The Ely miner. [volume] (Ely, Minn.) 1895-1986, 1937-09-23

Washington.-It always comes
about that when nation or an in
dividual acts with
Wh0f q out thinking
Mess! problem through
all of it's angles,
there is a fine mess at the end.
There can be no surprise, therefore,
in the mess confronting this nation
over the policies and laws affecting
the relations between labor and cap
ital. The condition probably consti-
tutes the worst mess of any we have
seen in the last five years-and the
end is not yet.
At the present time we find not
only bitter strife between the old es-
tablished American Federation of
Labor and the Committee for Indus
trial Organization headed by John
L. Lewis; a national labor relations
board that cannot be described by
any stretch of the imagination as
being unbiased, and political lead
ers from President Roosevelt down
the line are quite unable to deter
mine what their position should be
between the warning factions of Ia
Dor. Meanwhile, we find employers
wholly unable to deal with either
faction successfully because of the
interference of the labor relations
board and the instability of respon-
sible officials.
The case in point and the incident
that brings the situation immedi-
ately before the American people
involves comparatively small num-
Der of workers but it exposes all of
the fallacies that have been allowed
to become part of the law of the
land through the labor relations act
which was forced through congress
by Senator Wagner, New York New
Dealer, with Presidential support.
Let us review the picture:
Late in August, the United States
district court in Pennsylvania issued
a decree that the National Electric
Products corporation of Ambridge,
Pa, must sign wage contract with
the International Brotherhood Of
Electrical Workers, an organization
affiliated with the American FEEDER
alton of Labor. The court ordered
the action as a result of difficulties
between the American Federation
of Labor and the United Electrical
Workers which is connected with the
Committee for Industrial Organiza-
ton. The manufacturing corpora
ton had no alternative but to COM
ply with the court order. If it did
not do so, its officials faced Jail SEN
fences for contempt.
Within week thereafter, along
comes the national labor relations
board with ruling that the manu-
featuring corporation must sign a
wage contract with the Committee
for Industrial Organization union or
be subjected to the penalties and
punishment provided in the Wagner
labor relations act. The board
took this position with full knowl-
edge of the federal court decree. It
went so far, even, as to say that
''the decree (of the cour) is no bar
to the instant proceeding under the
national labor relations act or to
the making of an order by the board
under the terms of that act, that the
respondent shall cease and desist
from discriminating against the en-
ployees because they decline to join
the brotherhood" In other words,
the board took the position that the
Wagner labor relations act was the
supreme law of the land and the
board, therefore, was the sole arbi-
ter regardless of the court action.
I do not know anything about the
merits of the workers claim that the
manufacturing company had mis-
treated workers, had fired men for
union activities or had engaged in
attempts to break up union organ
ization. Those claims may be fully
justified; indeed, the chances are
that there was anti-union activity
on the part of the corporation and
that it should receive a legal kick
in the pants for these things. But
whatever that situation is, the
fact remains that the national labor
relations board consistently has
horned into every controversy and,
whether it means to be that way or
not, its actions have been favorable
to the Lewis Committee for Indus
trial Organization.
Further, among the most extreme
of the New Dealers themselves, one
frequently hears the observation
that the labor relations board has
given no consideration at all to the
rights of the employer.
Of course, the board claims it is
acting under strict construction of
the law. Then it holds that con-
gress intended it to take the place
of the courts in deciding as between
labor groups. 1t is to be remem-
bered, however, that all members of
the board are appointees of Presi-
dent Roosevelt and the presumption
naturally follows that Mr.. Roosevelt
must approve of the boards poll
cies. 1t is too much to suppose that
the board would act against the
wishes of the man who named its
individual members.
ALI of these facts make it appear
that instead of having labor poll
cy, we have on the statute books a
law that has led us straight into the
mess that described at the begin
ming of this discussion. I am won
dering when it can be or will be
corrected. Specifically, the facts
of the labor relations board history
thus far make it appear that the
members of that board are aligned
with John l. Lewis and the tactics