Evening star., 1942-04-24

pfT freS a en I os hs'
Roosevelt called q conference Of
Representatives OF industry and Ia
Dor TO see II there could be found
q common ground for the settlement
of labor disputes. The meeting was
primarily TO decide what might be
done about the compulsory unioni-
cation issue.
The conference almost went on
the rocks Of complete disagreement
but finally each side presented its
views to President Roosevelt. The
employers specifically stated that
they would accept the War Labor
Board az a tribunal to bring about
the peaceful settlement Of labor dis
putes but that the closed shop or
compulsory unionization issue was
not to be included within the scope
Of arbitration by the board.
Edict Included All.
Mr.. Roosevelt chose TO disregard
the reservations in the final letter
of the L. employer representative
and issued an edict stating that
'all'' disputes were to be submitted
to the War Labor Board. The letter
was read and the conference
promptly was adjourned. That same
night the employer group issued q
public statement reiterating its view
that the closed shop issue was not
included In their understanding of
the jurisdiction of the new War
Labor Board.
Both the G. I. o. and the A. r. L.
now are publicly declaring that the
employer Representatives who at
tended President Roosevelt's confer
ence in December have broken their
agreement by opposing the submis-
sion Of oil disputes to the board.
Chairman Davis OF the War La
Dor Board attended these confer
ences last December and he has
publicly taken issue with the spokes-
man OF the management group OF
that conference, thereby siding with
the A. r. L. and C. I. o. interpre-
taticn Of what took place.
The employer group has issued q
statement calling attention to the
formal communication of last De-
cember ana the press release. There
the matter rests.
Question Of Power.
But the vital question ID whether
anybody In America can be made
party to an agreement with the
President of the United States when
no such consent has been given.
Can Mr.. Roosevelt impose his will on
any group and tell them what he
wants done. even though there is no
sanction in law or the constitution
for such a decree?
Some weeks previous, Mr.. Roose-
welt in public statement said 1t
would be Hitler-like to force an en-
ployer to accept the closed shop and
that such an agreement can be valid
only when it is voluntarily arrived at.
The President said at the time
that Congress had not legislated the
closed shop and probably never
would. Now. however, he has either
reversed himself on the issue or he
believes that the War Labor Board
can do what Congress is unwilling
to do.
Employers See CompulSion.
Mr.. Davis insists that the difficulty
turns largely on terminology and
that "union-maintenance" clause
inserted In contracts at the order of
the War Labor Board does not mean
the closed shop" or the union
shop" But the employers think
Otherwise and insist that once any
citizen is obliged to remain in
union against his will. the element
OF compulsion arises and that in
time Of war. especially, no citizen
should be required TO pay dues to g
: private organization as the price of
; admission to the production front.
One argument made in behalf of
union maintenance" clauses is that
In some instances employers are
alleged to be discouraging men from
remaining in unions. But this is
punishable under the Wagner Labor
Relations Act, which is still on the
statute books and it is a mystery
why for any such reason a union Sc
curity clause is needed as long ~
the Wagner Law is enforced.
tReproaueticn Rights ReservedD
Sa he tsf vos, v,., ,s,u~ "a A.