Evening star., 1947-05-27


gaining, the board has q rule which
really prevents a majority Of the
employees from declining to be rep
resented BY q union.
Thus, the rule is that If the ballot
contains the name Of CIO union,
an ATL union and a third category
no union-tne board would, OF
course, designate as bargaining unit
the union which received major
ity. II, however, neither the AFL
nor the CIO got a majority, the
board would order "run-off" elec-
tion and, instead Of keeping on the
new ballot the two categories which
received the highest number of votes,
the rule requires that the mo union
voting be discarded and the run
off" ballot contain only the names
of the two rival unions, even IL one
Of them had come out third in the
initial election.
Herzog's Statement Cited.
The Senate and House bills both
recognize the unfairness of this La
Dor Board rule and specifically re-
quire that the two highest categories
be put on q "run-off" ballot. 1t Is
interesting to note what Paul Her
zog, the able chairman Of the Ma
tional Labor Relations Board, holds
in q case handed down by the board
this week:
IT join in the result. believing my
self bound in this case by the exist
ing board rules and regulations con-
corning run-of elections, long since
promulgated and in existence when
these elections were conducted. Were
I free to hold otherwise, however, I
should be disposed to agree with the
employers objection to the exclusion
of the neither choice from the run
of ballot where, as here, it was the
preference of the second largest
number Of employees in the initial
election. 1t would seem to me more
logical, and more consistent with
accepted practice in American poll
tical elections, to permit participants
in run-off elections to select be-
tween the two choices that received
the highest number of votes in the
original balloting.
II think 1t highly speculative to
assume, as the promulgators OF the
present rule evidently did, that a
majority of votes for two unions
taken together necessarily signifies
that those employees who selected
one of them would surely prefer
to bargain through the other rather
than refrain, temporarily, from Sc
lecting any bargaining representa-
tive. A comparison of the results
OF the two elections conducted in
this very case indicates that the
assumption Is open to sufficient
question to make it urlwise for this
board to depart from the practice
to which our fellow citizens have
become accustomed in other types of
elections. Were this a matter of
discretion, I should hold accordingly.
But, as 1t is not, the rule must pre-
vail as long as it remains the rule"
Simple Fairness.
Here is a matter of simple fair
ness in the conduct of elections, yet
a rule has been in effect for many
years deliberately denying employees
the right to reject union and COM
pelling them to choose as between
unions.
The rule, of course, is one that
the members of the board can alter
at will but in view Of the fact that
1t has been in operation so long,
there is hesitancy to change it. One
cannot estimate the number of
elections in which workers already
have been forced into q union by
this unfair rule of the Labor Re-
lations Board.
The episode illustrates, on the
other hand. the need for definite
legislative standards. Instead of
leaving 1t to board of three to
make rules on such vital issues, Con-
gress has duty to prescribe stand
ards, 1t has not been considered
a sound expression Of constitutional
law Tor Congress to delegate legisla-
tive power to administrative agen-
cies or even quasi judicial boards.
The sound theory has been to in
sist on standards whenever legisla-
tive power is delegated.
Congress has discovered that the
problem of operating a collective
bargaining law introduces all sorts
of ramifications which could not
have been foreseen in 1885 when the
Wagner Law was passed. Congress
rightly, therefore, Is writing legisla-
ton to limit delegated power and to
instruct the Labor Board in some
simple rules Of fairness which ap-
parently cannot be left to the dis
cretion of changing personnel but
must be defined in the law. Yet
in the face of such obvious needs,
labor-union leaders are striving for
the defeat Of all legislation that
might correct the unfairness of ex-
tsting statutes.