8. Would disregard in important respects the unanimous convictions of employer and labor representatives at the National Labor-Management Conference in November, 1945. 9. Raises serious issues of public policy which transcend labor-management difficulties. The bill was enacted over the President's veto, and most of its provisions became law on June 23, 1947; the remainder took effect sixty days later. Appraisal of the Taft-Hartley Act. The Taft-Hartley Act contains many provisions which are compromises. It contains many flaws and defects, as Senators Taylor, Pepper, and Morse so ably pointed out when the bill was being reconsidered after the veto. Even Representative Hartley admitted that “the Taft-Hartley Act is not the final word in constructive labor legislation. Immediate amendments are badly needed." 55 The following amendments are proposed by Representative Hartley: 1. The immunity of unions from prosecution under the antitrust laws should be removed. 2. The proper role of picketing should be defined, and the right of nonstrikers to work should be preserved. 3. The anticommunist provisions of the Act should be clarified, and stronger penalties should be incorporated. 4. Internal union procedures should be regulated in order to make unions more democratic. 5. The ban against political expenditures by unions should be clarified. 6. Proper areas for collective bargaining should be defined by Con gress. 7. More effective "featherbedding" provisions are needed. 8. Possibly the union-shop election requirements now in the Act should be eliminated. Some form of union-security provision is needed which at the same time protects the right of individuals to work.56 Senator Robert A. Taft has pointed out that there were literally hundreds of proposals for amending the Wagner Act and that the TaftHartley Act attempted to deal with only the most serious abuses and tried to restore some of the balance of power without giving the employer too much. He felt that if bargaining power could be equalized, many of the industrial-relations problems besetting the country would tend to disappear through the action of collective bargaining. It was his opinion that the Act had been reasonably successful in restoring this balance of equality between union and employer. Criticism of the Taft-Hartley Act has been widespread and bitter. Those with predominant labor sympathies have used the term "slave 55 Ibid., 56 Ibid., pp. 173-174. 57 Ibid., pp. xii-xiii. labor" in connection with the law. In his Labor Day message to the CIO, Philip Murray called on all American workers to rally behind those who were dedicated to repealing the Taft-Hartley Act and thus prevent the clock from being turned back on management-labor relations. In other statements Murray castigated the "Taft-Hartley Slave Act" as threatening the very existence of organized labor, characterized those who voted for the Act as being unfit and misled, referred to it as vicious and evil legislation, and stated that the law sought to condemn workers to depression living standards and to prevent escape from business cycles.58 On the other hand, those who are antilabor in their sympathies tend to hail the new law as a long overdue relief from governmental aid to unionism. Actually, of course, when a pendulum swings back it does not stop midway, but goes almost as far one way as it previously went the other. Those who believe that our country became great as a result of competition and of a minimum of government interference in private business affairs have a strong feeling that the Taft-Hartley Act goes too far in regulating both employers and employees. Many of the supporters of the Taft-Hartley Act hold such an opinion. They consider this Act to be interim legislation ushering in a period of gradual relinquishment of Federal control over industrial relations.59 As employers and unions gain maturity, the importance of the regulatory and enforcement functions of the government will diminish, while the importance of the service functions of mediation, conciliation, and arbitration will grow. 58 The C.I.O. News, Vol. 10, No. 35, Sept. 1, 1947, p. 2; Vol. 10, No. 38, Sept. 22, 1947, p. 5; Vol. 10, No. 41, Oct. 13, 1947, p. 3; and Vol. 10, No. 42, Oct. 20, 1947, p. 4. 59 Hartley, op. cit., pp. 190, 193. CHAPTER 9 Provisions of the Labor Management Relations Act The Labor Management Relatons Act of 1947 has five titles or parts. Title I is an amendment of the Wagner Act; Title II deals with the subject of conciliation of labor disputes in industries affecting commerce and with national emergencies; Title III deals with (1) suits by and against labor organizations, (2) restrictions on payments to employee representatives, (3) boycotts and other unlawful combinations, (4) restrictions on political contributions and expenditures, and (5) strikes by government employees; Title IV deals with the creation of a joint congressional committee to study and report on basic labor problems affecting labor relations and productivity; and Title V is concerned with defining certain additional terms used in the Act. Most of the original definitions in the Wagner Act are retained in Title I, Section 2. Declaration of Policy. The declaration of policy of the Act states that industrial strife interferes with the normal flow of commerce and with the full production of articles and commodities for commerce and that it "can be avoided or substantially minimized if employers, employees, and labor organizations each recognize under law one another's legitimate rights in their relations with each other, and, above all, recognize under law that neither party has any right in its relations with any other to engage in acts which jeopardize the public health, safety, or interest." It is declared to be the purpose and policy of the Act, in order to promote the full flow of commerce, to prescribe the legitimate rights of both employees and employers in their relations affecting commerce, to provide orderly and peaceful procedures for preventing the interference by either with the legitimate rights of the other, to protect the rights of individual employees in their relations with labor organizations whose activities affect commerce, to define and proscribe practices on the part of labor and management which affect commerce and are inimical to the general welfare, and to protect the rights of the public in connection with labor disputes affecting commerce. Title I. Amendment of the National Labor Relations Act. In Section 1 the only substantial change is the addition of a new paragraph which states that "certain practices by some labor organizations" burden or obstruct commerce and that "the elimination of such practices is a necessary condition to the assurance of the rights" guaranteed by the Act. Significantly, the Taft-Hartley Act continues the policy of the Wagner Act to promote industrial peace "by encouraging the practice and procedure of collective bargaining and by protecting the exercise by workers of full freedom of association, self-organization, and designation of representatives of their own choosing, for the purpose of negotiating the terms and conditions of their employment or other mutual aid or protection." The Taft-Hartley Act continues to encourage the organization of employees by retaining the statement: The inequality of bargaining power between employees who do not possess full freedom of association or actual liberty of contract, and employers who are organized in the corporate or other forms of ownership association substantially burdens and affects the flow of commerce, and tends to aggravate recurrent business depressions, by depressing wage rates and the purchasing power of wage earners in industry and by preventing the stabilization of competitive wage rates and working conditions within and between industries. The amended Act retains the statement: Experience has proved that protection by law of the right of employees to organize and bargain collectively safeguards commerce from injury, impairment, or interruption, and promotes the flow of commerce by removing certain recognized sources of industrial strife and unrest, by encouraging practices fundamental to the friendly adjustment of industrial disputes arising out of differences as to wages, hours, or other working conditions, and by restoring equality of bargaining power between employers and employees. The original Wagner Act was aimed at "employers" who deny "the right of employees to organize" and who refuse "to accept the procedure of collective bargaining." The implication was that all employers were to be blamed for causing strikes and other forms of industrial strife or unrest, which have the intent or the necessary effect of burdening or obstructing commerce by (a) impairing the efficiency, safety, or operation of the instrumentalities of commerce; (b) occurring in the current of commerce; (c) materially affecting, restraining, or controlling the flow of raw materials or manufactured or processed goods from or into the channels of commerce, or the prices of such materials or goods in commerce; or (d) causing diminution of employment and wages in such volume as substantially to impair or disrupt the market for goods flowing from or into the channels of commerce. The new law retained this statement (Title I, Section 1) except that "some" was placed before "employers." The indictment of all employers was thus changed to an indictment of some employers in the words: "The denial by some employers of the right of employees to organize and the refusal by some employers to accept the procedure of collective bargaining lead to strikes and other forms of industrial strife or unrest," and so on. Coverage of the Act: Supervisors. Section 2 limits the definition of "employees" so that it does not embrace foremen or other supervisors. Under the Wagner Act, the National Labor Relations Board had held that foremen were guaranteed the right to organize and bargain collectively and that they were authorized, if they desired, to bargain through the same union representing their subordinates. The Taft-Hartley amendment, on the other hand, does not prohibit the organization of a union of foremen or prohibit any employer from recognizing and dealing with a union of foremen. Foremen's unions may use strikes and picketing to enforce recognition, and employers may use discriminatory discharges, espionage, and black lists to fight such organizations. The authors of the Act considered a proposal which would protect foremen in organizing unions whose membership was confined to supervisory personnel and not affiliated with either of the major labor federations, but turned the idea down with the expression, "there is nothing in the record developed before this committee to justify the conclusion that there is such a thing as a really independent foremen's organization." 1 The Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare on this point referred to "evidence showing collaboration both in the organizing stage and in concerted activity between the Foremen's Association and affiliated unions" representing the rank and file of employees. In drawing the amendment, however, care was taken to distinguish between, on the one hand, “straw bosses, leadmen, set-up men, and other minor supervisory employees," and on the other hand, "the supervisor vested with such genuine management prerogatives as the right to hire or fire, discipline, or make effective recommendations with respect to such action." Only genuine supervisors were removed from the protection of the Act on the theory "that unless this Congress takes action, management will be deprived of the undivided loyalty of its foremen" as "there is an inherent tendency to subordinate their interests wherever they conflict with those of the rank and file.” It would seem, however, that if the employer were genuinely desirous of the confidence 3 1 S. Rept. 105 on S. 1126, 80th Cong., 1st Sess., Apr. 17, 1947, p. 5. Congressional committee reports are collected in Legislative History of the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947, National Labor Relations Board, 1948. 2 Ibid., p. 4. 3 Ibid., p. 5. |