IV. PROCEDURE OF THE BOARD The procedure of the Board, as set forth in the act and elaborated in the Rules and Regulations made and published thereunder,11 was considered at length in the First Annual Report.12 This procedure has stood the test of time and experience. It has not been found necessary to amend the Board's Rules and Regulations during the present fiscal year in any respect; and in no decided case under the act has the Board's procedure been successfully challenged. Indeed, this fiscal year has seen the Board's procedure fully approved as constitutional by the Supreme Court. In National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation, 301 U. S. 1, 46-47, Chief Justice Hughes said: The procedural provisions of the act are assailed. But these provisions, as we construe them, do not offend against the constitutional requirements governing the creation and action of administrative bodies. See Interstate Commerce Comm'n v. Louisville & Nashville R. Co., 227 U. S. 88, 91. The act establishes standards to which the Board must conform. There must be complaint, notice, and hearings. The Board must receive evidence and make findings. The findings as to the facts are to be conclusive, but only if supported by evidence. The order of the Board is subject to review by the designated court, and only when sustained by the court may the order be enforced. Upon that review all questions of the jurisdiction of the Board and the regularity of its proceedings, all questions of constitutional right or statutory authority, are open to examination by the court. We construe the procedural provisions as affording adequate opportunity to secure judicial protection against arbitrary action in accordance with the well-settled rules applicable to administrative agencies set up by Congress to aid in the enforcement of valid legislation. During the period preceding this and other decisions of the Supreme Court under this act on April 12, 1937, many respondents failed to avail themselves of their opportunity to adduce evidence by way of defense, and merely stood on their constitutional objections. The Board, on its part, has at all times proceeded on the sound principle that the statute under which it was created was valid. It is apparent that our governmental system would break down if the view prevailed that a statute enacted by Congress could be disregarded at will until the Supreme Court put its stamp of approval upon it. At the same time the Board, foreseeing the possibility of numerous constitutional objections, expressly provided in its Rules and Regulations that no objections to rulings on motions or to the conduct of hearings should be deemed waived by the filing of an answer or by other participation in the proceedings before the Board. Such provisions have been in effect since the beginning of the Board's operation under the act.14 In this way the Board 13 11 Series I, as amended, April 27, 1936; published in Federal Register, vol. 1, No. 32, April 28, 1936. 12 Ch. III, pp. 9-13. 18 National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations, series I, as amended April 27, 1936, art. II. secs. 18. 28. 14 National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations, series I, art. II, secs. 17, 27. sought to eliminate any belief or possibility that a party defending on the merits could be understood to waive his constitutional rights. In the Jones & Laughlin decision, the Supreme Court condemned the practice of those respondents who, while criticizing the evidence and the attitude of the Board, failed to avail themselves of the opportunity to defend on the merits. Chief Justice Hughes stated: While respondent criticises the evidence and the attitude of the Board, which is described as being hostile toward employers and particularly toward those who insisted upon their constitutional rights, respondent did not take advantage of its opportunity to present evidence to refute that which was offered to show discrimination and coercion. In this situation, the record presents no ground for setting aside the order of the Board so far as the facts pertaining to the circumstances and purpose of the discharge of the employees are concerned. Upon that point it is sufficient to say that the evidence supports the findings of the Board that respondent discharged these men "because of their union activity and for the purpose of discouraging membership in the union" (301 U. S. at 29). * * Respondent was notified and heard. It had opportunity to meet the charge of unfair labor practices upon the merits, and by withdrawing from the hearing it declined to avail itself of that opportunity. The facts found by Board support its order and the evidence supports the findings. has no just ground for complaint on this score (301 U. S. at 47). Respondent V. WORK OF THE BOARD A. STATISTICAL SUMMARY On June 30, 1936, 286 cases involving 68,761 workers were pending before the Board, these together with 44 cases, involving 27,792 workers, in which the courts had issued orders restraining the Board from further action. Therefore, there were 330 cases, involving 96,553 workers, carried over on July 1, 1936, from the previous year. During the period July 1, 1936, to June 30, 1937, the regional offices received 4,059 charges and petitions involving a total of 1,307,293 workers, and 9 charges and petitions, involving 90,989 employees, were filed directly with the Board. Thus a total of 4,398 cases, involving 1,494,835 workers, was handled during the period covered by this report. Two thousand and fifty-four of the total number of cases handled, in which 1,027,028 workers were involved, were pending on June 30, 1937. This number includes 6 injunction cases and 24 cases pending in circuit courts of appeal on petitions of the Board for enforcement of its orders or on petition for review of such orders. The remaining 2,344 cases, involving 467,807 workers and amounting to 53.3 percent of the total, had been disposed of in one of several ways. Upon receipt of a charge or a petition, the regional director, after appropriate investigation, had to determine whether the unfair labor practice or the question concerning representation affected commerce sufficiently to warrant his issuing a complaint, where a charge had been filed, or, in a representation case, to warrant his recommending to the Board that an investigation and hearing pursuant to section 9 (c) of the act be ordered. The director also had to determine, in complaint cases, whether the facts alleged by the party filing the charge constituted an unfair labor practice within the meaning of section 8 of the act, and in representation cases, whether a question or controversy existed within the meaning of section 9 (c). If the director decided that the facts revealed by his investigation did not warrant the institution of formal proceedings under the act, he so informed the party filing the charge or petition, and gave such party an opportunity to request its withdrawal. Besides the withdrawals occurring in such cases, some charges and petitions were withdrawn as a result of a settlement of the issues in dispute reached directly by the parties without the intervention of the regional office. In a few instances withdrawals of charges or petitions resulted from the transfer of the cases to other agencies of the Government in whose jurisdiction the matters more properly belonged. Five hundred thirty-nine cases, almost one-eighth of the total number of cases handled, and involving 73,040 workers, were closed as a result of such withdrawal of charges or petitions by the parties filing them. If the parties filing the charges or petitions did not choose to withdraw them when informed by the regional directors that in their opinion no further action was warranted, the directors issued orders formally refusing to issue complaints, or recommended to the Board, in representation cases, that no order for investigation and hearing be made. As a result of such action by the regional directors, 254 cases, involving 37,355 workers, were closed. In this manner 5.7 percent of the total charges and petitions received were disposed of. An additional five cases, involving 3,774 workers, were closed by dismissal of the complaints or petitions after formal action. In some instances charges or petitions involving the same employer were filed in more than one regional office. Most often such charges or petitions were transferred from one regional office to another or were consolidated with other cases in order that one agency handle matters involving the same employers or groups of employers, in cases of a similar nature, thus securing a more expeditious or expert handling of a particular case. Thirteen cases, involving 3,486 workers, were transferred from one regional office to another before formal action, and 38 cases were consolidated after formal action. The cases discussed above, with the exception of the 5 dismissals and 38 consolidations, were closed before formal action was taken. The Board issued decisions in 152 cases and trial examiners filed intermediate reports in 49 cases. Of the group of cases closed after formal action, 2, involving 21 workers, were closed by the intermediate report finding no violation; 6, involving 604 workers, were closed as a result of compliance with the recommendations of the trial examiner's intermediate report, and a total of 58 cases, involving 23,629 workers, were closed after the issuance of Board orders or decisions. Of this number 43, involving 18,249 workers, were closed on the basis of certifications of representatives for collective bargaining and 3, involving 3,961 workers, were closed by compliance. In 11 cases, involving 1,369 workers, in which decisions and orders were issued, the complaints or petitions were dismissed, and in the remaining case of the group closed by the issuance of decision or order, the Board refused to certify representatives. This case involved 50 workers. Table I shows the disposition of all charges and petitions received by the Board during the period ending June 30, 1937. TABLE I.-Disposition of all charges and petitions handled 1 In a number of cases, charges and petitions were filed relating to the same group of employees. In those cases where the number of employees involved has been included to the amount involved in complaint cases, this number has been omitted from the total of those involved in representation cases, and vice versa. TABLE 1.-Disposition of all charges and petitions handled-Continued Over 60 percent of all the cases disposed of were closed as a result of settlement of the disputes involved. One thousand four hundred and twenty-nine, or about one-third of all the cases handled and involving 325,898 workers, were closed in this manner. In all of these cases a member of the Board's staff participated directly in securing the settlement, and the terms of settlement were in conformity with the provisions and policy of the act. In effect, substantial compliance with the act was secured by the settlements in these cases. There is no way of avoiding a certain amount of delay in the formal procedure before the Board and the courts required under the act. The Board has attempted in every way possible to reduce the time element in the procedure before it to a minimum, but it has no control over the time which elapses as a result of the review of its orders by the courts. Therefore the ability of the regional offices to secure settlements before formal action became necessary has meant the rapid removal from the area of possible industrial conflict certain disputes which, by their nature, are likely to lead to economic strife. The benefits of such settlements have accrued to the employers and the employees directly involved, as well as to the general public. There is no need to argue the value of such settlements as alternatives to strikes or other forms of industrial warfare, with consequent burdens upon commerce, nor to point out the elimination of economic waste, of privation and suffering, and of inconvenience and loss, to the public as well as to the parties directly and indirectly affected, which is achieved by the substitution of peaceful settlements for strikes.15 In some of the settlements secured by the Board during the period ending June 30, 1937, intervention by the Board took place before the disputes involved had advanced to the stage of strikes or threatened strikes. However, the issues in these disputes, discrimination and union recognition and collective bargaining, were the same issues |