Evening star., 1941-03-29

quoted as admit
ting that fraud David Lawrence
occurred, but he endeaVors to lay
the blame on those who tried, as he
saws. Ito smear the local union"
1t is difficult always to find out
the truth in labor matters. II Vlo-
lence occurs. it is not unusual Tor
labor to say the employer brought
it about or melted the rioting so as
to bring troops into the picture.
This is old stuff. What America Is
interested in is why, with the pres
ence of a National Labor Relations
Board, disputes of this kind cannot
be prevented.
The Labor Board under the Wag-
ner law has broad powers. 1t may
of its own initiative start investl-
cations and order elections. 1t may
even, though it has never asserted
such a power, inquire into the valid
ity of a strike vote to determine
whether the rights of workers to
bargain collectively have been prop
erly protected.
ITO Protect Workers"
The Wagner Act in its preamble
says:
ut is hereby declared to be the
policy of the United States to eliml-
nate the causes of certain substan-
tial distractions to the free flow OF
commerce and to mitigate and eliml-
nate these. obstructionS when they
have occurred by encouraging
the practice and procedure OF
collective bargaining and by pro-
tecting the exercise by the workers
of full freedom and association, SELF
organization, and designation OF rep
resentatives of their own choosing
for the purpose of negotiating terms
and conditions of their employment
or other mutual aid or protection.
Since the Labor Board is COM
manded by the preamble to protect
the workers in their collective bar
gaining procedures, the presence OF
fraud in the balloting would ap-
pear to be germane to the lnvestl-
eating power. Another provision OF
the Wagner law on this point says:
whenever a question affecting
commerce arises concerning the
representation of employees, the
board may investigate such contro-
versy and certify to the parties, the
name or names of the representa-
tives that have been designated or
selected If any such investigation,
the board shall provide for an ap-
propriate hearing, etc. and may
take a secret ballot of employees or
utilize any other suitable method
to ascertain such representation.
Has Investigative Power.
When, therefore, there is reason to
believe that the agents OF the
workers do not truly represent their
views and that there is mlsrepre-
sentation or fraud, the board has
the power to investigate and TO take
action as consequence. The board
has itself made frequent use OF a
paragraph in the law which has
been construed by it to obtain viz
tually unlimited power to effectuate
the purposes Of the act. That para
graph reads as follows:
The board is empowered, as here
matter provided, to prevent any
person from engaging in any un-
fair labor practice listed IN sec
ton g. affecting commerce. This
power shall be exclusive, and shall
not be affected by any other means
Of adjustment or prevention that
has been, or may be established by
agreement, code, law or otherwise"
The language is plain. 1t says
"any person" and the list of unfair
labor practices enumerated under
section 8" includes among others
a prohibition against interference
with or restraint or coercion Of en-
ployeS in the exercise of their rights.
The board has insisted that these
unfair labor practices can only be
tackled when the employer indulgeS
In them but the law plainly COM
mands the board to prevent ANY
person" from engaging in coercion
or interference. When a labor
union executive does a fraudulent
thing in marking the ballots or
stuf1ng the ballot boxes, he is obvi
ouSly interfering with the lawful
rights of workers in expressing their
will in collective bargaining. Like
wise, the board, if it wished to con-
strue its own powers as broadly as
1t has done so often, could interpret
Its authority as covering any per-
son who impairs the collective bar
gaining process whether he be en-
ployer or union agent.
Has Found Other Reasons.
Not long ago, a member of the
board went so far as to tell con-
eressional committee that while the
Wagner Act ordered the employer,
who was held to have committed
an unfair labor practice, to rein
state" workers, he really felt Con-
gress meant to use the word in
state" so that workers who had
never been employed could be
forced upon the employer if he
made mistake in asking them
about union affiliations. In other
words, the board has found no diff
Guilty in supply language to secure
its objectives-the elimination of
labor disputes-and it could do so
in conducting strike votes by secret
ballot so that hereafter the country
would be assured that democracy
prevailed and the collective bar
gaining machinery was legitimately
exercised.
The Labor Board has plenty of