Toledo union journal. [volume] (Toledo, Ohio) 1942-current, 1944-06-09
Washington
Scene

then, while running home utter
this daring challange over his
shoulder:
wait till my big brother gets
done with your
That, gentle reader, is exactly
what Gerard D. Reilly, mem
Der of the National Labor Re-
lations Board did May %.
Board Member Reilly's ample
nose was bloodied in an en-
counter with the united re-
presentatives of all organized
labor at a public hearing called
by the NLRB here May 10.
The AFL, the CIO, the unaf-
filiated Confederated Unions of
America, United Mine Workers,
District so; National Federation
of Telephone Workers and the
Brotherhood of Railway Train
men, all took turns at that hear
ing condemning Reilly's pro-
posal to sabotage the practices of
the NLRB and permit employers
to file petitions for elections in
their plants. All agreed it would
hurt the war effort.
GETS ROUGH TREATMENT
Reilly didn't exactly cotton to
the treatment he got from AFL
Pres. William Green's official
representative, Atty. Herbert S..
Thatcher; from CIO Pres. Philip
Murray and CIO Gen. Counsel
Lee Pressman; from Pres. j. A.
Beirne of the Telephone Work
ers and all the others.
So when the Special House
Committee investigating the
seizure of Montgomery Ward S
Chicago plant called for NLRB
representative, Reilly was select
ed to appear because Chairman
H. A. Mills was indisposed.
In addition to appearing to be
a rather vague and confused wit
ness, Reilly used the Congress
ional committee as a vehicle to
get his pet scheme against labor
unions before wider public
and, he hoped, before SYM
pathetic audience.
Reilly, knowing that labor
was unitedly opposed to his plan,
turned to his big brother" Con-
gress, to help him do by law
what Reilly may be unable to
persuade his fellow NLRB mem
bers to adopt as board policy.
Here is what Reilly said to
the congressman:
TURNS TO CONGRESS
Faced with problem of
avoiding the placing of employ
ers in such a delima (as Ward
was in, Reilly means) as well as
the problem of avoiding delays
in wartime disputes, which mark
the history of the Montgomery
Ward case, this Board, two
weeks ago, formulated pro-
posed rule which gave en-
ployers, with respect to whom
the WLB had taken jurisdiction,
the right to file petition for an
election with our Board in 5
days If they entertained a bona
fide doubt with regard to the
legal right of the union to be
recognized as bargaining repre-
sentative for the purpose of ne
gotiating new contract.
while under our procedures
we do not hold elections except
where a real showing is made
that genuine question of re-
presentation exists, this propo-
sal was hotly opposed at pub
lie hearing by all the labor re-
representatives. present
"None of them, however, was
able to offer any solution as to
how the problem of avoiding
possible conflicts between WLB
orders and the provisions of the
Wagner act could be met except
by the adoption of such a rule.
The CIO has even gone so far
as to issue public statement
urging its affiliated unions and
local agents to protest to the
ordnance officers of the War and
Navy departments that the adop-
ton of such a rule would mean
stoppages and Interruptions of
production, although it would
seem on the face of it that unions
which really do command the
support of majority cf work
ers need have no fear of the re-
suits of a secret ballot.
"The problem as you see is not
unrelated to the subject matter
of the case before you. There
fore, If the purpose of this in
vestigation is to make certain
recommendations to congress, it
might very well be that the
committee would care to exam