Golden Eagle Life Insurance Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 17, 1951

95 N.L.R.B. 247 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

GOLDEN EAGLE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION 247
GOLDEN EAGLE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION and INSURANCE AND-
ALLIED WORKERS ' ORGANIZING COMMITTEE , LOCAL 1706, CIO, PE'-
TITIONER . Case No. 2-RC-2677. July 17, 1951
Decision and Order
Upon a petition duly filed, hearings were held before Lewis Moore
and Eugene Purver, hearing officers. The hearing officers' rulings
made at the hearings are free from prejudicial error and are hereby
affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case the Board finds:
The Employer, an insurance company, is engaged in selling indus-
trial accident and health insurance. It is not licensed to do business
in any State other than New York, and its only office is in Brooklyn,
New York. It receives approximately 95 percent of its total pre-
miums from sources within the State and 5 percent from outside the
State. Of its approximately 70,000 policy holders, only some 849,
are located outside the State.'
The total insurance in force is approximately $19,481,032, of which
$247,338 is held by out-of-State policy holders. It receives annually
$979,898 in premiums, of which only approximately $17,088 comes
from policy holders outside the State. Its payments to policy holders
in dividends and claim allowances annually amount to $289,180, of
which $22,623 are mailed to policy holders out of State. In 1947, the
Employer's investments amounted to $1,961,558. In 1950, these in-
vestments amounted to between $2,000,000 and $2,500,000, of which
74 percent was in out-of-State securities. About 48 percent of its
income from investments, or about $28,861 annually, is derived from
out-of-State investments.
The Employer and the Petitioner desire the Board to assert jurisdic-
tion in this case. The Intervenor, Industrial Insurance Agents' Union,
Local 30, UOPWA, affiliated with District 65, DPOWA, contends that
the Board neither has nor should assert jurisdiction. While the
Employer's operations are not unrelated to commerce, the record
does not disclose that the interstate aspects of these operations are of
sufficient magnitude to justify the assertion of jurisdiction under the
Board's recently announced policy.2 We shall dismiss the petition.
Order
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for investigation and certifi-
cation of representatives filed herein be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
'These are apparently policy holders who bought their insurance in New York and
later left the State. The Employer is prohibited from selling any new or additiona)
insurance to individuals outside the State.
7 Cf. Stanislaus Implement and Hardware Company , Limited, 91 NLRB .618 ; Federal
Dairy Co., Inc., 91 NLRB 638; The Rutledge Paper Products, Inc., 91 NLRB 625.
95 NLRB No. 35.
248 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
MEMBER STYLES took no part in the consideration of the above.De-
cision and Order.
STANDARD & POOR 'S CORPORATION and NEWSPAPER GUILD OF NEW YORK,
LOCAL 3, AMERICAN NEWSPAPER GUILD, CIO, PETITIONER. Case
No. 2RC--2751. July 17,1951
Decision and Order
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before I. L. Broadwin, 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 Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Houston and Rey-
nolds].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent employees
of the Employer.
3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the represen-
tation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section
9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, for the following
reason :
The Petitioner, having in the past represented certain employees
of the Employer's New York City and Orange, Connecticut, offices,
now. seeks to represent them all in a single unit. The Intervenor,
Standard & Poor's Independent Association, contends that existing
contracts bar this proceeding,' and that the proposed unit is inap-
propriate because of the bargaining history and an alleged lack of
functional integration of the Employer's operations. The Employer
is neutral.
The Employer is engaged in publishing financial information and
furnishing financial advice. This proceeding is limited to its main
office in New York City and a subsidiary office in Orange, Connecti-
cut. The New York, City office has two main functional divisions :
printed service, which gathers and publishes financial information,
and planned investments, which gives financial advice to clients. In
addition, the New York City office houses the sales division and a
' The contracts asserted to be a bar were signed , 3 months after the filing of the present
petition . Accordingly , we find that they are not a bar. The Plumbing Contractors Asso-
ciation of Baltimore, Maryland, Inc., at al., 93 NLRB 1081.
95 NLRB No. 36.