Evening star., 1946-12-10
employers Subject
To Many Injunctions

10 MuHy mJunCtiOnS
New Congress Faces Major Task
in Restraining of Both Sides
By David Laurence
The American people are being edu-
Gated on the subject Of injunctions In
labor disputes. They know now that
labor unions are protected by . special
law passed by Congress IN l932-for
which many Republicans voted-where-
by labor unions are exempt from the in
junction process.
What most people do not know Is that
employers are subject to all sorts OF in
functions and have no immunity what
soever.
Thus q union cannot be restrained
from concerted action Of its members
and cannot be charged with monopoly
even though 1t has "closed shop" con-
tracts with an employer requiring him
to discharge any one who doesn't become
or is not already member Of union.
But an employer Is liable to have
temporary restraining order or an m
junction issued against him for varie-
ty Of reasons.
In fact, whenever the National Labor,
Relations Board says an employer has
violated It's orders, application can be
made to Federal court for an injunc-
ton against the employer. II he fails
to obey the Injunction, the employer can
60 to jail for contempt or suffer fine
as the case may be.
Orders Are Various.
The orders of the National Labor Re-
iations Board are various. II, for instance,
a personnel director OF an employer
happens to 60 to public saloon or res
taurant where labor union employees
gather, he can be accused OF an unfair
labor practice" and both he and the
employer can have an injunction issued
against them.
If an employer talks to his employees
and makes speech which differs from
the viewpoint Of the employees, on the
subject Of unionization, the Labor Board
can read into that speech whatever 1t
wishes on the subject Of coercion and
issue an Injunction against an employer
so he will not exercise what he thinks
is free speech" again. He can be
stopped by court injunction against
repeating the ideas he has previously
uttered.
A union can stop in the middle Of ne
gotiations, put up frivolous propositions
with no serious intent to reach an un-
derstanding and can even refuse to ne
gotiate, but there is no penalty. II an
employer, however, refuses to bar
gain in good faith" he can be enjoined
by court order after the Labor Board
has filed such petition to the court
Curiously enough, it isn't 'involun.
tary servitude" and 1t isn't yellow
dog injunction" when the employers are
the victims Of the injunction but II Q
labor union is to be made an1enable to
Labor Board orders, this raises 4 hue
and cry OF oppression"
In order to make labor problems as
they relate to law enforcement two
sided instead Of one-sided. the La
Guardia- Morris anti-injunction law
either should be amended to eliminate
the blanket immunity or else employers
should also be freed from the Injunction
strait jacket.
Law Encourages Uniens. n
The present Law has encouraged the
labor unions to believe that no injlnc-
tions whatsoever may be Issued sSSinst
them. Actually, in cases Of violence and
mass picketing, the Federal courts
could act but they have hesitated to do
SO. Indeed, In q sitdown strike IN the
Apex hosiery plant near Philadelphia.
an actual interruption in Interstate
commerce took place, but the Supreme
Court OF the United States, which had
come to be dominated by q New Deal
maiority, ruled that the laws governing :
interruption to interstate commerce did
not apply to labor unions because OF r
special laws like the La Guardia Norris :
Act and the antitrust laws 81
What is needed is an explicit prof1i-
bition Of interferences with Interstate
commerce where physical coercion is :
used by unions. II the labor unions
wish to retain their immunity from In
functions, then employers should also
be immunized against injunctions for
acts they may wish to take to restrain
unions from interfering with their nor
NAL operations.
Obviously the country wants the
courts to be able to restrain beth sides
labor unions and employers-when acts
are committed which imperil the public
interest. The issue In the Lewis case is
novel because the Government is in
volved In q labor dispute. But the
damage to the American economic sys-
tenn is just as great and the danger is
even greater when the dispute Is be-
tween the mine owners and the miners
unions. To say that no injunction can
be applied against either side Is to say
that the public interest cannot be pro-
tected by the courts even though the
how Of goods In interstate commerce
may actually be impeded by physical
restraints
Congress certainly has been given
task Of major importance--to straighten
out the use Of iniunctions 10 that they
apply to both sides equally or to neither
side.
Reproduction Rishts Reservsd.)
The Happy Warrior!
Prom Y'Oeil fNontreal)