Evening star., 1947-07-13
Labor Law Defiance Held
Dangerous for Unions

Unhappy Experience of Employers
Who Flouted Wagner Act Recalled
By Gerard d. Reilly
The defiant attitude Of certain CIO and AFT,
unions toward the Taft Hartley labor law has
caused observers to draw parallel between
their position and the short-sighted attitude of
many employers in 1885 when the Wagner Act
became law. At that time 1t was the fashion
for many of the larger companies when served
with q complaint and notice Of hearing by the
National Labor Relations Board to rely on the
theory that the act was unconstitutional
Since some Federal district courts also
shared this view, companies In those Jurlsdic-
tions would simply obtain an order restraining
the board from conducting the hearing. In
other parts of the country, the legal tactics
were to file motion for dismissal on censtitu-
tional grounds In lieu Of putting in defense
on the merits
When the Supreme Court did the unexpected
two years later by sustaining the validity OF the
act, 1t turned out that this course Of conduct
had been most disastrous After scores OF In
functions issued by lower courts were vacated.
employers found themselves confronted with
claims for back pay which had piled up into
staggering totals In the intervening months
Others who might have raised some factual
defense found to their regret that, having
waived their opportunity for hearing appeals
to q court were futile since the statute con-
tanned q provision that no objection not urged
before the board could be considered by the
courts
A preview of the legal strategy which the
unions propose to pursue indicates that they
are embarking on an equally unwise course.
Several unions have already announced that
they will defy the section which prohibits cor
porations and labor organizations from spend
ing money in primaries and elections for Fed.
eral onaces on the ground that this section in
fringes upon the constitutional right Of free
dom OF speech and of the press. OF course,
political contributions to candidates or party
committees by corporations and labor unions
have been forbidden for some years. These
provisions, which were designed to keep cleo.
tions from being bought, have been circ,m-
vented, however. by organizations which spent
money upon political advertising or for rallies
and radio time at which the candidates backed
by them were to speak. Insertion Of the word
expenditure" in the new act closed this loop
hole.
incidentally, this amendment, which became
one Of the most controversial when the final
draft Of the bill was debated on the Senate
floor, was taken verbatim from bill
unanimously recommended by the Senate Com
mittee on Elections. Because Of the bipartisan
character of its sponsorship, 1t was believed
that 1t would command general support. When
its broad language was asssiled, however, SEN
ator Taft, in explaining it, drew line between
newspapers and trade union weeklies which are
frnp soil nd r%ir;,0
and papers carrying political propaganda
which are subsidized by corporate or union
treasures. In his view the new act would
make such subsidies illegal As the Senate
passed the bill in the light of this explanation,
this Interpretation Is binding upon the courts.
The unions propose to disregard 1t by send.
ing union papers supporting particular candi-
dates into certain congressional districts whers
special elections to fill vacancies are sched.
uled. In nearly every instance these papers are
financed entirely out Of union dues and sent
to all members irrespective Of the political
predictions Of that member. 1t would
scarcely seem that the right Of the dominant
union clique to divert money collected for other
purposes into political channels Is protected
constitutionally by the freedom of -the-press
clause, Yet this s precisely the point the
unions contemplate as defense should the At
torney General seek indictments for violations
Of this section.
While the outcome of such litigation may be
a matter Of conjecture, unions have apparently
overlooked the fact that the judiciary Is not
the only branch of Government which has
something to say in the matter Very few cases
involving the Federal Corrupt Practices Act
or the Hatch Act have ever reached the courts
Yet the House and Senate have been able to
secure q fair degree Of compliance with these
statutes They have done this by virtue Of q
constitutional provision which makes each
house the final Judge OF its membership. On
several occasions the Senate has refused to
seat candidates who have been the beneficiary
of excessive campaign expenditures
It would therefore appear that If the unions
carry out their threat Of spending money IL
legally In these special elections, the House, In
the exercise of its discretion, may properly re-
fuse to recognize the credentials Of any Rep
rssentative- elect whose success ut the pou
was due in whole or In part to such violations
Of the law.
Union lawyers have also been thinking Of
schemes to deprive workingmen OF their newly
won right to have some voice in the matter OF
compulsory membership contracts. Under the
new act agreements for maintenance OF mem"
bership or the union shop cannot be enforced
unless a majority Of the employees have voted
in a labor board election to authorize their
union to ask for such a clause The. device hit
upon is for unions to refrain from making con-
tracts Instead they propose to notify em-
ployers OF the conditions" upon which they
will work. One Of these conditions will be that
only union men can be employed In q shop.
! It Is difncult to see how this scheme will
succeed even If employers can be cajoled or
frightened into collusion. To be sure, there Is
nothing in the law which requires either party
to reduce an understanding into written con-
tract, unless requested to do SO by the other
party. But If an employer tacitly assents to
such an arrangement, and then discharges or
refuses to hire nonunion man or an en-