Evening star., 1947-05-07

f1ghL Tree SpccCLs
Whiles the House bill contains a
free-speech clause that is much
clearer than that of the Senate bill,
both clauses will be valueless IN the
future and any Labor Relations
Board members hereafter can merely
repeat the decisions of the past and
Justify themselves by the language
of the proposed statute.
Unless the employees can talk
frankly to one another about the
circumstances surrounding employ
'ment and working conditions, it Is
the workers who will suffer most
because the employer will be pre-
vented from telling them the truth
about the particular circumstances
or economic conditions at his plant
which may require different treat
ment from those of his competitor.
Background Doctrine.
For several years the labor board
interpreted the Wagner Act in such
a way as to make it an unfair labor
practice for an employer to speak
freely to his employees. Then, when
the Supreme Court defined free
speech little more clearly, the
board took refuge in a device known
as the background doctrine" The
board ruled IN many cases that the
speech of an employer itself was all
right but that, taken in connection
with what some foreman might have
said some months before, the whole
thing under all circumstances"
would constitute an unfair labor
practice.
The Senate bill retains the under
all circumstance" clause and goes
even further to say an employer
cannot tell his employees how they
would suffer under a proposed union
contract or how they would be bene-
fited If he were allowed to put into
effect different set of working
rules in his own plant.
The difficulty in writing this par
ticular provision lies in the fact
that the Senators are not familiar
with the manner in which the Labor
Board has confused what it calls
"coercive conduct" with free speech.
All the Senators need to do is to
read some of the cases and also to
read the frank confession by JUS
tice Robert Jackson in a case de-
cided by the Supreme Court on
January 5, 1945, known as Thomas
VS.. Collins, in which the unfairness
of the so-called background doc
trine" is fully exposed.
The case revolved around Texas
statute which endeavored to, pro-
hibit union organizers from operat-
ing without a State license. The
Supreme Court ruled that the ord
nance was unconstitutional because
1t interfered with freedom Of speech.
What jackson Said.
Justice jackson said:
"I must admit that In overriding
the findings of the Texas court we
are applying to Thomas rule the
benefit of which In all its breadth
and vigor this court denies to en-
ployers in National Labor Relations
Board cases."
There followed list. of cases in
which the Supreme Court has inter-
preted the Wagner Acts coercion
clauses as meaning that an en-
ployer cannot speak freely. Justice
Jackson added:
However, the remedy is not to
allow Texas improperly to deny the
right of free speech but to apply
the same rule and spirit to free
speech cases whoever the speaker.
Free speech on both sides and
for every faction on any side of
the labor relation is to me consti-
tutional and useful right. Labor Is
free to turn its publicity on any
labor oppression, substandard wages,
employer unfairness, or objection
able working conditions. The en-
ployer, too, should be free to an
swer, and to turn publicity on the
records of the leaders or the unions
which seek the confidence Of his
men. And if the employees or Or
ganizers associate violence or other
offense against the laws with Ia
boris free speech, or If the en-
ployer's speech is associated with
discriminatory discharges or inti-
midation. the constitutional remedy
would be to stop the evil, but per-
NIT the speech. II the two are separa-
BILE; and only rarely and when they
are inseparable to stop or punish
speech or publication"
Reproduction Rights Reserved)