Evening star., 1947-05-25
Plant Guards Belong
In Independent Unions
Affiliation With Other Groups Held
Conducive to Conflict
Bu Gerard D. ReilIy

AfEiliation With Other Groups Held
Conducive to Conflict
By Gerard D. Reilly
Two opinions of the Supreme Court last week
on the unionization Of factory guards have re-
yived the interest of Congress in one OF the
most controversial issues to come before the
National Labor Relations Board in recent years.
Under the holdings of majority of the court,
guards are now legally entitled to all the rights
given employees by the Wagner Act. In one
case. decided 6-3, the court upheld a Labor
Roard ruling to this effect where the guards
had been nilitarized by the War Department.
and then by 5-4 vote, applied the same rue
where they had been deputized as special ofn-
GERS by municipal police department.
The close division among the Justices indl-
Gates that these decisions may not write the
final chapter on the subject. The Hartley LABOR
bill which passed the House excludes plant
police forces from the coverage OF the National
labor Relations Act. A similar provision IN the
Senate bill was discarded In committee Con-
seuuently this is one of the differences between
the proposed revisions of the wagner ACT
which the conferees are now attempting W
reconcile.
The trend toward union organization among
nlant protection personnel was wartime pne-
tion of foremen, which it paralleled in many
resnects. it has also become one OF the most
troublesome of the postwar problems with
which American industry is faced.
Prior tn 1e41, plant guard forces were largely
,,noroanized In fact with the disclosures Oh
tba Ia Toilette Committee fresh in mind, the
roilitant Clio unions were inclined TO regard
them as in the category OF natural eneniles'
With the outbreak Of the war, union pollcS
with respect to them was rapidly revised. Inc
great increase in the number OF plant guaroS,
brought about by the fear at the war ano
Navy Departments OF widespread saDoeaee hi
establishments producing war materials oneieu
a tempting and virgin field for the union
oroanizer But since most of these guards
had the duty of reporting on employees VINO
violated plant safety rules as well as protecting
the property against possible seizure or damage
in violent labor dispute, the more pruoene
unions were prevailed upon for while 10
refrain from any feelers in that direction. IN
Detroit and Cleveland, however, a nomlnally
independent union was established 10 recruit
members among the guards at AIRCRAFT anu
armored truck plants. When the questlon oi
certifying this group first came peiore tne
Labor Board, the danger OF guards being oraWh
into the general union orbit was argued. Inc
language of the Wagner Act PROVIDED no
definite answer as the situation had not oeen
foreseen by the Congress which formuateo ana
passed the statute After some hesltaton' the
hoard granted the petition, noting tnat tne
petitioning organization was not connecteo
with the United Auto Workers (C1O), the union
which represented the bulk of the workers III
these plants.
Events Immediately after certifcatlon now
ever, caused the board some concern lne ne"
union promptly accepted charter from Che
1JAW. thereby making 1t painfully apparent
that its creation as an independent nao Deeh
a mere feint in CIO organizing campaign.
Thoroughly alarmed by this new development
the War Department decided to enroll guards
in ma ior plants as part of the reserve forces
of the ARMY. The Navy followed suit In plants
which had Navy contracts by swearing the
p,,ard personnel into the Coast Guard Reserve
Although advised by Government lawyers that
the impact of the Wagner Act could be safely
avoided only If the guards were placed on the
departmental payrolls, the War and Navy De-
uartments continued to let the contractors De
responsible for their wages, hours and working
conditions.
No financial saving resulted from this anom-
alous arrangement as the salaries OF the guards
were chargeable to the Government as relm-
bursable expense under cost-plus contracts.
What did result, however, was the assimilation
of the guards by CIO and AFL unions, as the
military establishments authorized the unions
to organize their reserves provided they were
segregated from other employees in separate bar
gaining units. In practice, because the union
which represented the production employees was
usually successful in organizing the guards, the
segregation was more theoretical than real.
The unions were also able to utilize the election
machinery of the Labor Board in the organizing
process, since the board felt 1t unwise to deem
the militarized guards as having acquired
status not recognized by the War and Navy
Departments.
These rulings were challenged by employers.
however, and in one case the Circuit Court OF
Appeals held that the fact that the War De-
partment asserted so great degree of control
over the guards meant that they were no longer
employees OF the company in any real sense OF
the word 1t was this decision, the Atkins case,
which the Supreme Court reversed in the first
of the opinions handed down this week.
The companion case involving the Jones IL
Laughlin Steel Corp, presented more dim
cult issue. There the guards, after being de-
militarized at the conclusion Of the war, had
been retained in the employ Of the company
but had been deputized as members OF the
Cleveland police force. While the board had
placed them in separate bargaining unit, 1t
had nevertheless certified as their bargaining
representative the Steelworkers Union tCIo),
to which the production workers Of the plant
already belonged 49,.
The obvious possibility Of conflicting all
legiance led the Circuit Court to say that the
board had failed to give adequate consider
alton to the public welfare The court also
observed that lin cases Of industrial unrest and