Evening star., 1941-01-07
High Court Decision
Gives Unions New
Organizing Weapon
UphoIds Labor Bourd
On Requiring Signing
Of Agreements
BY J. A. FOX.

| by J. A. FOA.
Labor was equipped with another
powerful weapon for the organizing
wars today, a Supreme Court de-
cision holding that the Wagner Act
requires an employer to embody
terms agreed upon with union in
a signed contract.
Upholding a Labor Board order
which had been challenged by the
H. j. Heinz Co. of Pittsburgh, the
court, in an opinion yesterday by
Justice Stone, said:
1T is true that the National Labor
Relations Act, while requiring the
employer to bargain collectively,
does not compel him to enter into
an agreement. But it does not fol-
low, as Observation-Disclosures,
that having reached an agreement
he can refuse to sign it because he
has never agreed to sign one. He
may never have agreed to bargain,
but the statute requires him to do
so. To that extent his freedom is
restricted in order to secure the leg
lslative objective of collective bar
gaining as the means of curtailing
labor disputes affecting interstate
commerce. The freedom of the en-
ployer to refuse to make an agree
ment relates to its terms in matters
| of substance and not, once it is
reached, to its expression in a signed
| contract, the absence of which, as
experience has shown, tends to frus-
trate the end sought by the require
ment for collective bargaining"
Leaders Applaud Ruling.
Both c. I. o. President Philip
Murray and A. F. L. President Will
liam Green applauded the decision.
Mr.. Murray called 1t "rebuke"
to companies which have paid Zip
service" to collective bargaining, but
have not been willing to sign an
agreement after an oral understand
ing on terms has been reached.
Among C. I. o. leaders particularly
the courts action was commended
as having a widespread effect on
employer employe relations.
Those in the G. I. o. who went
through the bitter strike against
little steel" in 1887 where one of
the chief labor demands was a
signed agreement, estimated that the
chances are pretty good now" of
getting the independent steel makers
into written c. I. O. contract.
They also predicted that many
trThn
back from entering signed contracts
with labor unions would do so readily
now that the highest court had set
tied the question of whether the
Labor Board had power to order an
agreement.
While the question was in Itiga-
ton many corporations merely post
ed the terms of an oral agreement
on factory bulletin boards.
Issue Divided Courts.
The issue, on which lower courts
have differed, reached the Supreme
Court on an appeal from the Heinz
Co., which unsuccessfully sought in
the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals
to have the board order set aside.
The board charged the company
was guilty of an unfair labor prac-
tice in refusing to sign an agree
ment on wages and working condi-
tions with an American Federation
of Labor local of the Canning and
Pickle Workers Union in effecting a
strike settlement. The company
posted a notice of the agreement on
a plant bulletin board but said to
sign a contract was against its pol
icy.
Orders Company Union Out.
The board order affirmed by the
high tribunal also requires the COM
pany to disestablish a company
union, the victory in this respect be-
ing the second scored yesterday by
the board in the Supreme Court.
Earlier the court had overruled
decision by the Seventh Circuit
Court of Appeals and directed en-
forcement of board order requir-
ing the Link-Belt Mfg. Co. of Chi
cago to do away with a company
union. In neither case was a dis
sent announced. Justice McReynolds
did not participate in either.
The Seventh Circuit Court, which
repeatedly has reversed the Labor
Board, was told in the opinion by
Justice Douglas that it had sub
stituted its judgment on disputed
facts for the boards judgment-a
power which has been denied it by
the Congress-" The board filed un-
fair practice charges against the
Link-Belt Co. upon complaint of
the c. I. o. Steelworkers' Organic
ing Committee, which was attempt
Ing to organize the concern, and
ordered the dissolution of an Or
ganization known as the Independ-
ent Union of Craftsmen on the
ground that 1t was management-
dominated. The lower court said
there was nothing to justify this
allegation.
In the Supreme Court appeal the
board, criticizing the appellate
court ruling, declared the company
had engaged for 20 years in indus
trial espionage that was barred by
the La Follettee committee.