Minneapolis spokesman. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1934-2000, 1943-08-13


Mediation Board.
The decision resulted from a suit
filed in 1941 by the UTSEA-CIO
against the st. Paul Union Term
inal, the Brotherhood of Railway
Clerks and the National Mediation
Board after the Board had arbi-
trarily certified the Clerks Union
without an election as the colIec-
tive bargaining agency for the 45
station employees Of the st. Paul
Terminal. This was done over the
repeated protests of the UTSEA
who had been designated by the
employees as their free choice.
With the institution of court pro-
ceedings against the brotherhood
and the board, the UTSEA set out
to challenge the whole structure and
legality of arbitrary Scope" agree
ments made between railroad man
agement and the brotherhoods COW
ering many crafts and classes of
employment and under which a
large number Of Negro railroad en-
ployees were denied voice in the
operation of the agreements.
The U. S. Circuit Court of Ap-
peals upheld the recent decision of
the U. S. District Court that set
aside ruling of the National Me-
diation Board which had extended
to the Brotherhood Of Railway
Clerks the authority to bargain col
lectively for a group of railroad
porters despite the fact that they
were barred from membership in
the Clerks Union because of race
and had overwhelmingly selected
the UTSEA-CIO as their own bar
gaining representative. The Circuit
Court upheld the decision setting
aside the Boards ''untenable and
arbitrary" ruling and ordered this
federal agency to proceed to certi-
fy the UTSEA-CIO as the collective
bargaining agency for these en-
ployees.
Inc decision was rendered by
Chief Justice C. ]. Groner of the
U. S. Circuit Court of Appeals, who
minced no words in supporting the
contention of UTSEA-CIO's attor-
neys George E. C. Hayes, Judge
James A. Cobb and Perry Howard.
Chief Justice Groner stated,
The purpose of the Act railway
Labor Act), as is apparent on its
face is to insure freedom of
choice In the selection of repre-
sentatves Nothing in the Act
nor in its construction by the courts
can be found to justify such CO.
erclVe action as to force upon any
class of employees representation
through an agency with whom it
has no affiliation nor right of asso-
citation. It is, therefore, of no con-
sequence that the porters were at
one time dependent upon the Broth
erhood as their spokesman with the
railroad, for that never was a
trusteeship of their own making
10 perpetuate it by law would be
to impose a tyranny in many re-
spects analogous to taxation with
out representation And if any,
thing is certain, it is that the Con-
gress in passing the Act never for
a moment dreamed that it would
be construed to diminish the right
Of any citizen to follow a lawful
vocation on the same or equal terms
with his neighbor. In this view
to enforce the Boards decision
would be contrary to both the word
and spirit Of our laws"
President Willard S. Townsend
OF the UTSEA in commenting upon
the far-reaching effects of this de-
cision declared:
"This decision of the Circuit
Court is indicative Of the changes
taking place in the railroad indus
try as result of intelligent organ
lied pressure. This decision, more
than any other action taken in be-
half of Negro railroad workers.
TANKS the proponents of job dis
elimination and opens the flood
gates for a successful offensive
against the forces that seek to
eliminate the Negro from the rail-
road industry"
For more than three years this
case has been bitterly fought be-
fore federal agencies, boards and
the courts. Since its beginning the
case has held the attention of every
railroad labor organization and
many sections of management
because of its significant ma
ture and challenge to the
status quo of discriminating
Observation-Disclosures policies
in reference to Negro labor. The
scope" agreement practice is one
of the major devices projected by