The Butler County press. [volume] (Hamilton, Ohio) 1900-1946, 1939-05-19
AMENDMENTS ARE
PLANNED BY A.F.L.
TOPROTECT UNIONS
A. F. of l.. Does Not Seek To Obtain
Advantages Over c. |. o. Through
Proposed Changes, Senate Told

Washington, D. c. (ILNS).-Amend-
ments to the National Labor Relations
Act proposed by the American Fed
Grafton of Labor are designed for the
protection of all unions, regardless of
their affiliation, Joseph A. Pdaway,
general counsel of the A. F. of L., told
the Senate labor and education COM
mittee.
Padway denied that the A. F. of L.,
through proposed changes in the act,
sought to obtain advantages over the
CLIO.
"Our amendments were not drafted
for that purpose" he said. "They are
designed to protect all unions, whether
| they be c. l. o. or A. F. of L.
Says "Pet Baby Benefited"
Padway criticized the board for re-
versing itself in case involving the
right of foremen to vote in a collective
bargaining election. The A. F. of L.
contended that foremen not having
the right to "hire and fire" ought to
be allowed to vote. The board first
agreed, then reversed itself, and as
result the A. F. of L. lost an impor-
tant election to the c.. l. o.
''The pet baby benefited" he said.
Committee Chairman Ebert D.
Thomas said that he had received
many letters from "the employer
group" implying that proposal to
amend the act to give foremen voting
privileges represented san attempt by
unions to force foremen into their or
ganizations."
"It wouldn't do that, and it wasn't
drafted with that in mind" Padway
replied.
He testified that 80 per cent of A.
F. of L. unions admit foremen to
membership.
LaFollette Opposes Change
During discussion of an A. F. of L.
proposal that the word interfere" be
removed from section of the act,
Senator LaFollette told Judge Pad
way that the effect of the amendment
would be to permit employers to in
fuence workers to join the union ia
vored by the employer.
The A. F. of L. amendment pro-
poses to strike out interfere" from
the section denying to employers the
right "to interfere with, restrain or
coerce employees in the exercise of
their rights of self-organization and
collective bargaining"
Padway said the word interfere"
should be omitted on the ground that
all possible improper acts by employ
ers were covered by the words "re-
strain or coerce" and the word "inter-
| fere" permitted the labor board too
much power in penalizing Legitimate,
nationally affiliated organizations in
the same manner as though they were
| company unions"
Sees Danger In Amendment
| LaFollette declared that Congress
must guard against taking steps which
will play into the hands of that pow
erful but recalcitrant minority of en-
ployers who have refused to accept
in good faith the principles of the
act"
at seems to me that the net effect
of your amendment would be to free
| an employer to use his influence where
employers are faced with the choice
of two unions," continued LaFollette.
Because of their past experience en-
ployes often feel that it is best for
them to do what the employer prefers
they should do"
| Padway agreed that if the employer
expressed himself in the way de-
scribed by Senator LaFollette it would
mean "coercion and restraint"
However, he said, he did not wish
to have employers cited for interfer-
ing with employees rights if they
merely told employees that they had
been dealing with the A. F. of L. for
some time and preferred to do busi-
ness with that organization.
LaFollette said that he was con-
cerned with those cases in which the
\ employer expressed preference in
such way that the employees felt i'm
PEELED to do as he suggested. The
federation attorney replied that to
ban employer coercion really meant to
stop such interference"