Evening star., 1941-03-03

S$2AH8M sszs&&
property in the David Lawrence.
"slow down" it is legitimate ve-
hicle of union activity.
The latest decision was rendered
by Members Leiserson and Smith
The third member of the board
DR.. Mills, did not participate be-
cause he was not in Office when
the hearings were held. But the
decision stands because it is Mr.
Leiserson's vote that is decisive.
The board has once before, under
the old regime, arrogated to itself
the right to say that it may rule
on whether union activities are
defenSible, but it was not believed
that in view of the spirit, if not
the letter of the Supreme Courts
opinion in the so-called Fansteel
case, the Labor Board would ever
sanction plain weapons of sabotage
The text of the new ruling. which
came down in the Cudahy packers
case last week, says in part:
During each of the three work
stoppages staged by the p. w. o. c.
"a c. I. o. union) that day, the
employees walked about the room
conversed in scattered groups
sharpened their knives or stood or
sat down at their stations of work
There was no violence or injury
to persons or property nor any at
tempt to exclude officials of the
company from the floor. The en-
ployes appear to have completed the
slaughtering of the scheduled num-
ber of animals that day, and mas
much as the respondent deducted
one-half hour from the time clocked
by the employees in each department
that day, it evidently sustained no
financial loss from the stoppages.
sss
Defenses Reviewed.
"1t Is clear, as the respondent (the
company virtually conceded, that
the employees in the beef and sheep
departments concertedly stopped
work on February 25. 1899. pursuant
to program planned and executed
by the P. w. Q. c. in support of its
position IN dispute with the re-
spondent (the company respecting
conditions of work. The stoppages
were, in other words, instances OF
collective union activity. To dis
charge employees for leading partici-
patton in such activity necessarily
discourages membership in a labor
organization.
I'm advancing the second asserted
defense of the discharges the COM
pany assumes correctly that the
stoppages of February Is were. a
type of strike However, the claim
that an employer is privileged to
discharge employees for striking is
refuted by the express language OF
the act, which specifically safe
guards the right to strike. Section
13 Of the act provides: Nothing in
this act shall be construed so as to
interfere with or impede or diminish
in any way the right to strike .
Nor can we agree with its (the
company's) contention that these
stoppages were sit-down strikes OF
an outlaw enterprise The STOP
pages did not involve seizure o,
destruction of or damage to the
respondents property"
Now the Supreme Court may OF
may not uphold that decision, which
is obviously an attempt to legalize
Showdown" strikes by introducing
a narrow Interpretation of the al
legged difference between two types
of sabotage. But Congress certainly
did not intend to give the Nationa,
Labor Relations Board plenary pow
ers to legalize interferences with
production on the ground that they
are covered by the right to strike
The fact that the employees did not
leave the plant, but occupied the
work benches and that conveyol
belts were stopped so as to prevent
work from going on is in itself 9
form of "sit-down" strike, different
only from the Michigan strikes ir
that work is intermittently stopped
and not over long periods of time
The interference with production
IS as plain in one case as in The
other.
Precedent Established.
Although the employer is held Il
have deducted wages for the in
terruptions, and in this instance tht
same amount of work was done il
a day as if work hadn't stopped, the
Labor Board nevertheless estab.
fishes a precedent allowing e1hploye!
to introduce work stoppages ire
spective of what may happen to de-
hveries of the goods. Stoppages or
airplane production could be com
pensated for in deductions of wages
but that would not bring planes Il
Britain on scheduled delivery dates
The significance of the decision
lies in the possibility of bringing
labor relations in America closel
and closer to the Communistic con
cept of workers committees which
control production. The idea wa
conveyed by c. I. o. leaders in con-
nection with Showdown" strikes ir
the automobile industry year or 81
ago and it was revived in anothel
form in the so-called Reuther plan
supposedly for making 500 plane
a day-an important feature o.
which was workers participation IL
the management function.
II employers must now submit
to work stoppages which are legally
construed to be proper union &C.
tivity 30 that the employer is legal!