Evening star., 1938-05-08

oAO11lS Will tIlc IldJOTlCy.
Apparently the Labor Board ran afoul
Of the procedural standards laid down by
the Supreme Court in its cases against
the Republic Steel Corp and the Ford
Motor Co.
These cases are among the most impor-
tant the board has had since the court
upheld the Wagner Act and for that rea-
son the representatives of the board were
anxious to do everything in their power
to avoid an adverse Supreme Court deci-
sion on procedural question, which would
make 1t impossible to obtain a final ruling
on the merits of the controversies until
some time next year. Consequently,
Charles Fahy the boards general counsel
moved to withdraw the complaints against
Republic and Ford and to reopen the cases
under procedure he believed would meet
the full and fair" hearing requirements
specified by the court
The board, on last April 8, found the
Republic Corp. had violated the Wagner
Act and directed the immediate re-employ-
ment with back pay Of 5000 workers who
engaged in last summers Little Steel"
strike.
For reasons which have not been made
public, however, the steel corporation has
made a determined and, to this point, sue
cessful effort to prevent the board from
reopening its case. obtaining from the
Third Circuit Court of Appeals at Phila-
delphia last week an order restraining the
board from taking any steps or proceed
ings whatsoever" before May 49, At the
same time, the court issued rule requir-
ing the board to show cause why it should
not certify to the court the entire record
Of its case against Republic.
Motive Not Entirely Clear.
That action for the time being def
nitely prevents the board from reopening
the case. and indicates Republic wants an
adjudication Of the procedural question
rather than a speedy final determination
of the merits Of the case The motive be-
hind that desire is not entirely clear, since
holding by the court that the procedure
was faulty, although a potential source of
embarrassment to the board. could only
result in a rehearing of the case next year
instead of now.
1t is possible, Of course. that the corpo-
ration is playing for time, hoping that
. change in the personnel Of the board
or amendment of the Wagner Act will
lead to a different finding when the re-
hearing finally is held. 1t is not likely,
however, that those dilatory tactics, If such
they be, will receive much public support.
The action Of the Third Circuit Court.
which has been consistently opposed to
New Deal policies, in refusing to permit
the board to withdraw its order occasioned
some surprise in legal circles. since the
Wagner Act specifically provides that an
enforcement order may be withdrawn at
any time before the record is certified to
the court by the board. The action of the
Third Circuit, while not final, is still in
sharp contrast with that of the Sixth Cir
cult, which last week granted a motion
by the board to withdraw its Ford case
order
In the steel case, as we'll as the Ford
case, the proceeding was instituted by the
filing of complaint, accompanied by a
bill Of particulars setting forth the charges
in detail. An examiner held lengthy hear
ings with both sides having full opportunity
to present witnesses and documentary evi-
dence, but the examiner did not follow the
usual procedure of filing an intermediate
report, to which the corporation could have
noted exceptions This practice, followed
in the more important cases only, was in
accordance with rule of the board, but
apparently in violation of the Supreme
Courts requirements for fair and full
hearing.
Fair Procedure Principle.
Mr.. Fahy has indicated that if he is per-
mitted to reopen the matter the interme-
diate report would be prepared and SUBJ
mitted to the corporation for exceptions be-
fore the board makes its final order While
there is little likelihood the board would
be swayed by any exceptions the corpora
ton might submit, the principle of fair
procedure would, nevertheless, have been
preserved, and that is matter that may
have an important bearing on future hear
ings by the. Labor Board as well as by
other agencies.
The boards motion to withdraw its petit
ton for enforcement of its order against
the Ford company was filed with the Sixth
Circuit Court at Covington, KY. The mo-
ton followed petition by counsel for the
motor company seeking an examination Of
members and attorneys for the board.
Under the Supreme Courts decision in
the stockyards case it would seem that the
motor company was well within its rights
in seeking the examination. The courts
holding that litigants have a right to in
terrogate officers and employees of quasi
Judicial bodies is extremely important,
since their answers, which must be made
under oath, provide sure means of ascer-
tanning precisely what procedure was fol-
lowed and how fully the issues were UNDER
stood prior to the making of an order.
However, in view Of the courts decision
to permit the board to withdraw its en-
forcement order, the petition for leave to
interrogate the board and its employees
undoubtedly will be dismissed, since the
court has relinquished its Jurisdiction in
the case
Interesting Inquiries.
Some of the inquiries, particularly in
view Of the boards stated opposition to
submitting answers, were interesting.
One of the questions was whether the
board, prior to issuing its order, consulted
with Thomas Corcoran and Benjamin v.
Cohen, New Deal legal advisers; John L.
Lewis, head of the C. I. o., or Homer