The Redwood gazette. [volume] (Redwood Falls, Minn.) 1873-1940, 1922-01-04
The "Check-Of"
Decision Reversed.

Christian Science Monitor: While
possibly the decision of the United
States court of appeals in the West
| Virginia mine case has taken no adj
vanced ground in defining the relations
of capital and labor, it certainly has
gone somewhat farther than anything
attempted in previous decisions IN
clarifying and illuminating the re-
cognized legal status of unionized
workers. From reading of the sum-
married version of the courts opinion
in remanding, for important amend
ments and recasting, the order issued
by Judge A. B. Anderson of the Unit
ed States district court at Indiana
polls, Ind, the purpose of the three
appellate court judges appears to have
been to emphasize the fact that in in
dustry the law does not give to capital
any greater advantage than it gives
to labor. Of course no decision of a
court was necessary to establish that
fundamental fact, but apparently a
very clear statement of the fact was
necessary that it might be emphasized.
The appeal from the Anderson deci-
sion was by the United Mine Workers
of America, against whom an order
had been issued enjoining them from
collecting what is called the "check-
off, system, under which the mine OPP
orators, in agreement with the unions,
deducted from the wages of the work
ers the regular assessments LEVIED by
the union organization. The order ap-
pealed from also enjoined, generally,
the activities of the appellants in their
efforts to unionize the workers in the
West Virginia field, and it is the action
of the court Of appeals in overrulmg |
this order that is of greatest import
ance to the cause of organized labor
as a whole. The opinion reversing
and remanding the Anderson order
finds, first of all, that the check-off
system, primarily, is not illegal in It
self, and that it is illegal only when it
is put to illegal purposes, or when dues
are collected by duress. This conclu-
sion seems to be directly in line with
the recognized tendency of American
courts to accord to every individual the
fullest possible latitude in contracting
as to all matters of wages and employ.
ment, somewhat in contradiction OF
the older theory of the law that the
wage Garner should be made a subject
of special guardianship.
But beyond this, which is a step IN
advance of the conclusions reached by
the trial court, the three appellate
judges, in recognizing the rights OF
union organizers to seek recruits IN the
territory in dispute, wherein the en-
ploying operators have long striven to
maintain the "open shop" declare the
rights of both employers and employees
to be equal in carrying on their pro
paganda. While conceding the right !;
of any single unit of an industry to
prevent the actual physical invasion
of it's properties by union organizers,
the demanding order declares that IN
it's fight to maintain an open shop IN
West Virginia, for instance, the en- /
ploying company had no more right
to prevent the unions from seeking re-
cruits than the unions would have, IN
their fight for a closed shop, to an in
junction against the operators to pre-
vent them from attempting to keep
operatives out of the unions.
There may be an inclination on the
part of those responsible for the direc-
lions of the activities Of labor unions
to interpret the remanding decision
as permitting unrestrained license in
carrying on their offensive campaigns
of organization. It cannot properly !
be so regarded. It is victory for la
Dor only because it has clearly and I'M
equivocally stated a fundamental fact.
It should be regarded as victory for
the employers for the same reason. No
undue advantage has been given to
those on either side Of the particular
controversy under discussion.