1942: American Federation Of Labor

The basic policies of the A.F. of L. remained unchanged during the first year of the war. In all of its official pronouncements the Federation urged the continued practice of free collective bargaining and deplored suggestions that working conditions be regulated or that unions be subjected to control. The problems of war man-power requirements, the Federation insisted, should be handled by voluntary, and not compulsory, measures. It successfully opposed proposals to freeze labor on the job or to punish absenteeism except where such arrangements were voluntarily entered into through agreements between labor and employers. The 40-hour week, which together with the additional hours worked in the form of overtime left the total hours per week substantially lower in the United States than in England or other warring countries, was retained on the grounds that organized labor should not be required to surrender any of its peace-time gains. Organizing activities, which doubtless had some effect on war production, were continued on a grander scale than ever, as the figures of growth in membership show.

By agreeing to suspend the right to strike for the duration of the war, the A.F. of L., in common with the C.I.O., looked to the Government for those concessions which it was now unable to win by collective bargaining or striking. In spite of the efforts of the Government to stabilize the cost of living, a goal which if achieved would be of profound benefit to labor, the program of wage control devised by the War Labor Board and aimed to keep wages from rising more than 15 per cent above their level of January 1941, permitted wages to increase, though perhaps not as fast as they would have moved in the absence of control. For the year as a whole factory wages advanced more than 10 per cent, not much less than in the year before.

Similarly the solution of the closed-shop issue, adopted by the War Labor Board, involved no great loss to the A.F. of L. Many of the affiliates of this organization, being old and firmly established, had in the past won closed-shop contracts in various industries. As war orders raised employment in these industries, the A.F. of L. unions were able to extend the closed-shop provisions to new plants and new employees. Where they were not so established, the maintenance of membership formula of the War Labor Board enabled them to keep in the union such members as they had and to require them to assume their union obligations.

Within its own ranks the Federation faced several disturbing jurisdiction disputes and the perennial problem of what to do about the mismanagement of constituent unions. Of the jurisdiction quarrels the most serious was the revolt of the welders against the machinists and other A.F. of L. unions. Working in a craft which had rapidly expanded during the war, the welders rebelled against joining and paying dues in more than one A.F. of L. union and against the management of their affairs by the parent organization. The result was a series of strikes in war plants and the formation of an independent welders' union. Issues concerning the conduct of affiliated unions were raised by charges and evidence of graft, racketeering and the like in the hod carriers' union. But in this case, as with the theatrical stage employees the year before, the Federation showed itself unable to reform the conduct of its national affiliates.

On several occasions unions of the Federation and the Federation itself came into conflict with the antitrust division of the Department of Justice. Mr. Thurman Arnold, director of that division, moved against Petrillo and the musicians' union for placing embargoes on certain types of broadcasts. In these proceedings, Arnold pursued the policy of holding unions responsible under the nation's anti-trust laws in respect of restrictive, anti-social, and monopolistic practices. The A.F. of L. adhered to its traditional position that unions were not intended to be subject to anti-trust legislation. In this position the A.F. of L. was supported by the Supreme Court which, in a decision issued March 2, held that the teamsters' union had not violated the federal anti-racketeering law when by threats and violence it forced truck owners to employ extra and useless help on their trucks.

Outwardly relations between the A.F. of L. and the C.I.O. seemed more friendly than ever before. They joined in supporting many measures of national labor policy. Representatives of both organizations met amicably on the joint labor committee, created by the President for consultation with him. On Dec. 2, the peace committee of the C.I.O. and the A.F. of L. decided that inter-union disputes be settled by a mutually-agreed upon arbitration machinery. But the principles which would be needed to guide such an arbitration board were not settled and existing jurisdictional quarrels threatened to leave peace negotiations as difficult as they had been since 1937, when the C.I.O. started on its career as a full-fledged federation of labor.

1941: American Federation Of Labor

Relations with C. I. O.

During much of 1941 the A. F. of L. and many of its constituent unions were deeply involved in disputes with the C. I. O. and its affiliates. These disputes were the culmination of several years of rivalry and were brought to a head by the opportunities for organization which the defense program afforded. The Federation, because of the great growth in employment and evidences of the disfavor in which the C. I. O. was held by employers, was moved to hope that it could win a foothold in the large mass-production industries of steel and automobiles, mining and textiles, from which it had been all but eliminated by the C. I. O. The C. I. O. on its part having given up hope for any peace with the Federation was determined to carry on guerrilla warfare and extend the area of its jurisdiction at the expense of the A. F. of L. The tactics dictated by these views often resulted in head-on collisions and strikes or threats of strikes in defense, as well as in ordinary, industry. One of the most bitter fights between the two organizations was over their attempts to unionize the International Harvester Company. When the C. I. O. called a strike in the Chicago plant of this company, the Federation, under police protection, marched its members into the factories.

The most serious jurisdictional conflict between the C. I. O. and the A. F. of L. originated in the activities of the C. I. O. construction workers' union, an organization headed by the brother of John L. Lewis and aiming to weaken the building unions of the A. F. of L., against which Lewis harbored a particular grudge. The C. I. O. building union had made some progress against the established A. F. of L. unions in this industry by offering substantial concessions in wages and working conditions, particularly in agreeing to permit building contractors to use pre-fabricated materials. Some time in the second half of 1941, the C. I. O. union made a labor agreement with one Currier, head of a prominent Detroit firm handling building materials and engaged in construction. This firm, it appeared, was the low bidder on a government housing project in the Detroit area, but was denied the contract through the intervention of the labor division of the OPM. Currier, supported by the C. I. O., strongly protested this decision and the case became a cause célèbre of the defense administration. It was taken up by the newspapers, investigated by a Congressional Committee, and was under examination by the Department of Justice. Inquiry disclosed that the Government through Mr. Hillman, labor director of the OPM, had given the A. F. of L. unions a virtual monopoly over building labor in return for their undertaking to prevent strikes and stabilize wages. This revelation of the part played by Government in creating a labor monopoly and raising the costs of public construction aroused a storm of protest. But nothing happened; Currier lost his contract, and the Federation building unions retained their monopoly.

An equally important dispute grew out of the efforts of the same C. I. O. union to invade the territory of the A. F. of L. teamsters' union. The overt act which precipitated this struggle for supremacy was the granting of a charter by the C. I. O. construction union to a local of the A. F. of L. teamsters' union in Minneapolis. This organization was led by the famous Dunn brothers, who among other things were noted for their prominence in a communist labor political organization, which followed the Trotzky line. Since Daniel Tobin, one of the labor leaders who strongly supported Mr. Roosevelt in his three presidential campaigns, was president of the teamsters' union, this act of aggression by the C. I. O. particularly annoyed the Administration. The President issued a sharp letter condemning inter-union raids. The Department of Justice began proceedings against the Dunns and several of their associates for their leadership in a subversive political organization, which sought to overthrow the American Government.

Internal Dissensions.

In the relations among its constituent organizations, the A. F. of L. also faced considerable trouble. Again, as in the preceding year, the members of the typographical union voted to stay out of the Federation in the face of an agreement which had been negotiated by the officers of the A. F. of L. and the officers of the printers' union. On the Pacific coast, locals of the machinists' union called a strike in the shipyards employed on vital Government contracts, in violation of an agreement not to strike made between the Government and the metal trades unions of the Federation. In the same area the welders crippled ship production on several occasions by strikes called in protest against their parent organizations and in furtherance of the demand that they be allowed to form a separate and independent union of their own. The Brotherhood of Electrical Workers ordered a general strike against the Consolidated Edison Company in an attempt to obtain jurisdiction over electrical work done under the jurisdiction of an independent union of that company's employees. After a brief stoppage the Electrical Workers' union was prevailed upon to call off the strike and submit the issue to a special investigating commission appointed by the Defense Mediation Board. The report of this commission failed to sustain the position of the Brotherhood.

Charges of graft against the president of one of the Federation's constituent unions (the union of theatrical stage employees) and his personal representative in Hollywood proved to be one of the most embarrassing episodes in the history of the A. F. of L. Due largely to the efforts of a newspaper columnist. Westbrook Pegler, who for several years had been devoting his column to presenting malpractices in the administration of A. F. of L. unions, George Browne, president of the theatrical stage employees' union and William Bioff, his Hollywood agent, were brought to trial and convicted for demanding and taking bribes from officers of moving picture companies. The case reached its climax during the annual convention of the Federation. On its specific issues the A. F. of L. took no public position. But, since Browne was one of the vice-presidents of the Federation and, as such, a member of the Executive Council, the A. F. of L. was forced to assume some public attitude in the matter. This it did by an indirection. The convention voted to reduce the number of vice-presidents from 15 to 13, thus allowing Browne's membership in the Council to lapse.

As in the year before, the dispute between the Federation and Thurman Arnold, assistant Attorney-General in charge of the Department of Justice's antitrust division, over the application of the antitrust law to union activities continued. A decision of the United States Supreme Court, Feb. 3, 1941, in the famous case of United States v. Hutcheson was a victory for the Federation since the Court held that the use by a union of a strike, peaceful picketing, and boycott of an employer, arising out of a controversy over jobs between rival unions affiliated with the same parent body, was not a violation of the Sherman Antitrust Law.

In its campaign against the administration and policies of the National Labor Relations Board, the A. F. of L. won another victory. It successfully blocked the reappointment of Edwin S. Smith as a member of that Board. As a result of its opposition, the Federation had forced the retirement of the three original members of the Board — Warren Madden, the first chairman, Donald Wakefield Smith, and in 1941 Edwin S. Smith. The Federation had been successful also in effecting important changes in the Board's procedures and policies. Its agitation apparently persuaded the new members of the Board to deal more gently with the demands of the A. F. of L. craft unions. In many of its decisions, the Board rejected earlier policies and sanctioned bargaining units on craft lines. In one of its most important findings, the members of the Board set aside an earlier decision made by their predecessors establishing the ports of the Pacific coast as a single bargaining unit. The effect of this, of course, was to revive the A. F. of L. longshoremen's union in those ports in which its members were in the majority.

On the National Defense Mediation Board, created early in 1941, the A. F. of L. shared labor representation with the C. I. O. The Federation's activities on this Board were uneventful until late in the year when the issue of the closed shop in the captive coal mines was submitted to the Board for adjudication. Since this was a complex political issue, involving the position and prestige of John L. Lewis in the labor movement, the A. F. of L. representatives voted with the employers and the public members of the Board to deny the United Mine Workers the closed shop in these mining properties of the steel companies. This decision disrupted the Board. The C. I. O. members resigned and C. I. O. unions refused to submit disputes to the Board, which was, therefore, virtually forced to discontinue its operations.

Truce with C. I. O.

Apparently this series of events widened the rift between the C. I. O. and the A. F. of L. But American entry into the war in December caused these rival federations to patch up some of their differences and to adopt at least a temporary truce. During the joint conference of employers and unions, convened by the President in Washington in mid-December, representatives of the two organizations presented a united front. They agreed to urge their affiliated unions to avoid strikes; to recommend the creation of a war labor board to replace the Defense Mediation Board; and, more important, to oppose the recommendation of the employers that the status of the closed and open shop be frozen for the duration of the war. This reversal of position by the A. F. of L. clearly paved the way for friendlier relations with the C. I. O.

Membership.

In spite of internal dissension and the rivalry of the C. I. O., the year was a prosperous one for the Federation. It reported an increase of more than 500,000 members, with an aggregate membership on Dec. 31 of 4,827,724. But 180,000 of these were members of the Ladies Garment Workers union which had returned to the Federation in the fall of 1940 after an interim period as an affiliate of the C. I. O. The gains the Federation made were dispersed over a large number of unions. It made, however, signal progress in unionizing the Western Union Telegraph Company, a business whose employees had for more than 20 years been members of a company union. The disestablishment of this organization by the Labor Relations Board opened the doors for the unionizing campaign by the A. F. of L. Successful as the Federation's organizing efforts were they failed to dislodge C. I. O. unions in the steel, automobile and related industries. See also CONGRESS OF INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATION; LABOR ARBITRATION; LABOR LEGISLATION.

1940: American Federation Of Labor

Gain in Membership.

The American Federation of Labor gained nearly 250,000 members in 1940 and reported for August 1940 a membership of 4,247,443, the highest figure in its history. The increase was widely distributed among the constituent unions of the Federation and reflected the gradual improvement of business during the year, as well as the expansion of industry associated with the beginnings of the country's defense program. The reaffiliation of the International Ladies Garment Workers with the A. F. of L. brought 250,000 new members, although only a fraction of these were recorded in the August figures. But this gain was partially offset by the loss of 79,000 members of the International Typographical Union, which was suspended by the Federation for failure to pay a special per capita tax whose proceeds were to be used to finance organizing campaigns and to fight the C.I.O.

Relations with NLRB.

Changes in the policy of the National Labor Relations Board were an important factor contributing to the growth of the Federation. With the appointment of W. M. Leiserson to membership on the Board, that agency adopted a much more liberal policy toward craft unions. Since practically all of the unions affiliated with the A. F. of L. are organizations of this type, the tendency of the Board to permit groups of skilled labor to choose craft unions as their bargaining units, even in plants already under the jurisdiction of industrial or vertical unions, became a source of immediate benefit to the Federation and of great potential gains in the next years. There were signs, also, that the Board might reconsider an earlier decision in the case of the longshoremen of the west coast where, by establishing a regional bargaining unit, it had virtually destroyed A. F. of L. unions in several of the Pacific ports.

These revisions in the Board's policy were no doubt the result of the vigorous campaign which the A. F. of L. has been waging against the Board and its staff. In 1939 the Federation had prevented the confirmation of Donald Wakefield Smith as a member of the Board. In 1940 it blocked the reappointment of J. Warren Madden as chairman of the Board. By the end of the year the Board had been reorganized and the majority members — H. A. Millis, the new chairman, and W. M. Leiserson — were expected to deal more patiently and sympathetically with the claims of the A. F. of L. than did their predecessors. At the same time the resignation of important members of the Board's staff, which followed Mr. Madden's retirement, has had the effect of mollifying the Federation.

In its efforts to amend the National Labor Relations Act, the Federation was unsuccessful. Although both houses of Congress were apparently ready to amend this law, action was prevented by the Administration. The Federation, meanwhile, though pleased with the changes in the Board's personnel and policies, remained apparently unwilling to depend alone on new interpretations of the law and continued to press for organic revisions in the terms of the Act. In its report to the 1940 convention, the Executive Council of the A. F. of L. proposed the following amendments:

(1) The creation of a new five-man Board.

(2) A change in the unit rule to permit skilled employees and recognized classifications of workers to retain their separate unity, if they so desire, similar to the Railway Labor Act.

(3) A direct court appeal by labor organizations in representation cases, so as to preclude a recurrence of the longshoremen's decision, which wiped out all American Federation of Labor longshoremen's bargaining units on the West Coast.

(4) Amendments preserving the integrity of collective bargaining agreements entered into by bona fide labor organizations.

(5) Procedural amendments to eliminate the outrageous delays that jeopardize the organizational gains made by many labor unions.

Relations with C.I.O.

Relations between the A. F. of L. and the C.I.O. remained unchanged during the year. Early in 1940 John L. Lewis reiterated his proposal of the year before that the C.I.O. unions enter the A. F. of L. in a body and then adjust their particular differences. This was again rejected and during the remainder of the year no serious attempts to effect peace in the labor movement were made. Rightly or wrongly responsibility for this impasse was generally put on John L. Lewis. During the presidential campaign Mr. Lewis early stated his opposition to Mr. Roosevelt and eventually announced his support of Mr. Willkie, the Republican candidate. In his appeal for labor support for his candidate, Mr. Lewis promised that, if Mr. Willkie was defeated, he would resign as president of the C.I.O. After the election, accordingly, Mr. Lewis refused to stand for re-election and Philip Murray was chosen in his place. This shift in the highest office of the C.I.O. aroused hopes that peace negotiations between the rival organizations could be resumed with better chances of success. But, whether because the influence of Mr. Lewis in the C.I.O. remained dominant even after his retirement or because the issues that divided the two organizations had with the passage of time become more difficult to reconcile, the year ended with no further peace moves and with little indication that reconciliation was practicable.

Meanwhile the A. F. of L. benefited from internal strains within the C.I.O. The position Mr. Lewis took in the presidential election divided the C.I.O. and strengthened the A. F. of L. with the public and an increasing proportion of the rank and file of union members. Evidence of the existence of strong communist influences in the C.I.O., likewise, enhanced the prestige of the Federation. Finally differences in policy between Mr. Sidney Hillman, one of the founders of the C.I.O. and until the last convention a vice-president of that organization, and Mr. Lewis, which almost reached an open break and made Mr. Hillman the leader of the peace party in the C.I.O., produced more friendly relations between the A. F. of L. and Mr. Hillman, and, hence, the administration in Washington with whom Mr. Hillman had become quite influential.

In the several industries in which C.I.O. and A. F. of L. jurisdiction overlapped, the A. F. of L. continued to recoup some of the losses it had suffered from the organization of the C.I.O. The Federation's textile union made considerable headway in that industry in the face of strong opposition from the C.I.O. union. A new union of newspaper writers, the Editorial Association, made serious inroads into the C.I.O. Newspaper Guild and won an important contract with the Hearst papers of Chicago. In the automobile and automotive parts industries, A. F. of L. unions gained many members, although the large automobile companies remained almost exclusively under C.I.O. control. Only in the steel industry did the unions of the A. F. of L. find it impossible to make appreciable progress.

Internal Problems.

In spite of its advances, the A. F. of L. faced knotty problems of internal organization and policy. The most baffling of these had to do with charges of racketeering against high officials of several of the Federation's constituent unions and the demand that the Federation discipline such officers and assume responsibility for the conduct of their unions. In fact the International Ladies Garment Workers made it a condition of their reaffiliation with the A. F. of L. that that organization undertake to clean out affiliated unions found to be controlled by racketeers and gangsters. Whatever the opinion of the leaders of the A. F. of L., they soon faced the traditional difficulty of reconciling these practical problems with the principle of union autonomy and they contented themselves with deploring the existence of criminal practices in unions and exhorting the members of the unions in question to put their own houses in order.

Another problem of the Federation was the continuation of antitrust suits initiated by the United States Department of Justice against unions in the building and trucking industries. Since the unions in these industries are old and powerful craft organizations, they had in the course of their history adopted numerous restrictive practices and had often entered in collusive arrangements with employers for fixing prices and restricting production. In his drive against monopoly, Mr. Thurman Arnold, an Assistant Attorney-General, included among the combinations against which he was proceeding these types of labor unions. The A. F. of L. has from the outset vigorously fought any attempt to bring labor organizations under the antitrust laws and has viewed Mr. Arnold's policy with distrust and fear. But the Department of Justice has refused to be diverted and the results of its policy will be determined by forthcoming decisions of the United States Supreme Court in the several labor cases that are now before it.

See also CONGRESS OF INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATIONS; STRIKES; TRADE UNIONS; WAGES, HOURS AND CONDITIONS.

1939: American Federation Of Labor

The membership reported by the American Federation of Labor for 1939 was a fraction above 4,000,000 and close to the all-time peak reached in 1920. In 1939 the Federation gained 400,000 members and by Aug. 1, 1939, had more than made up the losses suffered by it through the expulsion of the unions which organized the C.I.O. in 1935. Among its constituent organizations it had at least six national unions — the Teamsters with 350,000 members, the Carpenters, 300,000, the Electrical Workers, 200,000, the Machinists, 190,000, the Hotel and Restaurant Employees, 185,000, the Hodcarriers and Common Laborers, 155,000 — which were among the largest in the country.

Peace Conferences with C.I.O.

For the A. F. of L. the year 1939 was one of bitter conflict with the C.I.O. The peace conferences held in the spring of 1939 split on the fundamental issue of the method of merging unions with overlapping jurisdiction. At the very first of the conferences, convened at the White House on March 7, 1939, the chances for peace were almost permanently destroyed by a surprise proposal submitted by John L. Lewis, the terms of which were apparently unknown to both the President and the representatives of the A. F. of L. The substance of this proposal was as follows:

'Between April 15 and April 30, 1939, the Congress of Industrial Organizations and the American Federation of Labor shall each hold a special national convention. . . . The purpose of the conventions will be to pass upon and approve the following basic plan of procedure.

'(1) Not later than June 1, 1939, there shall assemble in the city of Washington, D. C. . . . a convention of representatives of cooperation (a) the American Federation of Labor, (b) the Congress of Industrial Organizations and (c) the four brotherhoods in the railroad transportation field, heretofore independent.

'(2) This convention is to organize and dedicate the American Congress of Labor, designed to supersede and embrace the membership of the C.I.O. and A. F. of L. and to include the membership of the before-mentioned railroad organizations. . . .

'(3) John L. Lewis and William Green shall not be eligible to any office in this convention. The A.C.L. will grant Mr. William Green a life tenure of his present salary for service rendered. . . .

'(4) The executive board or governing body of the A.C.L. will be composed equally of representatives of the A. F. of L. and the C.I.O., with proportionate representation of the four railroad brotherhoods. . . .'

This proposition was summarily rejected by the A. F. of L. and the conferences were resumed. While they were later adjourned to enable John L. Lewis to devote himself to the problems raised by the great coal miners' stoppage, the real reason for the adjournment and the failure of the negotiators to reconvene was the difficulty of agreeing upon a formula satisfactory to both parties. The core of this difficulty was the estimated membership of rival unions. This is plainly more than a technical issue since the membership, finally agreed upon, would determine not only the balance of power within the newly merged unions but also the fate of the officers of all of the unions in question, as well as of the C.I.O. and the A. F. of L. To meet this problem, the Executive Council of the C.I.O. proposed that a 'certified public accountant mutually acceptable be jointly employed and authorized to examine and audit the books and financial records of both the American Federation of Labor and the Congress of Industrial Organizations for the purpose of determining and certifying the true and exact paid-up membership of the two organizations covering the six months' period ending Feb. 28, 1939.' This formula proved unacceptable to the C.I.O., which answered with a counter-proposal that the C.I.O. be chartered as a separate and autonomous department of the A. F. of L., not subject to any of the rules, regulations and constitutional provisions of the A. F. of L. and not obligated to pay per-capita taxes. With the rejection of this proposal, the negotiations became deadlocked and it is not surprising, in view of the absence of any common ground for the handling of issues, that they have not been resumed.

Gains during the Year.

In the course of the conflict during the last year, the A. F. of L. probably gained more than it lost. The withdrawal of the International Ladies Garment Workers from the C.I.O. was at least an indirect victory for the A. F. of L., since this powerful and reputable union, one of the largest in the country, is reported to be considering reaffiliation with the A. F. of L. The return to the Federation of the United Textile Workers and the chartering of a union of Automobile Workers gave the A. F. of L. a foothold in the automobile and textile industries which it had hitherto lacked. Another source of added strength was the changing policy of the Labor Relations Board with respect to the craft union. By more liberal decisions in fixing the unit of bargaining, the Board has enabled the craft unions to establish themselves in many of the mass-production plants, hitherto almost wholly under the jurisdiction of the industrial unions. This development accounted in large measure for the very considerable growth, during the last year, of craft unions, like that of the Machinists. In coal-mining the organizing activities of the A. F. of L. Progressive Miners have continued a menace to the position of the United Mine Workers and not even the victory in the strike of last spring has freed that union from the threat of inroads by this Federation organization.

Issues with the NLRB.

Other rulings of the Labor Relations Board, affecting the definition of the bargaining unit, have impaired the position of the A. F. of L. The most important of these was a decision fixing the West Coast docking industry as the bargaining unit for longshoremen. Since the A. F. of L. union of longshoremen was weak in some ports and strong in others, and lacked a majority for the West Coast as a whole, the effect of this decision was to weaken, if not destroy, the A. F. of L. union in those ports in which it was previously established and recognized. Another group of decisions, which found the A. F. of L. unions to have been encouraged and dominated by employers, have particularly aroused the Federation's resentment. This was the issue in the Consolidated-Edison case in which the Board was reversed by the United States Supreme Court. It is again the issue in the case of the Eagle Picher lead mining company where the Board ordered the employer to abrogate a contract with an A. F. of L. union. This case was deemed of such importance that consideration of it occupied a prominent place in the hearings currently being held by the House Committee, which is investigating the National Labor Relations Board.

The belief of the A. F. of L. that the Board has failed to protect its legitimate interests has caused that organization to continue its attacks on the Board, to ask for changes in the Board's membership and subordinate personnel, and to press for such amendments to the Wagner Act as would limit the powers of the present Board or its successor. The opposition of the Federation prevented the confirmation of Donald Wakefield Smith to membership on the Board. And to the campaign which it has consistently waged against both the Board and the Act may well be attributed the decision, by the House of Representatives, to create a special committee to make a thorough investigation of all of the Board's activities.

Relations with the Department of Justice.

Whatever benefits may accrue to the Federation by the reorganization of the Labor Relations Board and amendments to the Wagner Act may well be dissipated by the legal actions taken against unions in 1939 by the United States Department of Justice. Through proceedings initiated by the anti-trust division of this Department, indictments against the officers of unions and the unions themselves charging violation of the anti-trust law were obtained in the building and trucking industries. The charges covered a multitude of acts but were mainly directed against collusive practices in fixing prices, the boycott of materials, and union action taken against employers under agreement with other unions. These proceedings have been received by the A. F. of L. with fear and anger not only because they entail the application of the dread anti-trust legislation to the practices of organized labor, but more particularly because, so far, they involve only unions affiliated with the Federation, and they seek to outlaw many labor union methods which have been common practice for a considerable period of time.

The issues raised by the anti-trust policies of the Department of Justice, as well as the attitude of the present administration toward the Wagner Act, promise to spread the dissension in organized labor from the industrial to the political field. In the local elections of 1938, the Federation uniformly opposed the C.I.O. In the developments of 1939, there were indications that this conflict may play a part in the national political campaign of 1940. See LABOR LEGISLATION.

1938: American Federation Of Labor

Conflict with C.I.O.

The gravest concern of the American Federation of Labor during 1938 was its conflict with the C.I.O. With the breakdown of the peace conference between these two organizations in the last months of 1937, efforts of the Federation were directed toward unifying its own ranks and replacing the membership it had lost to the C.I.O., reviving its waning prestige, and weakening the position of its opponent. Much of the report of the General Executive Board to the annual convention of the A.F. of L., held in Houston, Tex., October 1938, and a large part of the discussion at the convention were devoted to this subject. Although this convention, like the later meeting of the C.I.O. considered the problem of peace and urged the resumption of negotiations, it is clear from the proceedings that few responsible persons in the A.F. of L. looked with hope upon the chances for a settlement.

Structure and Government.

The obstacles in the way of peace were in fact much more formidable than is commonly believed. They exist in the structure and government of the A.F. of L. and in the relationship prevailing between the C.I.O. and its constituent organizations. The A.F. of L. is a loose federation composed primarily of 100 autonomous national unions. These unions receive from the Federation charters defining their jurisdictional rights. In their customary activities as labor organizations, they are free to pursue their activities and policies free from interference and domination by the Federation. Their jurisdiction claims, once defined and recognized by the granting of a charter, are inviolate and can be changed only by negotiation and agreement or by arbitration, voluntarily accepted by the contesting parties. Although the affiliates of the C.I.O. are not yet bound to that organization by such formal and legal ties, even the youngest of them would be most reluctant to surrender any of the members it has succeeded in winning or to narrow the jurisdictional claims it has staked out for itself. Since, therefore, the essence of the dispute is this controversy over jurisdiction, it is extremely doubtful that the issues of a conflict, which has already gone so far as this one, can be quickly composed except by means of unusually prolonged and delicate negotiations.

Aggressive Measures.

Recognizing these practical difficulties, and unwilling and unable to jeopardize the integrity of the unions that had remained loyal, the A.F. of L. proceeded to put itself on a war footing. The first step in carrying out this policy was the expulsion of the leading C.I.O. unions. At its meeting in January and April 1938, the Executive Council of the Federation revoked the charters of nine organizations: the United Mine Workers; the Mine, Mill and Smelter; Flat Glass; Automobile and Rubber Workers; the Iron, Steel and Tin Workers; the Amalgamated Clothing Workers; the United Textile Workers; and the Oil Field, Gas Well and Refinery Workers. Toward the International Ladies Garment Workers, one of the original leaders of the C.I.O. movement, the A.F. of L. was more patient. Because David Dubinsky, the president of that union, had publicly condemned the part played by John L. Lewis in the previous year's peace conference, the Federation continued to court him and his organization and to delay expulsion proceedings. This policy bore at least some fruit, for the Ladies Garment Workers failed to attend the November convention of the C.I.O. and, for the time being, has apparently decided to pursue a course independent of both the C.I.O. and the A.F. of L.

The same aggressive measures were applied by the Federation in its local organizations. City and State Federations of Labor were ordered to expel C.I.O. unions. In some localities where A.F. of L. unions were in the majority and the main body of them remained loyal to the Federation, the purge was accomplished with little difficulty. In others, such as Pennsylvania and West Virginia, where the C.I.O. predominated and the few A.F. of L. unions feared to cut themselves adrift from their fellow unions, the reorganization required drastic action and, occasionally, the organization of new local federations. The fight also spread to Canada. There the A.F. of L. ordered the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada to expel the C.I.O. unions or face the withdrawal of the Federation unions and the organization of a new Canadian congress of labor. In Mexico, whose organized labor movement had maintained friendly relations with the A.F. of L. since the administration of Samuel Gompers, the leftist tendencies in Mexican labor tended to cement their relations with the C.I.O. and to alienate the A.F. of L.

Organizing Campaigns.

In the actual processes of organization, the A.F. of L. carried on the fight by invigorating its own organizing campaigns and by moving into the industries in which the C.I.O. had already set up unions. Accordingly, old and established unions of the A.F. of L., like the Machinists, Electrical Workers and Carpenters, waged a running fight against C.I.O. unions claiming jurisdiction over the same employees and tried, by appealing to the employees or by persuading the employers, to win contracts. In many situations of this kind some A.F. of L. unions abandoned their craft structure and, under the stress of C.I.O. competition, opened their doors to all types of workers. In other cases, such as the various branches of the petroleum industry, groups of A.F. of L. unions would combine into loose federations or councils for the purpose of achieving greater effectiveness in organizing or bringing into membership workers prejudiced against the strictly craft type of union. In still other situations, such as prevailed in the automobile and machinery industries where C.I.O. unions had gathered a considerable membership, craft unions of the A.F. of L. limited their organizing activities to the skilled workmen and sought to persuade them to abandon their membership in the C.I.O. union.

Different tactics proved necessary in industries in which the established union had transferred itself bodily from the A.F. of L. to the C.I.O. This was preeminently the situation in the coal-mining, textile and steel industries where, as a result of the expulsion of the Miners', Textile and Steel Workers' unions, the C.I.O. was left in complete command of the field, and the A.F. of L. with little, if any, representation. In the circumstances, the policy pursued by the A.F. of L. was to organize new unions to compete against the C.I.O. In the textile industry, therefore, it chartered local unions with jurisdiction over all classes of employees, and in this industry a fair number of such unions have successfully competed for members against the Textile Workers' Organizing Committee. Similar unions were organized in the iron and steel and other industries. A more far-reaching step was taken in the coal industry, where the Federation granted a charter and jurisdiction over the industry to the Progressive Miners' Union. This union, which was started as an independent union of coal miners in the Illinois coal fields in 1932, had since its inception been a thorn in the flesh of the United Mine Workers, the union of John L. Lewis. The formal recognition of this organization by the A.F. of L., whatever its practical consequences, was bound to be interpreted as a flat declaration of war.

Issues with NLRB.

It is clear from these developments that the conflict between these two organizations would not be easily localized. It did, indeed, spread rapidly to other fronts. And, among its various consequences, it was the source of the vigorous attacks made by the A.F. of L. on the National Labor Relations Act and the Board which administers it. The attitude of the A.F. of L. toward the Board was the inevitable outcome of the type of questions the Board is called upon to decide. In general, two quite distinct issues involved the Board in the labor quarrel. The first was related to the choice of the unit of representation. Since the A.F. of L. unions were mainly craft in structure, and the C.I.O. unions industrial, most disputes over representation reduced themselves to the question whether the Board would throw the weight of its influence toward the industrial union and act to keep the industrial unit intact, or whether it would recognize the claims of craft unions and permit them to negotiate for their members by means of separate bargaining units. On this question the Board has made conflicting decisions. But whatever its decisions, many unions in the A.F. of L. had become convinced that the Board and its agents were prejudiced against craft unions and were furthering the interests of the industrial union.

The second type of issue was likewise a direct consequence of the existence of labor warfare. In the course of a conflict of this type, it is to be expected that the employer will often favor one of several competing unions and will enter into an agreement with it. In the case of several such agreements between employers and affiliates of the A.F. of L., the C.I.O. unions concerned complained to the Board that the agreements were not bona fide and that the unions making the agreements had not been chosen by the workers as their representatives. In the most celebrated case involving this issue, which concerned the standing of a contract between the Brotherhood of Electrical Workers and the Consolidated Edison Company of New York, the Board ruled against the Federation union. The question was carried to the United States Supreme Court, which, in a decision made in December 1938, reversed the Board and upheld the contract. But in spite of this victory, the Federation has continued its attack on the Board.

This attitude of the A.F. of L. made that organization the spearhead of the movement to amend the Labor Relations Act and to reorganize the personnel of the Board. In its report to the October convention of the Federation, the Executive Council charged the Board and its agents with showing 'gross favoritism' in the handling of cases and 'favoring one form of labor organization,' with setting aside 'legally valid and binding contracts entered into in good faith by bona fide unions and employers,' and with seeking 'to impose upon workers regardless of their wishes the type of organization it favored.' To meet these criticisms the A.F. of L. proposed a series of thoroughgoing amendments to the Act. The most important of them would make it obligatory upon the Board to grant any class or craft of employees the right to select its representatives by majority vote and would curtail the power of the Board to invalidate contracts between an employer and a bona fide labor organization. The remaining amendments, concerned largely with procedural practices, were aimed in the main at speeding up the business of the Board, particularly in ordering and holding elections and in reducing the possibility of bias. While the amendments proposed by the Federation fail to account for some of the complaints made by employers and changes in the Act suggested by various students, the position taken by the A.F. of L. increased the chances of change in both the Act and its administration. Furthermore, the fight begun by the A.F. of L. against the law and the methods of the Board was waged also by that organization against the Board's members. When, therefore, the President reappointed Mr. Donald Wakefield Smith as a member of the Board, the A.F. of L. opposed the appointment and, failing to prevent it, undertook to block its confirmation by the United States Senate.

Political Factors.

In the position it has taken on the Wagner Act and other matters affecting its prestige and influence, the A.F. of L. was powerfully assisted by the results of the elections of last November. In many of these elections, the A.F. of L. mobilized its forces against candidates for both local and national office endorsed by the C.I.O. and considered friendly to that organization. Particularly in Pennsylvania, where Thomas Kennedy, Secretary-Treasurer of the United Mine Workers and high in the councils of the C.I.O., ran for the Democratic nomination for Governor, the A.F. of L. was an important factor in his defeat. In the final elections in this state, the Democratic candidates for important offices, supported by John L. Lewis and the C.I.O., were defeated by the Republicans, endorsed by the A.F. of L. This and similar results in other parts of the country not only added to the prestige of the Federation but, more important perhaps, contributed considerably to its strength through the value of the political patronage which these victories were likely to put at its disposal.

The Year's Increase in Membership.

Altogether, the A.F. of L. ended the year 1938 much stronger than at the beginning. It had proved its capacity to weather the consequences of a strong secession movement from within its ranks and the competition of a powerful competing federation of labor. It claimed for the year ending Aug. 31, 1938, an increase in membership amounting to more than 750,000 members. The largest of its affiliates, such as the Machinists and Teamsters, reported increases of 32,000 and 100,000 members within the last year. The railroad unions affiliated with the A.F. of L. likewise showed considerable growth. At the same time, the unions organized by the A.F. of L. in the industries preempted by the C.I.O. gave evidence of their vitality and their ability in time to affect the balance of union power in those sectors. See also CONGRESS OF INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATIONS.