Evening star., 1943-04-16

~'NSS' DdNiu Ad~TeHCe.
1t seems that the employer made
a speech and wrote a letter to his
employees and did not conceal his
belief that he thought they would
be better off without a union to deal
for them, but the Circuit Court held
that. since there was no evidence
of any intent to coerce or punish
employees for disagreeing, the Ma
tional Labor Board did not sustain
its charge of an unfair labor prac-
tice.
In rendering the decision, the
Judges pointed to a previous decision
by the Supreme Court which was
believed to be on all fours with the
case, that of the American Tube
Bending Co., of New Haven, Conn.
Cites Supreme Court.
Had it not been for the decision
Of the Supreme Court" said the
judges of the Circuit Court, 'in the
case of the National Labor Relations
Board VS.. Virginia Electric and
Power Co, we might have considered
that courts earlier decisions as re-
quiring us to grant an enforcement
order in the case at bar.
Those decisions might be inter-
preted as holding that any address
or other communication from an
employer made directly to his en-
ployes may have, and ordinarily will
have, a double aspect; on the one
hand, it is an expression of his own
beliefs and an attempt to persuade
his employees to accept them. on the
other, it is an indication of his feel
ings which his hearers may believe
will take a form inimical to those
of them whom he does not succeed
In convincing.
Insofar as it is the first, the
Constitution protects him; insofar
as it is the second, it does not. The
board. being composed of those espe-
cially versed in the subject matter
must decide how far the second
aspect predominates, and if they
conclude that it will seriously coerce
the employees freedom of choice
they may forbid it."
Protected Under Free Speech.
In the American Tube Bending
Co. case there were no collateral
circumstances, no reprisals, no ac-
ton in evidence that could sustain
a charge Of coercion. The only thing
in the record was the employers
letter and the speech of H w. Jones,
ir., president Of the company, to his
employees. Standing by themselves,
the Circuit Court of Appeals found
they we're really protected by the
free speech clause of the Constitu-
ton.
The court appended copies of both
the letter and the speech and they
are models of impartiality and OBJ
iectivity. Most employers get caught
on the matter of advising employees
because they do it in conversation
or they accompany their public
statements or letters or speeches
with some other activity which the
Labor Board manages, as rule, to
tie into tee letter or speech so AS to
argue that the written words or
speeches are merely part of a CO.
ercive process.
Urged Employees to Vote.
What makes the present case sig
nificsnt is that the employer urged
his employees to vote. told them
there would be no reprisal If they
disa agreed, but merely painted the
three choices and even went so far
rs to indicate belief that the
situation without union was in its
own Judgment best.
Twice before said Mr.. Jones,
when I have talked to all of you
I have stated the company's position
regarding the open shop, and 1
again repeat 1t to you, that this is
an open shop in true sense of the
word. Members of labor unions and
non-members of labor unions are
employed without any discrimina-
ton, whatsoever, and so long as
am connected with the management
of this company the policy will con-
tinue.
What, then, is the issue and why
are we having an election tomor-
row? 1t all boils down to this. Can