Evening star., 1943-05-22

England and other countries. as well
as metal miners in the United
States. are paid on portal-to portal
basis.
Discussing the six-day week, the
panel said that If miner does not
work every one of the first five days
Of the week, whether the idleness is
his own fault or not. he does not
receive time and half on Satur-
day, but only straight time.
Discussing the request to raise the
vacation payment from $40 to $50,
the panel said. The record dis
closes that the policy of the War
Labor Board is to approve reason
able vacations on the principle that
they did not constitute wage in
crease
Occupational Charges.
The report dealt briefly with oc-
cupational charges, such as rent for
an electric cap lamp. blacksmithing
costs, safety hats and shoes.
amounting to 81 month or less.
1t concluded 1T is a well-recog
nized historical fact that these
charges against the coal miner are
holdovers from the time when coal
was quite generally mined by con-
tract and when all such costs were
included in the contract price"
The panel chairman and public
member was Morris L. Cooke of
Philadelphia. Representing labor
was David B. Robertson. president
of the Brotherhood of Locomotive
Firemen and Enginemen, an inde-
pendent union. The industry men,
Der was Walter White. assistant to
the chairman of the Business Ad-
visory Council, Commerce Depart
ment.
Informed persons who would not
be quoted by name said that no
decision had been reached on the
proposed legal test of the board S
intervention in the case. but they
said that Mr. Lewis aides began
studying such strategy the day after
the board directed the coal op-
orators not to resume bargaining
with the miners until both sides
agreed to proceed under board
auspices
Attorneys Consulted.
Some UNIV representatives be-
lieve violation of the National
Labor Relations Act can be shown.
One OF them consulted counsel
familiar with the act and received
this memorandum:
The President had no authority
to and did not suspend the National
Labor Relations Act. The War La
Dor Board established by the Presi-
dent had no authority to direct a
violation OF any of the provisions
OF the National Labor Relations
Act.
The War Labor Board, by order
ing the operators tthe employer,
not to negotiate with the United
Mine Workers 'the representative
OF the employe coal miner, did in
fact order a violation of section 8
80 OF the National Labor Relations
Act, and by so doing the National
War Labor Board ordered viola
ton Of the National Labor Relations
Act in that it ordered commission
by the coal operators of an unfair
labor practice as defined under that
act"
One source close to Mr. Lewis said
1t is not likely any legal action will
be taken in advance of the WLB
decision on the theory that there
Is no point in forestalling a possible
favorable decision. However, it is
understood the ground will be can
vassed and preparations made if
any legal steps are deemed feasible.
one course OF action suggested bv
the memorandum would be the filing
of unfair labor practice charges
with the National Labor Relations
Board against the WLB. Such an
action would be unusual and un-
doubtedly embarrassing to both
agencies. Such charges. on the 9TH
er hand. might be filed against the
operators. One source pointed out
that the action might be considered
academic unless the union could pro-
duce an operator to testify that he
wanted to bargain. but was re-
strained by the WLB.
The same source also questioned
whether the WLB's restraint had
any more force and effect on the op-
orators than the operators them
selves were willing to give it, mas
much as the WLB's method of en-
forcing such an order is not imme-
diately apparent.