The potters herald. [volume] (East Liverpool, Ohio) 1899-1982, 1940-05-02
Facing the Facts
With PHILIP PEARL

week 10 JOSopIl hOVIleT, dSSlSIdilt gen
eral counsel for the CIO, takes the
prize.
"Kovner questioned the ability of
Congress to enact reasonable amend
ments," said the newspaper in describ-
ing a meeting on the subject held by
the Washington Lawyers Guild.
Fortunately for the prestige of the
Guild. Chester Ward, labor law expert
for Washington University, promptly
responded that if Congress could not
enact reasonable amendments to this
or any other law "there is no sense
to democratic government"
But the effrontery of Kovner's re-
mark aptly illustrates the Stalinist
philosophy of the CIO which is being
guided by Lee Pressman, brain -truster
for John l.. Lewis.
1t shows the contempt with which
the CIO Communists regard the demo-
cratic, legislative processes of this
country and it gives away their hand
in opposing all amendments to the
Act.
he American Federation of Labor
believes not only that Congress can
and should enact reasonable amend
ments to the Act but also that it al
ready has taken a strong, positive step
in that direction by the House Labor
Committees approval of the Norton
amendments, which are fully endorsed
by the A. F. of l..
What the Norton Bill Means
This bill covers only three pages in
large print. 1t makes only four
changes in the law as it stands. The
language is clear and simple. You
don't have to be lawyer to under
stand it. There are no trick jokers at
tached to any of these amendments.
They go directly to the heart of the
present weaknesses of the Act. They
provide constructively for better ad-
ministration Of the law. They provide
constructively for fairer administra-
ton of the law. There is nothing in
this reasonable bill to which any fair
minded, sensible person can object.
AS to three of these four amend
ments there cannot possibly be any
dispute. The one which would increase
the membership of the Labor Board
from three to five by the appointment
of the two new members by the Pres
ident of the United States is designed
to change the complexion of the pres
ent board. If there is anyone who
wishes to defend the present COM
! plexion of the Labor Board and it's rec
Hard. Of gross NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS. Me
have yet to find him. The members of
the present board cannot even agree
among themselves. Scarcely an inn
portant decision comes down from
them which isn't split three ways.
And the newest member of the Board,
DR.. Leiserson, has spent some time
before Congressional committees Sc
verely crtcizing the policies of his
colleagues.
The second amendment would per-
NIT employers who are caught in the
middle of union dispute to petition
the board to hold an election so they
can tell with whom they are legally
obligated to bargain. There is prac-
tically universal unanimity on the need
LOT Sucn an amendment.
The third amendment simply says
thai contracts between labor organi
cations and employers shall remain in
force for at least a year.
New York Shows the Way
1t is only when we come to the final
amendment that controversy raises
it's head and, strangely enough, there
are fewer grounds for objection to
this amendment than any other.
This fourth amendment in the Nor
ton bill would amend Section 8 (b) of
the present law by adding the follow
ing language:
provided, however, that in any
case where the majority of employees
of a particular craft shall so decide
the Board shall designate such craft
as unit appropriate for the purpose
of collective bargaining"
AS SecretaryTreasurer George
Meany aptly points out this amend
ment is taken word for word from the
New York State Labor Relations Act
which has been in force for three
years. How has it operated there
Let US see. The records show that the
| New York State Labor Relations
| Board had disposed of 4,760 cases by
II April L. In all those cases, there was
Il not a single contest or objection baseC
on this provision in the law either be-
fore the Board or before the courts
The CIO unions in New York are sat
isfied with this collective baraginine
unit provision. The A. F. of l.. union!
H are also satisfied. No difficulties OF
l any kind have been encountered in tht
> administration and Interpretation o
this provision in three whole years.
Now let us see what has happened
in the national scene under the Matt
onal Labor Relations Act. Withou
this added language in the law, th'
National Labor Relations Board ha
repeatedly tried to destroy Graf
unions and no other single feature O.
the law has aroused more bitter con
troversy than the collective bargain
ing unit provision.
Al