Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1947-02-02
US. Mediation Board
Seen as Impractical
One-Man Cancellation Favored
Over Board Method
BIZ Gerard D. Reilly

By Gerard D. Reilly
Although the first week Of hearings
on the labor bills under consideration
by the Senate Committee on Labor and
Welfare may have resembled more Of
council of conflicting voices than an
orderly debate, one proposal seems to
have produced at least negative una
nimity. This is the plan for creating
an autonomous Federal Mediation Board
and assigning to it the staff and func-
tions of the Cancellation Service of the
Department of Labor While, paradox
cally enough, this idea commanded the
approval of both the majority and
minority of the committee last year, the
indications are that it will be opposed
at this Congress by both industry and
labor.
Provisions for the establishment of
such board appear in the Ball. Taft
Smith bill "a slightly revised version of
the Case bilD, the Ellender bill and
the Morse BILL These measures direct
the President to appoint five member
mediation board which is to supersede
the Secretary of Labor in the statutory
duty placed upon him by the organic
act creating his department, viz, ito
act as mediator and to appoint COM
missioners of Cancellation in labor dis
putes whenever in his judgment the
interests of industrial peace SO require
Although this act was passed in 1913,
there is nothing in any other statute
which describes the Cancellation Service.
Nevertheless. with the passing of the
years, formal division of Cancellation
has been created in the Labor Depart
ment with a staff of 200 mediators as
signed to regional Offices throughout
the country. Although these men have
no authority, not even subpoena power,
they aided in the settlement last year
of $3.50 work stoppages involving more
than 100000 employees, according to
the figures submitted to the committee
by Secretary Schwellenbach in his testi-
mony.
The pending legislation on the Senate
side does not contemplate clothing the
new mediation board with powers not
possessed by the Cancellation Service
other than the right to impose 60-day
waiting period-but merely to institu-
tiofalize the mediation process. Ac-
cordingly these bills direct the board to
assist the parties in settling their dis
putes. to proffer its service when an
interruption of commerce is threatened,
and if unable to effect a settlement by
mediation, to seek to induce the parties
to submit to voluntary arbitration, and
to assist in the selection of an arbitrator
Since under long established practice in
the Labor Department this is precisely
the way conciliators now operate, it is
difficult to see how imprinting this pro-
cedure on the statute books would pro-
mote better results,
Such a notion appears to stem from
an exaggerated respect for the Railway
Labor Act which does contain such Ian
guage. 1t is mere surplusage in that
statute, however. The really important
function of the Mediation Board Gre
ated by that statute is to decide appro-
pirate bargaining units and to conduct
elections Disputes over grievances are
handled by the various divisions of an
other agency established by that act, the
National Adjustment Board. Major dis
putes over the negotiation or renewal
If agreements usually defy direct adjust
ment by. the Mediation Board, despite
widespread impression to the contrary.
Such crises generally result in the crea-
ton by the President of an emergency
committee, whose recommendations I'M
til the engineers and trainmens strike
of last spring. have almost uniformly
been regarded as binding
So far as the mediation process Is
concerned, no one has ever explained
satisfactorily how board of five could
function more effectively than single
official. There is no mystery to the art
of mediation. It consists of becoming
confdant of both sides, thereby discov-
ering the minimum figure the union is
willing to settle for, and the maximum
concession the company is willing to
make. If these overlap, or even approx
mate each other, the task of making
recommendation acceptable to the dis
putants is relatively easy. But the kind
of confidential information conciliator
must acquire before reaching this point
is seldom divulged at proceedings before
a board.
One of the stock arguments advanced
for an independent board, however, is
that since the Department of Labor has
duty under its organic act ito foster,
promote and develop the welfare of wage
earners of the United States, to improve
their working conditions and to advance
their opportunities for profitable EN-
ployment," the Secretary of Labor and
his staff cannot act impartially.
The most persuasive portion of Secre-
tary Schwellenbach's testimony was in
refutation of this contention. He point
ed out that this section of the act makes
no reference to promoting the interests
of one side as against another, and that
ne had always construed the statute as
a command to improve the welfare of
wage earners "in harmony with the well
fare of all industrial classes and all
legitimate interests, and by methods
tending to foster industrial peace
through progressively nearer realization
of the highest ideals of industrial jus
tice"
He also pointed out that because each
of the cases with which his department
deals involves different issues and differ
ent personalities, establishment OF