Evening star., 1946-09-03
NLRB Ruling Is Seen
Negoting Constitution
Company Labor Man Can't Visit
Workers Saloon, Decision Holds
By David Laurence

Workers Saloon, Decision Holds
By David Laurence
If you are an employer and happen
to have labor relations director or
supervisor handling labor matters for
you. don't by any means let him 20 any
where near a bar, restaurant. movie
house, grocery store, drugstore, soda
fountain or any other place where en-
ployes may congregate
For the National Labor Relations
Board, by vote of two members to one,
has Just ruled that 1t Is an unfair labor
practice" and violates the Wagner law
for labor relations director to visit a
bar where employees may be congregat-
ing. And, since not all union members
frequent places where hard liquor is
sold, the ban presumably extends to
soft-drink establishments as we'll
1t doesn't matter that the gathering
places are public and union members
presumably do not talk about their
secrets in public, but, unfortunately.
such union members cannot take care
OF themselves and must come under the
protection OF the Labor Relations Board,
ana. their remarks or comments must
be safeguarded from being overheard.
Maybe bars hereafter will have to in
stall soundproof walls and forbid the
entry Of employers or labor relations
directors, or operate some sort of seq
regation scheme.
Ruling In Clark Case.
Maybe the Labor Relations Board
soon will have some suggestions along
this line 1t merely says for the present,
IN the Clark case just decided that to
visit bar under the circumstances out
lined Is violation Of the Wagner law.
The board majority says:
The trial examiner found that
lhomas L. Moody, the respondents
(employer's) labor relations director.
engaged in surveillance by visiting a
drinking establishment on several oc-
casions for the specific purpose Of over
hearing employe conversations regard
ing the organizational campaign Of the
C1O. We agree that such conduct is
violative Of the act. It Is not a defense
ployer) asserts, that the employees may
have been without knowledge Of the
surveillance. ANY real surveillance bv
the employer over the union activity
OF employees, whether frankly open or
carefully concealed, falls under the
prohibitions of the act CNLRB VS.. COL
Inns and Aikman)"
The question of what is or 1. not
surveillance" is here open to some de-
bate. Spying by using stooges at union
meetings is forbidden surveillance, but
| presence In barroom where union mem
oers congregate publicly seems hardly
on par with spying inside a union
meeting. The trial examiner, whose
findings have been adopted in the Clark
case by a majority of the board, says:
with respect to Moodys testimony,
concerning his visits to the bars, the
undersigned (trial examiner) finds, par.
tlcularly In view Of Moody's express ad-
mission as to the purpose of his visits,
that Moody's conduct constituted sur
velllance by the respondent (enfployer)
OF union activities and Of the union
activities of its employees. This finding
is not affected by the fact that Moody
also testified that his object was not
70 md out what employees were inter-
eSted In the union but rather to learn
Wnat was being said in the campaign.
1t Is obvious that campaign statements
OF employees cannot be divorced from
organ1zational activities and that what
employees say under such circumstances
Will reflect their attitude toward and
even membership in union.
Defense Without Merit.
The employers defense that there is
no showing that any of the employees
had any knowledge that Moody over
heard any Of their conversations, or
that any employees were Disseminated
against as result thereof, is clearly
without merit. Moody's conduct was
nonetheless an interference with the
employees rights to self-organization."
Thus it appears that, even though no
discrimination was practiced and even
though the presence Of the labor di-
rector was not observed by the union
men so that no possible charge of in
timidation could be lodged against him,
the board says it was an interference"
with the employees rights to self-organi-
zation' for the labor relations director
to have visited the bar In question.
The foregoing is related in detail so
as to report the extent to which the
National Labor Relations Board inter-
"prets the Wagner law as superseding
the Constitution and all personal Iiber-
ties Of the citizen. The board now rules,
in effect, that If an employer does any,
thing which has hitherto been protected
by the Constitution and Supreme Court
decisions and If it conflicts with the
Wagner labor relations law-then the
latter law supersedes everything. The
| Constitution apparently must give way
| to the Wagner law.
Reproduction RiEhts Reserved.
Prove 1t!