Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1940-01-24
n. |. R. B. Contends
Refusal 10 Employ
Unionists Is Illegal
Such Discrimination
Is OutIuwed by Act,
Court Brief Holds

The National Labor Relations
Board. acting in behalf of two vet.
eran loom workers in Manchester
N. H., commended today that dis.
criminatory refusal by employers tc
hire ,union men was outlawed by
the Wagner Act as much as dis
criminatory discharge for union
activities.
The boards argument was ad-
vanced in a brief in support OF
Alphonse Charter and Edward G
Geoffrion, who charged that the
Waumbec Mills, Inc, in Manches-
ter. refused to employ them in July
1887, because they had served as
union leaders.
The two loom workers won a find
ing from the board that Waumbec
Mills now should offer them i'm
mediate employment with back pay
at substantially the same jobs they
would have obtained if hired in
July, 1897.
The brief. prepared for filing in
the Circuit Court at Boston to sup
port a petition for an order of
enforcement, contends that Con-
gress meant precisely what it said"
when it listed in the Wagner Act
as an unfair labor practice:
Discrimination in regard
to hire or tenure of employment or
any term or condition of employ
ment to encourage or discourage
membership in any labor organiza-
ton"
Regarded as a Test.
The boards effort to win a court
enforcement order is regarded as
an important new test of its view
that employers cannot discriminate
against hiring a worker because ne
has been a Union member.
The Circuit Court in New York
recently upset board order in a
split decision on a similar issue on
the National Casket Co. case.
The New York court action, the
board argued in the Waumbec brief
was plainly erroneous" The brief
said: -
ut is plain that by refusing en-
ployment to an applicant because
of his membership or activity in a
labor organization, the employer is
imposing a discriminatory term or
condition of employment which dis
courages union membership.
"A discriminatory denial of en-
ployment. no less than a discrim-
inatory discharge" the board added,
sounds an open warning to those
already employed in the plant that
their employer is hostile to union
activity and that loss of livelihood
may follow upon their disregard of
this hostility. ."
Court Arguments Hit.
ut is inconceivable that when
Congress sought in the present
(Wagner) act to protect workers in
the exercise of the fundamental
right of self-organization, it meant
to exempt from the operation of the
statute the practice which served to
make the union blacklist effective,
namely, the common practice of en-
ployers to refuse employment to I'M
ion members"
The finding of the New York court
that the Wagner Act conferred
rights on employees, not on appli-
cants for employment, was contested
in the board brief.
1t said the New York court "over-
looked the markedly coercive effect
of discriminatory denial of en-
ployment upon those presently en-
ployed. - ="
THE important point" the board
said, lis that the choice of the en-
ployer, both in regard to discharge
and the selection of applicants for
employment, remains unrestricted,
except that it may not be exercised
because of membership or nom
membership, activity or non-activity
In labor organization"
The boards back pay order pro-
vided that Mr.. Charter and Mr..
Geoffrion should be compensated
for the time between July Is, 1887,
and the date employment is offered
under the board decree, less net
earnings during the period. 1t also
provided that any money received
by the two men from public works
projects should be deducted and
paid over to the appropriate public
agency.