Evening star., 1937-04-13
DIGEST OF MAJORITY OPINIONS in WAGNER LABOR CASES

to lead to q labor dispute burdening
or obstructing commerce or the free
now Of commerce"
Definition One Of Exclusion
AZ Well as inclusion.
This definition Is one OF exclusion
rs we'll as inclusion. The grant OF
authority to the board does not pur-
port to extend to the relationship be-
tween all industrial employees and em-
ployers. Its terms do not impose COL
lective bargaining upon all industry
regardless Of effects upon interstate
or foreign commerce. 1t purports to
reach only what may be deemed to
burden or obstruct that commerce and,
thus qualified, it must be construed
as contemplating the exercise OF con-
troll within constitutional bounds. It
is familiar principle that acts which
directly burden or obstruct interstate
or foreign commerce, or its free flow,
are within the reach Of the congress
sional power.
Acts having that effect are not rem
dered immune because they grow out
of labor disputes. See Texas & N. o.
r. Co. VS.. Railway Clerks, 2S1 U. S,
548, $40: Schechter Corp. VS.. United
States, supra, PIP. 544, 545; Virginian
Railway vs. System Federation, No.
40, decided March 20, 1887. 1t is the
effect upon commerce, not the source
of the injury, which is the criterion.
Second Employers Liability Cases, 223
U. S. /, 81. Whether or not particu
lar action does affect commerce in
such q close and intimate fashion as
to be subject to Federal control, and
hence to lie within the authority con-
ferred upon the board, is left by the
statute to be determined as individual
cases arise. We are thus to inquire
whether in the instant case the con-
stitutional boundary has been passed.
Second. The unfair labor practices
in question.-The unfair labor prac-
tices found by the board are those
defined in section 8, subdivisions Cd
and (3. These provide:
| Section 8. 1t shall be an unfair
labor practice for an employer
"Q To interfere with, restrain, or
coerce employees in the exercise of
the rights guaranteed in section T."
"O BY discrimination in regard
to hire or tenure Of employment or
any term or condition of employment
to encourage or discourage member
ship in any labor organization. :"
Employees Shall Have Right
To Self-Organization.
Section 8, subdivision %, refers to
section 7, which is as follows:
Section Employees shall have
the right to self organization, to form,
join or assist labor organizations, to
bargain collectively through repre-
sentatives Of their own choosing, and
to engage in concerted activities. for
the purpose of collective bargaining
or other mutual aid or protection"
Thus, in its present application. the
statute goes no further than to safe
guard the right Of employees to self
organization and to select representa-
tives OF their own choosing for COL
lective bargaining or other mutual
protection without restraint or CO.
ercion by their employer
This is fundamental right. En-
ployes have as clear a right to Or
ganiZe and select their representatives
for lawful purposes as the respondent
has to organize its business and select
It's own officers and agents. Discrimi-
nation and coercion to prevent the
free exercise of the right of employees
to self Reorganization and representation
is proper subject for condemnation
by competent legislative authority.
Long ago We stated the reason for
! labor organizations. We said that
they were organized out Of the neces-
sites OF the situation; that q single
employe was helpless in dealing with
an employer; that he was dependent
ordinarily on his daily wage for the
maintenance Of himself and family;
that if the employer refused to pay
! him the wages that he thought fair,
he was nevertheless unable to leave
the employ and resist arbitrary and
unfair treatment, that union was es-
sential to give laborers opportunity to
deal on an equality with their en-
ployer. American Steel Foundries v.
Tri-City Central Trades Council, 257
U. S. 1874, 209. We reiterated these
views when we had under considera-
ton the railway labor act of 1925.
Fully recognizing the legality Of COL
lective action on the part Of employees
in order to safeguard their proper in
terests, we said that Congress was not
required to ignore this right, but could
safeguard it. Congress could seek to
make appropriate collective action Of
employees an instrument Of peace
rather than of strife. We said that
such collective action would be 4
mockery If representation were made
futile by interference with freedom Of
choice.
Hence the prohibition by Congress
OF interference with the selection Of
representatives for the purpose OF
negotiation and conference between
employers and employees, instead OF
UClIS VI GlAC
right of either, was based on the
recognition Of the rights Of both"
Texas 81 N. o. r. Co. vs.. Railway
Clerks, supra. We have reaSserted
the same principle in sustaining the
application of the railway labor act as
amended in 1884 Virginia Railway
Co. VS.. System Federation No. 40,
supra.
Application to Employees
Engaged in Production.
Third. The application OF the act to
employees in production-The prin-
ciple involved-Respondent says that
whatever may be said OF employees
engaged in interstate commerce, the
industrial relations and activities in
the manufacturing department of re-
spondent's enterprise are not subject
to Federal regulation. The argument
rests upon the proposition that manu-
featuring in itself is not commerce.
list; &Ao.~