1943 - National Labor Relations Board

The N. L. R. B. in the War 7current funds in connection with "a complaint case 8 arising over anagreement between management and labor which has been in existencefor 3 months or more without complaint being filed." 9The legislative history of the amendment shows that the purpose ofits original sponsors was to prevent the Board from proceeding to issuea Decision and Order in the Kaiser Shipbuilding cases?) These casesinvolved complaints based upon charges that the respondent corporationshad discriminatorily discharged certain employees pursuant toclosed-shop contracts which were alleged to be illegal. Upon thepassage of the amendment, therefore, the Board took immediateaction to terminate the Kaiser cases and all similar cases.But while the original purpose was to preclude the Board from proceedingin the Kaiser cases and cases of a similar nature, the prohibitioncontained in the amendment reaches beyond the kind of situationpresented in the Kaiser cases. Although many questions concerningthe interpretation of the amendment have not yet been settled, thebroad outline of its coverage has been established. And it is now clearthat the broad and unqualified language of the amendment operates topreclude the Board from taking action to prevent unfair labor practicesin any complaint case where there is involved an agreement betweenmanagement and labor which has been in existence for 3 months orlonger without charges being filed, wholly without regard to the illegalityof the contract or the nature of the unfair labor practices whichhave been committed.That this is true was plainly demonstrated by an opinion of theComptroller General of the United States on October 21, 1943, inwhich he passed upon the question of the application of the amendmentto cases involving company-dominated unions, which are prohibitedby Section 8 (2) of the Act. In response to a request by the Board for adecision on that question, the Comptroller General ruled that, sincethe necessary effect of the normal 8 (2) order is to abrogate any contractwhich may exist between the company-dominated union andthe employer, the amendment precludes the Board from proceedingin any such case in which there exists a contract which has been ineffect for 3 months or more without a charge being filed. In sucha case, as the Comptroller General pointed out, it is not necessarythat the execution of the contract constitute the crux of the unfairlabor practice, the 'prohibition being applicable however incidentallyor casually the agreement in question may be involved.g In a decision issued on July 29, 1943, the Comptroller General ruled that "a complaint case" refers to acase in the complaint stage; i. e., the stage preceding issuance of a Board Decision and Order, and consequentlythat it does not preclude the Board from expending its funds in connection with enforcement proceedings inthe courts in cases decided by the Board prior to July 1, 1943. This view has been sustained by the courts inNational Labor Relations Board v. Elvine Knitting MW., (C. C. A. 21, decided October 28, 1943, and in NationalLabor Relations Board v. Baltimore Transit Company (C. C. A. 4), decided without opinion October 5, 1943.In his decision issued on July 29, 1943, the Comptroller General ruled that the phrase "without complaintbeing flied" limits the use of funds to those cases in which charges have been filed with the Board within 3months of the execution of an agreement, but prescribes no limitation as to the time within which a complaintmay be issued by the Board.Matter of Oregon Shipbuilding Corporation and Industrial Union of Marine and Shipbuilding Workers ofAmerica; Matter of Oregon Shipbuilding Corporation and WI Warn King, an individual; and Matter of KaiserCompany, Inc., and Industrial bnion of Marine and Shipbuilding Workers of America at al.; cases Nos.XLX-C-997; XIX-C-1055; XIX-C-1101.