Since it serves in many cases to protect illegal contracts, the amendment also protects unlawful conduct which stems from such contracts. Thus it may operate to sanction the discharge of an employee pursuant to a closed-shop contract, despite the fact that such contract is plainly illegal under the terms of the proviso to Section 8 (3) of the Act. And in this regard, it is immaterial whether the illegality of the contract is due to the fact that it is made with a minority union or to the fact that it is made with a union which has been maintained or assisted by unfair labor practices on the part of the employer. By virtue of the amendment, the discharge is privileged in either case unless a charge is filed within 3 months after the execution of the contract. Likewise, the amendment has the effect in some cases of nullifying the right granted a majority representative under Section 8 (5) of the Act to bargain collectively for all the employees in an appropriate unit. This occurs in situations where there exists a contract between the employer and a labor organization which is either representative of a minority group or is company assisted or dominated. Despite the fact that the contract in either instance is patently illegal under the Act, the amendment prevents the Board from proceeding on an 8 (5) charge in this situation unless the time limitation upon filing a charge is complied with, for the reason that the normal 8 (5) order would result in abrogation of the contract.

Since the amendment expressly applies to "complaint cases" only, it does not directly affect representation cases. Consequently, the Board may proceed in such cases in all respects as before the passage of the amendment. This, however, may lead to incongruous results for the reason that the certification of a bargaining agent made by the Board in a representation case is frequently used to prove the majority status of the certified union in a subsequent complaint case involving a refusal to bargain. Whenever a refusal to bargain follows a certification, the proceeding then becomes a "complaint case," and, as such, is made subject to the disability imposed by the amendment in the event that the employer is under contract with a labor organization other than the certified representative. In this situation, therefore, the amendment may in fact so operate as to give the employer the option of dealing with either the certified majority union or the minority union which holds the contract. And in any case in which the employer chooses to deal with the minority group, the amendment may have the effect of nullifying the Board's certification and depriving the majority representative of its rights under the Act.

A troublesome question raised by the amendment relates to the running of the 3 months' time limitation placed upon the filing of charges. This problem becomes particularly acute in situations where there has been a continuous contractual relationship for a long period of time. In such a case the problem is to determine which of a series of contracts is the critical one which starts the operation of the time limitation. In cases involving newly negotiated contracts, it is clear that the date of the execution of the latest contract will govern. Cases

involving automatic renewal contracts, however, raise more difficult questions, the answers to which have not yet been fully determined. As appears from the foregoing, the amendment strikes at the heart of some of the basic principles of the National Labor Relations Act. Under its protection an employer and a minority union may by collusive action override the democratic principle of majority rule and destroy the freedom of choice guaranteed employees under the Act. Subject only to the risk that a charge may be filed within 3 months, this result may be accomplished by the simple device of executing a closed-shop contract with a minority group and thereby requiring all employees to become members of that organization upon penalty of discharge. Likewise, the employer may achieve the same end by establishing an organization of his own creation and cloaking it with an illegal contract. Due to the operation of the amendment, these illegal contracts may serve not only to protect the status of the organizations which hold them in violation of the Act, but also to deprive employees subject to their illegal restraints of the rights guaranteed them by the National Labor Relations Act.

These pervasive effects which flow from the amendment can be avoided only by the filing of a charge within 3 months after the illegal contract is executed. This single safeguard, however, has proved to be inadequate. This is chiefly because the illegal contractual relationship may have existed for a much longer period without occasion ever having arisen for attacking it, because the particularly discriminatory or coercive act giving rise to a charge occurred long after the 3 months' period had expired.

In accordance with the mandate of the amendment, the Board has taken steps to quickly terminate all cases covered by it. Doubtful questions with respect to the coverage of the amendment have been submitted by the Board to the Comptroller General for decision. While awaiting the decision in such instances, the Board, in order to avoid taking any action contrary to the intent of Congress as expressed in the amendment, has withheld formal action in cases which might be affected by the decision. And once it has been determined by the Comptroller that further action in a particular kind of case is barred by the amendment, the Board has taken immediate action to terminate all such cases. If the amendment covers only a portion of the case and there are remaining unfair labor practices which are clearly severable, that portion of the case covered has been terminated.

Pursuant to the amendment, the Board has taken steps to terminate,"1 in whole or in part, 11 cases in which formal hearings had been held. In 6 of these cases, the Trial Examiner had issued his Intermediate Report finding violations of the Act. Included in the 11 cases in which formal proceedings had been started were some of the most important cases on the Board's docket. Of the 11 cases, 6 concerned allegedly company-dominated unions, 5 concerned affiliated organizations which were charged with having been the beneficiaries of illegal assist

"The statistics relating to cases disposed of under the Amendment set forth in this and the succeeding paragraph cover a period from the passage of the Amendment to November 8, 1943.

ance on the part of the employers, and one concerned an allegedly discriminatory discharge pursuant to an agreement with a defunct organization. In 10 of these cases the charges were filed by unions affiliated with the major labor federations, the Congress of Industrial Organizations and the American Federation of Labor. In the remaining 1 the charge was filed by a large independent organization. In addition to the above, the Board because of the amendment has disposed of 45 12 cases, in whole or in part, in the informal stage prior to issuance of a complaint. Thirty-two of these cases involved labor organizations which are charged with being company dominated or company assisted in violation of the Act. Thirteen, including some in which allegedly company-dominated or assisted unions were also involved, concerned discharges which were claimed to be discriminatory under Section 8 (3) of the Act. And in 4 cases it was charged that the employer had unlawfully refused to bargain collectively in violation of Section 8 (5) of the Act. The charges in 39 of these cases were filed by unions affiliated with one or the other of the major labor federations, the remaining 6 being filed by unaffiliated unions or individuals.

Constituting as it does a restriction on the use of funds for the fiscal year 1944, the amendment will remain in effect until June 30, 1944, unless it is sooner repealed. The Board has endeavored and will continue to endeavor to interpret and apply the amendment strictly in accord with the intent of Congress and the interpretative decisions of the Comptroller General. In view of the destructive impact of the amendment upon the basic principles of the Act, however, the Board earnestly hopes that Congress will not find it necessary to continue the prohibition thus imposed upon it.

THE WAR LABOR DISPUTES ACT

The procedures used by the Board in its administration of Section 8 of the War Labor Disputes Act, 13 providing for the taking of strike votes, are described in Chapter IX. The activities of the three governmental agencies concerned-the Board, the Department of Labor, and the National War Labor Board, are coordinated through an interdepartmental committee. This committee affords an effective medium for the interchange of information and for the discussion of policy questions and other problems relating to the administration of this Act.

From the date of the passage of the Act to October 15, 1943, a total of 367 dispute notices had been filed. As of this date, 236 of the notices or 64.3 percent had been withdrawn in various stages of procedure before the end of the 30-day waiting period. In 63 cases

12 This number includes as 1 case 13 individual discharge cases involving the same employer.

13 57 Stat. 163 (1943).

secret ballots had been conducted, some of them involving a number of separate plants or operations. In 58 cases the majority of the employees voted in favor of an interruption of production. In 6, the majority of the employees, or the majority in 1 of 2 groups involved, voted against a strike. In only 19 cases, however, according to available information, had a strike followed an affirmative vote. In 5 cases strikes occurred either before or after a strike notice was withdrawn. Sixty-seven notices were still pending.

558154-44-2

ORGANIZATIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE DEVELOPMENTS

ORGANIZATION

Throughout the fiscal year just closed, as in former years, the Board has endeavored to improve its organization and procedures, and to adjust them to changing conditions while preserving the basic structure and practices which have been tested by experience and approved by the courts.

Thus, as in the past, the operating functions of the Washington staff are divided among the Legal Division, charged with the review and analysis of records in Board cases, and the preparation of decisions at Board direction, the conduct of litigation, and the general direction of the field attorney staff; the Trial Examining Division, whose staff members sit as Trial Examiners in Board cases and prepare Intermediate Reports; the Field Division, which directs the activities of the Regional Offices, reviews and analyzes cases on appeal and other cases handled administratively, and carries on liaison activities with other governmental agencies; and the Information Division, which makes available to the public necessary data concerning the Board's activities. The business management functions of the Board, formerly vested in the Administrative and Personnel Divisions, have been consolidated, to facilitate centralized control, in the Administrative Division.

Because of its decreased staff, the Board has abolished its Regional Offices at Denver, Milwaukee, and Indianapolis, and has divided the areas formerly served by these offices among the adjoining Regions. The Board, accordingly, now maintains 19 Regional Offices, and 2 Territorial Offices at San Juan, P. R., and Honolulu, T. H.

The staffs of the Regional Offices include, in addition to Regional Directors and Regional Attorneys, the Field Examiners who make the investigations of cases and conduct elections, and the Field Attorneys who act as counsel generally and try cases which go to hearing.

CHANGES IN INTERNAL OPERATIONS

The past fiscal year has been marked by substantial administrative improvements, with particular emphasis on expediting all phases of the decision-making process in view of the urgency of the Board's