Liberty Mutual Insurance Co.

734 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Liberty Mutual Insurance Company and Liberty Mutual Sales Association , Petitioner. Case 2-RC- 15323 September 25, 1970 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS FANNING, BROWN, AND JENKINS Upon a petition duly filed on February 6, 1970, under Section 9(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a hearing in this case was held on March 6, 24, 25, and 26 and April 9 and 10, 1970, before Haywood E. Banks, Hearing Officer. Pursuant to Section 102.67 of the National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations, the above- entitled matter was duly transferred by the Regional Director for Region 2 to the Board for decision. The Petitioner and the Employer filed briefs. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, as amended, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel. The Board has reviewed the Hearing Officer's rul- ings made at the hearing and finds that they are free from prejudicial error. They 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, and it will effectuate the purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein. 2. The labor organization involved claims to repre- sent certain employees of the Employer. 3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the representation of certain employees of the Employ- er within the meaning of Section 9(c)(1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 4. The Employer is primarily a casualty insurer, engaged through direct selling, in marketing personal lines of insurance and business lines of insurance throughout the United States and Canada. Personal lines insurance involves coverage of individuals buying protection for personal belongings such as houses, furniture, and automobiles. Business lines insurance involves protection for commercial establishments such as workmen's compensation and fire insurance. The Employer has divided its sales operations into two departments, personal lines and business lines, and its salesmen tend to specialize as to the type ' We find without ment the Employer's contention that the hearing held herein pursuant to Sec 9(c)(1) of the Act denied the Employer a fair and full hearing because the Hearing Officer is precluded from making any recommendations with respect thereto See Utica Mutual Insurance Co., 375 F 2d 129 (C A. 2), cert denied 389 U S 839 of insurance sold. Thus, personal lines salesmen sell primarily to individuals, and the business lines sales- men sell primarily to persons or legal entities engaged in business. The recruiting of salesmen is under the direction of the director of recruiting and training located at the Employer's headquarters in Boston. The forms used in the recruitment of salesmen are prepared in Boston and are used in both departments. All prospective salesmen are given the same tests and asked the same questions during job interviews. Sales- men are hired on the basis of need and not on the basis of qualifying for assignment in either the personal or business lines. In its advertising, the Employer merely specifies "salesmen" and does not advertise separately for personal line salesmen or busi- ness line salesmen. The starting salary and job descrip- tions for both types of salesmen are the same. The employees of both departments receive a salary plus a commission or bonus arrangement on their sales. Before an individual can sell insurance, he must be licensed by the State in which he is going to be employed. All matters concerning schooling to prepare for the state examinations, such as the faculty of the school, the place of the school, and the subject matter to be taught are determined in the headquar- ters, Boston office, and uniform training standards are applied throughout the Employer's operating divi- sions. All salesmen, no matter what type of insurance they may eventually specialize in selling, must be knowledgeable in both personal and business lines of insurance in order to pass the same State licensing examination. The Employer has approximately 200 sales offices with approximately 2,500 employees in eight operating divisions within the United States and one operating division in Canada. The Petitioner seeks a unit limited to the approximately 109 personal lines salesmen employed in the Employer's New York operating division. There are approximately 13 sales offices in the Division and the personal sales representatives are distributed among all offices. The Division has an overall manager and a separate sales manager for the personal and business lines departments. Although each sales manager is responsible for the day-to-day operation of his department, the power of the sales manager, as well as the division manager, as to the transferring of the salesmen within or without offices in his division and the granting or denial of a wage increase is of a recommendatory nature and must be approved by the appropriate office in Boston. The personal line department, however, has its own separate manual setting forth the rules, regula- tions, and procedures of that department, its own separate sales incentive awards, and holds separate 185 NLRB No. 104 LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE CO sales meetings. In the majority of the New York operating division where both business sales and per- sonal sales agents are employed, the salesmen share the same office. Although the record shows that transfers between the personal and business sales departments in the New York Division have been miniscule and that point meetings between the two departments are infrequent, each department can, and does sell both lines of insurance, both departments trade business contacts, and salesmen in the New York Division not infrequently sell both lines of insur- ance. There appears to have been no history of collective bargaining in the New York Division, and no showing that personal line salesmen or business line salesmen have ever bargained separately in any of the-Employ- er's other divisions, or in the casualty insurance indus- try. The Petitioner contends that the personal line salesmen have a mutuality of interests based upon their selling speciality and administrative separation which places them separate and apart from the busi- ness line salesmen and that they, therefore, constitute an appropriate unit for collective-bargaining purposes. The Employer contends, inter alia, that the two selling departments share common interests based upon their recruitment, training, State licensing, and integration of its operations which would cause disruptive effects if its sales division were split into two separate groups and that a unit limited to personal lines salesmen would not result in a viable bargaining unit. We agree with the contentions of the Employer.' ' However, we find without merit the Employer's contention that a nationwide unit of all its salesmen would be the only appropriate unit We have long held that a statewide unit, which is geographically coherent, is an appropriate unit for collective bargaining for insurance salesmen See, e g , Metropolitan Life Insurance Co, 56 NLRB 1635, Quaker City Life Co, 134 NLRB 960, 961 , enfd 319 F 2d 690 (C A 735 From the foregoing , and the record as a whole, we are not persuaded that the personal lines salesmen are a homogeneous group of employees who may constitute an appropriate unit . The one consistently discernible difference between the group of personal line salesmen here sought and the business line sales- men is the type of insurance they specialize in selling. However, as noted above, each department sells the other department's lines of insurance, is expected to and does trade business leads, and the salesmen in the New York Division sell both lines of insurance. Although the two departments have separate day- to-day supervision and the salesmen tend to specialize in selling one line of insurance throughout their careers, we find that the common basis for their recruitment, their shared training which requires knowledge of both lines of insurance , the same State licensing requirements , and the integration of the departments' selling and administrative operations overshadow their separate mutuality of interests suffi- ciently to preclude establishing personal lines salesmen as an appropriate unit for collective-bargaining purpos- es. Accordingly, we find that the requested unit is inappropriate , and we shall dismiss the petition here- in.' ORDER It is hereby ordered that the petition herein be and it hereby is, dismissed. 4) In view of our decision herein, we find it unnecessary , and make no determination , whether the technical sales employees should be included in an appropriate statewide salesmen unit ' See, Metropolitan Life Insurance Co, 144 NLRB 149 Cf Sears Roebuck and Co, 183 NLRB No 100, Sears, Roebuck and Co, 178 NLRB No. 91, Priceless Discount Foods, Inc, 157 NLRB 1143, Don Allen Midtown Chevrolet, Inc, 118 NLRB 1337