Evening star., 1947-08-05

Clark Brothers,
Inc, of Olean, N. 4
Y, had con-
troversy over DA''' Lawrence
whether the CIO or an Independent
union should represent the employees.
Even though the independent union
has twice won out in elections and
the issue has become superfluous
now the court insisted on making a
ruling.
The controversy centered on two
charges-one that the company's in
dustrial relations director engaged
in surveillance" and the other that
the employer, even though deliver
ing a speech admittedly of an "un-
exceptionable" character, compelled
the employees to listen during work
ing hours.
Report on First Charge.
I'm respect to the first charge, the
three Judge court says:
1.-The charge of surveillance IS
based on two visits by the respond
ent's industrial relations director to
a saloon frequented by some Of the
employees for the purpose of over
hearing what they were saying about
the election to be held on January
10, 1945. What he heard did not
result in any action being taken
against the employe nor in any inter-
ference by the respondent (the COM
pany) in that election; it does not
even appear that any employe knew
that his remarks had been over
heard"
Up to this point, the reader will
assume that if no intimidation oc-
CURED and nobody, not even the
employees sitting in a public place,
were aware of the presence of the
company's industrial relations di-
rector, then certainly the incident
was irrelevant.
But the three Judge court added:
Petty as the incident is, we think
we must sustain the finding of sur
veillance. A ruling that an en-
ployer was privileged to engage in
intentional eavesdropping would be
likely to deter free discussion by
employees of self-organizational mat
ters."
This is but another way of saying
that this three-judge court con-
siders itself obligated to write a law
or promulgate legislation which the
Congress did not adopt. Thus, the
three-judge court feels it must issue
rulings to prohibit Industrial rela-
tions directors from exercising their
rights as citizens to enter public
places and to patronize the same as
they please and must keep away
from any saloons or eating places
or drugstores or street corners or
any public place where employees
might incidentally be discussing
"selNorganizational matters"
The next point is an even more
fragrant case of legislation by judges.
1t relstes to the action of the COM
pany president in making known to
his employees during working hours
his views on unionization. The
three-judge court says:
AN employer has an interest in
presenting his views on labor rela-
tions to his employees. We should
hesitate to hold that he may not do
this on company time and pay, pro-
vided a similar opportunity to ad-
dress them were accorded represen-
tatives of union ""'. In these cir
cumstances we believe the board was
justified in finding that the respond
ent's conduct was coercive and an
interference with the employees right
to self-organization, despite the gen.
orally unexceptionable character of
the presidents remarks"
New Deal Practice.
Here we have three Judge court
promulgating an amendment to the
Wagner Act, which had said nothing
at all about an employers discussion
with his employees during working
hours. In that amendment, arbi-
trarily proclaimed, the court under
takes to say that hereafter /; is all
right for employers to address their
employees but the representative of a
union also has the right to discuss
the matter at that same time and
place. Congress wrote no such rule
in the Wagner law but this three
Judge court-and it is no exception
has followed the New Deal practice
of judicial amendments to the laws
Of Congress.
The Taft-Hartley law has en-
deavored to correct the tieing up of
an employers speech with other un-
fair labor practice charges, and it
may be that Congress hasn't gone
far enough to protect the right of
communication between an en-
ployer and his employees. The new
law says that "the expressing of any
views, argument, or opinion, or the
dissemination thereof shall not
constitute or be evidence of an un-
fair labor practice under any of the
provisions of this act if such express
sion contains no threat of rep1isal or
force or promise of benefit"
In the Clark case, the mere ex-
preston by the employer of his
views was tied in with another al
legged unfair labor practice" and
called coercion" AS long as New
Deal K judges sit on the bench and
&egislate, Congress will have to grow
more instead of less legalistic In
safeguarding the right OF free
speech.
Reproduction Rights Reserved.)