Evening star., 1934-11-05
UNCERTAIN LABOR
POLICY ASSA|LED
A. & P. Case Held Example
of Ignorance Of Rights
on Both Sides.
BY DAVID LAWRENCE.


The wonder really is that there are
not more strikes and lockoutS and
economic loss to the country. AS a
matter of fact, there are plenty Of
rulings, but Government officials. espe-
cially mediators representing the
Government, are often instigators OF
labor troubles instead of umpires.
They encourage union leaders at
times to take a course Of action that
is plainly illegal.
Newspaper dispatches frequently re-
port or quote the labor leaders as
saying an employer has refused to
bargain collectively. What the latter
really means Is that an employer has
refused to sign union contract. Some
of these union contracts are plainly a
violation of the famous section Ia.
Perhaps the most sensational case in
point is one that now is agitating the
mining industry.
Provision of Contract.
Here is the provision of the con-
tract which employers are asked to
sign:
The company agrees to retain in
It's employ. upon the conditions pro-
vided herein, only members OF the
said union in good standing, and that
it will, within one week after the
end of each calendar month. furnish
to the union complete list, by mines,
of all employees as herein defined. en-
ployed by it at these mines during the
preceding calendar month"
The union may. as soon there
after as it shall determine, notify
the company of any such employees
who were not members of said union
in good standing at the close Of said
month. The company agrees to
promptly notify each Of such en-
ployes so designated, then in its en-
ploy, of such delinquency and, If such
employe or employees do not, within
10 days after the service OF such
notice by the union. place them
selves in good standing, the union
will notify the company Of such fact.
and such employees as do not comply
with such requirements shall not be
permitted to further continue in the
employ of the company during the
time of such delinquency
Violation of Section IA.
The foregoing means an agree
ment in advance to maintain a
closed shop and it is a form Of
coercion upon workmen which is
plainly in violation Of section IA,
which law, besides collective bargain
ing rights. has an equally essential
clause, often overlooked, declaring
that mo one seeking employment
shall be required as condition Of
employment to refrain from joining,
organizing or assisting a labor or
SANITATION Of his own choosing" and
that, furthermore. employees shall be
free from the interference. restraint
or coercion of employers of labor or
their agents in a designation of such
representatives or in self-organization
or in their concerted activities"
If, therefore. a group of workmen
do not wish to join an outside union,
but wish to remain in a plant union,
their employers who have signed a
contract, such as is quoted above, are
in the position of coercing them to
Join. Hence, when labor leaders say
employers are refusing to bargain
collectively they really mean many
employers are refusing to violate the
law by coercing their men into a
closed shop.
Gen. johnson and Donald Rich
berg. in explaining section IA, once
proclaimed a ruling in joint state
ment which said:
The law does not prohibit the ex-
istence Of local labor organization
which may be called company
union and is composed of employees
of one company. But it does prohibit
an employer from requiring, as con-
dition of employment, that any en-
ploye Join a company union, and it
prohibits the maintenance of a COM
pany union or any other labor organ
ization by the interference, restraint
or coercion Of the employer
johnson Confirmed View.
The words "any other labor organi-
zation" certainly include all labor
unions, whether inside or outside the
company. Gen johnson. in a public
address on September 4 of last year.
confirmed this view when he said:
If any employer should make a
contract with a particular agency to
employ only members of that organi-
zation. especially if that organization
did not have 100 per cent member
ship among his employees, that would
in effect be contract to interfere
with his workers freedom of choice
of their representatives or with their
right to bargain individually and
would amount to employer coercion
on these matters, which Is contrary
to law"
And yet in the face of such rulings
and public statements, responsible
persons representing the N. r. A. and
other governmental agencies seek
either to evade the question or they
intimate in some guarded way that
such a contract is legal, or as is known
to have occurred in at least one in
stance. they use their positions as
mediators to inform the labor union
that such an agreement is legal and
that the counsel for the employers
was in error in advising to the con-
trary.
Clear statements as to what COL
lcCOlNC DoI ed4ill4lS 10 dh0 "AAoe Az 40
not have never been issued by the
Government. This is due largely to
a pussyfooting policy which refuses
to call spade spade because of
possible political repercussions in an
election in which the labor bloc wields
power. Failure to meet the issue,
however will doubtless lead to lock-
outs by employers, such as occurred
in Cleveland.
Points Finally Granted.
And when it is all over, it is found
that the National Labor Relations
Board grants in a specific agree
ment the very points raised originally,
namely, that employees must refrain
from coercing their fellow employees
into unionizing. just as employers
must refrain from coercing their en-
ployes to refrain from joining unions.
But it would save the country mil
lions of dollars in losses II the Gov
ernment wuold make the settlement
of the A. &, P. case national policy
and stand behind it everywhere, in
stead of developing a series of agree