Evening star., 1942-03-07


ities. The court was placed in a
difficult position, because it seemed
by inference to condone violence.
and it is true that the tribunal
could have just AS easily found that
the i-racketeering law was viO-
lated by the truck drivers as to
find that it wasn't.
The result, however, is construc-
tive in the sense that Congress has
been told in plain words that it can
legiSlate, If it chooses, that labor
union demands which take on the
guise of eXtortion can be made pun
lshable by law when the demands
seek payment for work not done or
for protective immunity from vio-
lence or intimidation.
1t will be recalled that when the
Wagner Act was before Congress,
the statement was made that phys
ical coercion of one employe by an
other was reachable by State law
and hence there was presumably no
need to deal with unfair labor
practices" committed by employees.
What really happened was that the
labor unions had sufficient political
: strength to prevent the passage of
such a statute and none was passed.
Anti-Racket Law Vague.
Many persons believed that the
anti-racketeering law of 1884, which
was on the statute books when the
Wagner Act was passed, would take
care of any eXtortion or violence on
the part of unions in disputes affect
ing interstate commerce. But the
wording of the statute was ambigu-
Gus. Thus, after prohibiting eXtor-
ton or conspiracy to obtain prop
erty by force or threat of force, the
In the statute was TO be construed
AS interfering with the lawful
activities of labor unions.
What then is lawful? Obviously
the word referred to Federal stat
utes, and there is nothing in Fed
eral law nowadays that exercises .
police power over labor unions. 1t /
had been thought that interruption
to interstate commerce could be
punished under the restraint OF
trade clauses of the antitrust laws,
but the Supreme Court under the
New Deal put an end to that theory
in the so-called Apex case. In that
instance, the labor union destroyed
property in sit-down strike and
forcibly prevented shipment OF
goods TO customers. but the Su
preme Court said this was some
thing for State law to cover. Since
that time civil suits for damages
were instituted under State law and
a settlement made between the
parties.
Congress has shown a tendency
To legislate and the Supreme Court
has followed along with the idea,
that crime in interstate commerce
can be reached by Federal law, as
in kidnapping or stolen automobiles
or the carrying on of fraudulent
transactions across State lines.
Plainly racketeering, even if it is a
union activity, can be covered now
under Federal law by being specifi-
cally defined, and the statute will
apparently be held constitutional.
Supports State Authority.
Apart from the Federal power,
however. the Supreme Court has
Just said that State authority also
can be invoked to get at violence or
threats or intimidation. Even more
than that, the court has held valid /
a Wisconsin labor law which re-
stricts picketing and insists that no
strike can be called without a ma
joritv vote of the employees.
The Supreme Court ruled, in ef-
feet. that whatever policy a State I.
wants to adopt to fill in the gaps /.
in the Federal labor law known as
the Wagner Act will be held con- /
stitutional if it is not in conflict .
with free speech or other provisions |.
OF the Federal charter The Wis /.
consin law. while modelled after the
Wagner law in respect to employer
acts. was the first of the State stat !
utes to go further and regulate the /
activities and unfair labor prac- |
tices Of labor unions or their mem
berS, The Wisconsin law imposes |
penalties on employees who violate !
the picketing laws or otherwise en- .
gage in activities considered unfair /,
labor practices So the way has been .
opened for all States to adopt /
statutes guaranteeing the citizen in .
his constitutional right to work.
The States have been given the |
green light by the New Deal court /
This is important news in the pro-
duction world.
Reproduction rights reservedD