Evening star., 1940-10-04


; Defense Orders 10
Labor Law VioIators
Informal Opinion Given
On Question Long
In Dispute
Armed with an informal ruling
Of the Justice Department, the Ma
tional Defense Commission and
all Federal procurement agencies
participating in the defense program
seemed prepared today to make
strict adherence to the National
Labor Relations Act requirement
for receipt of defense contracts.
The opinion Of the Justice De-
partment was made public yesterday
in personal letter from Attorney
General Jackson to Sidney Hillman,
labor chieftain on the Defense Com
mission.
we have given informal consid-
Grafton" Mr.. jackson wrote, ito
your oral request for advice as to
the effect of findings by the Ma
tional Labor Relations Board that
an employer is in violation of the
National Labor Relations Act.
TT seems too clear to admit to
controversy, though we will prepare
formal opinion if it is requested
through the usual channels, that the
findings of the National Labor Re-
lations Board that an employer is
In violation of the National Labor
Relations Act are binding and con-
elusive upon the other agencies of
the executive branch of the Govern
ment unless and until these findings
are reversed by court of competent
jurisdiction"
Question Long in Dispute.
Mr.. Hillman had asked whether
court finding of violation of the
law, after appeal from decision of
the Labor Board, was necessary be-
fore Government department
should regard firm as a violator
The commission previously had is
sued q statement of labor policy
which, among other things, called
for compliance with all labor laws.
The question Of whether other
Government agencies should be
guided by Labor Board finding Of
Wagner Act violation has been a
= subject of much controversy in the
past.
When John L. Lewis. Mr.. Hillman
and other C. I. o. leaders endeav-
ored unsuccessfully in 1888 to get
Congress to pass contractor
blacklist bill they proposed to deny
Government contracts to firms
which did not accept Labor Board
rulings.
At that time the War and Navy
Departments opposed it on the
grounds it would hamper national
defense. Legislative opponents ar
gued 1t was possible that firm
would be denied a contract because
Of Labor Board order which the
courts might subsequently set aside
Bethlehem Case Cited.
There was immediate speculation
as to what effect Mr.. Jackson's rul-
ing might have on the defense pro-
gram and several large companies,
particularly Bethlehem Steel. Beth
lehem has been awarded upward of
$1,000 900, 900 in defense contracts,
and at the present time is contesting
a board decision against it. The
company also is engaged in a con-
troversy with the c. I. O's Steel
Workers Organizing Committee over
whether it is complying with the
Walsh-Healy Act establishing mini
mum wage rates for Government
contractors.
At the Defense Commission it was
said that the Justice Department
was studying the question of
whether the ruling applied to exist
Ing as we'll as future contracts.
Bethlehem's contract was award
ed prior to President Roosevelt's ap-
proval September Il Of the commits
eion's labor laws compliance policy.
Within the last week Mr.. Hillman
has received from Secretary of Navy
Knox and Assistant Secretary of
War Patterson acknowledgment Of
receipt of the contract principles
enunciated by the commission. Both
advised that their departments were
working out procedure and policy
to comply.
Acts In Tire Case.
Meanwhile, Government action
against oppressive price-flxing, par
ticularly in connection with the de-
fense program, was taken yesterday
when Solicitor General Francis
Biddle asked the Supreme Court to
rule that the Government can COL
lect triple damages under the Sher-
man Antitrust Act from companies
which conspire to fix excessive prices
for products sold to the Federal
Government.
Mr.. Biddle sought review of a
decision by the Federal Circuit Court
at New York, denying the Govern
ment $1,053,474 damages from II
rubber tire manufacturing companies
alleged to have fixed collusive prices
on tires sold to the Government in
1886, 1887 and 1888.
The Circuit Court held that the
United States was not person"
within the meaning of the Sherman
Act. This legislation permits ANY
person" injured by combinations in
restraint of interstate trade to re-
cover three-fold damages.
Asserting that the tire bids were
identical to penny" Mr.. Biddle
asserted:
"Once goods have been purchased