Southwest Washington labor press. [volume] (Hoquiam, Wash.) 19??-19??, 1925-01-09
SUPREME COURT T0LDU. s. LABOR BOARD
LACKS JURISDICTION N WAGE PARLEVS

Labor Board against j. Mcclure,
general chairman Of the locomotive
engineers on the Chicago q North
Western Railroad, now pending in
the court Of Federal Judge James H.
Wilkerson, contend that the board
lacked jurisdiction when it assumed
control Of wage negotiations being in
itiated between the managers of 43
Western railways and their employees
in engine service on May Il, 1924.
Donald r. Riehberg and David e.
Lilienthal, attorneys for Mcclure, are
presenting the same arguments in the
case Of D. B. Robertson, president Of
the Brotherhood Of Locomotive En-
ginemen and Firemen, now on appeal
to the United States Supreme Court
from > recent decision Of Judge VIII
kerson.
Unreasonable Action Charged
The brief fled in behalf Of the en-
ployes is an interesting piece of liter
allure. Discussing the lack Of juris-
dictiOn Of the Railroad Labor Board,
the brief says:
"The second requisite for a legal
assumption Of jurisdiction By the
board on its own motion IL that the
board shall be of the opinion that the
dispute is likely substantially to inter-
rupt commerce.
ut is well settled in the field Of
constitutional law that where disere-
tion Is vested in an administrative Of
fetal or tribunal Tor even in q court)
that discretion must be exercised rea-
sonably.
"H il is exercised arbitrarily, that
is, without reasonable basis; II the
discretion is abused, it is the duty of
the courts, under the due process
clause Of the Constitution to protect
the citizen against such abuse of dis
erection. It is the contention of coun-
sci that, even conceding arguendo that
the requirements of the law had been
met, even granting that the confer
ence, the termination of which on May
IL, 1924, the Labor Board made the
occasion for its assumption of juris-
diction, was conference within the
terms Of the law, nevertheless there
was nothing in the state Of facts on
May Ia, 1924, which could reasonably
lead the Labor Board to the conclusion
that a dispute existed which was
likely substantially to interrupt COM
merce. Counsel earnestly contend
that the Labor Board acted arbitrarily
and unreasonably, and under our Con-
stitution, far beyond the powers of
any administrative tribunal vested
with discretionary authority. 1t is
submitted that such conduct By the
board is not only a violation of the
statute, but also of the fifth amend
ment of the Constitution, which for
bids the deprivation of liberty or
property without due process of law.
Boards Opinion" Arbitrary
"In order to make the situation con-
crete, let us take some particular car
rier-say, the Atchison, Topeka &
Santa Fe and its engineers-and
trace the stream of facts.
"For several months after January
1, 1924, the general chairman of the
Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers
on the Santa Fe and the general man.
ager of the Santa Fe had been con-
ferring, from time to time, on the
terms Of an agreement 20 replace the
agreement then in force. No settle
ment was reached by March 25, 1924.
AT that time neither the general man
ager of the Santa Fe nor the general
chairman of the engineers felt that an
impasse had been reached, simply be-
cause their dispute had not been set
tied and no agreement had been
signed. At that time the general
manager of the Santa Fe made no
effort to cause the dispute to be heard
before the Labor Board, by means of
an ex parte submission, nor did the
general chairman of the engineers
take steps toward such action. AS
everyone having any knowledge of
wage negotiations well knows, it is
not infrequent for such negotiations
oextend over considerable period
of time, where important and basic
problems must be solved.
"This being the state of matters:
the parties making earnest efforts by
negotiations to enter into a contract,
surely on March %, 1924, no court
would have sustained the Labor Board
had it, on its own motion, assumed
jurisdiction of the dispute even though
in the boards opinion it believed that
eventually the unsettled dispute might
substantially interrupt commerce. FOR
when parties are still in contract
ing frame of mind, and are discussing
terms and making proposals and coun-
ter proposals, it requires a violent ex-
ercise of an affrighted imagination to
describe such a situation as threaten
ing an interruption of commerce. Fur
Sfhermore, for the Labor Board, upon
such set Of facts, to interrupt and
interfere with the negotiations of par
ties seeking to enter into contractual
relations would be to deprive them Of
their constitutional right of liberty to
contract freely and without govern
mental interference.
Conferences Ara Qusnandad