Chicago Metropolitan Mutual Assurance Co.

352 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Chicago Metropolitan Mutual Assurance Company and Insur- ance Workers of America, AFL-CIO, Petitioner., Case No.. 14-RC-3204. November 6,1957 DECISION AND ORDER Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Walter A. Werner, 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 National Labor Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman Leedom and Members Bean and Jenkins]. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds:- 1. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain em- ployees of the Employer. 2. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the repre- sentation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of See-. tion 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. The Employer, an Illinois corporation, is engaged in soliciting- and issuing ordinary and industrial life insurance. Its home office is located in Chicago, Illinois. The Employer is licensed to do business in Indiana, Missouri, and Ohio as well as Illinois. The Petitioner seeks to represent in one unit insurance agents at the Employer's St. Louis, Missouri, and East St. Louis, Illinois, offices.' During the 1956 calendar year the Employer wrote more than $37,400,000 in life insurance. It received more than $3,700,000 in premiums and paid approximately $945,000 in claims. However, premiums received from policyholders outside Illinois were only in the approximate amount of $222,000, and claims paid by the Employer to policyholders outside the State of Illinois were less than $1,000. Because the inflow to the Employer's home office in Illinois from out of State was less than $500,000 and the outflow was less than $50,000x, we find that the Employer's operations do not fall within the Board's nonretail jurisdictional standards 2 Accordingly, we find that it will not effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein, We shall, therefore, dismiss the petition. [The Board dismissed the petition.] ' The Employer submitted a motion to dismiss the petition , contending that the unit sought is inappropriate . Because we dismiss the petition on jurisdictional grounds, we find that it is not necessary to rule on this motion. 2 2'. H. Boyers Lumber Company, 117 NLRB 1732 . The Connecticut Bank and Trust Company, 114 NLRB 1293. Cf. American National Insurance Company, 111 NLRB 34%, 341. 119 NLRB No. 48. ARMSTRONG TIRE AND RUBBER COMPANY 353, MEMBER JENKINS, dissenting : I would assert jurisdiction in this case. The Congress of the United- States has adjourned without taking any action with respect to the legal "no-man's land" created by the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States on March 25, 1957.3 Pending a reappraisal by the Board of its jurisdictional standards, I would assert jurisdiction in every case where such assertion would effectuate the policies of the Act. I also disagree that the operations of the Employer in this case- do not meet the present jurisdictional standards. The Employer is. engaged in the business of selling life insurance policies. The Em- ployer has its home office at Chicago, Illinois, and is licensed to do. business in Indiana, Missouri, and Ohio. During the calendar year 1956 it sold policies outside its home State of Illinois from which it received premiums in the approximate amount of $222,000. I con- sider this sum revenue derived from goods sold or services to be per- formed outside the State. The Employer's operations, therefore, in my opinion meet the minimal amount of $50,000 in revenue derived from out-of-State sales .4 3 Gass v. Utah Labor Relations Board, 353 U. S. 1 ; Amalgamated Meat Cutters etc. V. Fairlawn Heats, .Inc., 353 U. S. 20; San Diego Building Trades Council v. Garmon, 353. U. S. 26. 4 Jonesboro Grain Drying Cooperative, 110 NLRB 481. Armstrong Tire and Rubber Company, The Test Fleet Branch. and United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum & Plastic Workers of America, AFL-CIO. Case No. 39-CA-359. November 7, 1957 SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER On February 18, 1955, the National Labor Relations Board issued a Decision and Order in the above-entitled proceeding,' which order was thereafter enforced by the United States Court of Appeals for. the Fifth Circuit by a decree entered on January 19, 1956. The decree provided, inter alia, that the Respondent reinstate E. A.. Albrecht and make him whole for loss of pay suffered by reason of the Respondent's discrimination against him. Thereafter, pur- suant to a back-pay specification and appropriate notice issued by the Regional Director for the Sixteenth Region, a hearing was held for the purpose of adducing evidence with respect to the amount of back pay to which the discriminatee is entitled. On May 21, 1957, Trial Examiner Reeves R. Hilton issued his Supplemental Intermediate Report, finding that a purported settle- 1111 NLRB 708. 119 NLRB No. 47. 476321-58-vol. 119-24