Evening star., 1947-08-26

grapncAl ~ II #$$*3$$$$
ions Policy ~
Committee. This
declaration "%@a'
states plainly David Lawrence.
that, while there isn't the slightest
intention Of violating any provision
Of the new law. the union plans to
make earnest endeavors ito avoid
any condition that will result in
their being penalized by this law
The 1TU then, in a paragraph
which will be debated for a long
time, declares the following policy:
THE Labor-M Management Rela-
tions Act does not compel the sign
ing of contracts and refraining from
doing so is not violation or eva
sion OF the law. It will be our policy
to refrain from signing contracts in
order that we may avoid agreeing
or seeming to agree or voluntarily
accepting the conditions created by
such relationship under the Labor
Management Relations Act of 1877
PiAin Language Of Act.
The ITU has certainly overlooked
or decided to interpret as 1t pleases
the plain language of the act which
says 1t is an unfair labor practice"
subject to penalties, for a labor or
ganization Ito refuse to bargain COL
lectively with an employer, provided
1t is the representative of his en-
ployes." The statute reads:
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-
sonable times and confer in good
faith with respect to wages, hours
and other terms and conditions Of
employment, or the negotiation of
an agreement, or any question aris-
ing Hereunder, and the execution
OF written contract incorporating
any agreement reached If requested
by either party, but such obligation
does not compel either party to
agree to a proposal or to require
the making of q concession"
Undoubtedly the ITU analysts
have enormously taken the last SEN
tence to mean that there is no COM
pulsion to negotiate "in good faith"
Just because there is no compulsion
to agree to proposal or make a
concession.
What the ITU has in mind per-
haps is to set forth at its national
headquarters q set Of conditions OF
work. and to offer these to en-
ployers on q "take- it. -or-leave- 1T"
basis. This, of course, Is not col
lective bargaining nor is 1t negotia-
tion as the courts have construed
the obligation to confer in good faith
under the Wagner Act. The Ian
guage in the new law which says
the statute does not compel either
party to agree to proposal Is
exactly the same as the. language Of
the Supreme Court Of the United
States when 1t interpreted the
Wagner law in the Jones & Laughlin
case.
The court said there is no rule
that compels q man to agree to
something which he does not want
to agree to-whether he is an en-
ployer or a union. But the Wagner
law did compel negotiation of col
1ective-bargaining agreement and
the Taft-Hartley law does not re-
peal the Wagner Act on that point.
Verbal Agreement Binding.
To argue that when an employer
accepts the set Of working condi-
tions offered him, 1t is not con-
tract just because he or the union
doesn't sign anything is to ignore
the prevailing concepts OF contract
law which make even a verbal TN
derstanding as binding as q written
agreement.
The TTU apparently is going to
try to rely ON its right to strike
unless its conditions are met 100
per cent. II in those conditions
there happens to be anything re-
sembling o closed shop" it Is quite
possible that suits may follow on
the ground that conspiracy has
been attempted to violate Federal
laws.
The "closed shop" while banned
as q condition Of employment. might
be restored in an equivalent form
perhaps by that part of the new
law which gives unions the right
to prescribe the rules of admission
for new applicants. The ITU might
refuse admission to any workers who
do not conform to their conditions
of apprenticeship. This is foreseen
as one way to avoid the effect Of the
"closed shop" ban. 1t does, OF course,
conform to the principle that the
employer may still do the hiring
but he would run the risk OF re-
fusals by other workers to work
alongside those who are not eligible
for membership under union rules.
Should such a situation develop,
Congress may be persuaded to go
further next session and adopt more
stringent laws. The labor unions
now seeking to repeal the Taft
Hartley law may themselves arouse
Congress and public opinion to
such an extent that amendments
strengthening rather than weaken
ing the law will be forthcoming. For
Congress is determined that mem
bership in q union shall not be re-
quired in order to get a job in
America.
(Reproduction Rights Reserved)