Metropolitan Life Insurance Co.

METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY 149 Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting In- dustry of the United States and Canada, AFL-CIO, and Interna- tional Union of Operating Engineers, Local Union No. 12, AFL-CIO, shall notify the Regional Director for the Twenty-first Region, in writing, whether or not they will refrain from forcing or requiring either Matt J. Zaich Construction Co., or Zarubica Company as to laborers only, by means proscribed by Section 8(b) (4) (D) to assign the work in dispute to plumbers rather than to laborers and boilermakers. [The Board quashed the notice of hearing with respect to the weld- ing of transmission line joints for the Zarubica Company.] Metropolitan Life Insurance Company and Insurance Workers International Union, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 13-RC- 9051. August 21, 1963 DECISION ON REVIEW On March 14, 1963, the Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region issued a Decision and Direction of Election in the above-entitled pro- ceeding, finding appropriate a unit of all Metropolitan Insurance consultants, canvassing agents, and all regular and office account agents of the Employer at its district and detached offices located in the Greater Chicago, Illinois, area. Thereafter, in accordance with Section 102.67 of the Board's Rules and Regulations, as amended, both Petitioner and the Employer filed with the Board timely re- quests for review of such Decision and Direction of Election, averring that substantial questions of fact and law were raised with respect to the Regional Director's unit determination. The Petitioner ques- tions the geographic scope of the unit as found by the Regional Director, while the Employer challenges the Regional Director's decision to include insurance consultants in the unit found appropri- ate. The Board, by telegraphic Order on April 4, 1963, granted both requests for review and stayed the election. Thereafter, the Employer and the Petitioner filed briefs.' The Board has considered the entire record in this case with respect to the Regional Director's determination under review, together with the briefs of the parties, and hereby affirms the Regional Director to the extent consistent with our decision herein. ' The Employer has requested oral argument . Because, in our opinion , the record and briefs adequately set forth the issues and positions of the parties, this request is 'hereby denied. 144 NLRB No. 15. 150 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD With respect to the geographic scope of the unit, the Petitioner has requested a unit encompassing all of the Employer's insurance offices located within the Chicago, Illinois, city limits. The Employer takes the position that no unit less than Statewide in scope should be found appropriate. As an alternative position, the Employer argues that Petitioner's requested unit is inappropriate because it does not include all of the Employer's offices in what is generally recognized as the Metropolitan Chicago area. This alternative unit as described by the Employer would include its 33 offices in the city of Chicago, and 14 additional offices located in the counties of Cook, DuPage, Lake, Will, and Kane. On the basis of the record before him, the Regional Director found that a unit limited to the Employer's offices in the city of Chicago would be inappropriate. In reaching this conclusion, the Regional Director relied upon evidence that certain of the Employer's suburban offices, which Petitioner would exclude, had territories extending into the city of Chicago, while several of the offices located in the city had territories assigned to them extending beyond the city limits. Hence, the Regional Director concluded it would be improper to limit the unit to offices located within the city of Chicago because such a unit would include certain areas in the suburbs and exclude other areas located in the city. He therefore directed an election among employees in all of the Employer's offices in the Greater Chicago area. Contrary to the Regional Director, we conclude that a unit limited to the Employer's offices in the city of Chicago is appropriate. In prior decisions 2 involving the same parties, the Board has found the single district office to be appropriate for purposes of collective bar- gaining, and has stated that the Board will apply its normal prin- ciples in finding appropriate units in the insurance industry.3 Further, the Board will permit groupings of district offices where such a unit can be justified by "cogent geographic considerations." More pre- cisely, the Board has found groupings of offices to constitute appro- priate units where there was no recent bargaining history ; no union sought a broader unit; and the unit comprised all of the employer's offices in a separate and distinct geographic area.' Turning to the case at hand, we are satisfied that the Petitioner's requested unit meets the Board's previously announced standards for permitting a grouping of such offices. The city of Chicago is a well- recognized and well-defined geographic entity. While 6 of the Em- 2 Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, 138 NLRB 512; Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, 138 NLRB 734 (Members Rodgers and Leedom dissenting). "Quaker City Life Insurance Company, 134 NLRB 960, 962. 4 Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, 138 NLRB 512; Equitable Life Insurance Company, 138 NLRB 529; and Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, 138 NLRB 734 (Members Rodgers and Leedom dissenting). METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY 151 ployer's 33 offices in the city of Chicago have territories extending beyond the city limits, and 3 of the 14 suburban offices have territories extending into the city, we do not regard this factor as undermining the appropriateness of a unit confined to the city because the terri- torial boundaries of district offices may be subject to frequent change. Because of this, the Board has relied not upon territorial boundaries but upon the physical location of the individual offices as the yardstick in determining the geographic appropriateness of the unit. Accordingly, as the unit requested by Petitioner encompasses all of the Employer's offices in a separate and distinct geographic area, i.e., the city of Chicago ; 5 as there has been no recent bargaining history with respect to the offices in question; and as no union seeks a broader unit, we find that a unit of all of the Employer's offices located within the city of Chicago is appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining.' The remaining question before us on review is whether, as found by the Regional Director, the Metropolitan Insurance consultants (MIC's) should be included in the unit. The Petitioner argues for their inclusion. The Employer contends that they should be ex- cluded because of their lack of a community of interest with the other employees in the unit, the bargaining history in the Company and in the industry which favors their exclusion, and the Petitioner would not fairly represent the MIC's. With regard to the latter contention, the Employer adduced evidence indicating Petitioner's hostility to the MIC program since its inception and Petitioner's efforts in the 1962 contract negotiations to curtail and limit the sales opportunities of the MIC's. Although Petitioner does not deny its opposition to the MIC program in the past, it now states that it wishes to represent this group of employees along with regular and office account agents because of the growing number of MIC's and their close community of interest with regular and office accounts agents. This record shows that MIC's are engaged principally in the sale of insurance in amounts exceeding $1,000. They sell personal acci- dent and health insurance, business, group life insurance, pension plans, and estate planning coverage, while regular and office account agents are principally engaged in the sale of what is generally termed "industrial" insurance. Generally, the MIC's and other agents have the same supervision, and wages and other fringe benefits are similar 5 The citywide scope of a multiglant or multistore unit has long been one of the criteria which the Board considers. See e g., Wets Markets, Inc, 142 NLRB 708; Bell Bakeries of St Petersburg, 139 NLRB 1344; and cases cited in footnote 3 of Sav-On Drugs, Inc, 138 NLRB 1032. Cf. Equitable Life Insurance Company, supra. 152 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD for both. Ninety-five percent of all MIC's were formerly employed as regular or office account agents. The Regional Director found that , based upon the line of pro- gression from agent to MIC, the frequent contact between the two groups, and their similar supervision , the MIC's should be included in the unit . We agree, and for the reasons relied upon by the Re- gional Director, we shall include the MIC's in the unit found appropriate. Accordingly, the case is hereby remanded to the Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region for the purpose of holding an election, pursuant to his Decision and Direction of Election , as modified herein, except that the payroll period for determining eligibility shall be that immediately preceding the date below. MEMBERS RoDCERS and LEEDOM , dissenting : We agree with the Employer's basic contention that any unit of its insurance agents less than Statewide in scope is inappropriate, and for this reason would dismiss the Union's petition. See 'dissent- ing opinion in Quaker City Life Insurance Company, 134 NLRB 960. However, even if we were to accept the view expounded by our col- leagues in Quaker City that a unit less comprehensive in scope may be appropriate, we could not find here, as do our colleagues, that one limited to the confines of the city of Chicago is appropriate. As we understand the majority position in Quaker City and sub- sequent cases, a grouping of district insurance offices into one unit less than Statewide in scope can be justified by geographic consid- erations . In the instant case, however, our colleagues are confining the unit to those offices of the Employer which are physically lo- cated within the city limits of Chicago . They thus exclude offices outside the city limits which are in the Chicago metropolitan area and in close proximity to the offices included . Some of the offices, moreover, both within and outside the city, encompass territory that cuts across the city lines. If the appropriateness of insurance agents' units is to be determined by geographic considerations, we think it would be more reasonable to be guided by the metropolitan , or nat- ural, confines of a geographic area, rather than the political limits of a city which are artificial and may be arbitrarily drawn, especially where, as here , some of the offices are not confined to these political limits in their daily operations. Once again , it would appear that this decision actually turns on the Union's extent of organization.