Evening star., 1935-07-14

This Is the first OF ttoo drtscLes
discussing some OF the questions
raised By recent enactment OF the
labor relations ldtO. The second tCiH
appear tomorrow.
BY JOHN c. HENRY.
While both industry and labor
await presidential appointment of the
three man board to administer the
new labor relations law Cknown before
enactment as the Wagner bilD, legal
ambuScades are being laid by both
sides. 1t is certainty that admin
istration of the law and probably the
law itself will run afoul of this cross
fire as soon as one side or the other
can rush one of their strongest cases
into the courts.
Already the groundwork of test
is being laid in Milwaukee, where
Cudahy Bros. Co. has declined to
recognize meat-cutters' union as
sole bargaining unit for its workers.
In answer. the Meat Cutters Union,
an affiliate of the A. F. of l.. has
filed a formal complaint charging
failure to grant the rights guaranteed
under the act.
The troubles which await the new
statute may be divided into two gen.
eral classifications: First, the con-
troversy and wrangling which are
bound to arise over whatever inter-
probation the board may place upon
certain indefinite provisions of the
law; second the firm intention of
industry to force the law itself or
some specific application Of it to a
test of constitutionality. Both issues
will reach common grounds even
tually. namely the courts.
AS an indication of the points upon
which the aforesaid controversies will
center. the National Association Of
Manufacturers. in an analysis Of the
law. cites numerous words or phrases
which it terms vague and open to
discriminating application.
Question on Employe Gifts.
Centering its attention first upon
that section of the law dealing with
unfair labor practices for employers,
the association questions the exact
meaning of interference restraint
and coercion" From these it goes
to the second of the unfair practices
forbidding domination or financial
contribution by employers to employe
unions In this connection the ques-
ton is raised as to whether employer
contributions TO outings or athletic
organizations might be held under the
ban That this doubt is not confined
to the association alone was shown in
hearings on the bill when Senator
Borah asked Senator Wagner, sponsor
of the measure, to advance his deflni-
ton of these terms. Most of them
the latter admitted, are open to the
discretion of the board and circum-
stances which surround the case.
Likewise, the association considers
the field of discretion open to the
board in the third of the listed prac-
tices as unduly broad. This section
prohibits discrimination tending to
encourage or discourage membership
in any labor organization. The true
definition of collective bargaining also
is asked, on the grounds that preced-
ing boards have practically construed
it to mean that bargain must be
reached"
The majority rule principle, always
opposed by industry, but esta blished
as policy by the present board in its
ruling on the Houde case and per-
petuated as law in the new act, IS
under fire on the grounds that insult
flcient rights are reserved for the
minority, their only specific protection
being that of the privilege of present.
ing grievance" to their employer.
Can Select Bargaining Unit.
In that same section of the act is
found the most controversial, perhaps
of all provisions and one that is tied
in with the majority rule principle
This provision follows:
THE board shall decide in each
case whether, in order to insure to
employees the full benefit Of their
right to Reorganization and to
collective bargaining, and other
wise to effectuate the policies Of
this act, the unit appropriate for
the purposes of collective bargain
ing shall be the employer unit,
craft unit, plant unit or subdivision
thereof"
OF considerable interest in this con-
nection is the comment of Francis
Biddle, retiring chairman of the pres
ent board, as follows: