Matter of Glenn L. Martin Co.
War Labor Board
19 War Lab. Rep. 263 (1944)
- Written by Alex Hall, JD
Facts
The United Auto Workers of the Congress of Industrial Organizations (union) (plaintiff) became the first collective-bargaining agency of the Glenn L. Martin Company (company) (defendant) and proposed four seniority provisions to be included in the collective-bargaining agreement. Provisions (a), (b), and (c) mandated that union officers, committeemen, and stewards had more seniority than all other plant employees in their respective departments for the duration of their terms. Provision (d) prohibited union stewards and committeemen from being transferred to a lower-paid job before employees with less seniority were transferred. The union argued that the proposals were necessary to create stable union leadership and prevent discriminatory treatment, alleging that the company had transferred employees to other departments based on their union membership. The company denied discriminatory treatment of union employees and opposed each of the union’s four proposals. The company asserted that imposing preferential status for union employees had no economic justification and, because the union represented less than half of the 25,000 employees in the bargaining unit, would result in dissatisfaction among nonunion employees. The provisions and respective arguments were presented to a panel of the National War Labor Board for review.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Aaron, Member)
Dissent (Chalfant, Irwin, Members)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.