Evening star., 1942-04-15


the War Labor David Lawrence.
Board is being withheld. but the
document which was laid before the
board on April 5-hitherto unpub-
Observation-Disclosures the right of that
agency to issue any orders that con-
tradict the Wagner labor relations
law.
The latter statute plainly says
there cannot be any discrimination
as between union and -union
workers by an employer and that
there must be no financial aid or
support given to any union unless
the union and management enter
into q voluntary contract and make
. bona fide agreement
Sets Forth Challenge.
But when governmental agency
forces an employer to accept the
terms OF a contract. is 1t then a vol
untary action on the part OF the
employer Is not such q contract a
violation OF the Wagner law instead
OF In conformity with it7 The
Walker Turner Co. gave fair warn
ing Of this view when on April 5 it
wrote 10 the War Labor Board In
part as follows:
THE company submits that 1t
tthe War Labor Board) is without
authority to compel any form of
union security. no matter how modi-
fed, for the following reasons:
"(s). The Wagner Act makes the
consent of both parties a necessary
condition to any form OF union
maintenance. This consent is lack
ing
"(b). The Wagner Act, as the facts
mentioned herein disclose, is all the
protection needed by the employees,
"tc>. The recommended form OF
union security agreement contained
In the report will prevent the full
utilization Of the services of all
available men, so necessary to this
defense industry.
I'D. Any relationship between
the union and an employe Is and
should be purely personal. and the
company should not be required or
compelled to be involved In that re-
lationship in any manner.
Sees Unsettled Conditions.
3(e). Any form of the so-called
check-off, whether voluntary or not,
guarantees the unions existence and
robs II OF all incentive TO bargain
effectively and efficiently in behalf
Of its members.
40. The acceptance of the recon-
mendations of the panel under the
facts In this case would not alone
unsettle conditions in the plant OF
this company. but also in a large
number of other plants engaged in
war production work.
"(g). The Wagner Act sets forth
the rights and obligations of en-
ployes and employers. 1t does not
require or compel the union security
or union maintenance as recon-
mended by the panel
"(hl. The executive order creating
your board specifically provides that
nothing therein shall be construed
a. superseding or in conflict with
the provisions OF the National Labor
Relations Act.
~O. The controversial question OF
union security IN all It's varied forms
Is . question for decision by the
legislature, after due consideration
Of all the facts"
Hostility Denied.
One of the strange aspects of the
case is that the War Labor Boards
majority members declared that the
union security clause had been
deemed necessary because of al
legged hostility on the part OF the
employer toward the union. This
is a convenient basis for introducing
union security" and yet there is no
proof of the charge, according to the
company, which sets forth that it
never has been before the National
Labor Relations Board on any un-
fair labor practice charges and that
It has sbided by the law governing
collective bargaining
OF the Is grievances submitted by
the union under the operation of
It's last contract, only one was re-
solved against the union by the
company.
This certainly affords no evi-
dence Of hostility" says the COM
peny. and 1t further declares that
the issue Of union security is un-
related 10 the war effort and is
beyond the jurisdiction Of the labor
board. II the board seeks to en-
force its decree and the President
orders seizure of the property, a
court test 10 determine the legal
rights Of all the parties, including
that Of the board on the matter of
conflict With the Wagner Act. may
ensue.
Eeprcduetion Rishts Reserved1