The Waterbury Democrat., 1938-08-25
Wagner Labor Act Is
 Liable To Be Changed
President Roosevelt American Federation of Labor in Accord on Needed Alterations = CIOIs
 Opposed to Any Changes

and impartial" and that there "has been ample demonstration of the fact that the legislation has not ful- filled it's stated purpose of lessening industrial disputes"
 The Wagner Act changes desired by the Chamber were made public only few days after President Roosevelt confirmed that he and A. F. of L. President William Green were in accord on the necessity for some undisclosed changes in the statute. MT. Roosevelt indicated that employers, labor representatives and the National Labor Relations Board likely will be consulted about the specific amendements before Con- gress reconvenes. c. I. O. chairman John L. Lewis and his organization are pledged to oppose any modifi- cation.
 Four Principles Proposed
 Davis proposed four principles to which he said the law should ad- here if the act is to be continued in operation" His organization last annual. convention urged the out rightHepeal of the act.
 These principles were:
 ITO the extent that it is feasible for the Federal government to pro- tect employees against interferences in the exercise of the right to self organization, such protection should extend to practices engaged in not only employers but by employees and others.
 Legislative restrictions affecting employer employe relations should be so clearly and definitely set forth in the statute so as to enable all parties concerned to understand their rights and obligations.
 "These restrictions should apply only to practices that are properly subject to federal regulation.
 All provisions of the act should be so formulated as to assure im- partiality of administration as be- tween employers and employees and as between kinds of labor organiZa- tions."
 Unfair Labor Practices
 He urged Congress to define as an unfair labor practice and to make it unlawful for any person or group to:
 Interfere with restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed under the act, or to induce or compel, or attempt to induce or attempt to compel any employees to become member of any labor organization by means Of any threat, intimidation, or coercion or by the use of physical violence.
 Interfere with, restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed under the act, or to in- duce or compel, or attempt to in- duce or attempt to compel any en- ployes to become member of any labor organization by means of any threat, intimidation, or coercion, or by the use of physical violence.
 Interfere, in connection with any labor dispute, with the free exer- else by any persons of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or of any state, or to dam- age or destroy the property of any person or to interfere with the ex- ercise of any persons right in real or personal property.
 Engage in sympathetic stike or in strike for the purpose of in- ducing or forcing any person or or ganiZation to violate any labor agreement or contract or any law of a state or of the United States.
 Transport or cause to be trans ported across state lines ay person for the purpose of preventing cm" ployes from continuing at work or coercing them or intimidating them to participate in a strike"
 Specific Amendments
 He also proposed these four specific amendments:
 ITO make it explicit that a1 em- ployer is not obliged to bargain with a labor organization except as the representative of those of his en- ployes who are members of the or ganization and who have expressly tColSiiucCd IU tO ol)Chh lOA CiiClll III collective negotiations.
 ITO make 1t explicit that an en- ployer is not obliged to continue to bargain collectively with a labor or ganization when the real issue is controversy is a demand for the check of or for closed shop agree ment.
 ITO make illegal any action by majority to deprive a minority of any of Its rights, such as through efforts to obtain closed shop.
 ITO require the board to receive and consider employers petitions for investigation as to the member ship status of rival labor organiza- tions seek recognition"
 David said the present law and the boards refusal to consider em- ployer requests for collective bar gaining elections often place busi- nessmen in "a serious dilemma"
 When two rival unions are seek ing recognition and he is uncertain as to which constitutes a majority, whatever course of action he may take may be construed as violating the law" Davis declared.