Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1948-05-23
Checkoff of Union Dues
Broudened to Cover Fees
Justice Department Opinion Seen A.
Circumventing Labor Act
By Gerard D. Reilly

By Gerard D. Reilly n
Ever since the passage Of the Taft-Hartley
Act q number of union attorneys have ex-
hibited great ingenuity in attempting to
circumvent some of the safeguards which
Congress provided the individual worker against
arbitrary action by union oficials. One OF
these provisions was . clause In the welfare
fund section which limited an employers right
to make deductions from wages for . unions
benefit to the deduction Of membership Dues"
provided that the employe from whose wages
such deductions are made executes Q written
assignment which may be irrevocable for
period of year. violators Of this section are
liable to criminal penalties as well Is injunc-
tons.
The primary responsibility for enforcement
Of this section is vested in the Justice DEPART
ment It is somewhat startling to discover.
therefore, that the department Is constituting
this section in a way which gives aid and
comfort to the group trying to thwart the
protection 1t gives to the individual employee.
In an opinion rendered last week the Justice
Department held that the limited right con-
ferred by the statute to check OF membership
dues also included the right to check OF initia-
ton fees and assessments Of undetermined
amounts. provided the employe could be per.
suaded by his union to sign q broad authorize.
ton of this character.
1t is obvious that the intent Of Congress was
not to permit any check OF OF initiation fees
or special union assessments. Elsewhere IN the
statute Congress differentiated between periodic
dues and initiation fees, thus making 1t crystal
clear that 1t was aware of the distinction which
all union men recognize among these three
types Of payment.
Four months after the act became effective
the union engaged in the controversy resulting
In the Justice Department opinion and amended
its constitution to include the following
provision:
Membership dues shall include the following
financial obligations due and owing by mem
Der or applicant for membership:
"(a) Initiation or reinstatement fees, Is the
case may be,
900 Monthly fees Hereinafter referred to Is
dues or monthly dues),
"(c) Special fees hereinafter referred to as
'assessmentsD levied by the international un-
ion or any Of its subordinate bodies in accord
ance with the provisions Of the international
union"
Transparency, all the union succeeded In
doing by this amendment was to use the word
dues" In q sense in which its own constitu-
ton and bylaws had never previously en-
ployed the term.
Just why the Justice Department was I'm
pressed by this crude device Is one OF the unex-
planned mysteries about the opinion. Courts
have repeatedly held that in constituting Fed
eral statutes they will look to substance rather
than to form. No reasoning was given In the
text Of the opinion itself. The young lawyer
&IaA A,o, fa>s$ I.A
lures Of his superiors explained that he was
motivated by the desire to keep industrial
peace-a function hitherto thought to be ex-
clusively in the domain Of the Federal Media
ton and Cancellation Service.
Aside from the merits Of the opinion. observ-
ers Of government have been at a loss to un-
derstand why any written ruling was issued It
has been the practice of Attorneys General for
years to refuse to render formal opinions ex-
cept upon the onicial request Of the President
or q cabinet ofdcer. Even requests from
cabinet officers are not honored unless the
question relates to some case or controversy
actually pending before the department seek
ing the opinion. The reason for this rule Is to
discourage private persons from securing Gov
eminent blessing for schemes which violate the
spirit If not the letter Of Federal statute.
Because Of these administrative presidents
the Justice Department has repeatedly refused
to issue any ruling with respect to another
portion Of the checkon section, that relating
to welfare funds, even though hundreds Of re-
quests have been received. The Justice De-
partment preserved this hands-on attitude
with regard to the dispute over John L. Lewis
demands for q fund which would grant PEN
sions to persons not now actually employed in
the coal mines. The text Of the checkofY ruling,
however, shows that the opinion was not re-
quested by a cabinet ofdcer, but by the solicitor
Of the Labor Department. Yet the section of
the Taft-Hartley Act upon which the opinion
was sought is not one in which the administra.
tive officers Of the Labor Department are con.
cerned with in the slightest degree,
Although the memorandum was not signed
by the Attorney General himself, 1t neverthe-
less must be regarded as stating the ofacial
position Of the Department Of Justice The
signatories included not only r. Vincent Quinn,
Assistant Attorney General in charge Of the
criminal division, but also George T. Wash
tngton, assistant solicitor general. The latter
Official supervises the preparation Of all opin-
ions which bear the Attorney Generals sigma
ture as well as draft executive orders to be
transmitted to the White House
A more wholesome trend in the direction Of
giving complete effect to the intention Of the
trainers Of the new labor act was indicated
this week, however, in . decision OF the Ma
tional Labor Relations Board constituting the
amendments to the Wagner Act as having
overruled the decision In the Clark case. It
was unanimous ruling Of q panel consisting
OF three members, Commissioners Houston,
Murdoch and Gray.
One Of the most controversial doctrines which
the board had developed under the old Wagner
Act was that it was an unfair labor practice
for an employer to voice his opinions with
regard to the desirability or undesirability Of
unionism il there was an organizing drive
going on in his plant After the Supreme
Court in 1914 had disapproved this line of au-,
thority, holding that the Constitution guar