Brewster Aeronautical Corporation

In the Matter of BREWSTER AERONAUTICAL CORPORATION and INTERNA- TIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE WORKERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL 365, AFFILIATED WITH THE CONGRESS OF INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATIONS Case No. R-1430-Decided August 24, 1939 Aircraft Manufacturing Industry-Labor Organizations Involved: schism in ranks of union resulting from split in parent labor organization; two groups respectively affiliated with C. I. 0. and A. F. L.; groups now constitute separate labor organizations-Investigation of Representatives: controversy concerning representation of employees: doubt as to which is the contracting labor organiza- tion; company refused to negotiate with either group until one certified by the Board ; contract by its terms renewed for a year prior to petition, in absence of termination by either party, no bar to determination of representatives in view of confusion resulting from split in union and refusal of company to negotiate-Unit Appropriate for Collective Bargaining: stipulated ; production and maintenance employees including assembly men, machinists, helpers, welders, pattern makers, shipping employees, and experimental workers, but excluding engineers, inspectors, stock chasers, supervisory employees with the right to hire and fire, and office and clerical employees-Election Ordered Mr. Martin I. Rose and Mrs. H. D. Shea, for the Board. Olvany, Eisner and Donnelly, by Mr. Irwin Al. Berliner and Mr. Merwin Lewis, of New York City, for the Company. Liebman, Robbins, Pressman and Leider, by Mr. Harold I. Cgnnnn.er, of New York City, for the C. I. O.-U. A. W. Mr. Benjamin Rubenstein, of New York City, and Mr. Herbert S. Thatcher, of Washington, D. C., for the A. F. L.-U. A. W. Mr. Thomas S. Powers, of New York City, for the American Fed- eration of Labor. Mr. Robert D. Allen, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION STATEMENT OF THE CASE On June 8, 1939, International Union, United Automobile Workers of America, Local 365, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Or- ganizations, herein called the C. I. O.-U. A. W., filed with the Regional Director for the Second Region (New York City) a petition alleging that a question affecting commerce had arisen concerning the repre- 14 N. L. R. B., No. 79. 1024 13R1:\PSTER AERO1 A UTICAL CORPORATION 1025 sentation of employees of Brewster Aeronautical Corporation, Long Island City, New York, herein called the Company, and requesting an investigation and certification of representatives pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. On June 21, 1939, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, acting pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the Act and Article III, Section 3, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 1, as amended, ordered an investigation and authorized the Regional Director to conduct it and to provide for an appropriate hearing upon due notice. On June 21, 1939, the Regional Director issued a notice of hearing, copies of which were duly served upon the Company, upon the C. I. 0, U. A. W. and upon International Union, United Automobile Workers of America, Local 365, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, herein called the A. F. L.-U. A. W., a labor organization claim- ing to represent employees directly affected by the investigation. Pur- suant to the notice, a hearing was held on June 28 and July 6, 7, 8, and 10, 1939, at New York City, before Howard Myers, the Trial Exam- iner duly designated by the Board. The Board, the Company, the C. I. O.-U. A. W., and the A. F. L.-U. A. W. were represented by counsel and the American Federation of Labor by its representative. All participated in the hearing. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bear- ing on the issues was afforded all parties. On June 28, 1939, the first day of the hearing, the A. F. L.-U. A. W. requested a postponement. At the close of that day's hearing, the Trial Examiner ordered a postponement until July 6. On several occasions thereafter, motions for postponement of the hearing were made by the A. F. L.-U. A. W. Rulings on the motions were reserved until the end of the hearing, at which time the motions were denied by the Trial Examiner. During the course of the hearing, the Trial Examiner made several rulings on other motions and on objections to the admission of evidence. The Board has reviewed all the rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds that no prejudicial errors were com- mitted. The rulings are hereby affirmed. Pursuant to notice duly served upon all parties, a hearing for the purpose of oral argument was held before the Board in Washington, D. C., on August 15, 1939. The Company,' the C. I. O.-U. A. W. and the A. F. L.-U. A. W. were represented by counsel and participated in the argument. The A. F. L.-U. A. W. filed a brief which the Board has considered. Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following: 1 Counsel for the Company appeared and was heard after argument by the other parties was completed . The Company merely entered its request that an election be held. 1026 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY Brewster Aeronautical Corporation is a New York corporation with its principal office and.place of business at Long Island City, New York. It is engaged in the manufacture, sale, and distribution of;air- planes and airplane and aircraft parts and employs more than 1,200 workers in its Long Island City plant. In 1938, the Company pur- chased raw materials originating at points outside the State of New York of a value of $250,000, which constituted 662/3 per cent of its total purchases of raw materials for the year. The value of the Company's finished products shipped to points outside the State of New York during the same year, constituting not less than 50 per cent of its total sales, exceeded $200,000. For the purpose of this proceeding, the Com- pany concedes that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. H. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED Prior to March 24, 1939, there existed among the Company's em- ployees a labor organization known as International Union, United Automobile Workers of America, Local 365, herein called Local 365. That labor organization was a local of International Union, United Automobile Workers of America, herein called the International, which was affiliated with the Committee for Industrial Organization.2 Its members included employees of a number of employers in the vicin- ity of New York City. Early in 1939 a split occurred in the ranks of the International. One group reaffirmed its affiliation with the Con- gress of Industrial Organizations; the other, headed by Homer Martin, renounced such affiliation and later became affiliated with the American Federation of Labor.3 Prior to March 24, 1939, no affirmative action with reference to this controversy was taken by Local 365. It 'did, however, send delegates to the convention of the group led by Homer Martin. At a meeting of the membership of Local 365, held on April 24, 1939, an effort was made by its officers to procure approval of the action of that convention. This effort met with failure and the officers, trustees, and several members, thereupon withdrew from the meeting, the president and vice president at the time announcing their resigna- 2 Now Congress of Industrial Organizations. See Matter of Chrysler Corporation and United Automobile Workers of America, Local 371, affiliated with C. I. 0., 13 N. L. R. B. 1303; Matter of Briggs Manufacturing Company and Briggs Indiana Corporation and International Union, United Automobile Workers of America, affiliated with the C. I. 0., and Locals No. 212 and No. 265, Inter- national Union, United Automobile Workers of America, affiliated with the C . 1. 0., 13 N. L. R. B. 1326; Matter of Motor Products Corporation and Local 203, International Union, United Automobile Workers of America, affiliated with the C. I. 0., 13 N. L. R. B. 1320. BREWSTER AERONAUTICAL CORPORATION 1027 tions from office. Those who withdrew from the meeting thereby-in- dicated their adherence to the American Federation of Labor. Im- mediately following such withdrawal the members of Local 365 re- maining at the meeting voted to reaffirm their affiliation with the Congress of Industrial Organizations. We find that each of the groups-thus resulting from the split within Local 365, herein respec- tively designated as the C. I. O.-U. A. W. and the A. F. L.-U. A. W., is a labor organization. Each admits to membership production and maintenance employees of the Company at its Long Island City plant, III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION Prior to the split in Local 365, discussed in Section II above, Local 365 and the Company entered into two successive contracts in which Local 365 was recognized as the exclusive representative of the Com- pany's production and maintenance employees. The last contract covered the period from June 24, 1938, to June 24, 1939, and provided for automatic renewal in the absence of notice of termination given at least 30 days prior to the expiration of the term provided. Early in May 1939, the C. I. O.-U. A. W., claiming to act as Local 365 and purporting to represent a majority of employees in an appro- priate unit, requested the Company to negotiate concerning proposed changes in the contract. Thereafter the A. F. L.-U. A. W., similarly claiming to act as Local 365, notified the Company that the C. I. 0, U. A. W. did not represent a majority of its employees. The Com- pany has since refused to negotiate with either labor organization until one of them is certified by the Board as the representative of the Company's employees. Under the circumstances we do not regard the contract between the Company and Local 365 as a bar to our determination of representa- tives. In the absence of such a determination the confusion resulting from the split in Local 365 and the Company's consequent refusal to negotiate with either competing labor organization may indefinitely delay all collective bargaining between the Company and its employees. We find that a question has arisen concerning representation of the employees of the Company. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION UPON COMMERCE We find that the question concerning representation which has arisen, occurring in connection with the operations of .the Company described in Section I above, has a close, intimate, and substantial 1028 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, and tends to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. V. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT At the hearing all parties stipulated as to the composition of the appropriate bargaining unit. No reason appearing for departing from the unit agreed upon, we shall adopt the language of the stipu- lation. We accordingly find that the production and maintenance employees of the Company at its Long Island City plant including assembly men, machinists, helpers, welders, pattern makers, shipping,. employees, and experimental workers, but excluding engineers, in- spectors, stock chasers, supervisory employees with the right to hire and fire, and office and clerical employees, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining and that said unit will insure to the employees of the Company the full benefit of their right to self-organization and to collective bargaining and otherwise effectuate the policies of the Act. V1. Till; DE'I'ERDIINATION OF REPRESENTA'T'IVES Both the C. I. O.-U. A. W. and the A. F. L.-U. A. W. claim to represent the majority of the employees of the Company in the appro- priate unit. We find that the question concerning representation which has arisen will best be resolved by an election by secret ballot. We shall accordingly direct that such an election be held among the employees of the Company in the appropriate unit. At the hearing no agreement was reached regarding the eligibility date to be used in the event the Board directed an election. We shall direct that employees within the appropriate unit during the pay-roll period last preceding this Direction of Election, including such em- ployees as did not work during such pay-roll period because they were ill or on vacation or were then or have since been temporarily laid off, but excluding any who have since quit or been discharged for cause, shall be eligible to vote. Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following : CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. A question affecting commerce has arisen concerning the repre- sentation of employees of Brewster Aeronautical Corporation, Long Island City, New York, within the meaning of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) . and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act. BREWSTER AERONAUTICAL CORPORATION 1029 2. The production and maintenance employees of the Company at its Long Island City plant, including assembly men, machinists, helpers, welders, pattern makers, shipping employees, and experi- mental workers, but excluding engineers, inspectors, stock chasers, supervisors, employees with the right to hire and fire, office and clerical employees, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining, within the meaning of Section 9 (a) of the National Labor Relations Act. DIRECTION OF ELECTION By virtue of and pursuant to the power vested in the National Labor Relations Board by Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Rela- tions Act, and pursuant to Article III, Section 8, of National Labor Relations Board Rifles and Regulations-Series 2, it is hereby DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation authorized by the Board to ascertain representatives for collective bargaining with Brewster Aeronautical Corporation, an election by secret ballot shall he conducted within fifteen (15) clays from the date of this Direc- tion, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Second Region, acting in this matter as agent for the National Labor Relations Board and subject to Article III, Section 9, of said Rules and Regulations, among the production and maintenance em- ployees of the Company at its Long Island City plant who were employed by the Company during the pay-roll period last preceding the date of this Direction, including assembly men, machinists, helpers, welders, pattern makers, shipping employees, and experi- mental workers, and such of those employees who did not work during such pay-roll period because they were ill or on vacation or who were then or have since been temporarily laid off, but excluding engineers, in- spectors, stock chasers, supervisory employees with the right to hire and fire, office and clerical employees, and employees who have since quit or been discharged for cause, to determine whether they desire to be represented by C. I. O.-International Union, United Auto- mobile Workers of America, or A. F. L.-International Union, United Automobile Workers of America, for the purposes of collective bar- gaining, or by neither.