In its statement filed with the committee, the Board added:

If review by a Board is deemed essential before all such decisions are acceptable then regard for speed and the Board's overwhelming caseload will not save the day. These problems, then, would have to be solved in other ways. The fact is, however, that the substantial majority of decisions of trial examiners do merit respect and have proven acceptable.

The CHAIRMAN. Where is that quote from?

Mr. CROW. That is the statement filed with your committee by the Chairman of the National Labor Relations Board.

The CHAIRMAN. That is part of this record?

Mr. CROW. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. Very well.

Mr. CROW. I apologize for not having cited the reference to the record.

Thus, the Board admits that the problem of that agency would have to be solved in other ways if trial examiner decisions are not generally acceptable.

As members of this committee are fully aware, one of the procedural reforms embodied in the Taft-Hartley amendments of 1947 is the provision in section 10 (c) of that law which specifically provides that— if no exceptions are filed within 20 days

after service on the parties of the trial examiner's report and recommended order

such recommended order shall become the order of the Board and become effective as therein prescribed.

Therefore, if trial examiner decisions actually possess the high degree of public confidence and acceptability claimed for them by the Board, it seems to us apparent that the proposed delegation is unnecessary.

To buttress its "acceptability" argument, the Board cited to this committee some interesting statistics covering 3 fiscal years.

The CHAIRMAN. Let me see what you mean there. What would be the solution if they are behind and the trial examiner's findings are highly respected, what would be the solution if they are far behind? Would the solution be to just add some more trial examiners?

Mr. CROW. Well, that is a good question. The solution, if I may say so, Senator, or the acceptability premise here has nothing to do, as I understand it, with the Board's position. Their contention is that there is nothing wrong with this delegation since the recommendations and orders of examiners have general acceptability.

As I understand their position, this has nothing to do and does not relate to the question of delay and which I shall deal with in another

moment or two here.

Now they contend as I understand them, and I don't want to be in a position of deliberately misrepresenting their position, but they say in effect as I understand their position, that since everyone is so happy with the results coming out of trial examiner proceedings that there should be no disagreement with the proposition that this final decisionmaking authority should be delegated to them under this plan.

I am seeking here only to demonstrate if I can, that the general acceptability claimed for these trial examiners' decisions by the Board does not, in fact, exist.

The CHAIRMAN. One way to determine that is to find out how many of them are appealed or ask for review.

Mr. CROW. I am getting to that in just a moment. Actually it is about 76 percent.

The CHAIRMAN. There are 500 cases or 1,000 cases, let us say as an example, in a year that come before the examiners. They make their report, their intermediate report.

Now how many of those are reviewed presently, and how many are seeking review, what percentage? I just use the 1,000 as a figure, but what percentage? Do you have anything on that?

Mr. CROW. Yes, I have. Attached to my statement here is a page from the Board's own statement to this committee, sir, in which they use statistics in documenting and proving their contention. As they state at the top of the page there, the record of acceptability of trial examiners' work, and as they say, which speaks for itself. They give 3 fiscal years. I have taken the most recent one, for no particular reason except that it is the most recent one, for a discussion here. The CHAIRMAN. All right.

Mr. CROW. To buttress its "acceptability" argument, the Board cited to this committee some interesting statistics covering 3 fiscal years. For example, in the fiscal year 1960, the Board's figures show that in 24 percent of unfair labor practice cases no review was sought from the trial examiners' reports and recommended orders. Obviously this leaves 76 percent of the unfair labor practice cases in which Board review was sought.

The CHAIRMAN. Now let us see. In other words, there was no appeal or review sought in 24 cases out of 100?

Mr. CROW. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. That was in 1960.

Mr. CROW. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. All right then, out of 100, 76 did seek a review? Mr. CROW. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. Very well.

Mr. CROW. These are percentages you understand, Senator.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes, I know. I am talking percentagewise, 76 out of 100 is 76 percent.

Mr. CROW. Of the cases in which exceptions were filed, 54.3 percent were affirmed by the Board in full.

The CHAIRMAN. Let us see, 54 percent of 76 percent is how many cases?

Mr. CROW. In the Board's statistical breakdown here this is 54 percent of the total cases, Senator.

The CHAIRMAN. You say of the cases in which exceptions were filed would be 76 percent and of these 76 percent, 54.3 percent were affirmed by the Board in full. Is that what you are saying?

Mr. CROW. That is what I said, Senator. I apologize. I should have said and intended to say that of the cases in which exceptions were filed, 54.3 percent of the total were affirmed.

The CHAIRMAN. Are you talking of the whole 100 percent or the 76 percent?

Mr. CROW. Of the 100 percent.

The CHAIRMAN. In all of the cases now, only 54 percent of them are fully affirmed?

Mr. CROW. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. In other words, 45.7 percent of the cases are either reversed or some modification made of them.

Mr. CROW. Or no review is sought.

The CHAIRMAN. Or what?

Mr. CROW. Or no review is sought. There are 24 percent there you see, in which no review is sought.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, you have got the 24 percent. Here is what I am trying to find out. You start out with 100 cases let us say. Out of that 100, there are 24 of those cases in which there is no review sought.

Mr. CROW. Exactly.

The CHAIRMAN. They are finalized at the initial decision point? Mr. CROW. That is right.

The CHAIRMAN. Then you have 76 cases left?

Mr. CROW. In which review had to be sought; yes.

The CHAIRMAN. In which review was sought, and of that 76, how many of them are affirmed, in full?

cent.

Mr. CROW. Well, I must confess, Senator, that I originally interpreted these statistics in that fashion, that is 54 percent of the 76 perBut on more careful inquiry it seems to me that what the Board is indicating here is that 54 percent and 0.3 percent of the 100 percent.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, it doesn't make any difference to me. trying to find out which it is.

I am

Mr. CROW. Well, I agree it doesn't make any difference to me either as far as my point is concerned and I am only dealing with the Board's figures.

The CHAIRMAN. I was trying to establish here from the record, from this percentage of cases whether, in the course of our experience, we have found that there are a great number of cases that are appealed or reviewed that need a revision or modification or complete reversal. I don't know what was done there to indicate what we may be doing if we delegate this power and then allow only a discretionary review. Mr. CROW. That is my concern, Senator.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, we ought to get these figures accurately. Mr. CROW. On that basis then, understand I am using the Board's figures. They are not mine.

The CHAIRMAN. I can see that, but what does the Board mean, that 54 cases out of the 100 or is it 54 percent of the 76 percent?

Mr. CROW. The Board I think intends their breakdown to indicate 54 percent of the total.

Now to me, I think this is your point, Senator, it is immaterial whether this is 54 percent of the 76 percent or whether it is 54 percent of the 100 percent.

The CHAIRMAN. The principle would be the same but the extent of the injury would not be as great.

Mr. CROW. That is very true, but the point is under any interpre tation of these figures, the fact remains beyond doubt, beyond question, that the 76 percent of the total of cases were taken to the full Board. The CHAIRMAN. They were reviewed?

Mr. CROW. That is right.

The CHAIRMAN. And as a result there was a correction made in what, what percentage of the 76? That is what I would like to know.

Mr. CROW. Well, on that I am not enough of a mathematician to give you that breakdown out of my head, Senator.

The CHAIRMAN. I am not either but if I ever get the basis I could calculate it. I don't know whether the 54.3 percent is the basis on which it is calculated or what.

Mr. Fields, do you know?

STATEMENT OF OGDEN W. FIELDS, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

Mr. FIELDS. Mr. Chairman, I am Ogden W. Fields, executive secretary to the Board.

The CHAIRMAN. As executive secretary of the Board, do we mean on the 54.3 percent is it of the 76 percent or 100 percent?

Mr. FIELDS. 100 percent.

The CHAIRMAN. It doesn't say it here.

Mr. FIELDS. There are two different charts.

The CHAIRMAN. That is all right. That clears it up.

Mr. FIELDS. The idea is that of 100 intermediate reports, no exceptions are filed in 24.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. FIELDS. Which is 24 percent.

The CHAIRMAN. Are not appealed?

Mr. FIELDS. Are not appealed. They are accepted in full by the parties.

The CHAIRMAN. That 24 percent is included in the 54 percent?

Mr. FIELDS. No. Out of 100 intermediate reports, in 24 percent no exceptions are taken to it.

The CHAIRMAN. That is right.

Mr. FIELDS. Of the remaining 76 cases, the Board affirms in full 54 percent.

The CHAIRMAN. Of what?

Mr. FIELDS. Of the 100 intermediate reports.

The CHAIRMAN. Now that isn't right. You have already taken out 24 percent.

Mr. FIELDS. But you add up the total so the totals will reflect that of 100 you have no exceptions filed in 24. They are accepted by the parties.

The CHAIRMAN. That is 24. Let us talk about cases. Let us take 100 cases and then we can convert it to percentages.

Mr. FIELDS. All right, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. You have 100 cases. What do these statistics reflect happened to it?

Mr. FIELDS. We will put it this way. This will absolutely clarify it. Of 100 cases you have 24, no exceptions filed leaving 76 cases. The CHAIRMAN. So that leaves 76 cases?

Mr. FIELDS. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. What happens to the 76?

Mr. FIELDS. Of those 76 cases, 71 percent are affirmed in full.
The CHAIRMAN. How many?

Mr. FIELDS. 71.4 percent are affirmed in full.

The CHAIRMAN. 71.4 percent. How many cases would that be?

Mr. FIELDS. Out of 357 cases, 255 would be affirmed in full. These are cases in which exceptions are filed.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, we are talking about 357 cases. I am trying to hold this down to 100.

Mr. FIELDS. The mathematics haven't been worked out in that regard.

The CHAIRMAN. All right.

Mr. FIELDS. There is a chart that gives the percentages.

The CHAIRMAN. I will tell you what we will do. While we are finishing with Mr. Crow, you take this 100 cases and tell me what happened to them on the basis of your figures. Let us proceed.

Mr. CROW. Senator, I can say this is the first time the Labor Board has ever come to my aid.

But as I said from my point, the fact remains any way you look at it this case, numbers or percentages, 76 out of 100 or 76 percent of all the cases, review is sought by the full Board from the decision of the trial examiner.

The CHAIRMAN. In other words, more than three-fourths of all decisions made by trial examiners, a review is sought?

Mr. CROW. Is sought, yes.

The CHAIRMAN. Very good.

Mr. CROW. And that is the real point I was trying to make.

The CHAIRMAN. What I am trying to determine is out of the cases reviewed, what percentage of the 76 percent are modified or changed and what percent are affirmed, in full?

Mr. CROW. Well, I will undertake another analysis of that on the basis of the figures that I have here.

In the cases in which review is sought, 54 percent of the 100 percent, as I understand this, are affirmed in full; 13.4 percent of the cases are affirmed in part, and 5.5 percent of the total cases are reversed. The CHAIRMAN. You mean out of 100 cases only 5.5 of them were fully reversed?

Mr. CROW. Were reversed in full.

The CHAIRMAN. Reversed in full.

Mr. CROW. And the language "affirmed in part," I have to construe also as meaning reversed in part which is the 13.4 percent.

The CHAIRMAN. Now I haven't looked at this yet but you have a chart here. Is this your chart here on the back page?

Mr. CROW. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. You show what happens to 100 cases there, according to your interpretation of their figures.

Mr. CROW. That is taken verbatim from the statement filed with your committee by the Labor Board, Senator.

The CHAIRMAN. Maybe this clears it up. Out of 100 cases, 54.3 percent are affirmed in full.

Mr. CROW. Right.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, that is out of 100 cases.

Mr. CROW. Out of 100 cases.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, that 54.3 percent is not affirmed if they are not appealed.

Mr. CROW. These are the cases that are appealed.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, that comes down to the 76 percent and not the 100 percent.

Mr. CROW. Seventy-six percent of all the other cases are taken to the full Board on the basis of these statistics.