The Wilmington morning star., 1947-08-07
Labor Law Inquiry
Nv ARTHUR KROCK

WASHINGTON, The announcement by Rep
resentative Hartley today that growing out
of the Ford Company negotiations with its
employees, the Joint Congressional Committee
will investigate whether there is an organized
movement to bypass the Taft-Hartley law
could produce some momentous legal tests.
Among the questions raised are these:
What penalties could be imposed by the
courts on persons and organizations tried and
convicted on charges that they initiated steps,
coerclve on other persons and organizations
to nullify Federal statute?
What penalties could be imposed on h e
persons and organizations coerced by the
former to nullify the law?
Is agreement between private parties to
contract legal and enforcible if either party
signs away his rights as established by law?
Some legal authorities believe that the third
question certainly, and the second possibly
were evoked in the new coal contract recently
obtained by John L. Lewis. And in the ne
gotiations between the Ford Company and its
employees they see broadening ground on
which to test the first question, with one
section of organized labor as defendant.
The purpose of the immunities from op-
GRAFTON of the Taft-Hartley law that are being
sought by unions in current contracts is to
erase that part of the law which prescribes
new unfair labor practices and provides pena
lties for their commission. Sections 7, and
3O3 are the chief targets.
When the new law goes fully into effect
employees will have the right not to join in
collective action, and it will be unlawful to
use violence, mass picketing and other coer-
cions which have been resorted to by unions
to stamp out this independent course. That is
listed as an unfair labor practice. If an
employer is strong armed into violating the
acts ban on compulsory unionism, that is
listed as an unfair labor practice by the
unions. So is union refusal to bargain collect
vely provision growing out OF the refusal
OF the United Steel Workers, when they made
their famous '22 demands on all employers
with whom they had contracts, to bargain
with any companies except the large pro-
ducers
The fourth listing in unfair labor practices
concerns strikes or boycotts with any OF these
four objectves: secondary boycott; enforced
recognition Of a bargaining unit that mas not
been certified by the National LABOR helatlons
Board; enforced bargaining with one union
when another has been certified, and juris-
dictional strike.
The NLRB is given the power to issue cease
and desist orders against any Such strlKe or
boycott and to seek Federal injunction II the
order is not obeyed. In addition employers
may file damage suits against any union or
union officer charged with any OF these Unfair
labor practices. And two more banned by the
act are excessive initiation fees by unions
seeking union shop and certain prescribed
forms of Misunderstanding.
Union leaders have shown great fear OF the
provision permitting private damage sults'
Some Of them have announced they WILL oe-
cline to put the mo strike" pledge IN contracts
because, in the event of wildcat strikes,
they can be liable for damages, though they
have not inspired the strikes and have done
their best to end them. But when the Ford
Comnanv drew up a formula by which wild
cat strikes could be clearly de1lneo. ana III,
cluded a pledge that no damage suits would
be filed in such instances, the union reactlon
was unfavorable.
amnlover groups since the law was passed,
+here is no DISPOSITION on the part of industry
tn file questionable suits. They have been told
that this procedure would be l-advlsed II Tor
no other reason than that union lawyers would
welcome the filing of such cases from which
precedents could issue which would prejudice
the sound ones in the courts
Among those who have given industry this
advice is Chicago attorney, George B. Chris
tensen. who helped to draft the Ta1t-Hartley
Act. He told the Chicago Association OF COM
merce and Industry recently that, while union
leaders have claimed strikes to be wildcat
that actually were union-lnsplred or union
SUPPORTED and suits against such should be
successful, I suggest the widom OF not filing
s,,it unless Won are reasonably sure they are
GOOD g. e., entirely justified by provable
facts).
The courts (said Mr. Christensen are not
going to permit suits against unions to be
abused, and unions do not have to fear that
they will be inundated by wave of ground
less suits But where they 60 out on strike
in violation of contracts they should be sued
and they should be held responsible for the
verv large damages these cause.
Despite such reassurances, and the prepond-
erance of Judges appointed by the New Deal
union leaders are trying to negate the
DANA ge-s suit provision-some sincerely. others
because they believe they can use the ap-