Evening star., 1948-05-09

AoC1y xSObSko Az A<NAAAAoe~&S @As~'S e@A-~~>~
ignore the requirements Of the law
members. They have made 1t part
of their demands on all Of the steel
companies.
The second happening involves
the 1,4O0 workers Of the Nashville
Corp, Nashville. Tenn. On August
20, two days before the Taft-Hartley
Act took effect, the steelworkers
won easily a collective bargaining
representation election among the
employees. But, before NLRB could
certify the union as bargaining
agent, the new law became effective.
Crackdown Rulings
Then, the board ruled it would
dismiss all pending cases unless the
unions involved filed the non-Com-
munist affidavits and other data re.
quired by the new law. The STEEL
workers decided not to file and the
Nashville case, among others, was
tossed out, election or no election.
Within short time, the Inter-
national Association of Machinists,
a complying union, went to work on
the Nashville employees. A few weeks
ago they asked a bargaining elec-
ton. NLRB held the workers had
the choice only of voting for the
lam or mo union," that the steel
workers could not appear on the
ballot.
A few days ago, the Nashville
workers voted $50 for the lam to
"a for mo union" A number Of
other ballots were challenged. But,
the steelworkers lost. at least for
a year, the 1,400 members.
The lam and the CIO United
Auto Workers also have been taking
members away from the CIO United
Electrical Workers. a decidedly LETT
wing, noncomplying organization.
A few days ago a firm in Evansville,
Ind, refused to bargain with the
UE, charging 1t is Communist
dominated" There Is nothing the
union can do about it.
After Hartley became effec-
tive, the board gave the unions
lengthy periods of grace in which to
comply with the law. Then, they
tossed out all of the pending cases
of the noncompliers.
There followed a series Of deci-
sions, cracking down on the recall
citrants.
Regarding elections and the like,
the board ruled they wouldn't even
entertain petition Of q noncom-
plying union. They followed that
with the decision that such union
could not appear on ballot where
a competing union asked a plant
bargaining election. Then, the board
said the noncomplying union could
not take part in a hearing to decide
whether an election should be held.
Public Watches Closely
AS to unfair labor practices by
employers. the board held it would
issue no complaints asked by those
who refused to file the affidaHts
and other data.
Some Of the unions sought to
establish fronts" In the form of
committees or individuals who asked
to be recognized as bargaining
agents, but the board buttoped up
both loopholes.
In one case, three employees Of .
company filed a petition for bar
gaining election, including docu-
ments designating them as agents
Of the employees. The board ruled
the three individuals constitute .
labor organization and, as such.
would have to comply with Taft
Hartley before receiving recognition.
There have been cases where
employers charged that union on
GERS falsified affidavits disavowing
communism. All such cases are
referred to the Justice Department
for investigation.
Another aspect of the pressure
that is on the noncomplying unions
develops from the fact that while
they are entitled to none Of the
rights going to labor organizations
under the Taft-Hartley Act, they
still can be penalized under 1t for
unfair practices, sued for damages
and enjoined. The International
Typographical Union, which set
about boycotting the act and board,
has found that out in series OF
disputes with publishers and print
ing houses.
AS to the effectiveness Of the afi-
davit requirement in dealing with
communistic influences in union,
Mr.. Denham, the NLRB general
counsel, recently said:
mo one feature of the act has
received quite so much attention IN
the public eye as -. (the one) :. (.
which deals with mont Communist
afidavits. And no other section
nor, in fact, any other law that
know of-has proved to be more
effective weapon against our No.
menace-the infiltration Of COM
munism into OUR basic economic