The potters herald. [volume] (East Liverpool, Ohio) 1899-1982, 1939-03-09
Deu+h Blow Dealt
Continued From Page One)

l OeoTn 6IoW DeoIT
i Continued From Page One)
"the protection of the right of en-
'|ployes to self-organization and to the
selection to representatives of. their
own choosing for collective bargain
ing without restraint or coercion" the
Opinion continued:
Congress also recognized the right
to strike-that the employees could
lawfully cease work at their own
volition because Of the failure of the
employer to meet their demands.
Right to Strike Upheld
"Section 13 provides that nothing in
the act shall be construed so as to
. interfere with or impede or diminish
: in any way the right to strike But
this recognition of the right to strike
|plainly contemplates lawful strike
the exercise of the unquestioned right
to quit work.
GAS we said in National Labor Re-
lations Board VS.. Mackay Radio and
Telegraph Company, 304 U. S. $685.
BAT: If men strike in connection with
a current labor dispute, their action is
not to be construed as remuneration
of the employment relation and they
remain employees for the remedial pur-
pose specified in the act
"There is thus abundant opportunity
for the operation of Section 2 (3)
without constituting it as countenancing
lawlessness or as intended to support
employees in acts of violence against
the employers property by making it
impossible for the employer to termin-
ate the relation upon that independent
ground.
"Here the strike was illegal in it's
inception and prosecution. AS the
board found, it was initiated by the de-
cision of the union committee to take
over and hold two of the respondents s
key buildings 1t was pursuant to that
decision that the men occupied the
buildings and the work stopped.
Seizure Right Denied
"This was not the exercise of the
right to strike to which the act re-
ferred. 1t was not mere quitting of
work and statement of grievances in
the exercise of pressure recognized as
lawful. 1t was an illegal seizure of
the buildings in order to prevent their
use by the employer in lawful man
ner and thus, by acts of force and vio-
lence, to compel the employer to sub
NIT.
"When the employees resorted to
that sort of compulsion they took a
position outside the protection of the
statute and accepted the risk of the
termination of their employment upon
grounds aside from the exercise of the
legal rights which the statute was de-
signed to conserve"
Turning to the contentious of the
Labor Board that the sit-down strike
was justified because of the Fansteel
Metallurgical Corporations alleged Vi
olation of the Labor Relations Act and
that the corporation did not have the
right to discharge employees connected
with the strike, the Court made this
Significant declarations:
GAS respondents unfair labor prac-
tices afforded no excuse for the seizure
and holding of it's buildings, respon-
dent had it's normal rights of redress.
Those rights, in their most obvious
scope, included the right to discharge
the wrongdoers from it's employ.
"To say that respondent could re-
sort to the State court to recover dam
ages or to procure punishment, but
was powerless to discharge those re-
sponsible for the unlawful seizure
would be to create an anomalous dis
tinction for which there is no warrant
unless it can be found in the terms of
the National Labor Relations Act"
With regard to the Labor Boards
argument that the Fansteel Corpor-
alton did not have the legal right I'M
der the labor act to discharge en-
ployes because of sit-down strike ac-
tivities, the Court declared:
1--WE think that the argument mis-
'construes the statute. We are unable
to conclude that Congress intended to
compel employers to retain persons in
their employ regardless of their un-
lawful conduct--to invest those who
go on strike with an immunity from
discharge for acts of trespass or vio-
lence against the employers property,
which they would not have enjoyed
had they remained at work.
Fails to Find Law Support
Apart from the question of the
constitutional validity Of an enactment
of that sort, it is enough to say that
such a legislative intention should be
found IN some definite and unmis-
taxable expression. We find no such
depression in the cited provision"
And so, on February 27, 1889, the
Supreme Court affirmed the position
taken by President William Green of
| the A. f. of l.. in March 1887, that the
sit-down strike is "the illegal seizure
of property" utterly opposed to Amer
lean institutions and abhorrent to the
economic and organization policy Of
the American Federation Of Labor"
Justices McReynolds, Butler, Stone
and Roberts joined with Chief Justice
Hughes in the ma jority opinion. JUS