Evening star., 1939-02-16

the question of how the right to
strike shall be qualified so as to re-
quire a period of cooling off or de-
liberation before there is an actual
stoppage of work is bound to be
given more and more consideration.
And when that time comes it will
be found that Justice Brandeis de-
clared on behalf of a unanimous
Supreme Court only 13 years ago
that the right to strike was neither
unlimited or absolute. Many per-
sons whose interest in labor dis
putes is occasional, and many who
are directly concerned with it, often
overlook the most significant state
ment ever made by Justice Brandeis
on the right to strike. 1t was pro-
nounced in an opinion known as
''Dorchy VS.. Kansas" and reads in
part as follows:
'The right to carry on business
be 1t called liberty or property-has
value. To interfere with this right
without just cause is unlawful. The
fact that the injury was inflicted
by a strike is sometimes justif1-
cation. But strike may be illegal
because of its purpose, however or
derly the manner in which it is
conducted To collect stale claim
due to a fellow member of the union
who was formerly employed in the
business is not permissible purpose.
In the absence of valid agreement
to the contrary, each party to a dis
puted claim may insist that it be
determined only by court. To en-
force payment by strike is clearly
coercion. The legislature may make
such action punishable criminaily as
extortion or otherwise. And 1t may
subject to punishment him who uses
the power to influence incident to
his Office in a union to order the
strike. Neither the common law nor
the fourteenth amendment confers |
the absolute right to strike"
Power to Pass Laws.
Applying the above principle, Con-
gress or the States could pass laws |
prohibiting "sit-down strikes" as be-
ing clearly unlawful. Likewise Con-
gress could insist that a strike or
dered before there is an opportunity |
for negotiation in prescribed pc
riod is also unlawful. A provision
to this effect occurs in the Federal |
railway labor law in that no strike
is permitted until certain steps spec
ified in the law have been exhausted.
But, it will be asked, can Con-
gress or the courts compel anv
individual to work against his will? |
The answer is that an individual
can quit work at any time and for |
any cause and be free from legal
action unless he has a contract gov
ernlng his individual services, but, |
on the other hand, any individual
who quits work in response to an |
order from union officer or any
union officer who orders any indi-
vidual to quit work in defiance of
what the law may specify as an
illegal strike will find himself in
trouble with the courts and may
face the penalties specified in the
law.
The action of a union group in
ordering men to withdraw from
work IN plain pursuit of an unlaw-
ful object can be forbidden by an
act OF Congress or of the States.
1t is this authority which could be
invoked If jurisdictional disputes
should arouse public opinion. In
Great Britain, illegal strikes are
defined and one type of strike which
IS banned is what is known as the
sympathetic strike" affecting the
intentional ordering out of workers
IN an entirely unrelated industry
Decision Is Awaited. /
Qualification or limitation of the
right to strike is discussed in a
general sort of way in seeking to
find remedies for interrupted pro-
duction, but the whole subject will
become concrete when the Supreme
Court OF the United States decides
the so-called Fansteel case which
1t has heard argued, but on which
1t has as yet not rendered an opin-
Ion. In this the National Labor
Relations Board has ordered rein
stated workers who engaged in a
"sit-down" strike on the ground
that the men had right to strike
and that the "sit-down" was unre.
lated to the original unfair labor
practice" which caused the strike
in the first instance. If the su-
preme Court makes it plain that
Illegal circumstances and behavior
cannot protect workers who engage
IN the exercise Of an otherwise
legitimate right to strike, the de-
mand for legislation to prohibit
slt-oown' strikes will disappear
II, on the other hand, the court
sustalns the Labor Board and
oroers the reinstatement of the
workers, the question will be on
the doorstep of Congress for inn
mediate action, and such laws as
may be proposed no doubt would
md their constitutional sanction