Southwest Washington labor press. [volume] (Hoquiam, Wash.) 19??-19??, 1925-01-09

Il
of course, caused a suspension Of the
conferences on the Santa Fe and the
other AZ carriers. This gathering, as
counsel has endeavored to show, was
not conference such Is is required
by the act. This group negotiation,
as has been stated. terminated with
out resulting IN agreements. The nat
ural and reasonable thing to do next,
and the conduct required by the stat
ute, as weIl as By the number Of de-
cisions and orders Of the Labor Board
was for the general chairman Of the
engineers to return to the general
manager Of the Santa Fe and ask that
another effort be made to reach an
agreement. As q matter of fact, this
is what actually happened. But be-
fore this general chairman could ask
for resumption Of negotiations, the
Labor Board rushed in and declared
that an interruption to interstate
commerce was threatened because the
Santa Fe and its employees had not
settled 3 dispute about which they
had not been in legal conference since
March Is, 1924, and about which the
representatives Of the men few days
later (far from taking q strike vote,
or any other such militant procedure)
were doing nothing more than asking
the carrier to resume the conferences
required by the lawl
Basis Of Boards Opinion
"The court will note that the
Boards opinion that on May Il, 1924,
an interruption of traffic was immi-
nent was based upon the following:
"(1) The termination of confer
ence not authorized under the statute,
and without authority to enter into an
agreement;
"(2) The intention of the employee
representatives immediately to re-
sumo authorized conferences on the
individual carriers, which conferences
could produce agreements;
"(3) The statement Of the chair
man of the Conference Committee Of
Managers that an unauthorized con-
ference had failed, and that though
an interruption to commerce might
at some future day, be threatened
there was no such threatened inter-
ruption on May Is, 1924.
''This is indeed an extraordinary
spectacle: an administrative tribunal
declaring that strike is imminent
when the employees are strenously
and earnestly requesting conference
for the amicable settlement of dis
pute! It would be hard to find in the
books a more gross and outrageous
abuse of discretion than this peremp-
tory action of the Labor Board, and
the reports of the Supreme Court Of
the United States are full of state
nents declaring that constitutional
rights can not be thus arbitrarily set
aside by any tribunal.
Arbitrary Action Demonstrated
another startling fact in connec-
tion with the assumption of jurisdic-
ton by the board, which clearly dem
onstrates its arbitrary, unreasonable
and illegal character, is the indecent
haste and the extraordinary circum-
stances accompanying its action
Some time during May IL the group
negotiation terminated without an
agreement. On May 10 the chairman
of the Conference Committee of Man
ayers wrote to the Labor Board noti-
flying it that the group negotiation
had failed to produce a settlement
and informed hte board that a dispute
existed, but that the dispute did not
at the time of writing seem likely
substantially to interrupt commerce
The language of the letter of Chair
man LETTERS read as follows:
"The Conference Committee OF
Managers, Western Railways, desires
to formally advise your honorable
board Of the existence of such dispute
not settled in conference, and to re-
quest your board to now take jurisdic-
ton over the dispute, or be prepared
to take jurisdiction thereof should the
dispute be likely to substantially in
terrupt commerce.
"What would have been the reason
able thing for an administrative tri-
bunal vested with discretionary pow
ers to have done under these circum-
stances. The least it could have done
in the interest of fairness and the
protection Of the interests involved
would have been to investigate the
situation, spend at least two or three
days in canvassing the matter to de-
termine if the law had been complied
with, and to learn whether the chair
man of the Conference Committee OF
Managers was correct in concluding
that on May Is there was no inter
ruption to commerce threatened. II
the board had been acting reasonably
and impartially, as, under the law,
such a board must, if its chairman had
not been publicly denouncing, in I'M
restrained and inflammes0ry Ian
guage, the politics and the methods
of the very men who were conducting
the group negotiations on behalf OF
the employees, then this court might
reasonably expect to find in the record
at least this much elaboration ex-
hibited by the board. What actually
/ AZ .......I