CA-Employer unfair labor practices.

CB-Union unfair labor practices.

CC-Union unfair labor practices involving secondary boycotts. CD-Union unfair labor practices involving boycotts and strikes arising from jurisdictional disputes.

CC CASES

167

CD CASES 72

pliance because of incomplete filings. Three of these were AFL unions, 1 CIO union, and 20 unaffiliated.

At the same time, a total of 15,678 local unions was in full compliance with the act's filing requirements. Of these, 9,408 were AFL locals, 4,700 were CIO locals, and 1,570 were unaffiliated or affiliated with other national organizations.

Altogether, a total of 139,483 officers of national, international, and local unions had current affidavits on file.

In addition, 9,999 local unions with 92,455 officers had permitted their compliance to lapse. Of these, 5,988 were AFL affiliates, 2,448 were CIO affiliates, and 1,563 were unaffiliated or affiliated with other national organizations.

8. Amendment to the Act

After the close of the 1951 fiscal year, the act was amended by Congress to eliminate the requirement of a union-shop authorization poll of employees before a union shop could be established legally.12 It was the first amendment of the act since 1947.

However, the amendments did not otherwise relax the restrictions placed on union-shop agreements by the 1947 amendments. Unions making such agreements still must comply with the non-Communist affidavit and filing requirements of the act. The 1951 amendments further retained the provision for polls to determine whether employees wish to revoke the authority of a bargaining agent to make a unionshop agreement.

The 1951 amendments also made special provision for preserving certain certifications and union-shop agreements which were jeopardized by the Supreme Court's interpretation of the non-Communist affidavit provisions of the act in the Highland Park case.13

The legislative chronology of the amendments was as follows: August 6 14 S. 1959 introduced by Senator Taft (Ohio) and Senator Humphrey (Minn.); referred to Committee on Labor and Public Welfare. 97 Congressional Record 9678.15

August 16-Reported with amendments.

Record 10314.

Senate Report 646. 97 Congressional

August 21-Debated, amended and passed by Senate. 97 Congressional Record

10673-10675.

August 23-Referred to House Committee on Education and Labor. 97 Congressional Record 10795.

Public Law 189. The amendments, principally revising sections 8 (a) (3) and 9 (e) (1) and adding a new section 17, are indicated in copy of the text of the act contained in appendix C of this report. The union-shop provisions of the amendment are discussed in section F of chapter IV.

"N. L. R. B. v. Highland Park Mfg. Co., 341 U. S. 322, discussed in section 3 of chapter VI of this report. This section of the amendments is discussed in sec. 2 of ch. III.

14 All dates are 1951.

"The Congressional Record cited is the daily edition.

October 1-Reported back. House Report 1082. 97 Congressional Record 12705.

October 9.-Made special order of business by House Resolution 453. House Report 1107. 97 Congressional Record 13119, 13122.

Debated and paused

by House. 97 Congressional Record 13122–13127. October 10-Signed by Speaker of the House. 97 Congressional Record 13194 October 11-Presented to the President. 97 Congressional Record 13201. October 22-Signed by the President, became Public Law 189.

Jurisdiction of the Board

The extent to which the Board should assert its jurisdiction has long been a matter given considerable study by the Board. The courts have held that the Board's authority over representation questions and unfair labor practices "affecting" interstate commerce (except on airlines and railroads and in agriculture) is as broad as the Federal power to regulate labor-management relations. However, the Board has long taken the position that it will better effectuate the purposes of the act "not to exercise its jurisdiction to the fullest extent possible under the authority delegated to it by Congress, but to limit that exercise to enterprises whose operations have, or at which labor disputes would have, a pronounced impact upon the flow of interstate commerce." 2

For many years, the question of where to draw the line necessarily turned upon the facts of each case as it came before the Board for decision. But early in the 1951 fiscal year, after long study of the pattern emerging from past decisions, the Board issued a series of unanimous decisions setting forth more precisely the standards to govern its future exercise of jurisdiction in the 48 States. In doing so, the Board declared: "The time has come, we believe, when experience warrants the establishment and announcement of certain standards which will better clarify and define where the difficult line can best be drawn." 4

1. Standards for Asserting Jurisdiction

In these decisions, the Board announced 9 general standards for determining jurisdiction in the 48 States. It declared that it would

'N. L. R. B. v. Fainblatt, 306 U. S. 606.

'Hollow Tree Lumber Co., 91 NLRB 635 (October, 1950). The Supreme Court has noted: "Even when the effect of activities on interstate commerce is sufficient to enable the Board to take jurisdiction of a complaint, the Board sometimes properly declines to do so, stating that the policies of the Act would not be effectuated by its assertion of jurisdiction in that case." N. L. R. B. v. Denver Building and Construction Trades Council, 341 U. S. 675 (1951). For discussion of court rulings on the Board's jurisdiction, see also section 1 of chapter VIII (courts of appeals) and section 1 of chapter VII (Supreme Court).

* Section 2 (6) of the act confers upon the Board plenary jurisdiction over all business enterprises "within the District of Columbia or any Territory." Therefore, general policies on jurisdiction announced by the Board for the 48 States do not apply there. Roy C. Kelley, 95 NLRB No. 7.

Hollow Tree Lumber Co., cited above. Since issuance of these decisions, Board members have not recorded dissenting views on the exercise of jurisdiction except in rare cases.

generally take jurisdiction over cases involving enterprises in the following categories:

1. Instrumentalities and channels of commerce, interstate or foreign."

2. Public utility and transit systems."

3. Establishments operating as an integral part of a multistate enterprise."

4. Enterprises producing or handling goods destined for out-ofState shipment, or performing services outside the State in which the firm is located, valued at $25,000 a year.8

5. Enterprises furnishing goods or services of $50,000 a year or more to concerns in categories 1, 2, or 4.9

6. Enterprises with a direct inflow of goods or materials from out-of-State valued at $500,000 a year.10

7. Enterprises with an indirect inflow of goods or materials valued at $1,000,000 a year."1

8. Enterprises having such a combination of inflow or outflow of goods or services, coming within categories 4, 5, 6, or 7, that the percentages of each of these categories, in which there is activity, taken together add up to 100.12

9. Establishments substantially affecting the national defense.13

2. Application of the Standards

One of the first questions to confront the Board after announcement of the new standards was whether or not it should permit the revival of cases in which it had previously declined jurisdiction but which fell within the area of jurisdiction under the new standards. In a series of cases, the Board made it clear that it would reconsider certain representation cases which it had dismissed, but that it would not apply the standards retroactively to unfair labor practice cases. The Board distinguished between the two types of cases on the basis of the fact that a representation case, unlike an unfair labor practice case, has only a future effect.14

Thus, in a representation case involving a taxicab company, the Board reconsidered a decision in which it had declined to assert jurisdiction before announcement of the standards, and, in accordance

W. B. S. R., Inc., 91 NLRB 630.
Local Transit Lines, 91 NLRB 623.

7 The Borden Co., 91 NLRB 628.

8 Stanislaus Implement and Hardware Co., 91 NLRB 618. Hollow Tree Lumber Co., 91 NLRB 635.

10 Federal Dairy, Inc., 91 NLRB 638.

11 Dorn's House of Miracles, Inc., 91 NLRB 632.

12 The Rutledge Paper Products, Inc., 91 NLRB 625.

13 Westport Moving & Storage Co., 91 NLRB 902.

14 Skyview Transportation Co., 92 NLRB 1664.