Evening star., 1948-01-18
Judicial Ruling Roises
Question Of NLRB Role

Juolcldl kulIng kuIses
Question Of NLRB Role
A Minor Change in Wagner Act Seen
Dividing Authority With Courts
| By Gerard d. Reilly
1urisdictional battle between the National
Labor Relations Board and the Federal dis.
trict courts seems to be developing over tho
| question Of whether the Board has lost its
exclusive power to hear and decide cases In.
volving unfair labor practices. Disturbed by
| repercussions from the recent holding by
] U. S. Judge Hayes of North Carolina to the
| effect that management and labor can now
| sidestep the Board, General Counsel Robert
N. Denham was preparing this week to inter-
vene IN what had begun as an obscure suit
between private litigants In order TO protect
the historic domain Of his agency.
The decision containing this legal bornbsheIl
was handed down In an action brought by
the textile workers, CIO, asking for an In.
junction to require the Amazon Cotton Mil
Company Of Townsville, N. c., to bargain
collectively with the union. The record shows
that the union, after q Board election, was
certified In 1943 as the exclusive representa-
tive Of the employees Of the company. When
its contract expired last March, the company
refused to recognize 1t any longer. The union
then called a strike. which has apparently
been unsuccessful. Claiming that 1t still rep
resented a majority Of the workers, It also
filed charges with the Board which issued
complaint accusing the company of an illegal
refusal to bargain under Sec. (5) OF the
Wagner Act
baa ort, In,
the bill for the injunction was filed by tho
union. One Of the unexplained mysteries Of
the case is why the union took this step.
The textile union, to be sure, is one Of the
few CIO afaliates which has qualified under
the amended Wagner Act by publishing It's
financial records and executing the Communist
afndavits. But 1t has followed the usual CIo
line, which is one Of hysteric opposition 10
the new labor law and denunciation OF Mr..
Denham as labor batter Of the blackest dye,
whenever he carries out his statutory duty
OF attempting to enforce 1t.
Moreover, organized labor has been % op-
posed to the injunctive process that It has
constantly trie6 to convince the courts and
Congress that even the United States Govern
ment should not be permitted to apply for
such relief AS a, result the Supreme Court
has interpreted the Norris-La Guardis Act 30
broadly that the vote of the Federal judiciary
in labor disputes Is extremely limited. The
invocation of this hated remedy by national
CIO union therefore has something of . man
bites dog" aspect.
Much more startling was the hospitality
shown by the court to the unions application.
The company had sought to give 1t short shrift.
by filing a motion to dismiss. In support OF
the motion, the employers counsel called the
attention Of the court to such established
landmarks as Meyers VS.. Bethlehem, Supreme
Court decision declaring that since Congress
had vested the board with exclusive jurisdic-
ton to redress unfair labor practices, lower
courts should cease to issue orders restraining
that administrative body from holding hear
ings.
It was pointed out to the court that the
unions entire theory of its case was founded
upon an alleged refusal to bargain. An en-
ployers duty to deal with labor organiSa-
ton representing the majority of his workers,
it was conceded. arises not out OF common law
or penal statute, but because q failure to
perform this duty Is defined both in the orig
inal and amended Labor Relations Act as an
unfair labor practice. In fact, the applicable
subsections Of the new act were expressly cited
in the complaint Of the plaintiff union.
According to Judge Hayes all this was imma-
terial as a result Of one minor change made
by the Senate when 1t revised the Wagner
Act during its consideration Of the Taft bill.
This was the omission of the word exclusive"
In the section relating to the Jurisdiction Of
the board to prevent unfair labor practices
The Judge, therefore, concluded that the courts
had thereby acquired concurrent Jurisdiction
****
Further authority for this startling view was
found by the court in an explanation OF the
House conference managers They had stated
that when two remedies exist one before the
board and one before the courts, the remedy
before the board shall be in addition to, and
not in lieu of, other remedies"
II Judge Hayes Is right he has succeeded In
accomplishing change in our labor laws which
neither Senators Ball or Donnell on the floor
OF the Senate. nor Representatives Hartley and
Borden in conference, were able to achieve, viz:
granting to private parties right to 60 directly
into the Federal courts for injunctive relief In
labor controversies. Such proposal was made
in the Senate Labor Committee with respect to
jurisdictional strikes and secondary boycotts
1t was rejected, however, in favor of provision
which gave the board Jurisdiction over this
kind Of activity by labor unions and directed
board agents to apply for temporary intunctive
relief while cases Of this sort were awaiting
board adjudication. .-.,.. az
Because Of the cumbersome character Of this
procedure, Senator Ball then announced that
he would carry the matter to the floor. 1t
turned out, however, that Senator vandenberg
and other leaders were unwilling to support 20 +.
fundamental a change in the Norris-Laa Guar
dia Act. The matter was compromised by
passage Of substitute amendment offered by
Senator Taft which made unions engaging In
jurisdictional strikes and secondary boycotts
liable in damages. --
In defending this substitute, Senator Taft
made it abundantly clear that 1t did not au-
thoriz. the issuance of injunctions. It's adop-
ton, however, did make it necessary to provide
that the boards Jurisdiction was no longer .
"ovcJ,civa Tn {ba Jiob+ ~ tI,i, 1~ea~f~kt,>