Evening star., 1938-03-17

been using VlO- 8$ II*:$:
lence. They had nj, ,
engaged in ''' lawrence
sit-down strike and had not only
defied an injunction, but had resisted
the local officers of the law. The
employer, on the other hand, had
interfered with collective bargaining.
according to the findings of the board,
and therefore a Federal law had been
violated.
What should the board do? It did
not, of course, wish to condone the
violation of a Federal law. So it
stuck to the proposition that, even If
State laws had been violated. the
ruling must be against the employer
who was guilty no matter what the
employees had done.
No quarrel could be found with
this reasoning if the decision were
confined to an order to the employer
to refrain from future interference
with the collective bargaining pro-
cesses. But the Labor Board went
beyond any such judgment. It in
sisted that sit-doWn strikers, including
those who had confessedly participated
in damaging property of the employer.
should be put back to work.
Lynch Law ENCOURAGED.
The Labor Board thus condoned
violence not only by failing to con-
demn the actions of the workers who
had attacked deputies and damaged
company property, but by insisting
that worker who has SUFFICIENT
provocation TO commit an illegal act
while on strike is not in any differ
ent status than the law-abiding
worker. If anything is calculated to
encourage what virtually amounts to
a lynch law doctrine, it is this ruling
Of the Labor Board. The decision
says in part:
"Some of the missiles thrown by
the men were intended for the purpose
Of breaking the windows, others were
undeniably aimed at the attacking
deputies. While the equipment was
damaged by this barrage, as we'll as
by the deputies bombs, there is no
evidence that any malicious sabotage
Of equipment took place."
From this it will be inferred that
a sit-down strike and acts of violence
are all right if there is no sabotage
Of equipment" and that the breaking
Of windows on employers property is
also all right provided not too many
Of them are broken or too much
damage is not done which could be
construed as malicious sabotage"
Strange Reasoning.
This is strange line of thought
Tor the Labor Board to take, since it
is tantamount to condoning an incen-
diary who sets fire to a building and
says: What difference does it make,
only few windows were broken-and
besides it was all covered by insurance
anyway"
It is true the employer in this case
put back to work of his own initiative
some Of the sit-down strikers, so he
was in sense discriminating when
he failed to take them all back. But
the employer evidently1elt justified in
refusing to continue an employer
employe relationship with those work.
erS he found were guilty of injuring
his property. If he accepted some
who he felt had been unduly in
f1uenced by others or had not par
ticipated in acts of violence, even
though members of the striking unit,
the employer was exercising a right
to-hire-and-fire privilege which had
nothing to do with his attitude toward
unionism at all.
Indeed, had the board wished, it
could have ruled just the other way
by accepting the fact of reinstatement
OF certain of the sit-down strikers as
convincing evidence that the employer
was not discriminating against union
workers. but merely against those who
had defied the laws of the State Of
Illinois by throwing missiles at the
windows and damaging company prop
erty.
Trespass Law Violated.
A sit-down strike is q violation Of
State law because it is an act of
trespass. Workers who engage in 1t
become law-breakers and 1t is ex-
tremely doubtful if the Supreme Court
Of the United States will ever order
an employer to reinstate workers who
have been guilty Of violating the Laws
Of the State. In this instance, too,
an injunction was violated.
Those who commit acts of violence
in defiance of law are truly lawless
characters. They do not stand on the
same footing as law-abiding workers
who have been displaced by lockouts
or who engage in q lawful strike The
Wagner act permits the Labor Board
to reinstate workers who have gone on
strike when they are refused recog-
milton or the opportunities Of collective
bargaining as defined in this same
statue. But the Labor Board, to say
that lawless character must be given
back his Job even though the employer