Evening star., 1940-01-21
Green Is Expected
AT Labor Board Quiz
This Week
A. F. of /. President
., Requests Opportunity
To Testify in Inquiry
By CARTER BROOKE JONES.

William Green, president of the
American Federation of Labor, is
expected to testify this week before
the Special House Committee Invest
igating Enforcement of the Wagner
Act by the National Labor Relations
Board, it was learned yesterday.
The committee conVenes again to-
morrow at 10 am. after a recess
over yesterday.
While no announcement was made
at A. F. Of L. headquarters or by
the committee, it was disclosed at
the Capitol that Mr.. Green has re-
quested an opportunity to appear
and probably will make his state
ment to the committee within the
week. The veteran labor leader has
been a severe critic of the Labor
Board, charging it with favoring the
rival Congress of Industrial Organi-
cations in its rulings.
Thus far John l.. Lewis, head of
the G. I. o., has not indicated any
desire to testify before the Smith
committee. While he was slated to
appear before the House Labor
Committee, headed by Representa-
tive Mary Norton of New Jersey,
Tuesday, that committee, also in
vestigating the Wagner law, has
postponed further hearings until
February l, 1t was announced yes
terday. The continuance was taken
because Mr.. Lewis and other c. 1.
o. leaders will be in Columbus, Ohio,
this week attending the convention
Of the United Mine Workers.
Pratt Still on Stand.
George o. Pratt, chief trial ex-
aminer for the N. L. r. B., complet-
ed two days of testimony before the
Smith committee Friday night, and
probably will resume the stand to-
morrow for a few more questions.
Shortly before adjournment Fri
day Chairman Smith, after dis
cussing with Mr.. Pratt the boards
attitude toward independent unions
at industrial plants and allegedly
company dominated unions which
were chartered by the A. F. of L.,
remarked that about the only diff
ference he could see was that the
board "chloroforms the independent
union and starves the A. F. of L.
union to death"
Mr. Pratt explained that in the
case of an independent union shown
to have been run by the employer,
an order disestablishing the union
was issued. If, on the other hand,
former independent union organized
under company sponsorship aff1li-
ated with, say, the A. F. of L.,
cease and desist" order would be
Issued against the company requir-
ing it to purge this union of en-
ployer domination.
But even in disestablishment
orders, the witness pointed out, the
board has no authority to dissolve
a union. The disestablishment is
directed at the company, which is
not allowed to bargain collectively
with it, and the union may not ap-
pear on the ballot at an employe
election. - 3'r'
Exercises-. Discipline.
Representative Halleck, Republi-
can, Of Indiana suggested that the
boards policy probably recognized
that national labor organization
like the A. F. of L. exercised a GER
tain discipline over its members and
would not allow them to fraternize
too closely with employers in mat
ters Of workers policies. Mr.. Pratt
said this was true to an extent.
Committee members recalled that
IN some cases the charge had been
made that A. F. of l.. unions had
been dominated by employers. The
board official said in these instances
the unions would be required to rid
themselves of company influence
and the company ordered to stop
interfering in it's affairs.
I'm the case of Independent un-
IONS" Mr.. Pratt added, I'VE have
found that they were so permeated
with the influence of the employer
that nothing We could do would free
them from company domination
and their disestabishment was or
dered."
There have been cases in which
the company-influence issue has
been raised in c. I. o. unions, Mr..
Pratt said.
Then" said Representative Muir
4 dock, Democrat, of Utah, when YOU
step into those situations, you may
order an independent union dis
established. but that doesn't sound
the death knell of either the A. F. of
l.. or the c. I. O. where the union is
affiliated nationality"
THAT is true"
Would Have No Standing.
In the case of a cease and de-
sist' order, Mr.. Pratt explained, a
union may be recognized by the
board after company influence has
been removed, but a disestablished
union, while it may continue to exist
II 1t chooses, has no standing in an
employe election or as collective
bargaining agency.
More OF the boards review attor.
neys are expected to follow Mr..
Pratt to the stand. Thus far the
committee has heard half a dozen
OF the review attorneys-all women
but Committee Counsel Edmund M,
Toland has promised also to produce
some, If not all, of the male mem
bers Of this legal division. It has
IA women and about 81 men.
Next week has been set aside
Tor members of the board to present
their defense to the evidence re-
f1ecting on the administration of the
labor relations law which has been
brought out at the hearings.
After that the committee probably
will go into executive session and
decide whether to close the hearings
or take up new phases which might
involve sessions in Detroit and other
cities.
Curtis Representatives