Evening star., 1938-12-07

members and yet S$##@z (gN
nobody
the company nor
the A. F. of L. union nor the rival
c. I. o. union nor the Labor Board
itself-ever found out which unit
actually represented majority of
the employees at the time the con-
tract was consummated.
In the steel strike, which cost not
only millions of dollars but several
lives in Ohio year ago, the labor
unions did not petition for an elec-
ton and the employer spokesmen
said it was because the c. I. o. union
didn't have a majority. The Labor
Board took no part in the contro-
versy and di61aot order an election,
although it had the power to do so.
So far as the general public is
concerned, it has right to insist
that these collective bargaining dis
putes shall be reduced to the mini
mum and that neither employees
organizations nor. employers shall
be permitted to jockey with the
law so as to consummate contracts
only at times favorable to their
respective causes. Thus labor unions
frequently do not present a petition
to determine the collective bargain
ing agency because they frankly say
their union organizers haven't had
enough time to line up sufficient
members to make majority. Some
times strike is forced in order to
develop union members and senti-
ment for particular cause.
Remedy Is Simple.
The simple remedy is an amend
ment to the Wagner Act which shall
make the certification of the bar
gaining agency or the holding of an
election to determine the bargain
ing agency compulsory obligation
for the Labor Board itself.
The present law reads as follows:
whenever question affecting
commerce arises concerning the rep
resentation of employees, the board
may investigate such controversy
and certify to the parties, in writing,
the name or names of the repre-
sentativeS that have been designated
or selected. In any such investiga-
ton, the board shall provide for an
appropriate hearing upon due no.
tice, either in conjunction with a
proceeding under section 10 or 9TH
erWise, and may take a secret ballot
of employees, or utilize any other
o a tn toi al,
representation
The only difficulty with the fore
going section in actual practice is
the word may" The unions object
to the use of this discretionary power
by the Labor Board and so it is
rarely used. But if the board were
freed from such criticism by being
compelled to follow the specific man
date of the law, if it read shall"
instead of may" there could be no
valid objection to what a board did
when required by the statute.
Curious Contradiction.
In the New York State labor re-
1ations act, a curious contradiction
occurs, the word may" being en-
ployed with respect to the holding
of an election when an employer
asks the question about the true
collective bargaining agency and
the word shall being used when
an employe organization raises the
question and wants an election. One
is mandatory investigation and
election and the other is a discre-
tionary power.
Yet from this very weakness of
the law, strikes and threats of strikes
develop. The objection of unions
that they would find themselves con-
fronted by contracts made by en-
ployers with hastily organized
unions, of course, has much merit
In it, but on the other hand, elec-
tions and, for that matter, con-
tracts are for period of one year
during which the organizers have
ample opportunity to seek to per-
suade the existing majority to select
another bargaining agency. In the
long run the disadvantages of an
occasional loss of an immediate
chance for winning an exclusive bar
gaining agency would be offset by
the number of instances in which
elections ordered by the board would
result in free choice without
coercion from anybody. If coercion
on the part of the employer did
occur or any other undue influence
were used, the employe units could
still petition to have the election set
aside.
While the Wagner Act requires
collective bargaining, it does not in
sist upon 1t at the time when the
issue really arises, and hence strikes
occur, as we'll as serious Interrupt
tions to the commerce of the Nation.
To amend the Wagner law so as
really to assure immediate collective
bargaining, whenever question
affecting commerce arises concern
ing the representation of employees"
Is IN line with the purposes of the
act and cannot by the remotest
stretch of the imagination be any
thing but gain for labor as well
as management and, quite Incl
dentally, for the general public,
which suffers when strikes happen.
Had this amendment been in effect
there would never have been an
issue before the Supreme Court
this week as to the right of the
A. F. of L. to make contract
either for its members or for a
majority of the employees.