Evening star., 1938-07-28

Will Sa n c u on
these new interpretations remains to
be seen, but for the present it cannot
be proved that the Labor Board is
deliberately trying to suppress freedom
Of speech.
The board first of all has the obliga-
ton to enforce an ambiguously writ
ten Wagner law, a one ne-sided statute
which puts on the board duty so
far-reaching it is not surprising the
board finds itself taking in good deal
Of territory in endeavoring to safe
guard the rights of labor as to col
lective bargaining and self-organiza-
ton.
To give a group of citizens monop-
oily over certain activities-unloniza
tion-and to say by statute they must
not be interfered with in any way is
something very far-reaching, but Con-
rress has done it and the board must
enforce that law.
Board Proceeds Cautiously.
What, then, is 'interference" with
the right of workers to form their own
organizations? Is open encouragement
by employers Of efforts at unionization
hv employees an unlawful 'interfer-
ence"? Is the circulation OF printed
words as we'll as the utterance of spo-
ken words seeking to influence the
An1inds of workers when considering
vavs and means of self-organization
now to be forbidden? The Labor
Board has travelled in this twilight
zone Of constitutional law very eau
tiously. The issue may have seemed
acute in recent weeks, but it has been
present in Labor Board cases extend
ing back now over two years.
The Labor Board Is by no means
infallible in the Interpretation of its
own statute, though its record OF
approval BY the u S. Supreme Court
thus far seems to attest to its legal
ability, but the free speech issue first
was noted In a case Of street car
company in Los Angeles, where the
employer made speech to his en-
ployes, which address, standing by
itself, could not have convicted him
Of an unfair labor practice, taken To-
gether, however, with subsequent
action on his part. when he was
charged with dismissing employees for
union activity. the original speech was
offered in evidence as proving the
motive To those who think motive is
q tenuous thing and irrelevant. the
decisions of the Supreme Court in
railroad labor cases are offered show
ing that evidence tending to prove
motive is permissible in attempts to
reveal company domination.
Speech GuiltIess in Itself.
What is important to bear in mind
is that circulation of Congressman's
speech, for instance. or any other
public document. if taken by itself and
unconnected with any other circum-
stances, Is proper exercise by the
employer of the right of free speech.
But 1t is the act of distribution and
not the printed matter itself which
rauses the board to take official cog
hizance of an employers attempts to
discourage union activity or at least
his effort to interfere with the priv
ileee and right of the workers to decide
for themselves without influence from
an employer source just what organi-
cation they will form or join.
1t is, to be sure, rather new, this
statutory right Of collective bargaining.
and while. in principle, 1t has been
affirmed for many years, the intro
duction Of that right into a Federal
law is something so far-reaching as to
breed novel situations.
There have, of course, been limita-
lions before upon the right of free
speech and freedom of assembly in
labor disputes. Thus. you can't hold
a mass meeting of strikers in front of
an employers place of business and
cry out in defense that the Constitu-
ton guarantees freedom of assembly
You can't publish a newspaper from
union headquarters and put its big
full-page advertisements on a banner
and parade them in front Of an en-
ployer's place of business If in that
advertisement is printed anything Ii
belous or defamatory The consti-
tutionsl right of freedom of the press
doesn't protect against abuses of this
kind r
\ Just the other day the vice chancel-
Tor Of the New Jersey Chancery Court
held that picketing could not extend
to the point Of printing and distribu-
ting circulars boycotting furniture
plo pt In order fo ron, mol tho n, MI 70 r..