Page images
PDF
EPUB

VIII

STUDIES OF THE RESULTS OF BOARD ACTIVITIES

This year has seen the start of a program of study by the Board, through its operating analyst, of the effects of Board activities. The aim is to learn, as far as possible, the results of particular policies and practices, in order that the Board may constantly review its policies and administration in the light of experience. While these studies are designed for the information of the Board, some of their results are of general interest. A brief report is given here of some of the broad results of the first studies made.

COMPLIANCE AND COLLECTIVE BARGAINING

After charges of unfair labor practices have been heard and decided, the administrative problem remains, to secure compliance of the employer with the Intermediate Report, Board order or court order. The recent change in methods of handling compliance problems has been described above in Chapter II. Further study of present compliance handling and its results is under way. A preliminary study has been made, also, of a small but representative sample of complaint cases, to discover any problems needing further attention by the Board, the extent to which compliance with the Act was achieved after Board action, and the extent to which unions secured collective bargaining contracts thereafter.

It is generally known that compliance with the Act is increasingly extensive and that union membership and collective bargaining agreements are much more widespread than before the Board began its administration of the National Labor Relations Act. Specific studies of representative groups of Board cases both support this general impression and give the Board information useful for the appraisal of its own work. Thus, the first study of compliance demonstrates that collective bargaining is under way in a larger proportion of the cases where satisfactory compliance with the Act has been achieved than in those cases where charges of unfair labor practices are still pending or where compliance with the Board's order was less than complete. The conclusion expressed by Congress in the Act, that protection of the right of employees to organize and bargain collectively would encourage the practice and procedure of collective bargaining, is supported by the experience in the group of situations studied.

The first study of compliance problems covered unfair labor practice cases in four Regions, including a wide variety geographically and by type of industry and of community. The sample consisted of all complaint cases in these Regions in which Intermediate Reports were issued by Trial Examiners during a 15-month period, from January 1, 1941, through March 31, 1942. Other cases related to these, either charges of unfair labor practices or representation petitions, before or after the case in question, also were considered. While the number of cases is small, it includes one-fourth of all of the sort during the period in these Regions, and appears to be of significance as to the results of the work of the Board during this period.

As of the date of the study, more than a year from the last Intermediate Report included, one-third of the cases had not yet been closed. Nevertheless, full or substantial compliance with the terms of the Trial Examiners' Intermediate Report or the order of the Board had been secured in nearly three-fourths of these cases. In only six instances was the case closed on partial compliance; in these less than complete compliance was obtained as to back pay for the victims of discrimination, reimbursement of dues checked off for a company-dominated union, or posting of a notice. One case was closed without compliance, where the Board found it impossible to secure compliance with a back-pay order. Later charges were filed against the companies in one-fifth of the cases, alleging that unfair labor practices were continuing; however, all but four of the new charges were withdrawn, dismissed, or adjusted. In about one-fifth of the cases the original or later charges of unfair labor practices were still pending when the study was made.

Unions in a large majority of these cases were able to secure recognition and collective bargaining agreements after the unfair labor practices were ended and remedied by compliance with the Board's order. In this sample, by May 1943 unions had secured collective bargaining in more than half of all the cases studied, and in over 70 percent of the cases in which there was full or substantial compliance and no later charges were pending. Unions were more successful in securing collective bargaining contracts after orders to bargain collectively and after the disestablishment of company-dominated unions by the Board, than after orders in cases involving only general interference with the rights of employees or discrimination for union activities. A substantial number of the latter type of orders, however, were followed by collective bargaining. After the elimination of the unfair labor practices, the union which filed the original charge became the bargaining agent in about five cases to each one in which some other union did so.

Where unfair labor practices are found, the function of the Board is to clear the way so that employees may be free to organize and bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing. When this has been done, unless the employees exercise this right no collective bargaining results. Success, as measured by the estab

lishment of collective bargaining, reflects therefore both the effectiveness of the Board in clearing the way and the effectiveness of labor organization. In this sample, where collective bargaining has been successfully established certain factors appear frequently, such as effectiveness of the union in following up Board or court action to establish collective bargaining, promptness in Board procedures, and clean-cut compliance with Board orders. On the other hand, where no collective bargaining has resulted, it was frequently found that the union which filed the charge had become inactive, that there was continuing opposition of the company to organization of its employees, or that the Board had been unable as yet to secure satisfactory compliance with its orders.

RESULTS OF DISESTABLISHMENT OF COMPANY-DOMINATED UNIONS

A study has been made also of the results of the disestablishment of company-dominated unions. It covers all cases in which such unions were ordered disestablished by Board order or by agreedupon Board order during the 2 fiscal years July 1, 1940, through June 30, 1942. Also included is a random sample of one-fifth of all cases in which such illegal organizations were discstablished by adjustment before formal action by the Board. These cases represent every Region of the Board and were filed by more than 50 international

unions.

Success of the Board in these cases may be measured in two ways— by the absence of later charges of unfair labor practices and by the presence later of collective-bargaining agreements with legitimate labor organizations. By the first test, the Board appears to have been successful in the great majority of these situations. In 100 instances of charges adjusted before formal action, 16 had later charges of company domination of unions. Of 73 cases in which Board orders were based on stipulation of the parties, only 5, or 6.8 percent, had such later charges. Of 122 Board order cases, 15, or 12.3 percent, had subsequent charges. Most of the stipulated Board orders and many of the other Board orders were taken to court, for consent decrees or court orders, in a total of 128 cases. The success of the Board in eliminating company-dominated unions is considerably greater for these cases than for those in which the illegal labor organizations were disestablished by adjustment or by Board order without further action. Only 12, or 9.4 percent of all cases with court orders had later charges of company-domination of unions.

In the 295 cases studied, 39 subsequent charges of company domination were filed against 36 companies. Over half of these later charges, however, appear to have been without merit, since 23 of them were withdrawn or dismissed. In the remaining 16 cases, 9 were adjusted, 5 company-dominated unions were disestablished by Board order, and 2 cases were pending on June 30, 1943. Thus, in a small minority of instances continuing unfair labor practices by

the employer make necessary continued action by the Board until employees become free to exercise their rights under the Act.

After the elimination of company domination of labor organizations, in the great majority of instances employees form or join a union and enter into collective-bargaining relationships with their employers. By late spring of 1943 contracts had been signed or negotiations were under way with about two-thirds of the employers included in this study. Eliminating the instances in which cases were still pending for compliance with orders of the Board or the courts, we find that collective bargaining had been established in 70 percent of the cases adjusted before formal action, nearly 77 percent of those closed on compliance with the Board order, and 65 percent of those closed on compliance after court action.

In about 45 percent of these situations the disestablishment of a company union was followed by an election to choose a representative for the purpose of collective bargaining. In 81 percent of those where elections were held, collective bargaining resulted. On the other hand, in only 52 percent of the cases with no election had collective bargaining begun at last report. The elections which followed disestablishments were won by the union which had filed the original charge in 61 percent of the elections. Some other union won in 31 percent of the elections. No union won in 8 percent. In all of the cases on which information was available, the union which filed the original charge was engaged in collective bargaining in 53 percent of the cases, and some other union in 13 percent. No collective bargaining was reported in the spring of 1943 in only about one-third of these companies or plants where a company-dominated union had been disestablished.

STUDIES OF ELECTION RESULTS

A number of studies have been made of elections conducted by the Board for the choice of bargaining representatives, in connection with consideration of special problems. For example, study of the results of run-off elections preceded the Board's recent change of policy as to inconclusive elections. Several other studies of elections show that in the majority of cases a representation question settled by an election remains settled, as indicated by the absence of later petitions to the Board. In only a very small minority of cases are there numerous successive elections for choice of bargaining representatives. In 1 study of 85 elections held although some union already had a closed-shop contract, and 100 elections where a union had a non-closed-shop contract, in only 3 of the former, and 4 of the latter had there been more than 2 elections throughout the Board's history. In the study of the results of disestablishment of companydominated unions, summarized above, 128 were followed by 1 election for the choice of bargaining representatives, 22 by 2 elections,

See Ch. V, p. 51.

and only 3 by 3 later elections. The bargaining agent was changed after the original election in only 8 cases of the 153 here included, to June 30, 1943, after the disestablishment of company-dominated unions from July 1, 1940, to June 30, 1942.

2

While the Board in general finds that valid contracts of reasonable duration are a bar to a new determination of bargaining representatives during their term, under certain circumstances it orders elections despite the presence of contracts. In those carefully, defined situations in which the Board finds it proper under the Act to proceed to elections for the choice of representatives in spite of an existing contract, the Board is performing an important function. It provides an orderly method whereby at appropriate times employees may register their choice of bargaining agent, even when they have been covered by an existing contract. In the relatively few cases where the Board orders elections under these circumstances, the rival unions win many of the elections. The policy of the Act, to protect the rights of employees to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, is thus effectuated through the work of the Board in conducting these elections to settle disputes over representation. The results of such elections, in cases where there were closed-shop and non-closed-shop contracts, have been studied for the period from July 1, 1940, through November 1942. The study was limited to elections ordered by the Board, a total of 95 closed-shop and 140 non-closed-shop contract cases during this period. "Closed shop" was defined broadly here, to include preferential or union-shop contracts, where it appeared from the record that in practice union membership was required of all employees, or that, essentially, a closedshop situation was present.

In general the contracting unions maintained their position somewhat better in the closed-shop situations than in the others. In the 95 closed-shop cases the petitioner, the rival union, won in 46 percent of the elections. In the 140 non-closed-shop cases the petitioning union won in 72 percent of the elections. The greater success of the incumbent unions where they had a closed shop appeared to be due to a number of factors. The closed-shop contract itself indicated the strength and stability of the union in some cases. In others the closed shop and the possibility of reprisals against employees who advocated another union made it more difficult for a rival union to secure support even in the presence of employee dissatisfaction with the incumbent organization.

The results of these elections are shown below according to the time or circumstances under which the rival union filed its petition. Where the local union with the contract had changed its affiliation during the contract and the Board ordered an election, the contest was won by the newly affiliated union in all but one of both the closedshop and non-closed-shop cases. In other instances where the Board ordered an election during a contract, either the contract was about to

Ibid, pp. 45-49.

« PreviousContinue »