1939: Trade Unions

Organized labor made less gain in 1939 than in any year since 1935. The American Federation of Labor reported a gain of 400,000 members, or half as many as the year before. Comparable figures for the C.I.O. are not available, partly because that organization has never reported its dues-paying membership and because the officers failed to submit to the second annual convention, October 1939, a report covering the finances of the organization. In spite of continued organizing activity, and a marked improvement in business it is doubtful that the labor movement as a whole did better than hold its own, or that the gains more than balanced the losses of the year. Among the factors that most powerfully affected the fortunes of organized labor were the continued struggle between the C.I.O. and A.F. of L., failure to organize parts of the steel and automobile industries, abandonment of the sit-down strike, a noticeable revival of independent unionism, and changing trends in public opinion and labor legislation.

Continued Split between C.I.O. and A.F. of L.

The irreconcilability of the C.I.O. and the A.F. of L. had begun to have an unfavorable effect on the position of trade unionism in general. On two occasions during the year, the President of the United States intervened to expedite negotiations and settlement. But both efforts failed. The mounting evidence of recalcitrance on the part of organized labor has, doubtless, alienated much support in Washington on which unions could previously count. In the public mind, likewise, the inability of two strong organizations to sink their differences and combine in a common program has raised questions as to the constructive character of much of trade union policy and practice. Employees were increasingly disinclined to join unions and expose themselves to involvement in jurisdictional disputes, upon which their wages and working conditions depended only remotely, if at all.

These influences tended to slow down organizing campaigns and to impair their effectiveness. Consequently no spectacular gains, similar to the victories in the steel and automobile industries in 1937, were made in the past year. The new unions in fact encountered formidable difficulties in collecting dues and holding members within their ranks. The non-union parts of the steel and automobile industries remained unorganized and the unions in question failed to wrest agreements from such firms as the Bethlehem and Republic steel companies and the Ford Company. On the East coast an ill-advised strike by the C.I.O. seamen's union, apparently not generally supported by the membership, was lost by the union and virtually destroyed organization among the seamen employed by the Standard Oil Companies of New York and New Jersey and the Texas Company.

Supreme Court Ruling on Sit-down Strike.

An influential factor accounting for this turn in the trend of the effectiveness of organizing campaigns was the changed legal position of the sit-down strike and sit-down strikers. It is common knowledge that much of the increase in union membership won during the period of spectacular growth, 1936-37, would have been impossible without the extensive and vigorous use of the sit-down strike. Although the practice of these methods aroused a storm of public protest and disapproval, the final status of the sit-down strike remained for some time in doubt. Indeed, in a critical case — the Fansteel Case — involving the use of this type of weapon, the National Labor Relations Board ordered sit-down strikers returned to their jobs. But in a sweeping decision in the same case on Feb. 27, 1939, the United States Supreme Court completely reversed the Board's decision. The effect of this decision was not only to cause the abandonment of the sit-down strike but also to induce the unions to conduct themselves with greater care and sobriety.

Revival of Independent Unionism.

Although the legal position of company unions was not changed, there were indications of a revival of unions, limited in their membership to individual plants or companies. Apparently many workmen, unwilling to join national organizations affiliated with either the C.I.O. or the A.F. of L., turned increasingly to independent local organizations of this sort. Where such unions are able to prove that they are free from domination by the employer and, hence, do not violate the provisions of the Wagner Act, they show promise of becoming an element of increasing importance in the American labor movement.

Status of National Labor Relations Board.

As in earlier years, the activities and decisions of the National Labor Relations Board, and the reactions of unions and the public to them, have continued to occupy a critical position in relation to our problems of labor relations. Since its inception the Board has been the chief bulwark of the trade unions. Its policies, procedures, and interpretations of the Act which it administers account, more than any other single factor, for the present position of trade unionism in this country. During 1939, the Board has made no radical revisions in its policy and, in the main, has applied the principles which it has developed since 1935. It has continued to disestablish plant or company unions and ruled against old and established organizations of this type in shops and offices of the Bethlehem Steel and Western Union Telegraph Companies. It has found the Republic Steel and Ford Companies guilty of a variety of unfair practices. It has followed the same principles in defining refusal to bargain and unfair practices and in fixing the limits of bargaining units which are familiar to all students of American Labor law.

Attitude of Courts toward NLRB.

Except for the Fansteel decision the United States Supreme Court has continued to sustain the Board, either on the merits of a case or by reason of its interpretation of the powers conferred upon the Board by the Wagner Act. During the past year, however, the Board has tended to be more frequently reversed in the lower Federal courts. In a decision, Jan. 9, 1940, the Circuit Court of Appeals at Chicago overruling the Board's findings, held that the Wagner Act could not be interpreted as requiring written agreements between employers and employees. In the same decision the court found that the Board's agent, the trial-examiner, had deprived the company of a fair hearing. Two important cases in other circuits reversed the Board in its decision holding the company unions in question to be dominated by the employers. In these cases, as in others like them, the courts appear to have become more critical of the Board's procedure and its guiding principles.

Investigation of NLRB.

This attitude of the courts reflects growing dissatisfaction with the Wagner Act and its application. For some years, and with much greater vigor in 1939, the A.F. of L. has been pressing for amendments to the Act and changes in the Board's personnel. Due largely to A.F. of L. influence Congress failed to confirm D. W. Smith, nominated for reappointment to the Board by the President. In the face of separate investigations of the Board, conducted by the Senate and House Committees on Labor during the last session of Congress, the House of Representatives at the same session created a new committee of inquiry under the chairmanship of Congressman Howard W. Smith. Equipped with a large staff of lawyers and investigators, this Committee spent the summer canvassing the files of the Board and seeking information from other interested sources. The Committee hearings begun in December are likely to continue well into the present session of Congress. But the evidence already introduced with reference to the Board's methods of assembling and weighing evidence and choosing its personnel, as well as the considerations that have determined its choice of guiding principles, makes it appear probable that the way is being paved for substantial amendments to the Act and changes in the Board's membership. The possibility of such proposed amendments to the national labor law is, indeed, forecast by amended state labor laws, dealing with the same questions and severely restricting the rights of unions, enacted in 1939 in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania.

Unions and Anti-trust Laws.

Meanwhile unions of all camps and shades of opinion have been much aroused by actions brought against them under the country's anti-trust laws. The first of these cases arose out of a strike against the Apex Hosiery Company of Philadelphia, in the course of which the strikers forcibly occupied the plant and did extensive damage to plant and machinery. On April 3, 1939, the Federal District Court awarded the Company damages of $700,000. The decision was reversed by the Circuit Court of Appeals and has been appealed to the Supreme Court. Since unions of this country have always considered themselves exempt from the provisions of the anti-trust law, they await the opinion of the Supreme Court with unusual interest and dread. Their disquiet has, moreover, been increased as a result of actions independently taken by the anti-trust division of the United States Department of Justice. In a series of proceedings this agency sought and obtained indictments against unions in the building and trucking industries for violations of the anti-trust laws. The A.F. of L. has strongly protested invoking anti-trust legislation against the practices of unions. The Department, however, indicated its intention to proceed with the cases and, in a letter to William Green, president of the A.F. of L., Thurman Arnold, Assistant Attorney-General, enumerated as possible illegal practices, unreasonable restraints designed to (a) prevent the use of cheaper material, improved equipment, or more efficient methods, (b) compel the hiring of useless and unnecessary labor, (c) enforce systems of graft and extortion, (d) enforce illegally fixed prices, and (e) destroy an established and legitimate system of collective bargaining.

So defined, the application of the anti-trust law to unions is bound to have far reaching consequences. For most unions engage in one or more of these practices. If, therefore, this position of the Department of Justice is sustained by the courts, the effect on the legal status of organized labor will be more drastic than that resulting from most proposed amendments to the Wagner Act. See also AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR; CONGRESS OF INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATIONS; WAGES, HOURS, AND WORKING CONDITIONS.