Evening star., 1947-12-07
Labor Board Complicotes
the Communist Issue
Decision in Lowenstein Case Seen
Working in Leftists' Favor
Bv Gerard D. Reilly

DeclSlOn IN LOWenStem Ease Seeu
Working in Leftists' Favor
By Gerard D. Reilly
The National Labor Relations Board has In
recent weeks shown conmendable vigor IN
weakening the prestige Of Communist leader
ship in trade unions by giving full effect to
those provisions in the new labor act which
deny the benefits of the board to labor organi-
cations If the officers refuse to sign the afi-
davits disclaiming membership in the Com
munist Party. Not only was the letter Of the
act applied to new cases, but the board also
dismissed scores Of election petitions docketed
before the act became effective where the
petitioning unions had failed to file the quail
flying documents.
Just two days ago. however, the board hand
ed down a decision which will have precisely
the opposite effect This was the Lowenstein
case, in which, according to one ordinarily
accurate newspaper, the board dealt another
blow to unions whose officers do not file the
mont Communist afidavts" Except on the
theory that every knock is q boost" it Is
difficult to read this opinion without concluding
that the only victims of this blow" are EN-.
ployers and unions which have complied with
the act.
4lc AoWcllSIoUI case lllFOiVeQ SINall IlaTus
facturer In Gloversville. N. Y. The plant re-
Gently was purchased from a company which
had dealt collectively with the Fur and Leather
Workers Union, CIO. This organization is
headed by an avowed Communist. The new
company being confronted with claims for
recognition both by the CIO and an independ.
ent group called the Adirondack Leather
Workers. declined to bargain with either. In
stead, it filed a petition with the Labor Board
asking it to determine, through an election
which union represented a majority Mean
while the CIO struck and threw picket line
around the factory.
The board ultimately ordered an election
but directed that the name of the nonqualifying
union be omitted from the ballot. It's theory
was that the C1O was ineligible as section 9 CO
and (h Of the act, requiring the filing Of
financial reports and Communist disclaimers,
provides that in the absence Of such docu-
ments, no investigation shall be made by the
board OF any question concerning the repre-
sentation Of employees raised by labor organ
ization." The board contended that the party
raising" the question was not necessarily the
party filing the petition-in this case the en-
ployer-but any union which claimed major
ity. From this debatable premise the board
concluded that even in an employer petition
case noncomplying union was not intended
to have place on the ballot.
On its face, the result in the particular case
seems harmless. The failure of the CIO union
to secure place on the ballot strengthens the
possibility of the rival union winning the elec-
ton In that event it will be certified And
although strikes for recognition are not illegal
per Sc, they become an unfair labor practice
and enjoinable, II begun or continued after
another union has been certified as the bar
gaining representative. Should the independ-
ent union lose, however, the boards ruling
deprives the company OF any prac-
tical method of solving this jurisdctional
controversy.
Where the board, Willingly or unwittingy, did
real violence to the intent of Congress was in
resting its decision on such broad grounds that
a similar holding is foreshadowed in employer
petition. cases where only a single union is
involved.
A few weeks ago one of the most persistent
Of the journalistic critics of the act described
the awkward dilemma with which the board
was confronted in case subsequently with
drawn in which an employer, faced with
recognition strike by Communist dominated
union, appealed to the board for an election
Needless to say. this union had not conformed
with the filing requirements. The thesis OF
the article was that If the board declined to
hold the election the company would be de-
prived Of the only remedy the amended act
gives employers harassed by strikes and pick
citing instigated by minority unions which do
not dare to risk q secret ballot. But II the
board ordered an election and the union won.
this would mean that the board would be certi-
flying a union which had flouted the congress
sional mandate Of disavowing communism in
It's oficialdom.
Actually there was no such dilemma. Had
the unlikely contingency of a union victory
occurred, the board could have denied certifca-
tion; or 1t could have applied the very tech
nique which 1t has used in the refusal-to-
bargain cases, viz, making certi1cation con-
,ingent upon filing the requisite documents
In this way 1t would have effectuated the poll
lies which prompted the employer petition
amendment and yet have completely carried
,ut the stated intent Of the House and Senate
conference managers, viz: To require labor
to file in order to be eligible
Tor certification"
Apologsts for the boards decision claim
hat the board could not have reached any
,ther result, for the word investigation" which
s forbidden by the statute where non-quali-
ying union is the claimant, includes the elec-
ion process. The board ITSELF however. did
1ot depend upon any such absurd literalness
'or it not only held a hearing which would be
oart of the investigation under this inter-
oretation, but it also investigated the CLOS
position that current contract was in effect
which might be viewed as bar to an elec-
ion. Moreover, the legislative history makes
t abundantly clear that all Congress necessarily
prohibited was an investigation eliminating
n certifcation.
There Is room for hope therefore, that in a
ase involving single union, the board, if the
natter were properly briefed and argued-as
his one was not-might reach a different con-
.usion. Otherwise unions desiring recognition