Evening star., 1944-12-20
Riqhts of Minorities.

N9uAS VI bVuuuOIttISSs
Four members of the Supreme
Court have joined in asserting the
belief that this country is entering
upon a new phase of labor relations
"a phase of struggle to reconcile
the rights of individuals and mi
norities" with the power of those
who control unions.
This significant statement ap-
pears in recent dissenting opinion
IN case arising under the National
Labor Relations Act. The dissent
was written by Associate Justice
Jackson and was concurred in by
Chief Justice Stone, Justice Roberts
and Justice Frankfurter.
Before the court was dispute in
volving employees of the Wallace
Corporation, a small West Virginia
manufacturing concern. After
troubled labor record, the corpora
ton entered into an agreement with
a CIO and an independent union in
its plant for the holding of a Ma
tional Labor Relations Board cleo
ton to determine which union rep
resented majority of the employees.
At the insiStence of the CIO, the
corporation agreed to recognize
whichever union won the election
and to grant it closed shop. The
NLRB participated in working out
this settlement agreement and ap-
proved it,
The Independent. winning the
election, was certified by NLRB as
the bargaining agent for the en-
ployes. Then the Independent no.
tilted the management that it would
insist on the closed shop and that
1t proposed to bar from membership
CIO adherents whom 1t regarded
as unfriendly or hostile. The cor
poration. after some protest, signed
the closed shop contract. The In
dependent barred thirty-one CIO
people from membership and twelve
others made no application for
membership. The corporation was
called upon to discharge the forty
three workers, and, after trying un-
successfully to persuade the Inde-
pendent to change it's position, COM
piled with the union demand.
Holding that the corporation de-
spite its contract, should have re-
fused to order the dismissals. the
NLRB required the concern to REIN
state all of the discharged employees
with back pay, to withdraw recog-
milton from the Independent (al-
legedly company dominated) and to
nullify the contract. Five members
OF the Supreme Court supported the
NLRB in this stand.
The four-man minority of the
court dissented in vigorous terms.
Without any authority from Con-
gress, said the minority, the NLRB
is requiring the employer to police
the membership practices of the
understanding that it is forbid
den to do by the Wagner Act. In
other words. the NLRB, with the
approval of majority of the court,
notifies employers that they run the
risk OF severe penalties if they sign
a closed shop contract knowing that
the union intends to bar some en-
ployes from membership, thereby
causing them to lose their jobs. But
the unions right to bar members it
deems undesirable is fundamental
to the closed shop. and employers,
both as a practical matter and as
matter of law, cannot interfere
with the membership practices of
unions.
In this situation the minority de-
clared: "This and the other cases
before us give ground for belief that
the labor movement in the United
States is passing into a new phase.
The struggle of the unions for recog-
milton and rights to bargain, and
OF Workmen to join without inter-
ference. seems to be eliminating in
victory for labor forces. We ap-
pear now to be entering the phase of
struggle to reconcile the rights of
individuals and minorities with the
power Of those who control collec-
tive bargaining groups"
That is plainly a call from four
members of the highest court in the
land for a change in the American
labor picture. They do not suggest
how the change should come about,
but 1t seems clear enough that it
can come only through amendment
OF the labor relations law or by
some other congressional enactment.
|. NJ. Phelps Stokes