Utica Mutual Insurance Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 23, 1967

165 N.L.R.B. 964 (N.L.R.B. 1967)

964 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Utica Mutual Insurance Company' and
Communications Workers of America,
AFL-CIO, Petitioner . Case 3-RC-3955.
June 23, 1967
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS FANNING
AND BROWN
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a
hearing was held before Hearing Officer John W.
Irving. The Hearing Officer's rulings made at the
hearing are free from prejudicial error and are
hereby affirmed. Thereafter, the Employer and
Petitioner filed briefs.
Upon the entire record in this case,2 the National
Labor Relations Board3 finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within
the meaning of the Act.
2. The labor organizations' involved claim to
represent certain employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists
concerning the representation of employees of the
Employer within the meaning of Sections 9(c)(1) and
2(6) and (7) of the Act.' -
4. The Employer is engaged in all phases of the
casualty insurance business on a nationwide basis.
Its home office is located in New Hartford, New
York. Regionally, the Employer operates through
five branch offices located in Alhambra, California,
Atlanta, Georgia, Waltham, Massachusetts,
Richmond, Virginia, and Houston, Texas. In
addition to the branch offices, the Employer
maintains eight district offices, including one
located on the same premises•as the home office in
New Hartford, all of which are located in the State of
New York. Finally, there are 15 claims offices, of
which 8 are within the State of New York .6
The Petitioner requests an election in a single-
bargaining unit consisting of all the Employer's
employees at its home office and district office
located in New Hartford, except salesmen and
statutory exclusions. In the alternative, Petitioner is
' The Employer's name appears as amended at the hearing
2 The Employer has requested oral argument. This request is
hereby denied because the record and briefs adequately present
the issues and positions of the parties.
3 Pursuant 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
4 At the hearing, Office and Professional Employees
International Union was permitted to intervene on a showing of
interest
5 After the close of the hearing, the Employer, on October 17,
1966, filed a motion with the Regional Director requesting an
investigation of Petitioner's showing of interest to determine
whether acquisition thereof was tainted by supervisory
participation In its brief to the Board, the Employer urges
dismissal of the petition as unsupported by a valid showing of
interest. The sufficiency of a Petitioner's showing is a matter for
willing to accept any unit limited in scope to the New
Hartford area. In opposition, the Employer contends
that the only appropriate unit should encompass all
of its operations, including its home office and its
various branch, district, and claims offices
throughout the United States. The Intervenor has
indicated its willingness to participate in an election
in any unit found appropriate by the Board. There is
no history of bargaining for any of the Employer's
employees.
Functionally, the overall activities of the Employer
may be categorized as administrative, on the one
hand, and operating or technical on the other. The
operating activities are comprised of claims handling
and sales. Administrative activities include
underwriting,' statistical compilations, reserve
maintenance, personnel administration, advertising
and public relations, accounting and bookkeeping,
and the variety of housekeeping functions performed
by any large business entity. Generally speaking, the
administrative functions are centralized in the home
office, which, through claims review and sales
promotional activities, also supplements operating
activities conducted regionally. However, there are
no direct salesmen8 or claims adjusters assigned to
the home office, such functions being the
responsibility of the various regional offices of the
Employer.
The Employer, in contending that only a
nationwide unit is appropriate, argues that the
centralized control exercised by the home office over
all regional operations shows that the field offices
lack the autonomy which would justify their
separation from the home office herein for purposes
of collective bargaining. In this connection, the
record shows that such matters as purchasing,
inventory control, and personnel administration are
planned, coordinated, and controlled from the home
office. Thus, the home office determines labor
policy, rates of pay, hours of employment, and
insurance benefits, and reviews vacation schedules
prepared regionally. Training programs are devised
and directed from the home office and payroll
information is processed and maintained at that
location, with all paychecks prepared there as well.
administrative determination by the Board All the circumstances
of this case, including those disclosed by the Regional Director's
investigation, persuade us that the policies of the Act will be best
effectuated if the employees' true desires herein are determined
by ballots cast in a secret election The Employer's request for
dismissal on "showing" grounds is accordingly denied
6 The remaining claims offices are located in Burlington, New
Jersey, Coral Gables, Florida, Greensboro, North Carolina,
Laurel, Maryland, Meridian, Connecticut, Newark, New Jersey,
and Springfield, Massachusetts.
' The underwriting function entails a variety of activities
enabling a determination of whether the Employer should accept
or reject a particular risk.
8 The Employer's sales activity is performed by its employees
who are referred to as direct salesmen, and by an agency sales
force consisting of persons whom the Employer considers to be
independent contractors
165 NLRB No. 105
UTICA MUTUAL INSURANCE CO.
Home office functionaries also possess authority to
control the hiring and discharge of field personnel.
The record also discloses some interrelationship
between regional and home offices in the areas of
underwriting, claims, and sales. Thus, organization-
ally, these activities are divided into three separate
departments, each of which is headed by a vice
president, who is based in the home office. In the
regional offices, separate underwriting, claims, and
sales departments are structured into the
organizational framework, with a separate branch or
district manager for each function. Although the
respective regional offices also have an overall
manager, his regionwide authority is restricted to
administrative matters, and he exercises no
technical responsibility with respect to
underwriting, claims, and sales. Instead, each
regional department head reports directly to his
counterpart in the home office. With respect to
sales, however, there appears to be no overlap in
operating activities between the home and regional
offices. Home office activities in that area are
concerned with coordinating and promoting sales
and providing general assistance to direct salesmen
and sales agents operating regionally.9 Concerning
underwriting, which embraces activities for
determining whether the Employer should accept a
particular risk, the district and claims offices are not
assigned such activities, these functions are
performed in the home and branch offices only.
Generally speaking, home office and branch office
underwriting personnel perform parallel functions,
although some property underwriting is duplicated
in the home office, with the home office controlling
casualty underwriting by spot checks. The most
significant overlap is in the area of claims
processing. All claims activity is initiated in the
field, where claims adjusters and their supervisors
are responsible for conducting the investigation of
an alleged loss and managing the claim to
satisfactory disposition. The regional offices have
authority to settle, without home office approval,
claims within a prescribed ceiling, which varies from
office to office, the highest being $5,000, the lowest
$1,500, and the normal ceiling being $2,500.
Decisions to litigate claims are first made in the
field, but are subject to review in the home office.
Otherwise, the home office claims personnel are
engaged essentially in coordinating and
clearinghouse functions, i.e., providing information
as to coverage, reviewing open claims files to insure
' See fn. 8, supra.
10 In view of the abundance of evidence bearing upon
companywide personnel movement developed at the hearing, our
finding as to the lack of substantial interchange requires further
comment. The weight to be given interchange depends not only
upon its frequency, but also upon its type. The evidence here
shows a number of permanent transfers, the use of home office
personnel on a sporadic basis to assist in opening new offices or to
alleviate temporary work load problems in the region, and the use
of home office personnel (i e , the work measurement group) for
965
adequacy of investigation, taking steps necessary to
maintain adequate reserves to meet claims as they
mature, and making settlement determinations
where the ceiling of a particular regional office is
exceeded.
Although the Employer's nationwide operations
are conducted with a substantial degree of
centralized control and coordination of certain
operating activities, we nevertheless do not agree
that these attributes of the Employer's
organizational structure are sufficient to defeat the
appropriateness of a separate bargaining unit on a
home office basis. Thus, despite the high degree of
centralization with which we are confronted herein,
the Employer's regional offices are, to a significant
degree, separate entities through which the
Employer conducts its business operations. The
various branch, district, and claims offices are the
operating appendages of the Employer within their
respective territories. They are not organized into
subordinate administrative or supervisory groupings,
but are responsible individually to the home office.
The various activities performed in the regional
offices are, in significant respects, performed
subject to separate, immediate supervision, with
regional supervisors responsible for day-to-day
discipline and effective implementation of company
policies within their area, and possessing authority
effectively to recommend hiring, discharge, and
employee advancement. It is immaterial that the
actual authority is held by several operating
supervisors and the regional office manager, rather
than being vested in a single individual; for, the
existence of local autonomy depends upon the
authority and responsibility of the local office, not
the identity or number of persons to whom such
authority and responsibility has been entrusted.
It further appears that each regional office is
responsible for its own cost control and is separately
budgeted. As indicated, they have independent
authority to commit the Employer in settling claims
within prescribed limits. There is no significant
interchange of similarly situated nonsupervisory
personnel either between regional offices or between
the home office and the regions.10 The wage
structure of employees is not uniform throughout the
country but varies depending upon local labor
market conditions and cost-of-living factors. Also
significant is the fact that the regions include the
only employees performing the basic operating
functions of claims adjusting and sales. Under all the
work in the field, performing a home office administrative
function in their home office classification . In our opinion, this
type of personnel movement does not alter the plain fact that the
Employer's regional offices are comprised of employees who have
a reasonably permanent identity with the classifications within
those offices, and in no way suggests the appropriateness of
bargaining only on a nationwide basis Apart from the foregoing,
the only evidence of temporary interchange , within a period of 2
years, consists of a single interregional transfer , and a single
transfer from the region to the home office.
299-352 0-70-62
966 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
circumstances we find no merit in the Employer's
contention that separation of home office and
regional personnel for purposes of collective
bargaining will unduly impede management's ability
to run its business in areas affected by employee
organization.
We are satisfied that the regional offices possess
sufficient autonomy and are distinct units within the
framework of the Employer's overall operation, and
that they thereby are presumptively appropriate for
collective bargaining. t t We are also of the opinion
that the Employer's activities are not so integrated
as to merge effectively the single offices into an all
encompassing operation, which would require
employees to exercise their right to organize
collectively on a nationwide basis, if at all. Neither
the fact that the regional offices merely implement
centrally promulgated policies, nor the fact that the
home office performs a variety of services in support
of regional operations, nor the fact that the actual
activities carried on in the regional offices are to an
extent duplicated, controlled, or assisted by the
home office, defeat the separate identity of the
Employer's branch, district, and claims offices.12
In view of the foregoing, and upon the entire
record, particularly considering such factors as the
degree of autonomy vested in the regional offices,
the physical separateness of such offices, the
absence of significant interchange, the functional
differences, and diverse community of interests
between home and field personnel, we find that a
unit limited to the home office employees of the
Employer is appropriate for collective-bargaining
purposes.
However, having found that the home office and
various regional offices may be separated for
purposes of collective bargaining, we nevertheless
do not agree that a single unit, as requested by
Petitioner, combining the home office with the New
Hartford district office represents a "coherent and
sensible" grouping for such purposes." Although
located in the same building, home office and
district office personnel are segregated physically,
11 NLRB v Sun Drug Co, Inc ., 359 F 2d 408 , 413 (C.A 3)
Since Section 9(b) specifically recognizes the validity of the
plantwide unit , the Board has long held that a unit confined to a
single manufacturing plant of a particular employer is
presumptively an appropriate unit See, e g , Beaumont Forging
Company , 110 NLRB 2200, 2201-02 , Fredrickson Motor Express
Corporation , 121 NLRB 32, 33 Moreover, where a district office
in the insurance industry possesses the requisite autonomy, the
Board has considered such office as the analogue of the single
manufacturing plant See, e g , Metropolitan Life Insurance
Company (Woonsocket , R 1), 156 NLRB 1408
i3 Our decisions in State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance
Company , 158 NLRB 925 , and Home Exterminating Company,
160 NLRB 1480 , on which the Employer relies are distinguishable
on material grounds Thus , in State Farm where the record
established that day-to-day supervision was exercised on a
divisional , multioffice rather than a district office basis, we found
that the various claims offices lacked sufficient autonomy to be
separately appropriate In Home Exterminating, we found a
statewide unit embracing the Employer 's main and branch offices
and, as indicated, are engaged in distinct phases of
the Employer's business. The New Hartford district
office, like all other regional offices, constitutes an
autonomous operation with separate immediate
supervision. Its operations, though materially
different from those conducted in the home office,
are parallel to, but identical with, those performed in
the various district offices. Furthermore, we see no
geographic or operational coherence in a unit which
combines home office personnel, whose influence is
nationwide in scone, ands district office, which like
the other regional offices, is operationally confined
to a limited geographic territory. Accordingly, and in
view of these functional differences, the absence of
substantial interchange, and the diverse community
of interests between home office and field personnel
generally, we shall direct elections in separate units
of home office and New Hartford district office
employees.
Remaining for consideration are the issues raised
with respect to the unit placement of certain
employees and classifications assigned to the
Employer's New Hartford offices.
Salesmen. Petitioner would exclude all direct
salesmen assigned to the Utica district office. The
direct salesmen are engaged exclusively in the sale
of insurance and are the only employees of the
Employer so engaged. They spend about 20 percent
of their time in the office and the remainder outside,
are separately supervised, and, unlike other
employees, have an incentive plan, are paid
expenses, and are reimbursed for entertainment of
clients. As these facts indicate substantial
differences between the sales force and other
employees in the district office, and in view of the
Board's policy of treating indemnity salesmen on a
parity with life insurance agents, for whom the
Board has consistently found separate units
appropriate, we find the interests of direct salesmen
to be sufficiently different from unit employees to
warrant their exclusion. 14
Confidential employees and others with interests
closely allied with management. The individuals
to be the minimal appropriate unit, where the centralized control
similar to that exhibited by the instant record was further
supported by substantial temporary interchange between the
main and branch offices, by the fact that the branch offices were
small in size with the largest having but two employees, and by
the fact that the branch offices were geographically proximate to
the main office with the most distant being but 110 miles away.
Also without merit is the Employer's contention that, by
inclusion of cafeteria and certain maintenance workers, the home
office unit constitutes a heterogeneous grouping, embracing
employees having disparate interests , who cannot be
appropriately combined for purposes of collective bargaining.
Although the cafeteria and maintenance workers might be
separately represented , if sought on that basis , we are satisfied
that their employment at the home office evidences a sufficient
unity of purpose with other employees to enable effective
representation of all home office personnel in a single unit
13 State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co , supra
11 Allstate Insurance Company, 118 NLRB 855, 857.
UTICA MUTUAL INSURANCE CO.
listed on the attached Appendix A are excluded
either as confidential employees or as employees
whose duties evidence that they are more closely
allied with management than with unit employees.
Supervisors. The individuals listed on the attached
Appendix B are excluded as supervisors in view of
their authority effectively to recommend discharge
and wage increases, and responsibly to direct
employees in the performance of their duties.
The Employer would exclude, as supervisors,
some 41 home office claims examiners because of
the review functions they perform with respect to
the work product of field office adjusters. We
disagree. The claims examiners are primarily
engaged in ministerial review of the data compiled
through field office claim investigations; they may
make recommendations concerning an adjuster's
investigation or a proposed settlement, and their
opinion may be elicited and used by acknowledged
supervision in evaluating the performance of a
particular adjuster. They do not have regular
contacts with the adjusters, such communication
being conducted through established supervisory
channels. Their work is essentially of a production
nature, and the Employer, in our opinion, has vested
immediate supervisory responsibility over the work
of the adjusters in the field office claims managers
and, secondarily, in the seven home offices claims
supervisors we have heretofore excluded in
Appendix B. As the relationship between the
examiners and the adjusters does not reveal that the
examiners possess the requisite indicia of
supervisory authority, we shall include them in the
home office unit.15
Professional employees. The individuals listed on
Appendix D qualify as professional employees and
shall be excluded from the appropriate units.
Systems programmers. The Employer would
exclude, and the Petitioner would include, the eight
systems programmers assigned to the Electronic
Data Processing Section within the Statistical
Department in the home office. The Employer
argues that they are , confidential, professional,
managerial , and technical employees. The systems
programmers are responsible for developing and
revising systems and procedures whereby the
Employer's computers are utilized to solve
problems, store data, or perform other functions
which would otherwise be done manually.
Employees are selected for these positions on the
basis of a special aptitude test administered by IBM
and only those scoring above a certain grade are
accepted. Five of the eight programmers were
promoted thereto from classifications within the
home office. IBM supplies one of its own employees,
classified as a "customer system engineer," to work
with the systems programmers and to assist them
967
with the on-the-job phase of their training and to
supplement their education from miscellaneous
courses. Each of the programmers is being trained to
become a specialist in one of the Employer's
operating areas, and is responsible for an
understanding of the Employer's objectives, so as to
enable the programmer to initiate projects
consistent with the desires of management in that
area. Upon development of a system by the
programmer, it is turned over to an "operator," who
will run the program through the machine, with the
systems programmer then checking the results and
making innovations in the basic system as
necessary. In preparing their programs, the systems
programmers also have frequent contacts with
department heads and other management
representatives, and occasionally work on systems
which will have an impact upon jobs of other
employees. Though subject to separate immediate
supervision, they work with little supervision, do not
actually operate the machines, and will advise
management as to the feasibility of computerizing
certain phases of the Employer's operations. On the
basis of the foregoing, it appears that the systems
programmers are technical employees whose unit
placement must be determined upon appraisal of the
factors set forth in the Board's Sheffield decision.16
However, as the record is not sufficently developed
to enable a conclusive determination on this issue at
this time, we shall permit the systems programmers
to vote subject to challenge.
Part-time and seasonal employees. The parties
apparently agree that only those part-time
employees working a substantial number of hours in
each workweek should be included in the
appropriate units. We shall include the 13 regular
part-time cafeteria workers, and exclude the 3 who
work sporadically, on an on-call basis and only when
extra help is required. We shall also, in accord with
the agreement of the parties, include John Hoffman
of the Statistical Department; Rusty Hoffman of the
Mail Room; Doris Luker of the policy typing section;
and Charlotte Wiebel, a part-time telephone
receptionist, all of whom work regularly in each
workweek.
The Employer would also include Mr. Kunkel of
the Statistical Department, a college student who'
apparently has worked during the summer months
only, but is to be hired on a permanent basis upon
completion of his college program. As Kunkel's
present status or employment history with the
Employer is not sufficiently clear to enable us to
determine his unit placement, we shall allow him to
vote subject to challenge.
On the basis of the foregoing and the entire record
in this case, we find that the following employees
constitute units appropriate for purposes of
" See , e g., National Broadcasting Company, Inc, 160 NLRB " The Sheffield Corporation, 134 NLRB 1101, 1103-04
1440.
968 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
collective bargaining within the meaning of Section district office located in New Hartford, New
9(b) of the Act: York, excluding salesmen, officers, professional
(1) All employees assigned to the Employer's employees, guards, supervisors as defined in
home office at New Hartford, New York, the Act, managerial , and confidential
excluding officers, professional employees, employees.
guards, supervisors as defined in the Act,
managerial , and confidential employees. [Direction of Elections 17 omitted from
(2) All employees assigned to the Employer's publication.]
" Election eligibility lists, containing the names and addresses granted by the Regional Director except in extraordinary
of all eligible voters in the respective units, must be filed by the circumstances . Failure to comply with this requirement shall be
Employer with the Regional Director for Region 3 within 7 days grounds for setting aside the election or elections whenever
from the date of this Decision and Direction of Elections . The proper objections are filed. Excelsior Underwear Inc., 156 NLRB
Regional Director shall make these lists available to all parties to 1236.
the elections . No extension of time to file these lists shall be
APPENDIX A
Confidentials and individuals whose interests are more closely allied with management than unit employees
Janice Gossin
Harold Becraft
Claire A. Nelson
Ruth Mellor
Mrs. Tucker
Esther Andrews
Jean Urstadt
Joan Sheridan
Janet Bobenhoussen
Annette Constant
Richard Rust
Charles Hall
Howard Kenp
Raymond G. Stoub
Mr. Klyne
Clarke Woodruff
Secretary to Personnel Director
Secretary to Chairman to Board of Directors
Secretary to the President
Secretary to Comptroller
Secretary to General Counsel
Secretary to Vice President in Charge of Operations and Procedures
Secretary to Vice President and General Claims Manager
Secretary to administrative assistant to Sr. Underwriting Vice President
Secretary to Budget and Planning Director
Special Asst. to Vice President in Charge of Operations and Procedures
Asst. Budget Director
Director of Training and Education
Traveling Auditor
Specialist Claims Analyst
Cost Control- Claims
Director of Personnel- Claims Department
APPENDIX B
Utica Home Office
H. O. Beach
Edward Magee
Roderick McDowell
William Esele
John Hart
Walter Shannon
Joseph Chechia
Arthur Syran
Stanley Hajeck
Lawrence Fontana
George Rutherford
Lawrence Crockett
Mr. Snyder
Supervisory Personnel
General Manager- Claims
Asst. General Manager- Claims
Admin. Asst. to General Manager- Claims
Compensation Claims Manager
Liability Claims Manager
Liability Claims- Fire
Asst. to Compensation Claims Manager
Subrogation Attorney
Asst. to Liability Claims Manager
Property Damage
Senior Underwriting Vice President
Vice President, Property Underwriting
Chief Underwriter
UTICA MUTUAL INSURANCE CO.
APPENDIX B -Continued
Mr. Peckham
Books
Mr. Harrison
Miss McCarthy
Mr. Evans
Mr. Henry
Mr. Seidel
Mr. Graziadie
Eugene Vaeth
Mr. LaGrange
Mr. Kober
Mr. Knapp
Mr. Coloton
Mr. Thompson
Mr. Broedel
Mr. Jones
Mr. Stott
Miss Rahn
Mr. Jeromenik
George Glass
Mr. Mintel
Mr. Doyle
Mr. Rice
Mr. Mitten
Mr. Wahl
Mr. Knott
Mr. Blaine Platt
Eugene T. Kyllo
Mr. Schiffer
Mr. Fagan
Mr. McNeil
James Hartley
Mr. Coleman
Miss Roberts
Thomas Evans
Alice Yule
Howard Peters
Richard Quinn
Jack Hoffman
Eleanor Esele
Bill May
Mae Naedle
Harold Andrews
Robert Patell
Herbert Evans
Julius Kozalowski
John Coughlin
Mr. Porter
John O'Brien
George Rea
Stephen G. Clark
Wesley C. King
Harry Condon
James Redmond
Thomas Fitzgerald
Edward Alb
Lester Greene
Sam Fovel
Technical Advisor (John L. Train Co.)
Fidelity- Surety Division
Underwriting- property
Underwriting- property, coding
Multiple Line Division (Casualty)
Multiple Line Division (Property)
Chief Underwriter- Casualty
Asst. Chief Underwriter- Casualty
Admin. Asst. to Vice President Underwriting
Underwriting Process Manager
Divisional Underwriting- Casualty
Divisional Underwriting- Casualty
Divisional Underwriting-Casualty
Divisional Underwriting- Casualty
Divisional Underwriting- Casualty
Assigned Risk Supervisor
Renewal Supervisor
Supervisor Miscellaneous Typing
Divisional Underwriting (Casualty)
Workmen 's Compensation Experience Rating
Divisional Underwriting (Liability)
Agency Review Manager
Accident Frequency Point Merit Rating
Rating Automobile Pool
Underwriting Mail Center
General Liability Workmen's Compensation
Director , Personnel and Planning
Vice President , Information
Manager , Statistical Dept.
Manager , Data Processing
Asst . Manager , Statistical Dept.
Systems Program Supervisor
Machine Room Manager
Conventional Tabulating Machine
Automatic Renewal- Premium-Loss
Liability Loss Processing
Keypunch Supervisor
Automatic Renewal Section
Compensation & Disability Risk Experience
Compensation Loss Processing
Internal Report Unit
Compensation Loss Payment Unit
Purchasing Agent
Assistant Purchasing Agent
Maintenance Foreman
Cleaning Foreman
Manager, Payroll Audit
Chief Auditor
Chief Payroll Examiner
Director of Advertising and Pub . Relations
Budget and Planning Director
Vice President, Operations and Procedures
Work Measurement
Credit Manager
Office Service Manager
Mail Room
Records Unit
Stockroom
969
970 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
APPENDIX B - Continued
Norbert Firsching
Florence Hill
Lillian Allen
Eugenia Wagner
George R. Thompson
Jack Riffle
John S. Flemma
Howard Halpin
Richard Hoffman
Keene Abbott
Ralph Dempsey
Utica District Office
George Sutliff
Milton Owens
James Paye
Margaret McClintock
Jack Cavanaugh
Print Shop
Stenographic Unit
Policy Typing
Cafeteria Manager
Chief Accountant
Vice President, Marketing
District Sales Manager
Vice Pres., Superintendent of Agencies
Asst. Head of Agencies
Asst. District Sales Manager (Casualty)
Asst. District Sales Manager (Property)
Supervisory Personnel
Claims Manager
Territory Claims Adjusters
Local Claims Adjusters
Chief Clerk
Production Manager
APPENDIX C
Guards
Mr. Miller
Mr. Bristol
Mr. Mitzler
APPENDIX D
Professional employees
Dr. Robert W. Hurd
Frances Rolfe
William Evans III
Gerald Pierce
John Sullivan
Joseph Craugh, Jr.
William Rounddy
Thomas Fagan
Physician
Registered Nurse
Associate General Counsel
Claims Attorney
Asst. Claims Attorney
Attorney
Attorney
Manager, Data Processing