Evening star., 1935-07-14


the majority rule is not the rule itself,
but its application. The important
question is to what unit the ma
jority rule applies. Section tb)
of the Wagner bill provides that the
board shall decide the unit appropri
ate for the purpose Of collective bar
gaining. This, as indicated by the
act, may be craft, plant or employer
unit. The necessity for the board
deciding the unit and the difficulties
sometimes involved can readily be
made clear where the employer runs
two factories producing similar pro-
ducts Shall unit be each factory
or shall they be combined into one?
Where there are several crafts in
the plant, shall each be separately
represented?
ITO lodge the power of determining
this question with the employer would
invite unlimited abuse, and gerry
Wandering the units would defeat the
aims of the statute. If the employees
themselves could make the decision
without proper consideration of the
elements, which should constitute the
appropriate units they could In any
given instance defeat the practical
significance of the majority rule; and.
by breaking off into small groups.
could make it impossible for the
employer to run his plant.
Board Acts in Third Place"
"Of course, you have to take
chance to an extent on your board.
We have three choices, and the en-
ployer obviously is not the person
to determine the unit. If your en-
ployes determine it. any group can
break of from the main bargaining
union and constitute itself little bar
gaining unit.
ANY arbitrary act of the board in
selecting the unit is subject to check
on review by the court 1t is impos-
sible, however. to lay down a definite
rule for the determination of the ap-
propriate unit, for such an attempt
would result in rigidity and confu-
sion"
From this frank admission Of the
wide discretion being vested in the
board in this most important point, as
we'll as in others, is revealed the great
importance surrounding selection OF
the boards personnel. Industry fears,
of course. lest this personnel be un-
duly friendly to organized labor. that
the bargaining units deemed "appro-
pirate" in too many instances will be
those of the American Federation OF
Labor or one of its afiliates. The re-
suit of such an attitude, they contend
further. would allow the federation to
capitalize this power in recruiting
membership and dominating all in
duStry.
Asked about this circumstance, Sem
ator Wagner declared he had no
knowledge of the makeup OF the new
board, but pointed out that the admin
istration of any law. however exactly
drawn, varies greatly with the per
sonnel doing the administering.
In connection with enforcement
powers of the board, declared by Sen
ator Wagner to be most necessary. the
attacks of industry thus far have CEN
tered upon two points, in section 10 OF
the law. First of these is the provi-
sion that any complaint against an
employer for violation of the labor
practices section may be amended
by the member, agent or agency con-
ducting the hearing or the board in
its discretion at any time prior to the
issuance of an order based thereon"
Desist Order Attacked.
In other words" the National AS
sociation of Manufacturers says. in
stead of making the proof correspond
to the pleadings as is required in all
courts of law and equity. the board
may in its discretion modify the plead
ing to correspond to the proof
A second point under attack in this
section is the latitude given the board
in the clause authorizing it to issue
cease and desist order from the un-
fair labor practice in point and to
order such Affirmative action. includ-
ing reinstatement Of employees with or
without back pay, as will effectuate the
policies of this act"
Although these criticisms Of the new
law by the National Association of
Manufacturers are not necessarily
valid and are themselves elements in
the controversies sure to arise, they
do indicate with certainty in what
directions the employers will question
interpretations of the act by the board.