Evening star., 1939-04-24

OF dleTC IluIIldll @''~ "AeANe'
beings, is interpreting the law ex-
actly as it was written. namely, with
a conscious bias in favor of COM
pulsory unionization In America.
Congress now has before it many
actual instances of what board of
three members will do with such
statute.
There are several illustrations
showing the contradictory attitude
which the board has found it neces-
sary to adopt in an effort to carry
out the mandate of the law itself,
which, in effect, means nowadays
that employers no longer have the
right to discuss directly with their
employees questions affecting the eco
nomic relationships of their busi-
ness. Employees. on the other hand,
the board intimates, may 60 so far
even as to use company time and
company property to carry on their
own outside activities, including So
licitation of union members.
On Both Sides of Fence.
The board has been on opposite
sides of the fence on this issue,
which is one reason why Congress
is being asked now to consider
whether it should not take back or
at least limit the power it once dele
gated. Here is an example of the
perplexity created by the boards
struggle to apply the broad powers
given it. On December l. 1887. the
board decided what is known as the
Botany Worsted Mills case, in which
an employe was discharged for vio-
lating company rule prohibiting
outside activities during working
hours, including activities connected
with an outside organization, namely
a trade union. The board suspected
and found that this was not the
real reason for the dismissal and
wondered if the rule was in existence
or was being applied, and hence
ordered the employe reinstated. But,
in the course of the opinion, the
board said fatty that such rule
Itself would be all right if enforced
against everybody who violated it
and not in a discriminatory way.
The boards opinion on this point,
in exact text. was:
1--WE conclude therefore, that the
respondents (the companyO al
legged rule prohibiting outside ac-
tivities during working hours, al
though in itself unobjectionable and
within the lawful power of the re-
spondent to adopt and enforce, was
either non-existent or dead letter
and was invoked and applied to
Peidl (the employe) in discrimina-
tory fashion"
Legality of Rule Doubted.
This ruling stood as guide for
employers for about II months, until
March 18, 1899, when what is known
as the Midland Steel Products Co.
case was decided. In this. there
was a company rule forbidding So
Ncitation of union members on COM
pany property. The text of that
part Of the boards opinion ordering
the employe reinstated who had
violated the rule is as follows:
1--WE have grave doubts that the
solicitation of union members on an
CAlP4OyCA PAOPCAIS Ny OH SAAPAoyS
on his own time is subject to lawful
prohibition by an employer. 1t is
unnecessary, however, to consider
such an issue here. 1t is apparent
from the uncontroverted testimony
of those employees who were present
during the August 20 conversation
and who took the witness stand that
Cheek (the employe) did nothing
more than call an employe a scab.
- Unquestionably the use of a
derogatory epithet to an employe
can hardly be characterized as solici-
tation"
Now in both cases there was COM
pany rule which was designed to
stop union activity within the plant,
one rule being a prohibition of union
solicitation during company time
and the other being a rule against
any solicitation on the property it
self. The latter rule, of course, was
designed to avoid during lunch hours
the very friction and discord which
occurred in the Midland Steel case.
Prepared to Reverse Stand.
When the board now says that 1t
has grave doubts" whether a COM
OanV can nrohihit 1nion actiyities