Home Beneficial Life Insurance Co., Inc. And American Federation Of Industrial And Ordinary Insurance Agents' Union, Lo, 32 (1946)
National Labor Relations Board
Linked as:
Extract
Home Beneficial Life Insurance Co., Inc. And American Federation Of Industrial And Ordinary Insurance Agents' Union, Lo, 32 (1946)
In the Matter of HOME BENEFICIAL LIFE INSURANCE Co., INC. and AMERICAN FEDERATION OF INDUSTRIAL AND ORDINARY INSURANCE AGENTS' UNION, LOCALS NOS. 21703, 21753, 22947, 22874, 23419, 23378, 23262 AND 23451, A. F. L.
Case No. 5-C-184O.-Decided June 26, 1946 DECISION AND ORDER On September 28, 1945, the Trial Examiner issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the respondent 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 forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and supporting briefs; counsel for the Union also filed a brief. On May 16, 1946, the Board at Washington, D. C., heard oral argument in which the respondent and the Union participated.The Board has reviewed the Trial Examiner's rulings made 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 briefs of the parties, the contentions advanced at the oral argument before the Board, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and. recommendations of the Trial Examiner with the following exceptions and modifications.1. We agree with the Trial Examiner that the conduct of the Washington and Norfolk agents in ceasing work in protest against the reporting rule and the conduct of the agents in the other district offices in striking in sympathy, constituted concerted activity within the meaning of Section 7 of the Act.The Trial Examiner also found, as more fully set forth in the Intermediate Report, that by discharging the striking Washington and Norfolk agents on October 13 and 20, 1944, respectively, and by threatening to cancel and by cancelling the licenses of the striking agents in the other district offices on October 30, 1944, the respondent 32 discriminated with respect to their hire and tenure of employment in violation of Section 8 (3) of the Act; he accordingly recommended that the respondent be required to make the striking agents whole for loss of wages incurred from the respective dates on which the respondent took the above-mentioned action. Unlike the Trial Examiner, we are of the opinion that the respondent's conduct did not violate Section 8 (3) of the Act and that the agents are not entitled to back pay dating from said conduct. The agents, having ceased work as a result of a current labor dispute, remained employees within the meaning of Section 2 (3) of the Act. The discharges and the cancellations of the licenses had no actual effect upon the tenure of the strikers to whom they were directed. As we have previously observed in similar cases, such conduct was primarily intended, not to effectuate a permanent termination of the employer-employee relationship, but as a tactical maneuver designed to induce the agents to abandon the strike and resume work.1 2. We agree with the Trial Examiner's findings that on November 11 and 28, 1944, unconditional requests for reinstatement were made on behalf of all the striking agents and that, although jobs were then available, the respondent refused to reinstate the strikers because they had engaged in the concerted and union activity of striking. By thus failing and refusing to reinstate the agents when they offered to abandon the strike, thereby in effect discharging them, we find that the respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced the employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act and thereby violated Section 8 (1). We also find that the respondent's conduct in thus discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of the strikers discouraged membership in the Union and hence also constituted a violation of Section 8 (3) of the Act.Whether the respondent's discriminatory conduct be viewed as a violation of Section 8 (1) or a violation of Section 8 (3), we find that the effectuation of the policies of the Act requires their reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions, as set forth in the Intermediate Report, with back pay from November 11, 1944.3. We agree with the Trial Examiner that there is nothing in the negotiations of December 9 and 10, 1944, which warrants us as a matter of law or policy to decline to proceed upon charges filed by the Union herein. In its oral argument before the Board, the respondent contended that the memorandum of December 10, 1944, should be regarded by the Board as a binding of settlement agreement because it was so recognized by the War Labor Board in a compliance proceed1 Matter of Majestio Manufacturing Company,Stove Works, ing pending before it. On February 1, 1945, the Regional War Labor Board for the Fourth Region issued its 'Corrected Finding' in which it found that the agreements reached betwee...See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
