Evening star., 1945-09-03
Complex Cases
On Veterans
Facing Courts
'Super-Seniority' Only
One of About Is
Major Problems
BY MIRIAM GUTENBERG,


So-called "super-seniority" Is only
one Of about Is different problems
involving the Unemployment rights
(of veterans which the courts may
be called on to decide, it was learned
today.
The right Of the veteran to be
rehired and to hold his job for q
year regardless OF the greater senior
|ity Of nonveterans was decided last
week in q Brooklyn Federal Court,
but an affected union already has
announced its intention to seek a
Supreme Court ruling on the ques-
ton and a similar case is now
pending in Michigan.
Three Cases Already in Courts.
While thousands of unemployment
problems, according to National Sc
lective Service, have been settled
amicably by draft board re-employ-
ment committeeman, three cases are
pending in the Federal courts and
20 others are on the desks of United
States Attorneys.
According to q selective service
survey. these cases now are awaiting
court action:
In the Michigan case-Droste VS..
Nash-Kelvinator Corp. "A veteran
was restored to his old job but was
laid on in accordance with a collec-
tive bargaining agreement and a
nonveteran was held on the job do
ing similar work. This follows the
pattern Of the Brooklyn case, where
the court ruled the veteran should
stay on the job regardless of a union
contract.
Two other cases involve the ques-
tion OF union membership. Selective
service reported. however, that one
of the cases probably would be set
tied out of court. The question of
unemployment of nonunion vet
erans in closed shops is being studied
by the Justice Department.
Others Listed in Action.
At the end of July these cases
were in the hands of United. States
attorneys because Unemployment
committeeman and other selective
service officials had been unable to
effect settlements:
Four Of them question whether
the veteran was an employe within
the meaning Of the law when he
entered the armed forces. In these
cases independent contractors or
partners are involved.
In three cases the employers have
contended the veterans were hold
ing temporary jobs when they went
to war and therefore are not en-
titled to return to their old jobs
In three cases veterans are asking
reimbursement of back pay caused
by delay or refusal to reinstate
the veterans on their old jobs.
In two cases employers contend
their circumstances have 50 changed
that 1t would be impossible or un-
reasonable to put the veteran back
to work.
Two cases question the veterans
ability to perform his old job.
Two cases question whether the
job to which the veteran was re-
stored lived up to the requirement
that the job be the same as his old
one or one of like seniority, status
and pay"
Availability Questioned.
In two cases, the question at issue
is whether the veteran now in the
Enlisted Reserve Corps has COM
pleted his military service.
In four cases, employers have nat
ly refused to reinstate veterans
without giving reasons.
Other cases question whether q
veteran can replace a nonveteran
with greater seniority, whether the
law covers part-time jobs, the place
where the veteran is to be re-
employed, the eligibility of a veteran
for bonus given to all employees
while the veteran was in military
service, the veterans eligibility for
automatic promotions and the total
OF his seniority privileges.
While some groups are in favor OF
letting the courts decide these issues
demands have come from union
management and veterans organ
izations for Congress to rewrite and
clarity" the Unemployment pro-
visions Of the Selective Service Act
So far half dozen cases have been
decided by the courts and all OF
them have followed the selective
service Interpretation Of the law.