Evening star., 1947-07-08

coal agreement, the operators would
agree with the union not to use
the damage-suit provisions Of the
law. This would be all right so far
as the two parties are concerned.
But if a coal company failed to
deliver coal to a customer on time
according to a contract for such
delivery, and a work stoppage was
then offered as an excuse, this
would not be of any avail If the
customer of the coal company could
point to the negligence of the coal
operator in falling to take advan-
tage of his rights to obtain dam
ages under the law for breach OF
contract between him and his union.
Strange Idea on Contracts.
Also there is a strange idea pre-
valent in some quarters that all the
unions need to do now is to refrain
from having any written contracts,
and then they can do as they please
without regard to the penalties OF
the Tsft- Hartley law. Thus the
International Association Of Ma
chinists in an announcement just
made to- the press says:
1.-THE law still permits worker
to quit his job. Men will learn
to do so effectively. The law seems
to make much litigation where
contracts exist; so men will learn
now to work without contracts on
terms which they have agreed upon
among themselves. This is not COL
lective bargaining but the bargain
ing is not necessary if there is only
one price"
The foregoing seems to overlook
certain basic facts. One is that
each individual would have to do
mis- own bargaining and reach a
separate agreement with the en-
ployer or else some agency would
nave to be designated by the work.
ers to represent them as bar
gaining agent. If every individual
made his own agreement, the union
would disappear altogether from the
negotiations and employers would
be free to vary the wages with diff
ferent individuals. 1t Is difficult
to perceive just why a worker would
want to continue to pay dues to a
Union If it did no bargaining IN
his behalf.
If, on the other hand, the union
attempted to make agreements fol
each individual worker and did not
care to put those terms in writing
this would not in any way remove
the contract from existence. For g
verbal understanding is a contract
and the Supreme Court held, ever
under the Wagner law, that an EN-.
ployer could be required to put ir
contract form any agreement he
had reached orally with his workers
as to wages and working conditions
Provision In Law.
There Is, moreover, in the Taft
Hartley law provision which says
For the purposes of this section
to bargain collectively Is the per.
formance of the mutual obligation
Of the employer and the representa-.
tive of the employees to meet at rea-
sonahle times and to confer in gooc
faith with respect to wages, hours
and other terms and conditions o1
employment, or the negotiation o1
an agreement, or any question aris-
ing hereunder and the execution ol
a written contract incorporating any
agreement reached II requested BY
either party -.
Thus, if the employer asks the
union for contract in writing, 1t
can get 1t and the agreements o.
understandings already reached
must then be reduced to writing
There is another provision In tht
new law which requires a notice O.
go days and the fulf1llment Of GER
tain other obligations before union
can bring about a work stoppage
Even if there Is no termination o.
notification clause in the contrac
and it Is a verbal affair, 80 days
notice must be given before worl
stoppage can occur. The new Law
further defines strike" as IAN.
strike or other concerted stoppag
of work by employees including
stoppage by reason of the expiration
Of collective-bargaining agree
ment and any concerted showdown
or other concerted interruption O
operations by employees. y
There is such a thing as Grim
inal statute applying to those wh'
conspire to violate the laws of tn
United States If any persons thinl
that they can teach men to qui
work in concert, they may fin'
themselves entangled in the law
Workers do have the right to qui
individually, but If 1t is proved tina
they did so by secret instruction
from union or by concerted actor
or as a result of the acts of leaders
there is basis for prosecution o
willful violation of the new statute
Reproduction Rights ReserveO