Toledo union journal. [volume] (Toledo, Ohio) 1942-current, 1946-10-18
Washington.
LaborReport
By CARTER BRADFORD
LPA COlumnist

The newest member of the
National Labor Relations Board,
in his first dissenting opinions,
has charted a dangerous course
for himself and for any unions
that might be forced to b.
guided by it in the. future.
James j. Reynolds has step
ped forward-or rather back
ward-and has declared that
certain workingmen may not
choose their own union as a
bargaining agent, but must Sc
lect one that is different from
that of their shopmates.
Before going into this really
amazing theory of labor rela-
tions, let me tell you little of
Reynolds background so that
you can join me in failing to
understand what's what with
him.
James, brother of news COM
mentator Quentin Reynolds, and
nephew of a New York poll
tician who was Senator Wag-
ner's law partner, was appointed
to the NLRB to replace the un-
lamented Gerard Reilly. Rey-
nolds was a comparative un-
known, although what little was
known of him was not unfavor-
able.
Before entering the Navy,
where he served as labor rela-
tions officer, Reynolds had
given up a seat on the Stock
Exchange to work as a day la
borer in a large industrial firm.
Within two years (surprise) he
found himself vice president in 4
charge of industrial relations on
that same company.
BACKGROUND
Although Reynolds is clearly
out of the caliber of many of
the earlier NLRB members -
including such outstanding au-
thorities as William L. Lesser
son and Harry A. Millis-labor
people in Washington were
slightly relieved at his appoint
ment, since the new member
had a liberal background and
some experience in labor rela-
tions. So far, hardworking and
conscientious though he has
been, Reynolds has not demon
strated to the public any good
results of his two-year accele-
rated course in industrial rela-
tions. At least that is the judg-
ment based upon the first few
cases to come before him.
For many months now the
NLRB has permitted guards
and working foremen to select
bargaining agents in the same
manner as other employees may
under the provisions of the
Wagner Act. In the two most
recent cases of this sort, which
were the first two issued since
Reynolds succeeded Reilly, the
new member went even farther
than Reilly ever had in attempt
ing to limit the workers choice
of representatives.
OBJECTIONS
Reynolds objects to permit
ting what he calls "monitorial"
employees to be represented by
the same union as that repre-
senting the rank and file work.
ers. When carried to its logical
conclusion, this theory would
result in forcing inspectors,
stockroom employees, and many
other categories of employees to
form separate unions. OF course,
iourneymen and apprentices in
the same crafts would also have
to be separated.
Soon it would be found inn
practical to permit members of
the Elks or knights of
Pythias to attend smoker
together, if some were produc-
ton workers and the others
were working foremen, without
placing them in what Reynolds
calls "the anomalous position of
having to serve conflicting
loyalties."
This is all nonsense. It is es-
pecially nonsensical when it
comes from someone who pre-
tends to have industrial rela-
tions experience. Following
.Reynolds' theory would result
in industrial chaos, besides serv-
ing to atomize the unions into
uSelessness.
The argument presented by
Reynolds is effectively answer
ed by the Board majority in its
~
Satement that g. we doubt
whether this Board has the