Evening star., 1940-04-30


FIVE HALLECK.
Star staff Photo.
accomplish this, we would create the
Office OF administrator. He would
have under his Jurisdiction the in
vestigators and attorneys who would
prepare and prosecute the cases.
The board would retain all of its
present judicial powers, having the
trial examiners under its jurisdic-
ton. and having the sole power to
decide the cases brought before it,
1t should be clearly understood
that this proposal involves only a
separation of powers, not a sub
traction of powers. Every power
now vested in the board would be
vested in either the administrator
or the board as it would be created
under the committee proposal.
That being true. how can it be said
that this proposal is destructive of
the true purposes of the act? It
has been suggested that the admin
istrator might not be diigent in
the performance of his duties. That
is not fair assumption. He would
be appointed by the President, sub
ject to confirmation by the Senate,
and would be answerable to the
President. He could be removed
at the will of the President. How
long would be last If he did not do
his job?
This method of separating ad-
ministrative from judicial functions
has worked admirably in the Civil
Aeronautics Authority, established
by Congress as recently as 1898. 1t
Is sound principle, in full har-
mony with the fundamental Ameri-
can concept of checks and balances
in government.
Provides for New Board.
Furthermore. our proposal pro-
vides for the appointment of an
entirely new labor board. 1t will
avail nothing at this time to 20
into an extended discussion as to
why such a recommendation was
deemed advisable. Neither can we
weigh here the charges that in many
instances the activities OF the board
or particular members of its staff
were such as suggested strong SYM
pathies with Communism. Suffice
1t to say that I, for one, arrived at
the need for a new board with some
reluctance. 1t is undoubtedly true
that the present board has had a
difficult and troublesome job, which
certainly has not been lightened
by the division in the ranks of la
Dor. But 1t is likewise true that a
fair consideration Of the evidence
before our committee will sustain
much Of the contention generally
prevalent that a great part of the
difficulty has been in the admins
tration of the act, rather than in
the act itself OF course, under our
proposal the President could re-
appoint the present members if he
should so see fit. Or he might ap-
point new members with a view to
making an entirely fresh start.
I referred earlier to the amend
ment of the Labor Committee, which
would increase the board from three
to five. To my mind, such action
can be justified only on the basis
that it is desirable to dilute the
faulty administration or judgment
OF three members with the un-
known and untested judgment of
two additional members. Three
members can decide the cases as
expeditiously and fairly as five
members. If something needs to
be done, why not meet it fairly and
squarely?
BY another amendment previous
ly mentioned, an employer would be
permitted to force an election when
two or more rival and bona fide
labor unions are contending they
represent a majority of his en-
ployes. Certainly under such cir
cumstances the rules of fair play
should give an employer the right
to require showdown to the
end that he may know with whom
he should bargain. I can conceive
Of no plausible reason why such
an amendment would in any way
adversely affect the rights of labor
or the fundamental purposes of the
act.
Permits Plant to Quiet"
The same may also be said of the
proposed amendment which would
prohibit a second election within
one year after vote has been held
and the board has certified the
union having majority. Indus
trial relations in plant should Ger.
tainly be permitted to quiet down
for at least reasonable time after
a decision has been made. AS
matter of fact, both of these last
two amendments have been more or
less accepted in principle by the
rules and regulations of the board
itself recently adopted.
| In the celebrated Fansteel case,
decided by the Supreme Court, the
right Of sit-down strikers to be re-
instated and given back pay was at
issue. The board had ordered such
reinstatement. The court reversed
the board, holding that employees
could not be immune from dis
charge for acts of trespass or vio-
lence against the employers prop
erty.
To my mind, the overwhelming
sentiment in this country condemns
sit-down strikes. The majority of
our committee deemed it advisable
to write this provision into the law,
particularly in view of certain &C
tions and decisions of the board
which apparently refused to recog-
nize the principle laid down by the
Supreme Court.
In connection with this proposal,
it has been suggested that an in
advertent or harmless scufne on a
picket line might result in the loss
by q striker of his rights under the
act. The proposed amendment re-
ferS tn emn1oves xvhn have "ui1f,,11v