J. - National Labor Relations Board

XI. DIVISION OF ECONOMIC RESEARCH 153bership. In such cases production records and other business indiceswere used, together with descriptive materials, as a test of the employer'sstatement. In the Kansas City Ford Motor A case productionand sales data were used by the regional attorney to contradictrespondent's contention that decreased production in the Kansas Cityplant was based on receding sales in that area. A similar type ofanalysis was made in the Reliance Manufacturing Company 6 case,and the results of the analysis were introduced into the record as aseries of exhibits. Another type of case has required detailed comparisonof economic conditions in two communities, in order to determinewhether the removal of a plant from one community toanother effected real economies or whether it was part of an effortto destroy a labor organization.A substantial part of the Division's work during the past yearcentered around 8 (5) cases where it is necessary to clarify the meaningof collective bargaining in order that the purposes of the Act maybe effectuated. Frequently an employer's conduct with reference tosection 8 (5) can be evaluated only by a consideration of the backgroundof labor relations in his establishment, the history of collectivebargaining within his industry, and the general practices thathave developed wherever collective bargaining has existed for manyyears.One example is the Marshall Field case, settled by stipulation aftera hearing at which the Chief Economist testified on the role of outsideparties in the collective bargaining conference. (Respondent hadinsisted upon their presence as a condition for entering into negotiationswith the union.) The testimony of the Chief Economist, substantiatedby materials from authoritative sources, described therecent history of labor relations in the southern textile industry, thenature of the negotiatory process in collective bargaining, and theuse of "third parties" as a technique developed in recent years forcombating labor organizations.In the Goodyear Rubber s case, data prepared by a staff economistprovided the trial attorneys with background material on employeremployeerelations in the rubber industry. In addition, a specialstudy was made of the length of time required to negotiate the termsof a written trade agreement in the industry, to ascertain an industrypattern. In the Globe Cotton Mills 9 case the Division prepared material(for incorporation in the Board's brief) relating to respondent'scontention that collective bargaining within the meaning of the act doesnot include a written agreement embodying terms agreed upon in negotiationswith the union. In connection with other section 8 (5) cases,including Heinz 10 and Good Coal, 11 economic materials were preparedfor the attorneys writing briefs or delivering oral court arguments.A number of other unfair labor practice questions have been thesubject of Division study, e. g., independent unions, back-to-workmovements, and citizen committees (as devices to frustrate self-organizationof workers) ; employer expressions of opinion (as an inter-'Case No. 17—C-198.', Case No. 18—C-411, 0-475 and 13—C-659.'12 N. L. R. a 345.s Case No. 8—C-378.fi N. L. R. B. 461.3-8 N. L. R. B. 963.1 12 N. L. R. B. 136.