Northern Virginia Broadcasters, Inc.

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 THAT 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.