Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1948-01-11
By jones Y. Newton


the outlawed closed shop.
Express Company Involved
With Judge Brennan's decision
the Interpretation and enforcement
of the Taft-Hartley law may be
said to have entered second phase
the court phase. The first was
concerned with the making Of pre-
liminary interpretations and proce-
dures by the NLRB general counsel
Now the Government and organized
labor are ready to begin the show
down which eventually will lead to
Supreme Court rulings on the con-
stitutionality and meaning of the
various parts of the new law.
The case involved Conway's Elk
press, q freight-carrying company
operated by Henry Rabouin, with
terminals located at Rensselaer,,
N. Y, and two points in Massachu-
sets. The firm had an agreement
with the Transfers Union.
Last summer Mr.. Rabouin leased
part of his equipment to the Middle
Atlantic Transportation Co. of New
Britain, Conn.,, which employed non
union drivers. The union negotiated
with Mr.. Rabouin to the end that
the leased equipment should only
be operated by union men. The
owner agreed either to sell the equip
ment or to arrange for union
operators.
|. The arrangement was not carried
out. Subsequently the union learned
that q truck leased to Middle At
lantic, operated by a nonunion
driver, was being used to transport
freight from New Britain to Cleve-
land. A strike was called against
Mr.. Rabouin's firm, and, at the
latest word, twas still continuing.
The court now is preparing its re-
straining order.
Injunction Is Temporary
Judge Brennan's Injunction will
be a temporary one, designed to
halt the practices until the NLRB
can rule on the full facts OF the
case.
The decision marks several "firsts. y
It is the first reasoned opinion
in an injunction case, one in which
the court ruled out the union argu-
ment that the Norris-La Guardla
Act of 1882, which greatly limited
the use of court orders against
unions, was a bar to the use OF in
functions under Taft-Hartley. The
Judge upheld the contention of Mr..
Denham that the new law stands
alone, taking precedence over all
previous statutes, not only removing
certain actions from the scope OF
Norris-La Guardia, but giving dis
trict courts new grounds upon which
to issue injunctionS.
The Taft-Hartley law compels
the general counsel to seek injunc-
lions where he finds evidence OF
secondary boycotts or other similar
attempts of a union to use force
against an employer. However,
whether to seek court restraint OF
such charges as Misunderstanding,
attempts to force a closed shop and
refusal to bargain, is left to the
counsel's discretion.
In til, Utica case, the Denham
offices decided to push both the
"featherbedding" and closed-shop
charges and they won out. The for
mer involved the claim of Mr.. Ra-
bouin that the union sought wages
for a union driver although one was
not used in the Cleveland trip.
The employer said the teamsters
demanded closed shop. Judge
Brennan ruled that the demand
constituted coercion which should
be restrained.
Too Much Caution
The boycott alleged against the
teamsters involved the calling Of
the strike in an effort to prevent
Mr.. Rabouin from doing business
with Middle Atlantic.
NLRB attaches say Mr.. Denham
has held the position that he should
go slowly" in the use Of anything
go slowly" and only after intensi-
fed investigation of the charges In
the use of anything so important as
the injunction provisions OF the
labor act. They point out that OF
los charges filed so far by employers
alleging secondary boycotts and
similar things, Mr.. Dennam has
gone to court in only nine instances
But, Judge Brennan indicated the
Denham Office was overly cautious
in the Utica case.
while all of plaintiffs evidence
was offered and received lerein," he
wrote, "it is concluded that such
detail was neither contemplated by
the act nor necessary in fact. There
is nothing in the statute Taft
Hartley which would prompt the
court to depart from the recognized
rule of equity that interlocutory
relief may be granted upon a show
ing of reasonable probability that
the moving party is entitled to final
relief. A showing Of prima facie
case for equitable relief satisfies the
statute"