Evening star., 1939-12-19
Perfection Of N.L.R.B.
Act Is Goal Of Probe,
Says Smith in Forum
House Member Cites
Points Of Complaint
Against Law and Boord
Continued From Page B-6)

may all be members of and affiliated
with one union. may have a history
Of perfect harmony with their en-
ployer and may be entirely satisfied
with their union affiliation. In the
other plant, let us assume that a
. majority Of the 5000 employes-say
4,00O-are members of and affiliated
with 4 rival union. A labor dispute
Is to representation arises in the
latter plant, the history Of which
is q series of labor disputes, strikes
and discord between employer and
employees and between the employees
themselves. The authority of the
National Labor Relations Board is
invoked to settle the dispute. 1t is
possible, under the act as written,
for the labor board to order an
election not only In the plant of
5000 employees, but to order the
plant with 1000 employees to be in
cluded in the election.
It is obvious that the plant with
1000 workers affiliated with one
union can outvote the 1000 In the
other plant affiliated with rival
union.
When the election is held and
this result brought about, the en-
ployer in both plants would be
& ordered to cease recognizing the
union with which the 1000 employees
are affiliated and deal solely with
the rival union. The result would
be that the 1000 satisfied employees
would be compelled to abandon the
union with which they had been
affiliated and to which they are at
tached and be regimented and
forced into a rival union, and per-
haps become involved in violent
labor dispute in another plant with
which they are not in sympathy,
and have no interest or concern.
Cases Have Occurred.
have taken this assumed case
for the purpose of illustration. I
have stated that such a calamity
might happen to employees under
the existing provisions of the law.
AS matter of fact, our committee
has been urged by labor unions,
particularly independent unions in
ali parts of the country, to investi-
gate cases where the unions charge
that they are being totally de-
stroyed by reason of the latitude and
discretion given the board in fix
Ing the unit which may vote in de-
Gliding dispute as to union repre-
sentation
These unions insist that an act,
which has for its declared purpose
to diminish labor disputes and to
protect the rights and freedom of
the working man can never function
in accordance with its declared pur-
pose until such a system of regi-
mentation of the workers is abolish
ed. They are demanding an amend
ment to the act limiting the dis
cretlon Of the board in determining
the unit OF representation. They
claim that they are being deprived
OF the fundamental rights which
they enjoyed before the law was
ever enacted.
AnOtner Sore Spot.
Another of the chief sources of
outcry against the act is the provi-
sion In Section 10 (e) that "the
findings OF the board as to the facts
II supported by evidence, shall be
conclusive" The effect of this pro-
vision is to deny to the losing party
In a labor dispute the right to q
review by the courts of the findings
OF fact. 1t seems to have been orig
1nally the theory of the board that
any evidence at all was sufficient
to support its findings.
This has been partially remedied
by court decisions that the boards
findings must be supported by Sub
stantial" evidence. There is still
however, much complaint that the
board may and does base its findings
upon the evidence of one or two wit
nesses, even though contradicted by
any number of witnesses, the result
being that, although the overwhelm-
ing weight of the evidence in the
case may be in favor of one party
1t Is possible, under the act, for the
board to decide the case in favor
OF the other side and the LOSING
party with the overwhelming pre-
ponderance of evidence is denied
any review by the court.
l have cited a few OF the COM
plants brought to our attention OF