The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1921-06-17
TO TRY WOLFF co.
Action Expected Soon Thru
Attorney Generals Office.
Charged With Violation of In.
dustrial Court Act.
ACTION IN DISTRICT COURT
Plant Foreman Is Said to Have
Been Discharged.
New Case Will Test Additional
Features of Law. u
ACTION IN DISTRICT COURT

Action will be taken thru the at
torney generals office at an early date
directing prosecution of the Wolff
Packing company of Topeka for dis
charge of employees in violation of pros
visions of the industrial court act, ac-
cording to information from state de-
partments following an inquisition.
The action is to be brought in the
Shawnee county district court and will
be based on evidence supplied this
week by more than thirty employees
and former employees of the packing
company.
w. e. May Was Discharged.
Walter E. May. foreman of the
plant, is alleged to have been dis
charged because he testified in a wage
lowing a wage award May was dis
charged and according to information
, from the inquisition court this week.
petitions were circulated for his REIN
statement. The packing company is
reported to have employed a detective
and three men who circulated petit
J tions in Mays behalf were dropped
from the companys pay roll.
The new turn in the Wolff case will
test additional features of the indus
trial court act. In an appeal to the
supreme court, the packing company
has raised an issue as to the right of a
| regulatory body to control private
business to the extent of a wage award
/ higher than similar labor may be se-
cured in the open market. 1t has also
questioned the right of the Industrial
court to define hours of operation of
an industrial plant without recogni-
ton of markets and conditions OF sup
ply and demand. The court law pro-
vision against discharge of employees
who testify in a case involving wages
is to be tested.
Say He Was Agitator.
Officers of the packing company
have not. admitted that May and his
| associates were discharged because
they testified in the wage case. They
assert that May was an agitator and
disturber and that. under his leader
ship dis1oyalty to the company was
being developed, and men were urged
to slow down in their work. On the
other hand reports said to emanate-
& from the attorney generals office, are
to the effect that evidence was pro-
duced at the hearing to the effect that
May was a good and efficient worker.
1t was shown during the hearing,
tho, that a meeting was held follow
ing Mays discharge and that petitions
were circulated for his reinstatement
following this meeting. Discharge of
the men who circulated the petition is
declared by state officials to have been
as severe crime as discharge of May,
| since it tended to iEtimidate other en-
i ployes.
State Wide Importance.
/ Issues raised in the Wolff case
, greatly overshadow the Alexander
, Howat cases. in the opinion of con-
: stitutional lawyers who have closely
followed moves to test constitutionality
of the industrial court act. Filing of
the case against the Wolff company
; will be of state wide Importance since
. it will establish the rights of an em-
, ployer in determining his course in
discharge of men who testify against
him before courts and bodies of reg
: ord. 1t may also determine the right
; of an employer to use his own judg-
r ment as to the loyalty of the men in
, his service. None of these phases of
: the court law presented in the Wolff
cases were raised in the actions
} against Alexander Howat