The potters herald. [volume] (East Liverpool, Ohio) 1899-1982, 1939-05-04
Chances In Labor
Continued From Page One)

CONTINUED From Page One)
be best effectuated in most cases by
merging craft units with so-called in
dustrial units. In the Allis Chalmers
Company case Mr.. Edwin Smith wrote
a dissenting opinion against the craft
groups in which he said:
e.. By this psuedo democratic
method determination of the great
est consequence to the other employees
in the plant is left in the hands of
groups known to be hostile to indus
trial organization"
Chairman Madden and Board men,
Der Donald Wakefield Smith have re-
fused so far to go along completely
with Edwin Smith. However, a ten
dency has been exhibited by Donald
Wakefield Smith to join with Edwin
Smith. In a three-man Board, danger
to A. F. of l.. organizations is readily
apparent when one member of the
Board is definitely committed to a
philosophy that condemns craft units.
The A. +. Of l.. cannot speculate on
the permanency or consistency of the
two remaining members. In the light
of past attitude of the Board, the
chances are that one or the other
member will join Edwin Smith when
crucial contest will arise in a prece-
dent making case.
"Globe Doctrine" Subterfuge. Not a
Guarantee of Freedom of Choice
Aside from the danger of Edwin
Smiths dissenting opinion becoming
the majority opinion of the Board, it's
present decisions do not give protection
to crafts. The Board makes great
claim to afford such protection by
adopting what it terms the "Globe
Doctrine" This doctrine, as stated by
the Board, is as follows:
"Where the considerations are even
ly balanced, the determining factor
is the desire of the men themselves u
Specifically the doctrine appears to
be fair, but no more subtle device has
been conceived by an administrative
body to permit abuse of discretion.
First it is well to point out that re-
gardless of the fairness or unfairness
of this doctrine the members of the
Board are not agreed whether the
Board has the power to make such a
rule. Mr.. Edwin Smith has officially
stated in respect to the doctrine
"-I feel the Board is here abandoning
its necessary judicial function" Thus
if another member of the Board is wor
over to his view this acclaimed prin.
ciple of justice will be abandoned.
Next, the Board has led the public
to believe that this doctrine merely
follows the rule set forth in the Rail
way Labor Act and the New York La.
bor Relations Act. That is not true
In both these acts the right to vote
on the unit is vested in the craft
groups by operation of law.
Under the Globe doctrine the right
to vote on the unit depends on The
will of the Board. The Board may OF
may not permit the workers to vote
for unit as it sees fit. The Boart
has made certain that it can deny the
craft the right to vote whenever it is
so disposed by injecting the subtle in
definable phrase "where the consider
ations are evenly balanced" And wht
determines what these considerations
are? And who determines when thu
considerations are Seventy balanced"
The Board of course. By this unique
device the Board may and does pla!
favorites. 1t need only conclude tina
| Tho ,nnpiIn,,f ouonl,y hn1
anced and thereby deny vote to th'
workers.
For example in the Fried -Ostermam
case the employer manufactured boil
clothing and gloves. They were sep
arate departments. Glove making ha
been a separate craft during the en-
tire history of organized labor.
The glove workers were PRACTICAL.
one hundred per cent members of th'
A. +. of l.. Glove Workers Union. Th'
majority Of the clothing workers wer'
members of clothing workers uniol
not affiliated with the A. +. of l.. 4
dispute arose over representation fo
the glove workers.
The clothing workers requested th'
Board to fuse the clothing workers
and glove workers and declare then
one unit, so that by the fusion tn
glove workers union would be destroy
cd. The Board did so and thus th'
glove workers we're forced out of tn,
A. +. of l.. into the rival clothing
workers union. The Board obligingl!
discarded the Globe Doctrine "and th'
desires of the workers themselves
for the benefit Of the rival to the A
+. of l.. union.
Thus we can see how far from th'
N. Y. and Railway Labor Acts th'
Board has departed. Under the n. Y
and Railway Labor Acts the Board ha
no say whatsoever concerning th'
right Of craft to vote for its uni
and this right is guaranteed all Graf
n,n,,Lnrc 1FnInr tbo Eloho In,t ri N