Evening star., 1940-10-12


Attorney General says they are, even
before the courts act. What is
businessman to do?
Recently Attorney General jack
son raised a furor over the defense
contract situation by saying that
findings of the Labor Board to the
effect that an employer violated the
Wagner law were binding and con-
elusive upon other agencies OF the
executive branch of the Govern
ment unless and until these findings
are reversed by a court of compe-
tent Jurisdiction" He said this was
"too clear to admit of controversy,
and when the protests came from
members of the Defense Commits
sion, particularly William Knudson
and from Army and Navy officials
that this was going too far, Mr..
Jackson transferred the blame to
the vague statement of policy made
bv the Defense Commission itself
last September.
Puzzles Businessmen.
But while it appears that the
move was merely a political sop to
the C. I. o. leaders who had been
demanding this sort of interfer-
ence with defense contract awards,
and while it is now being soft-ped-
aled as meaningless in New Deal
quarters. American businessmen VINO
have nothing to do with the defense
program and lawyers who are con-
cerned about the operations OF the
national labor relations law are
wondering whether the Attorney
General knew what he was talking
about and whether he has estab-
lshed a new status for labor board
findings, or whether he slipped and
made a fatty erroneous statement.
The subject has been before the
courts and the labor board has
taken a position hitherto which is
contrary to what Mr.. jackson has
held.
Less than three years go the Ma
tional Labor Relations Board issued
an order giving its findings against
the Consolidated Edison Co. of New
York. Fearing that the boards
order would be made effective
during the time needed to take an
appeal. the company asked the
United States Circuit Court of APP
peals in New York to issue an order
temporarily holding up the opera
ton of the boards order till an
appeal could be heard. The labor
board. in a reply formally filed with
the court and signed by all three
members of the board and by
Charles Fahy, general counsel Of the
board, said:
"As this court has already recog-
nized and determined, the boards
orders are not -inforcing and
carry no sanctions until reviewed
and affirmed by action of circuit
court of appeals under the procedure
of review and enforcement provided
for in sections 10 (e) and 10 % of
the act. In the Du Pont case
this court expressly declared that
the act does not permit or require
actual enforcement of the order of
the board or imposition of penalties
until there has been a full judicial
review in the ordinary way.
No final order can be issued even
by the board until after full hear
ing. Such order would be wholly
ineffective and imperative unless it
is approved and enforcement Or
dered by the appropriate court of
appeals or district court under Sec
ton 10 co."
Fahy's Statement.
General Counsel Fahy, who has
recently gone over to the Justice
Department to become Assistant So
licitor General, had this to say in
the same document filed with the
court:
Under the very terms of the
statutory procedure, therefore, the
order does not of itself disturb the
status quo existing prior to its is
suance. 1t is only after final review
followed by a decree of a circuit
court of appeals affirming and di-
recting the enforcement of an order
of the board that the status quo
OF any party thereto is affected.
Until the boards order here, there
fore, is so reviewed and affirmed
and a decree OF this court issues en-
forcing it, petitioners (employers)
are under no compulsion to comply
with the boards order. No penalties
of any kind will in the interim ac-
crue."
When the Defense Commission
last September expressed the hope
that employers having contracts
with the Government would COM
ply" with the labor laws, it meant
by the word comply" what the
courts have understood the term to
mean, namely, that an employer Is
not a violator until the Labor
Boards order or findings have been
affirmed by court.
They Want to Know.
But Mr.. Jackson endeavored to
put the Defense Commission in the
position Of having declared in favor
Of compliance with the findings Of
the Labor Board even before an
order by the board had been affirmed
by a court. This is such a novel
Interpretation that it is a matter
Of general concern now among those
studying the legal aspects Of en-
ployer and employe relations just
what new wrinkle the Attorney
General had in mind.
If the Attorney General made a
mistake, lawyers and businessmen
concerned would like to have it
cleared up, and if Mr.. Jackson, on
the other hand, has some formal
basis for introducing new punish
ments to take effect on employers,
they want to know it, not from an
informal" ruling, but in a formal
opinion such as Mr.. Jackson prom