Glenn L. Martin Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 18, 1947

74 N.L.R.B. 546 (N.L.R.B. 1947)

In the Matter of GLENN L. MARTIN COMPANY, EMPLOYER and INTER-
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, PETITIONER
Case No. 5-R-2910.-Decided July 18, 1947
Mr. Sidney J. Barb an , for the Board.
Messrs . George D. Bonnebrake and Thomas F. Veach , of Cleveland,
Ohio, for the Employer.
Mr. Jerome Y. Sturm, of New York City, Mr . Claude W. Fairfield,
of Baltimore , Md., and Mr. William Damerow , of Washington, D. C.,
for the Petitioner.
Mr. Benjamin C. Sigal, of Washington, D. C., and Messrs. Ernest J.
Moran and John Wheeler , of Baltimore , Md., for the Intervenor.
Mr. Leonard J. Mandl, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed, hearing in this case was held at Balti-
more, Maryland, on May 13, 14, and 17, 1947, before Earle K. Shawe,
hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are
free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.,
Upon the entire record in the case, the National Labor Relations
Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
Glenn L. Martin Company, a Maryland corporation, is engaged in
the business of manufacturing aircraft and airplane parts. It main-
tains at Middle River, Maryland, the largest, single aircraft plant in
the United States. During 1946, raw materials valued in excess of
$1,000,000 were shipped to the Middle River plant from points outside
'At the hearing , the Intervenor moved to dismiss the petition on the ground that the
Petitioner had not shown that it represented a sufficient number of employees in the unit
sought to entitle it to an election . The Searing officer reserved ruling on this motion for
the Board Inasmuch as we are satisfied administratively that the Petitioner has a sub-
stantial shoeing of membership among the employees it seeks to represent , the motion is
hereby denied . See Matter of 0. D. Jennings & Company, 68 N. L R B 516.
74 N. L. R. B. No. 103.
546
GLENN L. MARTIN COMPANY 547
the State of Maryland. During the same period, airplanes and airplane
parts manufactured at this plant and valued at more than $1,000,000
were shipped to points outside the State.
The Employer admits and we find that it is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
IT. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED 2
The Petitioner is a labor organization , claiming to represent em-
ployees of the Employer.
International Union, United Automobile , Aircraft and Agricultural
Implement Workers of America , herein called the Intervenor, is a
labor organization affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organ-
izations , claiming to represent employees of the Employer.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The Employer refuses to recognize the Petitioner as the exclusive
bargaining representative of employees of the Employer until the
Petitioner has been certified by the Board in an appropriate unit.
We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning
the representation of employees of the Employer within the meaning
of Section 9 (c) and Section :2 (6) and (7) of the Act.3
0
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
We find, in accord with the agreement of the parties, that all pro-
duction, maintenance, cafeteria, and garage employees in the Middle
River plant of the Glenn L. Martin Company, including working
leaders, but excluding working supervisors, leaders, and supervisory
employees above the rank of leaders, employees assigned to the office
and wearing office badges, plant or office clerical employees (but not
shop timekeepers, stock chasers, and expeditors), plant-protection
employees, plant and equipment engineers, accounting department
employees, marine department employees, timekeeping department
employees (but not departmental timekeepers who check time on the
floor), building and field engineers (but not laborers in said depart-
11 After the hearing, American Aircraft Workers, Inc., a labor organization claiming to
represent employees of the Employer, filed a request that it be placed on the ballot in any
election directed by the Boaid in this proceeding. The request is hereby denied, because
it has not shown that it represents a sufficient number of employees to warrant its being
placed on the ballot.
3 On October 18, 1943, pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election (50 N L R B.
412), the Intervenor was certified by the Board as the collective bargaining representative
of the employees involved herein. Subsequent thereto, the Intervenor entered into succes-
sive yearly contracts with the Employer, the last of which was executed on March 11, 1946,
and contained an automatic renewal provision. Neither the Intervenor nor the Employer
contend that the contract constitutes a bar to this proceeding.
548 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ment), tool design and tool engineering employees; purchase and pro-
curenient department employees (but not raw stores, shipping and
receiving employees), engineering department employees, technical
and industrial engineers and labor control employees, personnel de-
partment employees, executives' chauffeurs, sub-contracting depart-
ment employees, employees engaged in airport operations (but not
mechanics), first-aid, hospital and medical employees, technical lab-
oratory and research employees, office production and planning em-
ployees (but not employees who work on the plant floors), and
industrial relations department employees, and all or any other super-
visory employees, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of
collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
V. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESE NTATIVES
The contracts between the Petitioner and the Employer provided
that the names of laid-off employees be kept on a recall list. At the
time of the hearing this list consisted of employees who had been
laid off during the first 4 months of 1947. The record shows that all
the employees on the list will be recalled to work by the Employer
when tool and parts shortages are overcome and engineering changes
are completed.
Both the Petitioner and the Intervenor request that employees on
the recall list be permitted to vote in the election; the Employer does
not oppose this request. Since it appears that the employees on the
recall list have a substantial expectancy of reemployment we find.
that they are eligible to vote in the election hereinafter directed.4
DIRECTION OF ELECTION 5
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the
purposes of collective bargaining with Glenn L. Martin Company.
Baltimore, Maryland, an election by secret ballot shall be conducted
as early as possible, but not later than thirty (30) days from the
date of this Direction, under the direction and supervision of the
Regional Director for the Fifth Region, acting in this matter as
agent for the National Labor Relations Board, and subject to Sec-
tions 203.55 and 203.56, of National Labor Relations Board Rules
and Regulations-Series 4, among employees in the unit found appro-
priate in Section IV, above, who were employed during the pay-roll
period immediately preceding the date of this Direction, including
4 Matter of Servet, Inc., 65 N. L. R. B. 1067; Matter of Monnlain Ice and Fuel Coi poi a-
tion, 71 N L R. B 180.
5 Any participant in the election herein may , upon its prompt request to , and approval
thereof by, the Regional Director, have its name removed from the ballot.
GLENN L. MARTIN COMPANY 549
employees who did not work during said pay-roll period because they
were ill or on vacation or temporarily laid off, and including em-
ployees in the armed forces of the United States who present them-
selves in person at the polls, but excluding those employees who have
since quit or been discharged for cause and have not been rehired.
or reinstated prior to the date of the election, to determine whether
they desire to be represented by International Association of Ma-
chinists, or by International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft
and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, C. I. 0., for the
purposes of collective bargaining, or by neither.
MR. JOHN M. HOUSTON took no part in the consideration of thr
above Decision and Direction of Election.