Evening star., 1937-10-24

this year are a number OF
- delicate legal questions bear
ing on the employer-employe relation
ship which have arisen with the
growth of the labor movement and
which must be answered before there
can be any assurance of industrial
peace.
The Wagner labor relations act,
labor's magma charta," was de-
clared constitutional by the court at
the last term, but that momentous
decision marked only the commence
ment of the task of defining the re-
spective rights of the working man
and his employer. The Wagner de-
cision sanctioned the philosophy en-
braced in the legislation, but left
to the future the equally important
work of defining the scope of its
application.
For example, the act requires the
employer to bargain collectively and
in good faith with his employees, but
does not require that an agreement
be reached Here, obviously, is a
field that viii be productive of con-
troversy for many years to come.
Not Specific.
The phrase, bargaining in good
faith, is not susceptible of hard and
fast definition, and Congress wisely
did not attempt to define the term.
1t is a matter that must be left to
the Labor Relations Board and the
Federal Courts. each controversy to
be decided on the facts of the particu-
lar case.
Without doubt. the Supreme Court
will deal with this question as it
has dealt with the problem of inter-
state commerce The Constitution
gave the Federal Government power
to regulate commerce among the
States, but did not define the term.
In a century and half the courts,
likewise, have not attempted any
comprehensive definition, but by deal
ing with each case as it arises, de-
claring one activity to be interstate
commerce and another not to be, a
line of precedents has been estab-
lished. These precedents furnish some
guide as to what is meant by inter-
state commerce, but that it is subject
to change without notice is best ex-
empliied by the Wagner decision
itself.
The court last week took, its first
step, set its initial precedent. in de-
fining what is meant by good faith
in collective bargaining.
Approves Labor Victory.
This action did not come in the
form of a decision, but rather in the
refusal to review a decision of the
Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. This,
in effect, places the Supreme Court
on record as approving the. decision
Of the Circuit Court. which, in this
case, was a distinct victory for labor.
The case involved an appeal by the
Jeffery-DeWitt Insulator Co. of West
Virginia, and presented two main
questions:
l. Whether an employer must renew
negotiations after an impasse has
been reached and a strike called.
2. Whether a striking worker losses
his status as an employe for purposes
of collective bargaining.
There had been prior decisions that
a striker remained an employe, but
the question Of how long an employer
was obliged to continue seemingly
hopeless negotiations in the face OF a
deadlock was something new.
The Jeffery-DeWitt Co.. admittedly
engaged in interstate commerce with
in the meaning of the Wagner de-
cision. employed from 81 to 166 work.
ers, the majority of whom belonged
to Local Union No. ASS, United Brick
and Clay Workers of America, an
affiliate of the American Federation
of Labor The company had bar
gained with this union since 1888,
but breakdown came in 1885 when
the union demanded a closed shop,
the check-off and certain seniority
rights. When the company refused to
meet these demands a strike was
called June is and the plant was
shut down.
Company Loses Case.
Conferences were held on June Is
and June 20, and when these failed of
producing an agreement on the dis
puted issue, the plant was reopened
with a greatly depleted force. The
strike continued to July is. when
outside mediasors attempted to per-
suade the company to reopen nego-
tiations, but the company refused
on the ground a hopeless impasse
had been reached. The union filed
a complaint with the Labor Board,
and that body found the company
had been guilty of unfair labor prac-
tices. Supporting the boards action,
the Circuit Court said:
1.-The company's second contention
is that it was not guilty Of an unfair
labor practice in refusing to bargain
with the union on and after July
Is for the reason that efforts to
bargain with it prior to June 20
had resulted in failure and an i'm