Evening star., 1947-08-21

known the facts. Now when a Com
munist officer refuses to sign the
aff1davits required by law, every
body will know who he is. The
union which openly refuses to avail
itself of National Labor Relations
Board facilities to ensure the certi-
f1cation of bargaining unit or to
prevent unfair labor practices will
be advertising its affiliation with
Communist officers.
Already the American Federation
OF Labor, which for several years
has been carrying on notable battle
against Communists, has announced
that 1t will comply with the require
ments of the law. 1t is difficult to
see how the CIO, which has some
unions with Communist officers,
can afford to stick by the Communist
officers. Clearly the AFL and various
independent unions can raid the
CIO ranks for new members and get
certiflcation from the National
Labor Relations Board. 1t appears
doubtful that the CIO will resist
that kind of invasion very long, des-
p.te all the talk about not using the
National Labor Relations Board SER
vices.
Simple Requirement.
The statute has q very simple re-
quirement. 1t says:
mo complaint shall be issued pur-
suant to q charge made by a labor
organization unless there Is on
file with the board an stiidavit exc
cuted contemporaneously or within
the preceding 12-month period by
each officer of such labor organiza-
tion and the officers of any national
or international labor organization
Of which 1t is an at11liate or constitu-
ent unit that he is not member of
the Communist party or afnliated
with such party, and that he does
not believe in and is not a member
Of or supports any organization that
believes in or teaches the overthrow
of the United States Government
by force or by illegal or unconsti-
tut1Onal methodS.
This means that a union which
has not compiled with that require
ment will have no standing in court
when 1t complains that an employer
has coerced or unduly Influenced
workers in the matter Of joining
union or has committed any of the
unfair labor practices" enumerated
in the original Wagner Law and
now reaff1rmed in the Taft-Hartley
Act. 1t cannot get its case heard
by the Labor Board-which is the
prescribed method of getting access
to the -courts-when there Is no
compliance with the laws require
ment about Communist officers.
Loose Talk About 'Snubbins.'
There has been some loose talk
about unions "snubbing" or avoiding
the National Labor Relations Board.
This hardly seems likely, because
the board affords the maximum pro-
lection to union to retain its
rights. If union loses its majority
it cannot lose its certit1cation as the
bargaining agent except by an cleo
ton held at specified times. But an
employer who chose to deal with a
new bargaining agent among his
employees would be free to do SO at
any time If the union which had the
original certification fails to file the
proper afi1davits and to comply with
the law.
There will, of course, be Commun-
ist officers who will refuse to sign
any affidavits. The remedy there is
simple. The union will merely re-
move the officers or say, in effect,
to the public that the union in ques-
ton cares more about retaining a
Communist in ONCE than 1t does
about complying with the law OF the
land. It doesn't seem probable that
many unions will take the risks in
a continued defiance of the law by
standing by the Communist officers.
Then there is the question of suits.
Would union with Communist
officers which may be accused OF
violating a contract and thinks 1t
has a good defense have any stand
ing in the event that persons in
tured by the unions acts or the acts
of its agents begin to file suits for
damages? There are all kinds of
tangles awaiting the unions that are
loyal to their Communist officers
but most of the tangles are of the
inter-union variety. The new law
opens the door to drive on Com
munists by certain unions against
other unions. This has never been
possible before and 1t ought to end
Communist control of unions in
America.
lRanrodmrtInn Rirhfs RNSArYAd L