Evening star., 1946-01-24
Right of Redress Seen
On Phone Strike Here
Writer Points to Clause in Law
Calling for Notice by Union
By David Laurence

Ealing tor Notice by Union
By David Laurence
When long distance telephone service
was interrupted here recently by work
stoppage. did the public have any
redress?
Examination of the Smith Connally
law shows that Congress intended to
provide way by which both the United
States Government and the American
people could sue for damages If injured
in any way by work stoppage not only
on the telephones but In any plant or
facility doing business with the Gov
erment in wartime. Technically,
state of war still exists.
The law requires that in order that
the President may be apprised of
labor disputes" which threaten to inter-
rupt production in wartime, notice must
be given "by the representative of the
employees" to the Secretary of Labor.
the National War Labor Board and the
National Labor Relations Board. In
addition to the notice, there must be
given "a statement of the issues giving
rise" to the labor dispute.
The law does not mention strike"
nor continuous session" of a labor
union nor any Of the other names which
unions give to work stoppages, but speci-
mes that notice must be given of threat
ened labor disputes"
Recent Stoppage Here.
In the recent work stoppage which
tied up suburban Washington and iso-
lated the National Capital from long
distance connections with the rest of
the country for nearly a week, no notice
was given by the representative of the
employees, it being argued that the Incl
dent was caused by the fact that the
members of the union were in con-
tinuous session" for several days. It
would be up to the courts to determine
whether the law was violated, but cer-
tainly on its face there was a labor
dispute" and grievances such as ordi-
narlly occur in labor disputes.
The penalty for failing to give proper
notice is covered by the following pro-
vision of the law:
ANY person who is under duty to per-
form any act required under subsection
'A) and who willfully fails or refuses to
perform such act shall be liable for
damages resulting from such failure or
refusal to any person injured thereby
and to the United States if so injured
THE district courts of the United
States shall have Jurisdiction to hear
ana determine any proceedings insti-
tuted pursuant to this subsection in the
same manner and to the same extent
as IN the case of proceedings instituted
under section "a of the judicial code I"
The act required to be performed
under subsection (A) relates to the
giving of notice. In the absence of
such notice. it would appear that the
courts must try the case for damages
sought by any injured persons or in
terest.
Plainly the business of the United
states Government was seriously i'm
paired by the Interruptions to long
distance service and many citizens were
doubtless injured. The initiative can
be taken by either the Justice Depart
ment or by any citizen in any District
court
Any Person" May Be Sued.
The question will arise as to whether
the union can be sued as such but the
law specifies that ANY person" NAV be
sued for damages who fails to do what
tne statute says and thus causes a
WORK stoppage which Injuries any one
IL would appear also that two or more
persons who conspired to bring about
the refusal to give notice can similarly
be held liable for conspiracy to violate
Federal law.
The Smith -Connally law was a ver-
time measure, but it Is still on the
statute books, since no formal procla-
nation of the ending of the war has
been issued either by the President or
the Congress.
Ihe law is also severe in what han
pens after Government seizure An
individual may stay away from work
~ fA>oSSSb 0Ol ~ 1liUSL De MS own
action uninfluenced by any one else. No
union or group of individuals can issue
such orders to him without violating
the law. Union operations can be par
alyzed once a seizure by the Govern
ment occurs and the union seeks in anv
way to stop a return to work by those
who wish to do so. 1t is believed that
even union meetings designed to pre-
vent back-to-work movements can he
held to be unlawful.
Hence, the report that a major union
official has said that meat-packing en-
ployes will not go back after the Cow
ernment seizes the plants unless they
get wage increase could mean legal
difficulties for the union leaders if thev
make any attempt to bring about con-
certed action by employees on that point
after the plants are seized.