National Labor Relations Board v. Bell Oil & Gas Co. et al 98 F. (2d) 405 (C. C. A. 5th), suit pending on June 30, 1938. 2. Cases in which Board motions under section 10 (d) to withdraw proceedings and vacate orders for further proceedings before the Board were granted. National Labor Relations Board v. Timken Silent Automatic Company, Remanded January 17, 1938 (C. C. A. 2); H. J. Heinz Company v. National Labor Relations Board (C. C. A. 3d) National Labor Relations Board v. Protective Motor Service Company, Washington Manufacturing Company v. National Labor Relations Board, National Labor Relations Board v. Ford Motor Company and Ford Douglas Aircraft Company v. National Labor Relations Board, 96 F. Empire Furniture Corporation v. Textile Workers Organizing Com- North Whittier Heights Citrus Association v. National Labor Relations 3. Cases in which suits to review or stay Board action taken pursuant to section 9 (c) were denied. United Employees Association v. National Labor Relations Board, 96 Unlicensed Employees Collective Bargaining Agency of the Marine Combustion Engineering Company v. National Labor Relations Board, New York Handkerchief Manufacturing Company v. National Labor Commercial Telegraphers Union v. J. Warren Madden et al. (C. A., Court, C. C. H. Labor Law Service, Par. 14108. 4. Cases in which suits to stay the orders of the Board pending review under Section 10 were denied. Consolidated Edison Co. et al v. National Labor Relations Board (C. C. A. 2d); Regal Shirt Company v. National Labor Relations Board (C. C. A. 3d); White Rock Quarries, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board (C. C. A. 3d); McNeeley & Price Company v. National Labor Relations Board National Electrical Products Corporation et al v. National Labor Swift & Company v. National Labor Relations Board (C. C. A. 10th). 5. Cases in which petitions of Board for order directing respondents to post security for a further hearing before the Board were granted. National Labor Relations Board v. Stylecraft Leather Goods Company, DISTRICT COURT CASES 1. Cases in which Board suits, pursuant to section 11 (2), for the enforcement of subpoenas were granted. National Labor Relations Board v. Dominick Calderazzo et al, C. C. H. 2. Cases in which Board petitions for leave to issue a complaint against a company operating under supervision of the court pursuant to section 77 (b) of the Bankruptcy Law were denied. In the Matter of Baldwin Locomotive Works, C. C. H. Labor Law 3. Cases in which suits for mandatory injunctions to compel the Board to conduct an investigation pursuant to section 9 (c) were denied. Metropolitan Employees Association v. National Labor Relations Board et al, C. C. A. Labor Law Service, Par. 18075 (S. D. N. Y.). 4. Cases in which suits to enjoin the Board from excluding a former employee from participation in cases before the Board were brought. Mueller v. Madden et al (W. D. Mo.), suit dismissed April 25, 1938; Mueller v. Madden et al (W. D. Texas), suit pending on June 30, 1938. 5. Cases in which libel suits against the Board for damages alleged to have occurred as a result of allegations in a Board complaint were dismissed. Clover Fork Coal Co. v. National Labor Relations Board (E. D. Ky.), case now pending on appeal in Circuit Court of Appeals for Sixth Circuit. X. TRIAL EXAMINERS' DIVISION The Trial Examiners' Division, under the direct supervision of the Chief Trial Examiner, holds hearings on behalf of the Board. During a portion of the period covered by this report the Secretary of the Board was also the Chief Trial Examiner, but since the appointment of a Chief Trial Examiner these functions have been separated. While the rules provide that the Board, Chief Trial Examiner, or Regional Director may appoint a trial examiner, in practice the Chief Trial Examiner designates the trial examiner in each case. Members of the Trial Examiners' Division are assigned to preside over hearings on formal complaints and petitions for certification of representatives. After the evidence has been presented in such cases they prepare findings of fact and recommendations that are submitted to the parties, and, in cases involving certification of representatives, informal reports for submission to the Board. In the conduct of the hearing the trial examiner is charged with the affirmative duty of inquiring fully into the facts in order that the record may contain all available facts necessary for a determination of the issues in the case. In performing this duty the trial examiner may exercise the power given him by the rules to "call, examine and cross-examine witnesses and to introduce into the record documentary and other evidence." Although the occasion for the exercise of this power may not arise if the attorneys presenting the case are alert to introduce the available and necessary facts, experience has demonstrated the wisdom of the rule, and often instances have arisen where, in the absence of the exercise of such power, it would have been necessary to reopen the record at a later date for further testimony. With a few exceptions, all of the trial examiners are attorneys, most of them having brought with them to the Board a wide experience based on years of practice before the various courts throughout the country. The knowledge gained in the course of conducting many hearings tends rapidly to develop an informed and balanced judgment in the complex field of labor relations, and enables the trial examiner to guide the parties to an adequate and orderly presentation of the material facts. During the hearing the trial examiner has authority to make rulings on objections and motions. These rulings by the trial examiner are reviewed by the Board upon its review of the entire case. Matters of administrative policy, such as the granting of adjournments for periods that may interfere with previously scheduled cases or of extensions of time for filing of briefs, are referred to the Chief Trial Examiner. Upon the conclusion of a hearing involving the alleged commission of an unfair labor practice, and when the transcript of the evidence and the exhibits have been received, the trial examiner prepares an intermediate report. This report contains findings of fact, conclu sions, and recommendations. Trial examiners ordinarily prepare these reports in Washington. They are then sent to the regional director who serves the reports on the parties. Reports in cases involving petitions for determination of representatives are brief, informal and made only to the Board since its power to act in such cases is exclusive. Each trial examiner makes his own determination of facts. Trial examiners are, of course, free to consult with the Chief Trial Examiner as to questions of law or questions involving the form or language of their reports. When, as often occurs, a trial examiner is sent out from Washington and hears three or four cases before returning to Washington he is requested to draft his reports in the field and send them in to the office at Washington for typing. Upon such occasions discussions as to questions of law and the form of reports may be carried on by correspondence. Until recently the Board had made substantial use of the per diem trial examiner in addition to those on the regular staff. The per diem system was used for two basic reasons: (1) As a means of trying out applicants for positions, and (2) In order to carry the very heavy load of cases. However, it was decided as of August 1, 1938, the Board would no longer employ per diem trial examiners. From among those persons who had been per diem trial examiners a number of individuals were appointed to positions on its regular staff. Some few persons not applicants for regular positions are employed occasionally on a per diem basis when no regular examiners are available. XI. DIVISION OF ECONOMIC RESEARCH During the period covered by this report, as in the preceding years, the Division of Economic Research was engaged in research upon economic problems of jurisdiction and labor relations arising in the administration of the Act. This work was of two principal types: (a) studies in connection with particular cases on the Board's current docket, and (b) research bearing upon a group of cases, or upon general questions of policy and interpretation of the Act, and work of an informational character. Work of both types was initiated in one of two ways. Requests for information and analyses were received from the Board, Board members, the Legal Division, regional directors and attorneys, and field examiners. These were complied with, first by reference to the files of economic material built up from previous research, and second by such additional research as might be necessary. On other occasions the initiative came from the Economics Division. The Division followed closely the state of cases on the Board docket, as well as the general developments in fields related to the Board's work. Whenever it appeared that a question had arisen, in the solution of which economic material was helpful and available, the Chief Economist made specific recommendations to the Board that appropriate studies be authorized. Upon such authorization, the Division proceeded as in the case of an original request. CURRENT CASE WORK Jurisdictional problems. In the preceding year the process of judicial review had considerably clarified the extent of the Board's jurisdiction. There remained, however, many fields of economic activity in which jurisdiction had not yet been determined. During the fiscal year a number of industries and services appeared for the first time in Board proceedings. For these, the Economics Division made studies of the extent to which their operations were in interstate commerce, and the extent to which the flow of interstate commerce would be affected by industrial strife within them. Among the fields in which such material was prepared and introduced into hearings were shipbuilding, coal mining, metal mining, motion picture production, banking, and the processing and distributing of agricultural products. In this work, the Division followed the general pattern developed for the press wire service and for the steel, auto trailer, and garment industries in test cases before the Supreme Court. In addition to the study of the respondent's individual operations, researches were made of the nature of the industry's operations, of the geographic 1 Associated Press v. N. L. R. B., 301 U. S. 103 (1937); N. L. R. B. v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Co., 301 U. S. 1 (1937); N. L. R. B. v. Fruehauf Trailer Co., 301 U. S. 49 (1937); N. L. R. B. v. Friedman-Harry Marks Clothing Co., 301 U. S. 58 (1937). |