John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Co.

In the Matter of JOHN I-IANCOCK MUTUAr. L IFT: INSURANCE COMPANY and UNITED OFFICE AND PROFESSIONAL WORKERS ov AMERICA (C. 1 0.) In the Matter of JOHN HANCOCK MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL UNION OF LIFE INSURANCE AGENTS Cases Nos. 13-R-2844- and 13-R-2853, respectively.- Decided June 9, 1945 Mr. Samuel A. Fitch, of Boston, Mass., for the Company. Meyers & Meyers, by Messrs. Ben Meyers, and Morris Yanoff, of Chi- cago, Ill ., for the C. I. O. Mr. Ray T. McCann, of Milwaukee, Wis., for the International. Mr. Russell Packard, of Chicago , Ill., for the AFL. Miss Ruth Rusch, of counsel to the Board. DECISION DIRECTION OF ELECTION AND ORDER STATEMENT OF CASE Upon separate petitions duly filed by United Office and Professional Workers of America (C. I. O.), herein called the CIO, and International Union of Life Insurance Agents, herein called the International, alleging that questions affecting commerce had arisen concerning the representation of employees of John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Company, Boston, Massachusetts, herein called the Company, the National Labor Relations Board consolidated the cases and provided for an appropriate hearing upon due notice before Gustaf B. Erickson, Trial Examiner. Said hearing was held at Chicago, Illinois, on April 17, 1945. The Company, the CIO, the International, and Industrial and Ordinary Insurance Agents Union No. 23351 (A. F. L.), herein called the AFL, appeared and participated.' All parties were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross- I At the hearing , the Trial Examiner granted the AFL's motion to intervene 62 N. L. R B, No. 38. 240 JOHN HANCOCK MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE CO. 241 examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues. At the hearing, the AFL moved to dismiss the CIO's petition on the ground that the contracts between the Company and the AFL, covering the Chicago and East St. Louis, Illinois, districts of the Company, are a bar to the present proceedings, while the CIO moved to dismiss the International's petition on the ground that a State-wide unit is the only appropriate unit. The Trial Examiner reserved ruling for the Board on the AFL's and CIO's motions. In its brief, the AFL moved to have the' CIO's petition dismissed on the further grounds that (1) there is an inadequate showing of interest on the part of the CIO due to the revocations by employees of designations previously secured by the CIO,' and (2) the State-wide unit sought by the CIO is inappropriate since it is inconsistent with either the functional structure of the Company or with its bargaining history. For reasons here- inafter stated, the aforesaid motions of the AFL to dismiss the CIO's peti- tion are denied and the CIO's motion to dismiss the International's petition is granted. The Trial Examiner's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. All parties were afforded an opportunity to file briefs with the Board. Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following : FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Company, a Massachusetts cor- poration with its principal or home office located in Boston, Massachusetts, is engaged in insuring the lives of its policyholders on the mutual insurance plan and in investing its funds. On December 31, 1944, the Company was, in terms of amount of insurance in force, the sixth largest and, in terms of assets, the seventh largest life insurance company in the United States. On the same date, the Company had more than 8,000,000 policies in force with a total face amount of more than $4,000,000,000 and its policyholders, who resided in all the States of the United States and in many foreign countries, numbered approximately 5,600,000. The Company's business is managed and directed by directors and offi- cers located at its home office in Boston. Terms and conditions of the various policies of insurance offered by the Company are determined and all investments of the Company's funds are made by its home office officials ; all applications for insurance and claims, applications for loans, and other matters pertaining to insurance in force are acted upon at the home office; and all policies of insurance and checks covering disbursements by the Company are prepared at the home office. 2 At the hearing, the revocations were offered by the AFL and were received in evidence for the limited purpose of "attacking the showing of the CIO" as inadequate to support its petition. 242 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The Company does business in 38 States , the District of Columbia, and the Territory of Hawaii . It sells insurance, and, to a considerable extent, deals with its policyholders through the medium of general agents and district offices. As of December 31, 1944, the Company had 51 general" agents located in 31 States and the Territory of Hawaii, and 369 district offices in 34 States, the District of Columbia, and the Territory of Hawaii. On December 31, 1944, the Company's assets, consisting in part of cash, bonds of the United States Government and its political subdivisions, rail- road and railroad equipment bonds, public utility bonds , industrial bonds, stocks, notes secured by mortgages on real estate , real estate, and premium notes and loans to policyholders amounted to more than $920,000,000 in value. During 1944, the Company had available funds amounting to more than $161,500,000 in value, and it invested daily an average of approxi- mately $466,000. We find that the Company is engaged. in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act H. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED United Office and Professional Workers of America, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations , is a labor organization admit- ting to membership employees of the Company. International Union of Life Insurance Agents, unaffiliated , is a labor organization admitting to membership employees of the Company. International Union of Life Insurance Agents, unaffiliated , is a labor organization admitting to membership employees of the Company. Industrial and Ordinary Insurance Agents Union No. 23351, affiliated- with the American Federation of Labor, is a labor organization admitting to membership employees of the Company. III. THE QUESTIONS CONCERNING REPRESENTATION Subsequent to the Company' s refusal of the CIO's demand for recogni- tion as the exclusive bargaining representative of the Company 's industrial insurance agents in the Chicago area, the CIO filed a petition herein on January 12, 1945 Thereafter, the CIO requested recognition as the exclu- sive bargaining representative of all the Company 's district agents whose debits are wholly within the State of Illinois The Company also refused recognition in the revised unit on the ground that no evidence of the CIO's majority representation had been presented; and asserted it would not recognize the CIO until it had been certified by the Board in an appropriate unit, whereupon the CIO filed its first amended petition on February 21, 1945. JOHN HANCOCK MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE CO. 243 By letter dated January 15, 1945, the International requested recogni- tion as the exclusive bargaining representative of the Company's agents in Rockford, Illinois On January 19, 1945, the Company replied by letter stating that it had no knowledge of the International's alleged representa- tion among its employees. The International. thereupon, filed its petition on January 24, 1945. As heretofore indicated, the AFL contends that it has two existing con- tracts with the Company which constitutes a bar to a present determination of representatives, one covering the Company's district agents in the Chi- cago district, and the other covering the district agents in the East St Louis, 'Illinois, district The first-mentioned contract was executed on February 25, 1944, to continue in operation for 1 year and thereafter until 60 days' notice of termination is served by either party on the other. On December 20, 1944, the AFL requested renegotiation of that contract, but prior to any meeting of the parties for that purpose, the CIO filed its petition herein. Thereafter, at a meeting held prior to the end of the first contract year, the Company and the AFL agreed to extend the contract for 60 days pending neg-otma- Lons Since the contract of February 25, 1944, became, in accordance y iti1 its terms, one of indefinite duration upon the expiration of 1 year, it is clearly not a bar to these proceedings. However, we are here concerned also with the effect of the extension of the contract upon these proceedings In the latter connection, we have heretofore held tinder similar circum- stances that an extension of a contract, whether or not such contract con- tains an automatic renewal clause, cannot operate as a bar to a rival repre- sentation claim made prior to the expiration date of such contract ' In any event, it is clear that the period of the extended contract has now expired. We find, therefore, that neither the contract nor its extension is a bar to a present determination of representatives The contract covering the East St. Louis district was executed on Octo- her 14, 1941, and was to be "in force until terminated by either party on sixty days' notice " The AFL notified the Company on October 4, 1944, of its desire to renegotiate the contract. At the time of the hearing, the par- ties had completed but had not yet signed a new agreement. Since the contract now in effect is for an indefinite period terminable upon 60 clays' notice, is does not constitute a bar to the present proceedings.' A statement of a Field Examiner, introduced into evidence at the hear- ing, indicates that the CIO and the International, each represents a sub- 3 See Matter of Aluminum Ore Company, 56 N L R B 498 ' See Matter of Indiana Foundry Corpo,ation, 56 N. T. R B 681 244 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD stantial number of employees in the unit each claims to be appropriate.' We find that questions affecting commerce have 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 parties stipulated at the hearing that the appropriate unit or units should be composed of the Company's district agents, excluding clerical employees,' managers , assistant managers, and all other supervisory em- ployees. They are in disagreement, however, with respect to the geograph- ical extent or scope of the unit or units, the CIO maintaining that a State- wide unit is the only appropriate one, the International and the AFL urging the appropriateness of district-wide units, and the Company, although asserting its indifference, inclining toward the view that a State-wide unit would be appropriate. In addition to maintaining its own office in Boston, the Company has established several regional offices throughout the United States for admin- istractive purposes, each under the supervision of a regional manager. Each region is divided into district offices with a district manager in charge. The boundaries for the regions are fixed arbitrarily and are changed from time to time in accordance with the Company's business needs. The State of Illinois forms a part of two regions ; its district offices in Peoria, Aurora, Rockford, and Chicago, being located in the north central region, and its district offices in Springfield and East St. Louis being situated in the west central region. The functions, working conditions, rates of pay, commis- 'The Field Examiner reported that the CIO submitted 110 application cards , of which 96 bole the names of persons listed on the Company's pay roll of April 3, 1945, which contained the names of 296 employees in the claimed appropriate unit, that , of these 96 cards, 20 were dated in December 1944, 31 in January 1945 , 10 in February 1945, and 35 in March 1945. The Trial Examiner reported further that the International submitted 11 application cards, all of which bore the names of persons listed on the Company's pay roll of January 24, 1945, which contained the names of 16 employees in the unit alleged to be appropriate by the International, and that, of these 11 cards, 4 were dated in December 1944, 4 in January 1945, and 3 were undated At the hearing, the AFL submitted to the Trial Examiner , in addition to its contract with the AFL, petitions signed by the Company 's employees purporting to be designations of the AFL, as well as revocations of their prior designation of the CIO as their sole collective bargaining agent The 170 names on the petition were not checked against any company pay roll. The AFL now contends , on the basis of these revocations , that the CIO' s showing is inadequate and its petition should, therefore, be dismissed. We find no merit in these contentions The submission of applica- tion cards, as in the present case, is an administrative expedient adopted by the Board to determine whether or not a question concerning representation has arisen . Matter of C. J Peterson and C F Lytle, et al, 60 N. L. R. B. 1070; Matter of Dempster Brothers, Iiic, 58 N L R B. 151; Mattel of Buffalo Arms Corporation, 57 N L R B. 1560 We have recently stated in Matter of Sunset Motor Lines, 59 N. L. R B. 1434, that "authorization cards are not required to he submitted to the Board as the basis for a finding for or against any party to the proceeding but as prima facie evidence that the Union at the time of filing of the petition has sufficient interest to justify the Board in initiating its investigatory machinery ." We are of the opinion that the CIO had a sufficient interest at the time it filed its petition to warrant our deteinimation hereinafter that a question concerning representatiori has arisen. a The parties stipulated that the cashreis are included within the classification of cleiteal employees JOHN HANCOCK MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE CO. 245 lions, pensions, benefits, rules and regulations, instructions, and super- vision, are uniform for all company agents throughout the State of Illinois, and, in fact, throughout the United States. With respect to the Company's operations in Illinois, the record shows also that there is an occasional interchange of agents between the various district offices within the State and that all the agents are licensed by the State of Illinois in compliance with its insurance laws. The Company has entered into collective bargaining relationships with unions covering employees similar to those here involved; the scope of the bargaining units has, however, not always been uniform. Thus, as already shown, the two district-wide agreements with the AFL represent the extent of such contractual relations throughout the State of Illinois. In addition, the Company has a contract with the CIO presently covering its employees in 20 States of the United States with the provision that, as State-wide and smaller units are organized by the CIO and after the CIO is designated as bargaining representative therein, the terms of the national contract are to be exetnded to such groups of employees. The Company has also recently' executed a contract with the CIO on a State-wide basis in Massachusetts following certification of the CIO as the exclusive col- lective bargaining agent in a State-wide unit as the result of a consent elec- tion conducted under Board auspices. In addition, the Company has a single contract with the International covering the Company's employees in two Milwaukee districts which is, in effect, State-wide, since the two districts are the only offices of the Company in the State of Wisconsin. It is apparent from the foregoing that, although the Company has in the past done some bargaining with labor organizations on a district level, it has also been bargaining recently on a State-wide or much more com- prehensive basis. In this connection it has, by its own practice, confirmed in a measure our finding as recently stated in Matter of Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, 56 N.L.R.B. 1635 and 1642. We there noted that organization among insurance agents is steadily progressing and tending toward State-wide units which we believe are, in most instances, the most practicable for collective bargaining purposes, and we asserted our policy to be one of avoiding the setting up of units for insurance agents smaller than State-wide in scope barring, special circumstances.` Since there is here absent any special circumstance, the CIO having organized the em- ployees on a State-wide basis, and inasmuch as the AFL also indicated at the hearing that it has an interest in the Company's other Illinois districts although it has been primarily engaged in organizing the Chicago and East 7 Matter of Washington National Insurance Company, 57 N. L. R. B 224; Matter of Life Insurance Company of Virginia, 57 N. L.R. B. 279; Matter of John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Company, 57 N. L. R B 700 246 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOAvRD St. Louis areas,= we perceive no reason for deviating from our enunciated policy. We are therefore of the opinion that the unit sought by the CIO is appropriate for collective bargaining purposes. For similar reasons we find that the limited unit sought by the International at the Rockford, Illinois, division, is appropriate We shall, therefore, clismiss the Interna- tional's petition. We find, in accordance with the stipulation of the parties and our fore- going determination, that all district agents employed in the Company's offices in the State of Illinois and having debits within that State, but excluding clerical employees, managers, assistant managers, and all other Supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote, discharge, disci- pline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of employees, or effectively recommend such action, 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 fie employees in the appropriate unit who were employed during the pay-roll period imme- diately preceding the date of the Direction of Election herein, subject to the limitations and additions set forth in the Direction. In accordance with the requests made by the CIO and the AFL at the hearing, we shall designate them on the ballot as Industrial Insurance Agents Division, UOPWA-CIO, and Industrial and Ordinary Insurance Agents Council, A F. of L, respectively. Although the International failed to state whether it desired to appear on the ballot -in the event an election on a State-wide basis was ordered, ode shall accord it a place on the ballot. However, should it so desire, it may withdraw from the ballot by giving notice to the Regional Director within 5 days after (late of the Decision and Direction of Election. 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 3, as amended, it is hereby DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the purposes of collective bargaining with John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Company, Boston, Massachusetts, an election by secret ballot shall be conducted as early as possible, but not later than thirty (30) days 8The AFL uitioduced testimony showing that it has established locals in these cities in Illinois where the Company has its district offices with the exception of Amoia, which is included in the Chicago area. JOHN HANCOCK MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE CO. 247 from the date of this Direction, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region, acting in this matter as agent for the National Labor Relations Board, and subject to Article TIT, Sections 10 and 11, of said Rules and Regulations, among the employees in the unit found. appropriate in Section IV, above, who were employed during the pay-roll period immediately preceding the date of this Direc- tion, 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 them- selves in person at the polls , but excluding those employees who have since quit or been discharged for cause and have not been rehired or reinstated prior to the date of the election, to determine whether they desire to be represented by Industrial Insurance Agents Division, UOPWA-CIO, or by Industrial and Ordinary Insurance Agents Council, A. F. of L., or by International Union of Life Insurance Agents, for the purposes of collective bargaining, or by none of these labor organizations. ORDER Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the case , the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the petition for investigation and certification of representatives of em- ployees of John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Company, at its Rock- ford, Illinois, office filed by International Union of Life Insurance Agents, be, and it hereby is, dismissed.