Evening star., 1947-09-21
Restrictions on Unions
Voted by Many States
Closed Shop Barred in Is States; Other
Laws Limit Utility Strikes
By Gerard D. Reilly

By Gerard D. Reilly
The fanfare over the passage of the TAFT
Hartley Act has tended to obscure the fact that
Congress was by no means unique among legis-
latlVe bodies this year in responding to ths
widespread public demand for greater regula-
ton OF industrial relations. Legislatures in 81
States were also alert to the shortcomings Of
existing law in that field.
Many of these State acts attempt In piece.
meal fashion to correct abuses OF which Con-
gress also took cognizance, i.e. secondary boy
colts, JurlSdictional strikes and mass picketing
When the Legislatures had adjourned, the closed
shop had been barred in Is States and per.
mltted only when subject to employe ratifica.
tion In three others.
The most important type OF State legisla-
tion, however (since the subject matter was
not dealt with by Congress-, consists of laws
limiting the right to strike In public utilities.
Such laws were passed in IL Jurisdictions The
list includes such highly industrialized States
as Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Massachusetts,
and Michigan as well as Virginia Wisconsin.
Indiana, Missouri Texas, Florida and Nebraska.
Ten OF these enactments provide for Govern
ment seizure or compulsory arbitration, or
both. The less-elaborate Texas act merely for
bids disrupting utility services by picketing
AS this legislation was vigorously opposed by
organized labor, the application of any of these
laws is certain to mean that their constitu-
tionality will be challenged in the courts The
most serious question is whether or not they
are in conflict with Federal law This is
matter which Congress settled on the union
shop issue by stating that the Taft-Hartley
Act should not be construed as giving effect to
agreements requiring union membership as
condition of employment In States where such
contracts are illegal
Indications are that the litigation over these
constitutional questions
1. Insofar as they restrict striking, do they
conflict with the 18th amendment which for
bids involuntary servitude7
q Where they provide for compulsory arhitra-
ton, do they conflict with the due process
clause in the 14th amendment?
8 Where they restrict picketing, do they con-
fct with the guarantees Of freedom Of speech
and freedom of assembly In the first and lAts
amendments?
1t Is unlikely that the courts will hnd q con.
fict between the statutes and the Constitution
on any of these points. The right to strike Is
not guaranteed by the Constitution, although
Federal district judge in the recent Petrillo
case seemed to think that 1t was. In consider
ing an indictment under the Lea Act, he held
that since the 18th amendment prevented an
individual from being compelled to continue
his Job against his will, statute restricting the
right to quit work collectively was also re-
pugnant to this clause The Supreme Court re-
jected this novel reasoning. however. when 1t
reversed his decision and sustained the Lea Act.
1t Is true that there Is an old decision Of
the Supreme Court-never expressly overruled-
invalidating compulsory arbitration by State
law. This Is the Wolff case, holding the power
of the Kansas industrial relations court con-
trary to the due process clause. One OF the
theories on which this decision turned however
interference with liberty OF contract-has
been repudiated by the minimum wage and
price fixing cases in recent years The other
ground of the decision-lack OF showing OF
public interest'-could scarcely be urged IN
utility case. The rates of most essential utility
services are now regulated by State commits
sions. Obviously there is little difference be-
tween rate regulation of such companies and
legislation providing for the determination OF
the wages paid by such companies when labor
disputes arise.
On the speech issue, these statutes are oues-
tionable only If construed as forbidding peace
full picketing. 1t has been held that this Is an
aspect of free speech which a State cannot take
away, either by police regulation or injunction.
With the exception of the Texas statute, how
ever, the prohibitions in the State laws are
confined to mass picketing, obstructing en-
frances to plants or highways and picketing OF
C,rnk, statt IA
by the Supreme Court in a recent case, Hill VS..
Florida. as a proper exercise of State power,
because the objective Is to prevent breaches OF
the peace.
The only major problem, therefore concerns
the applicability of these laws to utilities, the
operations of which affect interstate commerce.
The mere fact that utility has State fran
chise and is subject to State control OF It's rates
does not mean that 1t is free of Federal regula-
ton in labor matters. The Supreme Court has
held that electric light companies which supply
power to railroads and factories producing
goods for interstate markets were covered by
the Wagner Act--which means, of course, that
they also fall within the Taft-Hartley Act
which amended It, The same doctrine has
been applied to local traction companies which
carry workers to interstate plants.
The provisions in the State laws which forbid
strikes in such utilities, therefore, will probably
have rough shedding in the courts, for, except
under specified conditions, concerted activity
by workers is protected by the Taft-Hartley Act.
The State laws which seem to have the best
chance of surviving In the courts are those Of
Missouri, New Jersey, Virginia and Massachu-
setts The Taft-Hartley Act has no spplica.
ton to employees Of the Federal, State or munic-
ipal governments.
In these four States their acts were drawn 50
that the restriction on striking becomes effec-
tive only after seizure Of the utility system by
the State. Last fall the Supreme Court, In the
United Mine Workers case, held that while the
mines were in the possession Of the Government
the miners were public employees.
This would indicate that employees Of Q
utility company being operated temporarily by