Evening star., 1940-04-30

with bias and with an attempt to
apply their own peculiar philosophy
in the disposition of cases, rather
than the plain provisions of the
act. The board, in our judgment, is
anything but a judicial body. ="
Lewis Criticism Quoted.
In the same vein, we have the
statement of John L. Lewis in his
annual report to the C. I. o. Con-
vention last October 9 at San Fran
cisco. Referring to the difficulties
encountered by labor under the
Wagner Act, he said:
But when the act is so admin
istered as to thwart the develop
ment and maintenance of stable
Industrial relations, then 1t becomes
necessary to consider and weigh
carefully whether the benefits of the
act outweigh the dangers which
its administration inflicts upon or
ganized labor"
Our committee was scrupulouSly
careful to get facts and to avoid
prejudiced conclusions and opinions
which would be of no value Most
of the evidence in the record comes
from the files of the labor board
itself.
The investigating committee did
not hasten its report. 1t sent out
more than 10000 questionnaires, di-
recting one of them to every person
who ever had been a party to case
before the labor board. These in
cluded employers. unions, individual
employees, attorneys and many inter-
veners. More than 10000 answers
were received and tabulated by the
committee. BY the end of Febru-
ary of this year. our hearings made
up 10000 typewriter pages Of trans
script, supported by some 1900 ex-
mbits presented through various
witnesses. I mention these facts
merely to demonstrate that the
whole inquiry has been conducted
on judicial basis, directed by a
conscientious effort to serve the ma
tional interest through the sound
promotion of labor welfare, the elm
ination of bitter and demoralizing
industrial strife and the stabilization
of labor relations generally.
The resolution under which our
committee was acting directed us
to make recommendations for
amendment of the law. Acting on
that direction, the committee care
fully considered the many and varied
proposals then before Congress and
the country. The majority of the
committee, which included Chair
man Smith of Virginia, Representa-
tive Routzohn of Ohio and myself,
finally agreed upon certain recon-
mendations for amendment. They
we're incorporated in a bill, H. R.
1918, which was introduced in the
House by Mr. Smith on March 7.
Referred to Committee.
1t should be noted that our COM
mittee is not a legislative committee.
1t had no authority to take its
recommendations direct to the floor
for action. The bill which was in
troduced was referred to the Labor
Committee for its consideration.
Thereafter, that committee con-
sidered the Smith bill, together with
other proposals then before it. The
result was the reporting of bill,
H. R. 9195. on April 2, known as the
Norton bill. That bill provides for
four amendments. Briefly. they are
to increase the board from three to
five, to provide that if a majority
in a craft unit desire separate bar
gaining rights, such rights shall be
granted them; to give employers the
right to force an election under GER
tain conditions, and to prevent elec-
tions for one year after a certiflca-
ton.
The latter two of these amend
ments were recommended in the
majority report of the Smith COM
mittee.
On April 19 the Rules Committee,
of which am also member, voted
a rule, making the Norton bill in
order for consideration on the floor
of the House, and providing further
that the Smith bill could be offered
as substitute. Whichever bill pre-
walls then shall be wide open to
amendment on the floor. It thus
appears now that the House will
be permitted to exercise its judg-
ment in respect to the various pro-
posals for amendment
Let us consider what some of these
proposed amendments are. If they
are shown to be desirable and fair,
then they should be adopted.
Procedure Impairs Confidence.
One of the things most frequently
charged against the labor board is
that it is prosecutor, judge, jury
and executioner. That accusation
stems from the fact that under the
law as it is now written, the board,
and its agents, investigate charges,
file complaints, prosecute the COM
plants and then decide the cases.
The evidence before our committee
demonstrated clearly that in many
instances the labor board itself was
very closely associated with the
preparation and prosecution of cases
which it subsequently undertook to
decide upon merit. To say the least,
such procedure, dealing as it did with
highly controversial and important
affairs, was not conducive to the
utmost confidence upon the part
Of litigants in the decisions OF the
board.
AS a remedy, some persons sug-
gested that the Government should
not be charged with the duty Of
prosecuting cases before the board
that such duty should be left to the
individuals feeling themselves ag-
grieved under the act. Our COM
mittee, and may say I refer to
the majority report, rejected that
proposal. However, we did recon-
mend a separation Of the functions
Of the board as between prosecution
and judicial review Of facts. To