Evening star., 1944-02-28
High Court Upho|ds
Bargaining Despite
Individual Pacts
IS the Associated Press.

The supreme Court ruled today
that an employer is required by the
National Labor Relations Act to
bargain collectively with a union,
regardless of contracts reached with
individual employees.
Justice Jackson delivered the 81
decision which upheld the main
provisions of Labor Board order
directing the J. l. Case Co. of Rock
Island, ILL.,, to bargain with the In
ternational Union, Automobile, Air
craft and Agricultural Implement
Workers of America (CIO). Justice
Roberts favored reversal, but did
not write dissenting opinion.
Benefits Open to All.
The majority opinion said it was
"the very purpose" of the NLRB law
to supersede the terms of separate
agreements with those which "re-
fleet the strength and bargaining
power and serve the welfare of the
group.
'Its benefits and advantages are
open to every employe of the repre-
sented unit, whatever the type or
terms of his pre-existing contract
of employment" the opinion as
serted.
1--WE are not called upon to say
the court added, that under nc
circumstances can an individual en-
force an agreement more advanta-
geous than collective agreement,
kH.1f f,,l fIa y1occfhf1itxy
that such agreements might be
made, no ground for holding gen.
orally that individual contracts
may survive or surmount collective
ones"
Decree Ordered Modified.
The court ordered the decree of
the Seventh Circuit Court of Ap-
peals to be modified so that the
company cease giving effect to
individual contracts = to fore
stall collective bargaining or deter
self reorganization"
Even though the individual con-
tracts have expired, the NLRB had
contended that there still was need
of a ruling for the future. A major
ity of the employees designated the
CIO union as their bargaining rep
resentative.
In a 6-2 decision by Justice Reed,
the court also decided in effect in
favor of milk producers who COM
planned about an Agriculture De-
partment order permitting milk CO.
operatives to charge them for their
marketing services.
The court set aside decision of
the Court of Appeals in the District
the producers challenge of the de-
partment order Justices Black and
Frankfurter dissented,
Applies to Boston Area.
The order in question applied to
the greater Boston marketing area.
Delbert o. Stark and four other
producers who are not members of
co-operatives questioned its validity
The Justice Department said the
deductions from milk producers in
come, to recompense the co-opera-
tives for keeping records and deal
1il6 Will liidl hCollIS plOUlCllio, bCliC-
flied all producers. The Court of
Appeals said Mr.. Stark and his
associates had no legal ground to
institute proceedings, but of this the
Supreme Court said:
THE only opportunity these pc
titloners had to complain of the
contested deduction was to appear
at hearings and to vote for or
against the proposed order So long
as the provisions of the order are
within the statutory authority of
the Secretary such hearings and
balloting furnish adequate oppor-
tunity for protest.
But where, as here, the issue is
statutory power to make the deduc-
ton required by order, under au-
thority of the agricultural Mar
keting Agreement) Act, a mere
hearing or opportunity to vote can
not protect minority producers
against unlawful exactions which
might be voted upon them by ma