Evening star., 1948-10-26
Unlawful Picketinq

The hrSt ruling by the NatlOnal LABOR
Relations Board on illegal strike activities
under the Taft-Hartley Act is construc->
tive one, as far as it goes. 1t does not 60
anywhere near as far, however, as the out
cries of CIO spokesmen might lead one to
believe.
A unanimous board held that mass
picketing as employed in strike by a
California local of Harry Bridges Inter
national Longshoreman's and Warehouse
mans Union was a violation OF the law
and that the local union, as distinguished
from individuals, was guilty of the viola
ton. majority of the five member board
also held the international to be similarly
guilty.
The particular acts which the board said
constituted the violation were mass picket
Ing in such way as to block the gates
of the plant and the pursuing and threat
ening of nonstrikers on their way home
entering and leaving the plant-and some
of the language used by the pickets was
pretty strong-was held not to be viola
ton of the statute.
Most people will welcome this curb, such
rs it is, on the outrageous abuses OF the
mass picket line The Taft-Hartley Act
was designed to protect the right of people
to work, as well as their right to strike,
and this decision is merely step in the
direction of implementing that intent. 1t
Is absurd for CIO spokesmen to say that
1t is decision which "imperils the finan-
cial position of every labor organization
In the country for 1t does nothing OF
the sort. The decision merely says that
labor unions can no longer forcibly inter-
fere with the right of people to work If
they want to work, and that if any union
attempts to do so the board will compel
1t to desist.
The difficulty in a case of this type arises
in determining when union can properly
be held responsible for the acts of indi-
viduals. In other words, when Is a violent
picket acting as the agent of union, and
when is he acting outside the scope of
that relationship? Manifestly, each case
will have to be judged on its own facts.
The board, however, has laid down the
following general rules to serve as guides
In determining the responsibility of local
and international unions for illegal acts
by alleged agents:
Cd The burden of proof that the perpe-
traitor of an illegal act is an agent of a
labor organization rests upon the party
asserting the agency relationship.
co Agency is a contractual relationship,
deriving from the mutual consent of prin-
cipal and agent that the agent shall act
for the principal. The principals consent,
however, may be manifested by conduct,
sometimes even passive acquiescence as
well as by words.
90 A principal, such as labor union,
may be responsible for the act of his agent
within the scopes Of the agents general
authority, even though the principal may
have specifically forbidden the act in
question.
These are old and we'll established rules
of law. There is no reason why they should
not apply to unions, unless one believes
that unions should enjoy special immuni-
ties in this respect. In view of the way in
which some unions abused the favored
status they achieved under the Wagner
Act, however, not many people, with the
exception of union officials continue to
believe that unions are entitled to greater
legal consideration than other groups.