Evening star., 1947-10-05
Representation Rights
Of Employees Pondered
New York Suit May Test Decertifcaton
Clause of New Labor Law

New York Suit May est Decertihcation
Clause of New Labor Law
By Gerard d. Reilly
A case Just filed in New York last week prom
ises to test the vigor with which the reorganized
National Labor Relations Board will enforce
the rights conferred upon individual employees
bv the new labor law. 1t Is the hrst petition
filed under Section o (c) OF the AMENDED Wag-
ner Act asking that labor organization De
"decertifed.'
For MANY wears the regulations of the Labor
Board provided that only group OF employs
who wished to be represented by union could
file petition for an election. 1nls meant tnat
once a union had been certified, its status as
the bargaining representative couio not oe olS-
turbed by the employees, unless at the exprs
ton of collective bargaining agreement they
took steps to designate some other union to
act for them. Even in situations in which
majority of the employees had gone on record
as repudiatine their bargaining representative
the board declined to entertain petitions unless
the dissidents could find another union winch
was willing to appear on the ballot.
While these decisions were the subject OF
criticism in Congress, the boards traditional
act was expressly designed to promote collective
bargaining, the board felt it would be doing
violence to this policy to conduct elections which
might bring about contrary result. The text
of the act however, afforded little foundation
for this argument for the stated policy empha-
sized not only freedom in choosing representa-
tives, but also provided that no contract con-
tanning a compulsory membership clause was
enforceable against any employe If the union
signing it did not represent majority at the
time the agreement was made.
~
Another explanation for the boards persist
ence in this policy was that If an employer
doubted the continuance of a unions majority
at the end of contract term he did not need
to recognize the union again. Even II the
union disagreed with him, it could not use
the old certification to compel an employer to
negotiate new contract until it had demon
strated Its majority either in a complaint case
or by filing new petition for an election. OF
course this was no answer to the problem of
dissatisfaction among the rank and file, for
many employers preferred to purchase peace
by signing up again with a union business
agent, even though the employees he actually
represented had dwindled to a small minority
of the unit
The new act corrected this one sided policy
by an amendment to the representation SEC
tion authorizing the filing Of petitions by In.
dividuals or groups OF employees who assert
that the individual or labor organization, which
has been certified. or is being currently recog
nized by their employer as the bargaining
representative. Is no longer q representative
as defined . ="
The first group to avail themselves of this
amendment to the Wagner Act consists of
employees of mercantile establishment who
have been represented in collective agreements
by the Manhattan local of the Wholesale and
Retail Workers, CIO. This is one of the left
wing organizations which has been factor
along with the teamsters' local and Mike
Quilts transport workers in keeping labor
relations in the warehousing and transportation
industries of New York in a constant state Of
turmoil for the past year. Shortly after the
passage OF the aftHartley Act the CIO local
determined to raise fund Of 100000 to secure
repeal OF this enactment. Consequently, its
leadership decided to levy a special assessment
on all the membership irrespective of what
views the individual member might entertain
with regard to this project.
In one company all IA of the employees in the
bargaining unit represented by this union re-
fused to make the requisite contribution" The
union thereupon expelled them and then tried
to procure their discharge on the ground that
they were no longer members in good standing.
While their employer was dickering with the
union over this ultmatum the employees re-
taliated by filing a petition in which they al
legged that the union no longer represented
them As the entire membership OF the unit
had joined in this proceeding, there Is little
doubt that such an election, If ordered, would
have divested the union of It's status. Alarmed
by this prospect the union officers then sum-
moned the employees to q conference. It Is not
altogether clear what occurred at this closed
meeting except that the employees were induced
to sign a paper requesting leave to withdraw
the petition. The document was then sent to
the New York regional ONCE Of the Labor
Board.
Thus far Regional Director Charles Z. Douds
has indicated that he has no intention Of giving
effect to the requested withdrawal and in view
of the circumstances of the meeting he cannot
be charged with being overly suspicious The
next step will be to set the case for hearing
before the board.
In the past the board has had frequent ocoa-
sion to rule on the converse Of the situation as
many employers have asked that election peti-
tions be dismissed after they had induced en-
ployes to recapture their application cards from
the petitioning union. In such instances the
board has consistently ruled that this was not
ground for failing to order an election since the
most trustworthy index Of an employees senti-
ments were his actions in the ballot box rather
than what he did in conference with his en-
ployer. Unless this line Of authority is ignored
or overruled, the board should have little diff
Guilty with the problem posed BY the request for
withdrawal.
Just Mistaken Identity
From the oklahoma City Daily oklahoman.
In his story Of 20-odd years Of master
minding, Ed Flynn Of the Bronx tells how an
American Ambassador to Germany was chosen
In the days When the Hitler shadow f1rst began
to extend over Europe And II somebody out