Evening star., 1941-04-01

the aIUl-klCk-
back law and it David Lawrence.
has received little attention because
of a rather widespread impression
that its provisions covered only con-
tractors.
Examination Of the provisions re-
veals that ANY person" can be pros
ecuted and, If convicted, can be
required to pay a fine or to serve
q Jail sentence. The statute is rather
brief and the full text of section l
is as follows:
whoever shall induce any per-
son employed in the construction,
prosecution or completion of any
public building, or building or work
financed in whole or in part by loans
or grants from the United States,
or in repair thereof, to give up any
part of the compensation to which
he is entitled under his contract of
employment, by force, intimidation,
threat of procuring dismissal from
such employment, or by any other
manner whatsoever, shall be fined
not more than $4,000 or imprisoned
not more than five years, or both.
The statute was enacted on June
13, 1884. An interesting case arose
recently which refuteS the notion
that only contractors are covered.
1t happened that in the construction
Of a building for the War Depart
ment at Fort Riley, KanS., the gen.
eral contractor for the job rented
several trucks. He hired drivers on
the recommendation of the owner
of the trucks but the drivers were
paid by the contractor. Two OF the
drivers testified that the truck owner
as a condition of his recommended
ton insisted that the drivers were
to turn over to him half their weekly
earnings.
Payment Withheld.
When informed of this situation,
the War Department withheld pay
ment of the contract under the
provisions of the Davis-Bacon law
but the Office of the Controller Gen.
eral ruled that the money had to
be paid to the contractor. The rul-
ing was that the contractor was not
to blame but that under the terms
of the statute of June 13, 1884, re-
ferred to above there could be prose-
cution. The Controller General
said:
1T appears in the present situa-
ton that the general contractor
paid the truck drivers here involved,
Internationally and without suose-
quent deduction or rebate to him,
the full amounts required by the
contract to be paid. The truck own
er was not subcontractor or agent
Of the general contractor within
the meaning of the contract, and
the agreement which he had with
the truck drivers, unauthorized by
and unknown to the general con-
tractor cannot operate to place the
responsibility on the contractor for
the diversion of the contract wages
paid by him."
The Controller General pointed
out that while the Davis-Bacon law
didn't apply, action might be taken
by the Justice Department under
the anti-kickback law, criminal
statute.
The truck owner in the above case
Is analogous to labor union eXecu-
tive who, by reason of "closed shop
arrangements, actually acts as an
outside agency arranging for the
employment of workers on Govern
ment projects. To insist that an
initiation fee be paid as a condition
of work on Government project or
where Government work is being
done, paid for by Government funds,
such as Army cantonments, would
seem to be clearly an offense within
the provisions of the 1884 law.
What Is Reasonable?
II an "open shop" existed so that
a worker need not join union be-
fore applying for work, the inltia-
ton fee could hardly be regarded
as an extortion or as subject to the
penalties of the act. But when a
union has "closed shop" agree
ment with a contractor who agrees
with the union not to hire any but
the members of a particular union,
then the union executive who
charges an exorbitant fee as con-
dition of employment or member
ship faces the section of the statute
above quoted.
Where is the line between rea-
sonable or unreasonable fee? The
constitution of the A. F. L. sets forth
somewhere between 50 and SIS as
the standard for what is known as
Federal unions" but even though
1t does not prescribe what strictly
local unions may charge, 1t IS
fair assumption that the courts
would regard the standards for Fed
eral unions as applicable to others.
Similarly, the c. I. o. has a rule
stipulating q IS initiation fee. Since
the custom of most unions is to
charge a fee that is relatively small
and reasonable, 1t would not be diff
cult for the Justice Department to
secure indictments under the 1884
statute If the fees run from $50 to
$500, as has sometimes been reported.
Only last week Senator Norris OF
Nebraska, an ardent friend OF the
labor movement, called attention in
q published letter to the unreason-
able initiation fees prevalent in some
branches Of defense work as con-
diion of employment for new mem
bers Of the unions. Over the last
week end one of the executives of a
large union pointed out that the
A. r. LIS Executive Council could
not tell the local unions what fees
to charge. The Government appears
to have the remedy at hand if the
Justice Department cares to act.
Reproduction Rights Reserved)