Toledo union journal. [volume] (Toledo, Ohio) 1942-current, 1948-11-05
Does Ban At
Atom Plants
Reflect on Unions


E. Lilienthals b aiming of
United Electrical Workers-CIO
from the atom laboratory of
the General Electric Co. in
Schnectady, N. Y.
Some extremist have even
declared that it means the end
of UE as a big union and that
it puts any union which has
not signed aft-Hartley affida-
Wits into new position thru
out in dustry. Other union
spokesmen write this sort of
talk off as irresponsible and
unfounded.
Part of the confusion has re-
suited from poor wording, on
LilienthaPs part, of the Acc
statement.
The national CIO Is indig-
nant the way the Acc head
handled the problem. It's prin-
cipal grievance can be summed
up in one sentence: 1t would
have been okey to bar union
individuals on security grounds
but it is bad to bar the union
as a union.
CIO leaders say that this
blacklisting of a whole organi-
zatio implies guilt by associa-
tion," principle to which they
are Fundamentally opposed.
They add that if the Commits
sion wanted to bar individual
union heads theys should at
least give them loyalty re-
view board hearing.
In barring the union by
name, Lilienthal set an unfor-
tunate precedent. But some UNI
ion men say it should be view
ed as a blunder, rather than
as a deliberate tt e m mpt to
smear a CIO union. The Com
Missions attitude is: the letters
UE don't mean anything as
such. If the UE members get
rid of their present officers,
they can have b rg in n g
rights in atom plants the same
as many other unions.
In a letter to UE President
Albert ]. Fitzgerald, Lilienthal
says that he considers his ac-
tion "in no way a reflection
upon the individual members
of UE." He adds that ii the
officers of UE desire, the Com
mission will give them every
opportunity to participate In a
fuller exploration of their 10y
atty. "It should be understood
however" he writes, "that the
Acc would expect the UE Of
ficers to be prepared to give
full and candid statements con-
cerning present or past affilia-
liations of any kind with the
Communist Party or Commun-
ist-dominated organizations. In
addition, the same personnel
data will be requested of the
UE officers as has been fur
nished by employees and by
various officers OF other unions
who represent employees in the
atomic energy program"
UE officers have, in recent
Congressional hearings, refus-
ed to answer the question as to
their affiliations. Officers OF
the United Gas, Coke g. Chem
ical Workers-CIO and several
AFL unions at atomic installa-
tions have submitted to thor
ough security checks before be-
ing allowed TO enter negotia-
tions. UE officers have not.
The letter to Fitzgerald was
written after Lilienthal issued
his statement barring UE from
the General Electric labora-
tory. This seems like a rather
backward way of doing things:
barred someone first, then CIV
ing him a chance for a pubic
hearing. II suggests that the
Acc was pressed for time at
the S C h e n ectady laboratory,
Despite the welte rof evidence
as to the Communist atfilia-
tions of the UE officers involv-
ed, GE heads claim that all
they know about ii is the
"mere hearsay" of newspaper
reports. They have challenged
Lilienthal TO make available to
them the evidence from the
FBI files, which obviously he
is not free to do.
GEs attitude, some people
declare, bears out charges that
the electrical companies prefer
TO bargain with Communist UNI
ion officers who are at their
mercy, rather than representa-
tives of the stronger trade UNI
ions.
Whatever happens in Schen-
ectady there are three things 1t
is we'll to remember:
Cd Anytime the union elects
officers who can pass a secur-
ity check, the Atomic Energy
Commission will be glad to let
UE bargain at atomic installa-
tions.
t2) The ban does not affect
other unions whose officers
have not signed Taft Hartley