Evening star., 1938-05-16

pellate Court of
the State Of Illinois with relation to
sit-doWn strikers, on the one hand,
and ruling by the National Labor
Relations Board, which to large
extent ignored the violation Of State
laws by thee same strikers.
When the sit-doWn strikes in Mich
1gan were attracting Nationwide
attention, most people wondered what
had happened to the courts of justice
in that State The general assump-
ton was that "sit-doWn' strike was
an act of trespass, yet the Secretary
.of Labor expressed doubt and not
few New Dealers thought some peculiar
evolution of law might justify seizure
of plants by workers. Later the
Secretary accepted the theory that
sit-doWn strikes were unlawful but
the United Automobile Workers of
America in convention assembled
formally adopted resolution pledglng
themselves to the continued use of
that weapon
Now the Illinois court has ruled 50
clearly on the sit down" strike that
the decision may become of central
Importance as precedent in future
labor controversies. For in this case
direct conflict occurred with ruling
of the National Labor Relations Board
and the courts decision also has
bearing on the argument OF those who
have wanted to see the Wagner Act
amended to prevent acts of coercion
by workers as against fellow workers.
The Illinois decision would seem to
make superfluous any such amendment
and would seem to place the RESPONSE
bility for protection against acts OF
coercion sq,arely on State Judicial
systems.
81 Strikers Sentenced.
The present case, which was fought
by the Fansteel Metallurgical Corp,
against the Amalgamated Association
of Iron and Steel Workers, resulted
from sitdown strike and from the
sentence by lower court in Illinois
of 81 sit-down strikers for contempt
in violating an injunction issued
against them. Says the appellate
court, Justive Dove presiding
Counsel for appellants (sit-doWn
sarikers) argue that the National La
Dor Relations Act designated as the |
Wagner Act is a complete code cover
ing all the relations OF employer ana
employe, that in enacting it Congress
considered all phases of the relations
between employer and employe and
prescribed the powers and duties OF
each so far as it seemed advisable to
provide for their regulation. that no
State court can have any jurisdiction |
Of any subject matter arising there
under and the Circuit Court q" * was
wholly without jurisdiction either to |
Issue the preliminary injunction or
impose the penalties upon appellants
for violation thereof.
THE act was enacted in the hope |
that it would reduce industrial con-
flicts, but no power to preserve order
or prevent violence incident to labor |
disputes is conferred upon the National |
Labor Relations Board nor is there |
"anything in the act which could be |
construed to mean that Congress
intended to interfere with the States |
in providing police protection to its |
citizens or their property. To give
the act the construction contended for |
by appellants (sit-doWn Strikers) would |
very likely render the act itself invalid. |
Certainly a court Of equity is not |
deprived of a recognized branch of |
its jurisdiction simply because the |
Federal act created a board which had
no power to hear complaints or grant |
relief of the character which the State |
court granted here.
Because an employer refuses to |
bargain with its employees collectively |
cannot justify those employees in their
.conduct of a strike in seizing the fac
tory of their employer and without
authority Of any kind evict their fore
man. barricade the doors, deny the
rightful owner admission to his own
property, and defy those whom they
know to be officers charged by law to
carry out the orders and DEGREES Of
q court.
Subject of Violence.
'There is nothing in the Wagner
Act which deals with the subject
Of violence or any illegal acts COM
mitted by employees in the course of
an industrial dispute, and in our
opinion Congress did not, by its enact
ment of the Wagner Act, deprive or
attempt to deprive the States of their
police power to protect property
rights or punish illegal acts committed
in the course of labor disputes, nor
do we think there is any merit in
the contention of appellants (sit-
down strikers) counsel when they in