National Labor Relations Board v. United Insurance Company of America Insurance Workers International Union, Afl 8212 Cio v. National Labor Relations Board, s. 178

Citation19 L.Ed.2d 1083,390 U.S. 254,88 S.Ct. 988
Decision Date06 March 1968
Docket Number179,Nos. 178,s. 178
PartiesNATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. UNITED INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA et al. INSURANCE WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, AFL—CIO, Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD et al
CourtUnited States Supreme Court

Dominick L. Manoli, Washington, D.C., for National Labor Relations board.

Isaac N. Groner, Washington, D.C., for Insurance Workers International Union, AFL—CIO.

Bernard G. Segal, Philadelphia, Pa., for United Ins. Co. of America.

Mr. Justice BLACK delivered the opinion of the Court.

In its insurance operations respondent United Insurance Company uses 'debit agents' whose primary functions are collecting premiums from policy-holders, preventing the lapsing of policies, and selling such new insurance as time allows. The Insurance Workers International Union, having won a certification election, seeks to represent the debit agents, and the question before us is whether these agents are 'employees' who are protected by the National Labor Relations Act or 'independent contractors' who are expressly exempted from the Act.1 Respondent company refused to recognize the Union, claiming that its debit agents were independent contractors rather than employees. In the ensuing unfair labor practice proceeding the National Labor Relations Board held that these agents were employees and ordered the company to bargain collectively with the Union. 154 N.L.R.B. 38. On appeal the Court of Appeals found that the debit agents were independent contractors and refused to enforce the Board's order. 371 F.2d 316 (C.A.7th Cir.). The importance of the question in the context involved to the administration of the National Labor Relations Act prompted us to grant the petitions of the Board and the Union for certiorari. 389 U.S. 815, 88 S.Ct. 49, 19 L.Ed.2d 66.

At the outset the critical issue is what standard or standards should be applied in differentiating 'employee' from 'independent contractor' as those terms are used in the Act. Initially this Court held in N.L.R.B. v. Hearst Publications, 322 U.S. 111, 64 S.Ct. 851, 88 L.Ed. 1170, that 'Whether * * * the term 'employee' includes (particular) workers * * * must be answered primarily from the history, terms and purposes of the legislation.' 322 U.S., at 124, 64 S.Ct. at 857. Thus the standard was one of economic and policy considerations within the labor field. Congressional reaction to this construction of the Act was adverse and Congress passed an amendment specifically excluding 'any individual having the status of an independent contractor' from the definition of 'employee' contained in § 2(3) of the Act. The obvious purpose of this amendment was to have the Board and the courts apply general agency principles in distinguishing between employees and independent contractors under the Act.2 And both petitioners and respondents agree that the proper standard here is the law of agency. Thus there is no doubt that we should apply the commonlaw agency test here in distinguishing an employee from an independent contractor.

Since agency principles are to be applied, some factual background showing the relationship between the debit agents and respondent company is necessary. These basic facts are stated in the Board's opinion and will be very briefly summarized here. Respondent has district offices in most States which are run by a manager who usually has several assistant managers under him. Each assistant manager has a staff of four or five debit agents, and the total number of such agents connected with respondent company is approximately 3,300. New agents are hired by district managers, after interviews; they need have no prior experience and are assigned to a district office under the supervision of an assistant district manager. Once he is hired, a debit agent is issued a debit book which contains the names and addresses of the company's existing policyholders in a relatively concentrated geographic area. This book is company property and must be returned to the company upon termination of the agent's service. The main job of the debit agents is to collect premiums from the policyholders listed in this book. They also try to prevent the lapsing of policies and sell new insurance when time allows. The company compensates the agents as agreed to in the 'Agent's Commission Plan' under which the agent retains 20% of his weekly premium collections on industrial insurance and 10% from holders of ordinary life, and 50% of the first year's premiums on new ordinary life insurance sold by him. The company plan also provides for bonuses and other fringe benefits for the debit agents, including a vacation-with-pay plan and participation in a group insurance and profit-sharing plan. At the beginning of an agent's service an assistant district manager accompanies the new agent on his rounds to acquaint him with his customers and show him the approved collection and selling techniques. The agent is also supplied with a company 'Rate Book,' which the agent is expected to follow, containing detailed instructions on how to perform many of his duties. An agent must turn in his collected premiums to the district office once a week and also file a weekly report. At this time the agent usually attends staff meetings for the discussion of the latest company sales techniques, company directives, etc. Complaints against an agent are investigated by the manager or assistant manager, and, if well founded, the manager talks with the agent to 'set him straight.' Agents who have poor production records, or who fail to maintain their accounts properly or to follow company rules, are 'cautioned...

To continue reading

Request your trial
379 cases
7 firm's commentaries
  • A Powerful "One-Two" Punch: NLRB And DOL Signal Contractor Classification Crackdown
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • February 9, 2022
    ...employee or independent contractor, as originally explained in the 1968 Supreme Court decision, NLRB v. United Insurance Co. of America, 390 U.S. 254, 256 (1968). This common law agency test includes an analysis of the following 10 The extent of control which the "master" may exercise over ......
  • A Powerful "One-Two" Punch: NLRB And DOL Signal Contractor Classification Crackdown
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • February 9, 2022
    ...employee or independent contractor, as originally explained in the 1968 Supreme Court decision, NLRB v. United Insurance Co. of America, 390 U.S. 254, 256 (1968). This common law agency test includes an analysis of the following 10 The extent of control which the "master" may exercise over ......
  • NLRB Is Looking to Review (Again) Independent Contractors And Who is Covered
    • United States
    • LexBlog United States
    • March 17, 2022
    ...of the Act. This framework has held true ever since the Supreme Court issued its decision in NLRB v. United Insurance Co. of America, 390 U.S. 254, 256 (1968). However, since the United Insurance decision, the Board has at times revisited the common-law factors to the independent contractor......
  • Democrat-led NLRB Eyes New Independent Contractor And Joint Employer Tests
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • January 11, 2022
    ...to the independent contractor test it used without changes since the Supreme Court decided NLRB v. United Insurance Co. of America, 390 U.S. 254, in 1968. The stakes are high, as the country continues to rely on so-called "gig" workers who provide short-term services like food delivery and ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
11 books & journal articles
  • Employment Relationship Defined
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Texas Employment Law. Volume 1 - 2017 Part I. The employment relationship
    • August 9, 2017
    ...be assessed and weighed with no one factor being decisive.’” Darden , 503 U.S. at 324 ( quoting N.L.R.B. v. United Ins. Co. of America , 390 U.S. 254, 258 (1968)). Darden held that “ Reid’s presumption that Congress means an agency law definition for ‘employee’ unless it clearly indicates o......
  • Table of cases
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Texas Employment Law. Volume 2 - 2016 Part VIII. Selected Litigation Issues
    • July 27, 2016
    ...1986), §4:3.B.2.b NLRB v. Town & Country Elec. , 516 U.S. 85, 116 S.Ct. 450 (1995), §§1:8.C.3, 16:3.G NLRB v. United Ins. Co. of America , 390 U.S. 254, 258 (1968), §1:6.B.3 NME Hospitals, Inc. v. Rennels , 994 S.W.2d 142 (Tex. 1999), §§1:6.C.4, 1:8.C.1, 17:4.B, 18:2.A, 18:6.C.2.a, 18:7.C.2......
  • Employment relationship defined
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Texas Employment Law. Volume 1 Part I. The employment relationship
    • May 5, 2018
    ...be assessed and weighed with no one factor being decisive.’” Darden , 503 U.S. at 324 ( quoting N.L.R.B. v. United Ins. Co. of America , 390 U.S. 254, 258 (1968)). Darden held that “ Reid’s presumption that Congress means an agency law definition for ‘employee’ unless it clearly indicates o......
  • Table of cases
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Texas Employment Law. Volume 2 - 2014 Part VIII. Selected litigation issues
    • August 16, 2014
    ...Table oF Cases NLRB v. Town & Country Elec. , 516 U.S. 85, 116 S.Ct. 450 (1995), §§1:8.C.3, 16:3.G NLRB v. United Ins. Co. of America , 390 U.S. 254, 258 (1968), §1:6.B.3 NME Hospitals, Inc. v. Rennels , 994 S.W.2d 142 (Tex. 1999), §§1:6.C.4, 1:8.C.1, 17:4.b, 18:2.A, 18:6.C.2.a, 18:7.C.2, 2......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
4 provisions
  • 20 C.F.R. § 655.715 Definitions
    • United States
    • Code of Federal Regulations 2021 Edition Title 20. Employees' Benefits Chapter V. Employment and Training Administration, Department of Labor Part 655. Temporary Employment of Foreign Workers In the United States Subpart H. Labor Condition Applications and Requirements For Employers Seeking to Employ Nonimmigrants On H-1b Visas In Specialty Occupations and As Fashion Models, and Requirements For Employers Seeking to Employ Nonimmigrants On H-1b1 and E-3 Visas In Specialty Occupations
    • January 1, 2021
    ...of the incidents of the relationship must be assessed and weighed with no one factor being decisive." NLRB v. United Ins. Co. of America,390 U.S. 254, Employer means a person, firm, corporation, contractor, or other association or organization in the United States that has an employment rel......
  • 20 C.F.R. § 655.715 Definitions
    • United States
    • Code of Federal Regulations 2022 Edition Title 20. Employees' Benefits Chapter V. Employment and Training Administration, Department of Labor Part 655. Temporary Employment of Foreign Workers In the United States Subpart H. Labor Condition Applications and Requirements For Employers Seeking to Employ Nonimmigrants On H-1b Visas In Specialty Occupations and As Fashion Models, and Requirements For Employers Seeking to Employ Nonimmigrants On H-1b1 and E-3 Visas In Specialty Occupations
    • January 1, 2022
    ...of the incidents of the relationship must be assessed and weighed with no one factor being decisive." NLRB v. United Ins. Co. of America,390 U.S. 254, Employer means a person, firm, corporation, contractor, or other association or organization in the United States that has an employment rel......
  • 20 C.F.R. § 655.1102 What Are the Definitions of Terms that Are Used In These Regulations?
    • United States
    • Code of Federal Regulations 2021 Edition Title 20. Employees' Benefits Chapter V. Employment and Training Administration, Department of Labor Part 655. Temporary Employment of Foreign Workers In the United States Subpart L. What Requirements Must a Facility Meet to Employ H-1c Nonimmigrant Workers As Registered Nurses?
    • January 1, 2021
    ...of the incidents of the relationship must be assessed and weighed with no one factor being decisive." NLRB v. United Ins. Co. of America,390 U.S. 254, 258(1968). The determination should consider following factors and any other relevant factors that would indicate the existence of an employ......
  • 20 C.F.R. § 655.1102 What Are the Definitions of Terms that Are Used In These Regulations?
    • United States
    • Code of Federal Regulations 2022 Edition Title 20. Employees' Benefits Chapter V. Employment and Training Administration, Department of Labor Part 655. Temporary Employment of Foreign Workers In the United States Subpart L. What Requirements Must a Facility Meet to Employ H-1c Nonimmigrant Workers As Registered Nurses?
    • January 1, 2022
    ...of the incidents of the relationship must be assessed and weighed with no one factor being decisive." NLRB v. United Ins. Co. of America,390 U.S. 254, 258(1968). The determination should consider following factors and any other relevant factors that would indicate the existence of an employ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT