The Waterbury Democrat. [volume] (Waterbury, Conn.) 1917-1946, 1943-03-24

RateP Edssa dictional dispute,
according TO NLRB definition, Is O
question over what union laborers
are to do q certain Job, aS, for In
stance, should ships be built by
boilermakers, plumbers, or sheet
metal workers, or should welders
and riveters form o union Of their
own to do the Job.
A dispute such as that now CEN
tered In the Kaiser yards, In which
the @. I. o, has petitloned the
NLRB to set aside Kaiser contracts
with the A. r. Of L., so that an cleo.
ton may be held 10 determine
which group should bargain for the
J workers, Is called by the NLRB q
representation case" not q juris.
dictional case.
Accepting this somewhat fine and
legalistic distinction, the fact re.
mains that the Kaiser case centers
around O dispute between two
unions, As such II Is q potential In
reference with efficient operation
OF an essential war production In
dustry and It should be stopped be.
fore II makes any more trouble than
II has.
COMMON OCCURANCE
Whatever you call this Kaiser
case now before NbRB, 1t Is In no
way unique. There are II such cases
In shipyards alone. There are liter
ally hundreds Of such union vs.,
union contests In other war indus
tries. There have been close to 1000
such disputes since war production
effort began.
The NLRB seventh annual report
for the fiscal year ending June 80,
i042, reveals that i0,077 new cases
were filed with the board during
the year. In round numbers, 5000
cases were charges that employers
had INDUCED In unfair labor prac-
tees as defined b. the Wagner act,
while 6000 cases were representation
cases,
OF these 5000 representation cases,
1913 were contest between rival
unions over which should DO the
bargaining agent, the others being
cases In which the union petitioning
for an election TO determine bar
gaining agent wRs not opposed BY
another union.
A breakdown Of the 1919 union vs..
union contests fails to show that
any one group Of unions has o rec.
ord on this question any better than
Its rivals, although the @. !. o.
unions won the largest proportion
Of elections and polled the largest
percentage Of votes.
ELECTION FIGURES
A. r. Of L. unions started 2S4 Of
these contests against G. !. O.
unions and won AZ per cent Of the
elections, involving $4,000 workers.
A. r. Of l.. unions started iis
contests against unaffiliated unions
and won SO per cent Of the elections,
involving $1,000 workers.
G. I. o. unions started 37i con-
tests against A. r. Of L. unions and
won 66 per cent Of the elections, In
volving 10000 workers.
Unaffiliated unions started II
contests against @. !. o. unions, won
60 per cent Of all elections, involv-
ing $1,000 workers.
To be perfectly fair about this
matter, 1t is to be the credit Of the
NLRB that 1t handled these l079
disputes with no more than the To-
cal furore they created. But the i'm
portant point Is that In these thou
Sarld-odd cases, over half a million
workmen were organized" TO vote
over an issue which In final analysis
was not more important than de.
Gliding which union collected its
dues. {
The number OF workmen employed
In the plants where these disputes
took place, but who did not show
enough interest to vote, is nowhere
recorded, but in many Of these
elections, not much more than half
the workmen vote.
Currently. the NLRB is holding
about II elections a day. Approx
imately three out Of every II cleo.
tions Is q union VS.. union dispute.
NLRB collects its statistics on q
quarterly basis. For the lat quar-.
ter Of 1912. there were 24l union v.
union disputes l30 Of which were A..
r. orr L. VS.. @. I. o., 90 OF which
were A. F. of L. or @. !. o. VS.. unaf.
filiated unions, 10 Of which were
fnp0a.earn0Fad ft0lakR