Evening star., 1938-04-12

ing of contract
un d er any cir .,,
cumStanceS will
be tested in the courts, but meanwhile
1t can be assumed that the present
board will not attempt to extend the
area of its newly expressed authority
to include compulsory negotiation of
such items as the closed shop or wage
scales.
This correspondent last week eX-
pressed the belief that if the Labor
} Board correctly interprets in the pres
ent cases the powers of Congress I'M
der the Wagner Act, then an impor-
tant precedent has been established.
Some future bOard--not necessarily
the present perSonnel-may well argue
for the right to include or exclude
certain items in the program of nego-
tlatlon, such as wage scales and the
closed shop. 1t is the precedent and
Its meaning rather than any inten-
ton by the present board which we're
the points sought to be made in these
dispatches.
Good Faith" Essential Added.
For one thing the present board is
on solid ground when it compels nego-
tlatlons. That's as far as the Supreme
Court of the United States went in
upholding the Wagner law in the first
cases, But the present board has
added bargaining in good faith" as
test of whether there is an unfair Ia
Dor practice on the part of the en-
ployer. Closely allied with the con-
cepts of what is or is not good faith
the board has taken the position in
the recent cases that, once lengthy
negotiation has reached a conclusion,
It, is only fair that the long and de-
tailed terms of an agreement between
employers and employees be reduced to
writing. To refuse to sign a contract
at that stage. the board feels, is evi-
dence of lack of good faith
This requirement would seem to be
common sense on its face, but the
reason why employers refuse to sign
contracts may relate to something
quite different. Thus, the labor board
says that it is the usual business prac-
tice between equals to put understand
.ings in writing. 1t may also be con-
tended that it is the usual practice in
business for one side or the other, and
sometimes both. to require what is
known as performance bond"
The board undoubtedly justifies its
1nsistence on signed contract as
being part of the items Of procedure"
relating to collective bargaining and
not of what might be called sub
stantlve terms" To refuse in advance
TO negotiate on substantive matter
like wages or hours might. therefore,
oe upheld by the present board, but
refusal to sign contract unless a
performance bond were given by the
union, on the other hand, could be
ruled upon as 'procedural' item.
Performance All Important.
Certainly there are few things more
important in the signing of a contract
between business equals than the ca
paclty of the parties to the agreement
TO fulflll their pledges. This goes to
. the root of contractual obligation and
1t would not be surprising if the pres
ent board has bitten off quite a chunk
OF trouble by considering the signing
OF contract as procedural question.
Since labor unions are not as a rule
incorporated, they are not as respon-
slole legally as are corporations of
employers. but the court decisions
show that individual unions and their
omcers are nevertheless suable. To re-
i
ton OF a written contract may some
day be natural consequence of the
present boards latest decisions. The
only way test would come would be
II some employer added to his refusal
10 sign a contract the stipulation of a
performance bond as we'll.
The dangers of the compulsory
signed contract decision are many. but
none so palpable as what would hap
pen, for instance, in a plant where
employers and employees has meet
Ing OF minds on every item of the nego-
tlatlons except the signed contract
issue. The employer might insist that
he will put the terms in writing but
that the contract is "terminable at
will" Many contract in business is
OF such character. Would the present
LABOR board hold that refusal to sign
contract for a definite period is an |
evidence of lack of good faith? If
IL does. then what is the proper term
or length OF contract which will not |
be so regarded? Is it month, a wear. |
two years, or what?
Nav Dictate Time EIer,.,t
SO If the present board has correctly
interpreted the powers of Congress q
precedent has been set up whereby a
Labor Board of the future can prac-
tlcally dictate the length of time of
contracts. From such a ruling II
would be short step to the argument
that refusal to sign a contract of def
mite tenure is refusal to bargain,
and, If upheld by the Supreme Court.
. plausible case can be made out for
compulsory arbitration, especially on
the theory that most contracts set up
machinery for handling grievances,
including wage scales, and that failure
} to accept the accustomed practice is a
refusal to bargain in good faith"
The wiser course for the present
board to have pursued was not to
decide the Signed issue in
advance of an actual case, even though
the employers and employees did put
that very question up to the board
for decision. The facts are that, in
the Inland Steel case. neither the
employees nor the employer arranged
to have the question of a majority
duly certified. The board should have
insisted on settling this point of its
own initiative. Then, when collective
bargaining negotiations were COM
PEELED by order of the board, all the
evidence. including capricious use Of
the signed contract argument, could