Evening star., 1937-10-24
SUPREME COURT HOLDS
INDUSTRIAL PEACE KEYS
Decisions Must Interpret Wagner Act
i'm Ironing Out Disputes in Sew
veral Important Cases.

passe in the negotiations had been
reached. The answer to this is that
nearly a month of cooling time had
elapsed since the negotiations OF
June Is to 20, the status of the con-
troversy had undergone considerable
change as result of the operation
of the plant, the striking employees
after nearly a month of idleness we're
doubtless willing to make concessions
to compromise the matters in differ
ence and conciliators had arrived upon
the scene for the purpose of trying
to secure an adjustment. 1t is true
the act does not require the parties
to agree, but merely to negotiate with
each other, but it is based upon the
idea that negotiations honestly en-
tered into will generally result in
the settlement of differences. and COM
mands negotiations for that reason. s
Findings Held Reasonable.
whether the refusal to negotiate
further in this case was unreasonable
and on that account an unfair labor
practice was question Of fact as TO
NlltCI VIC dlC DOullN Wy llAN AAAdAA16 Va
the board, if it has substantial sup
port in the evidence. We think that
it has such support. We cannot say
that the failure of negotiations to re-
suit in agreement in June SO clearly
precluded the possibility of agreement
in July under the changed circum-
stances then existing that the find
ing by the board, to the effect that
the refusal to negotiate was unrea-
sonable and grew out of a desire to be
rid of the union, is unsupported by
the record. On the contrary. We
think that the finding is a reasonable
one upon the facts.
eff an employer in the presence of
strike could rid himself of the OBJ
legation to negotiate by declaring
further negotiations to be useless and
refusing to recognize as employees
those failing to return to work on
his terms, the statute enjoining COL
lective bargaining would largely fail
of its purpose. We do not think that
it can be brushed aside so easily"
While this approved precedent Is
limited in its scope, its Importance
should not be overlooked. First, the
Supreme Court, following well recog-
nized legal principle, has approved
the doctrine that an employer must
have an overwhelming predonderance
of the evidence on his side before he
can secure the reversal of a Labor
Board finding that he had been guilty
of an unfair labor practice. 1t is also
important for what it may be worth
an indication that the Supreme
Court will be reluctant to impair the
benefits to labor envisaged by the act
Must Re-Employ Strikers.
Another section of the Labor Boards
ruling. also approved by the court,
required the company to re-employ the
men who went out on strike, even
if this meant dismissing men who
had been hired to keep the plant open
during the period of the strike.
The Supreme Court is expected to
announce tomorrow whether it will
review two cases in which the Labor
Board received setbacks at the hands
of the Third Circuit Court of Appeal
and case calling for decision on
the legality of a sit-down strike.
The case in which the Labor Board
has sought review of adverse deci-
sions involve two important points:
l. Whether the Labor Board has
statutory authority to order an en-
ployer to "disestablish" labor organi-
zation found to have been dominated
and interfered with by the employer.
2. Whether an order of the Labor
Board directing an employer to bar
gain collectively with a certain labor
organization continues to be enforce
able after an employer has entered
into contract with all his employees
through another organization by the
use of methods the board found to be
coercive.
In the first case, involving the
Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines, Inc,
the court approved the boards order
in part but denied enforcement inso-
far as the order directed the employer
to withdraw recognition of a so-called
company union and to post notices
that the union was "disestablished."
"Outlawed Without Hearing"
Supporting its position, the court
found that mo election has been
held; the union enjoined has not
been notified or heard, but in advance
Of an election by the men, the union
is for all practical purposes outlawed,
and that without a hearing"
The second question arose In a
proceeding against the Delaware
Jersey Ferry Co. In this case, the
board, contending the company had
made its contract with its employees
through representatives allegedly Sc
lected by the company, issued an order
requiring the concern to negotiate
with another labor organization. Re-
fusing to enforce this order, the court
said:
There is now no controversy: no
complaint; no grievance. The en-
gmeers have disposed of any con-
troversy there may have been by unan-
imously making a contract on terms
suitable to them with the employer"
The Labor Board takes the position.
however, that the engineers union
was forced out of existence by the