Home Beneficial Life Insurance Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 3, 1952

98 N.L.R.B. 1053 (N.L.R.B. 1952)

HOME BENEFICIAL LIFE INSURANCE. CO . 1053
The Employer has four trucks which are used primarily to transport
material from the warehouses to the plant or to transport employees
between the plant and the warehouse. These vehicles are operated by
tiering equipment and motor truck operators. Generally the same
individuals drive the trucks, but they also devote about 25 percent of
their time to driving other vehicles in the plant or doing other as-
signed work, and other individuals sometimes operate the trucks.
All the Employer's products are delivered by contract carrier and not
by the Employer's trucks.
The work of the shipping division and of the receiving and stores
division employees is frequently performed in the various areas of
the manufacturing and materials department and, as necessity re-
quires, these employees are interchanged with production division
employees. We find that the work of the employees sought by the
Teamsters is interrelated with that of the other production and main-
tenance employees with whom they are closely allied in interest, and
that, upon the entire record herein, a separate unit of these employees
would not be appropriate. Accordingly, we shall dismiss the petition
in Case No. 35-RC-623.
We find that all production and maintenance employees of the Em-
ployer at its New Albany, Indiana, plant, and Jeffersonville, Indiana,
warehouses, excluding office and clerical employees, inspectors, check-
ers, shipping clerks, receiving and stores clerks, guards, professional
employees, and all supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit
appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the mean-
ing of Section 9 (b) of the Act 11
Order
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petitions in Cases Nos. 35-RC-577,
578, 579, and 623, be, and they hereby are, dismissed.-
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
n The parties are in agreement as to the composition of an over-all unit.
HOME BENEFICIAL LIFE INSURANCE Co. and INSURANCE AND ALLIED
WORKERS ORGANIZING COMMITTEE, CIO, PETITIONER . Case No.
39 RC-366. April 3, 1952
Decision and Direction of Election
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Anthony J. Sabella, hearing
98 NLRB No. 160.
1054 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and 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.
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain
employees of the Employer.,.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9
(c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Petitioner seeks a unit composed of all industrial agents
employed by the Employer in the State of Tennessee 2 The Employer
contends that the only appropriate unit is one which most nearly
approximates a company-wide unit. The agents sought by the
Petitioner are licensed by the State of Tennessee, and by that State
only. They work only within the State, and do not interchange
between any other office of the Employer. Although the Board has
held that "the ultimately appropriate unit in the insurance business
is on a company-wide basis," 4 the unit sought by the Petitioner is
State-wide in scope,5 and no labor organization is seeking to repre-
sent agents of the Employer on a broader basis. We therefore
find, upon the entire record, that the unit sought by the Petitioner
is appropriate and that the Employer's contentions to the contrary
are without merit.
We find that all industrial agents employed by the Employer in
the State of Tennessee, excluding office clerical employees, cashiers,
managers, superintendents, special superintendents, and all other
supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for
I National Federation of Insurance Agents Council , A. F. of L., represented certain em-
ployees within the unit sought by the Petitioner but, although served with notice, did not
appear at the hearing in this case.
P The Employer has district offices in Johnson City, Knoxville , Harriman, Chattanooga,
Nashville, Jackson, Dyersburg , and Memphis , Tennessee . The record shows that although
the Bristol office is designated by the Employer as the Bristol , Virginia , office, a superin-
tendent and five agents from that office work exclusively in Tennessee , and meet all the
requirements set forth below and imposed by the State of Tennessee on industrial insur-
ance agents.
, See the bargaining history set forth in Home Beneficial Life Insurance Company, Inc.,
89 NLRB 392.
A recent decertification proceeding involved the agents in the following 15 of the Em-
ployer's 44 district offices . Baltimore , Maryland ; Washington , D. C.; Petersburg , Newport
News, Norfolk, Portsmouth , Staunton , Lynchburg, Roanoke, Charlottesville , Suffolk, and
Farmville , Virginia ; and Knoxville , Harriman , and Chattanooga , Tennessee The agents in
these district offices had been represented by National Federation of Insurance Agents
Council, A. F. of L, which was decertified in that proceeding . See Home Beneficial Life
Insurance Company, 97 NLRB No. 191.
4 John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Company, 82 NLRB 179.
5 See Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, 56 NLRB 1635 and 1642 ; Peoples Life In-
surance Company, 72 NLRB 1406; Home Beneficial Life Insurance Company, Inc., 89
NLRB 392.
UNION ASBESTOS AND RUBBER COMPANY 1055
the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section
9 (b) of the Act .6
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
As the election hereinafter directed is not in the unit or subdivision in which the decer-
tification election referred to above was held, we shall include in the unit the agents in
those district offices within the State of Tennessee which were covered by the decertifica-
tion petition . See Section 9 (c) (3) of the Act; cf. Robertson Brothers Department Store,
Inc., 95 NLRB 271.
UNION ASBESTOS AND RUBBER COMPANY and UNITED TEXTILE WORKERS
OF AMERICA , AFL. Case No. 34-CA-176. April 4, 1952
Decision and Order
On September 12, 1951, Trial Examiner J. J. Fitzpatrick issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) of the National
Labor Relations Act, and recommending that the Respondent cease
and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in
the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. The Trial
Examiner also found that the Respondent had not violated the Act
by laying off and refusing to reinstate Lena Simpson Moore and
consequently recommended dismissal of the complaint as to her.
Thereafter, the Respondent, the General Counsel, and the Union filed
exceptions to the Intermediate Report. The General Counsel also
filed a supporting brief.'
The Board 2 has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner
and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are
hereby affirmed.3 The Board has considered the Intermediate Report,
A The Respondent' s request for oral argument is hereby denied because the record and
the exceptions and brief , in our opinion , adequately present the issues and the positions
of the parties.
2 Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its
powers in connection with the case to a three-member panel . [ Chairman Herzog and
Members Houston and Peterson.]
2 At the conclusion of the presentation of his case, the General Counsel moved that the
complaint be amended so as to include an allegation that the Respondent had refused to
bargain collectively with the Union in an appropriate unit. The Trial Examiner denied
the motion . After the Issuance of the Intermediate Report, the General Counsel filed a
motion with the Board for permission to amend the complaint in the respects noted above
and to reopen the record and remand the case to the Trial Examiner for the purpose
of conducting a hearing upon the issues raised by such proposed additional allegations.
Under Section 102.35 of the Board's Rules and Regulations-Series 6 , authority is vested
in the Trial Examiner to dispose of procedural matters such as motions to amend plead-
ings. On the basis of the record in the case, we are unable to conclude that in denying
the General Counsel ' s motion to amend the complaint the Trial Examiner abused the
discretion vested in him . Moreover, we do not agree with the General Counsel that the
present circumstances warrant granting the motion at this time. The Trial Examiner's
ruling is therefore affirmed and the pending motion denied.
98 NLRB No. 137.