Evening star., 1939-01-18

n a S not con-
demned the sit Da''a Lawrence
down" strike as method of settling
labor disputes, nor has it sought to
establish the "sit-down" as legal
weapon. The Labor Board has in
troduced a different issue, which is
OF greater Importance than the sit
down., namely, whether the REIN
statement of workers who have gone
on strike is required by the terms of
the Wagner Act, irrespective of any
thing the workers may have done
IN the interim, so long as the
labor dispute out of which the al
legged crimes grew involved originally
an unfair labor practice on the
part of an employer.
The Supreme Court is asked by
the Labor Board to rule that if
labor dispute arises and if the en-
ployer has been guilty of an unfair
labor practice" then every employe
who went out on any kind of strike
must be reinstated, no matter
whether the ''Sit-doWn" strike or
illegal picketing or anything else of
an unlawful nature occurred in con-
nection with the strike.
The lawyers for the Fansteel Co.,
on the other hand, who thus far
have been sustained by the lower
Federal courts, insist that an en-
ployer need not reinState anybody
who has participated in sit
down" strike, and that the right of
discharge is broad enough to cover
any kind of wrongdoing, whether
IN connection with strike or any
other conditions relating to employ
ment.
Some Strikers Rehired.
Now it so happens that the Fam
steel Co. did accept for re-employ-
ment some workers who partici-
pated in the ''sit-doWn" and refused
to re-employ others. The companys
reason for differentiation was that
some of the employees were forced
against their own will to participate
in the Shutdown" strike.
The company, on the other hand,
did not accept for re-employment
a single one of the workers who
were convicted either of acts of vio-
lence or refusal to obey the order
OF a State court to evacuate the
company's premises. Some served
terms in Jail and some paid fines.
Now the question is whether a
company can regard the commits
sion of offenses against the laws
OF the State Of Illinois as sufficient
basis for refusal to rehire. The Labor
Board attorneys take the view that
the Federal statute is plain. That
1t Is concerned only with its own
operations, and that, if an employer
Is guilty of an unfair labor prac-
tice, it must reinstate the men who
went out on strike, and that what
the laws Of Illinois do not keep order
or punish those who disobey is one
thing, and what the Federal Gov
eminent does is quite another.
This separation of the Federal
and State powers is a very i'm
.portant matter, because if the view
of the Labor Board is accepted by
the Supreme Court, then the agita-
ton for amendment of the Wagner
Act to prohibit coercion from any
source" will be resumed. This cor
respondent pointed out several
months ago that so long as States
retain their police power and ef-
fectively exercise it there is no
good reason for adding police func-
tions to the Federal Government in
the matter of coercion of workers
'by fellow workers. The Senators
who fought the Tydings amend
ment at the time the Wagner law
was adopted insisted that State laws
were ample to protect the workers
against intimidation and violence.
The test now Is at hand, and the
Supreme Courts opinion will have
a considerable bearing on the di-
rection of the controversy over
amendment of the Wagner Act.
Merely Seeks Definition.
But, on the other hand, if the
Supreme Court takes the view that
-men who have committed crime
under State law need not be rein
stated because an employer can
judge for himself the character of
the workers he intends to re-em-
ploy, then the effect will be not
only to strengthen the prestige of
State law enforcement, but to rule
out as a basis for reinstatement OF
striking employees every considera-
ton except the simple fact that they
left work and the matter of lawful
conduct while they were on strike.
The Labor Board is being criti-
cized as "upholding" the "sit-doWn'
strike. Specifically its position may
T. be subject to that Interpretation
But, legally and technically, the
Labor Board is merely seeking q
definition of the limits of the re-
instatement clause of the Wagner
Act to determine whether reinstate-
ment is compelled when an en-
d. ployer commits an unlawful act
himself; in other words, whether
the two wrongs do not cancel each
other.
Most observers will be inclined te
feel that two wrongs can never can
Gel each other or make a single
right, and that the employer car
be made to suffer other penalties
for failure to obey the Wagner Act
than the taking back of employees
who have committed crime against
either the State or Federal Govern.
ment which makes them undesir.
Ny7sY.N.VT~