Evening star., 1937-04-04
NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS.
BIDS FOR LABOR POWER
Organizations of Type Seen Replacing
Company Unions Which Have Been
Discredited in Recent Cases.

cerned themselves with employe rep
resentation plans and have left little
room for doubt that the life of this
device may be measured by the length
of time in which the validity Of the
labor relations law is to remain un.
decided
Taking shape from the evidence
accumulated in extensive hearings,
the boards most thorough analysis
and most clearcut decision on the
company union issue resulted from the
International Harvester case.
One of the prem. R. A employe
representation plans the Harvester
Industrial Council plan was introduced
in 1919 and was presented to en-
ployes of their Fort Wayne works,
which figured in the boards COM
plant. in 1927. Typical of thcse
mechanisms. the Harvester plan con-
tains works council comprised Of
representatives elected by the en-
ployes and others appointed by the
management. The council meets
monthly, its presiding officer being
the manager of industrial relations,
the vice chairman being the plant
superintendent and the secretary be-
ing third company executive, The
plan carries no provision for mass
meetings Of employees nor Of their
collective contact with their chosen
representatives. on the council
Cite Management Links.
In its analysis of the workings O,
the plan, the board cites. among other
things, how the management links
the plan with eXtraneous benefits,
such as the company credit union,
its athletic association, vacation plan
and pension plan. none Of which re-
suited from the employe representa-
ton setup and which are actually
entirely Independent of il
The improperly" the board states.
would hardly be more obvic is if the
respondent were to inaugurate the
practice of Christmas bonuses and
allot them to the employe representa-
tives for distribution"
Reviewing a long list of instances
of wage and hour terms being AN
management representatives, the
board found that mo agreement re-
lating to hours, wages or conditions
of employment has ever been entered
into by the Management with its en-
ployes. Its employees possess
only the shadow, not the substance.
Of collective bargaining
RV aCiYr1iCSjO,7 OF
expenses of the plan are borne by
the company. The board saws:
The result of such support is that
the management pays the agent. who
is supposed to bargain with it on
behalf of the employees. The re-
/ spondent would not tolerate a COM
parable situation in its dealings with
other concerns"
In conclusion the board ordered
the company to withdraw all recog-
| milton from the Harvester Industrial
Council plan as representative of its
employees for the purpose of
dealing with respondent concerning
grievances, labor disputes, wages. rates
OF pay, hours of employment. of con-
ditions and Of work"
Remington Rand Case.
Thus in what is generally considered
very typical case. the board has
thoroughly dlSSected the workings and
appraised the value Of the companv-
dominated union. In no uncertain
terms, it has ordered this organization
''diSeSta blished' More recently it
ordered recognition withdrawn from
the Remington Rand emplove repre-.
sentatlon set-ups in two plants.
That all company unions are not
necessarily Of the reputation given
tie International Harvester plan bv
the board is evident from the fact
that the board has allowed company
| unions to hold places on the ballots
in numerous elections.
In numerous cases, also, such unions
have been effective as Intermediates
in settling plant grievances, improving
general working conditions and serving
| as mouthpiece for employees in other
matters. Even where this degree of
| success has attended the company
union, however, the lack of financial
strength leaves them with small
measure of power in any extremity
where the economic pressure of strike
action remains as the only weapon
Of the employe.