Evening star., 1939-11-24

1ngS to learn DaVia Lawrence.
whether the board has or has not
weighed the evidence properly.
The language, therefore, of de-
cision just come to hand from the
United States Circuit Court of APP
peals, sixth circuit, is of especial
interest because the court finds the
labor board itself guilty of distort-
ing facts and misconstruing evi-
dence. The decision is unanimous
on the part of the three judges, one
of whom happens to be Judge Flor
ence Allen, who has recently been
mentioned as a possible appointee
to the Supreme Court of the United
States. Says the Circuit Court of
Appeals in its formal opinion, con-
cludlng paragraph:
''The petition of the board for en-
forcement of it's order must be denied
because its findings of unfair labor
practices are unsupported by sub
stantial evidence. Sensible of the
great social purpose of the National
Labor Relations Act, courts have
gone far to uphold rulings of the
administrative agency charged with
its enforcement, doubtless in the
belief that oVerZealouSnesS must in
time yield to eXpertnesS in weighing
evidence and that time and RESPONSE
bility must develop a judicial ap-
proach to disputed issues in a tri-
bunal which, though administrative,
exercises to such large extent the
high judicial function. 1t may not
be amiss-indeed, it may be in the
highest public interest-to observe
that the benefcent purposes of the
act will not be effectuated by de-
cisions such as that presently re-
viewed
Community Effort Behind Plant.
The facts of the case are interest
Ing The Empire Furniture Corp.
was new company succeeding a
predecessor corporation which had
gone bankrupt. For three years the
plant had been idle contributing to
the distress .of the unemployed in
johnson City, Tenn Upon the
initiative of a retired banker new
enterprise was started in the old
plant through the cooperation of
private enterprise with community
effort" the Chamber of Commerce
giving substantial aid so as to tighten
the relief load, namely, the loan of
Sl7,500, so as to help the new COM
pany meet conditions imposed by the
R. F. c., which loaned the company
$l75,900. The city remitted back
taxes and lowered current assess
mentS to get things started. Every
body co-operated. The company be-
gan operations in June, 1885, and up
to April, 1887, when labor troubles
arose, progress was being made in
opening up new markets and even in
reducing its loan slightly to the
r. F. C.
Up to April, 1887, there was no
trouble with the $50 employees. Then
a man who had not long been in
the employ of the company began
organizing on behalf of the Textile
Workers Organizing Committee, an
affiliate of the C. I. o. 1t was alleged
that 300 employees signed union
cards. The employer doubted it
and wanted an election, but for some
reason the representatives of the
union didn't want an election right
away. They said they needed more
time. The company was accused of
refusing to bargain with the repre-
sentatives of majority of the
workers, charges of various kinds
were listed and the National Labor
Relations Board finally issued an
order charging the company with
unfair labor practices under the
Wagner Act.
Evidence Refutes Assertion.
The Circuit Court of Appeals takes
up the charges one by one. It was
asserted by the board that the COM
pany refused to agree to bargain
with the union even if at an election
1t were designated as the employe
bargaining agency" But the Circuit
Court examined the evidence and
said:
This finding not only flies in the
face of evidence produced by the
respondent through witnesses whose
credlblllty is not impeached, but is
IN direct conflict with the evidence
OF its own representative. Birgil c.
Finch, field examiner for the board.
was asked: q. Now, Mr.. Finch.
didn't Mr.. Shumate and Mr.. Gordon
both tell you that if the election was
held and it showed that the union
had a majority that they would be
glad to sit down and discuss the
matter around a table with a union