Texas Prudential Insurance Co.

TEXAS PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE CO. 319 the powerhouse, remain under the supervision of their respective craft foremen.9 In view of the foregoing and upon the entire record, the Board finds that the following employees may, if they so desire, constitute a separate appropriate unit for the purposes of collective bargaining: All powerhouse employees at the Employer's Port Ivory, Long Island, ,plant, including engineers, firemen, boiler cleaners, the water treat operator, and the cleanup man; but excluding the crane operator, the machinist, pipefitter, and apprentices of these crafts stationed in the powerhouse, all other employees and supervisors as defined in the Act. We shall make no final unit determination at this time, but shall first ascertain the desires of these employees as expressed in the elec- tion hereinafter directed. If a majority vote for the Petitioner, they will be taken to have indicated that they desire to constitute a separate appropriate bargaining unit, and the Regional Director conducting the election directed herein is instructed to issue a certification of representatives to the petitioner for the unit, which the Board, under such circumstances, finds to be appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining. In the event a majority vote for the Intervenor, the Board finds the existing plantwide unit to be appropriate and the Regional Director is instructed, in that event, to issue a certification of results of election to such effect. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] CHAIRMAN FARMER and MEMBER BEESON took no part in the consid- eration of the above Decision and Direction of Election. e Ford Motor Company, supra, at 819-820; Blatz Brewing Company, supra, at 1283. Compare American Potash & Chemical Corporation, 107 NLRB 1418, in which craftsmen electricians located in the powerhouse were included in the powerhouse unit, over Member Murdock's dissent. There no party objected to the Operating Engineers' request that they be so included TEXAS PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE Co. and OFFICE EMPLOYEES INTERNA- TIONAL UNION , LOCAL #27, AFL, PETITIONER . Case No. 39-RC- 782. July ,02.1954 Decision and Direction of Election Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Louis S. Eberhardt, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds : 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. 109 NLRB No. 34. 320 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain em- ployees of the Employer. 3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa- tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 4. The Employer is engaged in selling ordinary and industrial life insurance and health insurance through independent contractors and district offices in the States of Texas, Oklahoma, and Missouri. It has 29 district offices throughout Texas, 2 in Oklahoma, and none in Mis- souri. The Petitioner seeks a unit of office clerical employees at the Employer's home office in Galveston, Texas. The Employer contends that only an employerwide unit is appropriate, including office clericals in all district offices as well as in the home office. There is no history of bargaining for any of the Employer's employees. The Employer's home office at Galveston, Texas, is engaged prima- rily in processing applications for insurance which are received from the district offices. There are approximately 100 office clerical em- ployees employed at the home office. All these employees are hired at the home office, and are under the immediate supervision of the respec- tive department heads, who in turn are responsible to a vice president and secretary. None of the department heads nor the vice president and secretary have any employees other than home office employees under their jurisdiction. There is virtually no interchange between the home office clerical employees and those employed at the district of- fices. The Employer characterized the district offices as small. There is a separate manager in charge of each district office. District man- agers have authority effectively to recommend the hiring and dis- charge of district office clerical employees, and are generally respon- sible for supervising them, except to the extent that the treasurer in the home office exercises control over the collection and transmission of funds. The Employer has uniform salary and overtime rates, em- ployee benefits, and working rules for all its clerical employees, both district and home office, and all perform substantially similar duties. Salary payments are made from the home office, and ultimate decisions involving wage rates and similar matters are made from the home office. The Employer urges that past Board decisions finding units of in- surance agents less than companywide in scope inappropriate 1 should be determinative of the scope for the appropriate unit of office clerical employees here involved. However, the nature of the duties and the working conditions of office clerical employees are distinguishable from those of insurance agents. Moreover, the duties and working condi- tions of office clerical employees in the insurance business do not appear 1 See United Insurance Co., 108 NLRB 843, and cases cited therein. TEXAS PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE CO. 321 to be significantly different from those of office clerical employees in other businesses, who are permitted to organize in units limited to home or principal offices wherever such a unit would ordinarily be ap- propriate. We are not persuaded that the interests of the employees here involved would best be served by requiring that they be bargained for on the same basis as insurance agents, and on the basis of the rec- ord as a whole, including the substantial degree of autonomy at the dis- trict level, and the geographic separation of the various district of- fices,2 we find a unit of office clerical employees limited to the Em- ployer's home office appropriate.' The following employees of the Employer constitute a unit appro- priate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act: All office clerical employees and printing personnel of the Employer located at the Prudential Building, Galveston, Texas, or at the print shop, 2525 Avenue J, which is Broadway Street, Galveston, Texas, as appears more specifically in "Appendix A," but excluding executives,, professional employees, confidential employees,4 insurance agents, the company chauffeur, guards, and supervisors 3 as defined in the Act. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] Appendix A The parties specifically stipulated to the inclusion in the unit of the following categories of employees : cashiers assistant cashiers employees in the mortgage loan department checkwriter operator stenographers timekeepers payroll clerks typists PBX operators clerks medical inspection employees photostat operator bureau 2 Cf. Miller & Miller Motor Freight Lines, 101 NLRB 581, 582, where the Board relied in part on the geographic separation of field terminals located throughout northern Texas, in finding appropriate a unit of office clerical employees limited to the Employers ' princi- pal terminal. 6 The Board has previously approved units of office clerical employees limited to the home office of an insurance company. See American National Insurance Co., 89 NLRB 185; Polish National Alliance of the United States of North America, 42 NLRB 1375. Cf. Boston Mutual Life Insurance Co., 57 NLRB 888, wherein the Board found appropriate a unit of office clerical employees at all the employer 's district offices, exclusive of the home office. 4 The parties specifically stipulated to exclude the secretary to the president and the secretary to the vice president and secretary as confidential employees. 6 We exclude one Gerald Denke as a supervisor as the record shows that he has authority effectively to recommend hiring and discharge or transfer of employees assigned to him. With the exception of the unit placement of Denke the unit accords with an agreement of the Parties. 322 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD secretary of accounts printers supply room and record room printshop employees employees all nonclassified and non- addressograph operators supervisory employees SUPERIOR SLEEPRITE CORPORATION and DIE AND TOOL MAKERS LODGE No. 113, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, AFL Case No. 13-CA-1634. July 23, 1954 Decision and Order On April 20, 1954, Trial Examiner Max M. Goldman issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the 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 copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief. The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter- mediate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom- mendations of the Trial Examiner., Order Upon the entire record in this case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, Superior Sleeprite Cor- poration, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Refusing to bargain collectively with Die and Tool Makers Lodge No. 113, International Association of Machinists, AFL, as the ' The Respondent contends that the Board made an erroneous determination of the appropriate unit in the representation case ( 106 NLRB 228 ). The Board has carefully reexamined the record and decision in that case and perceives no reason for upsetting its unit determination. The Board notes, moreover , that the Respondent never requested reconsideration of the decision in the representation case before the election , nor did it file exceptions to the Regional Director's report on challenged ballots which disposed of cer- tain challenged ballots on the basis of the unit determination in the representation decision. The Respondent further contends that no bargaining order -should issue because, under standards of unit determination formulated in American Potash & Chemical Corporation, 107 NLRB 1418, issued March 1, 1954, the unit found appropriate in 1953 would not simi- larly be found appropriate today. The American Potash decision was intended to have prospective and not retroactive effect. It does not nullify unit determinations already made nor does it excuse refusals to bargain which occurred before its issuance. 109 NLRB No. 71.