United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on Labo.

Labor relations : hearings before the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, United States Senate, Eighty-first Congress, first session, on S.249, a bill to diminish the cause of labor disputes burdening or obstructing interstate and foreign commerce, and for other purposes (Volume 3) online

. (page 1 of 96)
Online LibraryUnited States. Congress. Senate. Committee on LaboLabor relations : hearings before the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, United States Senate, Eighty-first Congress, first session, on S.249, a bill to diminish the cause of labor disputes burdening or obstructing interstate and foreign commerce, and for other purposes (Volume 3) → online text (page 1 of 96)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook


I







Bi




[ P



Given By
IT. S. SlIPT. OF DOCUMENTS



3*



p.i^k pt 3

LABOR RELATIONS



HEARINGS

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND PUBLIC WELFARE
UNITED STATES SENATE

EIGHTY-FIRST CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION
ON

S. 249

A BILL TO DIMINISH THE CAUSES OF LABOR DISPUTES

BURDENING OR OBSTRUCTING INTERSTATE

AND FOREIGN COMMERCE, AND

FOR OTHER PURPOSES



PART 3

FEBRUARY 8, 9, AND 10, 1949



Printed for the use of the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare





LABOR RELATIONS



HEARINGS

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON LABOE AND PUBLIC WELFARE
UNITED STATES SENATE

EIGHTY-FIRST CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION
ON

S. 249

A BILL TO DIMINISH THE CAUSES OP LABOR DISPUTES

BURDENING OR OBSTRUCTING INTERSTATE

AND FOREIGN COMMERCE, AND

FOR OTHER PURPOSES



PART 3

FEBRUARY S, 9, AND 10, 1949



Printed for the use of the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare




( PUfeLfC



UNITED STATES
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
85905 WASHINGTON : 1949






APR 15 1949



COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND PUBLIC WELFARE

ELBERT D. THOMAS, Utah, Chairman
JAMES E. MURRAY, Montana ROBERT A. TAFT, Ohio

CLAUDE PEPPER, Florida GEORGE D. AIKEN, Vermont

LISTER HILL, Alabama H. ALEXANDER SMITH, New Jersey

MATTHEW M. NEELY, West Virginia WAYNE MORSE, Oregon

PAUL H. DOUGLAS, Illinois FORREST C. DONNELL, Missouri

HUBERT H. HUMPHREY, Minnesota
GARRETT L. WITHERS, Kentucky

Earl B. Wixcey, Clerk



CONTENTS



I. Alphabetical List of Witnesses

Page

' Brinton, Dilworth, representative of Veterans' Right to Work Committee.. 1335
Denham, Hon. Robert N., general counsel, National Labor Relations

Board 1003, 1065, 1306

Findling, David P., associate general counsel, Division of Law, National

Labor Relations Board 1271

Kaiser, Henry, counsel, International Typographical Union 1410

McCabe, David A., professor of economics, Princeton University 1565

Randolph, Woodruff, president, International Typographical Union.. 1410, 1552

II. Chronological List of Witnesses

Tuesday, February 8, 1949:

Hon. Robert N. Denham, general counsel, National Labor Relations

Board 1003, 1065

David P. Findling, associate general counsel, Division of Law,

National Labor Relations Board 1104

Wednesday, February 9, 1949:

Hon. Robert N. Denham, general counsel, National Labor Relations

Board 1113, 1306

David P. Findling, associate general counsel, Division of Law,

National Labor Relations Board 1271

Dilworth Brinton, representative of Veterans' Right to Work Com-
mittee 1335

Thursday, February 10, 1949:

Woodruff Randolph, president International Typographical Union.. 1410,1612

Henry Kaiser, counsel, International Typographical Union 1410

David A. McCabe, professor of economics, Princeton University 1565

Hon. Robert N. Denham, general counsel, National Labor Relations

Board 1603

III. List of Statements and Communications

Brinton, Dilworth, representative of Veterans' Right to Work Committee,
letter of, to Senator Thomas, transmitting material requested by com-
mittee members 1349

Denham, Hon. Robert N., general counsel, National Labor Relations
Board, charts submitted by —

Charted history of operations under L. M. R. A., August 22, 1947,

to December 31, 1948 1039

Chart No. 1. All cases received, cases closed, cases pending at end of

the month, August 22, 1947, to June 30, 1949 1040

Chart No. 2. Unfair labor practice cases received, closed, and pend-
ing at the end of the month, August 22, 1947, to June 30, 1949 1041

Chart No. 3. Representation cases received, closed and pending at the

end of the month, August 22, 1947, to June 30, 1949 1042

Chart No. 4. Union security authorization cases received, closed, and

pending at the end of the month, August 22, 1947, to June 30, 1949. . 1043
Chart No. 5. Cases filed with National Labor Relations Board, August

22, 1947, to June 30, 1949, by type of case 1044

Chart No. 6. Unfair labor practice cases filed with the National Labor

Relations Board, August 22, 1947, to June 30, 1949, by type of case. . 1045
Chart No. 7. Representation cases filed with the National Labor

Relations Board, August 22, 1947, to June 30, 1949, by type of case. . 1046
Chart No. 8. All cases pending at the end of the month, August 22,

1947, to June 30, 1949, by type of case 1047

m



IV CONTENTS

Denham, Hon. Robert N., charts submitted by — Continued p »e e

Chart No. 9. Unfair labor practice cases pending at the end of the

month, August 22, 1947, to June 30, 1949, by type of case 1048

Chart No. 10. Representation cases pending at the end of the month,

August 22, 1947, to June 30, 1949, by type of case 1049

Chart No. 11. All cases closed during the month, August 22, 1947, to

June 30, 1949, by type of case 1050

Chart No. 12. Unfair labor practice cases closed during the month,

August 22, 1947, to June 30, 1949, by type of case 1051

Chart No. 13. Representation cases closed during the month, August

22, 1947, to June 30, 1949, by type of case 1052

Chart No. 14. All elections held during the month, August 22, 1947,

to June 30, 1949, by type of election 1053 •

Chart No. 15. Representation elections held during the month, August

22, 1947, to June 30, 1949, by type of case 1054

Chart No. 16. Number and percent of elections won by a union, De-
cember 1, 1947, to June 30, 1949, by type of case__-~ 1055

Chart No. 17. Complaints issued in unfair labor practice cases, Au-
gust 22, 1947, to June 30, 1949, by type of case i 1056

Chart No. 18. All unfair labor practice cases and representation cases
in which decisions were issued, December 1, 1947, to June 30, 1949,

by type of case 1057

Chart No. 19. Number and type of decisions issued in unfair labor
practice cases and representation cases, December 1, 1947, to June

30, 1949 1058

Chart No. 20. Number and tvpe of cases awaiting decisions at the end

of the month, December 1, 1947, to June 30, 1949 1059

Chart No. 21. Average time from filing to decision issued in unfair
labor practice cases and representation cases decisions issued, August

22, 1947, to June 30, 1949 1060

Document entitled, "Time elapsed in processing unfair labor practice

cases, December 1948 actions" 1612

Letter of, to Senator Donnell, transmitting a chronology of Interna-
tional Typographical Union cases before the Board 1300

Wells, Joseph C, associate general counsel, memorandum of, to Mr.
Denham, "Prevention of unfair labor practices under 1947 amend-
ments" 1617

Wixcey, Earl B., committee clerk, letter to, from Mr. Denham, trans-
mitting compilation of comparative statutes in various States as

related to Taft-Hartley Act 1140

Donnell, Hon. Forrest C, a United States Senator from the State of
Missouri, insertions of —

Analysis of tentative committee print, April 7, 1947 1115

Denham, Hon. Robert N., general counsel, National Labor Relations
Board, letter of February 19, 1947, to Senator Donnell, commenting

on Senator Ball's bill, S. 360 of Eightieth Congress 1127

Letter of, acknowledging receipt of Mr. Denham's letter of February

19, 1947 1133

Memorandum submitted to, by Shroyer & Reilly, comments on Mr.

Denham's views on S. 360 1133

Washington Post editorial, February 8, 1949, "More haste, less

speed" 1003

Humphrey, Hon. Hubert H., a United States Senator from the State of
Minnesota, insertions of —

Joint Committee on Labor-Management Relations, minority report,
excerpt from, E. Legislative interference with executive and judicial

f unctions 1111

New York Times, August 14, 1948, article from, "Taft would hold
ITU 1 for contempt — Senator calls for action on an injunction requir-
ing union to conform to labor law" 1634

Notes on the meeting of November 17, 1947, National Labor Relations

Board, union, and Robert N. Denham, general counsel 1264

Van Arkel, Gerhard P., and Kaiser, Henry, letter of, to National
Labor Relations Board, in re International Typographical Union

case 1278

Washington Post editorial, August 25, 1948, "Legislative pressure" - 1635
Washington Post editorial, September 16, 1948, "Putting on the
heat" 1635



CONTENTS V

Randolph, Woodruff, president, International Typographical Union, inser- Pa s e
tions of —

Shroyer, Thomas E., speech of, at French Lick, Ind., September 22,

1947 1552

Van Arkel, Gerhard P., letter of, to Earl Wixcey, committee clerk,

transmitting material Mr. Randolph was to furnish the committee. _ 1646
Taft, Hon. Robert A., a United States Senator from the State of Ohio,
insertion of —

Book of laws of the International Typographical Union, effective

January 1, 1949 1 1469

Thomas, Hon. Elbert D., a United States Senator from the State of Utah,
insertions of —

Carey, James B., secretary-treasurer, CIO, Washington, D. C, letter

of, to Senator Thomas, in re Communist Party statement 1405, 1602

Dalton, George, representative of Veterans' Right to Work Committee,

statement of 1 407

Findling, David P., associate general counsel, National Labor Relations
Board, letter of, dated August 19, 1948, to President Truman, in re
conference in Senator Taf t's office 1109

Joint Committee on Labor- Management Relations, minority report,

excerpt from, page 16, section E 1111

Kennedy, Thomas, vice president, United Mine Workers of America,
Washington, D. C, letter of, to Senator Thomas, transmitting state-
ment of United Mine Workers of America on S. 249 1409

National Labor Relations Board press release in re President Truman's
letter to Mr. Findling commenting on Mr. Findling's letter of August
19, 1948 1109

Whitney, A. F., president, Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen, Cleve-
land, Ohio, letter of, to Senator Thomas, assigning B. A. Whitney to
to represent Mr. A. F. Whitney at the hearings on S. 249 1109



LABOR RELATIONS



TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 1949

United States Senate,
Committee on Labor and Public Welfare,

Washington, D. C.

The committee met, pursuant to adjournment, at 9 : 30 a. m. in the
committee room. United States Capitol, Hon. Elbert D. Thomas
(chairman) presiding.

Present: Senators Thomas (Chairman), Murray, Pepper, Neely,
Douglas, Humphrey, Withers, Taf t, Aiken, Smith, Morse, and Donnell.

The Chairman. We will go on with Mr. Denham. He is not well ;
he has already made a preliminary statement.

Senator Donnell. Before Mr. Denham starts, Mr. Chairman, I
offer for the record an editorial appearing in this morning's Wash-
ington Post, entitled "More Haste, Less Speed."

The Chairman. Without objection, it will be included in the record.

(The editorial referred to follows :)

More Haste, Less Speed

If the Senate Labor Committee holds to its announced schedule, hearings on
the proposed substitute for the Taft-Hartley Act will close on Thursday. It is
now unmistakably evident that the committee cannot in the next 3 days hear
more than a small fraction of the witnesses demanding an opportunity to state
their views. Nor will it have before it all. the information it will need for the
delicate task of rewriting the law controlling labor-management relations. A
Senate committee cannot act on so momentous an issue with such haste without
opening itself to the charge of substituting the rubber stamp for full inquiry
and legislative deliberation.

This unreasonable haste will not work to the advantage of labor, the adminis-
tration, or the committee. No organic labor-management legislation can work
well or last long unless it wins general public support, and that will be forth-
coming only if the public believes that the legislation has been shaped with,
deliberation and in a spirit of sensible compromise. The administration ought to
be aware of the fact that legislative tempers are already frayed because of this
unreasonable haste. Thus the Executive-legislative unity that is so essential
to carrying out the President's program is in danger of being undermined 'for
no good reason. Another week or 10 days of hearings would go a long way
toward convincing both legislators and the people that the administration is
seeking legislation in the public interest and not merely to pay a political debt.

The Chairman. Mr. Denham, you made your preliminary statement
yesterday. We will let Senator Taft start with you this morning.

STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT N. DENHAM, GENERAL COUNSEL,
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD— Resumed

Senator Taft. Mr. Denham, you have been in charge of the Office
of the General Counsel, and I notice in your statement you say that
in 16 months ending December 31, 1948, you handled some 56,000

1003



1004 LABOR RELATIONS

cases of all sorts, of which slightly under 8,000 were complaint cases,
12,000 with representation cases, and approximately 36,000 were union
security election cases.

I will omit the union security election cases because everybody seems
to be agreed that that particular provision should now be repealed, and
it would be unnecessary to consider that point further.

Mr. Denham. I am in complete agreement with that.

Senator Taft. You are in complete agreement with that proposal?

Mr. Denham. Yes, sir.

Senator Taft. These 8,000 complaint cases were cases on the part
of employer and employee alleging unfair practices on the part of the
other, is that it?

Mr. Denham. I can give you the break-down of them.

Senator Taft. Yes ; I would like to know that.

Mr. Denham. There are 7,827 as of the first of the year. Of those,
2,093 were hold-over complaint cases from the Wagner Act days.
There were 4,460 cases that represented charges filed against em-
ployers, some by unions, and some by individuals.

There were 796 cases filed against labor organizations, roughly half
by individuals and half by employers.

There were 379 cases that fell into that class which, if they were
meritorious, would have required petitions for mandatory injunctions
under section 8 (b) (4), and there were 96 cases that came under the
heading of jurisdictional disputes under the provision of section
8 (b) (4) (D).

Senator Taft. Have you now had quite an extensive experience in
nearly all of the different unfair labor practices charged?

Mr. Denham. I feel that I have, sir, when you combine 10 years of
trial examining and the very intensive operations that we have had
in the last 16 months, I feel that I could say that I have had a fairly
extensive experience.

Senator Taft. I would think so.

Well, the Board, I remember, testified that they had only — Mr.
Herzog, I think, testified — they had only passed on nine cases alto-
gether themselves.

Mr. Denham. That is approximately correct. The greater num-
ber have come under my jurisdiction, but represent cases not yet
decided by the Board.

Senator Taft. As compared to that experience you have had hun-
dreds, almost thousands, of cases to consider yourself, I suppose, in
the initial stages?

Mr. Denham. I might say, Senator, that under our procedure and
under the old Wagner Act procedure, the regional directors were given
a great deal of autonomy in their determination as to the merits of
the case, and as to whether a complaint should be issued.

At the beginning of the administration of the present act, in order
that we could make sure that a consistent line of policy would be
followed, we required the regional directors to submit all of their cases
into Washington before issuing complaints.

We wanted to make sure that they did not get out of bounds. That
continued for some several months. Obviously, I personally did not
examine all of the files. I had a staff of highly experienced persons
to do that, and then they would reduce the facts down to concise lan-
guage, and give them to me with their recommendations.



LABOR RELATIONS 1005

I would study them and pass on them in that fashion. As time
went on and as lines began to develop clearly, more autonomy was
given to the regional directors, and that was rather rapidly passed on
to them with reference to those cases which represented charges against
employers falling under section 8 (a) of the act.

Senator Taft. That section 8 (a), in general, covered simply re-
newed provisions of the Wagner Act?

Mr. Denham. Yes, sir ; that was a carry-over of the Wagner Act
provisions, and the general principles remained the same.

The regional directors remained the same, and they knew what it
was all about, and we did not feel that they had to have that same close
supervision.

Then, as time went on, we gave them a little more freedom of action
with reference to what we called the CB cases. Those are the cases
in the charges against unions that do not fall within the area of sec-
tion 8 (b) (4), which covers the jurisdictional-dispute cases. But
that still has not been wholly released to them.

The result was that there have been a great number of cases which
have been sent into Washington by the regional directors for advice
as to policy matters. That has been studied and has been sent on
back to the regions.

The charges alleging a violation of section 8 (b) (4) of the act are
required to come into Washington for study and advice, since, as you
knoAV, these are the type of cases requiring a mandatory injunction
if a complaint should issue. I think most of the cases coming to my
attention are those involving appeals from decisions of regional di-
rectors not to issue complaints. In those cases, I have made the final
decision, either sustaining or overruling the regional director's posi-
tion. Within that area of cases which I have described, we have hit
pretty nearly everything.

Senator Taft. You have hit pretty nearly everything under the
act, all the different unfair labor practices ?

Mr. Denham. I feel that we made better than a spot coverage of
them.

Senator Taft. Just to get into the record a clear statement of what
this division of power is — I do not want to discuss nor to ask you to
argue the question — of whom do you have charge ? What is your func-
tion as against the Board if an unfair labor practice is filed, or in a
representation case? Is that within the jurisdiction of the people
whom you direct ?

Mr. Denham. By virtue of the combination of the statutory pro-
visions and the delegation agreement which we found it necessary to
work out, that is, the Board and I found it necessary to work out,
everything that occurs in the field is within the jurisdiction of the
general counsel, all the personnel and all the things that occur in
the various regional and subregional offices.

Senator Taft. Does not the Board have examiners, however, in
the field?

Mr. Denham. No, sir ; no.

Senator Taft. To take testimony ?

Mr. Denham. All the examiners are under — I am not talking about
the trial examiners. They are the judges, they are part of the judicial
side and sit as judges. But when a representation petition, for in-
stance, is filed, it is filed in one of the field offices.



1006 LABOR RELATIONS

Now, in analyzing the act, we noted that the General Counsel was
given exclusive jurisdiction over the issuance of complaints, final
authority over the issuance of complaints, but the question of handling
of representation cases was left open; the statute was silent on that,
and we naturally assumed that the Congress intended that the Board
would continue to handle the representation cases, as it has in the past.

But all of the work in the handling of representation cases, except
that which is of a decisional quality, is performed in the field.

Senator Taft. That work on representation cases is, to a certain
extent, merely — I mean, it is a procedure which does not involve a
great exercise of discretion, does it ? Is it not usually the question of
whether you have an election, and then an election is held ?

Mr. Denham. No; it requires considerable exercise of discretion.
The first thing that happens when a petition is filed is an effort on
the part of the regional office, the regional director, and those working
under him, to get the parties together and see if they cannot agree
on what constitutes an appropriate unit, and in a normal consent
agreement the regional director conducts the election.

It necessitates some inquiry by the field examiner who conducts
these conferences, as to the nature and character of the business done
by the employer, so as to determine whether his business is one which
has an effect on commerce within the meaning of that term.

Having arrived at a conclusion that the statutory jurisdiction is
present, then they attempt to work out one of these consent election
agreements.

I may say that in, oh, a perfectly tremendous percentage of cases
that effort is successful. I am sorry I do not have the exact number,
except I know that it is overwhelming. There are some cases, how-
ever, where the parties are not able to agree upon the constitution of
the unit.

Senator Taft. When there is an election that practically settles
the question. Somebody is chosen as the bargaining representative
and the representation case is over, is that right ?

Mr. Denham. Yes, sir ; they agree to the election and they, in these
consent agreements, the normal consent agreement is that the regional
director shall conduct the election. Any questions that may arise as
to eligibility or anything of that sort will be decided with complete
finality by the regional director.

They never come to Washington. The election is then held in ac-
cordance with the agreement, and as the results determine the elec-
tion, if it is so certified by the regional director, that is the end of it.

If, however, the parties are not able to agree on anything, or if
there is an intervenor who says, "I have got a contract which is a bar
to this election," those things are matters that are not disposed of by
agreement. So, it then becomes necessary for the field office to make
some investigation of the pay roll, to find out just what the facts are
concerning the work performed by the various people in order to
determine what constitutes an appropriate unit for bargaining pur-
poses. .

Also he makes his investigation with reference to this claim of a
contract bar, and there are other things that could possibly stand as a
bar to the holding of the election; and, of course, under the present
law, if the intervenor is not in compliance with the filing require-



LABOR RELATIONS 1007

ments of the statute, it has no standing, except if it has a current con-
tract, then it is allowed to participate to protect its contract.

Senator Taft, Then, roughly speaking, when some party is dis-
satisfied with the decision of the regional director, he has a right to
appeal to the Board, has he, first to you ?

Mr. Denham. Not as a result of the consent election agreement.

Senator Taft. No ; but I mean, suppose there is a contest.

Mr. Denham. Then he can appeal to the Board. It doesn't come to
the general counsel.

Senator Taft. I see.

Mr. Denham. The Board is the determining authority on that.

Senator Taft. And the Board can overrule any action taken by the
regional attorney ?

Mr. Denham. Oh, yes.

Senator Taft. And they have the final word on the question ?

Mr. Denham. That is quite true ; yes, sir.

Senator Taft. There might be an appeal to the court on some pro-
vision of the law, I suppose ?

Mr. Denham. Well, the appeal to the court would only come in con-
nection with some unfair labor practice that might come out of it.

Senator Taft. There is no appeal in representation cases?

Mr. Denham. That is right. The representation proceeding is an
administrative proceeding. It has been so held by the courts.

Senator Taft. And as far as the act is concerned, it was not very
clearly defined as to who handled it, and you simply were given charge
of that handling of it in the field because you had your men there ?

Mr. Denham. Oh, yes.

Senator Taft. And the Board would have had to set up a new, an
extra series of men, if they had undertaken

Mr. Denham. Quite right, sir. The major portion of our men are
in the field and they are experienced; they have been doing it for
years; they are, perhaps, the most experienced election conductors
that there are. They are the most experienced of any agency that I
know. Whether 10 persons or 25 or 50, or 75,000 or 100,000 people
are involved, they still do a good job. The Board wanted to use the
services of those people.

It is entirely proper that they should, and that was included in the
delegation of power.

Senator Taft. And they reserve the final right to pass upon it?

Mr. Denham. Absolutely ; that is true.

Senator Taft. Now, going to the unfair labor practices, either em-
ployer or employee, what happens when someone desires to file a
charge? Do they file it with your office or with the regional office?



Online LibraryUnited States. Congress. Senate. Committee on LaboLabor relations : hearings before the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, United States Senate, Eighty-first Congress, first session, on S.249, a bill to diminish the cause of labor disputes burdening or obstructing interstate and foreign commerce, and for other purposes (Volume 3) → online text (page 1 of 96)