Evening star., 1941-09-24

ly issued have
be en- reversed David Lawrence.
But what will prove somewhat
disConCerting to the new Labor
Board is the way the National De-
fenSe Mediation Board is riding
roughShod over the procedure here
tofore in effect to determine the COL
lective bargaining agent A case in
point arises at the CurtiSs- Wright
plant at Caldwell, N. j., where an
independent union received formal
Certifcation as the winner of an
election. In every other instance
the Defense Mediation Board has
refused to listen to the losers of an
election but in this instance it has
taken jurisdiction and begun hear
ings.
1t is mistake for the Defense
Mediation Board. of course, to set
itself up as a review tribunal on
what the N L, r. B. has done. Once
that precedent is established choas
may result for every union which
loses an election will feel it can
carry the issue to the Defense Medl-
alton Board. Congress established
the N. L. R. B. to determine what
union or organization in a plant is
entitled to exclusive bargaining
rights. When an election is held
and the Labor Board issues Cer-
tification it means the board feels
bona fide organization Of workers
has expressed its wishes.
Counter to Spirit of Law
In the Curtiss- Wright case, a mi
nority representing an A. F. L. union
claims the independent union in the
plant which won out is assisted or
dominated by the company. The
Wagner law specifically entrusts to
the N. L. R B. the duty of determln-
ing whether such charges are
trumped up or real. In this case the
Labor Board has rendered its judg-
ment and it is surprising that the
Defense Media ton Board allows
question of that kind even to come
before it.
The old Labor Relations Board
hardly ever conceived of any labor
organization as being bona fide un-
less affiliated with either the c. l. o.
or the A. F. L. The language OF the
statute, on the other hand, does not
specify national union as the bar
gaining agent but any organization
of workers that is not company
dominated.
To deny any group Of workers who
ere in the majority their right TO be
represented by any agent OF thelr
choosing is to break down the very
principle on which the Wagner law
is based. To refuse to accept cleo
tions fully supervised or certified by
the Labor Board is to run counter
to the whole spirit of the law En-
ployers, for instance, have been alb
solutely denied even an appeal to
the courts in representation cases.
The word of the Labor Board is final.
Hence It is surprising to see labor
unions fighting the machinery OF the
@ngner law when decisions un-
favorable to them are rendered.
Dangerous Precedent.
1t is difficult to understand why
the Defense Mediation Board has
taken hold of the Curtiss-Wright
case. In all other instances unions
were turned down when they tried
to get their grievances before the
Defense Mediation Board in con-
troversies over the true collective
bargaining agent. The talk around
Washington is that the Defense Me-
diation Board is being used as a
sort of face-saving instrumentality
and that the real purpose of the
move was to get the men back to
work while the defense board con-
Quoted hearings.
The hue and cry before the pas
sage of the Wagner Act was that
employees were being deprived OF
their rights to collective bargaining.
If only this we're cured, it was aver
red, there would be labor peace.
Now, when the machinery to de-
termine the collective bargaining
agent has been set up, there is no
labor peace and, in some instances,
@ disregard of elections.
The answer is for all Government
agencies to insist that the Wagner
law be accepted, and any move on
the part of the Defense Mediation
Board to allow short-circuiting of
the functions of the N. L. R. B. can
only serve to hurt that institution
at a time when it gives promise at
last of becoming a truly judicial
body.
Reproduction Rights Reservedl