Evening star., 1937-03-31

ployes-the 49 per cent-are bound to
accept the results of the election and
be bound by the contracts with the
employers for wages made in their
behalf by the majority spokesmen.
Employers dispute this interpreta-
ton and say majority rule means that
the elected spokesmen may act only
for the majority and that the minority
are free agents and can if they like
elect their own committee of spokes-
men and negotiate with the employer.
Now the Supreme Court being con-
fronted with a statute which requires
the acceptance of the majority-rule
idea as related to an instrumentallty
of commerce. railroad-did not
attempt to rule what might be the
situation in other fields of law. But
1t is important to note that in con-
STRUNG the majority rule the Supreme
Court did say that when once there
was an election, majority OF those
actually voting could select spokes-
men and these spokesmen are the
only ones with whom a collective
agreement applying generally to the
plant or business can be negotiated.
This is because the railroad labor act
specifically compels negotiation with
majority's spokesmen.
Leaves individuals Free.
What then becomes of the minority?
The Supreme Court declared that as
individuals they were free to negotiate
for their own working conditions, but
they could not select representative
purporting to speak for other employees.
1t will be seen, therefore, that the
Supreme Court drew a distinction be-
tween an exclusive bargaining privi-
lege and an exclusive negotiation
by spokesmen on behalf of certain
employees who gave their assent. The
inference is plain that although en-
ployes may not stay away from an
election and thus claim to be partici-
pants in affecting the majority vote
the Supreme Court holding that a
majority OF those actually voting is
a true ma jority-there Is nothing to
prevent an employe from withdrawing
his consent from a particular spokes-
man or refraining from giving it in
the first instance.
Each workman has a right to make
his own contract and he may or may
not belong to a union. AS practical
matter, however, If there is an over
whelming number of union men in
his plant, he will not long remain an
tnconspicuous minority, hoping in
stead by the joining of a union to
make his voice and influence felt for
the things which may have previously
caused him to hold himself aloof. But
II the division is close and there is
a bare majority Of, say 81 per cent,
the 40 per cent on railroad unit may
now find 1t difficult to negotiate as
individuals. Can they employ agents
to represent several of them jointly?
Point Left Unclear.
This point is not cleared up by the
latest Supreme Court decision itself,
though this paragraph from the Mon
day opinion may have bearing:
"Adair VS.. United States and Cop
page VS.. Kansas have no present ap-
plication. The provisions of the rail-
way labor act invoked here neither
compel the employer to enter into any
agreement nor preclude it from en-
tering into any contract with individ-
ual employees. They do not interfere
with the normal exercise of the right
of the carrier to select its employees
or to discharge them
Now the Adair and Coppage cases
dealt with the right of an employer
to hire union or non-union men and
to make this condition of contract
at the beginning of employment, some
thing that was upheld by the Supreme
Court on the ground that the employe
has as much right to refuse to accept
employment in a union or non-union
shop as has the employer the right
to choose union or non-union work.
er from the list of applicants. When
the Supreme Court this week said
plainly that the Adair and Coppage