Evening star., 1941-03-05
Questions Comment
On Labor Elections
Says Duvid Lawrence
Errs on Question of
Consent Requirement
TO the Editor of The Star:

Consent Requirement
TO the Editor of The Star:
David Lawrence, in a column appear
ing in your issue of February az, made
such serious nlisstatements with respect
to elections under the National Labor
Relations Act that I am sure you will
want your readers to have the facts in
the matter.
Mr.. Lawrence states that real collective
bargaining machinery was discarded by
the National Labor Relations Board
when the board decided 1t would keep
Its hands of any situation requiring an
election unless the employers and en-
ployes agreed In advance to what Is
known as a consent election" No such
decision was ever made by the board, the
board does not keep Its hands of any
situation requiring an election and
neither employers nor employees are re-
quired to agree in advance to any consent
election.
When a situation requires an election,
the board, In the interest OF speed and
prompt settlement of the dispute, has
authorized its agents to conduct an
election without further formalities II
the parties concerned will agree to what
Is known as a consent election, that is to
say, II they will agree on the bargaining
unit, on the eligibility list of voters and
on the date when the election is to be
held. If such consent arrangement
is not agreed upon, then the proceedings
take more time. The board proceeds to
hold a hearing as required by the act
and 1t makes a decision determining the
bargaining unit, the eligibility of voters
and the date of the election. So many
thousands of elections have been held
in accordance with this procedure that
it Is inconceivable that Mr.. Lawrence
did not know that the board orders elec-
tions when consent arrangements can
not be made. 1t is simply not true that
the board requires consent elections and
cannot understand why Mr.. Lawrence
should want to mislead your readers in
that respect.
Mr.. Lawrence's statement that the
American Federation of Labor claims
majority Of the workers in the big Ford
plants" is another error. There is no
such claim before the labor board. The
C. T. o. has filed petitions with the board
for elections in three plants of the Ford
company, based on claims that it has
majoritieS in these plants, and, charges
that the company has engaged in unfair
labor practices in the same plants. These
claims are now under investigation. In
the course of the election investigation
all the parties concerned will, Of course,
be asked to agree on consent election
so that it may be promptly held without
legal formalities. If the parties do not
agree and there is a sufficient showing
of membership or applications for MEM
bership in the labor organizations to re-
quire an election. the board will order
an election and make the necessary de-
terminations as to bargaining unit and
eligible voters as soon as the charges of
unfair labor practice are disposed OF in
order to assure freedom of choice.
1t is indeed irresponsible writing for
Mr.. Lawrence to imply that nothing is
being done to compel collective bargain
ing machinery to function and to keep
the strike weapon from being exercised
unnecessarily" because in most of the
big strike situations the board does not
resolve the claim of unions to represent
majority by an election. AS matter
of fact, the board has ordered many
elections in strike situations, both when
strikes were threatened and after strikes
had actually occurred. If Mr.. Lawrence
will refer to his own Labor Relations
Reporter" he will find many decisions of
this kind.
Furthermore, every single day the
board is conducting ordered" elections
where the parties have refused to agree
to consent" elections, and every single
day the board is ordering elections in
the absence of the consent of some labor
organization or some employer. During
the five years of its existence the board
has conducted more than 1000 elections
in which more than 100000 valid votes
we're cast.
Again Mr.. Lawrence writes, "Once the
issue is resolved (by an election), it
ought not to be brought up every few
weeks" AS a matter of fact, Mr.. Law
renee knows that such an issue is not
brought up every few weeks. He pub
fishes in his Labor Relations Reporter"
the rulings of the board, and he has re-
peatedly published the ruling that the
board will not hold a second election
until year has elapsed after the first
election. Why Mr.. Lawrence should
want to misstate the facts in his syndi-
Gated column that he publishes so cor
rectly in his Reporter" is mystery.
On February 28, in a second column
on board elections, Mr.. Lawrence seems
to have forgotten that the previous day
he had written the board requires con-
sent elections, for he does discuss the
election orders issued by the board when
the parties refuse to consent.
In this second column Mr.. Lawrence
states: IF the National Labor Relations
Board were to carry out the spirit of the
law, it would insist that labor unions
submit to elections the moment they
make public claim of majority" A claim
by union that it has a majority may
be disputed by an employer or it may
be undisputed. If 1t is undisputed, the
Labor Relations Act and not the board
| places an obligation upon the employer
to bargain with the union that represents
need for an election If the employer is