Evening star., 1922-05-09
RULINGS OF COURT
STUN LABOR BOARD
"Joint Submission" Decision
Said to Peril Body's :,
Effectiveness.
ny DAVID LAWRENCE.

CHICAGO. Ill, May. 9-The United
States Labor Board is amazed at the
phraseology of Judge Pages decree
just entered in the district court
which restraints the board from per-
forming some of the functions vital
to it's effective operation, if not its
existence.
The language of the decision in the
case brought by the Pennsylvania
railroad against the Labor Board was
ambiguous and led government law
yers in Washington to conclude that
the transportation act was broad
enough to overcome the obstacles set
up by Judge Page. But when the in
junction was entered by Judge Page
all doubt was removed, and the Labor
Board has appealed the case and Oh
tanned a hearing in the circuit court
for June S.
The decree itself enjoins the United
States Labor Board from assuming
any authority or taking any action
of any kind or character under sec
tion 301 of the transportation act un-
less and until there has been joint
submission of a dispute by the car
riers and the employees, which has
been the subject matter OF conference
between them
The whole case turns upon the
word "joint submission" 1t had not
"Deen especially emphasized IN JuuSe
Pages decision, but it is plain enough
in the decree of the court. OH
cials of the railroad board say that
if it is sustained it means the end
Of the labor board or such sub
Stantial Curtailment of it's powers as
to make it's work aimless.
In the particular contingency de-
veloped by the Pennsylvania rail-
roads case, Labor Board officials say
an election was held by the PennSyl
,nI, - rjy,os, f.1X
ballots were cast to determine who
the spokesmen of the shop crafts
should be. The American Federation
of Labor conducted an election at
which $4,000 ballots were caat The
Pennsylvania insisted that the repres-
entatives of the 5000 were the bona
flde spokesmen of the employees and
an agreement was reached with that
group.
Now the Pennsylvania claims there
is no dispute and hence the Labor
Board has no jurisdiction and on top
of this the federal court decree in
sists that the Labor Board can't in
terfere unless there is d Joint sub
mission of the issues by carrier and
employees. The representatives of
$500 are satisfied and are not in
terested in any Joint submission"
of. the case to the Labor Board But
what of the $4,000 who are denied
recognition by the Pennsylvania and
are prevented by the court decree
from getting the assistance of the
u. S. Labor Board.
The language of the transportation
act was intended by Congress to cover
just such a development. for it pro-
videS that any one hundred men can
appeal to the Labor Board to take
cogniZance of a dispute. Thirtynine
thousand have appealed and have said
the cause of their dispute was the
method of selecting spokesmen.
The court says the Labor Board has
nothing to say about this. The Labor
Board says it ought to have and be-
lieves a higher court will concur In
that view. If it doesn't, there is every
reason to believe Congress would
grant the necessary authority and
that President Harding would sup
port the request.
Attorney General Daugherty. how
ever, has sent a special attorney here
to argue the case and the hope is
that a higher court may reverse the
decision and point out that the trans
portation act does give the Labor
Board power to take cognIzance of
any dispute if any appeal is made to
it by workmen who have been denied
a voice in the making of agreements
concerning their wages and working
conditions.
(Cpnyricht 1920