Evening star., 1939-01-04

1SIuyS III NuSnSS
Prolonged Lobor Hearings
Held InimicoI to
Unions
TO the Editor of The Star:
This Is my first "letter.to-the-editor,"
but the impulse to write could no longer
be restrained after Illuminating upon
your editorial titled Labor Act Changes"
which appeared in your Wednesday.
December 2s, issue of The Evening
Star. and wherein you sum up the case
presented by Senator Burke In favoring
revision Of the National Labor Relations
Act, in Star Radio Forum address on
Monday evening, December 2e.
Editorial license certainly justifies your
featuring, to any extent you desire, the
matters touched upon by Senator Burke
and extension Of his remarks In full In
support OF his opinions and beliefs on
such matters, and all fair minded indi-
viduals whatever their feelings In the
matters under discussion, or their pur-
suit or calling, will support you in the
stand of q newspaper applying itself
to furnishing its readers with all OF the
facts so that they may have full ver-
sion OF both sides of the question.
However, and to the point, editorial
license certainly does not extend itself
to the point where you are justified in
adding your obiter dictum opinion with
out warrant in fact, and in that con-
nection reference Is made to your final
paragraph Of the editorial in question
where you state that AT the present
time, generally speaking, the courts do
not review the boards findings OF fact
if they are supported by evidence"
Your editorial then goes on to state that
some persons believe a review of the
facts should be granted by the courts un-
less the findings are supported by fair
preponderance OF the evidence"
First Of all it is improbable that Sena-
tor Burke. himself noted member Of
the bar Of his State, is so utterly lacking
of knowledge of the provisions of the
act providing for judicial review Of the
boards order, section 10 D, as to have
even inferred that the courts may not
review the facts, inasmuch as the pro-
any appeal for review of board order,
or in the event of the board seeking
enforcement of its order, the board or
the party prosecuting the appeal shall
certify and file in the court "a transcript
of the entire record in the proceeding,
including the pleadings and testimony
upon which such order was entered and
Section 10 then directs the manner in
which the courts shall proceed. empow-
ering the courts to set aside the whole
of the board order If it deems that it
should.
True. section 10 does state that
"the findings of the board as to the
facts, If supported by evidence, shall be
conclusive" But what would you other
wise: That the courts set the evidence
to one side at the start and divest them
selves Of their judicial character to sit
as a fact-finding body, or appoint a
commission, TO sift and weigh anew all
OF the facts which are contained in the
record and the transcript before it, and
upon which the board has stated that 1t
bases its findings and order2
AS counsel for many labor organiza-
tions I am known to be as critical as
even the most rabid Of employers against
administrative acts Of the board which
deem to be unfair to my clients and
the rights which, in my opinion, the act
guarantees them. And I have been, and
am now, extremely critical of the inter-
pretations of the board which leave nv
clients with only the right to seek court
review of such interpretations, a rather
dubious right as the act is now written
and interpreted by the board. However,
that my clients, labor organizations, do
not seek court review of the orders or
interpretations Of the board does not lie
In the fact that In our opinion the act
does not provide fair judicial review
OF our rights, despite the Interpretation
Of the board, so much as 1t does in our
knowledge that review, under any cir
cumstances, means delay, and delay
means practical death to the average
labor organization which is attempting
to hold its ranks either during period
OF strike. when its members have been
out for long period and existing on
strike benefits for themselves and their
families, or coping with a particularly
financially well intrenched employer
whose aim 1t is to destroy the union.
And without attempting to determine
whether the delay of the board itself,
In much too many cases, is due to judi
cial impartiality personal views or the
peculiar position in which they are placed
by the act, my criticism is ever directed
to that condition on the logical grounds
that such delay is not conducive
to self-organization as the act in
tends to guarantee, and actually is
productive Of slow decay of the organi-
cations involved; whether A. F. of L. or
c. I. o. organizations, to the point of
the organizations, in many instances
crumbling, and 80 ceasing to be effective
agencies for purposes of collective bar
gaining for employees. Are employers
familiar with these facts of administra-
tive delay Of the board working to the