Evening star., 1939-02-28

tai the final
judgment as to
the legal hazards of violence when
used in connection with a labor
dispute
One might say that this is a
simple pronouncement and merely
common sense and should there
fore not come as a surprise. True
>enough, it is not unexpected. This
correspondent and others pointed
out from the very first day the Ma
tional Labor Relations Board or
dered the reinstatement of sit-down
strikers, once employed by the Fan
steel Co. of Illinois, that the grounds
cited by the board were tenuous and
probably would not be upheld by the
Supreme Court. Yet the board, con-
ifronted with legal tangle, felt
itself duty bound to fight the issue
through to the highest court so that
the question might for all times be
resolved.
The atmosphere, for instance, in
which the sit-doWn strike occurred
was not all one-sided. In this par
ticular case the employing company
had endeavored to interfere with
self-organization of employees, and
had in fact employed labor SPY.
The Supreme Court found this to be
fact. Workers grow bitter and
angry beyond description when some
\one is hired to spy on their meet
1ngs and to report who participates.
That a provocation to a sit-doWn
strike may have been present is not
denied by the Supreme Courts
opinion, but its essence is that two
wrongs Go not make right, and
that it does not promote the peace
ful settlement of disputes to con-
done illegality or violation in any
form.
Points Out Legal Method.
QThe Supreme Court points out
also that the workers had their
chance to prosecute the employer
company before the Labor Board for
interfering with union activities and
Tor labor spying, but did not avail
themselves of the opportunity till
the controversy over the sit-down
strike occurred.
The Fansteel case will be a his
torlc precedent. 1t ends all doubt
as to the legality of a sit-doWn strike.
Eor not only was the Wagner Labor
Relations Act held to be no safe
guard for the sit-down striker, but
the Supreme Court on the same day
refused to interfere with the action
OF the Illinois State courts, which
had convicted several sit-doWn
strikers for acts OF violence and had
ordered them to serve Jail sentences
and pay fines.
The theory that an illegal act
cannot be protected under the right
to strike is not new in American
jurisprudence. What is new is that
a "sit-doWn' has been added to the
long list of illegal things which
workers cannot do under the guise
of a strike.
Upholds Right to Fire.
An important definition, however,
by the Supreme Court with reference
to the status of an employe was de-
veloped in the Fansteel case and it
relates to the question of whether an
employer can dismiss an employe
who is on strike for any reason not
connected with the labor dispute.
The court holds that the right of
discharge is absolute and that an
employer can discharge his employees
at any time and for any reason ex-
cept one-the quitting of work as
a direct consequence of a labor dis
pute IN which the withdrawal from
work is lawfully consummated and
the grievances are lawfully pre-
Sented.
/ What the Supreme Court said in
The opinion rendered by Chief JUS
tice Hughes and in the separate
opinion rendered by Justice Stone,
concurring with him, was that the
right of discharge has not been lin
ited by the Wagner Act when the
reasons for discharge are disso-
clated from the quitting of work in
q lawfully conducted strike.
Other Cases Important.
There were other cases decided by
the Supreme Court yesterday relat- |
Ing to rulings of the National Labor
Relations Board, cases wherein the
highest court examined the evidence |
and findings and came to different
conclusion than that of the board.
Thus is answered the criticism that
the Wagner Labor Act decisions in
the famous Jones e. Laughlin case
stagnated the employer -employe re-
latlonship and gave workers a con-
tinued status as employees, subject to
reinstatement with pay, irrespective
OF what may have been the reasons
Tor their quitting of work.
AS matters stand today, EMPLOYEES
will be cautious to engage in sit
down strikes or to do anything else
illegal while engaged in a strike
otherWise started and conducted
lawfully. Illegal picketing or other
acts OF violence now will become a
basis for the refusal Of employees to
1elnstate such workers.
.. Inc right to strike has not been
united, but the right to do unlawful