Evening star., 1937-05-03

vital one-is the ##$#%#S%4A
attitude being as h
sumed by the Ma ,,, -
tional Labor Re-
lations Board toward freedom of
speech.
Everybody but the Labor Board
Is apparently aware that the first ar
ticle of the bill of rights section of
the Constitution Of the United States
says:
Congress shall make no law
abridging the freedom of speech"
To be sure, Congress has passed no
such law, but by the same token no
administrative agency or commission
can pass such law or regulation or
interpret any law in such way as to
abridge the freedom of speech.
Yet a careful examination of the
rulings Of the National Labor Rela-
tions Board and its first annual re-
port will demonstrate that any Amer
lean citizens who happen to be en-
ployers can no longer be guaranteed
freedom of speech if their speeches in
any way relate to their relations with
employees.
What Do Words Mean?
In several instances where en-
ployes have been addressed by en-
ployers, the record of what has been
said has been presented before the
National Labor Relations Board as evi-
dence Of an attitude amounting to a
potential threat or intimidation of
employees in their rights of collective
bargaining.
The Wagner labor act says:
1T shall be an unfair labor prac-
tice for an employer to interfere with,
restrain or coerce employees in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed in
section 7 (rights of collective bar
gaining)"
What is interference, or restraint,
or coercion? Clearly an employer who
threatens to dismiss an employe if he
Joins union or an employer who
attempts to invade the secrecy of a
ballot in an election or otherwise in
terposes some force to prevent en-
oloyes from making free choice of
representa- ativeS to speak for them is
guilty of violating the Wagner act.
But S an employer who stands up
before his employees in mass meet
ing and tells them what he thinks
about lnionism, or about the union
they are being asked to join guilty
Of coercion" or restraint? AS
suming that every workman has an
opportunity to cast a secret ballot
and the nature of his vote is guarded
from the employers eyes, can it be
said that speech made to employees
IS violation of the law?
Many Workers in Doubt.
There have been speeches of this
Kind made but the Labor Board has
insisted that they were related to
some potential threat or form of CO.
ercion. Today many employers are
being asked by employees who have
been with them for decades just what
they are to do. Some employers
prefer an organization or union con-
fined wholly to members of that plant.
They want an independent union
which Is divorced from any control
or financing by management, but, nev-
ertheless, a union confined to the
plant and not connected with out
side unions. Can they, when asking
the advice of the employers, be given
any counsel by the employer? Has
an employer no right to address a
mass meeting of his employees if they
wish to hear him discuss the pros and
cons Of unionization?
The Regional Labor Board at Gin
cinnati which is division of the
National Labor Relations Board says
that If the employees in plant want
company" union or an independent
union or any other kind of union
and ma jority vote for it, they may
under the Wagner act have such form
OF organization. But it appears that
the National Labor Relations Board
considers any such advice when given
by an employer to be a violation of
the act. Thus in decision on Febru-
ary 9, 1885, the National Labor Board
then part Of the N. r. A., expressed
Itself on this very point. 1t should
be noted that all decisions made by
the National Labor Board when it
was operating under N R. A. were
specifically validated by provision
of the Wagner act when it was passed
In July, 1888. All these decisions now
are issued by the National Labor
Relations Board and are therefore
official precedents.
Advised Restricted Union.
It appears that Mr.. Harris, general
manager of Los Angeles electric
railway company, addressed all the
other employees of the company and
said:
Many of the employees have asked
regarding the joining of some union
or association as many of them seem
to be Of the opinion that they would
rather not be associated with any
union or organization. Personally,
am rather in accord with these en-
ployes. AS you all know, have
never been in favor of labor organiza-
tions, but as the NJ R. A. allows fol
organization or joining of labor or.
CARNATIONS, and as we have stated
that we intend to comply with the
rules OF N. R. A., you have the privi-
lege to do what you think is in youl
best interest, but I can't help but
Aeei 0Aioo IL you loIIll I'LL dSSoCldtlol
OF your own you will be best served.
Naturally, in the matter of col
lective bargaining, I would prefer
to deal with people that 1 have known
for years and been associated with
I do want to point out to you that
1t Is the duty of every member
OF this organization to cooperate
with our President and our Iepicla tive
bodies as nearly as possible 100 per
cent in order that We may have our
share in bringing back the much
} needed prosperity to this country"
The foregoing speech was accepted
by the board as evidence OF an atti-