Evening star., 1947-10-14
Labor Unions Attacks
On Tah-Hah|ey Law
Skip Main Provisions.
Emphasis Seen Placed
On Communist Affidoyits
On Political Spending

OH Communist AffldoytS
On Political Spending
By David Laurence
Although nearly four months
have passed since the enactment of
the Taft-Hartley law, it is a sur
prising thing that such public dis
cussion as the labor unions have
initiated with reference to revision
has not centered on the main pro-
visions at all.
Exaggerated emphasis has been
placed instead on two points in the
new law which are really not re.
lated basically to the regulation of
labor-management relations.
One concerns the signing of anti
Communist affldavits and the other
relates to expenditures during
political campaigns by labor unions.
The matter Of the anti -Commu-
mist afndavits would have received
far less attention If NLRB General
Counsel Robert Denham had chosen
to interpret differently the language
OF the law. But by announcing his
first ruling, he had an opportunity
to get the National Labor Relations
Board to share with him the re-
sponsibility for making clear what
the law said.
What Statute Says.
The statute says that the affi-
davits must be signed by "the Of
ficers Of any national or interna-
tional labor organization" which
files a petition to use the facilities
Of the National Labor Relations
Board. But the words labor Or
ganization" are not defined. BY a
strict Interpretation, it could mean
not only the AF1L and CIO but also
the World Federation of Trade
Unions. Actually these organiza-
tionS are considerations of unions
and do not themselves engage di-
rectly in collective bargaining with
employers. There is no more reason
to call the AFL or CIO an employe
organization for purposes of COL
lective bargaining than to call the
United States Chamber OF Com
merce or the National Association
OF Manufacturers an employer.
The new ruling-which makes 1t
unnecessary for the AFL or CIO
officers to sign affidavits - does.
however, indicate clearly that an
organization like the International
Typographical Union which directs
the activities of local unions is a
labor organization as defined in the
law.
1t Is interesting to note that the
ITU ridiculed the petition filed by
the American Newspaper Publish
ers Association with the Labor Board
charging unfair labor practices
against the ITU on the ground that
the ANPA was not an employer and
did not directly bargain with en-
ployes. This is a correct statement
but what the ITU overlooked is
that. in the section of the law per-
tanning to the filing of charges of
unfair labor practices, there is a
cPCSA1AS PAOSloo WIllCil SdyS.
I'm the discretion of the member,
agent, or agency conducting the
hearing or the board, any other per-
son may be allowed to intervene in
the said proceeding and to present
testimony"
Not At All Novel.
This Is not at all novel Com
plants of unfair competition" may
be filed before the Federal Trade
Commission by any person. Indeed,
If the complaint is formally taken
up, the prosecution is conducted
thereafter by the commission and
not by any Of the parties to the
dispute. Some such procedure may
be possible under the Taft Hartley
Act, so that the Labor Board, hav-
ing once had facts concerning an
unfair labor practice" drawn to its
attention, may proceed on its own
thereafter irrespective of the atti-
tude Of the parties to the dispute.
This procedure is necessary to pre-
vent undue influence being exerted
to prevent one of the litigants from
pursuing the charges.
The anti = Communist afldavit
problem has not been disposed of
for the AFL because, with respect
to certain unions, it acts as the
parent labor organization with di-
rect authority to carry on collective
bargaining. Unless these unions are
given autonomy like others in the
AFT fhjc nroo y,i1o iov, will I,ra %o
qualify by signing the affidavits
before the facilities of the board
can be used. The AFL recognizes
that obstacle, and that's why it
has been planning to eliminate its
vice presidents so as to avoid rum
pus with John L. Lewis, who, as a
vice president. could keep the AFL
from qualifying merely by refusing
to sign the affidavit himself. The
exercise of such a veto power has
little or nothing to do with the
actual operations of the Taft Hart
ley law, because almost all unions
engaging in collective bargaining
will qualify by signing the affidavits
The first test of the law may come
when the typographical unions face
charges of unfair labor practice for
refusal to bargain. But there are
few labor lawyers who think the
ITU can win on such litigation,
because the Supreme Court has
upheld In no uncertain terms the
power of Congress to regulate labor
management relations and particu-
1arly the right to punish refusal
to bargain.
Reproduction rights reserved)
& E~~A