Evening star., 1940-02-02

"A NdGlUlldl LdUOi 1tCldtlOllo oOdAO
witness sugge substantial
changes in the Wagner Act today
before the House committee in
vestigating the board.
Lloyd K. Garrison, chairman Of
the old Labor Board under the N.
R. A., urged that Congress relieve
the board of responsibility for set.
ting any disputes between the A. F.
of L. and the c. I. o. He was called
as defense witness for the board
by General Counsel Charles Fahy.
Mr.. Garrison saw no formula for
the solution of interunion disputes,
but gave high praise to the posi-
tive philosophy" of the Wagner Act
and asked the committee to con-
slider the affirmative achieve
ments" of the Labor Board, which.
he said, has done job for which
it deserves public gratitude"
Mr.. Garrison pointed out that the
split between the American Fedora
ton of Labor and the Congress Of
Industrial Organizations had not
occurred when the Wagner Act was
passed, and added that hands
off" attitude of the board might
hasten labor peace.
Labor Split Problem.
"If the split had not arisen" Mr..
Garrison said, "the collective bar
gaining provision would, in my
opinion, have worked satisfactorily.
But the split and its intensification
in the past year have posed the
question whether the determination
of collective bargaining units in
cases where A. F. of L. and c. I. O.
unions are in conflict, is capable of
judicial solution.
Il have reluctantly reached the
conclusion that it is not, and that
the board needs to be relieved of
the almost impossible task which
has been thrust upon it. I say re-
luctantly because the board is now
the only governmental agency for
the settlement of A. F. of Lie. !. o.
disputes over representation as they
arise in the case of particular en-
ployers, and because the boards
decisions on bargaining units, how
ever criticized. have thus far sue
ceeded to a substantial extent in
avoiding open strife. In this respect
the board has performed a public
service for which it has been given
all too little credit.
Personnel No Solution
Things have now, however,
reached a pass where both of the
great parties plaintiff are openly
and vigorously attacking both the
doctrines of the board on unit ques-
tions and the motives of the board
in shaping those doctrines. There
is an agitation to change the board,
but, in my judgment, this is not a
personnel question. If Congress
should decide to substitute a five
man board, let us say, for the pres
ent board, there would not only be
the greatest difficulty in getting
qualified men to accept the Job, in
the light of the present conditions,
but after brief period, have not
the slightest doubt in the world but
that the new board would be sub
jected to the same onslaughts as the
present board and would be faced
with precisely the same difficulties.
The question goes deeper than
personalities; it goes to the inherent
limitations OF law. In controversies
where there are no guiding and &C
cepted precedents. where there is
no strong community sense of right
and wrong, and where passions run
high, other social agencies than
courts and commissions are better
adapted to arrive at solutions. The
question of the internal structure of
the labor movement seems to me to
be controversy of this sort"
T Another Change Asked.
Mr.. Garrison, now dean of the
law school at the University of Wis
consin, also suggested that the law
be amended to provide that trial
examiners-presiding magistrates at
heacings-of all Government boards
be appointed by an independent
agency instead of by the boards af-
fected.
Despite the fact Mr.. Garrison was
presented as defense witness for
the N. l.. r. B., Mr.. Fahy asked
him at one point in his testimony:
Are you presenting to the COM
mittee your views alone and not
Continued on Pg. Alb, Column -