Evening star., 1944-06-02
Ruling Exen1pts
Orders Of WLB
From Review
Appeals Court Backs
Agency's Authority
In Woge-Hour Case
BY WILLIAM G. POLLARD,

BY WILLIAM G. POLLARD.
The United States Court of
Appeals today ruled that a war
Labor Board order is not subject
to court review.
The appellate court affirmed a
decision Of Justice Daniel w. ODon-
|oghue Of District Court, in which he
dismissed complaint against the
WLB brought by the Employers
Group Of Motor Freight Carriers
Inc, and group of individuals rer
resenting some 500 trucking COM
panies engaged In freight trans
portation In New England.
The complaint had sought to have
a WLB order regarding hours and
wages set aside. The appellate
courts opinion defended the WLB
setup and its executive orders.
Clear and IndisputabIe.
The opinion, written by Justice
Henry w. Edgerton, declared:
1T is clear and indisputable that
no statute authorizes review of the
War Labor Boards orders. As we
point out below, the legislative his
tory of the War Labor Disputes Act
implies positive intention that
these orders should not be reviewed.
Aside from that important and
probably conclusive fact, the ques-
ton is whether general equitable
principles authorize review. We
think they do not"
The wage and hours dispute in
volved included $2.75 per week in
lcreases for employees of the firms:
that "all work performed in excess
of eight hours in any regular work.
day shall be paid for at one and
lone-half times the regular straight
time rates; also that employees
not working on the holidays desig-
mated shall receive eight hours pay
In straight time rates
History OF Act Reviewed.
The Court OF Appeals opinion re-
viewed briefly the legislative history
OF the act.
The original suit filed by tn
plaintiffs in the case asked for an
injunction to set aside the WLB'
order. Defendants named IN the
suit included the economic stabili-
zation director and the price adj
ministrator.
In reference to these two officials,
the decision said:
| The only function Of the price
administrator In connection with
the boards present order was to
consider whether the authorized
wage increases would be- likely to
require increases in freight rates,
and the only function Of the direc-
4 tor of economic stabilization was to
,ass upon the proposed wage In
creases In the light Of probable rate
| increases.
The price administrator reported
to the director that a rate increase
would probably be required, and the
director approved the proposed adj
justments. 1t does not appear that
either of these officers has threat
ened or is authorized to take any
steps which would tend to require
appellates to comply with the
boards order or to penalize them for
noncompliance.
Noncompliance Question.
Appellants say In effect, though
in other terms. that If they do not
comply with the order the board
may notify the President of their
noncompliance, and the President
may take possession of their plants
and facilities. We have no occasion
to decide whether in our opinion
this is true. In some instances con-
Germs which had failed to comply
with board orders have ultimately
been taken over by presidential
orders.
IF 1t be true, as appellants sug-
gest, that the President may ulti-
mately take possession of their
plants and facilities, that possibility
is irrelevent, not only because it is
speculative but also because it Is
independents of the boards order.
Neither the broad constitutional
power nor the broad statutory power
of the President to take and use
property in furtherance of. the war
effort depends upon any action Of
the War Labor Board.
Action Advisory.
! ANY action of the board would
be informatory and at most ad-
visory. Appellants demand that we
annul and enjoin the boards order,
therefore, amounts to a demand
that we prevent the board from Civ
ing the President advice which ap-
lpellants contend would be erroneous.
A court might as we'll be asked to
prevent the Secretary of State or
the Attorney General from giving
alleged erroneous advice. The COR
rectness of administrative advice
cannot be reviewed by the courts.
They have neither the necessary au-
thority nor the necessary qualifica-
tions for such work"
Justices Justin Miller and Thur
man Arnold heard the case with JUS
tice Edgerton.
j. Ninian Beall, attorney for the
plaintiffs, said the decision was the
first to be rendered by any appellate
court holding that WLB orders were
not subject to review.
| HEf