Evening star., 1944-04-19
Labor Board Decision
Agency Goes Beyond the Law
in Penalizins Labor Union
By David Laurence

<ASShSy wv DSyoha AuS Law
in Penalizing Labor Union
By David LasCrsncs
The National Labor Relations Board.
by 2-to-1 decision, has set forth It's
right to penalize the members Of
labor union who call . strike to forcs
an employer to violate the Federal
statutes governing wage increases.
The decision Is q mistaken one. It 30
happens that the decision fayors the
employer but it would be as mistaken
II it favored the employees. The idea
that the National Labor Relations Board
has the power to prescribe any penalty
it pleases has been upheld by the Su-
preme Court, which, in recent opinion,
said in effect that 1t could supply words
to the law which had not been supplied
by Congress The same erroneous doc
trine Is now proclaimed by the National
Labor Relations Board, which sets out
to penalize union members not for
violating the Wagner law itself but for
conspiring allegedly to cause some one
else to violate some other Federal
statute.
No such authority Is vested in the
National Labor Relations Board Indeed,
the board can punish an employer for
violating the Wagner law but there is
no power In the statute which gives the
board any authority over employees or
unions. This defect has been repeat
edly called to the attention OF Congress
and 1t represents no advance In the
cause Of orderly government to ind
worthy or proper objective achieved
by indirection through an edict of the
Labor Relations Board.
Asleep to Hidden Dangers.
Labor unions have long been asleep
to the hidden dangers in the one-sided
statute which permits the board to
select virtually any remedy 1t pleases
and any punishment it wishes. An
antilabor membership on the board can
use the same law and the same prece-
dents to penalize labor and that is one
reason why amendment Of the Wagner
law and clarification Of the powers
hereunder should be as much the con-
Germ Of union labor as It has been of
management.
The minority opinion In the latest
case-American News Co. versus Maya
zine. Mailers and Deliverers' Union Of
New Jersey-was written by Chairman
Mills. He agrees that the union did an
improper thing and that the members
should be punished, but he thinks re-
fusal to reinstate the strikers is too
severe and that merely withholding
back pay would have been adequate. So
1t may be. said that all three members
OF the board feel the board has author
ity TO inquire into the motives that lead
to q strike and to employ their punitive
powers under the Wagner law when
such motives are unlawful.
The Wagner law Is confined to pun
Hhment for unfair labor practices and
these. under the way the law Is worded.
can be tndulged In only by employers.
AS the law is written, the unions or
their members can never be guilty of
unfair labor practices" This Is wrong
but the quarrel cafnot be with the
board but with the law which Congress
has, failed to amend.
No Infraction Of Wagner Act
There Is, Of course, simple remedy.
The workers had no dispute with the
management. The MANAGEMENT even
agreed to the wage increase but pointed
out that it could not be granted with.
out approval OF governmental agency
the War Labor Board-and that steps
would be taken to ask for approval:
But the union met and voted to strike
the next day anyway. The employers
business was severely injured. II he had
aSSented to the demands Of the union.
ne would have been violating the Fed.
eral law governing wage stabilization
and would have subjected himself to a
criminal penalty. The members Of the
union were plainly guilty of q wrong
but 1T was not violation of the Wae-
ner law.
There are some general statutes
whereby Congress has said that If two
or more individuals conspire to violate
any Federal law, they may be punished.
Likewise Congress, in what has been
called the "antiracketeering" statute,
imposed severe penalty on any one
guilty OF coercion or duress but stated
that this was not to interfere with the
lawful activities of labor unions. Was
the calling of strike under the cir.
cumstances a lawful union actiyity1
Tne Department Of Justice-not the
National Labor Relations Board-had
the answers and should have laid the
Facts before Federal grand jury. The
principle is no different whether the
coercion is applied in order to extort a
lee by unlawful means or to secure q
wage demand by applying duress in an
unlawful manner. 1t was not a case for
the Labor Board until after the matter
had been decided by the courts under
other statutes.
Reproduction rights reseryed.)
Growing Uncertainty
K1rN u