THURSDAY, MAY 13, 1943. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD STATEMENTS OF HON. JOHN M. HOUSTON, MEMBER; GERARD D. REILLY, MEMBER; DONN N. BENT, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY; ROBERT B. WATTS, GENERAL COUNSEL; OSCAR S. SMITH, DIRECTOR, FIELD DIVISION; AND FRANCIS W. WATSON, ASSISTANT TO THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY Mr. HARE. This morning we have for consideration the estimates of the National Labor Relations Board for 1944. Have you a general statement you care to make in reference to the activities of the Board during the past year, and the program for the coming year? GENERAL STATEMENT ON FUNCTION AND PROCEDURE OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Mr. HOUSTON. Mr. Chairman, I want to say at the outset that Mr. Millis, the Chairman of the Board, has been indisposed for several months. Yesterday he was in bed with arthritis and was unable to be here this morning. But these gentlemen with me have all the details, and I would rather have you ask them questions about the details of the estimate, because they are more familiar with those matters than I am. Mr. Chairman, I have a general statement I should like to put in the record, covering the procedure, the case load, and what we are doing and have done during the past year. Then if there are any general questions members of the committee desire to ask, I shall be glad to try to answer them. (The statement referred to is as follows:) PROCEDURE OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Entrusted by Congress with the task of administering an act which affects millions of employees and tens of thousands of employers, the National Labor Relations Board had added to the procedures spelled out by the statute additional procedural steps-both of which add up to elaborate requirements to safeguard the rights of all parties while the policies of the act are effectuated. The Board's procedure is patterned closely after that of the Federal Trade Commission and similar agencies and has repeatedly been approved by the Supreme Court. In carrying out its task of protecting the right to self-organization the Board's activities may be divided into two general categories-that which involves charges of unfair labor practices and the cases which are concerned with determination of majority representation. Inasmuch as the procedures of these two types of cases are different and their purposes are dissimilar, they will be treated separately below. Before discussing the procedure, it is necessary to outline briefly the actual functioning of the Board. The work is decentralized. All cases originate in 19 regional offices, each with jurisdiction over a defined area. Each region is under a regional director. With him is a regional attorney, a small staff of attorneys, and a number of field examiners. In Washington is the Board, the chief of the field division, the general counsel and legal staff, an executive secretary, the chief trial examiner and his staff of trial examiners, and a division of information. UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE CASES An individual or a labor organization may file charges alleging that an employer has engaged in activity interfering with the right to self-organization; the Board itself cannot initiate such proceedings. These charges are filed under oath at the regional office and state the manner in which the employer is alleged to have engaged in the prescribed unfair labor practices. The charges are investigated by a field examiner. The stories of the union and the employees are obtained. The employer presents his side. This is purely a preliminary investigation without any formal proceeding. More than 9 out of 10 cases are disposed of at this informal stage. This is accomplished either as a result of the regional office finding that the charges are lacking in merit or being able to obtain a settlement between the parties. Of the cases closed informally during the past fiscal year, 48 percent were adjusted by agreement of the parties. 37 percent were withdrawn by the complainant after the regional office pointed out the lack of merit in the charges, 15 percent were dismissed by the regional office. In the less than 9 percent of the unfair labor practice cases which are not disposed of informally the regional director issues a complaint where he believes the charges are well founded and compliance is not forthcoming. The preparation of the complaint and of the public hearing thereon is assigned to an attorney attached to the regional office. The complaint and a notice of hearing is served on all parties, and the employer complained of is given an opportunity to file an answer before the commencement of a hearing. At this stage again cases may be adjusted, withdrawn, or dismissed. The chief trial examiner at Washington has been advised of the time and place of hearing. He designates a trial examiner to conduct the hearing. The examiner has no connection with the regional office; he knows nothing of the case, except that when he is assigned to it he may familiarize himself with the pleadings in the same manner as a judge does before a trial. A written and verbatim record preserves the hearing. The record is made through the examination and cross-examination of witnesses, and the introduction of relevant documentary evidence. At the conclusion of the trial, arguments may be heard and time granted for the filing of briefs. At the conclusion of the hearing the trial examiner draws up his intermediate report containing his factual findings and recommendations. This is served on the parties. They may file exceptions to the report and argue them orally before the Board in Washington. Or, compliance is obtained with the intermediate report and the case thereby brought to an end. Upon the basis of the written record the Board then considers and decides the case. If the case has been proved, the Board will issue an order requiring the employer to cease and desist from his illegal conduct and to take certain action (for example, disestablishment of a company-dominated union) to remedy the situation. Also, the Board may dismiss the entire case if it has not been proved, or portions of it which frequently happens. The board's order is not self-enforcing. There are no fines or penalties for its violation. The order remains in this status unless and until enforced by a circuit court of appeals. set aside the At this point Either the employer may petition the circuit court of appeals to board's order or the board may ask the court to enforce its order. the case belongs to the court. The jurisdiction of the court is exclusive and its judgment and decree final except upon review by the Supreme Court of the United States. Only after court approval of the board's order does it carry legal compulsion; violation of it then becomes contempt of court. In summary, unfair labor practice cases go through a constant sifting, due process being observed at all times, and the board being required to issue crders in about 7 percent of the cases filed, and litigation in the courts being resorted to in a much smaller percentage of the cases. REPRESENTATION CASES Cases involving questions of representation are not proceedings against employers. They constitute, in reality, investigations leading to factual determination as to whether or not a particular labor organization has been selected by a majority of employees as exclusive bargaining agent. Nevertheless, employers are permitted to participate fully in these proceedings under the Board's rules and regulations, and to contest or clarify the issues. (It is interesting to note that the National Mediation Board, which handles similar representation questions under the Railway Labor Act, excludes the employer entirely in this type of proceeding.) A petition for investigation of a question concerning representation may be filed by any employer or by any labor organization claiming representation of his employees. These petitions are filed with the regional director and are signed and sworn to. They include the name and address of the petitioner, the name and address of the employer involved, the approximate number of employees, the description of the bargaining unit claimed to be appropriate, the approximate number of employees claimed to be members of the union, and the names of any other labor organizations who may claim to represent the employees. The filing of the petition leads to a preliminary investigation by a field examiner in much the same manner as he does in unfair labor practice cases. Similarity, a majority, 77.5 percent, of the cases are disposed of at this informal stage. This is accomplished either by withdrawal by petitioner or dismissal by the regional office when the investigation reveals that the petitioner does not represent a sufficient number of employees to indicate that it has a chance of obtaining the votes of a majority of employees. In 70 percent of the cases closed at this stage during the past fiscal year, an adjustment was effected with the agreement of the parties, through the conference method. This adjustment, which avoids the necessity of formal proceedings, may take various forms: Outright recognition of the petitioning union by the employer; determination of the question of majority representation either by checking the union members' cards against the company's pay roll, or by holding a consent election where the parties are in complete agreement on all questions (e. g., employees eligible to vote) leaving the sole question as to whether the union represents a majority. Where the preliminary investigation by the field examiner reveals that a question concerning representation exists and an informal adjustment cannot be arranged, a hearing is held. As in unfair labor practice cases, all parties are given the opportunity to examine and cross-examine witnesses and introduce relevant documents. In the representation hearing, however, the attorney appearing for the Board is in an entirely different situation. He is not engaged in the capacity of counsel responsible for the presentation of facts regarding an alleged violation of the law. The function of the Board's attorney is to sit by and supplement the record when necessary, to see that it contains the facts Essential to an intelligent decision by the Board. The transcript of the hearing, which may be supplemented by oral argument before the Board in Washington or the submission of briefs, comprises the entire record upon which the Board makes it decision. Where the Board finds that a question of representation does exist, it directs that it be resolved by the conduct of a secret ballot election. The election is conducted by the regional office which makes a tally of the ballots. Upon the basis of the election results, the Board issues a decision either certifying the union which won a majority of the valid votes cast or dismissing the petition where the labor organization fails to obtain such a majority. Inasmuch as the certification by the Board is essentially a certification of a fact, it is not reviewable by the courts. Mr. HARE. We would like to have a brief résumé of what you have in your statement, because we have not had an opportunity to read it. If you will make a brief general statement we will be glad to have it. Mr. HOUSTON. First, I would like to give you my impression of what I have found since I have been there. Mr. HARE. You may proceed. Mr. HOUSTON. I want to say this, that I was amazed when I joined the National Labor Relations Board to find the intense loyalty to the job that is exemplified by the different employees in this organization. There is not any lost motion or waste of time. Everybody is right on the job, trying to do a good job and they are intensely interested in their work. 1The cases adjusted represent 50 percent of all representation cases closed. TURN-OVER OF PERSONNEL We have about 785 employees. We have never reached the authorized strength, and we have been handicapped to this extent, according to my observation, that a great many of our people have been pirated away from us by other agencies. They are not supposed to do that, but when one fellow goes out and gets a job somewhere else he tells other people in our employ that they had better go over there and make an application and file it, because they can probably get a good job paying more money. Mr. THOMAS. Is that continuing today? I thought we cured that last year, when Mr. Reilly was here. Mr. REILLY. That sort of thing has fallen off a good deal, and your action helped us tremendously. Mr. HARE. I wonder where these people all go. Every agency and every department whose representatives have been before this and other subcommittees make the same complaint. Mr. HOUSTON. I think they go wherever they can get more money. Mr. HARE. Everybody cannot be losing. Mr. HOUSTON. No; we are the losers. We have lost over a hundred people who have gone into the armed services. Mr. ENGEL. Could you put in the record a statement giving the figures showing the labor turn-over in the past year and the number of your people who have entered the armed services? Mr. HOUSTON. Yes; we can do that. (The statement referred to is as follows:) There have been 420 separations from the staff of the Board from July 1, 1942, to April 30, 1943, which resulted in a turn-over of approximately 48 percent for that 10-month period, or projected on an annual basis, a turn-over rate of 57 percent. A total of 119 of the Board's employees have entered the armed forces or approximately 28 percent of the Board's 420 male employees. NUMBER OF PERSONNEL We have been handicapped to a great extent. While we have not reached our authorized strength of a year ago, yet in the meantime we were directed to cut down our force by the Budget by about 64, at the time when we really needed those people. That, in addition to the men who are going into the armed service and those going to other agencies, has handicapped us, and we have had to get along the best way we could. Mr. THOMAS. What was your authorized personnel strength? Mr. THOMAS. How many employees did you have on April 1 ? Mr. BENT. Are you speaking of the number set by the Budget Bureau? Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Houston stated that your authorized strength was 913. I would like to know how many actual employees you had on the roll before the freeze order was issued by the Bureau of the Budget. Mr. BENT. The total number was 860. Mr. THOMAS. As of what date? Mr. HOUSTON. As of April 1. Mг. THOMAS. What was the number fixed by the freeze order? Mr. THOMAS. So you had to lop off how many-64? Mr. HOUSTON. Yes; 64. Mr. THOMAS. How many do you have as of today? Mr. BENT. Just a shade under the ceiling. The number varies from day to day. Mr. THOMAS. You have not had time to comply with the Budget's freeze order? Mr. BENT. Yes; we did. Their ceiling was 796. We are staying as close to the freeze order as possible. But the number varies when people leave. Mr. THOMAS. How many employees does the 1944 estimate call for? Mr. BENT. That was based on the number we had prior to the Bureau of the Budget's ceiling, since that ceiling had not been imposed at that time. (Discussion off the record.) DISPOSITION OF CASES Mr. HARE. The committee would be interested in having a brief statement as to the nature and extent of your activities during the past year. Mr. HOUSTON. The number of cases filed with our regional offices has fallen off during the past year to some extent, being less than during the previous year. Nevertheless, the number of contested cases, and the number of cases transferred to the Board in Washington has increased, and we have had some so-called celebrated cases that have taken considerably more time than a normal case would take, such as the Kaiser case, and the foremen and supervisor proposition, which have taken more time than the average case. We are not saying that we have a larger case load than we had a year ago, but we are getting rid of more cases than we did a year ago. In the month of April, as I recall, we disposed of from 150 to 200 cases, including complaint cases and representation cases. Our complaint cases run about 33 or 34 percent of the total case load, and the representation cases run about 66 or 67 percent. Mr. HARE. Will you tell us the difference between a complaint case and a representation case? Mr. HOUSTON. Yes. That is in the statement which I have submitted to you on page 316. COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF CASE LOAD OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Mr. TARVER. I wonder if we could not have a comparative statement showing the case load last year and the case load during the present fiscal year? Mr. HARE. Do you have that available? 86811-43--21 |