Evening star., 1939-12-06

employees of the Newport News Ship
building g. Drydock Co. to conform
to the Wagner law. A plan pre-
viously in existence, which for years
had worked we'll between manage
ment and employees, was thought to
be subject to the charge of en-
ployer domination" for Inter
ference" under the Wagner Act.
The Supreme Court laconically re-
cites the record:
ut is uncontradicted that labor
disputes have been settled under the
plan; that since 1927 no labor dis
pute has caused cessation Of activi-
ties at the respondents (company's)
plant; that overwhelming majorities
Of the employees have participated in
the election of representatives; that
the company has never objected to
its employees joining labor unions;
that no discrimination has been
practiced against them because Of
their membership in outside unions,
and that neither officials nor su-
perior employees not eligible to vote
In the election Of employees repre-
sentatives have interfered or at
tempted to interfere or use any in
fluence in connection with the elec-
ton Of representatives.
THE court below agreed with the
respondent (the company that, as
the committee had operated to the
apparent satisfaction of the en-
ployes, as serious labor disputes had
not occurred during its existence
and as the men at an election held
under the auspices Of the committee
had signifled their desire for its
continuance, it would be a proper
medium and one which the employer
might continue to recognize for the
adjustment of labor disputes.
Law Blocked Solution.
"The difficulty with the position
Is that the provisions of the statute
(the Wagner law preclude such a
disposition of the case. -"
I'm applying the statutory test Of
independence, it Is immaterial that
the plan had in fact not engendered,
or indeed had obviated, serious labor
disputes in the past, or that any
company interference in the admin :.
istration of the plan had been Incl
dental rather than fundamental and
with good motives. It was for Con-
gress to determine whether, as a
matter of policy, such a plan should
be permitted to continue in force.
We think the statute plainly evinces
a contrary purpose and that the
boards conclusions are In accord
with that purpose.
But did members of Congress who
voted in 1885 for the Wagner law
have in mind putting American
workers in such straight jacket
that they could not possibly have
mutually satisfactory relations with
management in their own way? Did
any Of those who voted for the Wag-
ner law think it ever could be con-
strued as it has been in the New
port News shipbuilding case?
Limits Bargaining Medium.
Plainly, the board interpreted the
law correctly and it cannot be con.
tended persuasively now that the
board did anything but squeeze out
Of the law what it saw there-an
open favofitism for national unions
and condemnation of independ-
emily organized plant unions. In
other words, collective bargaining
now has been narrowed to mean
collective bargaining only by par
ticular medium-national unions
and the workers must necessarily in
certain cases place themselves at
the mercy of labor cliques and labor
leaders who really do not represent
the wishes of the workers at all.
The board, therefore, is immune
from attack in constituting the law,
for the Supreme Court now has
affirmed the boards view. Congress
alone. as the representative of the
workers and management of the
country, has the problem OF deciding
whether a strait jacket must be con-
tinue to be imposed hereafter or
real freedom of choice permitted.
Just as the prohibition problem
became in 1892 not a question of
temperance or moderateness in
drinking, but a crime condition
growing out of bootlegging, so that
the country finally repealed the
18th amendment, so today the Wag-
ner law is headed for reaction.
With all its beneficent purposes,
the labor relations law has been
twisted by its friends into a statute