INFORMATION TO USERS This was produced from a copy of a document sent to us for microfilming. While the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the material submitted. The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand markings or notations which may appear on this reproduction. 1. The sign or “target” for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is “Missing Page(s)”. If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting through an image and duplicating adjacent pages to assure you of complete continuity. 2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a round black mark it is an indication that the film inspector noticed either blurred copy because of movement during exposure, or duplicate copy. Unless we meant to delete copyriglited materials that should not have been filmed, you will find a good image of the page in the adjacent frame. 3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., is part of the material being photo­ graphed the photographer has followed a definite method in “sectioning” the material. It is customary to begin filming at the upper left hand comer of a large sheet and to continue from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. If necessary, sectioning is continued again—beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete. 4. For any illustrations that cannot be reproduced satisfactorily by xerography, photographic prints can be purchased at additional cost and tipped into your xerographic copy. Requests can be made to our Dissertations Customer Services Department. 5. Some pages in any document may have indistinct print. In all cases we have filmed the best available copy. University M icrofilms International 31)0 N ZËEB ROAD. ANN ARBOR. Ml 48106 18 BEDFORD ROW. LONDON WC1 R 4EJ. ENGLAND 8019126 K e s s e l r in g, Ra n d a l l G l e n n A CASE ANALYSIS OF SECTION 8(A) (2) OF THE TAFT-HARTLEY ACT, 1950 to 1974 The University o f Oklahoma Ph.D. 1980 University Microfilms I ntern eti one!300 N. Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, MI 48106 18 Bedford Row, London WCIR 4EJ, England THE UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA GRADUATE COLLEGE A CASE ANALYSIS OF SECTION 8(a)(2) OF THE TAFT-HARTLEY ACT, 1950 to 1974 A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE FACULTY in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY BY RANDALL G. KESSELRING Norman, Oklahoma 1980 A CASE ANALYSIS OF SECTION 8(a)(2) OF THE TAFT-HARTLEY ACT, 1950 to 1974 APPROVED BY fj. J- /} . DISSERTATION COMMITTEE ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The author is deeply indebted to Dr. Paul Drinker for his guidance, encouragement, and endless patience throughout the course of this research. Without his counsel this study would have suffered. Ill TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES ............................................. v Chapter I. INTRODUCTION ....................................... 1 II. HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVES... .......................... 5 III. EMPLOYER DOMINATION................................. 47 IV. DISCRIMINATORY TREATMENT OF EMPLOYEES OR THREATS THEREOF ........................................... 74 V. FINANCIAL AND MATERIAL S U P P O R T ...................... 104 VI. CONTRACT DIFFICULTIES ............................... 130 VII. THE FOUR MAJOR GROUPS OFCASES AND THEIR RESULTING UNION MIXES ......................................... 164 VIII. CONCLUSION.............................................. 179 BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................................ 183 IV LIST OF TABLES TABLE Page 1 Total 8(2) Charges Filed with the National Labor Relations Board Expressed in Absolute Numbers and as a Percentage of Total Unfair Labor Practice Cases, Fiscal Years 1936-1948 ......... 40 2 Total 8(a)(2) Charges Filed with the National Labor Relations Board Expressed in Absolute Numbers and as a Percentage of Total Unfair Labor Practice Cases, Fiscal Years 1948-1977 . 45 3 Total Number of 8(a)(2) Cases Involving Employer Formation or Initiation of a Union Heard Before the National Labor Relations Board, 1950-1974, According to G u i l t ................................. 50 4 Total Number of 8(a)(2) Cases Involving Active Supervisory Participation in Union Affairs Heard Before the National Labor Relations Board, 1950-1974, According to Guilt ............ 54 5 Number of Final Decisions Involving Controversy Over Company Domination Heard Before the National Labor Relations Board, 1950-1974, According to Guilt ................................. 71 6 Total Number of 8(a)(2) Cases Involving Employer Threat of Discharge or Disciplinary Action Heard Before the National Labor Relations Board, 1950-1974, According to Guilt...................... 80 7 Total Number of 8(a)(2) Cases Involving Employer Promise of Concessions Heard Before the National Labor Relations Board, 1950-1974, According to Guilt................................................ 86 8 Total Number of 8(a)(2) Cases Involving Financial Assistance of a Union Heard Before the National Labor Relations Board, 1950-1974, According to G u i l t ............................................. 105 VI 9 Total Number of 8(a)(2) Cases Involving Union Use of an Employer's Premises Heard Before the National Labor Relations Board, 1950-1974, According to G u i l t ................................114 10 Total Number of 8(a)(2) Cases Involving Employer Provision of Services or Materials to a Union Heard Before the National Labor Relations Board, 1950-1974, According to Guilt .......... 119 11 Total Number of 8(a)(2) Cases Involving Contract Difficulties Heard Before the National Labor Relations Board, 1950-1974, According to Guilt............................................... 131 12 Total Number and Percentages of 8(a)(2) Cases Involving Issues Relating to Company Domination of a Union Which Were Heard by the National Labor Relations Board, 19 50-19 74, According to the Mix of Unions Contained in Each Case .... 165 13 Total Number and Percentages of 8(a)(2) Cases Involving Issues Relating to Discriminatory Treatment of Employers Which Were Heard by the National Labor Relations Board, 1950-1974, According to the Mix of Unions Contained in Each Case.......................................... 167 14 Total Number and Percentages of 8(a)(2) Cases Involving Issues Relating to Financial and Material Support of a Union Which Were Heard by the National Labor Relations Board, 1950-197 4, According to the Mix of Unions Contained in Each Case.......................................... 168 15 Total Number and Percentages of 8(a)(2) Cases Involving Issues Relating to Contract Difficul­ ties Which Were Heard Before the National Labor Relations Board, 1950-1974, According to the Mix of Unions Contained in Each C a s e ................... 170 16 Total Number and Percentages of 8(a)(2) Cases Heard by the National Labor Relations Board, 1950-1974, According to the Mix of Unions Involved in Each Case...............................172 A CASE ANALYSIS OF SECTION 8(a)(2) OF THE TAFT-HARTLEY ACT, 1950 to 1974 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Section 8(a)(2) of the Taft-Hartley Act reads: It shall be an unfair labor practice for an employer . to dominate or interfere with the formation or administration of any labor organization or contribute financial or other support to it: Pro­ vided, that subject to rules and regulations made and published by the Board pursuant to section 6, an employer shall not be prohibited from permitting employees to confer with him during working hours without loss of time or pay . .A The purpose of this dissertation is to analyze the effects of this section on the status of labor-management relations in the United States. The time period selected for study was from 1950 to 1974. The year 1950 was selected as the early cutoff date. Prior to that year a large number of studies were dedicated to determining the effects of the Taft-Hartley amendments on the Wagner Act. Since several of these admendments affected ^61 U.S. Stat. 136 (1947) Section 8(a)(2), it was included in most of these studies. However, after 1950 research in this area declined because many felt that the Taft-Hartley amendments had corrected the controversy surrounding Section 8(a)(2). Some authors have even gone as far as stating, "... under the amended NLRA 2 the importance of 8(a)(2) has declined." However, an increas­ ing number of 8(a)(2) cases are being heard by the National Labor Relations Board which makes a study of this Section of some importance. From 1950 to 1974 the National Labor Relations Board heard 832 cases involving 8(a) (2) charges. Over 250 of these cases were appealed to appropriate circuit courts and five were heard by the Supreme Court of the United States. This dissertation will attempt to analyze these cases and their effects on labor relations in this country. Historical perspectives including a brief review of the literature on company unions and Section 8(a)(2) will be presented in Chapter Two. The development of company unions occurred in six distinct periods which are thoroughly discussed in this chapter. First, developments prior to the War Labor Board will be discussed. Then, in order, the following periods will be analyzed: the period during the War Labor Board, the 2 Charles 0. Gregory and Harold A. Katz, Labor and the Law, (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1979), p. 363. period following the War Labor Board but prior to passage of the Wagner Act and including the NIRA, the period prior to passage of the Taft-Hartley Act and including the Wagner Act, and the period following Taft-Hartley. The remaining chapters will discuss issues arising in the period following the Taft- Hartley amendments to the Wagner Act. Chapter Three will be concerned with employer actions which the board has traditionally held indicative of company domination of a union. It will also explore the subtle differ­ ences between a Board finding of domination and one of mere unlawful support.