Evening star., 1939-01-19

arisen over de-
cisions of the National Labor Rela-
tions Board, so it is interesting to
study a factual analysis which has
lust been made of what the courts
have done in passing Judgment on
the Labor Boards work.
Rarely has a law been tested in
the courts as many times or in such
short space of time as the Wagner
Labor Relations Act. In the three
and half years since it was passed
there have been 78 cases arising
apart from the customary injunc-
ton proceedings. The score of the
Labor Board in cases that have
come to the Supreme Court of the
United States is II to 2 in the
boards favor AS for cases not acted
upon yet by the Supreme Court and
still in the Circuit Courts of Appeals,
the score is 33 toS13, that is, the
boards decisions have been ordered
enforced in full in 80 cases and en-
forcement has been denied In 13
instances.
To this latter total might be added
five cases in which the boards deci-
sions were ordered enforced in part.
but then it might also be contended
that in the same five cases the
courts did not agree in part with
the board.
Remarkable Record.
But 33 cases of .clean-cut victory
for the Labor Board, as against 13
or 18, depending on how the five
cases of "ffty-ffty" decisions are
lined up. is remarkable record for
any Federal board. entirely apart
from the 17-to-2 showing in the
highest court in the land.
Much criticism has been leveled
against the Labor Board on the
ground that it is arbitrary in its
decisions, or that it reveals bias.
What the opponents Of the Wagner
Act in Congress have been striving
to do lately is to fix the blame for
this on the members of the board,
instead of on the Congress itself
which wrote the law that now comes
under fire. The Wagner Act was
written from the viewpoint of labor
unions and the Labor Board merely
: takes what Congress gives it. Strict
enforcement of the Wagner Act can
hardly, therefore. fail to reflect the
bias which Congress itself wrote into
the statute, but this is not the fault
OF the board members. They did not
write the law but are called upon
merely to enforce it.
Some Of the attacks on the Labor
Boards decisions have referred to
improper or unfair procedure. The
Circuit Courts of Appeals and the
Supreme Court of the United States
have their attention directed to such
defects in procedure by the lawyers
Involved in these cases and the issues
are usually passed upon by the
courts. If the, procedure is unfair,
the court decisions will tend to cor
rect mistaken action, but the courts
cannot write into the law clauses
giving the employer the same rights
as the employees when Congress
itself has refused to do it.
The Labor Board doubtless will
be reversed in some of the cases now
pending. This correspondent wrote,
for instance, at the time the Fan
steel case was decided by the Labor
Board that the courts probably
would not sanction reinstatement of
employees who had been engaged in
"sit-down" strikes, but the points in
that case, as already outlined in
these dispatches, are far from COM
mitting the Labor Board to support
of the "sit-down" strike or any
other method of violence as means
Of settling labor Quarrels
Unfortunate Controversy.
This Congress is likely to take up
the question of amending the Wag-
ner Act, but surrounding the dis
cussion of revision is an unfor-
tunate controversy that has arisen
over the confirmation by the Sen
ate Of Donald Wakefield Smith, who
was given recess appointment for
a second term by President Roose-
welt, but whose nomination has not
vet been sent to the Senate.
There is another Smith on the
board-Edwin S. Smith-and the
story is going the rounds that the
A. F. of L. in its original protest to
Mr.. Roosevelt against the reap
pointment of Donald Wakefield
Smith really meant Edwin Smith.
The right OF the A. F. of L. or the
Chamber of Commerce or any other
organization representing parties
that come before a Federal board
to challenge reappointment is tech
nically okeh, but the propriety of
interested organizations seeking to
punish members of Federal board
for their decisions by blocking con-
f1rmation is something else again.
Certainly in nearly all the cases
Donald Wakefield Smith has ruled
AS has the Labor Board itself, so
that a vote to unseat him Is vote
against the decisions Of the Federal
courts which have sustained his
views, unless, of course. the fight
on confirmation should revolve
around the question of personal
qualifications, which thus far has not