Page VI. Wartime Handling of Labor Disputes and Seizure.. (a) War Labor Disputes Act-U.S. 57 Stats., 163, chapter 144, (b) Youngstown Sheet and Tube Co. et al. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. (e) Prohibiting Strikes Against the Government-U.S. 69 (f) Control of Transportation Systems in Time of War-U.S. (a) Title II, Taft Hartley Act-U.S. 61 Stats., 136, chapter (b) Synopsis of Presidential Boards of Inquiry_Created Under 379 381 389 521 541 563 565 567 569 575 (c) A Legislative History of the National Emergency Provi- 611 (d) United Steelworkers of America v. United States et al., 361 629 Part 2 VIII. Amending the Taft Hartley Act's Emergency Disputes Provisions— 669 (a) National Emergency Labor Disputes Act, by Senate Com- 671 (b) S. 2999 (Morse-Humphrey bill), as reported by Senate Com- 699 (c) The Politics of an Emergency Dispute: Steel, 1952, by 713 (d) The Taft-Hartley Act in National Emergency Disputes, by 743 (e) Basic Steel Labor Dispute, 1959 (a chronology), by U.S. 759 (f) The Adequacy of Taft-Hartley in Public Emergency Dis- 775 (g) Collective Bargaining, a Report by the President's Advisory 785 803 (i) The Challenge to Free Collective Bargaining, by W. Willard 873 (5) The National Emergency Disputes Provisions of the Taft- IX. The Maritime Trades and Emergency Disputes- (a) The Bonner Bill, H. R. 1897, 87th Congress (1963)___ X. Ad Hoc Compulsory Arbitration in the Railroad Industry... 887 1011 1013 1021 1053 1055 (b) Locomotive Firemen v. C., B., & Q. Railroad, 225 Federal Sup- 1059 (c) Industrial Unrest in the Nation's Rail Industry, by Edward 1071 (d) The Railroad Labor Dispute: A Marathon of Maneuver and 1101 (e) The Locomotive Firemen's Dispute, by David Levinson 1119 (f) The "Choice-of-Procedures" Approach to National Emer- 1139 XI. The Airline Dispute of 1966- (a) S.J. Res. 186, 89th Congress (1966)- (b) Settlement of the Airline Labor Dispute, Senate Committee (c) Report to the President by the Emergency Board No. 166 (d) The Airlines Strike-Joint Resolution, Senator Wayne (f) Testimony of P. L. Siemiller (excerpts), International (g) Testimony of William J. Curtin (excerpts), Spokesman for (h) Special Report: A Strike Is Settled-An Inside Look, by (j) Press Release, Council of Economic Advisers (August 20, Appendix 1. The Railway Labor Act (U.S. Code, Title 45, chapter 8). Page 1157 1159 1167 1181 1225 1237 1261 1281 1289 1299 1301 1303 1329 VIII. Amending the Taft-Hartley Act's A review of the history of the proposals to amend the emergency disputes provisions of Taft-Hartley would be a review of the history of that act. Indeed the trends have been very similar: first, a demand for the repeal of the provisions (and of the act itself); second, opposing demands that title II (or the act) be modified to make it less onesided against labor, countered by proposals to toughen the provisions (or the act) to make them more effective; and finally, acceptance, with talk of changes continuing intermittently, sotto voce. The first period extended through much of the Truman administration although substantial use was made of title II by the President. The second centered about the 1952 steel strike and is brought into focus by the first two documents reproduced below, the Senate committee report on the Morse-Humphrey bill of 1953, S. 2999 and the bill, as reported. Items c, d, and e also document this period. In this connection, the decision in the steel seizure case, item VI, b, above, presents the climax of this period. After this decision, a President could ignore title II in an emergency, at his peril. The legal status of all alternatives was in doubt. Only congressional action could change this. The third period focuses about the steel strike of 1959. This settled the question of constitutionality of the emergency provisions in the decision in the United Steelworkers case. This decision was included under the documentation of the provisions themselves, item VII, d, above. But from the point of view of proposals for change, the failure in 1959 to use the emergency provisions to prevent a damaging, 116-day strike, and the controversy which arose over the circumstances under which they were finally invoked, have left students of the problem confused and uncertain. This uncertainty is reflected in the literature. The advocates of doctrinaire solutions fell relatively silent, and articles like the report included under f began to appear. Indeed, this report by the President's Advisory Committee on Labor-Management Policy is the key document for this post-1959 discussion, which has continued along these lines to date, outside of the field of transportation. There, as is shown below, the point of takeoff of the discussion of strike emergencies has shifted from Taft-Hartley to the Railway Labor Act. The final document, item j, the long article by James E. Jones, Jr., is the thinking of one staff member of the U.S. Department of Labor on amending title II of the Taft-Hartley Act. 669 |