Evening star., 1937-12-04

an article criticizing the board. The
purpose of the subpoena, however, was
not to discuss the merit of the article
but its distribution.
The Labor Board recognizes full we'll
that it has no right to tell editors
what to say or to scold them for their
criticism, and nowhere does it appear
that the board assumed any such right
The board, on the other hand, draws
no distinction between the written
word and the spoken word if such
words are used by the employer to
interfere with the rights of self-organ-
ization of his employees. What the
board apparently wants to find out is
whether copies or leaflets containing
the article complained of were distrib-
uted by the steel company at Weirton
directly or whether the magazine in
question did the distribution after
reaching some understanding to that
effect with the steel company.
Seeks Employers Motives.
What difference does it make, it will
be asked, whether information of
printed nature came to employees
through the medium of magazine or
through an employer, who sent re-
prints to his men indirectly through
the medium of the publication? The
board, Judging by previous cases, does
not take the view that the magazine
has done anything wrong, but it does
hold that evidence tending to show the
employer motivated the distribution of
antl-union literature is material fact
which may aid the board in determin-
Ing whether an unfair labor practice"
within the meaning of the law has
occurred
To put it another way, there is
nothing in the law which would pre-
vent an employer from distributing
reprints or written information of any
kind to his employees, but it might be
a contributory piece of evidence Of
an unfair labor practice if an en-
ployer gave his employees over a period
of time only literature which criticized
unions and nothing else.
There have been cases before the
board in which, for instance, an en-
ployer made a speech to his workmen
in which he frankly pointed out the
disadvantages Of union membership
even though conceding that the work.
men had right to choose for them
selves whether they wanted to join.
Had the incident stopped at that
point, there would have been no ac-
ton taken by the Labor Board, but
later on when employees were dis
missed. as 1t was alleged, for union
activity, the fact that the employer
had made the speech in question was
coupled with the dismissal of the en-
ployes. Actually the dismissal of the
employees was held to be the unfair
labor practice" and the distribution of
the literature was cited as tending to
prove that hostility existed between
the employer and the union which
happened to be trying to organize the
workmen in his plant.
Distribution Itself Harmless.
The assumption OF the board has
been that the act of distribution of
the literature was in itself harmless
unless coupled with overt or secret
attempts of other kinds to coerce, or
intlmidate, or influence workmen in
their bargaining rights But the board
does feel that its powers of investiga-
ton under the law are broad enough
to compel an editor, or writer, or busi-
ness manager, or anybody else con-
nected with a magazine or newspaper
to furnish testimony as to what part,
If any, was played by the employer
who happens to have labor dispute.
Thus it will not be damaging to the
magazine editor to tell whether or not
reprints Of his article were sent of
his own free will to the Weirton en-
ployes, but it would be damaging to
the cause of the Weirton company if
1t were testified that the literature
was ordered to be distributed in re-
print form by the steel company.
The question probably will 20 to