NLRB v. United Insurance Co.
19 L. Ed. 2d 1083, 88 S. Ct. 988 (1968)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The determination of whether an individual is an "employee" or an "independent contractor" under the National Labor Relations Act is governed by common-law agency principles, requiring an assessment of all factors of the working relationship with no single factor being decisive. A reviewing court must uphold the National Labor Relations Board's determination if it represents a choice between two fairly conflicting views.
Facts:
- United Insurance Company (United) utilizes 'debit agents' to collect insurance premiums, prevent policy lapses, and sell new policies.
- United's district managers hire new agents, who need no prior experience, and assign them to an assistant manager for supervision and training on approved techniques.
- Agents are issued a company-owned 'debit book' containing a geographically concentrated list of policyholders, which must be returned upon termination of service.
- Agents are compensated via a company-created 'Agent's Commission Plan' and are eligible for company benefits, including a vacation plan, group insurance, and a profit-sharing plan.
- United provides agents with a 'Rate Book' containing detailed instructions, requires them to submit collected premiums and file reports weekly, and holds regular staff meetings to discuss company directives.
- Company managers investigate complaints against agents, 'caution' those with poor performance, and may terminate agents who fail to improve or follow company rules.
- United's chairman of the board communicated to agents that they must operate according to the company's established plan or face termination.
Procedural Posture:
- The Insurance Workers International Union won a certification election to represent United's debit agents.
- United Insurance Company refused to bargain with the Union.
- The Union filed an unfair labor practice proceeding with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).
- The NLRB, an administrative agency, held that the agents were employees and ordered United to bargain with the Union.
- United appealed the NLRB's order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, an intermediate federal appellate court.
- The Court of Appeals found the agents were independent contractors and refused to enforce the Board's order.
- The NLRB and the Union (petitioners) successfully petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court (the highest federal court) for a writ of certiorari to review the appellate court's decision, with United as the respondent.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Are the debit agents of the United Insurance Company 'employees' within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act, or are they 'independent contractors' excluded from the Act's protections?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Black
Yes, the debit agents are employees under the National Labor Relations Act. The proper standard for distinguishing between an employee and an independent contractor under the Act is the common-law agency test, which requires an assessment of the total factual context of the working relationship. Here, numerous factors indicate an employment relationship: the agents perform essential functions of the company's business, are trained by the company, operate under the company's name, have their compensation terms set unilaterally by the company, follow detailed reporting procedures, receive company benefits, and have a permanent working arrangement. While agents control their own hours, the company retains significant control over the means and manner of their work, as evidenced by the chairman's letter demanding adherence to the 'company's plan.' Furthermore, the Court of Appeals erred by substituting its own judgment for that of the National Labor Relations Board. Under the standard of review from Universal Camera Corp. v. NLRB, a court may not displace the Board's choice between two fairly conflicting views, even if the court would have decided differently in the first instance.
Analysis:
This case solidified that the common-law agency test, focusing on the employer's right to control the manner and means of work, is the definitive standard for determining employee versus independent contractor status under the NLRA, rejecting a broader 'economic realities' test. It also significantly reinforced the principle of judicial deference to the factual and mixed law-and-fact findings of administrative agencies like the NLRB. By holding that a court must uphold the Board's decision if it's a choice between 'two fairly conflicting views,' the ruling limits the power of appellate courts to second-guess agency expertise and findings. This precedent continues to influence labor law by providing a flexible, multi-factor framework that requires a holistic examination of the entire working relationship.
Unlock the full brief for NLRB v. United Insurance Co.