The voice of labor., 1939-07-06

of cases presented by Charles
and Senate labor committees
Wagner Act amendments her,
Such charges, made IN AFI. tes-
timony. PLAYED up IN the CONNER
cial press and aired on the radio
have been the main basis OF the
vicious attacks OIL the Board and
on the Wagner Act launched by
AFL leaders IN boration with
agents OF the National Manutac
turerS' Association. the Chamber OF
Commerce and other reactlOnall
groups.
Misinformed
Nov Fahys detailed analysis Oi
all the cases cited in evidence by
AL officials proves concluSivcly
that President Green. AL COun>el
Padway. and others were either
misinformed or have been deliber-
ately dlstortinR the facts 10 NV 10
build up case ior their erippllne
amendments.
Green. for example Is found ia
have been "misiniormed in iesil-
fying on the Tennessee coppel
Case. when he complained tina, the
Board set aside an AFI. contract
No contract was involved in the
case. Fahy shows. and obviously
could not be set aside
In fact. the Boerd favored sn
AFL claim Tor an appropriate
unit involving three plants. a.
against a clio contention for sep
arate units. a strange beRinnins
II the Board we're approaching this
case with bias IN favor of thn
CIO." Fahy declares
What was involved IN 'hc Ten
neSsee case. a. IN number OF 9th
ers. was employer interference with
the workers free choice OF a union
As the Board records IN these cases
show, there was employer interfer-
encs and coercion. particularly OF
election times-and yet the AFL
leaders. because their unions were
favored by the bosses. not only try
10 smear the Board for doing its
duty. but want TO change the Act
to remove the very word "interfer-
ence.-
Cohesive Contracts
The same AfT misiniormatIOn
and diStortion Is shown IN It's OBJ
ectionS N . number OF cases where
the Board set aside colluSivs con-
tracts. notably in the Consolidated
Edison case. Fahy testimony makes
clear.
Ia this case. the company openly
told tho workers II wanted them 10
ION the AFL union gave the AFL
money and other help forced thou
sands OF workers into the AFI4. and
finally signed . phousv contract
all with one purpose. 10 keep out
the cfo.
The evidence rs 50 strong In this
case even Padway. AFL counsel
had to admit that it smelled. saying
In his ani-Waener Act testimony
that the acts OF the company !!
performed IN favor OF an un-
affiliated plant orsantsa ton would
bring IL within the classification OF
q company ssiion.
In other words. as Fahys brief
indicates, company unionism Is ap-
parently all right with Padway and
Green 40 long as II Is carried out
In behalf OF the AFT II is only
bad when carried out in behalf cf
an 'unsffiliated plant orsanils :
ton"
Remedy of Law
"swrsls questions concerning col
lusivs or dishonest contracts should
not bs excluded from the orderly
processes of the Law and left ONLY
TO the remedy Of the strife the act
il designed TO smeliorate" Fahy
concludes.
Turning 10 the question Of 'ap-
propriats snit," another OF the pegs
on which the AFI4 leaders have
tried 70 hang = case against the
Board and the act. Fshy points out
that the Board has ruled against
the AFL's claim in only ninetee.l
out Of 100 such cases In seven OF
these nineteen the craft union had
mo members at all.
In seven others the so-eailed craft
sinit was IN fact non-craft unit,
rand in accordance with Mr.. Pad
ways testimony there would be no
justification for establishing a so
called craft unit in such a case. "
or the remaining five, the AFL
had No objection 10 four. and III the
fifth the Board again found clear
Havtdence Of ennrloyer domination IN