Evening star., 1941-03-04

Motor Co. as
giving the Labor David Lawrence.
Board or some other Government
agency the right to cancel contracts
whenever such board or agency
and not the courts-decided that
a violation had occurred. It was
to be a blanket acceptance OF the
Whims of Government agencies.
Today the Supreme Court has
spoken in another case wherein the
Labor Board endeavored to enforce
an order upon a corporation IN
Texas which would have rendered
that corporation subject to punish
ment If at any time in the future
1t violated the labor laws. This
was done on the theory that be-
cause the company allegedly vio-
lated one clause Of the law, 1t must
be put in a strait jacket and hauled
into court whenever it might be
accused of violating any other pro-
vision of the same law.
Bars Blanket DEGREES.
Justice Stone, in expressing the
opinion of the majority of the court,
said:
1--WE think it does not follow that,
because the acts Of respondent (the
company which the board has
found to be an unfair labor practice
defined by section s, paragraph 5,
Is also a technical violation of sec
tion s, paragraph /, the board in
the circumstances of this case is
justified in making blanket order
restraining the employer from COM
mitting any act in violation OF the
statute, however unrelated it may
be to those charged and found, or
that courts are required for the
indefinite future to give effect in
contempt proceedings TO an order
of such breadth"
The effort of the Labor Board to
issue blanket orders governing the
future conduct of employers has
been one of the sore points in the
whole controversy concerning de-
fense contracts and the Supreme
Court has acted wisely, not only in
the interests of fair play, but in
removing one of the obstacles to
an understanding between War De-
partment officials and contractors
from whom needed defense supplies
are to be purchased. Justice Stone
makes clear that blanket DEGREES
by the Labor Board cannot be sane
toned. He says:
at is a salutary principle that
when one has been found to have
committed acts in violation OF a law
he may be restrained from commit
ting other related unlawful acts. But
we think that without sacrifice of
that principle, the National Labor
Relations Act does not contemplate
that an employer who has unlaw-
fully refused to bargain with his
employees shall for the indefinite
future conduct his labor relations
at the peril of summons for con-
tempt on the boards allegation, for
example, that he has Disseminated
against a labor union in the dis
charge of an employe, or because his
supervisory employees have advised
other employees not to join union" :"
Ford Cases Pending.
In another part of the same de-
cision Justice Stone says that Fed
eral court may restrain acts which
are of the same type or class" but
the mere fact that court "has
found that a defendant committed
an act in violation of statute does
not Justify an injunction broadly to
obey the statute and thus subject
the defendant to contempt proceed
ings if he shall at any time in the
future commit some new violation
unlike and unrelated to that which
he was originally charged"
The Ford Motor Co. has had, and
still has, some cases pending before
the National Labor Relations Board
and the courts. Each case stands on
its own feet and separate penalties
can be invoked in each instance. The
War Department, however, at the
behest of Mr.. Hillman, undertook to
write into its contracts a provision
amounting to an injunction upon
the bidders broadly to obey the
statute" and thus subject the COM
pany to the perils OF cancellation at
any time the Labor Board made
application to a Federal court for
the enforcement of one of its blan-
ket orders.
Can Alter Contract Form.
The way is opened now for the
War Department to withdraw its
form of contract stipulating a broad
compliance with labor laws as a
condition. For the Supreme Court
has repudiated the principle which
permits future conduct to be
estopped by a blanket order which
may subject the contractor to penal
ties not at all related to anything
he has actually done, but which lie
in the hypothetical future.
The case decided was that of the
San Antonio Express Publishing Co..
but the principles involved are, OF
course. applicable to any type OF
business. incidentally, those voting
for the majority decision were JUS
tices Stone, Hughes, Frankfurter
Murphy, Roberts, while the minority
consisted Of Justices Douglas, Reed
and Black. There Is a vacancy on
the court due to the recent retire
rnent Of Justice McReynoldS.