Evening star., 1947-08-27

Hartley Act. 1t '''lss%& zRE
appears that David Lawrence.
just the opposite advice has been
given to the employing printers of
the country. Gerard D. Reilly, for
merly the special counsel for the
Senate Labor Committee and the
man credited with writing the major
provisions Of the new labor law, has
written q memorandum for the
Printing Industry of America, Inc,
which deals, among other things,
with the idea that conditions of
employment" will be forced on en-
ployers without written contracts.
Mr.. Reilly writes:
Some unions have indicated that
they will avoid the impact Of the act
by avoiding written contracts. In
stead they propose to reach an
agreement with management pur-
suant to which both parties will dn
derstand that no nonunion men are
TO be employed or retained. While
the new act does not make such
informal understandings illegal per
Sc, an employer runs the eventual
risk of being cited for an unfair
labor practice If he enters into such
an arrangement.
Compulsion Barred.
"If a nonunion man is denied ep-
ployment or discharged under such
circumstances, an employer would
have no defense whatsoever to an
unfair labor practice complaint
and the board could order him to
reinstate the aggrieved employe with
back pay Nor would 1t be de-
fense that such discrimination was
made pursuant to strike or threat
Of strike. Unions are likewise pro-
hibited from engaging in such COM
pulsion with respect to employees not
covered by union shop. agreements
made in compliance with the new
law"
At the recent ITU convention,
there were adopted rules declaring
that printers who do not obey their
, union officers or local unions which
are recalcitrant can be expelled. Mr..
Reilly says on this point:
IF an employer has reason to be-
lieve that a man was refused men,
bership in a union or was ousted
from membership, on some ground
other than his refusal or failure to
pay the dues and initiation fees re-
quired uniformly of all members, the
union shop agreement becomes in
applicable to such an employe.
Therefore, if the employer dis
charges him upon the unions re-
quest, both the employer and the
union engage in an unfair labor
practice"
On the subject of bargaining in
good faith, Mr.. Reilly makes this
point:
While the new act contains a
definition OF collective bargaining,
It ALTERS existing law in only one
minor respect, viz, while bargaining
In good faith is still required. the
refusal to make a concession can no
longer be deemed by the board a
breach of this obligation.
THE most important addition to
the law Is that the act makes the
duty to bargain bilateral, since it is
now an unfair labor practice for
union, II 1t is the certified or recog-
nized representative, to fail to carry
out its obligation to bargain.
Common Complaint.
"A common complaint OF small
companies in recent years has been
that the national or international
union after reaching an agreement
with two or three of the dominant
companies in an industry attempts
to force this pattern upon all COM
peting companies. Unions have
been able to accomplish this by sub
mitting master agreements to COM
peting employers on take-it-or-
leave-it basis. Under such circum-
stances, collective bargaining be-
comes a farce.
THE new act would afford some
relief to an employer confronted
with a union ultimatum of this sort
for he could file an unfair labor
practice charge If the union repre-
sentatives insisted upon pulling a
strike without listening to his argu-
ments or contemporaries
Mr.. Reilly was Roosevelt ap-
pointee to the National Labor Rela
tions Board, from which he resigned
a year ago He is looked upon as
the leading authority on the Taft
Hartley Act. His writings indicate
that the ITU will be skating on
thin ice II it tries to punish mem
bers who do not agree with their
officers and If the union expels
them and endeavors to get them
f1red from their jobs on the ground
that they are not in good standing
in their unions.
The points that have been over
looked by the ITU primarily in con-
nection with the workings of the
Taft-Hartley law relate to the right
of the individual printers to file
damage suits If they lose their union
cards and for third parties injured
by illegal work stoppages to file
suits against both unions and en-
ployers. A mere understanding be-
tween the union and employer may
not be illegal In itself but 1t may
last only as long as it isn't chal-
lenged in the courts by some ag-
grieved person.
Reproduction Rights Reserved)