Evening star., 1947-03-11
Split Decisions Show
Wagner Act UncIeur

Sf'A 0SSsSsOssS S1tOW
Wagner Act UncIeur
Supreme Court Fails to Agree on
Definition of 'Employe'
By David Laurence
The Supreme Court Of the United
States by 5-to-4 opinions on labor mat
ters Is performing = service of tran.
scendent significance. For the high
court t emphasizing quite forcibly and
unequtvocably that the Wagner Labor
Relations Act, for example, is by no
means the clear and perfect piece Of
law-writing which its champions have
80 steadfastly maintained.
Ever since 1885, when Congress passed
the Wagner Act, the labor union chief
tains and the left wing" have insisted
that the act was sacrosanct and that
anybody who so much rs suggested the
slightest amendment was q vicious
enemy Of labor. . reactionary. q Fascist
and what-not.
But the Supreme Court has revealed
the ambiguous phrases Of the Wagner
Act to be so confusing that the entire
business and labor community does not
know today what the simple word "em-
ploye" means.
A majority Of the court says that an
employe can be two things-he can act
IN the interests Of the employer If he
Is foreman or supervisor, and he can
act In his own interest If he combines
with other supervisors to negotiate for
his own pay and working conditions.
Strangely enough, If a foreman or
supervisor happens to drop a casual
remark disparaging unionization and
other employees overhear it, the employer
can be charged with an unfair labor
practice committed by the tactless fore.
man. Likewise, while an employer may
expect foreman to inspect the work
OF employees under his eye and recon-
mend discharges, nevertheless, that
same foreman, II afhliated with a CIO
or AFL union, can be penalized as anti
union by union. Indeed, management
argues that fear of such punitive action
often guides foremen in overlooking
laxity among employees.
Independent Union Involved.
The case just decided by the Supreme
Court involved an independent union,
and it will be interesting to see what
the high court will do when a case
arises in which foreman's union Is part
and parcel Of an industrial union domi-
mated by the CIO.
Up to now the National Labor Re-
lations Board has struggled conscien-
tiously with the foreman problem. At
one time majority Of the board held
that foremen could be unionized only If
they belonged to union not affiliated
with the rank-and-file unions. At an
other time, the board members held that
foremen had an unqualified right to
organize into unions of their own
choosing whether or not affiliated with
other unions.
As usual with the National Labor Re-
lations Board, the decisions and rulings
change every time q President appoints
different persons to the board vacancies.
The natural result is that labor manage
nent relations are in q state Of confu-
sion and that the so-called magma
charta Of labor-the Wagner Acts
about as clear as lighthouse on foggy
day.
When, however, industry tries In all
candor to get amendments to the act.
union labor cries out against such steps
and prefers to let q vacillating board
and an ambiguous statute increase
rather than diminish the chances of
making = labor peace through orderly
processes of law. ..,-.a 5ss+o4
The chief difficulty, Of course, is that
New Dealisfn has its roots in nearly
every board and agency and, until
government Of laws is substituted for a
government Of men, there will be eco
nonic disturbances and consequent
damage to the public interest.
Vague Laws Called For.
The New Deal concept of theology
calls for vaguely written laws with
blanket powers delegated to boards or
agencies. This provides for the maxi
mum of political pressure and the mini
mum of justice. Instead of prescribing
legislative standards for the guidance
Of boards and agencies-which a great
Supreme Court laid down as essential In
unanimously rejecting the NRA In 1895
the Congress has gone ahead to pass
laws which are left to the discretion Of
boards and agencies to interpret. Their
rules are really laws. Congress abdicated
years ago to the labor board when 1t
refused to amend the Wagner Act
1t Is not surprising that the labor
board, in its recent testimony, knocked
down virtually every important sugges-
ton to amend the act and pleaded that
the boards powers be left untouched 20
1t could continue its dictatorial control
over management-labor relations In
America. So
The absurdity of the decision rendered
by the Supreme Court in holding that
foremen are not acting for employers is
certainly revealed by the penetrating
dissent of Justice Douglas, who declares
that, II foremen can organize, then vice
presidents and general managers can
do so-in fact, that all presidents can
band together as against all stockholders.
This is a logical appraisal and It
serves to delineate the far-reaching
effect of the collectivist doctrine as
embodied in the Wagner Act. For what
the Wagner Act does is to set up q
system of government in which every
body can organize against evervf,odv elxs
What is needed desperately Is clari-
fication. Since the Supreme Court, by
a vote Of 5-to-4, confesses that nobody