Evening star., 1938-08-23
ORDER PREPARED
IN INLAND CASE
N. l. R. B. Acts After New
Hearing Is Held on Steel
Firms Position.

The dispute between the National
Labor Relations Board and the Inland
Steel Co., concerning the power of the
Federal agency to compel the company
to sign a contract with its employees,
moved a step nearer ADJUDICATION today
as the board began preparation of its
hnal order in the case.
Inland Steel. one of the major units
OF Little Steel' previously had been
directed by the board to sign a con-
tract with the Steel Workers Organiz-
ing Committee. c. I. o. affiliate. The
case was recalled and reopened, how
ever, to guard against the possibility
OF procedural errors after the Supreme
Court had invalidated a Department
OF Agriculture order in a somewhat
similar proceeding on the ground an
adequate hearing had not been given.
Members of the board took the steel
case under advisement after arguments
We're completed yesterday
Denies Boards Contention.
Ernest S. Ballard chief counsel Of
the company, contended the Labor
ANSAdeiollo NV oONS llOt NY ulIcCG
language or necessary inference re-
quire wage agreements to be reduced
to writing and signed"
He presented his arguments at q
board hearing on the proposed order,
which also requires recognition of the
S. w. O. C. as exclusive bargaining
representative of the companys en-
ployes and disestablishment of the
Steel Workers Independent Union,
characterized by the board as COM
any-dominated organization
Anthony Wayne Smith. counsel for
the S. w. o. c. and the c. l. O.,
told the board decision in the Inland
case would affect striking employees
of the Republic Steel Co. plants in
Ohio. Mr.. Smith said some of those
employees considered company officials
"murderers"
Mr.. Ballard replied that Mr. Smiths
statement was an attempt to go out
side the record in the Inland case
to "incite the board
He added
The order of the board, in requir-
ing respondent to go further and sign
If terms are agreed to. flies directly in
the face of the statute as construed
by the courts.
1T compels the company to reduce
as to terms may be arrived al. This
is an attempt to deprive respondent
of its inherent and inalienable right
to make any contract with its labor
that it wishes. 1t is not requirement
to bargain; it is usurpation of re-
spondent's right to bargain, the COM
pulsory imposition of particular
bargain upon respondent.
Opposes Contract Plan.
Mr.. Ballard also charged the board
would violate the Constitution in pro-
posing that the company agree to a
contract for a definite term. The
board, he argued. goes out of its way
to leave open for bargaining the ques-
ton of what the definite term shall
be. but is decides for the respondent
that it must agree to contract for
some definite term as distinguished
from a contract having no fixed term
or subject to termination at the option
of one or both parties.
There could be no clearer usurpa-
ton than this or any more fragrant
invasion Of respondents freedom of
contract"
The company also charged
"prejudicial attitude" was taken by
the trial examiner at hearings on the
S. w. o. C.'s demand for recognition
as sole bargaining agent for inland
steel plants and asserted:
I'VE were never right; we were
always wrong. 1t was fight all the
way through"
1t asked dismissal of the complaint
on which the hearing was based, con-
tending that because the board issued
an order requiring recognition of the
S. w. o. c. and disestablishment Of
the steel workers independent union,
then vacated the order and prepared
a proposed order embodying the same
terms, the boards power to act was lost.