The potters herald. [volume] (East Liverpool, Ohio) 1899-1982, 1939-01-19
RIGHTS OF UNIONS

'f1E decision or the y. ). supreme Court IN
the Consolidated Edison case directs the
National Labor Relations Board to observe a
fundamental principle which should make for
greater justice in the orders of the Board That
principle is that the Board does not have un-
limited discretion to deal with labor situations in
way that promotes the interest of favored
groups. AS Chief Justice Hughes, who wrote
the opinion of the Court, vigorously states:
The Act contemplates making of contracts
with labor organizations. That is the manifest
objective in providing for collective bargaining.
Under Section 7 go u. S. c.. 15O the employees
of the companies are entitled to sef-organization,
to join labor organizations and to bargain collec
lively through representatives OF their own chOOs-
ing The 80 per cent of the employees who were
members of the Brotherhood and it's locals, had
that right. They had the right to choose the Broth
erhood their representative for collective bar
gaining and to have contracts made as the result
of that bargaining. Nothing that the employers
had done deprived them of that right Nor did the
contracts make the brotherhood and it's local ex-
elusive representatives for collective bargaining.
On this point the contracts speak for themselves.
They simply constitute the Brotherhood the colec-
tive bargaining agency for those employees who are
it's members. The Board by it's order did not direct
election to ascertain who should represent the
employees for collective bargaining. Section 9(c)
60 U. S. c. 5000: Upon this record, there is
nothing to show that the employees selection as
indicated by the brotherhood contracts has been
superseded by any other selection by majority
of employees of the companies as to create an
exclusive agency for bargaining under the statute,
and in the absence of such an exclusive agency
the employees represented by the brotherhood,
even if they were minority clearly had the right
to make their own choice. Moreover, the funda-
mental purpose of the Act is to protect Interstate
and foreign commerce from interruptions and OBJ
structions caused by industrial strife This pur-
pose appears to be served by these contracts in an
important degree. Representing such a large per-
centage of the employees of the companies, and
precluding strikes and providing for the arbitra-
ot these hiUhV
tectve to interstate and foreign commerce. They
contain terms which can be said to affect COM
merce' in the sense of the Act to Justify
their abrogation by the Board The disruption of
these contracts, even pending proceedings to as
certain by an election the wishes of the majority
of employees, would remove that salutary protec-
tion during the intervening period.
The Board, in the opinion of the Court had au-
thOrity only to order the company to desist from
unfair labor practices and to take affirmative ac-
tiOn including reinstatement with or without back
pay as would etlectuate the purpose of the Act.
The Court said the Boards authority did not eX-
tend to nvalldatiOn of the contract with the Inter
national Brotherhood of Electrical Workers. The
Act according to the Supreme Court, does not give
express authority to the Board to invadate con-
tracts with independent labor organizations The
Board has authority to order the company to de-
sst from unfair labor policies and to take affirm
ative action that will assure to Wage-earners the
right to bargain collectively and no power to make
orders of a punitive nature.
There is a very real difference in legal status
between standard trade union and company
union. Neither the National Labor Relations Board
nor any other governmental agency has the right
to prevent q standard trade union from perform
ing those legitimate functions for which it was
organized Workers may choose their unions and
carry on collective bargaining without the approval
sanction of the National Labor Relations Board.
Only when the employer denies them these rights
can the Board restrain him. There was nothing in
the contract Of the International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers which infrnged on the rights
Of employees of the company not members of their
union. The contract made this union the collective
bargaining agency for its members. In the words
of the Court
g.. The brotherhood and its locals were en-
titled to solicit members and employees en-
titled to join. These rights cannot be brushed
aside as immaterial for they of the very es-
sence Of the rights which the Labor Relations Act
was passed to protect and the Board could not
ignore or override them in protesting to eectuate