Evening star., 1946-11-25
Coal Strike Seen Test
Of Law Over Labor

OF Low Over Labor
CIO, AFL Protest on Injunction
Stirs Issue of Unions Immunity
By Darid Laurence
# Are labor union leaders above the law2
Can they ignore the statutes and do as
they please and, when the Government
takes action. may they retaliate with
impunity by threats against the safety
and health Of the American people?
This is the big issue that now has
arisen and 1t transcends the fright to
strike" and the merits Of the controversy
over whether the Government did or
did not have right to consider its con-
tract with the coal miners as binding.
When the CIO and the AFL leaders,
who had no just reason to interfere,
took the side Of Lewis, it merely con-
firmed what had for some time been
feared-that the top labor leaders In
America have little respect for Govern
mental institutions where labor disputes
are involved.
The action Of the CIO and the AFL
In condemning the temporary injunction
issued by Justice Alan Goldsborough was
the worst blunder ever made by labor
union leaders, for it brought into the
open their contempt for judicial proc
esSes.
Had they expressed their opinion after
the temporary restraining order had
been ruled upon, the CIO and AFL would
have been on sound ground. For 1t Is
after all broad legal question as to
whether the injunctiye process can be
used in labor dispute when the Gov
ernmens is party. -
The issue raised by Justice Colds
borough, however, was not whether the
Government did or did not have right
to consider the contract in force. The
issue was whether the orderly processes
Of judicial procedure could be used to
find out whether the contract was or
was not binding.
Move Was Exploratory.
All that Justice Goldsborough did was
to order the case tried. His temporary
restraining order is In accord with NC.
customed practice, namely to hold the
status quo until argument could be
heard. He wanted the notice Of termi-
nation withdrawn by Mr.. Lewis. But
the CIO and AFL leaders apparently
did not believe in giving the law fair
chance. They condemned the court for
even trying to find out whether the
Lewis contract with the Government
was subject to termination.
The expressions by the AFL and CIO
could mean that no issues of legal
nature are subject even to temporary
restraining orders where a labor union
is involved and that the judicial branch
of the Government is helpless to call .
labor union into court when 1t appar-
emily violates q law or damages the
Government itself or its property.
This position Of the AFL and CIo
| leaders will be resented by the American
people and particularly by the rank and
| file of AFL and CIO members who ara
law-abiding citizens and who do not
want to encourage lynch law In America.
It Is usually the orderly process of law
| enforcement which Is regarded as too
slow by the hotheads who participate in
| lynchings.
The CIO and AFL as organizations
have often condemned lynch law, but
when they condemn the orderly method
Of seeking to find out the merits Of q
legal dispute by means Of temporary
restraining order they are saying, in eff
feet, that their unions are above the
inquiries Of the courts.
No Harm Seen In Action.
It may turn out that on final argument
the Norris-La Gsardia Act Is held to
make labor unions immune from the in
jlnctive process. But there can have been
no harm In the action Of Justice Colds
borough In holding that conditions In
the coal mines must remain unaltered
while he examined the merits of the
legal controversy and heard argument.
What the CIO and AFL are objecting
to is the simple effort of the court to find
out the facts before making ruling.
Congress viii have to take cognizancs
OF the CIO and AFL attitude. Public
sentiment now viii demand amendment
of the Norris-La Guardia Act not only to
protect the Government against such
usurpation of power by labor unions but
to protect States and cities and the citi-
zens generally against violence COM
mitted by labor union members who be-
lieve the Norris-La Guardia Act permits
them to use violence.
The original statute was not designed
to give labor unions any such immunity
but the New Zeal Supreme Court inter-
preted the law so narrowly that mass
violence is possible The Federal injunc-
tion power now cannot be used In indus.
trial friction because injunctions specific
cally are to be withheld in labor dis
putes." The Supreme Court has never
ruled on the application of the Norris
law to disputes in which the Government
is party.
Congress will come back in January
Influenced even more by the issues grow.
ing out of the coal strike than by the
other disturbances in the labor field, and
the CIO and AFL leadership will have
only themselves to blame for their poor
strategy In lining themselves up behind
Mr.. Lewis.
fRsproduction Rights Reserved,
Something Like This
From the victoria Colonist.
Something like this should be said,
perhaps, to the average individual liv-
ing in the postwar era Of 1916: "The
war Is over now, although governments