Evening star., 1944-12-19
High Court Approves
PenaIizing Employer
In Closed Shop Case
BY J. A. FOX.

the National Labor Relation
Act, when a union with which {
closed shop agreement is exc
cuted, bars from it's membership
employees favoring a rival labor
organization, and thereby bring!
about their dismissal.
The ruling was handed down yes
terday as the court. splitting 5-4
upheld charges of unfair labol
practices preferred by the Nationa
Labor Relations Board against th'
Wallace Corp, manufacturer O
clothespins and similar wood prod
ucts at Redwood. w. Va, when ar
independent union won out over tht
CIO after a strike that had beer
marked by gunfire, and then causec
the company to oust 43 CIO ad.
vocateS.
The opinion requiring that tn,
men be reinstated and given bach
pay for the time they had lost, was
read by Justice Black.
Dissenting Opinion.
Dissenting, Justice Jackson
Joined by Chief Justice Stone ane
Justices Roberts and Frankfurter-
tersely took the majority to task.
The court is deciding not onl,
that without authority of Congress
the admission practices of a labo
organization may be policed, bu
also, contrary as We think to tn,
act. that the employer is empowered
and required to do the policing,
Justice Jackson said, predicting The
decision would be an obstacle in the
way of all future bargaining fol
closed-shop arrangements.
The decision was one of two set
tling important labor issues handed
down by the court. which ruled in /.
case vitality important to the South
that under the Railway Labor Act
a union which bars Negroes from
membership, nevertheless must rep
resent them without discrimination
If they are employed in a craft fol
which it serves as the collectiv,
bargaining agent. Many Negroes ar,
employed in train service in tn,
South, and their rights long have
been controversial issue
Instigated by CIO
In the Wallace case, the Labor
Relations Board, in move to settle
strike institgated by the CIO ir
an organizing fight. approved al
agreement between the CIO, an in
dependent union, and the company
calling far bargaining election
the independent won and was
certified by the board to represent
the employees. 1t then negotiated g
closed shop contract with the COM
pany. in which, as usual, member.
ship in the organization was reQui-
site for employment.
The independent refused to admit
as members 81 employees, reportedly
sympathetic to the CIO, and they
were discharged. Twelve others who
did not seek to Join the independ-
ent likewise were dropped. The
board. in subsequent proceedings
held that the closed shop agreement
was negotiated with the company
knowledge that the dismissals would
result, and that the independent
had been set up to Illustrate unioni-
zation of the plant-employing 20C
persons-by the CIO. 1t ordered the
independent diSeSta blished, the con-
tract nullified and the discharged
men restored to work The Fourth
Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the
order, and the appeal to the Supreme
Court followed.
Abiding Hostility.
Justice Black said that the find
ingS of the board establish ar
abiding hostility" to the CIO by the
company, and that subsequent de-
velopments justified the board ir
going behind the settlement plar
and its own certification to proceed
against the company anew.
The court also brushed aside the
company's argument that under the
closed shop agreement, it was re-
quired to discharge non-union mem
bers regardless of the unions dis
criminatory purpose and the COM
pany's knowledge of such purpose.
The railroad case involved a con-
tract negotiated in 194l between the
Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemer
and Enginemen and 81 Southern
lines. restricting the employment OF
Negro flremen to the point where
it has been contended members OF
the race ultimately would be eXclud-
ed entirely in favor of white men
In two suits, Negro firemen en-
ployed on the Norfolk-S Southern and
Louisville & Nashville sought to re-
strain operation of the contract in
which they had no voice and to pre-
vent the union from serving as their
bargaining agent. They also asked
damages of $4,000 each from the
brotherhood.
One man, who temporarily had
lost his job, was denied relief in the
Alabama State courts, which said
that no grounds for action had been
shown and dismissed the suit. The
other, who had been denoted, sued
in Federal Court in Virginia, where
the suit was dismissed for lack of
jurisdiction.
In appealing to the Supreme
Court, the two firemen asked wheth-
er union representing a craft
must serve all employees of the craft
equally, regardless of race, and il
so, whether the courts have author
ity to protect the rights of a mi
nority against violation of this
obligation.
The agreement in question wa.
ordered abrogated by the Presidents
Committee on Fair Employment
Practice early in 1943, but the man
date was Ignored.
Nonur Aoon Tx>...~l