Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1947-07-20
New Law Puts Communist
Labor Leaders on Spot

Labor Leaders on Spot
Defiance by Left Wingers Held Threat
To Non. Communist Union Members
By Gerard D. Reilly.
II the CIO unions carry out their announced
intention of boycctting the National Labor
Relations Board when the Taft-Hartley Act
goes into effect next month, the country will
soon b provided with the answer to the
question whether large masses OF American
working men are really Indifferent to Com
munist penetration of their labor organizations.
Throughout the history of the Wagner Act
the Go has been by far the largest customer
Of the Labor Board. The number of complaint
cases and petitions for elections filed by unions
Of that afnliation have exceeded the combined
total Of those initiated by AFL and independent
unions. On many occasions the ALL as well
Is committees OF Congress, has accused the
stan Of the board of being biased in favor of
the CLIO.
Now, however, the makers of CLIO policy have
counseled their locals to avoid recourse to the
agency which these constituent organizations
have found 30 helpful in the past. According
to the public announcements of officers of the
Steel Workers and the United Electrical Work
ers-the first two big CLIO organizations to
promulgate this pelicy-the new act has made
the Labor Board such an instrument OF
oppression that to invoke its machinery would
be worse than useless from their standpoint
Obviously this is not the real reason. The
sections of the Wagner Act relating to unfair
hx,~ av,l fHA
defining unions which represent majority OF
the men as the exclusive bargaining agent, are
the core Of the Wagner Act. These provisions
have been carried bodily into the Taft-Hartley
Act Moreover, the new statute transfers the
field employees of the board to the general
counsel's ONCE, 30 that the nucleus Of the new
stan will be composed Of veteran employees
Of the board.
Nor does the fact that the Labor Board has
been given power to treat misconduct by labor
organizations as unfair labor practices explain
the changed attitude of the CLIO. Unions which
engage in secondary boycotts, jurfsdictional
warfare, coercion Of individual employees or
attempts to make employers discriminate
against nonunion men where no valid union
shop contract is in effect, are now subject to
the Jurisdiction Of the board. The mere fact
that they do not voluntarily file charges or
petitions to obtain Affirmative relief does not
exempt them from its processes or render them
immune from contempt-of- court proceedings,
If they defy board orders.
The real clue to the CLOS strategy may be
found in two other sections of the act These
provide that no petition filed by union for
an election, either to determine representatives
or to obtain authority for o union shop may be
entertained or any charge by union received,
unless the filing union has complied with two
conditions. The first Is a registration state
ment including q detailed account Of its con-
bylaws, receipts and expenditures.
1t is not believed that labor organizations
generally regard this requirement as too bur-
densome, as similar information must be fur
nished under the laws of certain States. Many
unions now provide their members with such
data Is = matter Of routine.
The other condition is that the filing union
must supply the board with afddsvits executed
by each of Its local and national officers, and
the officers Of its parent body, to the effect
that such officer is neither q member nor an
afliliate Of the Communist Party. Unions con-
forming to this formality secure all rights
available to organizations under the act. but
If an afidavit Is false the oficer executing it
Is subject to section 35(a) of the criminal code.
. violation Of which may be punished by
fine OF $4,000 or . prison sentence Of 10 years.
Despite the naive notion expressed in some
quarters prior to the act becoming law. there
is no doubt that many of the Communists who
dominate the central staff OF the CLIO and
several of its national unions dread the opera.
ton of this section. It's enforcement Is in the
hands of the Department of Justice. The FBI
has intimated to members of Congress that it
has considerable data on various CLIO officials.
While number Of labor lawyers have asserted
that this section is unconstitutional, no one
has thought Of any method of testing 1t in the
courts 1t Is well established that mandamus
proceedings will not lie to compel the board
to take jurisdiction Of a case. Consequently
union which does not furnish the requisite
afidavits has no way OF getting the courts to
pass on the issue. And If the board acted in
reliance upon affidavits and one of the af1iants
was subsequently prosecuted for misrepresent-
ing his connections with the Communist Party.
he could hardly defend himself on the ground
that this section Of the statute was unconsti-
tutional, since there is nothing in 1t which
compelled him to execute the afidavit
assistants who have been guiding the CLIO in
these matters therefore decided the safest
course to pursue was to advise their clients"
to refrain from filing any afidavits. In order
not to draw too much attention to the peculiar
predicament of the left-wing CLIO unions, how
ever, an effort was made to get the ALL to
pursue the same course. Several of the CLIO
lawyers, who also represent some AFL locals,
subsequently attended a conference called by
the ordinarily astute Joseph Padway counsel
for the AFL, and persuaded him to issue q
statement to the effect that AFL leaders re-
garded the AFFIDAVIT requirement as insulting
and would therefore refuse to honor it. This
statement was hastily withdrawn a day or
two later, however when AFL oficialdom
realized that they were inadvertently pulling
the chestnuts OF their union rivals out of
the fire.
Needless to say, there are hundreds of officers