Toledo union journal. [volume] (Toledo, Ohio) 1942-current, 1947-06-06
Washington
LaborReport
BY Bradford V. Carter
LPA COlumnist

4lGAC 40 AAO AA~0bAOA SA~
the Taft-Hartley Bill as it
emerged from the S e n a t e
House conference will serious.
ly impair the effectiveness Of
the unions. 1t will take more
than a law, however, to wreck
the labor movement.
What has not been general
ly recognized is that in pur-
suing their course of vindic.
tiveness, the National Asso.
citation of Manufacturers is
supporting legislation which
is going to put many employ
ers over a barrel. This is not
surprising. &. The anti.labor
crowd in Congress has been
so blinded by its pathological
opposition to the labor move
ment that it has not recog'
nized the damage it has been
doing for its own supporters.
For example, Title III of the
Bill declares that: Suits for
violation of contracts between
an employer and a labor or
Ranization representing en-
ployes in an industry affect
ing commerce as defined in
this act may be brought
in any district court of the
United States"
What this legislation means
is that every grievance in in.
dustry can be subjected to adj
Indication in the courts In
stead of the we'll recognized
grievance procedure or
through arbitration. Tech
nically most grievances are
alleged violations of the agree
ment,
MADNESS
This is sheer madness OF
course. The collective bar
gaining agreement is a dy-
manic and living document
which must be constantly in
terpreted and reinterpreted.
To give the courts, with their
interminable red tape, juris-
diction over what must be the
hundreds of grievances" can
only result in chaotic indus
trial relations with It's in
evitable consequences on pro-
duction and profits.
Everybody who has ever
had any experience with plant
grievances knows that the
give and take of the bargain
ing process is infinitely pre-
ferable to any rigid judicial
procedure in settling these dis
agreements. l can see only
one positive gain in this pro-
vision - and that is the field
day in legal ju.jutsu 1t will
provide for the lawyers.
INTENT
The presumed intent of this
provision Is to do something
called making labor more
responsible" - the IN e ory
being that II the fear OF legal
action were held over the
heads OF the unions they
would be less prone ito vio'
late contracts What the boys
in the back room have forgot
ten is that it will now be pos
sible to haul employers into
courts for the violation OF
contracts too.
But / doubt that the boys
who are responsible for this
provision, and indeed this
whole bill, were really con-
cerned with making labor
more responsible" II they
were really concerned they
wouldn't have included the
ban on the closed shop and
the legal rigmarole involved
in getting the union shop.
The whole point of the un-
ion security provision Is that
it makes it possible for the
union leadership to maintain
discipline within its own
ranks. How can the union be
responsible" for people over
whom it exercises no infl-
uence? It is precisely for this
reason that very few employ
ers that have heard about
who really had closed shops
in their plants were really con-
clesed shop hadn't given them
cerned about the issue. II the
anything else it had given
them responsibility"