Quaker City Life Insurance Co.

In the Matter Of QUAKER CITY LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, EMPLOYER and UNITED OFFICE & PROFESSIONAL WORKERS OF AMERICA, C. I. 0., PETITIONER Case No. 5-R-2480.-Decided April 4, 1947 Sterling, Stern, and Levy, by Messrs. Bert W. Levy and Walter H. Lenhard, Jr., of Philadelphia, Pa., for the Employer. Mr. Charles G. Heisel, of Pittsburgh, Pa., for the Petitioner. Mr. George L. Russ, of Washington, D. C., for the Intervenor. Mr. Morton B. Spero, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND ORDER Upon a petition duly filed, hearing in this case was held at Balti- more, Maryland, on January 6, 1947, before Harold M. Weston, hear- ing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. Upon the entire record in the case, the National Labor Relations Board makes the following : FINDINGS OF FACT I. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER 1 Quaker City Life Insurance Company, a Pennsylvania corporation, is engaged in the life, health, accident, and hospitalization insurance business. It maintains offices in the States of Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, and the District of Columbia, including an office, at Cumberland, Maryland, which is solely involved in this proceeding.2 The Employer's assets total approximately $2,300,000, consisting largely of cash, bonds, stocks, loans, and real estate, located in Penn Sylvania, Maryland, and other States. As of December 31, 1946, the Employer had approximately 275,000 policies in force, with a face I The name of the Employer appears in the caption as amended at the hearing. 2 The Employer is also licensed to do business in the States of Georgia , Alabama, and South Carolina . However, at the time of the hearing, it had not yet commenced operations in these States. 73 N. L. It. B., No. 30. 177 178 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD value of approximately $75,000,000, and an annual premium income of $2,830,000, of which approximately 38 percent represented the Employer's business in the State of Maryland. The Employer admits and we find that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act. II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED The Petitioner is a labor organization affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, claiming to represent employees of the Employer. International and Ordinary Agents Council, and Industrial and Ordinary Insurance Agents Union No. 21623, herein called the Inter- venor, are labor organizations affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, claiming to represent employees of the Employer. III. THE ALLEGED APPROPRIATE UNIT The parties, while agreeing as to the composition of the unit sought to be established herein, are in disagreement as to the scope thereof. The Petitioner contends that a unit composed of all debit agents at the Employer's Cumberland, Maryland, office is appropriate, whereas both the Intervenor and the Employer contend that the unit should be State-wide in scope. In addition to operating in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania where it maintains its home office, the Employer also presently oper- ates in the States of Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, and the District of Columbia. The Employer has organized its operations in each of these States into separate administrative units, and has designated a manager in each State, who is responsible only to the home office in Philadelphia. Each State is divided into districts, which is com- posed of approximately 5 staffs and is headed by a manager; each staff is composed of approximately 8 agents and is headed by a super- intendent. The State of Maryland presently includes only 1 district office, which is located at Baltimore. This office was originally the only one maintained by the Employer in the State of Maryland. However, with the purchase by the Employer in February 1945 of the Star Life Insurance Company, which then had Maryland offices located in Baltimore, Cumberland, and Easton, the number of offices in the State of Maryland has increased to 3. Thus, at the time of the hear- ing, there were, in all, 124 debit agents of the Employer in Mary- land, of whom 106 were attached to the Baltimore office, 10 were part of the Easton office, and 8 were in the Cumberland office. The latter office, with which we are solely concerned, is presently con- sidered by the Employer merely as 1 staff of debit agents, and the pay QUAKER CITY LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY 179 of its head is equivalent to that of a superintendent, not of a manager. All staff reports in the State of Maryland are funneled to the State manager, who thereupon sends only 1 State report to the home office; all debit agents throughout the State have the same duties and pay scales, enjoy the same vacation and sick leave benefit, and, in general, are subject to the same working conditions. With respect to the bargaining history in the State of Maryland, the record reveals that the Employer and the Intervenor have been in contractual relationship since May 1941. At that time a 1-year con- tract was executed covering the Employer's Maryland debit agents, all of whom were then located in Baltimore. A virtually identical con- tract was executed in May 1942. This contract, as modified in certain respects in 1942, was renewed for another year in 1943, and on May 18, 1944, was, by agreement of the parties, continued in effect until 12 months after the termination of the War, as proclaimed by the Presi- dent. On May 29, 1945, after the Employer had purchased the Star Life Insurance Company, the existing contract between the Employer and the Intervenor was extended to cover the Baltimore debit agents of the Employer who were formerly employed by the Star Life Insur- ance Company. Although the Intervenor also requested the inclusion of the debit agents at Cumberland at that time, it acquiesced in the Em- ployer's request that the inclusion of the Cumberland debit agents in the contract be deferred until their remuneration system could be con- formed to that of the debit agents already under contract. When that conformity was accomplished in July 1945, the Intervenor again re- quested their inclusion. However, the Employer was then in the process of changing the managerial structure of the Cumberland office, and felt that a change at that time would not be propitious. The Intervenor testified that, inasmuch as it believed it was the only union attempting organization of the Employer's Maryland debit agents, it acquiesced in both postponements of the inclusion in the bargaining unit of the Cumberland debit agents. In addition, witnesses for both the Employer and the Intervenor testified that the exclusion of the Cumberland agents was merely a temporary expediency, and their permanent exclusion was never contemplated. The record is silent as to any request by the Intervenor to bargain for the agents at Easton formerly employed by the Star Life Insurance Company. However, on May 29, 1946, shortly after the Petitioner made its claim for a unit of the Employer's debit agents at Cumberland, and before the filing of the petition herein, the Intervenor made its claim upon the Employer for recognition as the bargaining representative of all the Employer's debit agents in the State of Maryland. In the past, the Employer has, in other States, entered into collective bargaining relationships with labor organizations covering employees similar to those here involved, and all contracts have been State-wide 180 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD in scope. Thus, the Employer presently has a contract with the Inter- venor covering the Employer's debit agents in the District of Colum- bia, which is, in effect, a State-wide unit .3 And, indeed, the Petitioner itself has negotiated State-wide contracts covering all the Employer's debit agents in the States of Delaware and Pennsylvania, respectively. In Matter of Metropolitan Life Insurance Company,4 we noted that organization among insurance agents is steadily progressing and tending toward State-wide units, and we asserted our policy to be one of avoiding the establishment of units smaller than State-wide in scope for insurance agents, barring unusual circumstances. As shown above, our observation as to the trend of organization in this field is con- firmed, in a measure, by the experience of the Employer with respect to its operations in several States, including that of Maryland, where the Intervenor has manifested its readiness to represent the debit agents of the Employer on a State-wide basis. Accordingly, in view of the similarity of working conditions of debit agents throughout the State of Maryland, and the integration of its three Maryland offices into one administrative unit, and in view of the Intervenor's readiness to represent these debit agents on a State-wide basis, and in the absence of any other unusual circum- stances warranting a departure from the well-established policy of the Board, we are of the opinion that the Cumberland, Maryland, unit sought by the Petitioner is inappropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining. We shall therefore grant the Employer's motion to dis- miss the petition. IV. THE ALLEGED QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION Since the bargaining unit sought to be established by the Petitioner is not appropriate, as found in Section III, above, we find that no question has arisen concerning the representation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9 (c) of the Act. ORDER As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the pur- poses of collective bargaining, and upon the basis of the above findings of fact, and the entire record in the case, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for investigation and certifi- cation of representatives of employees of Quaker City Life Insurance Company, filed herein by United Office & Professional Workers of America, C. 1. 0., be, and it hereby is, dismissed. CHAIRMAN HERZOG took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Order. 8 See Matter of Peoples Life Insurance Company, 59 N. L. R. B. 434, 436. 1156 N. L. R. B. 1635 and 1642.