Evening star., 1948-10-31
Board Sets New,PoIicy =
On Picket Line Tactics

On Picket Line Tactics
Ruling on Union Responsibility for
Members Violence Stirs Labor
By Gerard d. Reilly.
The National Labor Relations Boards Inn
portant decision on the subject Of union
responsibility for the violent acts of strik-
ers and pickets is receiving careful analysis
in industrial relations circles. This opinion
was rendered by. the board last week in
the Sunset Line & Twine case, In which trial
examiners report dismissing q complaint
against the CIO Longshoremens Union was
reversed.
This was the first instance in which the
board has construed the new provision in the
Taft-Hartley Act which makes it an unfair
labor practice for labor organizations or their
agents to restrain" or 'coerce" employees. The
insertion of this provision in the act was one
Of the most controversial issues raised in the
Senate when it was offered in the form of
floor amendment to the committee bill by Sen.
ator Joseph H. Ball of Minnesota, as Senator
Wayne Morse of Oregon had persuaded the
committee to omit It.
Some years previously the Senate had re-
jected similar amendment to the Wagner Act
on the theory that since mass picketing and
violence amounted to breach of the peace,
such conduct was matter for local police reg
ulatlon rather than congressional action.
History had demonstrated the falacy of this
assumption. In virtually every major strike in
recent years in which the companies involved
attempted to operate their plants, violence on
the picket line was normal incident. The
reluctance or inability on the part of local
police forces to preserve order became so no.
tor1ous that In numerous instances striking
unions would have the effrontery to issue passes
which entitled maintenance or clerical person.
mel to enter plant during a strike and re-
garded the issuance of such documents as
generous concession on their part
The result was that until the Wagner Act was
amended 1t had come to be almost taken for
granted that employees exercising their statu.
tory right to refrain from engaging in con-
certed activity had no redress if they were
reckless enough to attempt to cross q picket
line. BY 1947 this fact was so we'll known that
1t is difficult to understand the opposition which
the Ball amendment excited Unless its oppo-
nents were of the belief that labor unions, un-
like any other group of private citizens, have
a right to use physical violence to advance their
objectives in economic controversies.
~
The first test Of the effectiveness Of the new
statute occurred early last fall when Local No.
of the Longshoremen's Union called O. wage
strike at a small company engaged In the
manufacture of fishing line. The plant, situ-
ated In town about 40 miles north Of San
Francisco employs about 100 persons, most of
them women. After the strike had been going
on for few days the plant reopened and four
girls went back to work
When they left the plant they were jeered
at by the pickets, called obscene names and
followed by pickets in automobiles who threat
ened them with violence. On later occasions
the business agent Of the local threatened one
OF the nonstriking employees and exchanged
blows with another. Subsequently, as more
employees started to return to the plant, large
crowds OF people led by the union officers and
pickets blocked the driveway to the factory
parking lot and would have effectively pre-
vented any cars from entering had it not been
for the intervention of the local police.
The company filed a charge, whereupon the
regional office, after an expeditions investiga-
ton, issued a complaint. The union made no
serious attempt to dispute the facts which
have been summarized here, but nevertheless
Trial Examiner c. w. Whittemore to the great
surprise OF all persons familiar with the case.
found that there had been no violation of the
act. His findings were issued last January and
General Counsel Robert NJ Denham immedi.
ately filed exceptions.
Except for holding that the hurting Of epi-
thets at the girl workers did not constitute
restraint or coercion" the majority opinion
OF the board supported the general counsel's
position in every major respect. Both the local
and the international were held responsible for
the illegal behavior of the pickets and hence
guilty Of unfair labor practices
Two aspects of the decision are somewhat
questionable, however In finding that the
pickets had not violated the act by jeering and
shouting obscene terms at the young women
who resumed their employment the board held
that this verbal conduct was privileged under
the provision Of the act which states:
The expression of any views, argument or
opinion, or the dissemination thereof, whether
in written, printed, graphic or visual FORM shall
not constitute an unfair labor prac.
tice If such expression contains no threat
of reprisal or force or promise of benefit.
4 u
1t Is clear that all that this language at
tempted to do was to protect the right Of EN-.
ployers and unions to make whatever arg,l.
ments they saw fit as long as they stopped
short OF threats or bribes. But the calling OF
such names as would ordinarily lead to breach
of the peace hardly falls under the category
OF the expression of "views arguments or
opinions" The board itself has recognized this
in cases where the alleged restraint has con-
sisted of an employer interrogating an en-
ploye about his union membership.
The other aspect of the case was the debate
between the majority and the minority over
the weight which should be given to an admis-
sion in the answer filed by the international
union. The minority, consisting Of Chairman
Paul NJ Herzog and Commissioner John M.
Houston, had fully agreed with the majority
as to the responsibility of the local for the
illegal conduct Of the picket line, but found
the evidence Of the internationals participa-
ton too meager to impute responsibility to it.