The people's voice. [volume] (Helena, Mont.) 1939-1969, 1943-02-05
Labor Case


court by Ex-Governor John E. Erick-
son, while Wellington d. Rankin ar
gued the case, amicus curiae, on be-
half of the Trades and Labor Council
of Kalispell, the Lumber and Saw Mill
Workers Union at Columbia Falls, the
Lumber and Saw Mill Workers Local
Union at Kalispell, and the Painters,
Paperhangers and Decorators Union
at Kalispell, while Ralph ]. Anderson
argued the case, amicus curiae, on
behalf of the Montana State Fedora
ton of Labor The Unemployment
Compensation Commission was repre-
scented by E. G. Toomey, Helena, at
torney.
The claimant contended that the
labor dispute precipitating the strike
was caused by the employers refusal
to bargain collectively with its en-
ployees in violation of the National
Labor Relations Act, while the en-
ployer contended that the employer
did not violate the National Labor Re-
lations Act, and that the Unemploy-
ment Compensation Act of Montana
was unconstitutional in SO far as it
permitted striking employees to claim
benefits even if the employers viola
ton of the federal law did cause the
strike. Hg
In the supreme court, Rankin,
Erickson and 3 Anderson contended
that evidence of a violation of the
Not oh al A a.
contradicted, and, therefore, the find
ings of the commission were not
based on substantial evidence.
In this connection, it was argued
that the union negotiating committee
had demanded a raise in pay, closed
shop and vacations with pay, for sew
eral months before the strike, and
that the employer had failed to make
any counter proposal indicating a will
lingness to bargain in good faith.
1t was also stated that following
the strike on May 2Sth, the employer
announced a SC an: hour raise in wages
to all non-striking employees, and that
a number of the members of the ne
gotiating committee had testified that
if such a raise had been offered to
the union the strike would never have
been called, and that, accordingly, the
failure to bargain on the part of the
employer caused the unemployment
of the men who were out on strike.
1t was reported that the strike was
settled on August 10Th by the grant
ing of the sc an hour increase in
wages to the union men, and modi-
fled closed shop agreement.
The case involves a construction of
Section Cd of the Unemployment
Compensation Act, which provides:
"* if the commission upon in
vestigation, shall find that such la
Dor dispute is caused by the failure
or refusal of any employer to co..
form to the provisions of any law
United States pertaining to collec-
tive bargaining, hours, wages or |
other conditions of work, such Ia
Dor dispute shall not render the
workers ineligible for benefits"
Counsel for the labor organizations
cited many decisions of federal, dis
riot and circuit courts, which held
hat it was violation of the Nation
II Labor Relations Act for an en-
)loyer to refuse to bargain in good
aith with the duly authorized union
of the employees, and
holding it to be a violation of the act
or an employer to raise wages direct
y in his plant after negotiations had
,nce started with the union.
''It was fairly inferable that the
employer by this action intended to
lumiliate the union representatives
md discredit them in the eyes of their
elbow employees and reflect on the
rood faith of the employers recogni-
ion of the union as a bargaining
gent" it was stated.
1t was stated in the course of the
rgument that this was a test case,
md that the claims of all the other
Inion men who were unemployed dur
ng the dispute will likely be con-
rolled by the outcome of the deci-
ion in this case.