Evening star., 1947-12-04
AFl 10 Reject Plea
From clio for Joint
Fight on Taft Law
By james Y. Newton

The AFL today was ready to reject
q new CIO appeal for joint effort
to repeal the Taft-Hartley Act, while
the way the labor law is working
came in for praise from Congress.
Meanwhile, the Taft-Hartley Act
brought new law suits and an addi-
tional Interpretation from the Ma
tional Labor Relations Board.
CIO President Philip Murray, in
letter to William Green, president
of the AFL, called for joint action
against the new law on the grounds
that employers are seeking to use
the act "as a weapon against the
living standards of the workers" and
the NLRB and its agents are helping
them.
Finds Proof of Predictions.
Mr.. Murray said "events which
have already transpired, unfortu-
nately. are eloquent proof in support
of the predictions made by labor
when this vicious law was under
consideration"
However, a spokesman for the
AFL, whose Executive Council was
meeting here today to discuss set
ting up of a political organization
to take part in next years election
campaign, said the Federation
would maintain its old position
that there can be no cooperation
with the CIO until the two groups
are merged organically.
On Capitol Hill, Senator Ball
Republican, of Minnesota, chairman
of the Congressional Committee set
up to study operation of the Taft
Hartley Act, said the law ''is working
out far better than even it's most
optimistic supporters had hoped.
He added that the 'hysterical
charges of union leaders had beer
disproved.
Finds No Unions Injured.
Thus far, no serious bugs have
developed" Mr.. Ball stated in his
regular letter to his constituents.
He recalled that union leaders had
charged the act would destroy
unions" adding: THE facts are
that so far no union has been de-
stroyed and there is no record OF a
union being hurt by the act.'
The Senator sold "the only dark
spots In this bright picture" are in
the printing and transportation
fields, where he said the Interna-
tional Typographical Union and
AFL Teamsters are fighting against
'the rights guaranteed to employees
by the act"
Other Taft t-Hartley developments
were:
l. The CLOS National Maritime
Union filed suit in District Court
here yesterday challenging the con-
stitutionality of provisions requiring
non-C Communist oaths and union
financial statements.
Finds Constitutional Question.
Justice Bolitha Laws agreed after
hearing preliminary arguments that
a substantial constitutional question
is involved. He said special three
Judge court will consider the case
promptly.
2. The NLRB delivered another
blow to unions whose officers don't
file the Communist aff1davits
The board ruled, for the first time
that noncomplying union can't get
on the ballot in a plant election
even when the company itself asks
for this election. The union in
volved in the ruling is the CIO Fur
Workers.
8. In another important case the
five-man NLRB ranged itself
against an employer. The board
asked the Supreme Court to force
the Edward G. Budd Manufacturing
Co. to reinstate-With back pay-a
foreman who was fired for organ
izing other foremen into a union at
the company's Detroit plant In
1914.
The 15-man AFL Executive Coun-
Gil was holding an all-day meeting
to lay the groundwork for setting
up "Labor's Educational and Polit-
ical League" through which it hopes
to defeat in the 1948 elections the
members of Congress who supported
the Hartley Act. Presidents
of the various AFL unions will meet
tomorrow and Saturday to complete
the organizational process.
due Process" Violation Charged.
The NMU suit was brought in Dis.
trict Court by two seamen, mem
bers Of the union, and JOSEPH
Curran, It's president. Their petl
ton declared the law is in viola
ton of the due process requirement
of the Constitution, that 1t denie!
freedom Of speech and Is in viola
ton of civil rights.
The NLRB is named defendant II
the suit. The court is asked to orde
the board not to hold a collective
bargaining election from which th'
union has been excluded for failure
to file the necessary affidavits.
Justice Laws denied request fol
a restraining order, but indicated
he would permit the plaintiffs tt
apply again for such an order, i
the NLRB appeared ready to certif!
the election.
The case grew out of a collective
bargaining election ordered by the
NLRB among employees of two
Great Lakes steamship companies
the Wilson Transit Co. and the M
A. Hanna Co., both of Cleveland.
Because the Maritime Union ha
not filed the required afidavits, tn
NLRB refused to put its name OF
the ballot to be put before the EN-
ploves of the Wilson and Ham;
companies. The ballot gives then
opportunity only to vote whethe
they want to be represented b,
the Seafarers' International Uniol