Evening star., 1943-06-26
WLB Still Is Believed
|PowerIess 10 Force
Lewis Contract
Strike Low Roises Scores
Of Questions; Labor Sees
Act as 'UnreuIistic'
Ry the Associated Press.

By the Associated Press.
The War Labor Board was
vested with new powers today
under the anti-strike law, but
none, apparently, that would
force John L. Lewis, president of
the United Mine Workers, to
conlply with It's order to sign
contract with the operators or
otherwise terminate the coal
controversy. ,.
The WLB, it appeared, will con-
tinue to rely on presidential author
| ity to enforce its orders on recall
citrant parties.
The act, passed over presidential
veto, authorizes the board to sub
poena witnesses, but Mr. Lewis could
| answer a summons without signing
contract and the board would re-
main powerless to deal with him.
Out of Boards Hands.
Besides, said one authoritative
| source, the coal case is out of the
/ boards hands. The WLB decided
all issues, and it Is up to the exec
utive arm to make Mr.. Lewis comply.
Members called on War Mobilization
Director James F. Byrnes yesterday
to urge just that.
The act raised scores of questions
which WLB officials were unpre-
pared to answer officially. 1t Gre
ated tremendous legal and admin
| istrative job for the War Labor
Board, the National Labor Relations
Board and the Justice Department.
The general tenor of opinion in
labor circles was that the act is un-
realistic and cannot cope with spon-
taneous, wildcat" walkouts. The
| impulse was to have every union,
Immediately on opening negotiations
with an employer, give notice to the
Government of threat to war pro-
duction and thereby obtain a strike
vote in 30 days. The NLRB, charged
with conducting such elections,
probably would not be able to pro-
vide machinery to cope with wide
spread campaign of that nature.
Withdrawals Possible.
Another immediate impulse in la
Dor circles was to quit the War La
: Dor Board. The cooler heads
thought that was the least likely
development, though the act itself
raised a question whether the labor
members of the WLB could partici-
pate in certain cases. The bill dis
bars members from participating in
any decision lin which such member
has a direct interest as an officer,
employe or representative of either
party to the dispute"
This might create a situation
where AFL members could partici-
pate only wnere CIO union was
involved. and vice versa However,
the board may interpret it to mean
. that board member who also is a
member of the Electrical Workers
Union, for instance, could not par
ticipate in. a case involving the Elec-
trical Workers Union. but could
. participate in case affecting any
, other union whether it is an AFL
or CIO affiliate. That is the cur
rent policy.
One section of the act provides
that plants or mines seized by the
Government shall be returned to
the owners not more than so days
after restoration of normal pro-
! duction. There was some con-
. troversy whether this would apply
to the soft coal mines because the
section appears to pertain only to
those plants or mines seized under
authority of the Selective Service
/ Act, as amended by the Connally-
, Smith-Harness Act The question
is under what authority the Presi-
dent took possession of the Mines
May /.
The act provides stiff criminal
penalties for persons responsible for
an interruption of production in a
plant or mine taken over by the
! Government. The problem that
raises, in the coal case, for instance.
is one of proof against top officers of
the union. A stoppage of work does
!, not necessarily make union leaders
t liable. The act specifically says that
an individual has the right not to
> work. He violates the act only when
he coerces. instigates, induces, con-
, spires with or encourages another
' person to interfere with production.
r II the miners walk out on October
. 31-the deadline set by the UNIV
q Policy Committee - prosecution Of
the committee members could be at
4 tempted. But UNIV leaders contend
7; they are not responsible for the cur
rent stoppages and have, in fact,
IN hoc c1y Is VII
/ Another issue raised by the law
, is the scope of the WLBs authority.
. The act confers authority to rule in
f a labor dispute which may lead to
substantial interference" with the
= war effort. Montgomery Ward 81
t Co. and other employers not di-
= rectly producing war materials have
= questioned the WLB's authority in
v the past to rule in cases involving
e them. The language of the act may
e give them grounds to go into court
!. for an injunction against the board,
l which has heretofore interpreted its
= authority broadly enough to include
every labor dispute.
2 Union Membership.
,, SOluS lLCluOS1S VI SOIlSTeSS WIG
:, supported the bill have contended.
too, that it would prohibit the board
from ordering maintenance of union
membership clauses in labor con.
tracts. This contention is based on
b the laws requirement that WLB de-
n cisions shall conform to the provi-
y sions of the National Labor Rela.
S tions Act, specifically the closed
shop proviso.
War Labor Board members do moi
y consider that the act circumscribes
them at all on the subject of main
. tenance of membership The issue
y whether such orders violate the
= MIRA was raised under the old Ma
= tional Defense Mediation Board
The general counsel of the NLRH
! ruled they did not. WLB sources
say the circumstances are unchang-
S ed, but the act may provide basi;
6 -