Of the cases removed from the docket of the board without action by formal award or finding, the greater number were dismissed without prejudice because of lack of prosecution or because the board was advised that the parties involved had entered into a formal agreement and no further action by the board was necessary. The following table shows in detail the number of cases removed for each reason specified: Cases removed from docket for reasons specified.

It should be noted that cases removed from the docket required in many instances as careful consideration by the board or its staff as those cases in which formal awards or findings were made.

Analysis of the work of the board by months, May, 1918, to May, 1919. An interesting insight into the volume of work which might have been developed by the board had not the armistice been signed is set forth in the following table, which furnishes a review of the work of the board by months during the 13 months ended May 31, 1919:

The rapid expansion of the work of the board during the period of actual hostilities is at once apparent from an examination of the foregoing table. At the time of the signing of the armistice the board had acted on 455 cases but had made only about 72 formal awards and findings, due to the fact that special attention had been given to important cases involving the production of large quantities of munitions, ordnance, and essential war materials. After the signing of the armistice a resolution of the board provided that no new cases except

joint submissions would be received by the board after December 5, 1918. Altogether there have been received during the six months since the armistice only 423 new cases, as compared with 847 cases entered on the docket during the six months prior to the armistice. During the six-month period since the armistice the board has acted on the 375 cases which were pending when the armistice was signed as well as approximately 400 new cases which have been docketed.

Executive sessions of the board.-During the summer of 1918 and up to the time of the signing of the armistice in November of the same year an executive session of the full board or its standing committee was held each week. The usual practice was for the standing committee to meet one week and the full board the following week, although the pressure of work at times was so great as to require the full board to remain in session continuously for a longer period than a week. Altogether 104 days were devoted to executive meetings by the board during the year. This does not include the considerable periods which the board spent in conducting public hearings. As almost all the members had other important duties to perform, the policy was adopted of each member appointing an alternate to represent him when his presence was required elsewhere, so that the adjustment of important matters before the board might not be delayed.

Scope of board's awards.-A careful tabulation of the data in the files shows that up to May 22 the awards and findings of the board (excluding 11 for which the information is lacking) directly affected 1,084 establishments employing 669,496 persons, of whom 80,271 were employees of street railways. These numbers, it is to be emphasized, include only those persons who were specified directly in the terms of the decisions. In very many cases the decision was applied in practice to other employees of a plant than those in whose names the controversy was filed.

Of still more importance is the fact that very frequently a decision in regard to one company was accepted by other companies similarly situated. The information on this point is very limited, but it is known that in very many instances controversies were settled voluntarily or by other adjustment agencies on the lines laid down by existing decisions of the board. Thus it is known that the decision of the board in the Bridgeport case was accepted and applied in the plants of the Remington Arms Co. in other places; and that the street railway decisions have been the basis of voluntary adjustment in Philadelphia, Washington, and many other cities.

Indeed the "principles" of the National War Labor Board as laid down by the Conference Board and as interpreted by the War Labor Board had a vastly wider influence and acceptance than indicated by any mere numerical statement of the persons directly

affected by the decisions of the board. Other governmental adjustment agencies--such as the Industrial Service Section of the Ordnance and other branches of the War Department, as well as the labor adjustment divisions and boards of other procurement divisions of the Government-have used these principles and precedents as a manual in their own adjustment work. Moreover, the conciliators of the Department of Labor, whose work during the war has been of far-reaching importance, averted many difficulties by citing the principles and precedents of the board to the parties in controversy and working out an adjustment thereunder.

Of special interest, also, is the large number of strikes and lockouts averted or called off as a direct result of the board's intervention. The exact number is unknown, but the records show at least 138 instances of this character.

Origin of cases.-The proclamation of the President creating the National War Labor Board conferred upon it jurisdiction in all controversies "in fields of production necessary for the effective conduct of the war, or in other fields of national activity, delays and obstructions in which might, in the opinion of the National Board, affect detrimentally such production."

The jurisdiction, as regards subject matter, thus conferred upon the board was extremely broad, inasmuch as in the reorganization of industry on a war basis there existed very few business activities. which did not affect, directly or indirectly, the effective conduct of the war. This is indicated by the fact that the board dismissed fewer than 50 complaints on the ground that war production was not involved.

In practice, however, the jurisdiction of the board was greatly and desirably limited by the further provision of the proclamation that the board should refuse to take cognizance of a controversy "in any field of industrial or other activity where there is by agreement or Federal law a means of settlement which has not been invoked."

This provision excluded from the consideration of the board, except by way of appeal, large groups of cases where the parties concerned. had provided by voluntary agreement for other means of arbitration or where Federal law had provided other arbitration agencies. Thus the vast shipbuilding industry had set up by agreement its own laboradjustment board; the Ordnance Department and other producing departments of the Government had provided special industrial service sections to consider the complaints of their employees; and the coal-mining industry had its labor conditions controlled by agreement of all parties with the Fuel Administration. In this way, in a number of the most important industries, means of adjustment of disputes had been arranged for, and controversies therein could reach the board only on appeal. The procedure of the board provided, more

over, that appeals would be heard only on the ground that the principles of the President's proclamation had been violated, or that either party to an award had violated it, or to determine questions of jurisdiction as between Government boards. In no case was an appeal permissible on question of fact.

The cases which came to the board on appeal from decisions of other boards were very few. Perhaps the most important of these was the New York Harbor case, which came up on appeal from the New York Harbor Wage Adjustment Board.

.

A very large number of cases, however, came to the board by way of reference from conciliation agencies-such as the Department of Labor which had been unable to adjust the matters in controversy. Thus of the 462 cases in which the board made awards and findings almost exactly one-third came by way of reference from other agencies and two-thirds by way of direct complaint to the board. Most of the cases coming by reference were from the Department of Labor, but some of the most important were referred by the War and Navy Departments and had been previously handled by the Industrial Service Sections of these departments. Such were the St. Louis cases, the Bridgeport cases, the Worthington Pump case, the Smith & Wesson case, and the Newark (N. J.) machinists' cases.

It is also of interest to note that of the complaints brought directly to the National War Labor Board about 12 per cent were made by employers or employers' associations; the remainder were made either by groups of employees or, in the case of union shops, by their union representatives.

Execution of awards.-The board was given no legal authority to enforce its decisions. In case of joint submission the parties had, of course, the right of legal redress as in all cases of violation of contract. Otherwise the execution of the board's decisions depended on the support of public opinion, the support of other governmental agencies, and the obligation laid upon employers and employees by their chosen representatives in the formation of the board and the drafting of its principles.

Particularly during the period of active hostilities the powers of the procurement departments of the Government-such as the War and Navy Departments-were very great, and these powers, as well as the influence of the President himself, were consistently used in support of the awards of this board. The most striking cases of this kind were the Bridgeport and Smith & Wesson cases. In the former the President told the striking employees he would use the Federal Employment Service and other branches of the Government to their disadvantage if they did not accept the board's award. In the Smith & Wesson case the War Department immediately took over the plant of that company when it refused to abide by the board's decision.

The outstanding fact, however, is that, as long as active war was on, the decisions of the board were accepted almost without exception both in ex parte cases and in cases of joint submission. Since the armistice, and more particularly since the first of the year, the changed industrial conditions, the questioning in some quarters as to the board's authority in the intermediate period between the armistice and the proclamation of peace, and the uncertainty in some minds as to the continued existence of the board, have combined to create a condition when the board's decisions have been less spontaneously accepted.

Hearings by board and examiners.-When the number of submissions to the board became so great as to render hearings by examiners necessary, such hearings almost entirely supplanted hearings before board members. In addition to the heavy requirement of considering the testimony secured by examiners the board heard only cases of peculiar difficulty or listened to oral argument in cases in which the testimony had previously been submitted to examiners. In total there have been 488 hearings held by the board members and by examiners, hearings by examiners being 321, or 66 per cent of the total.

The hearings were distributed as follows:

During the months of greatest activity examiners' hearings averaged about 15 per week, and in view of the length of many hearings and their wide separation geographically, this involved the need of some 30 examiners. Usually the hearings were held at the place of controversy. This was done primarily for reasons of economy, as it was much less expensive to send an examiner with necessary assistants to another point than it was to pay the expenses of representatives and witnesses to Washington. The policy adopted was to assign only one examiner to a hearing, except in cases of particular difficulty or complexity; but this policy could not always be observed, owing to the need of breaking in new examiners, a process which could be best accomplished by sending a new man with a more experienced examiner, in order that he might get practical training.