Northrop Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 3, 1937

3 N.L.R.B. 228 (N.L.R.B. 1937)

In the Matter of NORTHROP CORPORATION and UNITED AUTOMOBILE
WORKERS, LOCAL No. 229
Case No. 1$-185
Aircraft and Parts Manufacturing Industry-Investigation of Representa-
tives: controversy concerning representation of employees : rival organizations ;
prior election conducted by employer not decisive of issue of majority repre-
sentation ; contract with one of rival organizations recognizing it as representa-
tive of its members held no bar to petition for investigation and certification of
representatives-Unit Appropriate for Collective Bargaining : production em-
ployees ; occupational differences ; organization of business ; community of
interest-Election ordered-Certification of Representatives.
Mr. Ralph Seward for the Board.
Mr. H. W. Elliott, of Los Angeles, Cal., for Northrop Corporation.
James Carter c John Packard, by Mr. Marshall Ross and Mr.
Alexander Schullman, of Los Angeles, Cal., for United Automobile
Workers, Local No. 229.
Mr. John J. Ford, of Los Angeles, Cal., for Aircraft Workers
Union, Inc., Local No. 1.
Mr. Abraham L. Kaminstein, of counsel to the Board.
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
August 3, 1937
The National Labor Relations Board, having found that a question
affecting commerce has arisen concerning the representation of em-
ployees of Northrop Corporation, Inglewood, California, and that
the employees of Northrop Corporation, exclusive of the general
office and other office and clerical employees wherever located, those
classified as executives, supervisors, and assistant supervisors, all
employees in Departments 21 (factory superintendent's office), 27
(personnel and welfare), 32 (hill project), 14 (production' control)
18 (engineering), 3 (stores), 13 (accounting, pay roll, timekeeping,
and cost), 23 (purchasing), 31 (shipping), and all those in Depart-
ment 25 (general maintenance) with the exception of mechanics, con-
stitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the National Labor Relations
Act, 49 Stat. 449, and acting pursuant to the power vested in the
National Labor Relations Board by Section 9 (c) of said Act, and
pursuant to Article III, Section 8 of National Labor Relations
Board Rules and Regulations-Series 1, as amended, hereby
228
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 229
DIRECTS that, as part of the investigation authorized by the Board
to ascertain representatives for the purposes of collective bargain-
ing with Northrop Corporation, an election by secret ballot shall be
conducted within a period of twenty (20) days after the date of
this Direction of Election, under the direction and supervision of
the Regional Director for the Twenty-first Region, acting in this
matter as the agent of the National Labor Relations Board and
subject to Article III, Section 9 of said Rules and Regulations-
Series 1, as amended, among the employees of Northrop Corpora-
tion, exclusive of the general office and other office and clerical
employees wherever located, those classified as executives, super-
visors, and assistant supervisors, all employees in Departments 21
(factory superintendent's office), 27 (personnel and welfare), 32
(hill project), 14 (production control), 18 (engineering), 3 (stores),
13 (accounting, pay roll, timekeeping, and cost), 23 (purchasing),
31 (shipping), and all those in Department 25 (general mainte-
nance) with the exception of mechanics, on the -pay roll of Northrop
Corporation as of June 4, 1937, to determine whether they desire
to be represented by United Automobile Workers, Local No. 229,
or by Aircraft Workers Union, Local No. 1.
MR. DONALD WAKEFIELD SMITH took no part in the consideration
of the above Direction of Election.
[SAME TITLE]
DECISION
AND
CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
October 6, 1937
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On April 26, 1937, United Automobile Workers of America, Local
No. 229, herein called the Union, filed with the Regional Director for
the Twenty-First Region (Los Angeles, California) a petition alleg-
ing that a question affecting commerce had arisen concerning the
representation of the production employees of Northrop Corpora-
tion,, El Segundo, California, herein called the • Company, and re-
questing an investigation and certification of representatives pur-
suant to Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat.
449, herein called the Act. On May 14, 1937, the National Labor
Relations Board, herein called the Board, acting pursuant to Article
III, Section 3 of the National Labor Relations Board Rules and
Regulations-Series 1, as amended, ordered the Regional Director
to conduct an investigation and provide for an appropriate hearing.
49446-38-vol in 16
230 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Pursuant to notice and amended notice of hearing duly served
upon the Company, upon the Union, upon a representative of Air-
craft Workers' Union, Local No. 1, herein called the A. W. U., a
labor organization named in the petition as claiming to represent
some of the Company's employees, and upon the International Asso-
ciation of Machinists, another labor organization named in the peti-
tion as claiming to represent some of the Company's employees; a
hearing was held in Los Angeles, California, on June 14, 15, 16, and
19, 1937, before Rollin McNitt, Trial Examiner duly designated by
the Board. The Company, the Union, and the A. W. U., were rep-
resented by counsel and participated in the hearing, but the Inter-
national Association of Machinists did not appear, and took no part
in the hearing. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-
examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing upon the issues
was afforded all parties appearing. At the outset, counsel for the
A. W. U. asked for a continuance of the hearing upon the grounds
that it had filed charges with the Board under Sections 8 (1) and (2)
of the Act, against the Company and the Union, some three hours
prior to the time the hearing was scheduled to begin, and that it
desired that the Board be notified of these new charges. It was
agreed that the Board be notified immediately, and the Trial Exam-
iner then denied the motion for continuance. Notice of the charges
was immediately sent to the Board in Washington.
Objections to the introduction of evidence were made during the'
course of the hearing by counsel for the respective participating
parties. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner
on motions and objections directed to the issues raised by the peti-
tion and finds that no prejudicial errors were committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed.
After examining the record in this matter, the Board concluded
that a question affecting commerce had arisen concerning the repre-
sentation of employees of the Company, and on the basis of such
conclusions, and acting pursuant to Article III, Section 8 of National
Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 1, as
amended, issued a Direction of Election on August 3, 1937, in which
it was found that the employees of the Company, exclusive of : the
general office and other office and - clerical employees wherever lo-
cated; those classified as executives, supervisors, and assistant su-
pervisors; all employees in Departments 21 (factory superintend-
ent's office), 27 (personnel and welfare), 32 (hill project), 14 (pro-
duction control), 18 (engineering), 3 (stores), 13 (accounting, pay
roll, timekeeping, and cost), 23 (purchasing), 31 (shipping) ; and
exclusive of all those in Department 25 (general maintenance), with
the exception of mechanics, constitute a unit appropriate for the
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 231
purposes of collective bargaining. The Board also designated the
Regional Director for the Twenty-First Region as its agent to,con-
duct the election among the employees in the appropriate unit on
the pay roll of the Company as of June 4, 1937. Merely for the
purpose of expediting the election and thus to insure to the em-
ployees of the Company the full benefit of their right to collective
bargaining as early as possible, the Board directed the election with-
out at the same time issuing a decision embodying complete find-
ings of fact and conclusions of law. Shortly thereafter, the Com-
pany and the A. W. U. petitioned the Federal District Court for a
preliminary injunction to stay the holding of the election. On Au-
gust 18, 1937, the Court issued its decree denying the application for
preliminary injunction."
Pursuant to the Board's Direction of Election, an election by secret
ballot was conducted by the Regional Director on August 19, 1937,
among the employees of the Company constituting the bargaining
unit found appropriate by the Board. Thereafter, the Regional Di-
rector issued and duly served upon the parties to the proceeding
the Intermediate Report upon the secret ballot. No exceptions to
the Intermediate Report have been filed by any of the parties. The
Board has received a petition of some of the employees ineligible
to vote in the election, protesting their exclusion. The Board has
fully considered this petition, and finds that a comparison of the
names on this petition and those on the pay-roll list submitted by
the Company indicates that the petition contains the names of
employees in departments which both unions agreed to exclude,
names not on the pay roll as of the date selected for purposes of elec-
tion, and the names of a large number of clerical employees and
engineers. The Board therefore denies the petition.
As to the results of the secret ballot, the Regional Director re-
ported the following :
Total number eligible------------------------------------ 897
Total ballots cast________________________________________ 696
Total number of blank ballots_________________ ---------- 2
Total number of void ballots ---------------------------- 1
Total number of ballots cast for United Automobile Workers,
Local No. 229------------------------------------------ 481
Total number of ballots cast for Aircraft Workers' Union,
Local No. 1-------------------------------------------- 138
Total number of challenged votes____ _____________________ 74
1 The opinion of Judge Leon R. Yankwich , of the District Court of the United States,
Southern District of California , Central Division , is contained in Minute Orders No.
1235-M, and No. 1230-H . The opinion states in part : "The employer , Northrop Corpora-
tion, is not in a position to complain . Nor are the Aircraft Workers' Union, it not
appearing that any of their members are being deprived of their right to participate.
The holding of the election involves no threat or danger to the property or contractual
rights of the plaintiff." -
232 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Upon the entire record in the case the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE COMPANY AND ITS BUSINESS
The Company is a corporation organized and existing under the
laws of the State of California , with principal offices in Santa
Monica, California , and a manufacturing plant at El Segundo, Cali-
fornia. Its mailing address, however , is Inglewood , California. The
Company is a subsidiary of the Douglas Aircraft Company, Inc., the
latter corporation owning and voting its , entire stock . At the time
of the hearing , the Company had five directors , one of whom had
tendered his resignation . All the other four directors were also di-
rectors of the Douglas Aircraft Company, Inc. John K. Northrop,
president of the Company , is also a director of Douglas Aircraft
Company, Inc.
The Company is engaged in the business of manufacturing mili-
tary and naval aircraft and aircraft parts. Its chief customers are
the Air Corps of the United States Government and the Bureau of
Aeronautics of the Navy Department . It also manufactures planes
for the Bristol Airplane Company, the Swedish Air Board, and the
Argentine Government.
In 1936, the Company had a volume of business of approximately
two and a half millions, and produced 110 planes. Production plans
call for the completion of 150 planes in 1937 . The Company ranks
about tenth , nationally , in the aircraft manufacture business. The
number of employees at the plant fluctuates according to the needs
of the production schedule , their number ranging from 1000 to 1400.
The plant consists of five buildings , three of which are used in pro-
duction, and the others for warehousing and storage . The Company
also leases a hangar at the Los Angeles Municipal Airport, a quarter
of a mile away , and its machines are finally assembled there.
The chief raw materials used by the Company are aluminum alloys,
steel alloys, completely fabricated , and partially fabricated parts.
All the duralumin and steel used by the Company come from out-
side the State of California . All aeronautical instruments and pro-
pellers, as well as the engines shipped by the prospective buyer to
the Company 's plant come from other States. A substantial per-
centage of paints, and more than 50 per cent of the rivets , bolts, nuts,
wire, and other materials used in manufacture come from outside
the State.
Thus more than 50 per cent , and if the customer-furnished mate-
rials are included, about 75 per cent of the total raw materials come
from states other than California . A spur from the Atchison,
Topeka, and Santa Fe Railroad adjoins the plant, and the cars "are
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 233
shunted into the premises of the Company. The transfer of raw
materials is then made by the employees of the Company.
Planes for the Army and Navy are delivered completely set up,
serviced, and ready for flight at the Airport, the Company furnish-
ing all the fuel, oil, and/or cooling fluid necessary for the flight to
their destinations. The ferry pilot of the Army or Navy then pilots
the plane to the points designated by these departments.
During their manufacture, the Army designates the stations to
which planes are to go on completion. The planes now being pre-
pared at the Company's plant, under existing contracts, have been
routed to the following points: Dayton, Ohio; Rantoul, Illinois;
Aberdeen, Maryland; Edgewood, Maryland; March Field, Cali-
fornia; Hampton, Virginia; Shreveport, Louisiana; Mt. Clemens,
Michigan ; and the District of Columbia. A former contract with
the Army had involved delivery of planes which were ferried to
Dayton, Ohio; Rantoul, Illinois; Shreveport, Louisiana; March
Field, California; Hampton, Virginia; Bolling Field, District of
Columbia; Montgomery, Alabama; and spare parts were sent to
Pennsylvania, Ohio, Texas, and California.
The Navy Department has assigned planes manufactured for it
to squadrons attached to the U. S. S. Saratoga, and the U. S. S.
Lexington, and to the Naval Air Stations at Anacostia, District of
Columbia, and San Diego, California. .
Where it is necessary to ship planes by rail, under the Army con-
tract, the planes are delivered to the Government, f. o. b. cars,
Inglewood, California, boxed or crated by the Company, with the
Company filling out the bills of lading in accordance with the
directions of the Government. Planes sent to England are de-
livered at the plant, routed by rail to New York, and then by boat
to England. Other planes are destined for shipment to their re-
spective countries. The Company is under contract to manufacture
and deliver thirty planes to the Argentine Government.2
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
United Automobile Workers of America, Local No. 229, is a labor
organization affiliated with the Committee for Industrial Organiza-
tion. It admits to membership all employees of the Company ex-
cept supervisory officials and those having the authority to hire
and discharge.
• Aircraft Workers' Union, Local No. 1, is a labor organization
-which has been granted a charter by its parent body, Aircraft
Workers' Union, Incorporated, Local No. 0, which is located at the
' Compare a similar description of the aircraft manufacturing industry in Consolidated
Aircraft Corporation and International Association of Machinists, Aircraft Lodge No 1125,
Case No R-127, decided April 30 , 1937 (2 N L R B. 772).
234 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
plant of the Douglas Aircraft Company. While the conditions for
membership in this organization do not appear in the record, the
contentions of the A. W. U. as to the appropriate bargaining unit
would indicate that they are similar to those of the Union.
International Association of Machinists, another labor organiza-
tion, although served with due notice, did not appear at the hear-
ings, and took no part in the proceedings.
United Aircraft Welders of America, Local No. 257, is a labor
organization, and has received a charter from the United Auto-
mobile Workers of America, thus also being affiliated with the
Committee for Industrial Organization. It took no separate part
in these proceedings, and did not appear at the hearing.
III. QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
In January 1937, members of the Union began an organization
drive. among the employees of the Company. Although the Union
did not receive its charter until March, it had- acquired a large
membership by that time.
On February 25, 1937, the Board issued a complaint against the
Company, alleging the discriminatory discharge of several workers
because of their activities on behalf of the Union, which was then
known as the Northrop Aircraft Local, United Automobile Workers
of America, and further charging that the Company had dominated
and interfered with the administration .of the Northrop Employees
Association.
Dissatisfaction of the employees with their working conditions
led to a short sit-down strike which began on February 25, 1937,
lasted for one and a half working days and a week end, and ended
in a peaceful evacuation. Northrop, President' of the Company,
agreed to consider an agreement with the Union, and the Union
withdrew the charges filed with the Board.
On March 10, 1937, the Company sponsored an election to deter-
mine which organizations its employees desired to represent them.
At that time, no petition for investigation and certification of repre-
sentatives had been filed with the Board, and the Board did not
participate in any way in the holding of this election. The diffi-
culties encountered when employers sponsor or conduct elections
are illustrated here. The Union objected to the inclusion of the
clerical and engineering employees, but there was no one who
could authoritatively determine the extent of the appropriate bar-
gaining unit, or the eligibility of voters, and all employees were
allowed to cast ballots. Consequently, the Union refused to par-
ticipate officially. Since the Company sponsored this election,,-it
cannot be decisive of any of the issues.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 235
The results of the balloting showed 689 votes for the Union, 338
votes for the Northrop Employees Association, and 48 votes for
unions affiliated with the American Federation of Labor. This
caused the early demise of the Northrop Employees Association. On
April 10, or 12, 1937, the A. W. U. was organized at the plant of
the Company. At the time of its organization, the A. W. U. called
in the officers of the old Northrop Employees Association, "in order
to see if there were any legalities to tie the new group in with the
old, and to examine the financial status of the old Association."
After this, they invited representatives of the parent unit at Douglas
Aircraft Company to address them and to guide their first steps.
On March 15, 1937, as a result of the majority secured iu this elec-
tion, the Company signed an agreement with the Union, in which
it recognized it as the chosen representative of its members for the
purposes of collective bargaining.3 On April, 15, 1937, the Union
asked the Company to recognize it as the sole bargaining agency for
the employees at the plant, which the Company refused to do. At
the hearing, the Company took the position that the agreement was
a binding one, and that it prevented the Union from making any
claim other than that of representing its own members. The Union
argued that at the time of the signing of the contract, it had been
unaware of the fact that it might demand sole bargaining rights,
that it is not now precluded from making such claim, and that any
clause which prevented it from so doing would be contradictory to
the policy enunciated in the National Labor Relations Act, and
therefore void.
_ The Act embodies a public policy of national concern and is the su-
preme law of the land on the subject matter covered by it.' Section
9 (a) of the Act provides that "representatives designated or selected
for the purposes of collective bargaining by the majority of the
employees in a unit appropriate for such purposes, shall be the ex-
clusive representatives of all the employees in such unit . . ."
As we have decided before, the Act and not the particular agree-
ment furnishes the rule that must guide the Board in its determina-
tion.6 The agreement in this case,cannot foreclose,the claim of the
Union to be, certified as the exclusive representative, which right
must be decided solely by reference to Section 9 (a) of the Act. Nor
8 This agreement , made with the Union and 'with the United Aircraft Welders of
America, Local No. 257, both groups being affiliated with the same parent body, was to
run for a term of one year. It contains a provision allowing the Company to negotiate
with other groups of employees , not members of the Union.
4In the Matter of National Electric Products Corporation and United Electrical and
Radio Workers of America, Local No. 609, Cases Nos. C-219 and R-214, decided August
30, 1937 ('infra, p 475)
51n the Matter of R. C. A. Manufacturing Company , Inc. and United Electrical ci Radio
Workers of America, Case No. R-39, decided November 7, 1936, ( 2 N. L. R . B. 159).
236 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
can the Union be said to be estopped by reason of any such agree-
ment.,, The agreement therefore has no effect upon the determina-
tion of the issues in this proceeding.
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
At the hearing, the pay-roll list submitted was the last one before
the date of the hearing, being that of June 4, 1937. As of that date,
there were 1,381 employees, located in the 29 different departments
of the plant.
Northrop testified that the Company had no fixed classification of
employees, but stated that about two-thirds of the plant employees
were classed as "production employees." The other classifications
made by the Company were clerical employees and engineers. The,
production employees are those directly engaged in the fabrication
and manufacture of airplanes.
The main plant of the Company is a two story structure, with the
first floor devoted to the shop employees. The second floor contains
the great majority of clerical employees, and the engineering depart-
ment. The building at the Municipal Airport houses employees en-
gaged in woodworking, shipping, and inspection. The production
employees rarely go upstairs in the main building, and while some
of the engineers come downstairs to check on the plans, in the main,
there is a separation of the production employees from the rest of
the plant.
The Union contended at the hearing that the appropriate bargain-
ing unit consisted of the production employees. The A. W. U.
desired the inclusion of engineering and clerical employees as well,
on the theory that they indirectly contributed to the production
activities of the plant. Each union excludes from membership all
supervisors and at least those assistant supervisors who have the right
to hire and discharge. ' The Company suggested a unit including
all employees except the supervisory officials.
At the hearing, both unions agreed to the inclusion and exclusion
of certain departments, but differed as to others. Although both
unions admit clerical workers to their membership, and in the case
of some departments, are willing to stipulate for their inclusion, the
difference in type of work performed, the small membership of these
workers, in both unions, the dissimilarity in interests between the
production and clerical employees in an aircraft factory, prompts
us to exclude them from the unit including production workers.
On this basis, the Direction of Election excluded Departments 3
(stores), 13 (accounting, pay roll, timekeeping, and cost), 23 (pur-
chasing), and 31 (shipping), since all of them are composed mainly
of clerical employees.
6 See the cases cited on this point in the opinion referred to in note 5.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 237
Both unions were agreed upon the exclusion of Departments 21
(factory superintendent's office), 27 (personnel and welfare), and
32 (hill project). The hill project is an experimental research
department. -
The engineering department is concerned with designing and
planning. A sizable number of employees in this department are
draftsmen and clerical workers. The production control department
issues and routes the shop orders, and determines how the parts shall
be manufactured. Here too, one-half of the department consists of
clerical employees. Many of the men employed in the non-clerical
portions of these two departments are college graduates, and regard
their positions as careers. The economic interests of these workers
and their relation to the Company are on an entirely different plane
from those of the production workers.
The employees in Department 25 (general maintenance), were
excluded because their work relates to maintenance rather than pro-
duction. However, the mechanics in this department were included,
because they do frequently take part in production work. Both
unions were willing to include the wood shop, and it would seem
that the tool design department ought also be included. This latter
department designs the tools which are actually used in production,
and is closely related to production. Both unions were also willing
to include the inspection department, and this was done.
For these reasons 7 we find that, in order to insure to the em-
ployees of the Company the full benefit of their right to self -organi-
zation and to collective bargaining, and otherwise to effectuate the
policies of the Act, the employees of the Company, exclusive of:
the general office and other office and clerical employees wherever
located ; those classified as executives, supervisors, and assistant
supervisors; all employees in Departments 21 (factory superintend-
ent's office), 27 (personnel and welfare), 32 (hill project), 14 (pro-
duction control), 18 (engineering), 3 (stores), 13 (accounting, pay
roll, timekeeping, and cost), 23 (purchasing), 31 (shipping) ; and
exclusive of all those in Department 25 (general maintenance),
with the exception of mechanics, constitute a unit appropriate for
the purposes of collective bargaining in respect to rates of pay,
wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of employment.
We further find that the Union, having been designated by a ma-
jority of the employees in such unit as their representative for such
purpose, is, by virtue of Section 9 (a) of the Act, the exclusive
representative for the purposes of collective bargaining of all the
7 See also, In the Matter of Consolidated Aircraft Corporation and International Asso-
ciation of Machinists, Aircraft Lodge No 1125, Case No R-127, decided April 30, 1937,
(2 N L. It. B. 772).
238 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
employees of the Company in the appropriate unit, and we will so
certify it.
V. THE EFFECT OF THE QUESTION OF REPRESENTATION ON COMMERCE
President Northrop testified that the former sit-down strike com-
pletely shut down the plant, and hindered shipment of goods com-
ing into the plant. So complete was this disruption, that normal
production had not yet been reached at the time of the hearing.
Since the strike, there has been increasing strife and tension. The
fight between the rival unions as to the privilege of representing
the employees of the Company has become more bitter. The presi-
dent of the Union, Charles Hollinshead, testified that recent griev-
ances have had little attention paid to them. He further stated
that one of the aggravating causes of the entire situation was the
fact that men in the A. W. U. were promoted, received more raises,
better positions, and that, in short, there seemed to be a good deal
of favoritism.
The refusal of the Company to recognize either union as the
exclusive representative of the employees has led to a great deal
of confusion, unrest, and to the discussion of further strikes. Un-
doubtedly, the flow of raw materials to, and the shipment of fin-
ished planes and parts from, the plant will continue to be ham-
pered, and possibly even halted, as the result of these disagree-
ments and arguments.
We find that the question concerning representation which has
arisen , occurring in connection with the operations of the Com-
pany described in Section I above, has a close, intimate and sub-
stantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several
States, and with foreign countries, and has led and tends to lead
to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free
flow of commerce.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the
entire record in the proceeding, the Board makes the following con-
clusions of law :
1. A question affecting -commerce has arisen concerning the rep-
resentation of employees of Northrop Corporation, within the mean-
ing of Section 9 (c) and Section 2, subdivisions (6) and (7) of the
National Labor Relations Act.
2. The employees of Northrop Corporation, exclusive of: the gen-
eral office and other office and clerical employees wherever located;
those classified as executives, supervisors, and assistant supervisors;
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 239
all employees in Department 21 (factory superintendent's office),
27 (personnel and welfare), 32 (hill project), 14 (production con-
trol), 18 (engineering), 3 (stores), 13 (accounting, pay roll, time-
keeping, and cost), 23 (purchasing), 31 (shipping) ; and exclusive
of all those in Department 25 (general maintenance), with the ex-
ception of mechanics, constitute a unit appropriate for the pur--
poses of collective bargaining, within the meaning of Section 9 (b)
of the National Labor Relations Act.
3. United Automobile Workers of America, Local No. 229, hav-
ing been designated by a majority of the employees of the Company
in the aforesaid unit, is,,by virtue of Section 9 (a) of the National
Labor Relations Act, the exclusive representative of all, the em-
ployees in such unit for the purposes of collective bargaining in
respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment and other con-
ditions of employment.
CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
By virtue of and pursuant to the power vested in the National
Labor Relations Board by Section 9 (c) of the ' National Labor Re-
lations Act, and pursuant to Article III, Section 8 of National Labor
Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 1, as amended,
IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that United Automobile Workers of
America, Local No. 229, has been designated by a majority of the
employees of Northrop Corporation, exclusive of : the general office
and other office and clerical. employees wherever located ; those classi-
fied as executives, supervisors, and assistant supervisors; all em-
ployees in Departments 21 (factory superintendent's office), 27
(personnel and welfare), 32 (hill project), 14 (production control),
18 (engineering),, 3 (stores), 13 (accounting, pay roll, timekeeping,
and cost), 23 (purchasing), 31 (shipping) ; and exclusive of all
those in Department 25 (general maintenance), with the exception
of mechanics, as their representative for the purposes of collective
bargaining with Northrop Corporation, and its successors and as-
signs, and that, pursuant to the provisions of Section 9 (a) of the
National Labor Relations Act, United Automobile Workers of
America, Local No. 229, is the exclusive representative of all such
employees for the purposes of collective bargaining with Northrop
Corporation, and its successors and assigns, in respect to rates of pay,
wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of employment.
CHAIRMAN MADDEN took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Certification of Representatives.