327 F.2d 906 (1st Cir. 1964), 6154, Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. N. L. R. B.
|Citation:||327 F.2d 906|
|Party Name:||METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent.|
|Case Date:||February 17, 1964|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the First Circuit|
Heard Nov. 7, 1963.
Burton A. Zorn, New York City, with whom Jeremiah W. Mahoney, Boston, Mass., George G. Gallantz, Marvin Dicker, Thomas F. Delaney, New York City, Lyne, Woodworth & Evarts, Boston, Mass., and Proskauer, Rose, Goetz & Mendelsohn, New York City, were on brief, for petitioner.
Warren M. Davison, Atty., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., with whom Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, and Gladys Kessler, Atty., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., were on brief, for respondent.
Before WOODBURY, Chief Judge, and HARTIGAN and ALDRICH, Circuit Judge.
WOODBURY, Chief Judge.
On petition of Insurance Workers' International Union, AFL-CIO, the National Labor Relations Board in a proceeding under § 9(c) of the Act, 29 U.S.C. 159(c), certified the Union as the bargaining representative of all debit insurance agents, including all canvassing regular and office account agents, at Metropolitan Life Insurance Company's district office in Woonsocket, Rhode Island. The Company deliberately refused to bargain collectively with the Union in order to challenge the appropriateness of the employee unit certified by the Board. See American Federation of Labor v. NLRB, 308 U.S. 401, 411, 60 S.Ct. 300, 84 L.Ed. 347 (1940); Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co. v. NLRB, 313 U.S. 146, 154, 61 S.Ct. 908, 85 L.Ed. 1251 (1941). The Company agrees with the Board's classifications of employees included and excluded. That is to say, the Company does not contend that the unit certified by the Board contains ineligible employees or employees whose interests are antagonistic.
Its contention is that an employee unit consisting of the debit insurance agents working out of only its one Woonsocket district office is inappropriate. Its position is that the only appropriate unit would encompass either 1) all of its offices in the United States or 2) all of its offices in its New England Territory (Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts and Rhode Island), or 3) all of its offices in Rhode Island. Furthermore, it says that in determining that the debit insurance agents at only one of its eight district offices in Rhode Island constituted an appropriate unit for collective bargaining, the Board treated as controlling the extent to which the Union had so far organized its employees in Rhode Island in clear violation of § 9(c)(5) added to the National Labor Relations Act by the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947, 61 Stat. 144 (1947), 29 U.S.C. § 159(c)(5), quoted in its pertinent context in the margin. 1
The Board's policy for determining appropriate bargaining units of debit insurance agents has not been consistent over the years. In Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 56 NLRB 1635 (1944), the Board announced that, departing from its previous policy, it would in the future, in the absence of unusual circumstances, avoid setting up units of debit insurance agents smaller than state-wide in scope. It said: among employees of an we have frequently found employer, we have frequently found appropriate for bargaining purposes small groups of employees with a provision for revision of a unit upon a later showing of broader organization. We believe, however, that the principle upon which we have set up such units is not controlling in the instant case. Organization among insurance agents is comparatively recent, but is steadily growing. The tendency of such organization is toward State-wide units. * * * Thus, the rapid growth of union organization among insurance agents makes it clearly appear that provisional units less than State-wide in scope are, under ordinary circumstances, unnecessary to make collective bargaining reasonably possible for them if they desire it. Accordingly, we are of the opinion that, in the absences of unusual circumstances the practice of setting up units for insurance agents smaller that State-wide in scope should be avoided. In the instant case, since the * * * (unions) are all actively engaged in a broad organizational program in Ohio, and since it may reasonably be anticipated that one of these organizations may in the near future extend its membership to State-wide proportions, we are of the opinion that it will not effectuate the policies of the Act to set up city-wide units for employees of the Company in Ohio...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP