NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

I. INTRODUCTION 7
to the particular circumstances of each case, such as the history of labor relations
in the plant and the industry, the mutual interest of employees, and, most
important, the desires of the employees themselves.°
In the case of Globe Machine & Stamping Co., 7 decided in August
1937, the Board enunciated the doctrine that in cases where all the
other considerations are evenly balanced the desires as to unit of the
disputed group of employees themselves should be the determining
factor, and that the only certain way of ascertaining the desires of
the employees is to permit them to choose in an election between the
labor organization espousing the industrial unit, on the one hand,
and the labor organization espousing the craft unit on the other. Since
this means that in every such case the Board orders an election among
the workers by crafts and groups them with the remainder of the
workers in the plant only if a majority within , the craft vote for the
industrial unit, the industrial unions reacted critically to the adoption
of the technique by the Board.
It should be observed that only a very minor proportion of the representation
cases decided by the Board concern differences as to unit
between the American Federation of Labor and the Committee for Industrial
Organization. During the past year, for example the Board
decided only 41 cases in which there were substantial differen ces between
unions affiliated with the American Federation of Labor and
unions affiliated with the Committee for Industrial Organization.
If the results in these cases are broken down, the figures are as
follows :
Substantial disagreement as to the appropriate unit_ 41
(A) Adoption of American Federation of Labor contention 21
(1) In general 18
(2) Accompanied by adoption of Committee for Industrial Organization
contentions as to inclusion of minor groups 3
(B) Adoption of Committee for Industrial Organization contention '16
(1) In general 16
(2) Accompanied by adoption of American Federation of Labor contentions
as to inclusion of minor groups 0
(C) Adoption in part of contentions of both groups 4
'It should be noted that not all of the 16 cases in which the 'contention of the Committee
for Industrial Organization was adopted involved the issue of craft versus industrial
unionism in any direct way. In fact, the issue in most of the cases in this group was
quite different. For example, 5 of the cases raised questions concerning the appropriateness
of multiple-plant and multiple-cornnany units (Ohio Foundry Co., 3 N. L. R. B. 701; United
Shipyards, Inc., 5 N. L. R. B. 742; Des Moines Steel Co., 6 N. L. It. B. 532; Shipowners'
Assn. of the Pacific Coast etc., 7 N. L. R. B. 1002; Fisher Body Corporation, etc.,
7 N. L. R. B. 1083), and in 1 of these the American Federation of Labor argued for
the larger unit (Des Moines Steel Co., 6 N. L. R. B., 532) •, and 2 of them raised the
q uestion whether a union should be placed on the ballot when it had no members among
the employees of the employer (Texas Co., West Tulsa Works, 4 N. L. R. B. 182; Waggoner
Refining Co., Inc., etc., 6 N. L. R. B. 731). For a detailed analysis of the cases, see
ch. 7, post.
The necessity for deciding such issues as just outlined between
unions affiliated with the American Federation of Labor and unions
affiliated with the Committee for Industrial Organization has always
been distasteful to the Board, especially since their decision and the
decision of other issues which have arisen because of the, split has
absorbed a disproportionate part of the Board's time and energies.
However, the Board has had no alternative under the statute except
6 Second Annual Report (1937), p. 2.
*3 N. L. R. B. 294.