Golden Eagle Life Insurance Corp.

GOLDEN EAGLE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION 247 GOLDEN EAGLE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION and INSURANCE AND- ALLIED WORKERS' ORGANIZING COMMITTEE , LOCAL 1706, CIO, PE'- TITIONER. Case No. 2-RC-2677. July 17, 1951 Decision and Order Upon a petition duly filed, hearings were held before Lewis Moore and Eugene Purver, hearing officers. The hearing officers' rulings made at the hearings are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. Upon the entire record in this case the Board finds: The Employer, an insurance company, is engaged in selling indus- trial accident and health insurance. It is not licensed to do business in any State other than New York, and its only office is in Brooklyn, New York. It receives approximately 95 percent of its total pre- miums from sources within the State and 5 percent from outside the State. Of its approximately 70,000 policy holders, only some 849, are located outside the State.' The total insurance in force is approximately $19,481,032, of which $247,338 is held by out-of-State policy holders. It receives annually $979,898 in premiums, of which only approximately $17,088 comes from policy holders outside the State. Its payments to policy holders in dividends and claim allowances annually amount to $289,180, of which $22,623 are mailed to policy holders out of State. In 1947, the Employer's investments amounted to $1,961,558. In 1950, these in- vestments amounted to between $2,000,000 and $2,500,000, of which 74 percent was in out-of-State securities. About 48 percent of its income from investments, or about $28,861 annually, is derived from out-of-State investments. The Employer and the Petitioner desire the Board to assert jurisdic- tion in this case. The Intervenor, Industrial Insurance Agents' Union, Local 30, UOPWA, affiliated with District 65, DPOWA, contends that the Board neither has nor should assert jurisdiction. While the Employer's operations are not unrelated to commerce, the record does not disclose that the interstate aspects of these operations are of sufficient magnitude to justify the assertion of jurisdiction under the Board's recently announced policy.2 We shall dismiss the petition. Order IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for investigation and certifi- cation of representatives filed herein be, and it hereby is, dismissed. 'These are apparently policy holders who bought their insurance in New York and later left the State. The Employer is prohibited from selling any new or additiona) insurance to individuals outside the State. 7 Cf. Stanislaus Implement and Hardware Company, Limited, 91 NLRB .618 ; Federal Dairy Co., Inc., 91 NLRB 638; The Rutledge Paper Products, Inc., 91 NLRB 625. 95 NLRB No. 35. 248 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD MEMBER STYLES took no part in the consideration of the above.De- cision and Order. STANDARD & POOR'S CORPORATION and NEWSPAPER GUILD OF NEW YORK, LOCAL 3, AMERICAN NEWSPAPER GUILD, CIO, PETITIONER. Case No. 2RC--2751. July 17,1951 Decision and Order Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before I. L. Broadwin, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby 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 [Chairman Herzog and Members Houston and Rey- nolds]. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds : 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. 2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent employees of the Employer. 3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the represen- tation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, for the following reason : The Petitioner, having in the past represented certain employees of the Employer's New York City and Orange, Connecticut, offices, now. seeks to represent them all in a single unit. The Intervenor, Standard & Poor's Independent Association, contends that existing contracts bar this proceeding,' and that the proposed unit is inap- propriate because of the bargaining history and an alleged lack of functional integration of the Employer's operations. The Employer is neutral. The Employer is engaged in publishing financial information and furnishing financial advice. This proceeding is limited to its main office in New York City and a subsidiary office in Orange, Connecti- cut. The New York, City office has two main functional divisions : printed service, which gathers and publishes financial information, and planned investments, which gives financial advice to clients. In addition, the New York City office houses the sales division and a ' The contracts asserted to be a bar were signed, 3 months after the filing of the present petition. Accordingly, we find that they are not a bar. The Plumbing Contractors Asso- ciation of Baltimore, Maryland, Inc., at al., 93 NLRB 1081. 95 NLRB No. 36.