National Labor Relations Bd. v. Prudential Ins. Co., 9983

• Decision Date: 01 April 1946
• Docket Number: 9984.,No. 9983,9983
• Citation: 154 F.2d 385
• Parties: NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD v. PRUDENTIAL INS. CO. OF AMERICA (two cases).
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit

154 F.2d 385 (1946)

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD v. PRUDENTIAL INS. CO. OF AMERICA (two cases).

Nos. 9983, 9984.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

April 1, 1946.

David Findling, of Washington, D. C. (David A. Morse, Malcolm F. Halliday, A. Norman Somers, Joseph B. Robison, and Dominick L. Manoli, all of Washington, D. C., on the brief), for petitioner.

Milo J. Warner, of Toledo, Ohio, and Joseph T. Ferris, of Newark, N. J. (Doyle, Lewis & Warner and Milo J. Warner, all of Toledo, Ohio, and Joseph T. Ferris, of Newark, N. J., on the brief), for respondent.

Before HICKS and ALLEN, Circuit Judges, and MILLER,¹ District Judge.

MILLER, District Judge.

These two proceedings, involving in each case the validity of the action of the National Labor Relations Board in designating the unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining, arise out of the same series of facts and are considered together. Each case is before the Court upon the petition of the National Labor Relations Board, pursuant to § 10(e) of the National Labor Relations Act, § 160(e) Title 29 U.S.C.A., for enforcement of its order of June 30, 1944 issued against The Prudential Insurance Company of America, respondent, following the usual proceedings pursuant to § 10 of the Act, § 160, Title 29 U.S.C.A.

On July 13, 1942 a labor organization, herein called the AFL Local, filed with the Board for the purpose of collective bargaining and pursuant to § 9 of the Act, § 159, Title 29 U.S.C.A., a petition for investigation and certification of representatives for the industrial insurance agents attached to the three district offices in Toledo, Ohio, and the detached office at Bryan, Ohio, a nearby town, of The Prudential Insurance Company of America, hereinafter called the Company. The Company objected to the proposed unit because it was limited to the agents of the Company at Toledo and Bryan, contending that the appropriate unit for collective bargaining should include all its industrial agents employed within the State of Ohio because of the substantially uniform working conditions of these employees and the difficulties that collective bargaining with the lesser units would entail. On December 26, 1942 the Board issued its Decision and Direction of Election holding that the unit proposed by the AFL Local was the appropriate unit. This ruling was based principally upon the finding that employees in only 6 of the Company's 31 districts in Ohio had been organized and that the city-wide unit rather than the state-wide unit was appropriate because of this limited extent of self-organization among the Company's agents in Ohio. In making this ruling the Board said: "Under all the circumstances of this case we are of the opinion and find that the policies of the Act can best be effectuated by making collective bargaining an immediate possibility for the employees of the Company in the three district offices of Toledo and the sub-district office of Bryan, Ohio. Our finding does not preclude a later finding that a state-wide or larger unit is appropriate for collective bargaining purposes." On February 5th, following an election, the Board certified the AFL Local as the exclusive bargaining representative of the employees in the designated unit.

On April 20, 1943 the AFL Local requested a conference to negotiate a contract for the employees within the unit referred to. On April 30, 1943 the Company answered by calling attention to the fact that there was then pending before the Board the question of a statewide unit for the Company arising out of a petition filed by a C. I. O. Union, and suggesting that the present request was untimely and bargaining negotiations should be deferred until the decision by the Board on this new petition. However, the AFL Local insisted on the requested conference, and under date of May 25, 1943 the Company advised the Union that it was not inclined to comply with its request.

The pending proceedings referred to by the Company arose out of the filing of the following petitions with the Board: On September 29, 1942 the AFL Union of Canton, Ohio, filed its petition for investigation and certification of representatives. On October 17, 1942 the AFL Union of Akron, Ohio, filed its petition for investigation and certification of representatives. On December 26, 1942 the International Union of Life Insurance Agents (hereinafter called the International) filed the following three petitions: (1) For a unit to cover the agents working out of the district office in Dayton, Ohio, (2) for a unit to cover the agents working out of the district office in Cincinnati, Ohio, and (3) for a unit to cover the agents working out of the district offices in Hamilton, Ohio. On January 16, 1943 the CIO filed a petition for a statewide unit to include all of the agents in Ohio. On March 22, 1943 the International filed a petition to cover the agents working out of the district office in Springfield, Ohio. On February 4, 1943 the AFL filed a petition for a unit to cover the agents working out of the office in Sandusky, Ohio. On April 23, 1943 the AFL filed a petition for a unit to cover the agents working out of the district office at Mansfield, Ohio. These 9 petitions were consolidated in one case and hearings started therein on April 27, 1943. On June 17, 1943 the Board rendered its Decision and Direction of Election in which it found that all the industrial agents of the Company in Ohio, excluding those agents attached to the three district offices in Toledo and the detached office at Bryan, Ohio, constituted an appropriate unit, and specifically adding "Our finding does not, however, preclude a later finding that a larger unit is appropriate." The Board found as its basis for this ruling that the progress of union organization among the Company's agents in Ohio had been quite rapid in recent months, the evidence disclosing that the unions claimed majorities in all but 3 of the Company's 31 district offices in Ohio, which presented a situation in striking contrast to the one which existed at the time of the hearing in the Toledo case when only 6 of the 31 district offices had been organized, and that outside the State of Ohio collective bargaining on behalf of the Company's agents had developed during 1943 to the point where it was being conducted in bargaining units at least Statewide in scope. It also pointed out that the International, which had originally petitioned for city-wide units, had changed its petition in the hearing, contending for the state-wide unit. The Board then made this statement: "From the aforesaid facts it is clear that the time is ripe for the establishment of a state-wide unit in Ohio. However, inasmuch as we have so recently certified the AFL in the Toledo unit, we shall exclude it from the appropriate unit in the instant proceeding." An election was conducted on July 29, 1943 followed by a runoff election on September 23, 1943 which resulted in the selection of the International as the bargaining agent in the unit designated. On September 29, 1943 the International moved the Board to certify it as the exclusive representative of all the industrial insurance agents of the Company in Ohio, calling attention to the Board's statement in the Toledo case that its finding therein did not preclude a later finding that a state-wide unit was appropriate for collective bargaining purposes. On September 29, 1943 the Company petitioned the Board to amend its Decision and Direction of Election by finding that all the industrial insurance agents of the Company in Ohio constituted the most appropriate unit for collective bargaining, that it revoke its certification in the Toledo case, and that it certify the International as the bargaining representative for all the industrial insurance agents of the Company in Ohio. On November 19, 1943, following an oral hearing on the motions, the Board denied...