Evening star., 1941-09-22

S493 600 OOU.
When the strike was called August
g. attention was promptly directed
in the press to the fact that 81 ship
yards had signed a master agree
ment with the c. I. O.s national
union of shipyard workers and that
under this contract strikes were
barred for a period of two years
from June %, 1941. The answer
given by the National Defense Medi-
alton Boards spokesmen was that
the master contract was conditioned
on the signing of local contracts
and that the union maintenance or
modified closed shop was local
issue"
Examination of the master con-
tract does not disclose single SEN
tence or word which says it was to
be conditioned on the signing of any
local contracts or inferring that
there were any unsettled issues. But
since men charged with public re-
sponsibility in the Defense Medi-
alton Board said so and because
union maintenance" was deemed
local issue by those who wanted to
find some way out of the dilemma of
q violated contract, nothing was
done about it.
Secretary of the Navy Knox, Will
liam Knudsen, Sidney Hillman and
Admiral Land who signed the mas
ter contract and helped induce the
81 shipyards to sign it never uttered
q word, publicly, in condemnation of
the union which violated the con-
tract.
Green's Statement Cited.
But as long as the argument was
made that union maintenance was
local" issue, even these officials
might have felt their hands were
tied by the quibble. Today, how
ever, all doubt has been removed
by the announcement of John
Green, national president of the
c. I. O.'s shipworkers union who de-
clares that the union-maintenance
or modified closed shop will be
pressed in all other shipyards In
the East.
This disposes of the question of
what is or is not a local issue" Few
persons who. follow labor matters
intimately were deceived by the cry
that union maintenance is local"
but as long as it was demanded in
one plant only there could be no
effective argument made on that
score. John Green's statement now
shows that there never was any
other intention but to make an in
dustry- wide issue of the union main
tenance question.
The employers in question think
ing they were dealing in good faith
not only with men who represented
the Government of the United States
but with officers of the union who
signed the master agreement con-
sented to a rise in pay to settle
every question of working condi-
tions and classifcations that could
possibly arise. They believed they
were paying to get stability and
labor peace.
Some Facts Given President.
The President was given some of
the above facts but it is doubtful
whether he knew the exact rela-
tionship between the master con-
tract and the so-called local agree
ments. He must know now.
The other strange circumstance
relates to the way the Presidents
question on possible violation of the
Wagner law was answered last Fri
day by the chairman of the National
Defense Mediation Board. A more
misleading document has yet to be
offered in the whole record of the
administrations dealings with its
own agencies.
The President asked whether the
union maintenance clause violated
the Wagner law. He requested that
the members of the National Labor
Relations Board" formally give
their opinion.
He did not get such a reply. What
he got was letter from Robert B.
Watts, the general counsel of the
National Labor Relations Board,
with his personal impressions. Also
the transmittal letter from Mr..
Watts was omitted from the press
release In that letter, the counsel