Evening star., 1940-04-30

place Tor me to say that among
those In Congress who are earnestly
trying to do something to bring
about fair solution of these prob
lens none is welded to any par
tlcular language or any particular
amendment. Let them be SUBJ
jected to the light Of critical anal
ysis and adopted or rejected As
they stand the test of careful ex-
animation in the debates of the
House and Senate.
Prohibits Employer Interference.
The law as it now stands pro.
hibits an employer from interfering
with, restraining or coercing en-
ployes in the exercise Of their right
to organize. Such a provision Is
deemed necessary to protect en-
ployes In their organizing activities.
However, it is earnestly contended
by many fair and honest employers
and employees that the application
OF this provision by the board
has been SO severe and rigid as
to interfere seriously with the
maintenance Of friendly and effec-
tive relationships between employer
and worker, thereby seriously affect
ing the ability Of plants to operate.
Then, too, it has been urged that
the rulings Of the board have &C.
tually violated the constitutional
provision protecting the right Of
free speech.
On this proposition, we took the
recommendation of the American
Federation of Labor and strength
ened 1t to provide that an employer
shall not be prohibited from making
any expressions Of opinion with
respect to any matter which may
be OF interest to employees or the
general public, provided that such
expressions Of opinion are not
accompanied by acts of coer-
cion, intimidation, discrimination or
threats thereof.
In this recommendation we have.
to my mind, received aid and COM
tort in a recent decision of the
Supreme Court in which Justice
Murphy said, "Publicizing the facts
OF labor dispute in a peaceful way
through appropriate means, whether
by pamphlet, by word of mouth or
by banner, must now be regarded
as within that liberty of communi-
cation which is secured to every
person by the 14th amendment"
And Justice Murphy's opinion also
ruled that States may not Impair
the effective exercise of the right
to discuss freely industrial relations
which are matters of public con-
Germ"
Rules Of Evidence Discussed.
Another amendment which has
caused considerable discussion is
that which has to do with the appli-
cation Of rules Of evidence to hear
lngs conducted before the board or
Its agents. The law as it is now
written provides that the rules of
evidence shall not be controlling
1t was disclosed that that provision
has been construed on occasion as
something of an invitation to the
board to ignore the most funda-
mental rules of evidence. I am of
the firm opinion that by and large
the rules of evidence have been
established throughout all our his
tory as the best and most effective
may OF arriving at true facts and
1alr decisions on questions of pub
Tic policy. Decisions of the labor
board involve questions of fact.
Why will not the ends of Justice be
served if some fair consideration
is given to the general rules of
evidence?
After all. our proposal is not
much more than the invitation to
follow the rules of evidence. rather
than a requirement that they be
followed. We would provide that
the rules of evidence, so far as
practicable, shall prevail. Certainly
this recommendation is not subject
to the harsh criticism to which it
has been subjected in some quarters.
The majority of our committee,
IN connection with judicial review
OF the boards decisions, adopted
verbatim two provisions of the Wal
ter-Logan bill adopted by the House
last week by an overwhelming vote.
In brief, our suggestion is that the
decisions Of the board be final if
they are supported by substantial
evidence and are not clearly erro-
neous. The rule Of substantial evi-
dence has already been adopted by
the courts. That the decision is not
clearly erroneous" is likely going
little farther than the substantial
evidence rule. Clearly, it would not
provide for a court review of the
weight of the evidence, or for the
supplanting of the decision of the
board simply because the court
might view the weight of the evi-
dence differently. But it would give
the court clear authority to reverse
the board in those cases where the
evidence supporting the decision is
so 1nsubstantial as to shock the
conscience Of the court.
Changes Subpoena System.
We also learned during the course
OF our investigation that respondents
on trial before the board or its
examiners frequently had great diff
f1culty in obtaining subpoenas for
witnesses. 1t seems clear to us that
any party to an action under this
act should be permitted to obtain
subpoenas in order to procure and
present his evidence. That is merely
a matter of common justice. So an
amendment is recommended to &C.
complish that end, safeguarding the
rights OF every one by providing that
If person subpoenaed believes the
subpoena unjustified, he may have
that fact determined by the board
and be excused from appearing II
proper showing is made.
In conclusion, I may add that all
OF us have been besieged with de-
mands which would place additional
responsibilities and liabilities upon
employees, such as to provide that
If union breaks contract validly
entered into, it shall forfeit its rights
under the act. Such proposals