Evening star., 1947-08-06

Ford company mas, In fact, obtained
an assurance against Illegal or Wild
cat strikes which in some respects
Is more soidly buttressed than any
that could have been obtained by
reliance solely on the damage pro-
visions Of the Taft-Hartley law.
For the Ford company obtained
from the union clause in the new
contract by which the union binds
itself not to sue the employer for
q period Of two years-that is, dur
ing the life of the entire contract.
In return for this, the company
agreed to what amounts to a six
month probationary clause during
which the union must be on good
behavior with respect to wildcat
strikes or else suits for damages will
follow Immediately after the expira-
tion Of the six months.
This probationary period results
from the fact that after six months
there can be an extension of the
period needed for study Of a solu-
tion only If q majority of the COM
mittee-namely the neutral umpire
and the two company representa-
tives or the neutral umpire and the
two union representatives-vote for
such an extension.
Evidence Can End Immunity.
II wildcat strikes and work STOP
pages have occurred during the first
six months, this evidence will be
ample to prevent any extension Of
the period Of immunity from dam
age suits that can be filed by the
employer. It is stipulated, however,
that future suits must relate only
to those work stoppages occurring
after the first six months in the
event that the committee on study
Is not given an extension.
In addition, the union has al
ready agreed with the Ford COM
pany to q clause in the new con-
tract whereby the union promises to
employ Its best efforts from now on
to prevent wildcat strikes and to
accept a disciplinary discharge Of
all member participants. Dis
charges occur after an agreed-upon
procedure.
Thus, In effect, the Ford company
has put the union on notice against
unauthorized work stoppages which
are SO costly to production. The
company, moreover, cannot agree to
exempt the union from injunctive
processes which the National Labor
Relations Board may take against
any union which permits or author
ICES wildcat strike.
No Principle Surrendered.
To the extent that the Ford COM
pany refrains from pressing any
damage suits during the first six
months or any extension of that
period, Is this surrender of prin-
ciple?. The answer lies in the fact
that the Taft-Hartley law does not
obligate any company or a union
to file damage suits. This is purely
discretionary with either side. Suits
could have been filed even before
the Taft-Hartley law was passed.
but there were technical difficulties
in certain States.
There is no good reason why q
union and an employer should re-
sort to the law courts with damage
suits If, for fixed periods, they can
agree to pursue course of conduct
IN good faith looking toward pre-
vention of law violations or toward
minimizing work stoppages.
Without the Taft-Hartley law.
however, there was no such lever
age to the employer to enable him
to secure pledges and commit
ments against wildcat strike or
unauthorized work stoppage. In the
sense that the Taft-Hartley law has
proved directly instrumental in
obtaining these pledges OF forbear-
ance and since any violations can
be taken care of by disciplinary
action, agreed upon in advance by
the company and the union, it may
well be that Ford has blazed a trail
OF guidance for other employers
similarly situated.
The broad purpose is industrial
peace. If the Taft-Hartley law in
duces the adoption of a formula
having industrial peace as its objec-
tive. the law may be said already to
have achieved victory over its
predecessor. What would be wrong
indeed would be a grant of immu-
nifty from suit to either side with
out . corresponding assurance of q
fair procedure to eliminate unau-
thorized work stoppages.
Reproduction Rights Reserved.)