Evening star., 1937-09-26
Labor Relations Board
to Be "Whipping Boy.''
BY OVEN L. SCOTT.

The National Labor Relations Board
is getting set to take the place Of the
Supreme Court as the whipping boy"
of the next session of Congress. This
time, however, Mr.. Roosevelt will be
found among the defenders, while most
of those who fought his attack on the
Supreme Court will be among the at
tackers.
1t is all going to be bit strange.
The very fact that National Labor
Relations Board exists today could stand
as evidence that the President had really
won instead OF lost his Supreme Court
fight. An entire second New Deal, in
cluding farm control, wage-and- hour
control and child labor regulation, is in
process of construction on the principles
approved by majority of the Supreme
Court when that majority upheld the
national labor relations act last May
Opposition to the President saw It's
stone wall defense against his policies
crumple in the labor act decision. The
Constitution then appeared to have been
taken from his path. This left Mr..
Roosevelt's opponents dependent upon
influencing the country and the Con-
gress II new New Deal was to be
stopped. The court no longer could be
depended upon to perform the task.
AS one result of this situation, the
country's labor relations act has become
the most misunderstood of laws.
That act really influences the balance
of power in industry. 1t was signed by
the President, but was not aggressively
supported by him when going through
Congress. Yet, of all legislation in re-
cent years, it is the most important from
the point of view of both employers and
workers. The struggle to bring about
modifying amendments already is under
way and is sure to become more intense.
At the start of that struggle the Labor
Relations Board is under severe attack
on the ground that it is partisan" that
it Is pro-labor, an ally of John l.. Lewis
and batter of employers. The board
is charged with failure to prevent and
with failure to mediate strikes.
The developing battle makes it i'm
portant to understand a few simple
facts about the law and about the board
named to enforce that law.
First of all, Congress laid down for
the first time basic national labor
policy. The House and the Senate de-
clared that it shall be the policy of this
Nation to remove distractions to COM
merce by encouraging the practice and
procedure of collective bargaining and
by protecting the exercise by workers of
full freedom of association. self
organization and designation of repre-
sentatives of their own choosing, for the
purpose of negotiating the terms and
conditions of their employment"
Then, next, to enforce that policy.
Congress created board of three mem
bers armed with real authority. 1t is
in the exercise of that authority to en-
force the Nations labor policy that COM
plaint arises.
A principal charge is that this Labor
Board is not judicial in its attitude and
that its members are aggressivelv
partisan.
Ihese members point out that Con-
greSs did not create the board to sit as a
court. It's members are charged with
encouraging labor to organize and with
protecting labor while it organized. This
duty is affirmative, like that of the Fed
eral Trade Commission to move against
monopolies. or the Federal Power Com
mission to police utilities or the Securi-
ties and Exchange Commission to regu-
late security markets.
The exercise of that duty IS subject
to court review and the record of the
present Labor Board in that regard is
unusual. Judges have upheld the boards
findings in sixteen out of seventeen cases
that have been fully decided on their
merits. The Supreme Court has upheld
the board In five of those cases.
Strong attack is centered on the pro-
cedure of the Labor Board in seeking to
find whether employers have violated
the act. But of that attack the Supreme
Court said:
"The procedural provisions of the act
are assailed. But these provisions, as
we construe them, do not offend against
the constitutional requirements govern
ing the creation and action of admin
istrative bodies"
A further point of criticism is that the
new labor act, as enforced by the board.
has failed to prevent strikes and offers
little effective machinery for settling
strikes once they start.
Here again the board members offer
q ready defense.
They point out, in the first place that
the act under which they operate speci-
flcally prohibits the Labor Board from
acting as an agency of mediation. That
Job is left with the Department of Labor.
The board has the affirmative task of
protecting labor during it's period of
organization, not the task of adjusting
disputes.
But half of this country's strikes in
recent years have grown out of argu-
ments over the right of workers to or
ganize into unions. The biggest strikes
nearly all have involved this issue. At
that point the Labor Board does enter
the picture, and its members feel that,
when workers realize fully their rights
under the law and the projections given
them by the board and by the courts,
they will be less inclined to strike for
rights that the Government will help
them to exercise
In practice, experience of late has
been that invocation of the labor law
frequently results in quick adjustment
OF disputes. More than two million
workers have been involved in cases SO
lar dealt with by the Labor Board.
But then it is contended that the labor
relations law is rigged against the coun-
trys employers because it forbids CO.
ercion only by those employers and not
rnY@r -