Evening star., 1947-10-19
Justice Departments Role
In Labor Law Enforcement
Many Lose Sight of Its Importance in
Keeping Act Alive
By Gerard d. Reilly


IN enforcing the provisions of the new labor
law will be tested shortly by reason of action
taken in the closing days of the AFI and CIO
conventions. Although members of the Joint
Committee of the House and Senate have said
from time to time that they will keep watch
lul eye upon the actions of the National Labor
Helatlons Board, little has been said about the
possibility OF the act being sabotaged by other
agencies in the executive branch of the Cow
ernment.
The preoccupation of Congress and the pub
Tic In the reorganization of the Labor Board
has caused many persons to overlook the fact
that in three important respects the act NAV
become dead letter unless the ATTORNEY Cen
eral and his subordinates, including the United
States attorneys and the FBI, are vgilant in
the performance of their duties
Most of the actions which EMPLOYERS and
labor organizations are forbidden to engage in
by the act are defined as unfair labor prac-
tlces. Consequently such conduct is to be dealt
with by the Labor Board. But the act contains
three prohibitions which carry criminal pen
alties:
Cd The section which makes false affidavit
filed by an officer of labor union with respect
to his membership or affiliation with the Com
munist Party violation of section 35A of the
Criminal Code.
CD The ban on political contributions or ex-
pendltures by national banks, corporations and
labor organizations
90 The limitation on employer contribu.
tions to labor unions except, where such con-
trbutions conform to the new regulations on
wage deductions (checkoffs) and welfare funds.
So far as vigorous enforcement of the third
of these provisions is concerned the record of
the department to date has not been promis-
ing. Prior to the act there was nothing in any
Federal law which prevented unions and en-
ployers from making any agreement they saw
fit with respect to deducting money from the
wages of employees for the benefit of the
unions Under the new law no deduction or
checkof may be made except with the volun-
tary written consent of the individual en-
ployes and then only with respect to dues.
Early this summer the bituminous coal
operators and the United Mine Workers signed
an agreement under which not only were union
dues to be checked off, but also initiation fees
There can be little doubt that this clause did
violence to the checkof provisions, for Con-
gress in other sections of the act had shown
an awareness that dues and initiation fees
were different kinds of payments and distin-
guished between them. Therefore, to the ex-
tent that initiation fees have since been
checked off from miners wages under the
terms of this agreement, it would seem that
both the mining company which deducted
them and the union representatives who re-
ceived them are subject to the criminal penal
ties imposed by this section. Yet not single
prosecution has been initiated.
Still worse from the standpoint Of securing
ro1 y, ~
ment Of Justice declined to clarity the situa-
ton by any statement or press release. The
result has been that employers in scores of
report that the unions are high
them into putting illegal checkoff
provisions into their contracts, because Of the
precedent" established in the bituminous
agreement.
To be sure, the reluctance of the Depart
ment of Justice to issue advisory opinions on
svery phase of the law is understandable. An
experiment with policy of this sort was once
tried by the Antitrust Division when Col
William Donovan was In charge. 1t was
abandoned by his successors after 1t developed
that the department was being used to put
Its seal of approval upon various ingenious
schemes for evading the Sherman and Clayton
Acts.
This Is quite different thing however, from
the Attorney Generals refraining from COM
ment when plans for violating the law are
being proposed in full public view. Recently
Mr.. Clark, in order to check imitation, an
nounced that he regarded the price policies Of
certain manufacturers as illegal and that he
to take action. There is no reason
why similar statements on the labor law might
not also prove deterrent, Examples in point
are not only the widely publicized coal contract,
out also the steps proposed by the two con-
ventions for disregarding the political contri-
oution section. Some CIO spokesmen went
70 far as to denounce the Department Of JUS
tice for examining the way the CIO has
financed propaganda in recent interim con-
yressional elections by stating that the CIo
made no bones about violating the law since
t believed 1t was unconstitutional.
At the AFL convention 1t was decided to
raise a 100000 campaign fund by levying
. special assessment on all the constituent
Unions. Presumably this would mean either
that the afilated unions must raise their
membership dues to meet this quota or else
defray the amount Of the deficit, should volun-
tary contributions fail, out of their general
funds Either Of these devices would be
illegal, for If there is one thing clear about
the political expenditure part of the law It
was that Congress meant to prevent money
held in trust for stockholders and union men,
bers being disbursed by corporate or union
into political channels, irrespec-
tive Of the views of the individual.
In other words, the thrust of the statute
is simply against the use Of other peoples
money and does not infringe in any respect
upon the rights Of freedom of speech or press
guaranteed by the Constitution. Moreover, in
the interest of preventing national elections
from being purchased, the courts have upheld
the constitutionality of the Federal Corrupt
Practices Act even though the limitations on
expenditures contained in that
statute impair to.som extent the freedom Of
candidates to make as many radio speeches
as they or their hackers could afford.
The Liberals
From the Los Angeles Times.
rrt.> ,v{f, {6a