its only offices 'are
located on the first two floors of an office building in Baltimore, Mary-
land, which it owns and operates under the name of the Title Building.
In 1948, the Employer, which until then had confined its activities
to the area in and around Baltimore, expanded its business and began
issuing title insurance policies in States other than Maryland. At the
present time it is licensed and qualified to issue policies in a total of
10 States 1 and the District of Columbia. The policies issued are
of two types, both protecting the insured against loss due to a defective
real property title: (1) The property owner's policy, and (2) the
mortgagee's policy. During the year 1950, approximately 60 percent
of the 10,000 policies written were issued on property located outside
the State of Maryland. Of the gross business of $635,000 done in 1950,
approximately _$100,000 was derived from these out-of-State sources.2
The Employer has 36 agents outside the State of -Maryland { ho
write, issue, and deliver the policies, and collect the premiums. A ti'
deducting their commissions, the agents remit the balance of the pre-
miums and copies of the policies written to the Employer. No salaries
are paid to these agents, the commissions are their only compensation.
Though losses are paid from the Baltimore office, the Employer has
reserve funds on deposit in Texas, North Carolina, and South Caro-,
lina. Resident agents for the purpose of receiving service of process
are maintained wherever State law so requires.
1 Maryland , Delaware , Florida, Louisiana , North Carolina , South Carolina , Texas, Vir-
ginia, west Virginia, and Utah.
2 The record shows that the average premium rate is approximately $3 per $ 1,000 of
property sale price . Therefore, the above premium income of $100 , 000 represents insur-
ahce on approximately $ 30,000 ,000 of real property value.
97 NLRB No. 227.
1:498 DECISIONS=OF NATIONAL LABOR - RELATIONS BOARD
;The Employer-; while conceding that fire, and life- insurance com-
panies have.been held to be engaged in interstate commerce; contends
that the same is not true of title insurance. Title insurance, it is as-
serted, differs materially from fire and life insurance in that the title
policy involves a single premium only, has no cash value, and cannot
be used as security for a loan.
We cannot agree that the title insurance business, as conducted by
this Employer, is not in interstate commerce. Title insurance, today,
is a service widely used by purchasers and mortagees of real property
to facilitate, and expedite the consummation of real estate transactions.4
Like fire and life insurance, title insurance is a true insurance service
involving, as it does, the assumption by the insurer of the risk of loss
due to defective titles, and the spreading of the burden of any losses
by means of the premiums charged. The fact that only a single pre-
mium is received on a policy or that a policy has no cash value, does not
change the nature of the insurance service rendered by the Employer.
And this insurance service as noted above is rendered to real estate pur-
chasers and mortgagees outside Maryland, in transactions involving
real property totaling more than 30 millions of dollars. Under these
circumstances, including the fact that the Employer does-business
in several States, we conclude that the Employer's operations affect
commerce within the meaing of the Act and justify the assertion of
jurisdiction under the Board's policy.-'
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 of all elevator operators, charwomen,
and maintenance employees at the Employer's Baltimore, Maryland,
office building. The Employer concedes the appropriateness of the
unit but contends that even if the Board deems the Employer to be
engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act, the operation
of its building is essentially local in character and the services ren-
dered by the building employees are so remote from the Employer's
interstate business that a stoppage or curtailment of the services of the
building employees would.have only a negligible effect upon interstate
commerce.
'3 United States ' v. Southeastern Underwriters Assn , 322 U. S. 533 ; Polish National
Alliance of the United States of North America v . National Labor Relations Board, 822
U. S. 643.
4 In 1949, the Board asserted jurisdiction over an employer engaged in the business of
examining and searching real property titles as agent of a title insurance company . Louis-
ville Title Agency, 85 NLRB 1344.
6 The Borden Company, Southern Division , 91 NLRB 628.
IMNITA HOSIERY MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC. 1499
From the record, it is clear that the operation of the office building
is a component part of the Employer's business and that the building
employees contribute services essential to the operations of such busi-
xless through their work in the Employer's offices and in other parts
'of the building. We reject, therefore, the Employer's contention that
the Board does not have jurisdiction of the employees here requested
because the functions which they perform do not affect commerce."
We find that all elevator operators, charwomen, and maintenance
employees at the Employer's Baltimore, Maryland, place of business,
excluding all office and clerical employees, watchmen and guards pro-
fessional employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute
a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
O Dunlap Chevrolet Company, 91 NLRB 1115; see also Tri-State Casualty Insurance
Company, 83 NLRB 828, enforced 188 F. 2d 50 (C. A. 10) ; The Northern Trust Company,
-69 NLRB 652 and cases cited therein.
DANITA HOISERY MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC. and AMERICAN
FEDERATION OF HOSIERY WORKERS, AFL, PETITIONER . Case No.
4-RC-1.30. February 4,19&
Decision and Order
Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before Harold X.
Summers, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the
hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.'
Pusuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-member panel [Chairman Herzog and Members
Murdock and Styles].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the National Labor Relations Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent employees
of the Employer.
3. The Employer and United Textile Workers of America, AFL,
the Intervenor herein, contend that their current contract constitutes
a bar to this proceeding. The Petitioner disagrees, alleging that the
contract contains an illegal union-security clause.
'The petition and other formal papers are amended to show the correct names of the
Employer and the Petitioner, respectively.
97 NLRB No. 223.