Evening star., 1946-06-09

low that removal of the exemption
on unions in the Wagner Act means
that legitimate union activities are
prohibited.
This section is necessary because
the Supreme Court ruled that the
original statute did not condemn
the use of threats and violence by
union in order to compel employ
ers to make standby payments tc
union members under threats ol
violence of assault"
1T was held in that case that
such activity was excluded from the
scope of the statute because it
specifically exempted the payment
OF wage by bona fide employer
to a bona fide employe and that
the offer of services, under threats
OF violence, even though unwanteo
by the employer, created an en-
ployment relationship within the
meaning of the statute"
SECTION 8.
This merely "liberalizes" present
declared law ito the extent of per-
mitting contributions to welfare
funds where they are set up as q
trust for the benefit of the employees
and jointly administered by the EN-.
ployer and the union"
The Wagner Act prohibits EN-.
ployer financial or other support O.
labor organizations. Unions hay,
contended that this applies only t.
company dominated unions.
One of the highest Federal court.
has recently held that mere contri.
button and support, without any de.
nomination. infringes the Wagner
Act"
SECTION 9.
This exempts supervisory employees
from the Wagner Acts definition Of
employe and is necessary because
supervisory employees occupy a dual
status under that act.
The Supreme Court ruled in one
instance that an employer is re.
sponsible for any unfair practices a
supervisory employe commits, and ir
another instance that, because su-
pervlsory employees are employees
are employees within the meaning OF
the statute, they are entitled to pro.
lection OF the statute when they
engage in organization or similar
activities. The NLRB held in the
Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. case
that supervisory employees are en-.
titled to bargain collectively through
the same union which represents
the employees they supervise.
The net result of these rulings
is to place supervisory personnel in
an anomalous position in which
their fiduciary obligation to man.
agement may conflict with their
membership obligation to the labor
union"
There could be no industrial sta
blllty If the personnel to whom
management must delegate its func-
tlons in day-by-day dealings with
the workers is subjected to the
disciplinary measures of the labor
organizations which represent these
workers" Nor could there be true
collective bargaining" if manage
ment were able to interfere, through
supervisory employees, with the des-
lgnation OF the bargaining agent OF
the workers.
SECTION 10.
This provides that labor unions
may be sued in Federal courts for
breach of collective bargaining
agreements which affects interstate
commerce. 1t is necessary because
collective bargaining between unions
and employers engaged in inter-
state commerce is a matter of ma
tional interest.
1t is a misleading generaliza-
ton to say that State courts are
readily available to enforce and re-
dress breaches in such contracts.
THE vast majority of labor Or
carnations are unincorporated vol
untary associations, and at common
law voluntary associations are not
suable as entities in their common
name. Consequently in the absence
OF statute the rule in all Jurisdictions
is that unincorporated labor unions
cannot be sued in their common
name. In such Jurisdictions, to sub.
ject the union to process it is neces.
sary to make each individual mem.
Der OF the union party to the suit ;
Many States have enacted anti.
injunction laws similar to the Fed.
eral statute. Many courts in those
State Jurisdictions have held that 9
strike In violation of a collective
bargaining agreement is not en-.
joinable.
The absence of an ADEQUATE
forum" to redress such contract
breaches "nullifies one of the pri.
mary purposes of the Wagner Act
to wit, the making of contracts
which shall be binding on both
parties"
The necessity for establishing
union responsibility for violations
OF collective bargaining was cited
years ago by Supreme Court Justice
Brandeis, who held that the "plea
OF unions for immunity, be it from
injunction or from liability for
damages, is as fallacious as the
plea OF the lynchers. If lawless
methods are pursued by trade un-
ions, whether it be by violence, by
intimidation, or by the more peace
full infringement of legal rights,
that lawlessness must be put down
at once and at all costs"
SECTION IL.
This provides that secondaru ho,r.