Evening star., 1947-11-16
New Strategy Adopted
In Attack on Labor Law

In Attack on Labor Law
Employers Urged to Resist Unioa
Pressure for Bootleg Closed Shop
By Gerard d. Reilly
Now that the strategy invented BY the cSo
high command for united front by organized
labor against the Communist disclaimer section
Of the Taft-Hartley Act has failed. new series
Of maneuvers to discredit the statute IN the
eyes Of wage earners Is developing. The most
formidable of these pressures seems to be-
directed at the restrictions contained in the
act with regard to the closed shop. =;
Liberals in Congress regard this aspect OF
the measure as embodying one of its most
significant reforms. 1t strikes at the heart of
centralized union monopoly Of employment In
certain industries by forbidding any discrimi-
nation In the hiring process. Moreover, by
making a secret ballot conducted by the Ma
tional Labor Relations Board a condition precel
dent to any form Of compulsory membership,
it gives the workers affected by such con-
tracts some voice In saying whether or not
their jobs should depend upon continued fidelity
to the union.
Impartial surveys Of worker opinion have
shown that this is one Of the most popular
reforms with union employees. More than rs
per cent of those canvassed have indicated s.
that they favor it. BY the same token 1t has
excited the most bitter resentment on the part
of dictatorial union officials for it has taken
away their ability to cause employees who dis
agree with the dominant clique or who decline
to acquiesce in fines and special assessments
to be discharged and blacklisted by the simple
device of declaring thep no longer members
in good standing. The act provides that even
though a union wins a union shop election
and secures a contract an employe expelled
from his union cannot be discharged unless
the denial Of membership Is based solely upon
his failure to pay q reasonable initiation fee
and periodic dues. =
An address by Robert N. Denhsxn general
counsel Of the labor board. before the et.
Louis Bar Association last week hss revealed
that many unions through the exercise Of
economic pressure upon employers are defying
those amendments to the Wagner Act by max
Ing bootleg contracts for the closed or union
shop without conforming to the standards OF
the new law Mr.. Denham pointed out that
employers and unions who do this will have
to face a day of reckoning. nonunion man
denied employment under these contracts as
well as employees who join union and are then
the board. In these circumstances, this tribu-
nal Is directed to issue orders for their rein-
statement and back pay. The damages can be
assessed against both the union and the en-
ployer.
One Of the great difficulties with any statute,
however which confers rights upon the individ-
ual worker which neither an employer nor
union can bargain away, is the devising Of
machinery which will successfully discourage
the infringement of such rights. Unless indi-
viduaI workers are unusually well informed
they rarely resort to courts or administrative
agencies. And In the absence Of charge being
fled the general counsel of the labor board
has no jurisdiction to prosecute even the most
fragrant violation Of the act.
Unions are aware Of this. Consequently, by
strikes and threats Of strikes they have in
duced many employers to sign such contracts.
Under the act, the liability for damages arises
not from the making Of the discriminatory
agreement, but from its subsequent applica-
ton to q nonunion worker. In his talk. Mr.
Denham explained some Of these reasons for
the inability Of his staff to prevent unions and
employers from continuing to make such ar
rangements.
Mr. Denham's comments on the situation do
not mean however that law abiding employer
Is without remedy when faced with union shop
demand, backed by strikes or threats OF strikes
by a union which has not been authorized by
secret ballot by the employees to make such
contract. Prior to the amendments to the
Wagner Act, the board issued number of de-
cisions holding that the mere publication or
posting of an illegal closed-shop agreement had
q coercive effect upon employees. 1t was there-
fore violation of subsection Of the old act
icI, tei restraining
employees in their freedom Of choice in the mat
ter Of selecting bargaining representatives or.
joining labor organizations. ....,
Under the new act it is illegal for unions to
restrain or coerce employees The amendments
also make it an unfair labor practice Tor
labor organization ito cause or attempt to cause
an employer to discriminate against employees"
in violation of that section of the law which
limits the scope of the closed shop While 1t
may be argued that until an employe has actu-
ally been refused employment or discharged
that the union has not caused an act OF dis
elimination" it is obvious that efforts to inveigle
an employer into a discriminatory agreement
amounts to an attempt to cause" such vio-
lation.
Moreover, under prior board decisions which
treated an employers insistence upon an illegal
condition being placed in a collective bargaining
agreement as breach Of the duty to bargain,
1t follows that union which is adamant about
q closed-shop demand is refusing to bargain IN
good faith The new act makes the duty to bar"
gain mutual
Despite the fact that the law provides ems
ployers with some redress against illegal un"0
ion pressures, there will inevitably be employers
more willing to purchase the favor of the un-s
ion business agent than to vindicate their own
legal rights and those of their employees In
such circumstances there is little that Mr.
Denham can do except to instruct his regional
Offices to be vigilant in entertaining and pros
ecuting the cases of individual workers wilo'
have the courage to file charges when such cones
tracts are published or enforced. 7s
But where employers at great risk of eco.e