Evening star., 1947-06-20

-
it would place such . multitude Of
obstacles In the way OF such agree
ment that union security and re-
sponsibility would be largely can
celed.
In this respect, the bill disreHards
the voluntary developments in the
field of industrial relations In the
United States over the past l5o
years. Today over II .0e0. 600 workers
are employed under some type OF
union security contract. The great
ma jority OF the plants which have
such union security provisions have
had few strikes. Employers In such
plants are generally strong support
ers OF some type of union security
since 1t gives them q greater nleas-
ure of stability in production.
CD The bill would limit the free
dom of employers and employees tc
establish and maintain welfare
funds. It would prescribe arbitrary
methods of administering them and
rigidly limit the purposes for which
they may be used. This Is an un-
desirable intrusion by the Govern.
ment into an important matter
which should be the subject of pri.
vate agreement between employer
and employees.
(3) The bill presents the DANCE,
that employers and employees might
be prohibited from agreeing or
safety provisions, rest-period rulel
and many other legitimate practices
since such practices may fall under
the language defining feather.
bedding"
8. THE BILL WOULD EXPOSE
EMPLOYERS TO NUMEROUS
HAZARDS BY WHICH THEY
COULD BE ANNOYED ANT
HAMPERED.
Q). The bill would invite frequent
disruption of continuous plan pro-
duction by opening up immense pos
sibilities for many more elections
and adding new types of elections
The bill would invite electioneerine
for changes in representatives ano
for union security. This would harass
employers in their production efforts
and would generate raiding and
jurisdictional disputes. The National
Labor Relations Board has been de-
veloping sound principles of stabil-
ity on these matters. The bill would
overturn these principles to the Diet.
riment OF employers.
t2 The bill would complicate the
collective bargaining process for en-
ployers by permitting-and in soms
cases reQuiring-the splitting up oi
stable patterns Of representation
Employers would be harassed by
having to deal with many small
units. Labor organizations would be
encouraged to engage in constant
inter-union warfare, which could re.
suit only In confusion.
(3) The bill would invite unions tc
sue employers in the courts regard
ing the thousands Of minor griev-
ances which arise every day over the
Interpretation of bargaining agree
ments. Employers are likely to be
besieged by multiplicity Of minol
suits. since management necessarily
must take the initiative In applying
the terms Of agreements. In this
respect, the bill ignores the fact that
employers and unions are In wide
agreement that the Interpretation oi
the provisions of bargaining agree
ments should be submitted to the
processes Of negotiation ending ir
voluntary arbitration, under penal.
ties prescribed in the agreement 1t.
self. This is one OF the points or
which the National Labor Manage
ment Conference in November, 1s45
placed special emphasis. In intro
ducing damage suits as q possible
substitute for grievance machinery
the bill rejects entirely the informed
wisdom of those experienced In
labor relations.
"a The bill would prevent an en-
ployer from freely granting q union
shop contract, even where he and
virtually his entire working force
were in agreement as to Its desira-
bility. He would be required to re-
frain from agreement until the Ma
tional Labor Relations Boards
workload permitted it to hold an
election-in this case simply to ratify
an unquestioned and legitimate
agreement.
Says Bill Would Cause Loss
OF Protection for Workers.
Employers, moreover, would suffer
because the ability of unions to ex-
ercise responsibility under bargain
ing agreements would be diminished
Labor organizations whose discip-
linary authority is weakened can
not carry their full share of main
tanning stability of production.
4. THE BILL WOULD DEPRIVE
WORKERS OF VITAL PROTEC.
TION WHICH THEY NOW HAVE
UNDER THE Law.
% The bill would make it easier
for an employer to get rid of en-
ployes whom he wanted to discharge
because they exercised their right OF
self-organization guaranteed by the
act. 1t would permit an employer tc
dismiss man on the pretext of q
slight infraction Of shop rules, ever
though his real motive was to dis
criminate against this employe fol
union activity.
(2) The bill would also put pow
erful new weapon in the hands oi
employers by permitting them te
initiate elections at times strategi-
cally advantageous to them. 1t l.
significant that employees on eco.
nomic strike who may have been re-
placed are denied a vote. An en-
ployer could easily thwart the will
of his employees by raising question
of representation at a time when
the union was striking over contract
terms.
CD 1t would give employers the
means to engage in endless litiga-
ton. draining the energy and re-
sources OF unions in court actions
even though the particular charges
were groundless.
a. 1t would deprive workers oi