Life Insurance Co. of Virginia

In the Matter of LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF VIRGINIA, RICHMOND, VIRGINIA and INDUSTRIAL AND ORDINARY INSURANCE AGENTS UNION #21354 AND INDUSTRIAL AND ORDINARY INSURANCE AGENTS COUNCIL Case No. R-1839.-Decided June 6, 1940 Ordinary and Weekly Premium Insurance Business-Jurisdiction : employer engaged in trade, traffic , and commerce in the District of Columbia-Investiga- tion of Representatives : controversy concerning representation of employees: refusal of employer to recognize petitioning union-Unit Appropriate for Col- lective Bargaining: debit collectors at District of Columbia office, excluding district managers, assistant district managers , office and clerical employees ; no controversy as to-Election Ordered. Mr. Samuel M. Spencer, for the Board. Mr. Sidney J. Hilton, of Richmond, Va., for the Company. Mr. George L. Russ and Mr. Frank Weikel, of Washington, D. C., for the Union. . Mr. Malcolm A. Hoffmann, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION STATEMENT OF THE CASE On March 20, 1940, Industrial and Ordinary Insurance Agents Union #21354 and Industrial and Ordinary Insurance Agents Coun- cil, herein called the Union, filed with the Regional Director for the Fifth Region (Baltimore, Maryland), a petition alleging that a question affecting commerce had arisen concerning the representa- tion of employees in the Washington, D. C., office of Life Insurance Company of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, herein called the Company, and requesting an investigation and certification of representatives pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. On April 29, 1940, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, acting pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the Act and Article III, Section 3, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 2, as amended, ordered an investigation and 24 N. L. R. B., No. 36. 411 412 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD authorized the Regional Director to conduct it and to provide for an appropriate hearing upon due notice. On May 2, 1940, the Regional Director issued a notice of hearing, copies of which were duly served upon the Company and the Union. Pursuant thereto, a hearing was held on May 10, 1940, at Wash- ington, D. C., before Berdon M. Bell, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Board. The Board and the Company were rep- resented by counsel and the Union by its representatives. All parties participated in the hearing. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to, introduce evidence bearing on the issues was afforded all parties. At the hearing the Company filed with the Trial Examiner a motion to dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction, and during the course of the hearing the Company moved to dismiss the petition on jurisdictional and other grounds. These motions were not ruled on by the Trial Examiner and they are hereby denied. During the course of the hearing the Trial Examiner made several rulings on other motions and on objections to the admission of evidence. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds that no prejudicial errors were committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following : FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY Life Insurance Company of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, incor- porated under Virginia law in 1871, is engaged in the writing of ordinary and weekly premium insurance and maintains its home office at Richmond, Virginia. The Company also operates district offices in 12 States and in Washington, D. C. At its District of Columbia office the Company has approximately 51 employees includ- ing a district manager and 7 assistant district managers, 40 agents or debit collectors,' 2 clerks, and 1 cashier. The Company on December 31, 1939, had in effect policies amount- ing to $528,053,461.00 of which approximately $13,000,000.00, repre- senting some 33,000 policies or 2.4 per cent of its total policies out- standing, were carried on the books of its Washington, D. C., office. Approximately 10 per cent in number and value of policies serviced by the District of Columbia office were held by policyholders residing in nearby Maryland. i There are 40 debit areas normally served by individual debit collectors or agents, but at the time of the bearing, the Company employed only 38 such employees. LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY ET AL. 413 We find that the Company is engaged in-trade, traffic, and com- merce within the District of Columbia. II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Industrial and Ordinary Insurance Agents Union #21354 and In- dustrial and Ordinary Insurance Agents Council is a labor organiza- tion affiliated with the American Federation of Labor. It admits to membership debit collectors or agents employed by the Company at its office in the District of Columbia, excluding district managers and office and clerical employees. III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION During the month of February 1940, the Union presented to Com- pany officials certain proposals concerning wages and working con- ditions of employees at the Washington, D. C., office and requested recognition of the Union for the purposes of collective bargaining. The Company conditioned consideration of. these proposals upon proof of the Union's majority. The Union agreed to present such proof and suggested alternative methods by which this might be done, including a Board proceeding. The Company promised to notify the Union of what steps it desired taken before granting recognition, and, upon its failure to do so, the petition herein was filed. We find that a question has arisen concerning the representation of employees of the Company. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION UPON COMMERCE We find that the question concerning representation which has arisen, occurring in connection with the operations of the Company described in Section I, above, has a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce within the District of Co- lumbia, and tends to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. V. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT The Company employs approximately 40 debit collectors.' Five of these service debits in nearby Maryland. They operate out of the District of Columbia office and, like other debit collectors, have li- censes to sell insurance in the District of Columbia, are on the pay 2 See footnote 1, supra. 414 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD roll of the District of Columbia office, where they report weekly, and are subject to the same regulations as other debit collectors. The Union requests that the appropriate unit include all debit col- lectors employed by the Company at its Washington, D. C., office, excluding district managers, assistant district managers, and office and clerical employees.' The proposed unit thus includes the debit collectors servicing Maryland debits. The Company raised no objection to the unit sought. We find that all debit collectors employed by the Company at its district office in the District of Columbia, but excluding district man- agers, assistant district managers, and office and clerical employees, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining and that said unit will insure to employees of the Company the full benefit of -their right to self-organization and collective bargaining and otherwise effectuate the policies of the Act. VI. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES The Union claimed that it represented a majority of the debit collectors employed at the Company's District of Columbia office, and the Regional Director filed a statement at the hearing to the effect that the Union had presented authorization and affiliation cards representing 27 of the Company 's employees in the appropriate unit. We find that the question concerning representation which has arisen can best be resolved by an election by secret ballot. The Union has no objection to selection of the pay-roll period immediately preceding the date of the Direction of Election herein, to determine eligibility to vote, and the Company made no expres- sion of its desires in this regard . We shall follow our usual prac- tice and direct that the employees of the Company eligible to vote in the election shall be those within the appropriate unit during the pay-roll period immediately preceding the date of our Direction of Election herein, including employees who did not work during such pay-roll period because they were ill or on vacation , and em- ployees who were then or shall have since been temporarily laid off, but excluding those who shall have since quit or been discharged for cause. 8Here, as in Matter of Equitable Life Insurance Company, Washington, D. C., and In- dustrial and Ordinary Insurance Agents Union, etc., 21 N. L. R. B. 37, the Company's agents are not sub-classified as "debit collectors" and "canvassers" as is the case with certain other District of Columbia insurance companies which have come before the Board. Cf. Matter of Home Beneficial Association of Richmond, Va. and Industrial and Ordinary Insurance Agents' Council, 17 N. L. R. B. 1027; Matter of Eureka Maryland Assurance Corporation and Industrial and Ordinary Insurance Agents Union No. 213511, Industrial and Ordinary Insurance Agents Council, 17 N. L. R. B. 381; Matter of Washington Branch of The Sun Life Insurance Company of America and Industrial and Ordinary Insurance Agents Union No. 21854, Industrial and Ordinary Insurance Agents Council, 15 N. L. It. B. 817. LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY ET AL. 415 Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following : CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. A question affecting commerce has arisen concerning the rep- resentation of employees at the District of Columbia office of Life Insurance Company of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, within the meaning of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act. 2. All debit collectors employed by the Company at its Dis- trict of Columbia office, excluding district managers, assistant dis- trict managers, and office and clerical employees, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act. DIRECTION OF ELECTION By virtue of and pursuant to the power vested in the National Labor Relations Board by Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Rela- tions Act, and pursuant to Article III, Section 8, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 2, as amended, it is hereby DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation ordered by the Board to ascertain representatives for the purposes of collective bargaining with Life Insurance Company of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, on behalf of employees in its district office in the District of Columbia, an election by secret ballot be conducted as early as possible but not later than thirty (30) days from the date of this Direction of Elec- tion, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Fifth Region, acting in the matter as agent for the National Labor Relations Board, and subject to Article III, Section 9, of said Rules and Regulations, among all debit collectors employed by Life Insurance Company of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, in its district office in the District of Columbia, who were employed during the pay-roll period immediately preceding the date of this Direction of Election, including employees who did not work during that period because they were ill or on vacation, or were then or shall have since been temporarily laid off, but excluding district man- agers, assistant district managers, office and clerical employees, and those who shall have since quit or been discharged for cause, to determine whether or not they desire to be represented by Industrial and Ordinary Insurance Agents Union #21354 and Industrial and Ordinary Insurance Agents Council, for the purposes of. collective bargaining.