employees free, for the first time, to form and join labor organizations without fear of losing their livelihood through discharge or blacklisting. In 1935, there were only about three and one-half million workers in labor organizations and in 1939 union membership totaled about eight and one-half million. Concurrent with this increase in union membership, there has been an enormous decrease in labor strife and a large increase in the number of collective agreements establishing better wages, hours, and working conditions for the workers. The actual statistics on the decrease of labor strife are contained in the minority report of the Smith committee so I will not go into that here. I would like to call the attention of the House to one outstanding illustration of the operation of the act which has taken place in the last few weeks. Three years ago, when the act was unable to function because of widely publicized doubts as to its constitutionality, the workers in our automobile industry sought to achieve collective bargaining. The results were a series of bitter sit-down strikes, resulting in both loss of wages and business and in the destruction of property. Last month, a similar question arose in the automobile industry and this time with the act in operation it was solved in a peaceful and orderly manner. This time, instead of forming a picket line, 130,000 General Motors employees went quietly to the polls and in a peaceful election settled the question in true democratic fashion. These major accomplishments of the act are not given enough emphasis. They are being ignored or suppressed in the general "smear" campaign which is and has been raging for some time.

The task of the Board in the performance of its history-making duties of preventing unfair labor practices condemned by Congress and in deciding the different question of appropriate bargaining units has been fraught with tremendous opposition, including opposition from many employers and employer spokesmen, every variety of legal obstacle which could be raised has been directed against the law, the Board, and the operations of its staff. Added difficulties arose from the division in the ranks of labor. Notwithstanding all this, the Board, from its inception to June 30, 1939, disposed of 18,788 cases, and in doing so found it necessary to institute formal proceedings under the statute in only about 9 percent of the cases. It made orders against employers in unfair-labor-practice cases in only about 5 percent of all unfair-labor-practice cases brought to it, or a total of 667 orders. The overwhelming majority of all disputes submitted to it have been disposed of amicably by dismissal or withdrawal without industrial unrest.

I bring to your attention also that review by the Federal judiciary of the decisions and orders of the Board has shown a notable degree of correctness in the performance by the Board of its quasi-judicial duties and that, judged by the most final and objective test of this character, namely, review by the Supreme Court of the United States, that Court has decided and considered in the past 3 years 25 cases arising under the act. It has sustained the Board's position completely 21 times, modified its orders twice, and set aside its orders twice. This is the best litigation record in the history of government and one of which Congress should be proud. Faced with the task of developing the application of the statute to the protection of self-organization and collective bargaining throughout a large part of our industry, the Board has been under the necessity of building up and training a large staff. It was not to be expected nor is it true that no mistakes have been made within the organization, but it is unquestionably true that remarkable progress has been made in the development of the principles of self-organization and collective bargaining, by the decisions and operations of the Board, and by the decisions of the courts. These gains must be preserved.

I believe that, considering the afore-mentioned facts, the act should have no drastic changes. I do not take the position that the act cannot be improved, but that can only be done by the addition of strengthening amendments.

The Labor Committee of the House, as you know, has held extensive hearings upon the subject of amendments to the National Labor Relations Act. We have listened to scores of witnesses representing labor, industry, and the general public. We have taken several thousand pages of testimony and have had access to the records of the Senate and Smith Committee hearings. In addition, over a period of several weeks we have discussed and argued over amendments in executive session. As a result of this intensive study of the subject, certain general conclusions stand out in my mind. In stating these conclusions to the House I believe that I am not only speaking for myself but also for the majority of the committee who sat with me during the consideration of the amendments.

The Labor Committee rejected the proposed amendments submitted by the majority of the Smith committee. We did so for a very obvious reason. Those of the Smith amendments which deal with the substantive provisions of the act are almost without exception designed to restrict the rights of labor guaranteed by the act. I challenge emphatically the assumption that the rights protected by the act are excessive or should be curtailed. In my opinion, they constitute the minimum guaranties necessary to carry out the underlying policy of the act. Those of the Smith amendments dealing with the procedural provisions of the act are designed to accomplish far-reaching changes in the administrative process. These proposals would inevitably increase legalistic technicalities in the administration of the act and greatly reduce operating efficiency. Such amendments seem to me entirely unnecessary to safeguard the rights of employers under the act. In any event, I see no reason to discriminate against labor by creating such procedural hazards in a statute designed to protect the rights of labor when legislation for the protection of property rights is not so handicapped. If the administrative process is to be revolutionized, the experiment should not be made at the expense of labor alone.

I come, then, to the amendments proposed by the majority of the Committee on Labor. These are four in number. In our judgment, they are the only proposals which are worthy of consideration by any group which is genuinely without reservation interested in the preservation and strengthening of the principles now embodied in the National Labor Relations Act.

The first proposal is that the Board be enlarged by the addition of two new members. In dealing with labor problems speed is of the essence if the rights of workers are to be preserved. Nevertheless the Board has found it difficult to keep abreast of its work under present conditions. Perhaps the greatest defect in the administration of the act to date has been the delay in the issuance of Board decisions. Undoubtedly, with the addition of two new members to the Board, it will be possible to dispose of its business more promptly. It is to be noted that the Securities and Exchange Commission, as well as other quasi-judicial agencies having a large volume of business, are composed of five or more members.

Enlargement of the Board will accomplish another important objective. Perhaps no agency in the history of the Government has been the unwarranted object of such sustained and bitter criticism as has the National Labor Relations Board. I am convinced that most of this criticism arises fundamentally out of bitter-end opposition to the law itself. However much we may deplore this situation or feel that the Board has been unjustly treated, the fact remains that the addition of two new members would bring a fresh viewpoint to the difficult problems confronting the Board. At the same time, by the retention of the present members, who have established the law and brought the right of self-organization and collective bargaining into reality, the proposed amendment would have the advantage of continuity in the administration of the act.

The second proposed amendment deals with the troublesome question of the appropriate bargaining unit. The controversy over this issue has centered mainly around the question whether a craft unit or an industrial unit should be held appropriate. The problem is perhaps best illustrated by taking a concrete example. The X Y Z plant employs 100 production workers. Of these 100 there are 10 who are skilled craft workers, such as machinists, electricians, or pattern makers. The A union is an industrial union and admits to membership all the 100 production workers in the plant; the B union, on the other hand, is a craft union, admitting to membership only the 10 craftsmen. The question is whether the 100 employees, including the 10 craftsmen, should be considered an appropriate unit, as the A union claims, or whether the 10 craftsmen should be considered a separate unit by themselves, as the B union contends. In support of the argument for a single industrial unit it is said that the splitting of the employees of various crafts from the main unit weakens the bargaining strength of the employees and results in less effective bargaining. In support of the argument for a craft unit it is said that the employees have organized in craft unions for many years and that to establish the large industrial unit as the only appropriate unit would in effect prevent the craft union from organizing in the plant at all, since it would not be permitted to bargain on a craft basis for the craft employees alone.

The National Labor Relations Board, up to the appointment of Dr. Leiserson, solved this problem by the application of the so-called Globe doctrine. Under this doctrine, the Board would permit the 10 craft employees to vote separately whether they wished to be represented by the A industrial union or by the B craft union. If a majority of the 10 craft employees voted for the A union the Board grouped all the 100 employees together in a single industrial unit. On the other hand, if a majority of the 10 craft employees voted for the B craft union, then the Board found the smaller craft unit appropriate. Under this plan the choice of apropriate unit was left to a vote of the craft employees themselves. After appointment of Dr. Leiserson a majority of the Board did not apply the Globe doctrine in certain cases where the industrial union had previously secured a contract on an industrial basis. In all other cases, however, the Board continued to apply the Globe doctrine.

The amendment proposed in H. R. 9195 has the effect of writing into the act the principles of the so-called Globe doctrine. It provides that in any case where the majority of the employees of a particular craft wish to bargain through a craft unit the Board will designate such craft unit as the appropriate Under this amendment the craft employees would be permitted to decide for themselves whether they wished to bargain through a craft unit or to be merged into a larger industrial unit.

one.

Objection has been made that the proposed amendment favors American Federation of Labor Unions to the prejudice of C. I. O. unions. It is also argued that Congress should not fix a rigid, inflexible rule but should leave the issue to be decided by the Board on the facts of each case. These objections must be seriously considered. Nevertheless the majority of the Labor Committee has felt that the issue has created such a controversy, resulting in constant attack on the Board by both contending parties, that the matter should be resolved by Congress itself. It will be noted that a very similar provision is contained in the New York State Labor Relations Act where it seems to operate very satisfactorily.

The third amendment proposed in H. R. 9195 confers upon employers the right to petition the Board for an election in cases where two or more unions not established or assisted by unfair labor practices each claim to represent a majority of the employees. Upon the filing of such a petition the Board must investigate and certify which representative, if any, the employees have chosen. This proposal is designed to assure that an employer who is caught between the rival claims of two contending unions has the right to appeal to the Board to settle the controversy. The proposal incorporates in the statute the provision for employer petitions already embodied in the Board's rules and regulations, with one important addition. Under the present Board rules and regulations it lies within the discretion of the Board whether to act upon the petition filed by the employer. The proposed amendment makes it mandatory on the Board to take action upon the filing of such a petition. Regardless of the Board's rules and regulations, however, the matter is of sufficient importance to require congressional action.

The fourth and final amendment proposed in H. R. 9195 provides that where an employer has entered into a contract with a bona fide labor organization representing a majority of his employees, the loss of a majority by the labor organization or a change in its affiliation does not impair the validity of such a contract provided it does not run more than a year, the Board is prevented from certifying a new representative. The purpose of this amendment is to stabilize labor relations by expressly providing that a contract shall remain valid despite the shift of a majority of the employees from the contracting union to another union.

These four amendments are distinguishable from the Smith amendments, and from most of the other amendments that have been proposed from time to time, in that they strengthen the act rather than weaken it. The enlargement of the Board will enable it to speed up its work, will give it new prestige, and will bring a fresh point of view. The craft-unit amendment will settle in a fair and practical manner a controversy of long standing that has seriously interfered with the work of the Board. The amendment on employer petitions will afford the employers relief from situations which have frequently troubled them. And the contract amendment will stabilize and promote harmonious industrial relations. Taken together, the amendments carry out and perfect the basic policies of the act.

Let us examine the character of some of the charges made against the Board and its staff. In debate on the rule on Tuesday the gentleman from Georgia

I

undertook to lay 29 charges against the National Labor Relations Board. cannot supply answers to those of his charges which were presented in purely rhetorical form. I can and will make answer to those of his accusations which bear sufficiently close relation to facts upon the record. The gentleman prefaced his charges by stating that they were made upon the basis of the record of the National Labor Relations Board and of the findings of the Smith Committee. He has chosen to disregard the careful and thorough investigations made by the House Labor Committee and by the Senate Committee on Education and Labor. I choose, in making answer, to draw upon these at least equally reliable sources.

The gentleman tells you that the Board has thwarted the maintenance of stable industrial relations. I remind him that one of the matters which the Smith committee was entrusted by this House to investigate was whether or not the Board's activities tended toward industrial peace. I further remind him that the only substantial evidence presented to the Smith committee on that point appears in the testimony of J. Warren Madden, the Chairman of the Board. No one on the Smith committee or outside of it has challenged Chairman Madden's statement that strikes decreased one-half and the number of workers involved decreased two-thirds during the first year after the National Labor Relations Act was declared valid by the Supreme Court. No one has challenged his statement that strikes have decreased much faster in those interstate industries over which the Board has jurisdiction than in the intrastate industries which it cannot touch; nor his statement that sit-down strikes, fomented largely by resistance to worker organization during the period just prior to validation of the act, disappeared like snow under a hot sun as soon as workers knew they could turn to the protection of the act instead of to violent means of forcing their employers to obey the law; nor his statement appearing in the Congressional Record only last Tuesday that strikes have so continued to decrease that this past winter saw fewer workers involved in industrial strife than during any winter since the first black winter of the depression in 1932.

The gentleman from Georgia does not challenge the fact that the past 3 years of the Labor Board intervention in labor relations are the same 3 years in which the habit of employers entering stable working agreements with their employees has developed to the highest state in our industrial history. In fact, the gentleman from Georgia contents himself with charging that the Board has deliberately fomented industrial strife in the face of facts exactly to the contrary. Instead of giving way to fear-inspiring utterances, I should like to hear the gentleman address himself to a concrete explanation of why the record shows that we have had a minimum of labor disturbances during the past year while at the same time there were twice as many workers organized into unions and thus potentially organized to strike if they so desired. There is no escaping that evidence that the Labor Act and the Labor Board has been a stabilizing force; there is no escaping, that is, except in repeating contrary charges so often that people think with their emotions instead of with their heads.

The gentleman from Georgia charges that the employees of the Board are generally incompetent, and he embodies this assertion with stale accusations against some of its personnel. Against the Board's legal employees, the gentleman lays the charge of and I quote him-"lack of training and experience in law requisite to perform their duties." I admire the gentleman for being able with a straight face to direct that accusation against a legal staff which has established the greatest record for competency in the circuit courts of appeals and in the Supreme Court of the United States of any agency ever operating under the American flag. I challenge the gentleman to deny that statement. I challenge him to explain why the Supreme Court has upheld the Board in 24 cases and denied it in only 2; why the circuit courts of appeals have upheld the Board in 86 cases and denied it in only 19; how it happens that 307 consent decrees were entered in circuit courts to uphold Board cease-and-desist orders; why it is that in all these cases the Board's assumption of its jurisdiction was only denied in 1 case.

This House 5 years ago handed over to this Board one of the hardest assignments in our national history. All industrial lawyers said the act was illegal. One hundred and two industrial lawyers tried to prove so by entering injunction suits on the grounds of its unconstitutionality. More than a hundred of the best legal minds industry could find have fought through contested cases on the merits before the highest courts in the land.

From this legal maelstrom the Board staff has emerged with its head high and its colors flying, with collective bargaining and Board procedure sustained in hundreds of test cases. And as its reward for this unparalleled record, the gentleman from Georgia describes those who established it as-again I quote"unfit for the duties they perform" and "guilty of gross irregularities in the conduct of the public business." If they are guilty, so is the judiciary of the United States, and that must apply not only to the Supreme Court as constituted but also to the Supreme Court as constituted on April 12, 1937, when he first five Board cases were upheld. If they are "unfit for the duties they perform," what scorn shall we pour upon the heads of the Federal Trade Commission and the Interstate Commerce Commission for their infinitely poorer records in the courts during their first 5 years of existence? The gentleman from Georgia blandly tells you that the Board "violated all the rules of evidence" and that it has substituted "surmise, suspicion, and guess for proof." This, I take it, he bases on a decision of a circuit court of appeals, which once used such language in regard to a Board decision. To complete the picture, he should have informed you that the Supreme Court itself made painstaking review of the evidence and saw fit to reverse the court below. I cite the Waterman Steamship decision, in which the Supreme Court, in reversing the circuit court, stated:

"All of the Board's findings, far from resting on mere suspicion, are supported by evidence which is substantial."

Again the gentleman charges that the Board has "unscrupulously exercised arbitrary powers." Under the Constitution of the United States, the protection against the exercise of arbitrary power is entrusted to the judiciary. Has the Supreme Court been caught napping or has it been hoodwinked? What does the gentleman suppose the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court had in mind when he said on this very point, in the case of the Board against the Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation-I quote the Chief Justice:

"We construe the procedural provisions as affording adequate opportunity to secure judicial protection against arbitrary action in accordance with the wellsettled rules applicable to administrative agencies set up by Congress to aid in the enforcement of valid legislation."

In my turn I charge the gentleman from Georgia with having marshaled 29 charges against the Labor Board in a manner calculated to arouse prejudice without any regard for easily discoverable facts. The gentleman gives a certain statistical polish to his charges by placing a number before each one of them, but when you come right down to it, what, for instance, does his carefully enumerated twenty-eighth charge mean? I quote him:

"I charge that the Board is guilty of the daily infliction of wrongs upon labor, industry, and the American people."

What wrong? Whenever the gentleman has been specific about these alleged wrongs, you find that they disappear under the bright light of facts. Has labor suffered because during the 5 years under the Labor Act it has doubled its membership, improved its conditions, and raised its wages? Has industry suffered because its chiseling fringe has been made to deal with its employees instead of imposing sweatshop wages, or because it has stabilized its labor relations under known contracts instead of having terms fought out between itself and restless, dissatisfied, unorganized workers? Have the American people suffered because their expressed desire for collective bargaining has been realized, or because strikes have decreased in numbers, intensity, and duration? It is not possible to prevent the gentleman from Georgia from calling the personnel of the Board "professional trouble makers," but it is possible, and I think I have succeeded, in proving to him on the record that he is wrong when he says so.

The easiest way to discredit a public official nowadays is to tar him with the brush of alleged communism. The gentleman from Georgia has been liberal with that brush in respect to Edwin S. Smith, a member of the National Labor Relations Board. He has set down in the record of this House assertions that Mr. Smith's Communist leanings were demonstrated by a trip which Mr. Smith took to Mexico in the summer of 1938. The entire incident of that Mexican trip was made the subject of thorough investigation by the Senate Committee on Labor and Education during its hearings last June. That record was open to the gentleman from Georgia and should have given him pause in making the statements regarding Mr. Smith which appear in the Record of June 4, this year, at page 11479. The gentleman accepts as manifest of Mr. Smith's Communist