Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1948-08-19
BY the Associated Press


employers.
The board found the union, Presi-
dent Joseph Curran and six other
officers guilty of two unfair labor
practices against four tanker COM
panies.
1t ordered them to drop their
demands for continuation of the
hiring halls. And especially it
ordered them not to call a strike
for that purpose, as they did last
May.
Effects Are Listed.
The decision has these effects in
the muddled maritime industry.
/. 1t greatly lessons the threat of
new strike on the Lakes in Sep
TENDER. The boards findings are
expected to be fought all the way to
the Supreme Court, but the law per-
mits NLRB attorneys to seek an i'm
mediate court injunction-if neces-
sary-tc enforce the order. Mean
while, new negotiations were set for
today in Cleveland.
2. 1t foreshadowS similar orders
and similar injunctions in any other
cases, on the Pacific or Atlantic
coasts, where maritime hiring halls
might be found to operate in the
same manner as those in the Great
Lakes case.
Order Applies to Lakes.
Hiring hall cases are pending on
both coasts, but the present order
does not deal with any except on
the Great Lakes. On the East Coast,
where the National Maritime Union
settled its differences with shipown-
ers yesterday, both sides agreed to
continue their existing hiring halls
pending ruling on their legality by
Federal court.
The boards Great Lakes decision
was received with disappointment by
labor and pleasure by management
Disappointed was Mike Kearns,
the unions newly named Lake area
director, who commented in Cleve-
land that the ,NLRB is not fair to
labor Unions and the Taft Hartley
Act was designed to break them up.
T. B. Mann, vice president OF, the
Great Lakes Transport Corp, was
pleased. He said at Detroit that the
four companies had stood
months strike and, we're glad to
have the NLRB confirm that our
stand was a right one"
Union hiring halls, widespread in
the maritime and construction in
dustries, are places where a union
receives job applicants, signs them
up and furnishes them to employers
who need them.
Discrimination Is Issue.
The board didn't find hiring halls
unlawful in themselves-but only if
they operate in such a way as to
favor members of the union against
nonmembers. The board said the
Great Lakes hiring halls operate
this way because if union members
are available they are put ahead of
nonmembers.
Therefore the board said the
union was guilty of these two unfair
practices which Congress wrote into
the labor law last year:
l. Trying to cause employers to
discriminate against nonunion en-
ployes through a contract that
would continue to present hiring
halls.
2. Refusing to bargain in good
faith (by refusing to sign any con-
tract without the illegal clause.
Main Points of Decision.
This marked the first time that
the board has found a union guilty
of those offenses, although NLRB
trial examiners have done so in
reports to the board.
Following are the main aspects
of the decision which can be ap-
piled beyond the limits of the pres
ent case The board DEGREES:
l. That when union insists on
an illegal clause in a contract,
it is guilty of refusing to bargain
in good faith. (This would apply
TO any clause which the board
found illegal-not just hiring hail
clauSeD
2. That when a union insists on
contract clause that would bring
about discrimination in hiring, it
violates the act even though no
specific person has been discrim-
mated against.
8. That refusal to bargain, or a
strike for an illegal objective, does
not necessarily mean that the union
is restraining or coercing employees
in the exercise of their rights chat
is, their right to refrain from union
activities.
Coercion Charge Dismissed.
This was the first board interpre-
tation of the Taft Hartley provision
which bans coercion of employees.
The board, by a Al vote, dismissed
a charge of coercion, with member
j. Copeland Gray dissenting.
The four-man majority said Con-
gress, in banning union coercion
was evidently aiming at physical
4 violence, intimidation. and threats
Of economic action against specific
individuals.
4. That the board has no au.
thority to compel a union to pay
money damages to an employer
because of an illegal strike dhree
of the companies demanded dam.
ages)
S. That the failure of a unions
officers to register and file non.
, Communist affidayitS does not pro.
vide an escape for the union from