Evening star., 1938-10-11

=
lations Board,
and it is signifi- n,,;s,.
cant that the
ajor demand of employers that the
Wagner Act be made to apply uni
tormly against employees as well as
employers is ignored.
The A. F. of L. report is in itself
not Objectionable to the employers
but, of course, does not go far enough.
The question remains whether the
A. F. of L. is strong enough politically
in Congress to force amendment of
the Wagner Act or whether the A. F..
of L. will have to make some conces-
Sions to the industrialists who will
have some political strength which
when allied with the A. F. of L. will
be sufficient to command a majority.
1t seems assured that some of the
amendments proposed by the A. F..
Of L. will be vehemently fought by the
c. I. O., especially those relating to
the right now requested that en-
ployes of craft or class be permitted
to select their bargaining agents by
majority vote and irrespective of the
boards own idea of how crafts and
classes should be grouped. This
touches the heart of the controversy
between craft and industrial unions
AS for the other amendments, espe-
cially those relating to the definite
marking out of qualifications for trial
examiners. the issuance of the sub
poena power and other procedural
changes, are not likely to cause any
particular cleavage in Congress, for
the suggestions run somewhat parallel
to those applied to other quasi-govern-
mental commissions.
On Invalidating Contracts.
The A. F. of LIS suggested amend
ment that the power of the labor board
to invalidate contracts must be def
nitely curtailed will raise many ques-
tions. Thus the labor board itself
maintains it never actually invalidates
any contract which has been right
fully or lawfully made and that when
1t orders contract Cancelled it is be-
cause something has been agreed upon
which in itself is in violation of the
rights of workers to choose their own
bargaining agents.
In many instances, for example,
where the issue has arisen. the board
has said that a contract between an
A. F. OF L. unit and an employer
must be set aside because at the time
1t was made there was no evidence
OF the right of the A. F. Of L. to
bargain for a ma iority of the work.
ers or else that the right to negoti-
ate was obtained by the A. F. of L.
as result of some collision or CO.
operation with an employer in con-
tradiction of the rights of group
OF workers who were attempting to
organize particular plant.
The big question which will have
to be decided is when elections shall
be held and when majority shall
be certified. If employers get the
right to petition, for the holding of
an election, it may we'll happen that
they will bring about a contract at a
time when the outside organizers have
not had an opportunity to canvass
the sentiment of the workers From
labor's point of view this is a disad-
vantage which employers should not
be able to foist on the situation by
the intervention of an election ma
chinery.
The Employers Right.
There is, on the other hand, con-
siderable support in Congress for the
idea that an employer should not be
subjected to the consequences of
war between two rival groups and
that so long as he does not interfere
with the choosing of bargaining agents
or in any way commit an unfair
labor practice he should have the
| opportunity to compel some sort of
an election and a termination of the
pickering between contesting factions
The A. F. of LIS criticism of
Labor Board agents for acting or at
tempting to act as mediators is one
that is well taken but criticism of
the Labor Board for attempting medi-
alton is a bit unjust because agents
of the board often have sought to
do whatever they could on the spot
to adjust a situation which was obvi-
ously due to simple misunderstand-
| ings or unfamiliarity with the law
itself. If the A. F. Of L. Is referring
| to formal mediation, then much sup
port will be found for the view that
the mediation machinery of the Fed
eraI Government now vested in the
Department Of Labor should be con-
siderably expanded with bigger ap-
propriations and more personnel. The
reports from Great Britain and
Sweden recently made public by Pres
ident Roosevelt place much emphasis
on mediation and conciliation by the
governments in those countries.
Americas mediation service has done
q great work but this department is
far from what 1t should be in per-
sonnel and funds for q large indus
trial country like the United States.
(Copyright, 1889