J. - National Labor Relations Board

More documents

Recommendations

Info

INTRODUCTION 7D. THE CONFLICT BETWEEN THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABORAND THE -CONGRESS OF INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATIONS AND ITSEFFECT ON THE WORK OF THE BOARDThe strife between the American Federation of Labor and the Congressof Industrial Organizations has continued during the fiscal yearand has continued to -present problems to the Board. The Board hascontinued, too, in the exercise of its manifest duty under the act, withfull regard for its primary objective of encouraging and protecting the.processes of genuine collective bargaining through freely chosen representativesand with scrupulous consideration for all of the circumstancesof each particular case.The statistics of the Board's work for this fiscal year show nostartling divergences from those of the last fiscal year on the divisionof cases initiated by the two organizations. The difference betweenthe total number of the cases of each of the two organizations handledby the Board during the year is not great, with almost half of the totalfiled by the Congress of Industrial Organizations and a little lessthan half of the total filed by the American Federation of Labor.2/The proportion of the total cases of each organization handled duringthe fiscal year and the proportion of total cases of each orot'unizationclosed shows no notable change, compared with the last fiscal year.However, of the total cases settled, the proportion of American Federationof Labor cases settled increased during the fiscal year. TheAmerican Federation of Labor participated in proportionately. moreelections during the fiscal year, and won proportionately more electionsthan during the preceding fiscal year. Further, in elections conductedbetween the two organizations, the American Federation : of Labor,in contrast with the preceding year, won more elections than did. the.Congress of Industrial Organizations.The number and percentage of cases filed by both organizationswhich went to hearing during the fiscal year decreased, but of thetotal number of hearings held, the proportion of hearings in Congressof Industrial Organizations cases increased. The number of Boarddecisions in American Federation of Labor cases during the fiscal yeardecreased slightly, but the percentage of such cases in which 'decisionswere issued by the Board increased slightly; the number and pereentageof Congress of Industrial Organizations cases. in whiCh . decisionswere issued by the Board increased. The benefits of settlementof cases and compliance with Board decisions and orders were aboutequally divided between the two organizations. Such settlements andcompliance resulted in union recognition in practically the same numberof cases for each organization ; but written or oral contracts weremade in more American Federation of Labor cases than in Congressof Industrial Organizations cases. More compliance notices wereposted in American Federation of Labor cases, but more cases- involvingthe issue of employer domination of labor organizations weresettled in Congress of Industrial Organizations cases. Settlement ofand compliance in cases of the latter organization, the statistics show,resulted in more employees reinstated and more back pay than in thecases of the American Federation of Labor.21 Where used in this section, the names "American Federation of Labor" and "Congressof Industrial Organizations" include these organizations and their affiliates, respectively.
FOURTH ANNUAL REPORT OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARDThe question of the appropriate unit continued to be an importantproblem during the fiscal year. In solving this problem the BOardcontinued to employ, in the exercise of the ,power conferred on theBoard in section 9 (b) of the act to decide in each case the unitappropriate for collective bargaining, the technique described in theBoard's Third Annual Report, which has come to be known as theGlobe Doctrine. 22. Under this doctrine, in cases where other factorsare evenly balanced, the choices as to unit. of the employees in thedisputed group are made the determining -factor, and they are permittedto exercise that choice in an election between the lab-or organizationcontending for an industrial unit and the labor organizationcontending for the craft unit. However, as pointed out below, thenumber of cases in which this problem arose during the fiscal yearhas, as it did during the past fiscal year, remained quite small andconstitutes only a minor proportion of the .representation cases decidedby. the Board.During .the fiscal year'the Board decided 116 cases in which bothAmerican Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizationsparticipated and in which the question of appropriate unit wasinvolved. In 49 of these cases the American Federation of Laborand the Congress of Industrial Organizations agreed completelyupon the appropriate unit. In 20 cases both organizations agreedupon the general outlines of the unit and disagreed only concerningthe inclusion or exclusion of minor groups or isolated individuals.The 43 remaining cases, in which there was important disagreementbetween the American Federation of Labor and the Congress ofIndustrial Organizations upon the appropriate unit, were decidedas follows:.American Federation -of Labor contention .upheldCongress of Industrial Organizations contention upheld 19Contentions of each upheld in part 7No decision necessary 1.In 29 of these 43 cases the main controversy centered around.whether the appropriate unit should be a • craft unit or an industrialone; in 14 this issue was not involved. Out. of the 19 cases in whichthe contention of the Congress of Industrial Organizations was fullyupheld, Hip-volved this issue.23It is interesting :to note that. during the fiscal year the AmericanFederation of Labor requested some form of industrial unit- inapproximately 113 eases, and a craft form in approximately 68cases. 24 In 54 of these 68 cases, the Board granted the claim of theAmerican Federation of Labor in .full, either by setting up the craft.employees .,directly as a separate unit or by permitting the craft.employees to make their own choice. In only 15. instances did theBoard reject a. claim for craft units.2522 Third Annual Report (1938), pages 6 and 7, citing Globe Machine and StampingCompany, 3 N. L. R. B. 294.See ch. VII. post, for discussion and citation of the Board decisions.21 These figures are not altogether exact since it is sometimes very difficult to knowwhether a particular group requested as an appropriate unit should properly be considereda "craft" or an "industrial" group.25 In. four ,of these cases, the claims of the American Federation of Labor unions weregranted as to some craft groups and denied as to others. See ch. VII. post. for a detailed,discussion and citation of the Board decisions.
Page 4: LETTER OF TRANSMITTALNATIONAL LABOR
Page 13: 6 FOURTH ANNUAL REPORT OF NATIONAL
Page 17 and 18: 10 FOITRTH ANNUAL REPORT OF NATIONA
Page 19 and 20: 12 FOURTH ANNUAL REPORT OF NATIONAL
Page 25 and 26: IV. WORK OF THE BOARDUnder the act
Page 31 and 32: ,24 FOURTH ANNUAL REPORT OF NATIONA
Page 34 and 35: IV. WORK OF THE BOARD 27If all case
Page 36 and 37: V. UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE CASES 29of
Page 38 and 39: TABLE VI.—Analyses of charges rec
Page 40 and 41: V. UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE CASES 33Th
Page 42 and 43: TABLE VIII.—Disposition of unfair
Page 44 and 45: V. UNFAIR LABOR PRAWICE CASES 37TAB
Page 46 and 47: General Tax Tips #46TO BE PRINTED B
Page 48 and 49: V. UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE CASES 41TA
Page 50 and 51: VI. REPRESENTATION CASES 43tion. In
Page 52 and 53: TABLE XV.—bisposition of represen
Page 54 and 55: VI. REPRESENTATION CASES 47'unions.
Page 56 and 57: VI. REPRESENTATION CASES 49TABLE XV
Page 58 and 59: VI. REPRESENTATION CASES 51C. ELECT
Page 60 and 61: TABLE XX.-Elections conducted by th
Page 62 and 63: VI. REPRESENTATION CASES 55(2) On a
Page 64 and 65:
VII. PRINCIPLES ESTABLISHED 57A. IN
Page 66 and 67:
VII. PRINCIPLES ESTABLISHED 590527,
Page 68 and 69:
VII. PRINCIPLES ESTABLISHED • 61T
Page 70 and 71:
VII. PRINCIPLES ESTABLISHED 63In Ma
Page 72 and 73:
VII. PRINCIPLES ESTABLISHED 65emplo
Page 74 and 75:
' VII. PRINCIPLES ESTABLISHED 67in
Page 76 and 77:
VII. PRINCIPLES ESTABLISHED 69D. DO
Page 78 and 79:
VII. PRINCIPLES ESTABLISHED 71I * *
Page 80 and 81:
WI. PRINCIPLES ESTABLISHED 73that,
Page 82 and 83:
VII. PRINCIPLES ESTABLISHED 75.tion
Page 84 and 85:
VII. PRINCIPLES ESTABLISHED 77Annua
Page 86 and 87:
VII. PRINCIPLES ESTABLISHED 79to th
Page 88 and 89:
VII. PRINCIPLES ESTABLISHED 81conte
Page 90 and 91:
VII. PRINCIPLES ESTABLISHED 83or ot
Page 92 and 93:
VIL PRINWYLES ESTABLISHED 85the wis
Page 94 and 95:
VII. PRINCIPLES ESTABLISHED 87to de
Page 96 and 97:
VII. PRINCIPLES ESTABLISHED 89has b
Page 98 and 99:
VII. PRINCIPLES ESTABLISHED 91of on
Page 100 and 101:
VII. PRINCIPLES ESTABLISHED 93In Ma
Page 102 and 103:
VII. PRINCIPLES ESTABLISHED 95of pr
Page 104 and 105:
VII. PRINCIPLES ESTABLISTTF.D 97-th
Page 106 and 107:
VII. PRINCIPLES ESTABLISHED 99The B
Page 108 and 109:
VII. PRINCIPLES ESTABLISHED 101The
Page 110 and 111:
VII. PRINCIPLES ESTABLISHED 103ploy
Page 112 and 113:
VII. PRINCIPLES ESTABLISHED 105More
Page 114 and 115:
VII. PIIINCIPLES ESTABLISHED 107the
Page 116 and 117:
VII. PRINCIPLES ESTABLISHED 109In a
Page 118 and 119:
VII. PRINCIPLES ESTABLISHED 111by i
Page 120 and 121:
VIII. JURISDICTION 113This result h
Page 122 and 123:
IX. LITIGATION 115ing Mill Employee
Page 124 and 125:
IX. LITIGATION 117ployees after ref
Page 126 and 127:
IX. LITIGATION 119-which they forme
Page 128 and 129:
IX.. LITIGATION 121which had gained
Page 130 and 131:
IX. LITIGATION 123Court held that t
Page 132 and 133:
IX. LITIGATION 125B. MISCELLANEOUS
Page 134 and 135:
IX. LITIGATION 127had given full ef
Page 136 and 137:
IX. LITIGATION 129'Where the corpor
Page 138 and 139:
IX. LITIGATION 131• When the unio
Page 140 and 141:
IX. LITIGATION 133established altho
Page 142 and 143:
IX. LITIGATION 135corporation's fai
Page 144 and 145:
IX. LITIGATION 137Corp. v. N. L. R.
Page 146 and 147:
DC. LITIGATION13gopposed to that un
Page 148 and 149:
IX. LITIGATION 141B. CONSENT DECREE
Page 150 and 151:
IX. LITIGATION 143Dupuy Storage d F
Page 152 and 153:
IX. LITIGATION 145L. C. Phenix Co..
Page 154 and 155:
IX. LITIGATION 147Tenth Circuit Cou
Page 156 and 157:
X. THE TRIAL EXAMINERS' DIVISIONThe
Page 158 and 159:
X. THE TRIAL EXAMINERS' DIVISION 15
Page 160 and 161:
XI. DIVISION OF ECONOMIC RESEARCH 1
Page 162 and 163:
XL DIVISION OF ECONOMIC RESEARCH 15
Page 164 and 165:
XI. DIVISION OF ECONOMIC RESEARCH 1
Page 166 and 167:
XII. INFORMATION DIVISION 159The ac
Page 168 and 169:
INFORMATION DIVISION 161,Throughout
Page 170 and 171:
XIII. LIST OF CASES HEARD AND DECIS
Page 172 and 173:
Page 174 and 175:
XIII. LIST OF CASES HEARD- AND DECI
Page 176 and 177:
LIST OF CASES HEARD AND DECISIONS R
Page 178 and 179:
XM. LIST OF CASES HEARD AND DECISIO
Page 180 and 181:
Page 182 and 183:
Page 184 and 185:
Page 186 and 187:
Page 188 and 189:
Page 190 and 191:
Page 192 and 193:
Page 194 and 195:
Page 196 and 197:
APPENDIX ATABLE T.—Comparison of
Page 198 and 199:
CHART A6NUMBER OF STRIKES CONTRASTE
Page 200 and 201:
' •Arpti-smix"A 193TABii -1L-Comp
Page 202 and 203:
NUMBER OF WORKERS INVOLVED IN ORGAN
Page 204 and 205:
CHART EMILLIONS OFMAN-DAYS OF IDLEN
Page 206 and 207:
APPENDIX B• ,. "Pft,LIST .7 F 3RE
Page 208 and 209:
200 FOURTH ANNUAL REPORT OF NATIONA
show all

J. - National Labor Relations Board

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?