« PreviousContinue »
Mr. TABER. That the number of positions would exceed the manyears by about 5 to 10 percent? Mr. KHEEL. I think that would be about correct. Mr. TABER. That is a shot in the air, of course; but it is something like that? ... Mr. KHEEL. Yes, sir. Mr. TABER. Shouldn't there be a difference in that set-up? We all know that a difference arises. We figure on that sort of thing when we come to operate. What do you think about that? Mr. KHEEL. I believe, Mr. Taber, that when we began the current fiscal year we were slightly in excess of the number of positions which Congress subsequently authorized for us. In addition, the first column in this table of comparison represents, as required, the 1945 appropriation, as approved last year. The figures of positions and man-years are those approved by Congress. Mr. TABER. We had made the appropriation before the fiscal year began—not a long time, but a few days, anyway. I do not remember exactly. You know that the Budget law requires the submission of the number of actual positions that are expected to be filled. This requirement for man-years was a creation of the Budget rather than of the law. It is rather inclined to be confusing to some of us, anyway, and I don't know but what it is confusing to you. From the picture that you present of the number of positions and the number of man-years there should be a very substantial saving in the appropriation. That is, there should be a 5- or 10-percent saving in the salary appropriation if the number of positions and the number of man-years that you figure on are exactly alike. Dr. TAYLOR. The savings are shown on this table. They are estimated to be $290,988. I do not know about some of these, but there is a difference in the 1946 base and the 1946 estimates. Mr. KHEEL. The reason for that, I believe, is that we could not show, in the 1945 appropriation columns of this table, the personnelnot included in our 1945 appropriation—that we had to make available for the following operations which were required since July 1945:
Positions | Man-years
Hawaiian Territorial Board------------------------------------------------------- 19 17.0 Former Central Administrative Services------------------------------------------- 139 91.0 Textile panels--------------------------- 11 1.2 Meatpacking Commission --- 7 . 5 Steel Commission----------------------------------------------- 14 2.8 Telephone panel------------------------------------------------ --- 3. 1.5 irframe panel.------------------------------------------------------------------- 4 3.5 Total------------------------------------------------------------------------ 197 117. 5
When these positions and man-year totals are added to the 1945 appropriations totals, the adjusted totals are 2,534 positions and 2,454.5 man-years. This shows a 3.2 percent saving of man-years over positions, as you suggest it should.
Mr. TABER. I am going to ask you to give me a couple more. columns in the table I asked you for a while back. I would like to have what the Budget ceiling and the number of employees in the Department and in the field is.
Mr. KHEEL. At the present time, or at all times during the year? Mr. TABER. All the way through. They give you one every month, do they not? Mr. KHEEL. I believe it is every quarter. Mr. TABER. Then put it in every quarter, the way it comes, if it is only changed quarterly. You §o. in 1946 “base” and “estimate.” What does that mean? I do not just understand the difference. Tell me what that means. I would like to have you tell me what the difference is. Mr. KHEEL. My understanding is that “base” represents the present distribution with reference to our pay roll at this time. Mr. TABER. Is that the way you would set it up an the basis of your present pay roll? Mr. KHEEL. That is right. The “estimate” column is on the basis of what we estimate for the whole of the fiscal year 1946 if the appropriation is approved as requested. Mr. TABER. In the base you have got overtime included. On top of that you have a lot of other figures that in some cases are higher and in some cases are lower than they were before. For instance, there seems to be a big drop in the Bureau of Labor Statistics item. I can see how that might be, without impairing efficiency very much. And there seems to be some Wage and Hour Division drop. The other items I just do not know about. Some are larger and some are smaller than the base figures. There is another thing that I just do not understand. , You seem to have more man-years than you have positions in the base set-up in some items, and then, over on the other side in the estimates, it seems to be bigger than the base, quite substantially, on some items; and the man-years seem to be bigger than the base on items where the number of positions is less than it was in the base. I am wondering if you could discuss that for a little while and tell me why there is any such change. Or I can ask you questions specifically, if you would rather. If you could discuss it that way it might save time. Mr. KHEEL. I will make these general statements first. The budget as approved for us for the third quarter by the Bureau of the Budget is actually the one represented in the column marked “1946 base.” In the column marked “1946 estimate” the budget is projected for the coming fiscal year in the light of our submission to Congress. There will be changes from what we have at present to what we will have. There are constant changes going on. As Dr. Taylor said before, there have been no major organizational changes, but there are shifts of personnel. We run into a log jam at one point and shift people to take care of it. We complete one phase of the work and move on to another. So there are fluctuations from one division to another that have taken place over the course of the year. The differences to which you refer occur in only three instances: In item 5, for wage stabilization, where the man-years exceed the positions by 10.4; in item 17, for Nonferrous Metals Commission, by 0.5; and in item 19, West Coast Lumber Commission, by 0.1. I think by and large that accounts for the fact that at this time we have the positions and man-years as set forth in the second group of columns and the positions and man-years as projected in the column marked “Estimate.” Mr. TABER. Then I guess we might assume that we can take the lower of the two figures in each case with the idea of finding out what might be a starter for a saving on this appropriation. Is that about right? Mr. KHEEL. Some of the items we list are just getting under way. Take, for instance, the Steel Commission. That is listed as No. 13. Mr. TABER. That is quite a small item.
INCREASE FOR PERSONNEL IN STABILIZATION DIVISION
Take those items in the Wage Stabilization Division. As I get it, you are handling a lot more of i. cases and you are making headway toward becoming current as these people become more experienced in how to handle these cases more .. Is that about right? - \!. KHEEL. That is true; and they are handling them more effectively. Mr. TABER. You have in your estimate 870 people for this set-up, and as I understand it, you are handling, when you move along easy, something like 400 a week? Mr. KHEEL. Four thousand a week, with some uncompensated overtime to meet this figure. Mr. TABER. That means five apiece. When you are moving along slowly I do not know how many you cover. Mr. KHEEL. There is a requested increase of 30 persons in our Wage Stabilization Division over the positions allotted last year. Primarily we seek those positions in order to correlate the work of our 13 regions and the several commissions to a bigger extent than we have. We find it necessary that we ...i. their work so that the law is applied uniformly, for example, in California and New York. It is for that purpoes that we seek to have additional persons primarily on the national level so we can effect a better integration of the work of our regional people. That is the bulk or major part of this requested increase in the Wage Stabilization Division.
PRESENT BACKLOG OF CASES
Mr. TABER. Give me the number of cases that you are overloaded at the present time.
Mr. KHEEL. Our present backlog of cases?
Mr. TABER. Yes. -
Mr. KHEEL. We have a backlog of 15,429 voluntary wage applications throughout the country, and we have a backlog of 2,829 dispute cases.
Mr. TABER. They are handled by the Disputes Division, are they not?
Mr. KHEEL. The Wage people are required to analyze the wage issues in disputes cases. The form in which dispute cases are presented to us is different, but the issues are practically the same.
Mr. TABER. How many did you say you had?
Mr. KHEEL. We have 2,829.
Mr. TABER. Has that picture changed as to each?
Mr. KHEEL. Over last year?
Mr. TABER. Yes.
NATIONAL WAR AGENCIES APPROPRIATION BILL, 1946 25
Mr. KHEEL. The backlog is actually only about 1,000 cases less than last year. Mr. TABER. You mean, the stabilization cases or the disputes? Mr. KHEEL. The stabilization cases; yes. They were about 16,000 last year, and the rate of inflow has increased 19 percent from 3,137 weekly to 3,746, and the rate of outflow has increased 20 percent from 3,160 weekly to approximately 3,800. Mr. TABER. #. about the Disputes Division? Mr. KHEEL. That has come down by approximately 200. Mr. TABER. It has been reduced from about 3,000? Mr. KHEEL. From about 3,100, I should say.
RELATION TO OTHER AGENCIES DEALING WITH LABOR MATTERS
Mr. TABER. You have given this picture of the labor situation. Maybe I have it mixed up somehow, but this is the way I get it. There is your organization which operates insofar as disputes are concerned as a sort of conciliation set-up, primarily. Then there is the Labor Department's Conciliation Service. Then there is the Conciliation Service and the labor set-up in the War Production Board, and then there is another set-up of the same kind in the War Manpower Commission. Then there is still another set-up of a somewhat similar character in the National Labor Relations Board. In what respect is that set-up different from these other four or five organizations, and in what respect do they do more or less the same thing?. On top of all those things that I have listed there have been created both by the War Department and the Navy Department, Conciliation Services that do more or less the same thing that these other organizations do. I am wondering what you can tell me about that picture. I would like to get a statement on that, because it seems to me that insofar as it is possible for the Congress to do so, this situation should be o and all of its operations and activities should be concentrated in one place where there would not be * conflict or any duplication of effort. would like to hear from you on that. Mr. TAYLoR. I would like to speak to that. As you have noticed as you have looked over these reports, the great bulk of our work is in these voluntary submissions. That represents by far the greatest amount of work we have to do. Mr. TABER. That is nothing that would conflict with these other things? Dr. TAYLoR. They would not conflict at all. Mr. TABER. With anybody? Dr. TAYLoR. That is right. I just wanted to state that the great bulk of the work would not be a part of this problem that you mention. Then there are the 8,000 dispute cases which were received last year, and in every instance the Board has not taken those cases up on a conciliation basis. We have not taken them up until the Conciliation Service has made an effort to secure an agreement of the parties and they say that that cannot be done. I do not want to imply that agreements never come out of those cases where they come to the Board, because sometimes when they sit down before our officials they seem * that there is an area of agreement that they did not know “existed.
Our responsibility is to weigh the issues and decide the case; and the Board does decide the issues which are brought before it very frequently as result of suggestions which are made by the Board in the course of hearing disputes, and the parties say, “We will withdraw that issue. We think that is good,” and they come to an agreement. But the Board does not have any conciliation section whatsoever. As respects our relationship to these other agencies, one is with the Conciliation Division of the Department of Labor. We are aware, of course, of the fact that whereas all these other organizations have developed labor sections to meet their own particular necessities, that has to do, I would think, with the conciliation is the work of the Department of Labor. When we get a case certified to us our responsibility is to hear the parties and decide the issues in the dispute finally and in accordance with the War Labor Disputes Act, which states that we should determine the conditions under which those issues should be worked out. So that it would seem to me that this problem does not cover the i: of the Board in both of its functions—wage stabilization and isputes. e have a board which handles these voluntary applications, which are handled by no other agency, nor is there any other agency of Government that finally resolves labor disputes, with the possible exception of the National Labor Relations Board which deals, however, with disputes growing out of alleged unfair labor practices. So I do not think that our work . overlaps that of these other encies. I know of no other board, with the exception of those which you have mentioned, that has the responsibility for issuing an order finally determining a labor dispute. Mr. WIGGLEsworth. What specific steps have you taken during the past 12 months toward the end that Mr. Taber has in mind? Dr. TAYLOR. With reference to conflict between agencies? Mr. WIGGLEsworth. Yes. Dr. TAYLOR. The only steps that we have taken are these. We have said we would not take a case that has not been conciliated by the Department of Labor. We have made that a very firm rule of organization with us. Our contacts with these other o: are informal. Very frequently one of the other agencies, the Manpower Commission, the Army, or the Navy, we will say, will tell us that “We are very much concerned about a labor dispute in this area. It is really interfering with our procurement necessities.” That is simply an informal matter. Mr. WIGGLEsworth. I asked that because a year or so ago, as you probably will recall, we heard the testimony of Mr. Robert Watt, who has been with your organization and for some time represented the American Federation of o and he characterized the picture as just filled with duplication and scattered authority and confusion. And he said we ought to have one labor agency working under one set of rules administered by one policy-making board. He stated that 1 year ago. He certainly should be a good authority in that field. I am wondering what, if anything, you have done since that time to improve the picture that he painted. Dr. TAYLoR. The Board itself has not done anything in that particular. I rather question whether the Board should undertake to determine how these other agencies should operate. As I recall,