Northern Virginia Broadcasters, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 7, 1947

75 N.L.R.B. 11 (N.L.R.B. 1947)

In the Matter of NORTHERN VIRGINIA BROADCASTERS , INC., RADIO
STATION WARL, EMPLOYER and LOCAL UNION No. 1215, INTERNA-
TIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS ( AFL), PETITIONER
Case No. 6-R-3049.-Decided October 7, 1947
DECISION ON APPEAL
AND
ORDER
On July 17, 1947, the Petitioner filed a petition with the Regional
Director for the Fifth Region seeking certification as the collective bar-
gaining representative of the employees of the Employer in an alleged
appropriate unit. On July 30, 1947, the Employer and the Petitioner
signed an agreement for a consent election to be held on September
3, 1947.
By letter dated August 28, 1947, the Regional Director informed the
Ewployer and the Petitioner that the election would not be held as
scheduled because the Petitioner had not yet complied with Section
9 (f), (g) and (h) of the Act as amended, effective August 22, 1947,
by the "Labor Management Relations Act, 1947." Subsequently, the
Petitioner advised the Regional Director that both Local Union No.
1215 and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers had
complied with Section 9 (f), (g), and (h), and requested that the elec-
tion be rescheduled. The Regional Director denied this request on
the ground that the American Federation of Labor, with which the
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers is affiliated, was also
required to comply with Section 9 (f), (g), and (h) as a condition
precedent to the processing of the petition and had not yet done so.
Following instructions by the General Counsel upholding his interpre-
tation of Section 9, the Regional Director dismissed the petition.
From this dismissal the Petitioner appealed to the Board in ac-
cordance with Section 203.63 of the Board's Rules and Regulations,
Series 5, contending that the Regional Director erred as a matter of
law in construing Section 9 (f), (g), and (h) so as to require the Amer-
ican Federation of Labor to meet the filing and reporting requirements
of that section in the present case.
75 N. L. R. B., No. 2.
11
12 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
OPINION
The issue is one of statutory construction. It goes to the power of
the Board to continue to investigate this question concerning repre-
sentation. Our task is to determine the meaning of portions of Section
9 (f), (g), and (h) of the Labor Management Relations Act.
As a condition precedent to the processing of a particular case, Sec-
tion 9 (f) and (g) require the periodic filing with the Secretary of
Labor of financial and other reports, and the distribution of the finan-
cial reports among membership. This requirement falls upon the
petitioning or charging labor organization
and any national or international labor organization of which it
is an affiliate or constituent unit.'
Section 9 (h) requires as a condition precedent to processing, that an
affidavit stating that the affiant is not a Communist be filed with the
Board by each officer of the petitioning or charging labor organization
and the officers of any national or international labor organization
of which it is an affiliate or constituent unit.'
In this case, both the International Brotherhood of Electrical Work-
ers and its Local 1215, which is the Petitioner, have complied fully with
Section 9 (f), (g), and (h). As of today, the parent labor organiza-
tion, the American Federation of Labor, has not done so.3 The ques-
tion therefore is whether, tinder these circumstances, the Board has
power to continue its investigation. The General Counsel, speaking
through the Regional Director, has held that it does not.
Candor, and a proper respect for the opinion of the General Counsel,
require us to say that there can be no categorical answer to this ques-
tion. Although it is possible to extract it few quotations from the
Congressional Record and the Committee Reports to support either
viewpoint, such quotations all prove, on analysis, to be disappointingly
peripheral in character. The fact of the matter seems to be that the
Congress, preoccupied as it was at the close of debate, with so many
other problems arising under the proposed legislation, gave little or no
direct thought to the question-of whether the great parent federations
(AFL and CIO) would have to satisfy these requirements before any
of their complying affiliated locals or internationals could invoke the
jurisdiction of the Board. At the very least, the sparse legislative
history is ambiguous on the subject. No one can say, although some
' Section 9 (f) and (g).
x Section 9 (h).
The petitioner has not requested that there be any further extension of time for com-
pliance by the AFL.
NORTHERN VIRGINIA BROADCASTERS, INC. 13
have said, that Congress surely meant one thing or surely meant the
other.
Yet it remains our duty to construe the Congressional intent with
the materials at hand, until such time as Congress or the Courts offer
us further guidance. We agree with our dissenting colleague that it
is not the Board's function to judge the wisdom of the method adopted
by Congress. But it is our function to determine what method Con-
gress did, in fact, adopt, when the precise details of that method are
put in issue.
We turn first to what seems to us the crucial words that require
clearer definition. They are "national or international labor organiza-
tion." In ordinary labor relations parlance these words have a defi-
nite, and almost technical, meaning. They refer to labor organiza-
tions such as the IBEW in this case, an "international" union." Most
of the "national" and "international" unions which are the dominant
groups in the American labor movement, are affiliated with either the
AFL or the CIO.-' Nevertheless, they remain the "autonomous, self-
governing units of the labor movement. Even though an interna-
tional union is affiliated with a larger body such as the AFL or the
CIO, it retains its independence as a self-governing organization
so far as its internal affairs are concerned." s
We are familiar with no use of the term "national or international
labor organization" which includes parent federations such as the
AFL or the CIO within its meaning. On the contrary, every defini-
tion or description of the structure of these two federations clearly
indicates that the AFL and the CIO are different from "national" or
"international" labor organizations. Thus, the United States De-
partment of Labor declares that "structurally the American Federa-
tion of Labor continues to be what it was at its inception-a federa-
tion of autonomous national and international organizations of work-
ers in various crafts, trades and industries." 7 And a noted student
of the history and structure of American trade unionism describes
the AFL as "a federation of independent autonomous, international
unions, each having its own traditions and its own internal govern-
4 The sole distinction between an " international" union and a "national" union is that
the former has locals in Canada whereas the latter has not. See Philip Taft, Economics
and Problems of Labor, p. 494 ( 1942 ) ; Carroll R . Daugherty , Labor Problems in American
Industry, p. 358 (Fifth Edition, 1941) Who's Who in American Labor, pp. 469, 470 (Dry-
den Press, 1946).
8 Directory of Labor Unions in the United States, U. S. Department of Labor , Bureau of
Labor Statistics, Bulletin No. 901, pp. 8-21 (May 1947) ; Philip Taft, op. cit., p. 495.
6 Florence Peterson , Survey of Labor Economics , pp. 508-509 ( 1947 ). See also Hand-
book of American Trade Unions, U. S. Department of Labor , Bureau of Labor Statistics,
Bulletin No. 618, p. 50 (1936 edition) ; Carroll R. Daugherty, op. cit., pp. 333-334.
7 Handbook of American Trade-Unions , op. cit. p. 49.
14 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ment. Each international union exercises the right to determine in
accordance with its own needs, its dues, policies and program." 8
In the absence of clear expression of legislative intent to the con-
trary, Congress, when legislating on a specialized subject, is deemed
to have used words in the sense in which they are commonly under-
stood by those who deal daily with that subject.o The legislative
history of the new statute does not show Congressional intent to give a
different meaning to these words. We accordingly conclude that
Congress could not have deliberately intended "national or inter-
national labor organization," as used in Section 9 (f), (g), and (h),
to include the two great national federations within its meaning.lo
We must also consider the fundamental purpose of Congress in
enacting Section 9 (h) : to eliminate Communist influence from the
labor movement of the United States. The means selected to effec-
tuate this purpose was to compel those union leaders who were actually
Communists or adhered to Communist doctrines to run the risk of a
prosecution for perjury, or else forfeit the privilege of using the
Board's machinery to advance the interests of the local, national or
international unions of which they were officers. Those unions whose
officers file affidavits that they are not Communist adherents may use
that machinery without hindrance. The assumption is that if the
facts are made known through this filing procedure, union members,
8Philip Taft, op . cit. p . 502. "The Federation [ A. F. of L.], unlike its predecessors,
is built upon , and is primarily a federation of, international unions , large and small."
Harry A. Millis and Royal E. Montgomery, Organized Labor, Vol . III, p. 308 ( 1945). "The
structure of the C . I. O. is similar to that of the A. F. of L ." Carroll R . Daugherty,
op. cit., p. 371.
02 Sutherland , Statutes and Statutory Construction , p. 437 ( 3rd ed . 1943 ) ; O'Hara v.
Luekenbach Steamship Company, 269 U. S . 364, 371 ; Hawley v. Diller, 178 U. S. 476, 387.
10 We think this is made apparent by the nature of many of the requirements of Section
9 (f), which apply primarily to international unions and their locals. These include:
(4) the initiation fee or fees which new members are required to pay on becoming
members of such labor organization ;
(5) the regular dues or fees which members are required to pay in order to remain
members in good standing of such labor organization ;
(6) a detailed statement of, or reference to provisions of its constitution and
bylaws showing the procedure followed with respect to, (a) qualification for or re -
strictions on membership , ( b) election of officers and stewards, (c) calling of regular
and special meetings , (d) levying of assessments , ( e) imposition of fines , ( f) authoriza-
tion for bargaining demands , ( g) ratification of contract terms , ( h) authorization for
strikes, (i) authorization for disbursement of union funds , ( j) audit of union finan-
cial transactions , ( k) participation in insurance or other benefit plans, and (1) ex-
pulsion of members and the grounds therefor ;
Most of this information can have no application to the two major national federations.
The federations do not have individual "members. " ( See, e. g., Richard A. Lester, Econom-
ics of Labor, pp. 588-589: ". . . each union member and local official is a citizen of his
national unions and not of the Federation. Persons who are members of national unions
are represented in the Federation through their national unions.") They charge no in-
itiation fees or dues , do not concern themselves with qualifications for membership in their
affiliated international , play no direct part in bargaining, do not authorize strikes. On the
other hand , local and international unions are directly concerned with all these matters.
Clearly this provision can not have been . drafted with the national federations in mind.
NORTHERN VIRGINIA BROADCASTERS, INC. 15
provided they can reasonably be expected to have the power to do so,
will soon remove Communists from leadership rather than allow
themselves to be precluded from enjoying the benefits of the Act.
Are Communists likely to be eliminated from positions of influence
in the labor movement by our barring those local and international
unions that are in full compliance with Section 9 (h) from using the
facilities of the Board, merely because certain officers of a parent or-
ganization over whose status they have only the most remote control
may choose not to sign the required affidavits? We think not. An
examination of the constitutions and practices of the AFL and CIO
convinces us that the authority of their governing bodies is narrowly
limited " However, the members of these governing bodies are, with
few exceptions, likewise officers of the autonomous international
unions. In the latter capacity they have a strong incentive to com-
ply with Section 9 (h) ; if they fail to do so, their own internationals
lose the benefits of the Act. It is at this point that the shoe will, and
should, pinch any top leaders of labor who choose not to comply.
But, absent any impressive evidence to the contrary, we question
whether Congress intended to take the further step of letting the
action of those international officers who happen also to be members
of the governing body of a parent federation determine the fate of
the members of a wholly different international labor organization,
all of whose local and international officers have complied in full.
Control is too slight; the relationship is too remote.
The motive for failure to sign is immaterial on this particular is-
sue, as is the current controversy as to whether certain officers will
or will not ultimately take that step?2 The sole question is the exist-
ence or non-existence of the obligation to do so. We must assume
that Congress intended to effectuate the policies of the Act by the
most practical means available. Under the Regional Director's rul-
ing, if one officer of the AFL or CIO fails to comply, not a single
complying local or international union within that federation can de-
rive any benefit from its own clean hands. In consequence, there being
no conceivable advantage to such unions in bothering to comply with
Section 9 (h), they would be no better off than labor organizations
that might be unable to comply because of the actual presence of Com-
munist officers. The latter would be under no pressure to stand up
11 Constitution of the American Federation of Labor ( 1946) ; 'Constitution of Congress
of Industrial Organizations ( 1946 ) ; Handbook of American Trade-Unions, op. cit., p. 50;
Philip Taft , op. cit. p . 502; Florence Peterson, op. cit. p. 504; Article "American Federa-
tion of Labor" in Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences , Vol. 2.
Article 6 , Section 6 , of the AFL Constitution , when read in full context, gives that parent
body no such broad authority over international and local unions as is suggested in the
dissent.
12 Nor is any Constitutional question raised, or passed upon , in this case.
16 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
in the spotlight and be counted ; the individual members of these
unions, in turn, would lose all incentive to eliminate such officers
in order to enjoy the fruits of compliance. And employers would find
the Board 's machinery unavailable to handle controversies which,
though normally brought to our attention by labor organizations,
require peaceful resolution for these employee's own sake. Nothing
it seems to us; could play more readily into the hands of dissension-
seeking Communist leadership. We cannot believe that Congress.
intended any such paradoxical result..
The statute seems to us not only to permit this conclusion, but to
encourage it. Common sense commands it. In our opinion, therefore,.
the IBEW and Local 1215 are in full compliance with Sections 9 (f),.
(g), and (h) of the Act. The fact that officers of the American Fed-
eration of Labor have not yet taken similar steps cannot impair the,
right of this local and this international to invoke the jurisdiction of
the Board.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED TH AT the appeal of the Petitioner herein be,
granted and the dismissal of this proceeding be, and it hereby is, set
aside. The petition is accordingly reinstated. and referred to the Gen-
eral Counsel for the conduct of further proceedings in conformity
with this decision of the Board.
MEMBER MURDOCK, Concurring :
I am in accord with the result reached in the majority opinion as to
the proper interpretation of Section (f), (g), and (h) on the facts of
the case now before us. It seems to me, however, that there is a more.
compelling reason for arriving at that result than the considerations
which the majority has emphasized of specialized meanings for "na-
tional" and "international," and of the "fundamental purpose [of
Congress] in enacting Section 9 (h)." Accordingly, I shall set forth
what to my mind are the most persuasive reasons for arriving at the
same result.
At the outset, however, I may say that I agree that the terins "any
national or international labor organization" are susceptible of more
than one meaning, and that the legislative history of Section 9 (f), (g),
and (h) sheds little real light on the intent of Congress as to the sense
in which they were used in that. section of the Act.. It is probably true
that Congress did not specifically consider the question whether officers
of the American Federation of Labor and the Congress of Industrial
Organizations should be required to file the affidavits as well as officers
of the national and international unions which are members of those
two federations. Against such a background, the General Counsel, in
NORTHERN VIRGINIA BROADCASTERS, INC. 17
the performance of the duties committed to him by this Act, has inter-
preted the terms "any national or international labor organization"
literally to include the A. F. of L. and the C. I. 0. Such an interpre-
tation cannot be said to be without any legal support. It is, neverthe-
less, the responsibility of the Board, in the performance of the duties
committed to it by this Act, conscientiously to make its own interpre-
tation of Section 9 (f), (g), and (h). However desirable it might
be if the Board and the General Counsel's interpretation were the
same, I am constrained to disagree with him and to find that an inter-
pretation of the phrase "any national or international labor organiza-
tion" which is limited to one of the national or international unions
which compose the A. F. of L. (in this case the I. B. E. W.), is the
proper interpretation as applied to the facts of this case.
To the extent that we can arrive at a reasonable interpretation of
the phase "any national or international labor organization" without
going outside the four corners of the Act itself, it would seem that we
would stand on the firmest ground. In view of the fact that the Act
itself contains a definition of the term "labor organization," as used in
the Act, it would appear that such definition should receive our first
consideration, if not provide a final answer to the issue here involved.
Certainly no organization can be deemed a "labor organization" within
the meaning of the Act if it does not meet the tests laid down in that
definition.
The Act provides :
SEc. 2. "When used in this Act-
(5) The term `labor organization' means any organization of
any kind, or any agency or employee representation committee or
plan, in which employees participate and which exists for the pur-
pose, in whole or in part, of dealing with employers concerning
grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employ-
ment, or conditions of work." [Italics supplied.]
In the instant case we have a petitioning local affiliated with an
international union, the I. B. E. W. Both the local and the interna-
tional are clearly organizations which "exist for the purpose, in whole
or in part, of dealing with employers concerning grievances, labor dis-
putes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment or conditions of work."
[Italics supplied.] That is the purpose for which certification is
sought here. Although there is a limited area in which the A. F. of L.
may also be said to exist for the purpose of "dealing with employers"
on subjects of collective bargaining,' that is certainly not generally
I That is, where it organizes and grants chat-teas to directly affiliated local and federal
labor unions, and there is no intervening national or international union with which the
local is affiliated. It has been pointed out that in these situations the A F of L actually
18 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
true of the A. F. of L.,2 and more important, it is not true of the
A. F. of L. with respect to its relation to Local 1215, the petitioner
herein, to the I. B. E. W., and to the employer in this case. Accord-
ingly, even though the A. F. of L. in common parlance or in the literal
sense of the words, may be considered a "national or international
labor organization," it is not for the purpose of this case a "labor
organization" as defined in this Act because it is not an organization
which exists for the purpose of dealing with the employer herein
concerning collective bargaining.3
Although the definition of "labor organization" in Section 2 (5)
of the Act might alone be considered sufficient to exclude the A. F.
of L. from the meaning of that term in the phrase of Section 9 (f),
(g), and (h), here involved, a consideration of the modifying words
"any" and "national or international," in such a context, further points
to the exclusion of the A. F. of L. As the majority opinion shows,
the words "national" or "international" as applied to labor organiza-
tions, have a well recognized and specialized meaning in the field of
labor relations, referring to the national or international unions which
compose the A. F. of L. or the C. I. 0.,4 but not to the federations
themselves. It is most reasonable to assume that in legislating with
respect to a specialized field such as labor relations, Congress used
terms having a specialized meaning in such a field in their specialized
sense. And while the adjective "any" may be used in either a plural
sense as meaning "all or every," or in a singular sense as meaning "one"
of a category, it seems most reasonable in the light of the use of "na-
tional" and "international" and "labor organization" here indicated
to give "any" the singular meaning. Thus, when Congress in Section
9 (f), (g), and (h) referred to "any national or international labor
organization" with which a petitioning organization might be affiili-
ated or of which it might be considered a constituent unit, Congress
unquestionably meant the one national or international union with
stands in the position of an international union. Organized Labor, Millis and Montgomery
( 1945 ), p 308 , footnote 2.
2 "The state and national federations are designed primarily for political , educational,
and o gamzational purposes . . . Like the League of Nations, the A F of L. is a loose
federation of over 100 sovereign national unions Each national union enjoys absolute
control over its internal affairs, is free to develop whatever policies and philosophy it
wishes, and can leave the Federation at any time for any reason." Richard A Lester,
Economics of Labor (1941), pp 587, 588
S I am not , of course , implying that the A F of L may not be a "labor organization"
as defined in the Act when, in a particular situation, it is existing for the purpose of "deal-
ing with an employer " on collective bargaining and it seeks recognition for such purpose
I recognize that these have been instances where the A F of L has filed petitions and has
itself been certified by the Board Those situations are clearly distinguishable from the
instant type of case
4 As pointed out in footnote 4 of the majority opinion, whether a union is called it
"national" or "international" usually depends on whether it has Canadian or Mexican
locals.
NORTHERN VIRGINIA BROADCASTERS, INC. 19
which a petitioning local might be affiliated. It did not mean all the
organizations which could be literally described as national or inter-
national labor organizations, of which the petitioning local could be
considered a constituent unit, including both the A. F. of L. and the
I. L. 0. in the case of A. F. of L. locals.
I believe that the foregoing construction of the term "any national
or international labor organization" as used in Section 9 (f), (g), and
(h) is the correct one. ; But even if considerations were more or less
evenly balanced in making a choice between the General Counsel's
literal interpretation of the term and my more limited interpretation,
it seems to me that a well recognized rule of statutory construction
compels us to accept the interpretation made herein, and furnishes
additional support for that result. That rule is that a provision of a
statute must be interpreted with reference to its general purposes "and
so as to subserve" them rather than to defeat them.5 What are the
basic purposes of the National Labor Relations Act, and what effect
on the accomplishment of these purposes would the respective iliter-
pretatlons of Section 9 (f), (g), and (h) have?
Section 1 of the Act points out that "protection by law of the right
of employees to organize and bargain collectively safeguards com-
merce 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 . . . and by restoring equality of
bargaining power between employers and employees." It further
declares the, policy of the United States to be to eliminate obstruc-
tions to the free flow of commerce "by encouraging the practice and
procedure of collective bargaining and by protecting the exercise by
workers of full freedom of association, self-organization, and designa-
tion of representatives of their own choosing . . ." [Italics sup-
plied.] As Chief Justice Hughes said in N. L. R. B. v. Jones d Laugh-
lin Steel Corporation, 301 U. S. 1, 45, "The theory of the Act is that
free opportunity for negotations with accredited representatives of
employees is likely to promote industrial peace and may bring about
the adjustments and agreements which the Act in itself does not
attempt to compel." [Italics supplied.] e The last Congress added
6 This is a universal rule of construction applied alike to statutes, contracts and con-
stitutions If the general purpose of the instrument is ascertained, the language of its
provisions must be construed with reference to that purpose and so as to subserve it In
no other way can the intent of the fiamers of the instrument be discovered " [Italics
supplied ] Legal Tender Cases, 79 U S 457, 531-532
Justice Hughes also pointed out that in the Virginian Railway case, the Court had
cited the lesson of experience that "where there was no dispute as to the ei ganization
authorized to represent the employees and when these was a willingness of the employer
to meet such mepresentatives for a discussion of their grievances, amicable adjustment of
chffeiences had generally followed and strikes had been avoided " [Italics supplied ] 301
U S. 1, 42
20 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
a further provision to the declaration of policy, in which it declared
it to be the policy "to prescribe the legitimate rights of both employees
and employers in their relations affecting commerce, to provide or-
derly and peaceful procedures for preventing the interference by either
with the legitimate rights of the other . . . ' [Italics supplied.] Im-
plicit in all the declarations of policy and provisions of the Act.
is the idea that industrial peace will be more likely achieved by having
employers and employees using the "orderly and peaceful procedures"
provided therein, rather than being left to tests of their own economic
strength.
One of the most important features of the Act, as noted by Justice
Hughes, is the fact that it provides a machinery which petitioner in
the instant case seeks to use, to determine what labor organization is
the "accredited" representative of the employees in an appropriate
unit. Such a determination is the indispensable prerequisite for any
"practice and procedure of collective bargaining." Yet the result of
the General Counsel's interpretation of the scope of the filing require-
ments of Section 9 (f), (g), and (h) is to close the doors of the Board's
machinery for making such determinations, not only to the petition-
ing local of the IBEW herein, but also to thousands of other locals
of the various national and international unions which are affiliated
with the A. F. of L., if one officer of the A. F. of L., not a member of
and not subject to control by the petitioning local or its international
union, elects not to file an affidavit. Under his interpretation thou-
sands of employers and thousands of local unions with millions of
members would be relegated once more to confusion and uncertainty,
if not the law of the jungle, in their industrial relations. The peace-
ful machinery provided by the Act to encourage and protect the
practice and procedure of collective bargaining as the means of
achieving industrial peace would stand in noiseless mockery while
the industrial conflict raged without. I cannot believe that Congress
ever intended to make it possible for any individual officer of the
A. F. of L. to bring about such a result.
Fortunately, the rule of construction which I have cited assists
us to avoid such an absurd and helpless predicament. The basic pur-
poses of the Act are not found in the filing requirements of Section
9. These are merely procedural requirements. Where there are two
possible interpretations of the scope of those filing requirements,
clearly we should adopt that interpretation which will "subserve" the
"general purpose" of the Act, rather than the one which will defeat its
NORTHERN VIRGINIA BROADCASTERS, INC. 21
basic purpose.? That the interpretation here made will "encourage
the practice and procedure of collective bargaining" and promote in-
dustrial peace by making available the Board's machinery to thou-
sands of unions and employers to whom it would otherwise be denied,
cannot be doubted. The proper interpretation of Section 9 (f), (g)
and (h), therefore, only requires that officers of the petitioning local
and the officers of the international union with which it is affiliated,
comply.
It does not require in addition compliance by the American Federa-
tion of Labor and its officers merely because the petitioning local and
the international union are affiliated with or constituent units of that
federation."
MEMBER GRAY dissenting:
I am constrained to disagree with my colleagues and to affirm the
action of the Regional Director in dismissing the Union's petition be-
cause of the failure of the officers of the American Federation of Labor
to comply with the filing requirements of Section 9 (h).
In my view, the A. F. L. clearly falls within the meaning of the
statutory language "any national or international labor organization
of which it is an affiliate or constituent unit." That the A. F. L. is a
labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act,'
is not disputed by my colleagues. Nor could it be disputed in the light
of the A. F. L.'s Constitution 2 and the numerous Holdings to that
' Legal Tender Cases, 79 U S 457, 531-532.
"No couit of justice can be authorized so to construe any clause of the constitution as to
defeat its obvious ends, when another construction equally accordant with the words and
the sense thereof will enforce and protect them Prigg v. Pennsylvania, 41 U S 536, 611.
"The strict letter of an Act must, however, yield to its evident spirit and purpose, when
it is necessary to give effect to the intent of Congress . . . And unjust or absurd conse-
quences are, if possible, to be avoided " Fleischnrann Co. v U. S., 270 U. S 349, 360.
8 Section 9 (f), (g), and (h) may conceivably require compliance by the A F of L. and
Its officers where a directly affiliated local or federal labor union is the petitioning organi-
zation. However, that issue is not involved here and it is not necessary to pass on it at
this time.
' Section 2 (5) of the Act defines a labor organization as "any organization of any kind,
or any agency or employee representation committee or plan, in which employees participate
and which exists for the purpose, in whole or in part, of dealing with employers concerning
grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or conditions of
employment." [Italics supplied ]
2 See, e g , Art. 11, Sec 2 which sets forth as one of the objects of the A. F. L, "The
establishment of National and International Trade Unions" , Art. IX, Sec. 2 providing
for the accomplishment of this objective by requiring the Executive Council to "use every
possible means to organize new National or International Trade or Labor Unions, and to
organize Local Trade and Federal Labor Unions, and connect them with the Federation
until such time as there is a sufficient number to form a National or International Union,
when it shall be the duty of the President of the Federation to see that such organization
is formed" , Art 2, Sec 4 which sets forth as other stated objects to encourage "National
and International Trade Unions to aid and assist each other" and "to aid and encourage
the sale of union label goods" , and Art. IX, Sec 4 giving the A F L and its Executive
Council the power to approve and endorse a boycott of the goods of an employer involved
in a dispute with one of more of the affiliates of the A F L. See also Florence Peterson,
Anieriean Labor Unions (1945, p 40)
766972-48-vol 75-3
22 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
effect of this very Board.3 That the A. F.-L. is national and inter-
national in character, is self-evident.
Presumably conceding these points, the majority reasons that the
A. F. L. is a different species of national or international labor organi-
zation than those intended by Congress to be encompassed by the
statutory language. I see no warrant for such a distinction. On the
contrary, the insertion of the word "any" before national or inter-
national labor organization, would seem to preclude any such distinc-
tion and to indicate an intention to cover all national or international
labor organizations, whatever their species or breed. That this was
the Congressional intent, is further apparent from the use of the term
"affiliate or constituent unit." A local union is commonly referred to
as an affiliate of the A. F. L. and not of the organization which charters
it, such as the I. B. E. W. in this case.
"National or international trade union" is the description of the
major bodies, such as the I. B. E. W., which are constituent units of
the A. F. L., the all inclusive labor organization. Had Congress in-
tended to limit the application of this section to the organizations
which compose the A. F. L. or the C. I. 0., it would have limited the
language to "national or international trade unions."' By using the
broader term, national or international labor organization, it intended
to cover every labor organization which falls within the definition set
forth in Section 2 (5) of the Act. This is supported by the only judi-
cial holding on the subject, which has construed Section 9 (h) as re-
quiring compliance by the officers of the A. F. L.4
The construction which I have placed upon the statute, in my opin-
ion, will more readily and effectively accomplish the objectives of this
legislation. We are in full agreement as to the fundamental purpose
of Congress to eliminate Communist influence from the labor move-
ment in this country. The majority, however, is of the view that the
effectuation of this purpose will be hindered rather than furthered by
requirng the officers of the A. F. L. and the C. I. O. to comply with
Section 9 (h) because the authority of their governing bodies is nar-
rowly limited. This conclusion and the premise upon which it is based
flies in the teeth of reality.
The A. F. L. Constitution gives its president the power to discipline
certain of its constituent members, including the authority to suspend
or expel any officer or member thereof, and, with the approval of the
Executive Council, the authority to take charge of all equities and
properties belonging to member unions whenever such equities and/or
a See, e. g, Matter of Hanson Clutch d Machinery Company, 70 N L R B 1021
4Oil Workers v Elliot, 73 F. Supp 942 (D C. Northein Distuct of Texas).
NORTHERN VIRGINIA BROADCASTERS, INC. 23
properties may be jeopardized through disobedience to the Constitu-
tion, laws, and requirements of the A. F. L.5
Dues payments of members of local unions are apportioned between
the local, the union which chartered the local, and the A. F. L. The
power to assess strike benefits rests with the A. F. L. Executive Coun-
cil. Monies so assessed and collected are used to assist in the support
of an affiliated national or international union engaged in a strike or
the victim of a lock-out. Failure to pay such clues or assessments may
lead to loss of membership, deprivation of representation in conven-
tions, and expulsion from the A. F. L.
The individual members of local unions usually boast of their affil-
iation with the A. F. L. or C. I. 0., and regard such affiliation as
strengthening their position and bargaining power.
The majority opinion omits reference to the practice of all unions,
whatever their affiliation, of combining the parent labor organization
title in thousands of cases previously before this Board. It overlooks
the extensive use of the A. F. L. or C. I. O. affiliation in union cam-
paigns looking toward bargaining. It seems to deprecate the long-
time practice of the various labor organizations, at whatever level, of
depending upon the A. F. L. or C. I. 0., as the case may be, for much
of their strength in all the dealings labor organizations have with
employers.
The officers of the A. F. L. and the C. I. O. have been recognized as
the spokesmen and representatives of organized labor in this country.
It was the A. F. L. Executive Council which recommended on Decem-
ber 15, 1941, that "a no-strike policy shall be applied in all war and
defense * : industries." On the following clay, the conference
of A. F. L. presidents adopted this recommendation.
The extent of the influence wielded by the A. F. L. is also apparent
from the control which it exercises over the "jurisdiction" of its mem-
ber unions.° Awards of the governing body may be subject to enforce-
ment through expulsion from the organization. Conversely, the
member unions exercise a measure of control over their parent organi-
zation through the election of its officers.7
It is therefore apparent that the A. F. L. may exercise direct and
influential control over its constituent unions in important respects
and that A. F. L. officers occupy a strategic position to affect the eco-
nomic life of the Nation. Under these circumstances, it is inconceiv-
able that Congress was not concerned with the Communist affiliation
a Art 6, Sec 6 The organizations named in this Section are the "State Federations of
Labor, City Central Labor Unions, and Local and Federal Labor Unions
A F L Constitution, Art IX, Sec I I
Votinj is nrocrortionate to membership in local, national , and international unions
24 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of the officers of the A. F. L. and C. I. 0. in accomplishing its intended
purpose of purging labor of Communist influence.
The argument of the majority that such a construction would enable
one officer to determine the fate of all members of a union, all of whose
local and international officers have complied, is in essence an attack
upon the method adopted by Congress to rid the labor movement of
Communist leadership. Non-compliance by a single officer of a union
local or international, whose other officers have complied, would lead
to the same result and similarly deprive the entire local or inter-
national union of the privilege of using Board facilities. This is
probably part of the "bad medicine" necessary to gain the desired
objective.
Quite often, serious surgical operations are necessary on the human
body in order to save the rest from creeping poison and death. Do
surgeons refrain from removing a gangrenous leg because the person
will then be unable to walk? Certainly not. We remove the poison,
violent though the measure may be.
In any event, it is not our function to judge the wisdom or lack of
wisdom in the method adopted by Congress.
I would dismiss the Union's appeal.