Evening star., 1946-12-29
Veteran. Sues Union
In Seniority Row

High Court Weighs Arguments in
New Employment Issue
By Gerard D. Reilly
Owing to the foresight of Congress
millions Of men who had served in the
armed forces have been reabsorbed in
civilian occupations during the past
year without having to undergo phase
of unemployment, and consequent dis
enchantment, which was the lot of
many of the veterans Of the First World
War. In this period OF readjustment
employers and labor leaders have been
wise enough for the most part to avoid
policies which would tend to drive a
wedge between ex-servicemen and their
co-workers.
A deviation from this general rule,
which reflects no credit upon the union
responsible for it, was revealed last
week by little publicized case which
was argued in the Supreme Court-a
suit by a veteran named Lawrence
Whirls against his employer, the Trail
mobile Co., and the United Automobile
Workers Union, CIO. The case arose
under section 8(c) of the Selective
Service Act, which provides that where
a returning veteran Is entitled to his
old job he shall be restored without loss
of seniority and shall not be dis
charged from such position without
cause within one year of his restora-
ton" In writing this section Congress
made no provision for enforcement by
administrative process but instead des-
ignated the Department of Justice as
kind of legal bureau to help the ex-
serviceman obtain his rights, by direct
ing the United States attorneys to enter
appearances in the Federal courts for
employees aggrieved by violations of the
act.
A considerable volume of needless
litigation was precipitated with respect
to another clause in this section two
years ago through an ill-advised ruling
OF Gen. Hershey, the director OF Selec-
tive Service. Although it seemed rea-
sonably clear that when Congress pro-
vided that the discharged soldier should
be restored to his former position or
position of like seniority, status and pay,
it had in mind simply putting the vet
eran back in his old place on the senior
ity list, Gen. Hershey attributed super
seniority to this legislation.
Under his Interpretation, a veteran
returning to factory where he was
employed prior to the war was to be
credited with more seniority than those
ahead of him on the list at the time of
his induction, by reason Of longer service
with the company. In other words, II
Employe Jones was hired in 1885 and
Employe Smith in 1887, and the latter
was indicted into the armed service, he
was deemed entitled not only to ac-
crued seniority for his years in military
service, but somehow to have acquired
priority over Employe Jones. Companies
following this Interpretation would,
therefore, lay OF Jones rather than
Smith in the event Of reduction In
force, even though Jones-as actually
happened in some instances-was
veteran OF the First World War. The
Hershey ruling caused great consterna-
ton among organized workers, for
seniority under union contracts is re-
garded as a vested right, but was ulti-
mately rejected by decision of the
Supreme Court last term in the case
known as Fishgold VS.. Sullivan Drydock
Corp.
The Whirls case, however, presents
the converse Of this situation. In this
action the veteran contends that he
was cheated of the seniority he had as
of the date Of his induction by the
operation Of q closed-shop agreement
which was written deliberately to give
a group of Junior employees higher
seniority. 1t appears, from the undis-
puted facts that Whirls was the victim
of an unusually sharp piece of union
politics. The plaintiff, who had been
painter in the Highland Body Co.,
entered the Army in 1912, was dis
charged in 1943 and returned to his old
job In the meantime, the operations
of the Highland company had been in
tegrated in the operations Of its parent,
the Trailmobile company, which had
mushroomed as result of war con-
tracts to an organization employing
about 1000 persons. The Highland plant
employed only 100. Prior to the merger
both groups Of employees had been
covered by single collective bargaining
agreement with an AFL union. When
the Highland employees were about to
be transferred to the larger plant, a
question was raised by the newer en-
ployes at Trailmobile with regard to
their seniority rights. The Executive
Council of the AFL decided that all
employees should be accorded seniority
as of the date they had been employed
by their respective Companies.
* X Y
Although this ruling was manifestly
in harmony with the spirit of the old
collective agreement which had treated
the employees of both companies as one
integrated bargaining unit, it was. not
pleasing to the newer Trailmobile en-
ployes as they looked ahead to the in
evitable postwar contraction. The rival
UAW-CIO, alert for possible defections,
thereupon filed petition for an election.
Its campaign literature promised that
if the CIO became the bargaining repre-
sentative, it would subordinate the rights
of transferees from Highland to the