Evening star., 1937-12-27

II !
many instances $Z
in which the
Labor Board has n...r.
referred to utter
Ances, spoken or written, by employers
In connection with rulings and many
observers have wondered whether the
employers right to free speech is not
in some way being impaired by these
new rulinss
Some limitation there has always
been in labor disputes "a to the rights
Of both unions and employers to say
anything they please about each
. others business. Thus employees who
attempt a secondary boycott directed
against customers Of an employer have
found themselves restrained by court
injunctions from speaking or writing
anything in derogation Of An en-
ployer'a business.
But the new point which has been
evolved BY the National Labor Rela-
tons Board and one that will bear
watching. for it will come up again
and again In the relations Of employers
and employees, is concerned with the
connection that the board forges as
between 4 written or spoken pro-
nouncement and the Intimidation or
coercion Of employees or their dismis-
sal for union activities.
The Employers Rights.
In most every case thus far. the
Labor Board does not say that the
employer cannot express his views as
he pleAsee on any subject but merely
that the fact Of such expression may
Be- taken "A contributory evidence Of
his hostility toward self organisati ton
Of his employees in the event that overt
actA Are committed such a. discharge
Of union agitators or organizers.
\ 1t has seemed to me desirable to
ascertain on what legal or constitu-
tional argument the Labor Board bases
BY An employer or An employer group
ot1 behalf OF its members may be con-
sidered A evidence leading toward 4
conclusion that the Wagner law gov
erning unfair labor practices" may
have been violated.
The answer, according to Labor
Board attorneys. given me quite in
formally Ia to be found in unAni-
nous decision Of the Supreme Court
Of the United States rendered on May
26, 1880. the opinion being written by
Chief Justice Hughes The case was
known "A the Texas a. Orleans Rail-
road Co. vs. the Brotherhood of Rail
way Il Steamship Clerks and came
up in connection with the collective
bargaining and non coercion clauses
OF the Railway Labor Act Of 1925.
The part that motive" played in f1nd
ing the employer guilty Of interference
with the right Of self-orsanisation was
described by the Supreme Court as
follows:
Both the District Court and the
Circuit Court Of Appeals approached
the consideration OF the evidence A.
ia intimidation and coercion, and re-
;. solved such conflicts as the evidence
presented in the light of the demon
stration that a strong motive existed
on the part Of the railroad company to
oppose the demands Of the brother
hood and to promote another oreani-
ration N the clerical employees which
would be more favorable to the inter-
ests and contentious Of the company.
Both courts found the explanation
Of the oompany's attitude in the letter
addressed by H. M. Lull. executive vice
president Of the railroad company, to
A. d. Mcdonald. its president, under
date Of May ~. 1927, shortly before the
activities OF which complaint WAS
made in this suit
Motive ia 4 persuasive interpreter
Of eduivocal conduct. and the peti-
tioners are not entitled to complain
because their activities were viewed
IN the light OF manifest interest ana
. p,rposes."
Influence On Employees.
IN the same case WAS An interesting
passage which sheds light on what the
Supreme Court has said about influ-
enee <xerted upon employees or their
organizations BY employers Or their
agents. The Railway Act Of 1925
happened to have in it a prohibition
not only against coercion" and "in-
timidation" Of employees. but the very
word influence" Said Chief Justice
Hughes:
'The intent Of Congress is clear
with respect to the sort Of conduct
that 10 prohibited. Interference with
freedom Of action and coercion refer
to well-understood concepts Of the
law. The meaning Of the word 'influ-
- ence' may be gathered from the con-
text.
THE use of the word il not to be
taken a. interdicting the normal re-
lations and innocent communications
which are 4 part Of All friendly inter-
course. albeit between employer and
employe. influence In this context
plainly means pressure. the use Of the
authority or power Of either party to
induce action by the other in deroea-
ton Of what the statute calls self.
orsAnisation.' The phrase covers the
abuse Of relation or opportunity 20 AZ
to corrupt or override the will. and
1t k no more difficult to apprAise con-
duct Of this sort in connection with
the selection of representatives for the
purposes Of this act than in relation
to wtll-known application Of the law
With respect to fraud, duress and un-
due influence"
. Issue in the Ford Case,
The Ford case will turn, when it kets
10 the Circuit Court Of Appeals, al
most wholly on questions of fact. The
Wagner law itself says that "findinss
Of fact" BY the Labor Board are con-
elusive, but that those accused may
present to the Federal courts adci-
tional evidence or testimony in refuta-
ton Of alleged facts. Did the Ford
Motor Oar %. directly or indirectly in
terfere with the wishes of a majority
Of its employees or with any of its enf-
ployes who sought to advance among
their fellow workmen the cause of
. -rlnionization? The riots at the gates
Of the company come properly for
permanent pjlrpoSes under Michiran's