Evening star., 1947-03-30
Moderate Trend Seen
In Ruling of NLRB

| In kul!ng OF NLkb
But Analogy With Supreme Court
Switch Believed Unjusti6ed
By Gerard D. Reilly.
In view Of the scrutiny to which the
Wagner Act and its administration have
been subjected by reason Of the pending
proposals before Congress for revision
Of the act, the recent trend Of decisions
by the National Labor Relations Board
has received considerable attention. In
series of opinions handed down in the
| last three months, the board sometimes
unanimously and sometimes by 81
decisions, with Chairman Herzog and
Commissioner Reynolds in the majority,
has indicated an awareness Of the fact
that individual employees and employers
have rights under-the act, as well as
labor organizations.
Perhaps the most noteworthy of this
series was the United Welding case.
This dealt with local phase of last
years NATIONWIDE stoppage in the steel
industry. It will be recalled that the
Steel Workers Union (CIO) ordered all
its members out on strike, even though
the union had bargained and reached
an impasse only with the two or three
major companies. After settling with
these industrial giants for an 1917 cent
increase, the Pressman-Murray leader
ship then directed the locals not to
accept anything less. The result was
that scores of plants operated by other
producers were shut down for several
months thereafter.
United Welding, one of the small COM
panies in this unfortunate situation, had
made counter-proposal to the union
was rejected as not meeting the union
standard. AS the strike continued the
company then made its counter-o
known to it's employees. Finding that the
local bargaining committee remained
obdurate, the employees then designated
an independent union to represent them,
accepted the companys offer and went
back to work.
The CIO brought the case to the Labor
Board, contending that this amounted to
refusal to bargain. Its theory was that
the company had undermined the posi-
ton Of the bargaining agent by making
the course of the negotiations known to
the employees. The board, however,
found nothing coercive in the employers
statement of his position to the workers.
It also held that the company was justi-
fed in refusing to bargain further with
the union when confronted with petit
ton of the employees repudiating it,
dence to support its assertion that it still
represented majority.
y +
In the rehearing of the Thompson
Products case the board for the first
time in its history laid down clear
cut rule that employees striking to force
an employer to violate its duty to bar
gain with certified union were not pro-
tected from discharge. Subsequently in
the st. Petersburg Times Publishing case
the board laid down the principle that
unions as well as employers must bar
protection of the Wagner Act. In three
other cases the board dismissed COM
plants challenging the right of employ
ers to discuss unions even though there
was some evidence in the records that at
all earlier time there had been instances
of discrimination.
Observers have seen comparison be-
tween the current attitude of the board
and that of the old Supreme Court, when
that tribunal reversed itself on the ques-
ton of the commerce clause and the
minimum-Wage laws at the time Presi-
dent Roosevelt's court bill was on the
agenda Of the Seventy fifth Congress.
The analogy is not altogether accurate.
In only one of the cases mentioned did
the board expressly overrule a prior
holding. This was the Thompson Prod
ucts case, in which Mr.. Herzog receded
from position he had previously taken.
The principles on which the other cases
were decided were all inherent in the
act. They are significant, however, in
revealing disposition by the present
board majority to check a tendency on
the part Of the staff to limit the scope
of employer discretion and the free
choice of individual employees to an ex-
tent never contemplated by the statute.
That the Board must still be on its
guard against such tendencies is illus
irated bv twc developments this month.
One of them was a case in which a
complaint issued against a company
for refusing to recognize a union, al
strate its asserted majority by filing a
petition for an election. To expedite
settlement of the representation
question. the employer offered to join
with the union in a consent election
under Board auspices. The union, how
ever, insisting that the employer regard
the application cards in its possession as
proof of its majority status, summarily
rejected this proposal and went on
strike. AS every one familiar with in
dustrial relations knows, application
cards obtained in the course Of an Or
evidence OF an employees real wishes
as secret ballot. Consequently, the
majority of the Board properly dismissed
the complaint. The surprising thing,
however, is that the Baltimore regional
Office should have issued the complaint
at all.
X \ X \
Another instance of staff policy which
is difficult to reconcile with the decisions
of the national board is a case in the