Evening star., 1948-05-09
Toft-HortIey Act Changes
Seen Before Adjournment
Abolition of Union Shop Ballot and
Tighter Welfare Section Expected
By Gerard D. Reilly

By Gerard d. Reilly
Until the past week 1t has been taken for
granted that Congress would make no amend.
ments this year in the Taft-Hartley Labor
Management Relations Act. While the act
itself provided for the establishment OF q
Joint committee to study the whole industrial
relations picture and to scrutinise the admins.
tration and overall effect Of the new statute.
influential leaders Of the Senate and House
have expressed the view on several occasions
that none Of its provisions has yet received .
fair trial.
The sudden announcement by the joint com.
mittee Of hearings beginning May "a on pro.
posed amendments and various problems which
have arisen under the act indicates fair pros.
pect of two revisions in the law before adjourn
ment
One Of them, embodied in the Ives-Landi,
bill, would abolish the requirement that no col.
lective bargaining contract making union
membership copdition Of employment can be
valid until the National Labor Relations Board
conducts a secret ballot of the employees. The
other would close loophole in the welfare
fund section which q number of New York
unions have discovered by reason Of an ar.
bitrators decision in a case involving a group
of employers called the Uptown Converter
Association.
The premise of the Ives-Landis proposal %
that the union shop authorization section has
not worked out as its proponents expected.
This may be seriously doubted. At the time the
committee reported the bill, this feature excited
the wrath of union officials and one Of the
stock arguments against the bill was that the
Labor Board would be showed under by having
to conduct thousands of additional elections.
The sponsors of the bill were frank to agree
with this prediction. They said that they pro.
posed to give the Board an adequate sta1f to
administer the plan.
This pledge was carried out by subsequent
appropriations.
Several critics Of this section, however, have
found fault with 1t because more than 95 per
cent Of the elections have been carried by the
petitioning unions. This result was also within
the contemplation Of its proponents. There are
thousands Of small craft units throughout the
country in which virtually all employees have
been members Of the union and 1t has been with
respect to these units that the bulk Of the pc.
titions has come. As was entirely foreseeable.
in an overwhelming number Of these elections.
the employees being already members Of the
union, have voted for the continuance Of union
shop conditions.
in large industrial units where no labor board
elections even on representation cases have
been held for years, that such referenda would
be uniformly carried by the unions. OF course.
no petitions are ever filed unless the union
thinks it has more than an even chance Of
success.
Many Of the big CIO unions including the
Steel Workers. United Electrical Workers the
Transport Workers and the Longshoremen
and Warehousemen have filed no petitions at
all. Any conclusion, therefore, that workers in
industries where these unions are the bargain.
ing representative and where the advent Of
compulsory membership was due entirely to
the War Labor Board, would vote universally
for the union shop is entirely premature.
Another aspect Of the matter has been that
the election requirement has been the only
effective sanction for the Communist disclaimer
section. The only penalty for failure to exc
cute the requisite afddavits has been that the
organization refusing to file could not avail
itself of the right to have its cases heard by
the labor board. But number of unions, in
cuding the United Mine Workers, have
achieved such complete monopoly in some in
dustries that in recent years they have rarely
resorted to the procedures Of the Labor Rela-
tions Act.
shop or maintenance of membership clause in .
contract legally without filing petition for .
board election, many labor organizations, in-
Guiding the United Automobile Workers, which
began by ignoring the act have found it essen
tial to comply. The Mine Workers Union has
continued to be q holdout. With the expira-
ton Of the bituminous contract next month,
John L.. Lewis under the present act Is con-
fronted with the dilemma OF either bowling to
its requirements or Of abandoning the union
shop in the Appalachian coal fields.
There Is also Of course, q third possibility
viz: A strike to compel the employers to &C.
quiesee without regard to the law. But the
general counsel Of the board Is authorized
under the statute to seek an injunction which
would prevent . strike under such circum.
stances.
The Ives draft attempts to meet this prob
lem by continuing to make compliance With
the anidavit section q condition precedent to
negotiations for q union shop but 1t Is not
altogether clear how such a requirement can
be enforced If q recalcitrant Is relieved Of the
duty Of filing a board petition. Despite the
plausible arguments for the amendment, sin.
cere supporters OF the act may consequently
conclude that legislation which deprives rank
and file workers of any real voice in the prob
lem Of their relationship to their union is not
desirable
There should be less debate. however, with
regard to the need for preventing evasion of
the welfare fund provisions. AS . safeguard
to unrestricted control and expenditure by
unions of money contributed by employers
for the welfare Of employees. Congress has
provided that these be administered as genuine
trust funds and that employers be included
In the Board Of Trustees
In New York City where q local Of the
Retail and Wholesale Workers Union. CIO.
had success securing q welfare fund wholly
administered by the union from handful OF
employers, leaders of the local hit on the
bright idea Of telling all employers with whom
it had contracts to make such contributions.