Evening star., 1947-09-28
An Open Fight Foreseen
At Next AFL Convention
Other Leaders Oppose Lewis Refusal
to Sign Communist Affidavit


versies among its constituent unions that it is
rare that the proceedings of an AFL conven-
tlon are ever enlivened by a fight which Is
carried to the floor. The coming meeting at
Boston promises to be an exception. 1t is
difficult to see how the issue posed bv the
obstinate refusal of John L. Lewis to sign the
Communist disclaimers required by the new
labor act can be solved short of bitter and
extended debate by the delegates
For more than generation a combination
OF old guard leaders, notably William Hutche-
son, president of the carpenters union, and
the dominant figures in the building trades,
department, John Frey of the metal trades,
Daniel Tobin, president of the teamsters, and
Mr.. Lewis, were able to submerge their inter-
mittent rivalaries, in smothering attempts by
other union officials to bring up issues which
would impair a united front
Accordingly, controversies which might have
disrupted the organization were usually pigeon
holed in committee or referred to the council
for settlement Only once has this technique
failed in recent years. That was in 1896, when
the battle over industrial unionism broke out
on the floor, eliminating in an exchange OF
blows between Mr.. Hutcheson and Mr. Lewis.
The result was the permanent secession of the
C1O unions from the parent body.
Now that Mr.. Lewis is back in the fold his
colleagues among the old guard wish to avoid
a showdown fight with him despite his minor
ity position in AFL circles. This will not be easy
to accomplish The AFL has taken public
pride in its ability to prevent Communist
lnnltratlon in its unions. While its leadership
has not been completely successful in this
respect, as evidenced by the antics of the
teamsters' locals in New York and the set
designers who have managed to disrupt the
motion picture industry in HOLLYWOOD its
record on national scale is in marked con-
trast to that of the CIO. In fact one of the
AFL's great selling points, both to employers
and to unorganzed workers, has been its
relative freedom from MARKHAM objectives.
The anti-CommuniSt amendment to the
Taft-Hartley Act consequently has given AFL
unions a golden opportunity. BY conforming
to the formalties of the new law, AFL organ
izers can protect their gains by invoking NLRB
processes against hostile employers at time
when competing CIO unions have no such pro-
lection. They can even raid CIO territory
without fear of legal reprisal, for union which
has not satisfied the statutory conditions is
denied place on the ballot in board election,
Moreover, this is situation which the CLIO
could scarcely correct for some years. Despite
loose predictions to the contrary the Com
mupist machine which dominates CIO policy
is very likely to recede from its instructions to
boycott the board.
1t is true that the Labor Board must take
sworn documents at their face value. But un-
less the CIO radicals regard j. Edgar Hoover's
frequent fulminations against them as mere
wind, execution of these afidavits would SUBJ
ject them to heavy fines and prison sentences.
Consequently, even though their rivals in the
AFL have recourse to the Labor Board at the
expense of their unions, they cannot incur the
risks incident to compliance.
While neither Mr.. Lewis nor James Carey,
secretary of the CIO, are Communists, that is
also their appraisal of the situation. Both
have ambitions for ultimately heading united
labor movement. But to embarrass Com
munist strategy on the Taft-Hartley Act would
be fatal to such hopes-and, in Mr. Carey's
case, to continuance in Office.
Other AFL leaders, however, who are not in
sympathy with Mr.. Lewis long-run obiectives,
see clearly that if the present impasse persists,
the AFL has tossed away it's strongest card.
To fail to take advantage of the act would cost
the AFL not only any further chance of expan-
sion, but also the preferred position enjoyed by
the AFL in the ILO and in Congress. There
fore large bloc of delegates will insist upon
deprive him of his Office of vice president or to
amend the AFL constitution so as to shear the
council members of their prerogatives as
officers.
In their eagernesS to prevent such an open
clash, however, members of the council have
been canvasSing various schemes to find a
way out. One proposed solution is to obtain
a reversal of the view taken by the general
counsel of the board, Robert N. Denham which
requires all the officers of the parent body Of
the AFL to sign the afidavits before any Of
the constituent unions can qualify under the
act To bring this about, one AFL affiliate,
whose national and local officers have signed,
has filed an appeal to the board in an election
case. The original petition was dismissed by
the regional director, subordinate of Mr..
Denham. The AFL will argue that Mr..
Denhams Interpretation is wrong.
If the board so holds the plan is then to
inform the convention that further controversy
over Mr. Lewis views would be academic be-
cause such reversal" would permit indi-
vidual AFL unions to avail themselves of their
remedies before the Labor Board, if their own
officers comply with the act irrespective Of
what action the vice presidents of the parent
body take.
1t Will be noted that the success OF this
scheme involves two assumptions: Cd That
the board has jurisdiction in an investigating
phase; (2) that the board would disagree with
the Denham ruling in the absence of any
wording in the statute or its legislative history
which casts substantial doubt upon it. But
even if it did so, the Denham Interpretation
would not be overruled as a representation
proceeding is only preliminary to the issuance
of complaint, matter upon which his au-
thority is final. Consequently any certihcation
based on premise with which he disagreed
would be meaningless. Clearly, this interesting
test case is no answer to the dilemma confront
ing the convention.
New Godeet on the Way