330 F.2d 62 (6th Cir. 1964), 15366, Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. N. L. R. B.

Docket Nº:15366.
Citation:330 F.2d 62
Party Name:METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent.
Case Date:April 11, 1964
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 62

330 F.2d 62 (6th Cir. 1964)

METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Petitioner,

v.

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent.

No. 15366.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

April 11, 1964

Burton A. Zorn, New York City (Harry E. Marble, Cincinnati, Ohio, George G. Gallantz, Marvin Dicker, Thomas F. Delaney, Associate Gen. Counsel, Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., New York City, on the brief; Marble & Vordenberg, Cincinnati, Ohio, Proskauer, Rose, Goetz & Mendelsohn, New York City, of counsel), for petitioner.

Warren M. Davison Atty., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C. (Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Gladys Kessler, Atty.,

Page 63

N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., on the brief), for respondent.

Isaac N. Groner, Washington, D.C., on the brief for amicus curiae, Insurance Workers International Union, AFL-CIO.

Before MILLER and CECIL, Circuit Judges, and McALLISTER, Senior Circuit judge.

CECIL, Circuit Judge.

This case is before the Court upon the petition of the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company to review and set aside an order of the National Labor Relations Board, respondent, issued against the petitioner on April 2, 1963, pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act. (Section 160(c), Title 29, U.S.C.) The respondent, by answer, has requested that the order be enforced. The petitioner and the respondent will be referred to hereinafter as the Company and the Board, respectively.

The Board found that the Company violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act (Section 158(a)(1) and (5), Title 29, U.S.C.), 1 by refusing to bargain with the union 2 certified as the representative of a group of its employees. The Board's Decision and Order is reported at 141 N.L.R.B. 1074. The sole question presented here is whether the Board's determination of an appropriate unit (Section 159(b), Title 29, U.S.C.) 3 was controlled by the extent of union organization in violation of Section 9(c)(5) of the Act. (Section 159(c) (5), Title 29, U.S.C.) 4

The unit as determined by the Board consists of nine district offices of the Company. Six of these offices are located in the city of Cleveland, Cuyahoga County, Ohio, and three are located in the metropolitan area of Cleveland. The three offices outside of the city of Cleveland are all in Cuyahoga County and are described as follows: Shaker Heights District in Cleveland Heights, Cuyahoga District in Parma and Lakewood District in Rocky River. These suburban offices are within eight or nine miles of the center of Cleveland. The nearest excluded office is in Akron, Summit County, Ohio, thirty miles from the center of Cleveland and approximately twenty-one miles from the nearest included office in Cuyahoga County.

The district offices are grouped into fourteen territorial divisions by the Company for administrative purposes. Each division is headed by a 'superintendent of agencies' who...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP