Evening star., 1942-04-13
Quid Pro Quo

in a dispute between a New Jersey
concern and c. I. o. union Is as in
teresting as 1t Is inconclusive.
In this case the board has laid
down for the first time the policy that
a union may not coerce an employe
into becoming a union member. This
seems to be a significant departure
from the Wagner Act, which forbids
coercive tactics on the part of en-
ployers only. Repeated efforts have
been made to have the act amended
to ban certain coercive practices by
unions, but all these efforts have
failed. If this latest ruling means
that the War Labor Board has under
taken to do, in part at least, that
which Congress has been unwilling
to do. 1t is both an interesting and
an important development.
The main issue in the case in
volved the question of union security.
The union, contending that its
abandonment of the strike weapon
for the duration of the war had re-
suited in a declining membership,
asked the board to grant a union
shop In the plant. This the board
refused to do, but as a compromise
1t directed that all employees who
have been members Of the union since
November 27, including those who
had withdrawn, must once again
become members in good standing
and maintain that status during the
life of the contract. It was also
specified that any one joining the
union in the future must agree in
writing to be bound by this mainte-
nance of membership clause.
The board divided eight-to-four on
this question, all Of the employer
members voting in the minority. 1t
is important to note, however, that
the employer members were willing
to grant the union maintenance
clause, provided the union members
consented to 1t In writing. This sug-
gests that the difference Of opinion
among the members of the board did
not concern the principle of union
security, but rather the question of
whether it should be put on a manda-
tory or voluntary basis.
This decision, compelling present
union members and those who had
withdrawn to maintain their mem
bership irrespective of their wishes
In the matter, has been challenged
on the ground that 1t runs contrary
to the Presidents assurance that the
Government would never order q
"so-called closed shop" The board
contends that it's ruling does not
amount to establishment of closed
shop, and that contention seems to
be correct. Certainly, there is great
difference between an order requir-
ing employees who have voluntarily
joined a union to maintain them
selves as members during the life of
a contract and an order which would
have required all employees to join
the union. The latter would have
established q closed shop. The for
mer, whatever other objection may
be made to it, falls far short of that.
The most serious objection to the
boards position is its stipulation that
this ruling must not be regarded as a
precedent, and that each case COM
ing before the board will be decided
on its individual merits. Unfortu-
nately, decided cases come to have
the force of precedents, regardless
of what the board may say, and 1t
should not be forgotten that it was
the insistence upon trying to handle
each case independently that led to
the collapse of the old Mediation
Board. The refusal of the present
board to profit by old mistakes is not
encouraging.