Evening star., 1947-03-18
Evidence of Bios Seen
In NLRB Statement

In NLkb Statement
Document Rejects Suggestions to
Amend Wagner Act
By David Laurence
Seldom. If ever. does q governmental
agency admit that in the adninistra-
ton of the law 1t is guilty Of bias.
Seldom, too. does 1t seek to justify its
bias by claiming it was so instructed
by Congress itself.
This strong piece Of sophistry Is to
be found in lengthy statement filed
with the Senate Committee on Labor
recently by the National Labor Relations
Board.
The document rejects virtually every
suggestion made in Congress to amend
the Wagner Labor Relations Law and,
In effect, argues that complete powers
of discretion should remain in the board
itself, whose master minds can then
continue to administer the law with
appropriate bias.
1--WE have always assumed 1t to be
our duty" says the board, sin COM
pliance with the declaration of Con-
sressional policy that prefaces the act.
to encourage the practice and pro-
cedure of collective bargaining We
have administered the act accordingly.
In consequence, the board has some
times been accused Of bias. We admit
to bias in favor of collective BAR
gaining"
The bias goes deep into the rights
Of the citizen. The board admits q
prejudice against individual bargain
ing" 1t speaks with disfavor about
"recreating that ancient system of in
dividual bargaining under which the
word Of the employer was law" Not
content with general observations, the
board attacks one proposal which would
make 1t possible for individual bargain
ing to be conducted even when there
is no intent to interfere with the
terms Of an existing collective bargain
ing contract.
Attitude on Amendment.
The amendment offered in one Senate
bill would permit any individual or
group to present grievances to the en-
ployer and to adjust such grievances,
without the Intervention Of the bar
gaining representative, so long rs the
adjustment does not violate the terms
of n collective bargaining contract or
agreement then in effect"
But the boards statement immedi-
ately sees dangers In such bill on
the ground that individual bargaining
then could well disrupt all efforts at
collective bargaining, particularly where
an employer in the handling Of griev-
ances demonstrated that employees could
gain more advantages through bargain
ing individually than through their bar
gaining agent" ....
So individual bargaining Is q bad
thing and must be abolished, and in its
place collectivism must be exalted. Here
Is the root of Americas industrial trou-
BILE. The Government apparently Is not
supposed to encourage labor peace, but
one of its agencies deliberately conceives
it to be its duty to break down individual
bargaining, even If by breaking 1t down
labor strife and economic war are
stimulated.
This, to be sure, Is inherent In the
basic philosophy Of new dealism-the
individual cannot be self-reliant or in
dependent. He can gain q job or keep
one only by the economic power welded
in his behalf by . group which owes its
monopoly to governmental agency's
bias.
Curiously enough, the board naively
disclaims 1t is helping unions. 1t says:
1T has been neither our purpose nor our
function to help unions to organize, but
1t has been one purpose Of the act to
make It less hazardous for employees to
join unions"
Scope Of Boards Decisions.
II the board had confined itself to
such task, there would be no criticism
Of its conduct today. The boards deci-
sions-which it proudly cites in point
after point In its statement to the
Senate committee-go far beyond any
such sensible view of It's duty. Thus, the
Wagner law forbids an employer to
coerce or influence workers to join
union, and where the board finds such
to be the case it Is supposed to order the
disestablishment of the union. Yet,
when national union is involved, even
though Congress drew no such distinc-
ton in phrasing the law, the board
closes its eyes to the violation and passes
it by. This, too, Is admitted in the
boards own statement to the Senate
committee which says:
"It is true that where the board has
found that an employer has assisted or
coerced its employees to join union
af1liated with . national labor organ
ization, it has not ordered the disestab-
nshment Of the local. But this is SO
because assistance to local union
chartered by and subject to the con-
stitution and bylaws Of the national
organization cannot, in practice, extend
to the point of constituting domination
blythe employer"
Such palpable attempts to read into
the CIO and AFL, while ignoring the
fact that the law forbids an employer
to assist in the organization of any
union, is typical Of the bias which the
labor board practices and which has
lost for 1t the confidence of citizens
generally.
Under the American system of Con-
stitutional Government, the Federal
agencies do not possess legislative pow
ers and they cannot lawfully deprive
citizens Of their rights. whether they be