NLRB Stats Archive › Annual Reports › FY1938 › Appropriate unit disputes by contention adopted
Appropriate unit disputes by contention adopted
| Substantial disagreement as to the appropriate unit | 41 |
|---|---|
| (A) Adoption of American Federation of Labor contention | 21 |
| (1) In general | 18 |
| (2) Accompanied by adoption of Committee for Industrial Organization contentions as to inclusion of minor groups | 3 |
| (B) Adoption of Committee for Industrial Organization contention | 16 |
| (1) In general | 16 |
| (2) Accompanied by adoption of American Federation of Labor contentions as to inclusion of minor groups | 0 |
| (C) Adoption in part of contentions of both groups | 4 |
- 1 It should be noted that not all of the 16 cases in which the contention of the Committee for Industrial Organization was adopted involved the issue of craft versus industrial unionism in any direct way. In fact, the issue in most of the cases in this group was quite different. For example, 5 of the cases raised questions concerning the appropriateness of multiple-plant and multiple-company units (Ohio Foundry Co., 3 N. L. R. B. 701; United Shipyards, Inc., 5 N. L. R. B. 742; Des Moines Steel Co., 6 N. L. R. B. 532; Shipowners' Assn. of the Pacific Coast, etc., 7 N. L. R. B. 1002; Fisher Body Corporation, etc., 7 N. L. R. B. 1083), and in 1 of these the American Federation of Labor argued for the larger unit (Des Moines Steel Co., 6 N. L. R. B., 532); and 2 of them raised the question whether a union should be placed on the ballot when it had no members among the employees of the employer (Texas Co., West Tulsa Works, 4 N. L. R. B. 182; Waggoner Refining Co., Inc., etc., 6 N. L. R. B. 731). For a detailed analysis of the cases, see ch. 7, post.
0 of 7 figures sit in a row or column sum that works out.
Reader’s notes
p. 14. The crop shows only the lower part of a table carried over from the preceding page: no column headings are printed on this image, so header_rows is empty. The grid is 2 columns — stub plus one figures column. The row "(B) Adoption of Committee for Industrial Organization contention" carries a raised 1 printed immediately BEFORE the figure ("¹16"); it is the marker for the footnote printed below the table, so it is transcribed as 16^1. Two row labels wrap with an end-of-line hyphen and have been joined: "Organiza- tion" -> "Organization" and "conten- tions" -> "contentions". Arithmetic is internally consistent as printed (18+3=21, 16+0=16, 21+16+4=41). In the footnote the scan renders some "i" glyphs faintly (e.g. "unionism", "Refining", "Shipowners'"); they have been transcribed as the intended words. A stray ink speck sits above the word "contentions" in the "(C)" row; it is not a footnote marker.
Source image
Source data: U.S. NLRB Annual Reports (public domain). Reconstruction by NLRB Stats Archive. Read by claude-opus-5 (effort max, prompt extract_v1) from the 300-dpi scan; stitched by page. Updated October 2026.