United States Fidelity and Guaranty Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 24, 1967

167 N.L.R.B. 995 (N.L.R.B. 1967)

UNITED STATES FIDELITY & GUARANTY CO.
United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company and
Teamsters Local 191, A/W International Brother-
hood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs , Warehousemen
and Helpers of America . Case 1-CA-5940
October 24, 1967
BY MEMBERS FANNING, BROWN , JENKINS, AND
ZAGORIA
On August 7, 1967, Trial Examiner Charles W.
Schneider issued his Decision in the above-entitled
proceeding, finding that Respondent had engaged
in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices
and recommending that it cease and desist
therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set
forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision.
Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions to the
Trial Examiner's Decision and a supporting brief.
The National Labor Relations Board has con-
sidered the Trial Examiner's Decision, the excep-
tions and brief, and the entire record in this case,
and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and
recommendations of the Trial Examiner.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the Recom-
mended Order of the Trial Examiner and hereby or-
ders that Respondent, United States Fidelity and
Guaranty Company, Hartford, Connecticut, its of-
ficers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take
the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recom-
mended Order. I
Delete from paragraph 2(b) of the Trial Examiner's Recommended
Order that part thereof which reads "to be furnished " and substitute
therefor "on forms provided. "
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
THE REPRESENTATION PROCEEDING'
CHARLES W. SCHNEIDER, Trial Examiner: On October
20, 1966, the Regional Director for Region I issued a
Decision and Direction of Election in Case I-RC-9196
finding that certain employees of United States Fidelity
and Guaranty Company, herein called Respondent, con-
stitute a unit appropriate for the purpose of collective bar-
gaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended, herein called the Act.
On November 3, 1966, a majority of the employees of
Respondent in the bargaining unit, by secret-ballot elec-
tion conducted under the direction of the Regional
Director for Region I selected Teamsters Local 191, a/w
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America, herein called
the Union, as their representative for purposes of collec-
tive bargaining with Respondent. On November 10,
167 NLRB No. 146
995
1966, Respondent filed timely objections to conduct af-
fecting the results of the election, alleging that the Union
had engaged in misrepresentations warranting the setting
aside of the election. On December 21, 1966, the Re-
gional Director issued a Supplemental Decision and Cer-
tification of Representative overruling Respondent's ob-
jections and certifying the Union as collective-bargaining
representative of the employees in the unit. On January
16, 1967, Respondent filed with the Board a request for
review by the Board of the Regional Director's Supple-
mental Decision and Certification of Representative. On
March 17, 1967, the Board denied Respondent's request
for review.
THE COMPLAINT CASE
On May 12, 1967, the Union filed the unfair labor
charge involved in the instant case, in which it alleged
that commencing on or about April 19, 1967, and
thereafter, Respondent refused and continues to refuse to
bargain collectively with the Union.
On June 19, 1967, the Regional Director for Region 1
issued a complaint and notice of hearing alleging that the
Respondent had committed unfair labor practices in
violation of Sections 8(a)(1) and (5) and 2(6) and (7) of the
Act by refusing to bargain with the Union upon request.
In due course the Respondent filed its answer to the com-
plaint in which certain allegations of the complaint were
admitted and others denied.
In its answer Respondent admits the following allega-
tions of the complaint: (1) jurisdictional, (2) that the
Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(5) of the Act, (3), that the unit is appropriate, (4)
that on or about November 3, 1966, a majority of the em-
ployees in the unit by secret ballot designated and
selected the Union as their representative for purposes of
collective bargaining,2 (5) that the Regional Director cer-
tified the Union as the collective-bargaining agent of the
employees in the unit, but asserts that the certification is
invalid and of no legal effect, (6) that the Union requested
the Respondent on or about April 6, 1967, to bargain col-
lectively, and (7) that the Respondent on or about April
19, 1967, and thereafter, refused and continues to refuse
to bargain collectively with the Union, but asserts its
refusal was for the sole and express purpose of securing
judicial review of the actions of the Regional Director in
certifying the Union. Respondent denied the allegations
contained in paragraphs 9, 10, 13, 14, 15, and 16 of the
complaint wherein it is alleged (1) that the Union is the
lawfully certified representative of a free and uncoerced
majority of the employees in the unit, in that the Regional
Director erred in his conclusion that the Union's
misrepresentations were insufficient to warrant setting
aside the election, and (2) that Respondent committed
unfair labor practices violative of Section 8(a)(5) and (1)
of the Act. Respondent further asserts that its rights were
prejudiced by the Board's denial of a hearing on the ob-
jections since substantial and material issues of fact were
present.
Administrative or official notice is taken of the representation
proceeding, Case I-RC-9196 See Section 9(d) of the National Labor
Relations Act.
2 Although Respondent admits that a majority of the employees
designated and selected the Union as their representative, due to the na-
ture of his other allegations and this proceeding, this is taken only as ad-
mitting that an election was conducted within the unit at the direction of
the Regional Director, in which election the Union received a majority of
the ballots cast.
310-5410-70-64
996 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On July 5, 1967, General Counsel filed a motion for
judgment on the pleadings wherein he contends that the
official and admitted facts establish the allegations of the
complaint as a matter of law and that, therefore, there is
no necessity for a hearing.
On July 10, 1967, I issued an order to show cause on
the motion for judgment on the pleadings in which the
parties were directed to show cause on or before July 20,
1967, as to whether or not the motion for judgment on the
pleadings should be granted. On July 17 and 18, 1967, the
General Counsel and the Respondent respectively filed
answers to the order to show cause; these have been con-
sidered.
RULING ON MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
The Respondent opposes the General Counsel's mo-
tion for judgment on the pleadings. In its answer to the
order to show cause, Respondent does not raise any fac-
tual issues or questions concerning the correctness of the
Regional Director's Supplemental Decision and Certifi-
cation of Representative, but submits, without advancing
the reasons upon which it buttresses its conclusion, that
the decision of the Regional Director is prima facie
erroneous as a matter of law, and the resulting certifica-
tion is, therefore, null and void. However, contrary to the
contentions of the Respondent, the decision of the Re-
gional Director is not prima facie erroneous In the
absence of a clear showing to the contrary, the decision
of the Regional Director is presumed to the correct. Ac-
cordingly, in the absence of showing of any specific
ground to the contrary, the certification is here found to
be valid.
The Union is, therefore, the properly certified bargain-
ing representative of the employees in the appropriate
unit. The Respondent admits its refusal to bargain with
the Union upon demand. Since no issues of facts are
raised by the Respondent, no newly discovered or previ-
ously unavailable evidence is offered and no special cir-
cumstances are shown requiring reexamination of the
determinations in the representation case, there is no
necessity for a hearing and judgment on the pleadings is
appropriate.3 The Respondent has, therefore, engaged in
unfair labor practices in violation of 8(a)(1) and (5) of the
Act; and judgment to that effect is accordingly granted.4
Upon the record, I hereby make the following further
findings:
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Respondent is a Maryland corporation with its prin-
cipal office and place of business in Baltimore, Maryland,
and a service office in Hartford , Connecticut , where it is
engaged in the underwriting of insurance policies cover-
ing fire, casualty , and security hazards. In the course and
conduct of its business, Respondent annually derives
from its interstate sales of insurance revenue in excess of
$50,000 , and annually derives from its sale of insurance
total revenue in excess of $500,000.
Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
3 O K Van and Storage, Inc, 127 NLRB 1537, 297 F 2d 74 (C A 5),
N L R B v Air Control Products of St Petersburg, Inc, 335 F 2d 245,
249 (C A. 5), Macomb Pottery Co. v N L R B, 376 F 2d 450, 452
(C A 7)
4 Collins & Aikman Corp , 160 NLRB 1750, E-Z Davies Chevrolet,
161 NLRB 1380, Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, 163 NLRB
579, Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co v N L R B, 313 U S. 146, 162
iI. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Union is now, and has been at all times material
herein , a labor organization within the meaning of Section
2(5) of the Act.
Iii. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
The following employees constitute a unit appropriate
for purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning
of Section 9(b) of the Act.
All claim adjusters of the Employer employed in the
State of Connecticut, excluding office clerical employees,
professional employees, guards, and supervisors as
defined in the Act.
On November 3, 1966, a majority of Respondent's em-
ployees in the appropriate unit selected the Union as their
collective-bargaining representative in a secret-ballot
election conducted under the supervision of the Regional
Director for Region I of the National Labor Relations
Board.
On December 21, 1966, the Regional Director, after
consideration of Respondent's objections to the above-
described election, certified the Union as the exclusive
collective-bargaining agent of the employees in the said
unit.
At all times since December 21, 1966, and continu-
ously to the present, the Union has been the representa-
tive for the purpose of collective bargaining of the em-
ployees in the said unit, and, by virtue of Section 9(a) of
the Act, has been and is now the exclusive representative
of all the employees in said unit for the purposes of collec-
tive bargaining with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours
of employment, and other terms and conditions of em-
ployment.
About April 6, 1967, the Union requested Respondent
to recognize it and bargain collectively with it in respect
to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other
terms and conditions of employment as the exclusive
representative of the employees of Respondent in the
unit.
On or about April 19, 1967, Respondent refused and
continues to refuse, the Union's request for bargaining.
By such action the Respondent has refused to bargain
collectively in violation of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act and
has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees
in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
Upon the foregoing findings and conclusions and the
entire record in the case, pursuant to Section 10(c) of the
Act, I recommend that the Board issue the following:
ORDER
A. For purposes of determining the effective period of
duration of the certification, the initial year of certifica-
tion shall be deemed to begin with the date the Respond-
ent commences to bargain in good faith with the Union
as the recognized bargaining representative in the ap-
propriate unit.5
5 The purpose of this provision is to ensure that the employees in the
appropriate unit will be accorded the statuorily prescribed services of
their selected bargaining agent for the period provided by law See Mar-
Jac Poultry Co, Inc, 136 NLRB 785, Commerce Co dibla Lamar
Hotel, 140 NLRB 226, 229, 328 F 2d 600 (C A 5), Burnett Construction
Co, 149 NLRB 1419, 1421, 350 F 2d 57 (C A 10)
UNITED STATES FIDELITY & GUARANTY CO. 997
B. United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company,
Hartford, Connecticut, its officers, agents, successors,
and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with Teamsters
Local 191, A/W International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, as
the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the
employees in the following appropriate unit:
All claim adjusters of the Employer employed in the
State of Connecticut, excluding office clerical em-
ployees, professional employees, guards, and super-
visors as defined in the Act.
(b) Interfering with the efforts of said Union to
negotiate for or represent the employees in said ap-
propriate unit as the exclusive bargaining representative.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is
necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Upon request, bargain collectively with Teamsters
Local 191, A/W International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, as
the exclusive representative of the employees in the ap-
propriate unit with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours
of employment, and other terms and conditions of em-
ployment, and embody in a signed agreement any un-
derstanding reached.
(b) Post at its Hartford, Connecticut, office, copies of
the attached notice marked "Appendix."6 Copies of said
notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for Re-
gion 1, after being duly signed by Respondent's
authorized representative, shall be posted by the Respond-
ent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained
by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter,,in conspicuous
places, including all places where notices to employees
are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken
by the Respondent to insure that said notices are not al-
tered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 1, in writ-
ing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision, what
steps have been taken to comply herewith.7
M1 In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
the words "a Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "the
Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner" in the notice In the further
event that the Board's Order is enforced by a decree of a United States
Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree of the United States Court of Ap-
peals Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Decision
and Order "
7 In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
this provision shall be modified to read "Notify the Regional Director for
Region 1, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps
Respondent has taken to comply herewith "
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Ex-
aminer of the National Labor Relations Board and in
order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended , we hereby notify our em-
ployees that:
WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively with
Teamsters Local 191 A/W International Brotherhood
of Teamsters , Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and Hel-
pers of America as the exclusive bargaining
representative of the following employees:
All claim adjusters in the State of Connec-
ticut, excluding office clerical employees,
professional employees, guards, and supervisors
as defined in the Act.
WE WILL NOT interfere with the efforts of said
Union to negotiate for or represent the employees in
said appropriate unit as the exclusive collective-bar-
gaining representative.
WE WILL bargain collectively with the Union as
the exclusive representative of the employees, and if
an understanding is reached we will sign a contract
with the Union.
UNITED STATES FIDELITY
AND GUARANTY COMPANY
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive
days from the date of posting and must not be altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
If employees have any question concerning this notice
or compliance with its provisions, they may communicate
directly with the Board's Regional Office, 20th Floor,
John F. Kennedy Federal Building, Cambridge and New
Sudbury Streets, Boston , Massachusetts 02203,
Telephone 223-3300.