The Brattleboro daily reformer. (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1913-1955, 1922-05-08

| victory to the Pennsylvania railroad in
| its controversy with the United States
railroad labor board has brought govern
ment lawyers to the conclusion that first
impressions of the decision as circulated
in the press were erroneous and that the
verdict was by no means a blow to the
railroad labor board. .....-
In fact. it now is doubtful whether the
government will appeal the case To a
higher court The reason is that close
inspection of the decision reveals that
the point decided is relatively not essen
tal to the successful operation of the
railway labor board in the future. On
the other hand, the statement of Judge
Page that the law creating the labor
board is constitutional and that decisions
of the board must be respected Is con-
sdered of far more significance.
Road Wins Important Point.
The Pennsylvania railroad. inciden-
tally, won from its viewpoint an impor-
tant point The controversy arose over
the attempt of the railroad labor board
to prescribe rules and regulations
whereby employees of the Pennsylvania
would select their spokesman or represent
tatives for the so-called regional railway
adjustment boards which have been pro
vided for by law to settle disputes over
wages. working hours and conditions.
The Pennsylvania railroad argued sue
ccSsfuIly that the United States railroad
labor board didn't have any right to tell
any railroad or any workman for rail
road how their respective spokesman
shall be selected.
There have been many charges by rail
road workers that when provision Is
made for the settlement of a dispute be
tween Representatives q employers and
that the companies do not select friendly
representatives or see to it that the bal
loting brings out spokesman favorable 10
a cOmpanyS cause. The United States
railroad labor board tried to overcome !
this. difficulty by laying down an explicit |
set of instructions governing a secret bal |
lot in the election of employees reprcsen |
tatives The courts found that the rail |
road labor board was not granted any
such right by the transportation act
Board Can Decide Dispute
But it is a fact that the law does en-
able the railroad labor board to take |
jurisdiction over any dispute which is |
likely to interrupt the nations commerce |
and there is specific provision permit |
ting the railroad labor board to decide |
dispute if no conference between EN- !
ployes and employers has been held or if |
the conference diSagreeS. Indeed, even if |
men did agree to something which a
large body of their fellow workmen who |
were organized in a union or morgan !
lied didn't like, the United States rail |
road labor board can take cognizance of
the controversy on petition from any 100
wOrkmen and thus get the case into its
hands for decision. So. after all even
though the Pennsylvania railroad or any
other carrier retains the right to pre-
vent the United States labor board from
interfering in the manner in which the
employees pick their spokesman the law
provides a check against miSrepresenta-
ton. And that's why Judge Pages YER
dict on that point isn't considered essen
tial.
General Powers of Board.
OF much more Importance do govern
ment lawyers construe the remarks of
Judge Page on the general powers of the
railway labord board. He said in part
Il have reached the conclusion that it
was the belief of congress that the results
desired by the legislation could be at
tanned through the force of public Opin-
ion and that that public opinion would
follow. the publication made and would
support the decisions of the board com
special knowledge of the difficulties
within and the necessities of the group
that he was chosen to represent"
This is the first time that a federal
judge has made clear the scope of the
United States railroad board and al
though he points out that no penalty has
been provided by congress for a viola
ton of the transportation act, Judge