Evening star., 1948-05-19
NlRB Seen Trying
Again 10 Emascu|ate
1aft-HartIeyLa Law
Clark Bros. Case Ruling
Despite Its Publicity
Conceded Nothing
By DaMd Laurence

Board continues In its devious w6y
to emasct1late the Taft-Hartley Act,
which n1embers Of the board op-
posed When 1t was pending in Con-
gress1
Hublicity was issued on Monday as
follows:
THE National Labor Relations
Board today overruled the Clark
Bros. decision"
This was headlined from one end
Of the country to the other as If it
were the first time the board had
reversed previous ruling of August,
1916, to the effect that Clark
Bros. had committed an unfair
labor practice" when a speech was
delivered to employees during work.
ing hours and Just before an elec-
ton, giving the employer side OF
the argument.
Actually the Clark Bros. decision
was overruled by the language of
the Hartley Act and the en-
tire membership Of the board &C
knowledged this fact In decision
issued on April 18 last In the case
of the General Shoe Corp. and the
Boot and Shoe Workers Union
(AFI).
At that time the board majority
-Messrs. Herzog, Houston and Muir
dock-said that, of course, an en-
ployer could no longer be penalized
under the Clark Bros. ruling-that
Is, for IAN unfair labor practice
because the Taft-Hartley Law had
overruled that case But what the
three members then went on to say
was that although the employer
couldn't be held on IAN unfair labor
practice" charge, the board could
set aside the election in which the
union lost.
Ruling Of Majority.
The majority of the board said:
Conduct that creates an atmos-
phere which renders improbable a
free choice will sometimes warrant
invalidating an election, even
though that conduct may not con-
stitute an unfair labor practice.
I'VE do not subscribe to the view,
apparently held by our two dissent
ing colleagues, that the crlterla ap-
piled by the board in a representa-
ton proceeding to determine wheth-
er certain alleged misconduct IN
terfered with an election need
necessarily be identical to those
employed in testing whether an un-
fair labor practice was committed,
although the result will ordinarily
be the same"
Employers, therefore, who think
the Labor Board as whole has
really conceded something by con-
curing in the ruling in the Babcock
e. Wilcox case handed down on
Monday Of this week by a panel
comprising Messrs. Houston, Muir
dock and Gray have another guess
coming. Whenever the board wants
to set aside an election, 1t claims
It can still do so and permit an
other election whenever the union
wants one. This usually is when
the union is stronger and can win.
This type of bias was revealed
clearly In another case, Ny-Llnt
Tool e. Manufacturing Co. and IN
ternational Association OF Machln-
lists handed down also on Monday
Of this week and which didn't at
tract much attention in the head
lines. It was issued by Messrs. Her
zog, Houston and Murdock-the
three New Dealers on the board
and usurped power never intended
by the Taft-Hartley Act sponsors.
The ruling declared that COM
panys petition for an election to
determine a bargaining unit must
be dismissed whenever the union
withdraws it's request for bargain
ing rights.
AS the dissenting member, James
J. Reynolds, jr., rightly points out
this gives the union veto over all
employer petitions. Instead of being
permitted to stabilize conditions in
his plant by calling for an election
when there is a controversial Sltua-
ton or conflicting claims and set
Ting the issue for a year as the
Taft Hartley Law provides, the
board now says the union can with
draw at will and there will be nc
election If the union says so.
Quotes Senator Taft.
Mr.. Reynolds quotes what Senator
Taft said in the debate on the Sen
ate version of the bill which was
finally enacted into law:
0f fnYse
which created the greatest COM
plant in the early days, and still
does. Is conduct of elections by the
National Labor Relations Board. An
election under present law (Wagner
Act) may be sought only by union
In the early days, the board exer-
cised its discretion in favor of par
ticular unions. 1t would not order
an election until the union told it
conditions were favorable, and il
might win. Many of the greatest
abuses on the part of unions oc-
Cured in the use of that discretion
ary power by the board in the early
days
To-day an employer is faced with
this situation. A man comes into
his Office and says I represent your
employees. Sign this agreement, or
we strike tomorrow Such instances
have occurred all over the United
States. The employer has no way
to determine whether this man real
ly does represent his employees or
does not. The bill gives him the
right to go to the board under those
circumstances and say, I want an
election. I want to know who is the
bargaining agent for my employees,
Certainly I do not think any one
can question the fairness of such g
proposal
After quoting Senator Taft'E
speech, Mr.. Reynolds went on te
say:
An employer is given (by thu
Hartley Act) the same right te
petition which unions have hereto
fore enjoyed. The decision of tht
majority in this case, however
emasculates this equal right; for
by the simple process of disclaimint
Q representation interest previousl!
made, union is given an unlimited
l~&