Evening star., 1947-08-03
Doubts Ability Of Unions
To Evude New Labor Law

Doubts Ability of Unions
To Evode New Labor Law
Language of Statute Held Adequate to
Void Devices Aimed at Its Notification
By Gerard D. Reilly
One bit Of advice with which AFL and
C1O unions have been deluged since the
passage OF the Taft-Hartley Labor Manage.
ment Relations Act is to refrain from placing
no strike" clauses in collective agreements
During the past week, Joseph Padway, counsel
Tor the AFL. has elaborated upon this by
suggesting specific language which he believes
will enable unions to avoid liability under ths
new act.
This barrage Of legal bulletins has been
prompted by Section 301 of the act which
gives the Federal District Courts jurisdiction
over suits for violation of contracts between
employers and labor organizations Both en-
ployers and labor organizations as such are
suable under this section II any breach of
contract is committed by them or their agents
Judgment against q union, however can be
enforceable only against the union treasury
and not against any individual member or
his assets
1t Is somewhat difficult to understand why
the unions are so alarmed by this provision
IN the statute. Trade union leaders of the old
school IN urging employers to accept collective
agreements always claimed that their signature
on contract was as good as their bond.
In TACT, even John L. Lewis, prior to his obvious
preach OF faith with Secretary of Interior
krug last fall, was fond of portraying himself
IN this light. Moreover, there are already some
vrnoro
suits against unincorporated societies have
been applied to labor unions
Nevertheless the number of suits for breach
OF contract brought against unions by en-
ployers in those States each year could almost
be counted on the fingers Of one hand, as few
employers are disposed to resort to the courts
II union calls of strike. AL that the new
act really did was to create right of action
IN the Federal courts in those Jurisdictions
governed by the old common law rule which
made it difficult to sue unincorporated unions
But the experience OF the States which had
the more liberal rule clearly indicates that the
predicted avalanche of suits to harass union
treasures is without foundation.
Aside from the question OF whether these
fears are groundess. however, unions relying
upon this kind Of advice are likely to find
themselves in more serious hot water A collec.
tive bargaining contract fixing wages, hours,
and other shop conditions, Is not a contract
OF employment since 1t does not identify any
Individual employees who are obligated under
It, Such contract has been likened by Justice
Jackson in the ]. I. Case decision to the tariffs
established by carrier or to utility schedules
of rates and rules for service
It Is a fundamental principle Of law that an
agreement does not become a legally enforce
able contract unless each party receives some
consideration or thing Of value which binds
him to the performance Of It, The chief, and
usually the only. consideration which an en-
ployer receives from the execution of a written
collective labor agreement is assurance Of un-
interrupted operation Of his plant during It's
term Without some express or implied promise
against resort to strikes or other forms of
economic warfare, there is no reason why ar
employer should desire to enter into such an
agreement.
To the extent. therefore that unions are able
to persuade employers to insert into agreements
either Of the two proposals which their legal
advisers are advocating, viz: U clause pro-
viding that nothing in the agreement shall be
deemed to prohibit strike or other considered
cessation Of employment, or (O a clause pro-
viding that nothing in the agreement shall
prevent any employe from leaving his employ
ment either singly or jointly with other em-
ployes, it would seem that they would only
succeed In outsmarting themselves Such an
agreement, being devoid of legal consideration.
would be a scrap Of paper The union, to be
sure, would be relieved from any commitment.
but this fact would also leave the employer
free. He could cut wages, disregard the check
off, or violate the union shop provision when
ever he thought 1t would be to his economic
advantage to do so.
Another factor which casts doubt upon the
wisdom Of this advice Is that employers would
hardly make such concessions without getting
something in return. II the union tries to
protect itself by insisting upon some clause
OF this character and trades 1t of against q
demand for a wage increase or some other
benefit for the workers. the union business
agents would obviously be betraying the in
terests of the employees who have chosen them
as their bargaining representatives.
1t should also be observed that the new act
does not leave an employer completely without
protection against unions which want all the
benefits Of collective bargaining. but wish to
avoid undertaking any responsibility. Under
the old Wagner Act the National Labor Rela-
tions Board developed the doctrine that the
employer was failing in his statutory duty TO
bargain in good faith If he refused to reduce
any agreement reached by the parties to a
written contract This Interpretation Of the
law was upheld by the Supreme Court which
declared that the policy Of the act was ito
compel employers to bargain collectively with
their employees to the end that an employment
contract, binding on both parties. should be
made"
Congress has virtually written this decision
Into the law by defining collective bargaining
as including "the execution Of O written con-
tract incorporating any agreement reached,
II requested by either party" The Taft
Hartley Act also makes what was formerly an
unfair labor practice only on the part Of an
employer de, ITO refuse to bargain collec-
tivelyo also an unfair labor practice for
unions when thev act as repro, ant t,ynx -