Life Insurance Co. of Virginia

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 28, 1943

49 N.L.R.B. 1230 (N.L.R.B. 1943)

In the Matter of LIFE INsuRANCE COMPANY OF VIRGINIA and AMERI-
CAN FEDERATION OF 'INDUSTRIAL AND ORDINARY INSURANGB AGENTS'
LOCAL UNION No. 22802, AFFILIATED WITH THE,AIMfERICAN FEDERATION
of LABOR
Case No. C_2584. 'LDeeided May•28, 1943
DECISION
AND '
ORDER
On April 12, 1943, the , Trial, Examiner issued his Intermediate Re-
.port in. the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the respondent, Life
Insurance Company of Virginia, had engaged in and Was engaging
in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that it cease and
desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action as set out in the
copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. The Trial Ex-
aminer also found that the respondent had not engaged in certain
other unfair labor practices and recommended the dismissal thereof.
Thereafter, the respondent and the Union filed exceptions to the
Intermediate Report. The Board has considered the rulings of the
Trial Examiner at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was
committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed.
The Board has considered the Intermediate Report, the exceptions,
and-the entire record in the case and hereby adopts the findings, con-
clusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner.
ORDER
Upon the entire records in 'the case , and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations
Board hereby orders that the respondent , Life Insurance Company of
Virginia , its officers , agents, district managers , successors , and, as-
signs, shall:
1. Cease and desist from.
(a) Discouraging its employees from becoming , members of or
retaining membership in American Federation of Industrial and
Ordinary Insurance Agents' Local Union , No. 22802, affiliated with
American Federation , of Labor, or any other labor organization;
49 N. L R B , No 183.
1230
4
-LIFE INSU'RA_bTCE CO'RMNY OF VIR'GSNTA 1231
(b) In like or similar manner, interfering with, restraining, or
coercing its employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization,
to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in con-
certed activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other
mutual aid or protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the National
Labor Relations Act.
2. Take the following affirmative fiction which will- effectuate the
policies-of the Act:
(a) Post immediately in conspicuous places in its office at Savan-
n il, Georgia, and maintain for a period of at least sixty ('60) con-
secutive days 'from the date of posting, notices to its agents: stating:
(1) that it will not engage in the conduct from which it is ordered to
cease and desist in paragraphs 1 (a) and (b) hereof; (2) that the
respondent's agents are free to become or remain members of Ameri-
can Federation of Industrial and Ordinary Insurance Agents' Local,
Union No. 22802, affiliated with American Federation of Labor, or any
other labor organization; and (3) that the respondent will not dis-
criminate against any employees with respect to promotion or other-
wise because of membership or activity in such organization or
organizations;
(b) Notify the Regional Director of the Tenth Region, in writing
within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps the re-
spondent has taken to comply herewith.
AND rr IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be, and it hereby is,
dismissed, insofar as it, alleges that the respondent discriminated
against Thomas Monroe in violation of Section 8 (3) of the Act.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
Euvenae M . Purver. Esquire and Paul S . ILuuelthau , Esqu , ire,•of Atlanta, Ga for
the hoard
George L Russ, of Washington , D C. for the Union
Willie iii Shands, Esquoi e. of Richmond , Va, Lee Searcy , Esquire, of Rich-
mond, Va., and Hitch, Morris and Harrison by Dun b ar Harrison , Esquire, of
Savannah , Ga.', for the respondent. -
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon an amended charge filed on February 3. 1943, by American Federation
of Industrial and Ordinary Insurance Agents ' Local' Union No. 22802, affiliated
with the American Federation of Labor, herein called the Union, the National
Labor Relations Board , herein called the Board , by its Regional Director for
the Tenth Region (Atlanta, Georgia), issued its complaint dated February 17,
1943. against Life Insurance Company of Virginia, herein called the respondent,
alleging that the aespondeut had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (3)
and Sect ion 2 (9) and ( 7) of the National Labor Relations Act, -49 Stat 449.
1232 DE CISIONS OF .9 r^o^^AI -LABOR R-EILA,-i1 0N,S-BOARD
herein called the Act , A ,copy of the complaint and the, :pended charge ac-
companied by notice of heliring to be held March 1. 1943. were duly served upon,
the respondent and the Union Thereafter the date of hearing was postponed
from time to time and notice thereof duly served upon the respondent and the
Union. '
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged in substance
(1)' that the respondent, onior about July 18, 1942, discharged one Thomas B
Monroe _and at all times since that date has refused to reinstate the said
Monroe, to his former employment, because of his activities and nembership in
the Union and to discourage membership in the Union and, (2) that the re-
spondent at certain designated times and through the medium of named officials
Of the respondent, disparaged the Union and coerced .its employees with threats
of reprisals in the event they became members ,of the Union or retained their
membership in the Union. and (3) that by such acts and by warning' and dis-
conraging its employees, against affiliation with or activity on behalf of the
Union, the respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees
in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act
Tlie respondent's answer,- duly filed, admitted certain allegations of the com-
plaint with reference to the nature•aiid character of the business done by the
respondent, but denied all the allegations with reference to the nature and
character of the business done by the respondent, but denied all the allegations
with reference to the commission of any unfair labor practice
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held on March 26 and 27, 1943, at Savannah.
Georgia, before R. N. Denham, the undersigned trial Examiner duly designated
by the Chief Trial Examiner. Tlie Biird auid the Respondent were represented
by,counsel and the Union by one of, its officials- All parties participated in the
hearing-where full, Opportunity was'afforded them to be heard, to,examine and
cross-examine witnesses and to introduce evidence bearing upon the issues. At
the close of the hearing a motion 'to amend the complaint to conform to the
proof' was granted witliout objection lint was made applicable to all pleadings
and was granted for-the limited' purpose of correcting minor details of the
pleadings such as, the correct spelling of names, dates and, other similar matters
not affecting the substance of the issues After the taking of all the testimony
had been concluded, respondent moyed for the.dismissal of the complaint on the
ground of failure of proof The motion was taken under consideration and
except as otherwise herein disposed of, is now denied.. Oral.aigunient and the
privilege of filing briefs with the Trial Examiner were waived by all parties. ,
On the basis of -the foregoing' and after having heard and observed all -the
witnesses and on the entire record herein, the undersigned makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT -
I THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The respondent is and has been a,Virginia corporation since 1871, engaged
in the writing of Ordinary and Weekly Premium life insurance.' Its home
office is maintained at Richmond, Virginia. District offices are maintained in
12 other states and the District of Columbia, out of which the insurance business
of the respondent in such districts is conducted. The assets of the respondent
are in excess of $129,000,000 00 and consist of bonds of the United. States and
its agencies or wholly-owned corporations, certain foreign governments, states
and municipalities within the United States, railroads, public utilities, and in-
' weekly Premium Insurance is generally referred to herein as Industrial Insurance.
4
LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY or VIRGINIA . 1233
dustria1 corporat:oia, as well as nnsc.ella icons D:i:rtgages. real estate, loans to
policy holders and other investments The mortgage investments of the re-
spondent are on real estate located in 20 states and the District of Columbia.
All the business of the respondent is controlled from the main office in Rich-
mond, Virginia, from which point all supplies, printed material and other,
things incident to carrying on the business are shipped to the various district:
offices Hiring and discharging agents in the district offices is under the
direction and control of the Home Office and all policies of insurance and checks-
covering disburseinents' are executed at the Home Office. Rail transportation,
telephone and telegraph are extensively used between the Home Office and the
various district offices for the conduct of the day to day business- of the
'respondent.'
II THE ORGANt7.A'i'ION INVOLVED
American Federation of Industrial and Ordinary Insurance Agents' Local
Union No 22802, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, is a labor
organization adinitting• to membership the agents of the respondent employed
at the office of the Savannah, Georgia, district.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
a (a). Interference, restiaint, and coercion
Although some effort to organize the respondent's agents in Savannah,
Georgia was made by the Union in late 1939 and early 1940, no organizational
campaign was instituted until early 1941, at which time all the agents of the
respondent in Savannah became members. This fact promptly, became, known
to thei respondent through its negotiation. with George L Russ, the president
of Industrial and, Ordinary Insurance Agents' Council of A. F. of L.' In
January, 1942 an election was held among the respondent's agents at ,the
Savannah office, resulting in a unanimous vote, in favor of the Union by all
those qualified tovote. The Union was duly certified by the, Board in
February, 1942, and shortly thereafter negotiations were,opened for a contract.
These negotiations continued thi oughout the year and eventually resulted in
an agreement in November, 1942 Although this agreement has been ,reduced
to writing, it had not been signed by the Union at the time of the hearing.
The record raises no question as to the, respondent's recognition of the • Union
as the representative of the agents at the Savannah office.
Thomas BMonroe, who has been an insurance agent for 34 years and.
with the exception of a break of some months in 1939 and 1940, has been
employed by the respondent for the past 12 years, became a member of the
Union when its organizational activities started'in early 1941. He was active
in soliciting the other agents to join and became president of Local 22802
when it was'installed and since then has served on committees of the Union
which come in contact with the respondent. He still occupies the office of
President.
Shortly after the Union was organized in- Savannah, Monroe was called into
the office of L L. Wallace, District Manager of respondent's Savannah office.
where he and Wallace engaged in a discussion of the Union. During this
2 The substance of these findings is taken from a stipulation read into the record with
the approval and consent of all patties
8 A substantial number of the other district offices of the respondent had previously been
organized and in connection smith these , Rusn has and had had many conferences and
negotiations pith the respondent.
1234 DECISiI'ONiS OF NATIONAL LABOR RIE,LAITIONS BOARD)
conversation , WalIi ce ,adeised-..Monroe . to,. have ', nothing to . do,• with ' ther-Uiiion,
explaining that the respondent would not look with favor upon it and that t
iurion men would not be considered when promotions were in order.
Later in 1941 , Wallace repeated the above statements , in substance, in a
conversation with Samuel H Everette and George E Crafts , Jr, agents in
his office ,, when lie told them that the respondent frowned on the Union and
that their chances of promotion would not be so good as if they were not
members. This was after he knew they had joined . Later, when Everette
and Crafts withdrew from the Union in late 1942, following Monroe's dis-
charge, and advised Wallace of their withdrawal , the latter congratulated,,
them , told them it was a gainful step and would be to their advantage
Still later , in December 1941 , when the respondent inaugurated a system
of fixed quarterly bonuses ($25 00 ) for its agents, Wallace , ur.distributing the
bonuses .' made a point of 'observing to the agents , that no ' outside organiza-
tion could take credit for the bonus but that it 'had been provided for by the
stockholders.`
Both Everette and Crafts testified that their withdrawal from the Union,
was wholly independent and not influenced - by, anything said or done by the
respondent or Wallace although they were definite in their testimony as to
the conversations they had had with Wallace as above set forth. Their
explanations of the reasons that motivated their withdrawal from the Union
and their report of that fact' to Wallace are neither clear nor convincing.
Notwithstanding that they testified their action was free, voluntary and, not
influenced by Wallace 's statement , it well ' might be inferred from all the cir-
cumstances that the fear that union membership might militate' against pronto
tion was a strong ' factor, emphasized by `Monroe 's discharge . However, a,
finding on this question is not essential to a 'determination of the issues heaeln`
and none is made. The • statements attributed to Wallace require no such
objective illustrations to measure their anticipated effect. Wallace ' denied all,
such conversations but under the circumstances, his denial cannot be credited.
It is found that in substance he' did advise Monroe, Everette and Crafts sub-
stantially ` as has been recited. There is no evidence of -other acts of similar
character by any ' of the other officers or representatives of the respondent, but
it is found that since Wallace was wholly 'in charge of the Savannah 'office
and its , agents , his acts must be and are regarded as the acts of'the respond-,
^ eat and that by such acts the respondent ' lias interfered with, i restrained; and
coerced its employees in the Savannah office, in the exercise of the rights guar-
anteed to them in Section'7 of the Act: • ,
(b) The discharge of Thomas B. Momamoe
The agents of the company generally deal with, two' types of insuu ance.
One, the weekly premium type, is referred to as Industrial Insurance, on which
the premium is collected each week by the, agent. The list of ,weekly collec-
tions, usually in small amounts, is commonly referred to as the agent's f'debit."
This represents varying amounts from less than $100.00 per week to $200.00 or
$300 00, and involves several hundred accounts Collecting the debit and solicit-
nn,- further industrial contracts represent by far the major part of the agent's
* The credit for the bonus is not in issue It was, in fact, provided for by the respondent
and the approval of Russ then sought and 'obtaineil ,' not only as to the initial bonus of De-
cember 1941 but of subsequent bonuses Under the present woiking arrangement , bonuses
are a subject of negotiatioii Monroe, however,' had previousl3 ineisted that the bonus
was inspned by the Union's activity. 1
LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF VIRGINIA 1235
work. In addition he attempts to sell "ordinary" insurance covering larger
amounts and with premiums payable at wider intervals. The "ordinary"
premiums handled by an agent will generally not exceed five or six per week.
In collecting his debit, the agent customarily turns in each morning. all his
collections of the previous day, less such amount as lie may regard as necessary
to withhold to use as change for the next day's collections. Once a week, the
agent makes a complete report of his week's collections and turns it in to
be checked against his collection book. These accounts are not checked or
verified at the office except to compare the total collections with the total, debit
and note, in general, such differences as may reflect lapses or prepayments. At
intervals of several weks or some times months, routine inspections of the various
debits are made by the Assistant District Managers, who 'cover the, debit with
the agent and check the payment receipt books in the hands of the policy
holders with the agent's collection record. It is only by such inspections that
an accurate check can be obtained on the agent's accountings for the collection
he has made Occasionally, when the weekly report indicates a substantial
difference between the debit and amount reported, special inspections are
ordered by the District Manager. On some occasions, when the Assistant
District Manager has discovered nominal shortages in the agent's accountings
as a result of such inspections, he has permitted the agent to make up such
shortages and has not reported them. However, when shortages are brought
to the attention of the District Manager, the Home Office is-immediately noti-
fied and customarily directs the District Manager to dismiss the agent after
giving'him enough time to introduce a new man to his route. , There is no
evidence of any exceptions to this rule which has been followed, since long
prior to the coming of the Union
In-the handling of "ordinary"'premiums, a closer and more accurate check
is maintained. With these policies, receipts for all th,e premiums to mature
during a given month are prepared at the office on the first of the month and
delivered to the respondent's agents who are responsible for the business.
The agents in turn sign and leave with the office, a stub receipt for each such
premium receipt delivered to him. As the premiums are collected, the origi-
nal receipt is delivered to the policy holder and the money turned in to the
District Office, at which time the agent receives a receipt for it on a special
form. The rules of the respondent, as set out in the manual for agents, pro-
vide that as to all "ordinary" premium collections, the money must be turned
in as soon as collected and not later than the next business day. The forms
on which these collections are reported bear in large type, the rule that col-
lections must be reported daily. This rule has always been rigidly enforced
and is and always has been well known to all the agents, including Monroe.
As a double check or the "ordinary" collections, all agents are required to
check their original receipts against the signed stubs each week, thus making a
weekly accounting unavoidable, since they must then account for each receipt
held by'them, either by producing (1) the uncollected premium receipt. (2) a
receipt from the office for the proceeds of missing receipts, or (3) the proceeds
of the collections. Some effort was made by Board's counsel to show that such
collections were customarily held up until the weekly settlement when the agents
were "reminded" of their collections, but the proof was wholly inadequate in the
face of the testimony of all agent witnesses that the rule is to turn in each
collection the day following receipt of the money and that the rule was observed.'
'The weekly check-in of "ordinary" receipts and, the report on debit collections were
customarily made on 't''huisdays and were a condition precedent to the payment of the
agent's weekly salary, which payment was customarily made on Friday.
531647-43-vol 49-79
1236 )DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS, BOARD
Although Monroe has a 12-year record of employment with the respondent,
it has not been a clear one or one that has been free from criticism. In 1932,
while he was Assistant District Manager at Savannah, he recommended an
applicant for ordinary insurance as an insurable risk, stating he had known
the applicant for 10 years and knew him to be a good risk. Examination of the
applicant disclosed he was not a good risk and that some 6 years previous
Monroe had taken an application from him which revealed this fact. On hearing
this, the Home Office of respondent directed that Monroe be dismissed. He
went to Richmond to plead for reconsideration and after a visit to one Orgain,
Assistant Secretary of the respondent, was reinstated and moved to Columbus,
Georgia, as Assistant District Manager in the office in, that city. In 1934, at his
own request, he was transferred back to Savannah as an agent.
In 1936, Monroe was again threatened with dismissal for violation of the
rules of the company in that he personally paid the premium on a policy with
the expectation of receiving reimbursement when the policy should mature after
being in force for 5 years. For this the Home Office directed that he be repri-
manded and all agents reminded that such procedure is in violation of the rules
and would result in dismissal if indulged in.
The foregoing findings with reference to Monroe's record are.taken from ex-
cerpts from the records of the respondent, read into the record after Monroe
had denied any recollection of the 1936 incident and had testified he never had-
been advised, even when he visited Orgain in Richmond in 1932, of the com-
plaint that he had falsely certified as to his knowledge of the insurability of an
applicant for insurance, for which act he had been ordered dismissed. On the
contrary, Monroe testified that he did not at that or any other time, learn the
nature of the criticism on which his dismissal had been ordered and concerning
which lie called on Orgain, and generally denied that at any time during his
employment with the respondent, there has been any complaint or criticism of
his work. These denials are not persuasive in the light of the official records
of, the respondent and indicate a lack of frankness in his testimony. It is
accordingly found that the incidents above recited reflect a part of Monroe's
record with the respondent and that the same were well known to Wallace and
the officials of the Home Office at the time of Monroe's discharge in July 1942.
In 1939, for some undisclosed reason, Monroe resigned from the respondent's
employ, but in 1940 applied for reemployment and was told he could be assigned
to the Savannah office as an agent if Wallace approved. This approval was
obtained and he resumed employment under Wallace at Savannah. The record
reflects no detail- as to the quality of work done by him during-the latter period,
from 1940 to his discharge. It is assumed it was generally satisfactory.
In June, 1942, Monroe received and signed for his usual "ordinary" receipts to
be collected, among which was one covering a premium on an insurance policy
to one Bowen, in the amout of $10 10, due June 26 On Thursday, June 25, Monroe
made the collection, At'this time, he had not to exceed four or five receipts to
account for. On Friday, June 26, Wallace, having learned that the company,
auditor -would probably visit the office within a few days to make a routine
audit, told all the agents ° the -auditor was coming and instructed them to get all
their accounts in order so that there would be nothing to criticize. Monroe
denies having heard this, but the testimony of the other agents who testified
and of Wallace is unanimous on the subject and their testimony is credited.
On Monday, June 29, the auditor, Clarence Rives, arrived at the office, where-
upon Wallace instructed each agent to put his "ordinary" receipts in an envelope
° There were then either eight or nine agents emoloved at the Savannah office.
LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF VIRGINIA 1237
and turn them in for checking. Monroe did this but in the meantime failed to
make any accounting for the Bowen receipt. He testified he had' forgotten
about having made the collection. Tuesday afternoon, the receipts were returned
to the agents after the auditor had completed his check. By this check, Rives
had discovered that the Bowen receipt was missing and not accounted' for, and'
so reported to Wallace. Wednesday morning, July 1,' Wallace asked Monroe
and one of the other' agents to again let him have their receipts. He explained
on the witness,stand that while he was interested only in Monroe's receipts, he
got'receipts from another man as well, so as not to throw suspicion on Monroe,
that his accounts were being specially scrutinized. Wallace again examined
Monroe's receipts, verified Rives' finding and within 15 minutes returned Monroe's
receipts to him without comment. After again checking Monroe's receipts and
finding the Bowen receipt missing, neither Wallace nor Rives asked Monroe to
explain, but made an outside check with the policy holder from whom Rives
obtained the original receipt on Thursday. On Friday, July 3, Monroe was
called into Wallace's office where Rives questioned him about the Bowen premium
and showed him the original receipt he had obtained from Mrs. Bowen. Monroe
replied that he had turned it in. He was then asked to produce the office
receipts for the money and returned to his desk where he got his file of such office
receipts but was unable to produce one for,the Bowen premium of $10.10 from it'.
He then stated he had forgotten to turn in the money and immediately returned
to his desk where he made out the usual report of collection and paid the money
to the office cashier.
There is no contention that the rules of the respondent did not require this
payment to be turned in on Friday, June 26, nor that this rule was not well
known to Monroe. His sole excuse was and is that he forgot to account for the
money under the stress of having a sister taken to Johns Hopkins Hospital and
a son inducted into the Army shortly before the incident occurred.
All witnesses who were in a position to know, were closely questioned as to
what course the respondent had followed in the past when violations of the fore-
going rule had come to the attention of the District Manager- or the Home Office
officials. The evidence is uncontradicted that such a violation has, in every
instance when it had been discovered, resulted in immediate discharge An in-
stance in point was the case of one Baker who was discharged some 6 weeks
prior to Monroe's dismissal, for a violation of the rule involving less than $4.00.°
Nu contrary treatments of violations of the'rules were disclosed in any of the
evidence, either as to shortages in debit accounts or failures to turn in "ordinary"
premiums immediately following collection. It accordingly must be and is found
that the incident above described placed Monroe in line for dismissal in accord-
ance with the respondent's customary method of dealing with such situations.
On, July 3, Wallace reported the above incident to the Home Office and rec-
ommended Monroe's release. Rives' report set out the facts as above related,
concerning which there is no substantial conflict in the testimony, and was re-
ceived at about the time Wallace's report arrived. Shortly after receipt of these
reports at the Home Office, Rives, having completed his round of routine audits,
reported in person. As a result of these reports, the Home Office directed Wallace
7 In the Baker case , the Union filed a charge of an 8 ( 3) violation but on subsequent
investigation withdrew the charge because it was felt it could not be supported (testimony
of Russ, the Union Council president ). The charge was still pending, however , at the time
of the Monroe discharge. I - 0
1238, IDECISIONIS OF INATIONAL LABOiR RE[LATIONIS BOARD,
to release.Monroe as of July 18, 1942,' after allowing him a few days,in which to
acquaint his'successor with his work.
Monroe has never been short in his accounts and'this is the only occasion when
he has had difficulty with his superiors concerning his handling of the respond-
ent's funds. The record indicates that he was, a successful' business producer
as is evidenced by the fact that shortly before his discharge he was one of the
high men in business- produced for 1941 and was awarded a trip to a Miami
convention on the basis of his production record. He -was an active union
supporter,among'the agents and took the position that it was the union's activi-
'ties that gave rise to the bonus plan that was inaugurated in December 1941. It
has already been found that Wallace was opposed to and discouraged the union-
ization of the agents. Under such circumstances, a peremptory discharge of an
employee, even with a record such as Monroe built up in 1932 and 1936, normally
excites suspicion as to its motivation. Had it been that in the past, the respond-
ent has condoned shortages on the withholding of "ordinary" premium collections
in violation of the rule, there might be justification for considering Monroe's
union activity as the factor that motivated his discharge. But the respondent
has not done this. The rule is a reasonable one. Some such rule is essential
for the protection of the respondent and its policy holders and so long as it is
'rigidly, enforced as to all violators, its enforcement with respect to Monroe is
not subject to criticism. It is therefore found that the respondent, by dismiss-
ing Monroe on July 18, 1942,, because of his violation of the rule pertaining to
the prompt turning in of "ordinary" premium collections, has not discriminated
against him in any respect.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE ON COMMERCE
The activities of the respondent set forth in Section III (a), above, occurring
in connection with the operations of the respondent described in Section I, above,
have a close, intimate and substantial relation to trade, commerce and communi-
cation among the several States and tend to lead ,to labor disputes burdening
and obstructing commerce and the free flow thereof.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices,
it will be recommended that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act, especially by way
of assuring its employees at the Savannah district office of' their freedom to'
exercise the right to self-organization as guaranteed by Section 7 of, the Act,
and without fear-of discrimination as to promotion or otherwise, to become or
remain members of American Federation of Industrial and Ordinary Insurance
Agents' Local Union No. 22802, affiliated with the American Federation of'Labor,
or any other labor organization.
It having further been found that the respondent has not discriminated against
Thomas B. Monroe in respect to his hire or tenure of employment, it will be
recommended' that the complaint be dismissed insofar as it alleges such
discrimination.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record
in the case, the undersigned makes the following :
/-
LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF VIRGINIA 1239
CoNOLusloNs OF LAW
.1. American Federation of Industrial and Ordinary Insurance Agents' Local
Union No. 22802, affiliated with American Federation of Labor, is a labor organi-
zation, within the meaning of Section 2,(5) of the Act.
2. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the respondent has engaged in
and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of
the Act. 1
3. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.'
4. The respondent has not engaged in unfair labor practices within the mean-
ing of Section 8 (3) of the Act by terminating the employment of Thomas B.
Monroe.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is
recommended that the respondent, Life Insurance Company of Virginia, and,
its officers, agents, district managers, and its successors and assigns shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging its employees from becoming members of'or retaining mem-
bership in American Federation of Industrial and Ordinary Insurance Agents'
Local Union No. 22802, affiliated With American Federation of Labor or any
other labor organization, or
(b) In like or similar manner, interfering with, restraining, or coercing its
employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form, join or
assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of
their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purposes of
collective bargaining or other mutual aid and protection, as guaranteed in Section
7 of the National Labor Relations Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which will effectuate the policies of
the Act.
(a) Post immediately in conspicuous places in its office at Savannah, Georgia
and maintain for it period of at least sixty (60) consecutive days from,the date
of posting, notices to its agents that it will not engage in the conduct from
which it is recommended that it cease and desist in paragraphs 1 (a) and (b)
of these recommendations and that the respondent's agents are free to become
or remain members of American Federation of Industrial and Ordinary In-
surance Agents' Local Union 22802, affiliated with American Federation of
Labor or any other labor organization and that the respondent will not dis-
criminate against any employees with respect to promotion or otherwise because
of membership or activity in such organization or organizations.
,(b) Notify the Regional Director of the Tenth Region, in writing within
ten (10) 'days from the date of this Intermediate Report what steps the re-
spondent has taken to comply with these recommendations.
It is also recommended that the complaint, insofar as it pertains to the
alleged discriminatory discharge of Thomas B. Monroe, be dismissed.
It is further recommended that, in' the event the respondent shall fail for
10 days after the date hereof, to notify the Regional Director of the Tenth
Region, in writing that it will and has taken appropriate steps to comply with
the recommendations herein made, the Board enter an appropriate order requiring
such compliance.
1240 DE-CISffONIS OF NATIONAL LABOR RE1Afr ONS BOARD,
As provided in Section 33 of Article II of the Rules and Regulations of the
National Labor Relations Board, series 2-as amended, effective October 28,
1942-any party may within fifteen (15) days from the date of the entry of the
order transferring the, case to the Board, pursuant to Section 32 of Article II
of said Rules and Regulations, file with the Board, Shoreham Building,
Washington, D. C. an original and four copies of a statement in writing setting
forth such exceptions to the Intermediate Report or to any other part of the
record or proceeding (including rulings upon all motions or objections) as he
relies upon, together with the original and four copies of a brief in support
thereof. As further provided in said Section 33, should any party desire per-
mission to argue orally before the Board, request therefor must be made in
writing to the Board within ten (10) days from the date of the order trans-
ferring the case to the Board.
R. N. DLNHAri,
Trial Examaner.
Dated April 12, 1943.
v