Evening star., 1943-07-08
Union Security Issue

The War Labor Board, in issuing
its first maintenance of membership
orders since passage of the Connally-
Smith antistrike bill, apparently has
decided to get In the first punch
on this revitalized issue of union
security.
The boards standard maintenance
membership clause set up what
might be called voluntary closed
shop 1t is voluntary in the sense
that workers who belong to unions
are given the right to withdraw
during a fifteen-day period. Nor are
new employees required to join. But
If those who are members do not
withdraw, or If new workers affiliate
with union, they must maintain
themselves in good standing with the
union in order to keep their Jobs.
This device was hit upon by the
board as means OF compromis-
ing union demands for closed-shop
agreements "a compromise which
the board felt was justified by the
agreement of unions not to strike
during the war to enforce closed-shop
demands. The clause has been
granted by the board despite bitter
opposition from many employers.
Passage Of the Connally- Smith bill
has raised a serious question as to
the legality of maintenance of mem
bership orders, although in fairness
to the boards position it should be
said that neither the language of the
act nor the intent OF Congress Is
clear. When first reported from the
House Military Affairs Committee,
the bill contained specific language
forbidding the board to order union
security. This language was elimi-
mated in favor of a clause simply
requiring the board to conform to
the provisions Of the National Labor
Relations Act. And the pertinent
clause Of this latter statute provides
that an employer shall be allo,ped to
make a closed shop contract, Ian
guage which seems to mean that he
cannot be compelled to enter into
such an agreement. There is also the
further fact that during debate In
the House on the Connally-Smith
bill, Representative Marcantonio, op-
posing the measure, asked whether 1t
did not forbid the board to order
maintenance Of membership. Repre-
senta tive Smith, co-author of the bill,
replied that it did-''that mainte-
nance Of union orders Of the War
Labor Board are In conflict with the
expressed provisions Of the National
Labor Relations Act - . and think
1t clear from the provision OF the
(Connally- -Smith) bill that this
House, by adopting the bill and the
conference report, means SO to in
struct the War Labor Board"
On the basis of these facts, it would
seem that the preponderance OF evi-
dence points to the conclusion that
Congress intended to forbid future
maintenance-o OF of-membership orders.
Yet there certainly is room for doubt,
and it can hardly be said that the
board, in adopting contrary con-
struction, has taken a position that Is
plainly erroneous. In all probability,
this is an issue which will have to go
to the Supreme Court for final
adjudication.
Meanwhile the board is faced with
An even more difficult question per-
taining to enforcement of union
security orders. At the moment the
United States Gypsum Company is
refusing to accept a maintenance-of-
membership clause ordered by the
board before passage OF the Con-
nally-Smith bill And at the same
time John l., Lewis Is refusing to
accept the boards order directing
him II cign contract with the coal
operators. Thus, the board is in the
painful position Of having to decide
whether it should attempt to enforce
it's order against the Gypsum COM
pany If it cannot enforce its order
against Mr.. Lewis Shall it crack
down" on a defiant employer while
bowling to defiance from a union
boss? 1t will be interesting to see
how the board extricates itself from
this dilemma.