Evening star., 1938-04-08

He'' WIN " SS:s$$:3$sla *sl "
Govern m n n.,,,
through three
men can compel agreement on any or
all of the terms of labor dispute and
decide which terms shall or shall not
be accepted by employers or employees,
or both.
This broad question does not appear
on the surface in the Inland Steel
case just decided, but careful reading
of the opinion shows the lengths to
which the Labor Board has gone in
asserting its rights over employer and
employe relations.
The question at issue in the Inland
Steel case was really not whether the
employer should agree to a signed
contract when once there was meet
ing of minds between his employees
and a company's representatives The
real subject Of the controversy which
the Labor Board was asked to decide
was whether, having announced in
advance that it would not make
signed contract. the company was re-
fusing to bargain collectively.
&ucSliUH NldJOihS'
1t might seem on its face that the
Inland Steel was in an untenable
position in refusing to sign contract.
What really happened was that the
Inland Steel Co. actually questioned
whether the C. I. o. had majority
or was entitled to bargain at all on
behalf of majority of its employees.
7 OH hot of no
time the proceeding was commenced
the c. l. o. union did have a majority,
but it is most unfortunate that the
board did not therefore order an
election to prove this point. When a
majority had been determined and
bargaining representatives chosen then
the question of whether the Inland
Steel Co. was violating the Wagner
Act by refusing to treat with the
authorized majority representatives
should properly have arisen.
AS it is, wholly irrelevant issue
has been presented, 1t is really a
hypothetical question. Strictly speak
ing. it may be stated thus: If the
c. I. o. union did have majority and
by an election duly held. then would
the Inland Steel Co. have refused
to negotiate or rather to conduct COL
lective bargaining conversations? If
the company had refused under those
conditions. it would have been guilty
Of an unfair labor practice within
the meaning of the Wagner Act.
Precise Question.
But supposing the company did
recognize the duly elected majority
representatives and one of the issues
being discussed was whether a signed
contract should be entered into. Would
the company be within its rights in
deciding for itself whether or not to
sign a contract? This very point is
succintly stated by the Labor Board
In the Inland Steel opinion thus:
The precise question before us .
Is whether refusal to embody in
signed agreement. any understandings
that may be reached, constitutes
failure to bargain collectively within
the meaning of the act. In essence
the question is whether a willingness
to embody understandings in signed
agreement is an integral part of the
process of bona foe collective bargain
ing, or whether the signed agreement
is a concession which the employer
may legitimately withhold"
In those last eight WordS-"a con-
oession which the employer may legiti-
mately withhold" is the kernel of the
yr,l,1 -. ox,I
decide what are and what are not
legitimate points of concession? May
1t not tomorrow ay that not only is
q signed contract a legitimate part
OF the collective bargaining process,
but also the duration of the contract,
whether it is to be for one month or
9u4 years? May the Labor Board not
also say that the CLOSED shop" is or
is not an integral part of the collective
bargaining process, and may the board
not also say that refusal to accept
q particular wage scale by announce
ment in advance is a refusal to bargain
collectively?
Discretion to Interpret.
Clearly when the board has the dis
eretion to interpret what is or is not
a matter for concession" it enters
the field of decision as to what is or
Is not a proper item of negotiation
between employers and employees. If
Congress intended such a power to be
exercised by the Labor Board, then
the Inland Steel case is certainly JUS
titled use of that power by the board.
The difficulty with the instant case
Is that the board did not order an
election and compel the parties to
negotiate. Whether they would have
reached a meeting of minds is not
something that judicial or even
quasi-judicial body ever should at
tempt to decide in advance of the
actual development of such a set of
circumstances. Had this procedure
been followed, the board would have
been confronted with the fact that
employers and employees had nego-
tiated as provided by law and had or
had not reached a meeting of minds
What cause could then have been
ascribed by the employees union for
insisting on written contract? In
deed. what possible reason, If there
had been meeting of minds, would
the company have had for refusing
to put the matter in writing? One is
forced to the conclusion that the real
issue undecided by the Inland Steel
case is whether company must nego-
tiate with group not known officially
IN Io ~, tho n, O ioritv ord wbofhor the