Evening star., 1947-05-18
Lobor Dill Agreement ]
Seen BY Month 5 End
Test Votes Have Shown Position
Moderates Want to Take

il ANU
i Test Votes Have Shown Position
i Moderates Want to Take
Gerard D. Reilly
with the Senate and House conferees re-
suming their meeting tomorrow morning to
reconcile the differences between the Taft and
/ Hartley bills, there Is fair prospect that the
| end Of the month viii see the completion Of the
| first comprehensive attempt OF Congress since
1885 to revise our basic national labor iegisla-
tion Despite the many differences between
the two measures, 1t is not believed that any
stalemate is likely to ensue. The numerous
test votes In the Senate have indicated fairly
clearly the form which moderates in both
parties would like to see the legislation take.
Moreover. IN view OF the fact that each bill
had entirely separate origins and that diff
ferent set of Witnesses appeared before the
standing committee OF each house. the two
bills In their broad outlines have surprisingly
large number Of common objectives. These in-
clude the prohibition of jurisdictional strikes
and secondary boycotts, the enforcement Of
collective agreements in the Federal courts
abolition OF the closed shop. ratifying tho
Governments right to iniunctive relief with
respect to industry ry-wide strikes imperiling the
national health and safety, procedural reforms
in the administration OF the National Labor
Relations Act, and the reversal Of the Suprems
Courts 5-4 decision in the Packard case hold
ing that employers had q statutory duty to
bargain collectively with foremen's organiza-
tions
Even the proposed changes in procedures
before the National Labor Relations Board are
similar in many respects. Both measures con-
template making the board more like court
by abolishing the review section. A major crid-
cism OF the board has been the reliance on the
part Of the board members for their knowledge
Of the cases upon the views of this unit Of the
stan. Under current practice after the losing
party has filed exceptions to trial examiners
report and oral argument has been held, the
briefs and transcript Of testimony are referred
to this section for analysis. One Of the review
attorneys then prepares an identical memoran-
dunn for each member. But before 1t Is sub-
mitted to the board 1t is reviewed and revised
by the supervisory employees Of this section even
though they have not personally read the
transcripts or familiarized themselves with the
briefs and bills of exception. Unless this final
memorandum, therefore, differs with the trial
examiners findings and recommendations, the
attention Of the board members is frequently
not focused upon the sharpest issues In the case.
The review section also has the duty OF prepar-
ing draft opinions for the signature OF the
board members The result is that In many
cases the language and substance Of the deci.
sion are products of the corporate personality
of the review section. The amendments pro-
posed in both bills would bring board practice
into closer conformity with the way appellate
courts conduct their business.
Each bill also would modify the regulations
IL, ,Ⓢ.
ployers and non-union employees the right to
petition for elections. The traditional defense
OF the boards present rule is that the policy Of
the Wagner Act is to promote collective bar
gaining-an argument which ignores the fact
that the Wagner Act was not intended to give
minority group the right to act as an ex-
elusive representative of all the employees in
given bargaining unit. Each bill also would
prevent distinctive bargaining groups like
craftsmen and professional employees from
being submerged against their wishes into In
dustrial units
The House bill, in contrast to its Senate coun-
terpart, has been described as severe anti
labor measure. The claim that it virtually
repeals the Wagner Act, however is wrong
What has aroused the wrath of labor organi.
cations, however, is the wide range of territory
1T covers in enumerating unlawful concerted
activities. These include mass picketing Of
places of business, picketing homes and picket
Ing the premises of an employer unless labor
dispute actually exists between himself and his
employees. These provisions also forbid unions
from using their concerted strength to compel
employees to accede to feather bedding practices
or to grant such concessions as welfare funds
The Senate Committee in its deliberations de-
cided against legislating on any of these points
on the theory that they were either matters
for the local police or that 1t was up to employ
ers to resist unreasonable demands in bargain-
ing negotiations. The only restriction the
Senate places upon welfare funds Is that they
must be handled as trust funds with repre-
sentation by management as well as by the
union on the board of trustees policy in
sisted upon by the Interior Department at the
time of the settlement of the coal strike Of r.
last spring.
Another feature of the House bill which has
also drawn union fire is the so-called bill Of
rights section. This would place certain re-
strictions upon union officers with respect to
the rights Of individual union members. It.
limits initiation fees to $25 under ordinary
circumstances; 1t prohibits work permits, as
well as special assessments, unless approved
by a majority OF the membership; 1t forbids
the union from imposing fines against MEM
bers who engage in political activities which
are disapproved by the union; it requires a
notice and hearing before a union order of
expulsion or suspension; 1t provides for quad
rennial elections OF Offices by secret ballot and
also requires secret ballots to be conducted
when questions of striking or levying fees, dues
and assessments arise. Many House members
say that their correspondence reveals these
provisions are popular with rank and fle
members of the unions.
While the Taft bill also showed the concern
OF the Senate Committee with the arbitrary
actions frequently taken by unions against
members, 1t does not contain any
corresponding section-excent nrnuisinn