« 이전계속 »
TABLE OF CONTENTS
45 64 83 95
practice cases IV. Enforcement litigation. V. Injunction litigation.
VI. Fiscal statement..
A. Statistical tables covering the fiscal year 1948.-
period July 1-August 21, 1947.-
period August 22, 1947–June 30, 1948..
during the fiscal year 1948.-
96 123 124
171 173 194
LIST OF TABLES
Tables Appearing in Chapters IV and V
1. Results of litigation for enforcement or review of Board orders.--
Tables Appearing in Appendix A
complainant or petitioner, fiscal year 1948. --
by identification of complainant, August 22, 1947–June 30, 1948. 1B. Number of representation cases received, closed, and pending, by
identification of petitioner, August 22, 1947–June 30, 1948. 2. Monthly distribution of cases received during the fiscal year
1948.. 3. Types of unfair labor practices alleged in charges filed during the
fiscal year 1948.3A. Charges filed against an employer under section 8 of NLRA, July 1,
1947-August 21, 1947... 3B. Charges filed against an employer under section 8 (a) of LMRA,
August 22, 1947–June 30, 1948.. 3C. Charges filed against a union under section 8 (b) of LMRA, August
22, 1947-June 30, 1948.. 3C-1. Recapitulation of charges filed under section 8(b) of LMRA, August
22, 1947–June 30, 1948.--
August 22, 1947-June 30, 1948.-
THE FIRST YEAR'S ADMINISTRATION OF THE LABOR
MANAGEMENT RELATIONS ACT
A. ADMINISTRATIVE DEVELOPMENTS AT THE BOARD
URING the fiscal year ending June 30, 1948, the National Labor Relations Board was reorganized in accordance with requirements of the amendments to the National Labor Relations Act. The Board was increased from three to five members. The Review Division was abolished. The position of General Counsel, filled by presidential appointment with the approval of the Senate instead of by designation of the Board, was vastly altered in authority and responsibility. A new set of rules and regulations was adopted. Numerous changes were made in procedure and organization structure.
The term "Board" acquired a specialized as well as a general meaning. While the National Labor Relations Board is still the name of the agency as a whole, it became necessary to distinguish the responsibilities and functions of the Board Members from the responsibilities and functions of the General Counsel. Representatives of employers and employees doing business with the agency found it convenient to employ the term “Board” in specifying the Board Members, and the term “Office of General Counsel” in specifying the portion of the agency removed from direct control of the Board Members.
Within a few days after enactment of the Labor Management Relations Act on June 23, 1947, the Board assigned various officers and employees to analyze the new law and its legislative history for the purpose of determining what changes in organization and procedures would be needed. The months of July and August 1947, were devoted largely to preparing to carry out the revised and increased functions of the agency. New rules, new forms, and new instructions to personnel were prepared in advance of August 22, 1947, when the amendments to the act became effective. All regional directors and regional attorneys were assembled in a conference to discuss the new problems encountered and anticipated under the amended act.
Allocation of functions between the Board and the Office of the General Counsel was one of the most important matters concluded before the effective date of the amendments. The law itself did not divide the agency into two separate organizations. On the contrary, Congress had rejected legislation which would have had that effect. However, the amendments clearly intended to separate prosecuting
functions from decision-making functions. The Board and the new General Counsel set out to accomplish this purpose, in a manner which would satisfy the letter and the spirit of the legislation without destroying the identity of the agency as an integrated whole.
It was readily apparent that while the amendments to the act gave the General Counsel final authority over the investigation of unfair labor practice under section 8 of the act, Congress did not clothe him with statutory authority to take any action in connection with representation cases or union-shop authorization elections under section 9 of the act. On the other hand, while Congress assigned responsibility for the investigation of representation cases to the Board members, Congress gave the General Counsel general supervision over officers and employees in the very regional offices that had in the past performed important functions in handling representation cases. The statute contained no provisions that resolved this administrative problem or many similar questions. After exploring them with the General Counsel, however, the Board delegated to him various functions concerning which the law was silent.
After the reorganization, the Board Members functioned primarily as a tribunal for rule making and for deciding cases upon formal records, without exercising responsibility for the preliminary investigation of petitions or charges.
Practically all complaint cases decided by the Board during the year had been tried under the Wagner Act and involved unfair labor practice charges basically similar to others considered by the Board during the preceding 12 years. In deciding the cases, however, the Board resolved new questions of law and policy involved in certain of the amendments, as well as questions of law and policy under those provisions of the statute which had not been changed by the amendments.
Decisions in representation cases were primarily on petitions filed with the agency after the amendments to the act, but also included many matters which arose under the Wagner Act and were still pending upon the effective date of the amendments. Handling of representation cases came to a temporary standstill when the amendments went into effect on August 22, 1947, because of certain new conditions which labor organizations were required to meet before action could be taken on their petitions. When the act went into effect, no labor organizations had yet complied with the requirements that they file specified financial and other data with the Secretary of Labor or with the requirements that their officers file non-Communist affidavits with the Board. Consequently, Board action upon pending petitions had to be held in abeyance for many weeks and was resumed only when the unions achieved compliance. After affording opportunity for all unions to achieve such compliance, the Board dismissed petitions which had been filed by noncomplying unions.
2. Structural and administrative adaptations to the amended act In performing its decision-making functions, the Board completely reorganized its staff. In the past, a single Review Division had performed for all the Board Members the functions of analyzing records of hearings, reporting cases to the Board, and drafting opinions at the