Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1946-08-30
Employer Talk Ruling
OF NLRB Is AssuiIed
Savors Too Much of Nazi Theory
of Burning Peoples Books
By David Laurence


By David Laurence
Oliver Wendell Holmes, the great
jurist whose liberalism is universally
acknowledged, once said from the bench
of the Supreme Court of the United
States that freedom of speech Is "free-
dom for the thought We hate"
But the National Labor Relations
Board, in It's latest decision, In effect
takes issue with that idea. 1t calls the
making of a speech about union mat
tiers by an employer to his employees
during working hours "coercive" act
and not privileged by the Constitution.
The reason given Is that the audience
was compulsory" or captive"
Just why American citizens must be
protected against opinions they may not
like and must be protected by the full
force of the law from listening to an
opinion with which they may differ.
seems difficult to explain unless per-
chance it is that trade unionism in
America cannot stand on its merits
and that workers must be prevented
at all costs from hearing view other
than that which the union organizers
may present to them.
Suspicion Created.
The latest Labor Relations Board de-
cision creates the suspicion that maybe
the employers occasionally do have an
argument which may be persuasive with
their employees, but the workers must
not be allowed to hear it. This is not
decision that will enhance the prestige
| of the National Labor Relations Board,
nor will it tend to improve employer
employee relations in America 1t savors
too much of the theory so prevalent in
| Germany under the Nazis that the way
| to educate the people was to burn their
| books and keep them from reading any
| literature except that which q totali-
tartan authority, protected by law, per-
mitted them to read.
Here is an excerpt from the boards
| decision in the case of Clark Brothers,
a manufacturing establishment located
at Olean, N. Y:
1--WE are also of the opinion, and find,
that the conduct of the respondent (the
| employeD in compelling its employees to
listen to speech on self-organization
under the circumstances hereinabove
outlined and as more fully revealed in
| the intermediate report, independently
| constitutes interference, restraint, and
coercion within the meaning of the act
(the Wagner Labor Relations Law. 49,
! 1.-THE board has long recognized that
the rights guaranteed to the employees
by the act include the full freedom to
receive aid, advice, and information
from others concerning those rights and
| their enjoyment Such freedom is
meaningless, however, unless the en-
ployes are also free to determine
whether or not to receive such aid,
| advice, and information. To force en-
ployes to receive such aid and advice,
and information impairs that free
dom; it is calculated to, and does,
! interfere with the selection Of repre-
sentative Of the employees choice. And
| this is so, wholly apart from the fact
that the speech itself may be privileged
under the Constitution"
The decision apparently doubts the
capacity of American citizens to listen
to speech and disregard it If they like.
Something must be wrong with the
minds of American workers that an
official board in Washington declares in
effect that, once having listened to a
speech, the listener is incapable of re-
jecting its argument and must be pro-
tected by law against thought he dis
likes.
Vigorous Dissent.
Gerard Reilly, retiring member of the
Labor Board. wrote a vigorous dissent in
which he declared that the Supreme
Court of the United States had settled
the issue in case known as Thomas
VS.. Collins and in another ruling in the
American Tube Bending case.
This board" writes Mr. Reilly,
eventually acquiesced In this decision
tons or to issue cease and desist orders
against employers who made antiunion
speeches or circulated antiunion litera-
ture, If they refrained from threats or
intimidatory conduct. Recently, how
ever, there has been disturbing tend
ency by the board to return to its old
line of decisions on the theory that be-
cause there was some minor aspect of
interference, speech should be viewed
as part Of a pattern of coercive con-
duct even in cases where 1t was clear
that the offending speech was only CO.
ercive or fnextricably intertwined in
the most highly metaphorical sense
Such findings have been made even
where employers were confronted with
highly infiammatory union literature,
although one Of the foremost labor
lawyers in the country recognized, in a
recent article in the official organ of
the A. F. Of L., that If freedom OF
speech Is to survive for trade unions and
their members, it must not be denied,
directly or indirectly, to employers"
The Clark case is likely to be made
the basis for legislative action when
Congress reconvenes, though it is puz-
cling to figure out how Congress can
safeguard by law the right of free
speech which is already guaranteed by
the Constitution but is now flagrantly
disregarded by Government board.
Reproduction Rights Reserved)
Hot to Hondle
From the Abbevile toa) Chronicle.
At the time of going to press. they
hadn't decided what to do with the
ioH hot 40