Evening star., 1947-12-22


ing sanction of the international
Typographical Union for a vote on
strike at the four Washington
daily newspapers, lie almost five
months of negotiations. The chief
hurdle in those negotiations has
been the "no-contract" policy OF
the ITU.
The ITU has refused to sign con-
tracts with employers because the
Taft Hartley Act prohibits closed
shop provisions in such agreements
Instead, the union has proposed the
posting of conditions of employ
ment" or 60-day contract.
Under the Hartley Act, a
union cannot legally strike for an
illegal objective and a closed shop
would be an illegal objective. The
union believes that working under
posted conditions of employment"
it could strike should the employer
attempt to break the union or
violate the rules under the "condi-
tions."
The negotiations which have been
carried on between the union and
the publishers in Washington have
attempted to solve this dilemma:
Reach an agreement which would
conform to the law as the publishers
see it and at the same time meet
the unions views on preserving its
organization to the extent which
the law permits. =
Obstacle in Other Cities.
The same dilemma has been a
stumbling block in other parts of
the country.
The American Newspaper Pub
fishers Association has charged that
Woodruff Randolph, ITU president,
has refused to engage in collective
bargaining and to sign a contract.
The National Labor Relations Board
scheduled a hearing on these ac-
cusations today.
Mr.. Randolph has held that the
procedure he advocates involves COL
lective bargaining although it does
not result in a written contract.
The contract between the Wash
ington publishers and the Columbia
Typographical Union, No. 101, a
local of the AFL International Typo
graphical Union, expired last No.
vember II. Since then the printers
have continued to work without a
contract.
Negotiations Opened in August.
Negotiations started in August, be-
fore the Taft-Hartley Act became
effective on August %. On Septem-
Der 6 the union informed the pub
fishers it intended to end the con-
tract on its expiration date, and
two days later the publishers, in
formed the union they were ready
to negotiate a new contract.
Negotiations failed to bridge the
gap between the publishers desire
for what they regarded as a legal
contract and the unions policy of
no contract but conditions of en-
pioyment or an agreement can
cellable on so days notice.
The conferences then took a new
tack in an attempt to work out a
memorandum of agreement" This
would call for an agreement run
ming a year on such matters as
wages, hours, vacations and holi-
days. At the same time it would
have continued in effect provisions
OF the old contract, which do not
violate any local or Federal law"
These would be subject to further
negotiations, which could be broken
of by either party on so days no.
tice.
20-Cent Increase Offered.
The publishers proposed that
under this memorandum the wages
should be increased II cents an
hour. This later was increased to
Is cents and then to 20 cents. The
wage question has been overshad-
owed by the other considerations.
The union withheld approval of
the years agreement applying to
wages on the ground that a strike
on wage issues is the only strike
cause clearly legal under the Taft
Hartley Act.
Early in December Mr.. Randolph
entered the negotiations and refused
to approve the memorandum of
agreement" He insisted on a closed
shop, on union jurisdiction over all
composing room work and the right
of union members to refuse to
handle work from a shop where
there is a strike authorized by
the ITU.
Mr.. Randolph took part in the
negotiations on December 2 and 8.
The negotiators then went to work
revising the agreement in an at
tempt to meet the printers objec-
tions, and on December 10 the pub
lisners submitted a new agreement
to the union negotiators.
In, this agreement, the wage offer
was increased to 20 cents an hour
or 81 a week for the 35-hour week.
The publishers negotiators say
they were informed the proposed
agreement met the requirements Of