Creating the National War Labor Board: Franklin Roosevelt and the Politics of State Building in the Early 1940s

In January 1942, President Franklin D. Roosevelt issued an executive order creating a National War Labor Board (NWLB) to arbitrate wartime industrial disputes. Roosevelt's order provided enormous power for the board, which could, on its own motion, intervene in any labor conflict it deemed a threat to "the effective prosecution of the war" and subsequently impose settlements on the parties. In practice, the board replaced free collective bargaining for the duration of the war. Most scholars of the era agree that the NWLB, operating at a time when New Deal labor policy was still in formation and many unions had not yet become entrenched in their industries, had a profound impact on the evolution of the American industrial relations system during the war and thereafter. ¹

Despite a superficial similarity to earlier labor boards, the NWLB was a curious creature born, in the words of one of its members, "out of dead-lock," and of a breed uncommon on the American political landscape. The board's authority was nominally grounded on an agreement by a 1941 national labor-management conference to eschew strikes and lockouts in lieu of arbitration. Yet this conference had reached an impasse and its "agreement" had been forced on the business delegates by Roosevelt. The NWLB was formed with a tripartite structure consisting of an equal number of public, labor, and business representatives and was unique in the wartime state in the degree to which its business and labor members were allowed to participate in decision making. But here again the labor federations, which nominated and controlled their representatives, were privileged over organized business groups, which could not do so and subsequently had little influence over those who were appointed. This peculiar form of tripartite membership differentiated the board from most earlier industrial relations agencies--particularly the essentially bipartite NWLB of World War I and the National (Railway) Mediation Board (NMB) and National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), both of which had only public members. ²

This article analyzes the process by which the NWLB's unique structure was formed with particular attention given to the year of labor policy experimentation and political conflict that preceded its creation. Although this subject is clearly of interest to those seeking to understand the development of New Deal industrial relations policy, this article is primarily concerned with the board as a chapter in another narrative--that of the "building" of the American state. Historians have long recognized that state building--the construction of new administrative capacities within the government--is one of the most important trends of twentieth-century American history. Most historical accounts of the process, however, have been more descriptive than analytic. Recently political scientists, sociologists, and historians committed to an "institutionalist" analysis of politics--so called because of their contention that the structure and development of state institutions has a powerful impact on the creation of policy--have reoriented and deepened the study of the growth of the American state. I contend that the institutionalist perspective brings important new questions and methods to the study of the NWLB and the national state's wartime labor policy in general. ³

The best of the institutionalist studies seek to explain both why the American government has grown and why it takes the shape that it does. Peter Nettle, whose ideas paved the way for much of this body of work, argues convincingly that times of crisis provide the impetus for state expansion. Thus, the social and economic chaos generated by industrialization, heightened class conflict, and the nation's participation in global wars have all given rise to episodes of state building. Clearly the NWLB is a result of the latter two of these factors, but the institutionalist perspective provides a framework for asking other interesting and complex questions about the board. As political scientist...