Evening star., 1938-12-27

From this mass of material the
board picks and chooses such bits
Of so-called testimony as it con-
siders best calculated to bolster Its
case. If the defendant has tht
financial ability and the courage tx
go forward with an appeal, the
board strenuously insists that its
findings are final because there Is
in the record what it calls evidence
to support them. The act makes
no requirement as to the weight OF
the evidence, the preponderance OF
the evidence, or anything of the
kind. Sometimes, the courts can see
through the carefully built-up sham
A Case in Point.
The decision of the Circuit Court
of Appeals in the case of National
Labor Relations Board VS.. Union Pa
cific Stages is a good example OF
how the board functions and what
credence should be given to the
claim of judicial insulation" The
evidence showed that certain dis
charged stage drivers were drunken
insubordinate, contumacious, and
otherwise unsatisfactory employees
Nevertheless, the company was Or
dered to put them back in the
drivers seat and pay their wages
for the time they were out. The
court examined the record over the
protest of the board. 1t found that
the conclusions were based largely
upon what the board called "back-
ground" and that this was built up
by invariably disregarding all testi-
mony OF defendants witnesses and
accepting fully the statements of
dissatisfied employees even when
eliminated by the same witnesses on
cross-examination. The court was
shocked by what it called this novel
method" of reaching decision, this
building up of distorted picture"
by way of background upon which
to rest an outrageous decision. This
is not an isolated case. Its counter
part runs through all the decisions
daily turned out by this travesty
of q judicial body.
The board has not hesitated in
numerous cases to order the return
of employees who have been tried
and found guilty of unlawful seizure
and destruction of the property of
the employer through the odious
| sit-down strike. This compulsory
return to duty of employees hostile
to the company and guilty of acts
OF violence against the employer and
against the person and property OF
fellow employees is destructive of dis
cipline, confusing to innocent work.
ers and continuing source of irri-
tation and future trouble. It is not
a safe power to trust in the hands
Of a partisan labor board. Only
an independent court, operating
without fear or favor, should have
this power of decision which means
life or death to many an industry.
Public Welfare Involved.
The National Labor Relations Act
places no restraints upon union
leaders and their agents for the
protection Of members of the union
and the public. 1t fixes no RESPONSE
bility commensurate with the tre-
mendous power that is exercised
and the public welfare involved
There should be limit upon the ca
pacity Of irresponsible labor leaders
to inf1ict public injury. Workers
themselves should be protected from
overambitious exploiters. There
should be a more adequate account
ing Of union funds, particularly
when used for political purposes
There should be clear definition
Of what constitutes a legal strike
and an illegal strike. When an en-
ployer has complied fully with the
requirements of collective bargain
ing he should be protected In the
conduct of his business. All bene-
fits under the act should be denied
to those on either side who fout its
provisions.
The authority to the board to de-
termine the appropriate unit" fol-
collective bargaining and the ina
jority rule" provisions of the act
should have careful reconsideration
in the light of the experience that
demonstrates how dangerous it is
to workers, as well as others, to vest
this unfettered power in the discre-
tion OF single administrative agen-
cy. AS it now stands, when any
union is given authority by a ma
jority of the workers in the unit
designated by the board, then that
union becomes the sole bargaining
agent for all of the workers in that
unit IN dealing with wages, hours
and other conditions of work. AS
applied by the board, majority
means plurality. If. two unions are
contesting for this tremendous pow
er, 1t may be that a clear majority
OF all the workers may not want to
affiliate with either. Yet that group
IN the minority which leads its op-
position, by single vote becomes
the sole bargaining agent, not alone
for its own members, but for the
almost equal opposition group and
for the majority that wants neither
OF them to be its spokesman. The
groups not included have no real
opportunity to be heard, no chance
to argue their views, or even to be
present when their vital rights are
being settled. This is too much
power to place in the hands of any
individuals. It borders on slavery
for the workers not represented.
Coercion Allowed Organizers.
The act makes no attempt to pro-
tect workers in the exercise of their
right of self-organization from coer-
cion by high-powered union organ
izers. 1t is properly made unlawful
for an employer to coerce or in
timidate his employees in the ex-
ercise OF those rights. If there is
to be real freedom in the matter
the protection must. go further.
Acts of brutal violence by over
jealous organizers against the per-
sons and property Of employees to
force them to join a certain organ
ization, and to continue the un-
willing payment of dues through the
check-od system-which ought to be