American National Insurance Co.

340 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD unit sought by the Petitioner could be an appropriate unit. However, the Board has held that either an overall unit or separate units of en- gineering and program employees may be appropriate in the televi- sion industry.2 We find, therefore, that the employees in the unit sought may ap- propriately form a separate unit, or may appropriately be a part of the existing unit of technicians represented by the Intervenor. Ac- cordingly, we shall direct an election to determine the desires of the employees. If a majority vote for the Petitioner, they will be taken to have indicated their desire to constitute a separate appropriate unit, which the Board, under such circumstances, finds to be appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining, and the Regional Director is -instructed to issue a certification of representatives to the Petitioner for such unit. If a majority vote for the Intervenor, they will be taken to have indicated their desire to be a part of the existing unit represented by the Intervenor, and the Regional Director is instructed to issue a certification of results of election to that effect. Accordingly, we shall direct that an election be held among the fol- lowing employees : All television floormen, film editors, and photographic laboratory technicians at the Employer's Minneapolis, Minnesota, television sta- tion, excluding all other employees, guards, watchmen, professional employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act.' [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] 2 Empire Coil Co., Inc , 106 NLRB 1069, and cases cited therein 3As production directors have the a uthority to hire, discharge, and direct the work of other employees, we find that they are supervisors and we exclude them from the unit. AMERICAN NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY and LOCAL No. 42, OFFICE EMPLOYEES' INTERNATIONAL UNION, AFL, PETITIONER. Case No. 7-RC-0598. January 27,1955 Decision and Direction of Election Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National La- bor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Iris H. Meyer, 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 1 the Board finds : 1. The Employer, a Texas corporation, the home office of which is located in Galveston, Texas, is engaged in soliciting and issuing ordi- ' Following the hearing in this case, the parties stipulated to facts, hereinafter noted, warranting the assertion of jurisdiction herein. The stipulation is hereby received and made part of the record. 111 NLRB No. 52. AMERICAN NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY 341 nary and industrial life, health, and accident insurance, and in the investment of real estate mortgages and other securities. It is licensed to do business in more than 30 States of the United States. The in- stant petition involves only the four district offices located in the De- troit area. Each office is separately supervised by a district manager who is responsible only to the home office in Galveston. The record discloses that during the calendar year ending December 31, 1953, the Employer paid claims to policyholders outside the State of Texas in the approximate amount of $9,000,000, and that during this same 12- month period the Employer received premiums from policyholders outside the State of Texas in the approximate amount of $48,000,000. The Board recently announced 2 that henceforth it will assert juris- diction over an establishment other than retail which is operated as an integral part of a multistate enterprise, where the direct outflow of the entire enterprise amounts to $250,000 or more, or where the indi- rect outflow of the entire enterprise amounts to $1,000,000 or more. Thus, as it appears that the Employer's entire multistate enterprise, of which each of the four district offices here involved is a part, meets the above standards, we find that the Employer is engaged in com- merce within the meaning of the Act, and that it will effectuate the purposes of the act to assert jurisdiction. 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. As stipulated to by the parties, we find the following employees of the Employer constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collec- tive bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act: All office clerical employees employed by the Employer at its Michi- gan district offices located at 20236 Van Dyke, Detroit; 19318 West Seven Mile Road, Detroit; the Dime Bank Building, Detroit; and 24910 Michigan, Dearborn; but excluding salesmen, all other em- ployees, and supervisors as defined in the Act. 5. The district office located at the Dime Bank Building, Detroit, employs a regular part-time office clerical employee who works 4 hours a day, 5 days a week. In accord with Board precedent,3 we find that this employee is eligible to vote in the election herein directed. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] 2 Jonesboro Grain Drying Cooperative, 110 NLRB 481. Crown Drug Company, 108 NLRB 1126.