but assumes that employee representatives should meet by themselves, at least occasionally. Separate meetings of employee representatives are considered necessary in order that they may arrive at a clear understanding of the wishes of the group, the procedure to be followed in presenting such wishes, and the selection of a spokesman who can most effectively present the common opinion of the group. It thus differs from the joint-committee type in that the employee representatives are more definitely the representatives of a group point of view.3

Here again management representation is an essential part of the structure of the joint committee, although as far as other activities are concerned, management participation has been less extensive than in the straight joint-committee type. Of the 20 organizations having this combination arrangement, only 7 definitely stated in their constitutions that they were set up by management, while 2 stated that they were employee-sponsored. Two could be terminated by action of the employees alone. Although most of them were based on automatic-participation rights for all employees, onefourth had optional membership. One provided for dues, the remainder relying entirely upon management for expenses.

4

In the third type of committee arrangement, there is no necessary management participation in the operation of the company union. The structure tends to stress the existence of an exclusive employees' agency. Representatives of employees meet alone to discuss problems and grievances and, as a united group, present their formulated

? Some plans specify that the separate meetings are to take place before each joint council meeting, others provide that separate meetings and joint meetings are to be alternated. In some cases the joint committee is formed by adding to the employee committee two or three representatives of management.

* Two combination type company unions did not actually hold separate meetings of employee representatives. In one, which did no negotiating, two management representatives came to be present as a matter of course. The other provided that the general committee and all standing committees of employee representatives should meet on alternate months as joint committees with an equal number of management representatives. In addition, a specially designated management representative was to be available to attend separate meetings of the general committee of employee representatives on invitation. Invited to the first meeting he attended all subsequent ones as a matter of course. As a result, the joint general committee fell into disuse, only the joint standing committees continuing to function on a joint basis. At the same time the general committee of employee representatives was shorn of any legislative power. Its work was limited to hearing the reports of the joint standing committees but it could not overrule them; it could only appeal from their action to a joint appeals committee. The joint appeals committee had not been called on to act in the past 9 years.

In one large organization, there were no separate meetings of all employee representatives, but such meetings were held by the employee representatives of the five divisional wage and welfare committees. These committees, each consisting of chairman and four members elected by the divisional employee representatives, met monthly. Management attended these meetings only on request. The wage committees were important, handling all problems pertaining to hours of work, rates of pay, etc. Each division had a joint committee also, which served as a court of first appeal from the wage and welfare committees. In another, and equally large, company the only separate meetings provided for were monthly meetings of the executive committee with each of five division groups of employee representatives.

4 Actually only one was primarily established through employee initiative.

Although the employee-representatives' committee usually meets by itself, generally at a stated time and under the direction of its leading officer, one or more management representatives may attend on request or, in some instances, by constitutional provision. These management representatives, however, do not form a part of the committee and do not vote. They attend to advise and to state management policy.

plans and requests to management. These meetings with management do not take the form of jor-committee meetings where a decision is reached by a vote of the joint body. They are, rather, meetings of representatives of two parties for the purpose of negotiating or discussing certain matters. If the committee is not satisfied with the demision given by the management representative it can, according to the provisions made by many company unions, appeal to a higher official or authority, such as the president of the company or the board of directors.

Even in this type, however, management's relationship to the organization was frequently so close as to blur the distinction between the several types. Although management participation was not as apparent as in the joint-committee arrangement, it was, nevertheless, extensive. All but 18 of the 80 organizations of this type were set up entirely by management. More than half relied entirely on management for funds. In almost all instances, management through the constitution assumed certain obligations. However, one difference from the other types of committee was that automatic participation of all employees was not as prevalent among the employee-committee type, nearly two-thirds being based on optional membership.

The possibility of an exclusive employees' agency becomes greatest among this last group of 51 company unions which combine the employee committee with optional membership. The 8 company unions set up primarily through employee initiative took this form in all but one case. Only 2 of the 51 company unions with this form explicitly indicated management sponsorship in the constitution. Even among this group, however, the close relationship of management was marked. More than two-thirds were set up through management initiative. Only five constitutions contained no reference, explicit or implicit, to management's relationship to the affairs of the company union. One-third of the associations obtained all their funds from the employer, and most of the remainder received some financial assistance from management.

Since 1933 there has been a shift away from the joint-committee type and to a less degree away from the combination type. (See table 32.) Revisions in individual plans after 1933 show that the

* Because of this essential similarity in many cases, the classification of company unions in this report is not generally by committee type but rather on the basis of the character of participation, whether automatic or on an optional membership basis.

On the other hand, where there was specific mention of sponsorship in the constitutions, the employees were more frequently named than management.

movement is to some extent from joint committees through the combination type to employee committees.

Varying factors played a part in effecting these shifts. In some it was directly traceable to a desire on the part of management and workers to comply with what they felt were the requirements of section 7 (a). In a number of cases management, stimulated by legislation and labor-board rulings, took the initiative in modifying plans in order to give a formal appearance of greater independence. In a few others, revision was instituted by the workers themselves. In these instances, employee representatives reported that they had felt the need for an opportunity to talk over matters by themselves. In one, employee representatives had gradually become accustomed to having meetings by themselves to decide on matters to be taken up

at the joint-council meeting.

Decisions then made by the joint council were taken up with the general superintendent, who rendered the final decision. This system was so cumbersome that the joint meetings were finally abandoned, and the employees' committee took its complaints up with the general superintendent directly. In another, the apathy of the workers toward the company union was responsible for abandoning separate and formal joint-council meetings,

Thus, of the 10 joint committees which revised their form after March 1933, 6 changed to combination types and 4 to employee committees. Two combination arrangements were modified to a straight employee committee. None changed to joint-committee form, and none from the employee committee.

To these changes may be added certain other shifts. Thus a company which for several years up to 1930 had had an industrial-democracy type of company union dropped the plan at that time. In 1933 it set up a combination plan. In addition, three joint-committee organizations amended their constitutions during the N. R. A., to give employee representatives the right to meet separately.

Four others changed their constitutions to permit management to attend meetings of employees' council only on invitation, instead of by right of specific constitutional provision.

The representatives merely conferring with the superintendent when

oceadon arose.

PABLE 32. Committee machinery in cumpony unions, spring of 1935 1

Company unions are here classified according to their present form rather than their form at the time of

If the existing company unions dating from before the N. R. A., including the 6 plans reed in 1933, were classed according to the form which they followed before 1933, there would be a slight a veniflent change in the figures. The figures would then be: Jens committee 13; combination ove and joint committees 8; employee committee 12 industrial democracy 3

The form of company union, the employee representatives, elected by the workers, constitute the supervisory officials appointed by the company comprise the senater and a few management officials make up the cabinet. Matters may originate in either bouse and after passage go to the second house. If Doua cannot agree, a joint committee similar to a conference committee of the United States Congress emple to arrive at a compromise acceptable to both houses. Matters passed by both bouses go to the adopt for approval or veto. This form, which became popular during the World War period, has been wy alumioned because of its cumbersome structure.

Nesional committees and subcommittees. In smaller establishments, ph company union usually functioned through a single council or yettee, whether joint or of employee representatives only. To

body came all grievances which employee representatives had book phable to adjust, and it considered in full session all matters Naded by the company union. More than half of the company

,, however, distributed the work among a number of committees w, puther had full responsibility for the functioning of the company neca m a particular division or unit of the company or had certain Norary with respect to the consideration of particular matters. by barco companies or companies with a geographically scattered www.cp complicated structure, separate committees were set ach division, or other appropriate unit of the company. Die woo integrated into a central committee through representahot duoctly or through one or more intervening committees, ing on the complexity of the company's structure. Employee vivamativos on a superior council were chosen by and from among Caloy on representatives on the council next below it in the A Each divisional council attempted to settle the grievod uoblems arising in that particular division of the company's alter the employee representative concerned had failed. decood, it passed them on to the next higher council for

༄

In un organizations only matters of general imporof boy arrod to the council higher up, and matters of interest mandy were settled by that division's council.

Fifty-nine company unions set up subcommittees for specific purposes-wages and working conditions, cafeteria, safety and health, grievances, and other matters. These subcommittees performed much of the preliminary work, work which might otherwise have had to be done by the full committee. In some cases, the grievance committee attempted to settle grievances before they were turned over to the full committee, or conferred with management on the matter after approval by the full committee. The standing wage committee sometimes not only investigated cost of living and other pertinent facts but also served as the negotiating committee on questions of wages and hours. One company union required that all questions be acted on by the appropriate subcommittee before action could be taken by the full committee.

On all divisional committees or standing subcommittees in jointcommittee type organizations, management had equal voting power with employee representatives. Conversely, in employee-committee type company unions, only employee representatives served on the divisional committees or subcommittees. When such committees were included in the set-up of the combination type of plan, management representatives were generally excluded entirely or were called in only on invitation. Where the constitution provided for only joint subcommittees, an additional clause gave employee representatives the privilege of meeting separately before joint subcommittee meetings or on alternate months.

Procedure at joint meetings. One-half the constitutions providing for joint committees specified that the presiding officer should always be a management representative. One-fourth provided for an employee as presiding officer. In the remaining fourth the chairman was elected by and from the joint-committee members, or the chairman and secretary alternated between management and employees from meeting to meeting.10

In about half of the cases the secret vote was provided for, although it was actually used in a comparatively few instances." Three joint committees rarely put questions to a vote of any kind, while in eight "there was no voting at all-only discussion."

Three methods of determining whether or not a proposal was carried were used in joint meetings. In most cases, all the representatives voted as individuals and a majority of two-thirds or three-fourths of the representatives present was required. In a few cases, only

• Sixteen company unions had both divisional committees and standing committees on specific matters. 10 In one of the latter cases, however, at the insistence of the employees, the personnel manager always presided despite constitutional requirements.

11 Eighteen out of twenty-five on which information was available reported using the secret ballot. Three of these specified "always" and another "usually". Three used the secret vote ordinarily only on major issues. Eight others provided for a secret vote upon request of either management or employee representatives or a majority of the joint council, but the privilege was rarely used. Four more reported that it was seldom used. In two of the cases in which a secret vote was never used the rules of procedure per

mitted such a vote.