Evening star., 1948-03-28
Delay in Curbing Lewis
Is CostIyto Consumers

Is CostIyto Consumers
Coal Operators Failure to Invoke Law
Before Strike Is Mystery
By Gerard d. Reilly
One Of the unexplained mysteries in the
latest coal crisis is why the operators in view
Of their many painful experiences In the past
with John L. Lewis waited until the stoppass
actually occurred before invoking any legal
remedies. The section of the Taft Hartley Act
relating to welfare funds provides variety Of
judicial relief for different violations.
Under the terms OF this section payments
under the welfare fund can 60 only to the en-
ployes (and the families and dependents Of
such employees of employers who participate
in the contribution to the fund. The section
also provides for joint administration Of the
fund by union and management representa-.
tives and also specifies the kind Of objects
for which the fund may be disbursed. In
the event of deadlock between manage
ment and the union trustees, provision is
also made for the appointment of one or
more neutral persons, but in the event there
are no such neutral persons, then either group
may petition a district court of the United
States for the appointment of an impartial
umpire to break the stalemate.
According to the public statement issued by
Ezra Van Horn, the management representa-
tive disagreement arose almost Immediately.
The neutral representative quit some time
ago when the method for administering the
fund was still in the formative stage although
had the operators insisted ON their legal rights
no collection of the royalties need have been
made before the detailed basis on which the
payments were to be made was incorporated in
written agreement. Yet although the parties
never drew nearer together, several weeks
elapsed after this resignation without the oper-
ators exercising their statutory remedy to petit
ton district court for the appointment of an
impartial umpire 1t was not until the strike
was actually in progress for several days that
this step was taken.
Another interesting aspect of the contro-
versy is Mr.. Van Horns statement that one OF
the principal issues arose out of Mr.. Lewis
insistence that pensions be paid to members
OF the union who had already been retired.
Obviously this demand If made, was clearly
contrary to the statute. Retired persons are
not included among the list of eligible bene-
f1ciaries. The Act defines the word employe
in such q way that 1t could not be stretched
to cover man not presently employed unless
he was temporarily out of work because Of q
current labor dispute or an unfair labor prac-
tice. The act provides both criminal and civil
penalties for its violation.
While it may be arguable that no wilful vio-
lation has occurred which would give the crimi-
nal courts jurisdiction, this section is unique
in that it permits private parties to ask for
injunctive relief without regard to the Norris
LaGuardia Act. Nevertheless the operators
have never sought any injunction nor brought
any action for damages. The proceedings which
the administration ultimately decided to initiate
are far less expeditions. The sponsors Of
| the Taft-Hartley Act frankly recognize that
short Of compulsory arbitration there Is
| no method for settling strikes on purely
economic issues which could readily be devised.
The creation of board of inquiry which can
file a report to the President, followed by an
! application for a 90-day injunction and a
strike ballot conducted by the National Labor
Relations Board, is at best only temporary
method of dealing with the crisis. There IL
nothing in that portion of the Act which con-
templates any sanctions being invoked by the
Government should the strike be renewed after
the 90-day period had elapsed.
| 1t Is paradoxical that this is the technique
which is now being followed when the specific
section dealing with the welfare fund contains
more satisfactory and permanent methods for
meeting the situation in the bituminous mines.
The way in which Mr.. Lewis recalcitrance has
ben temporized with emphasizes anew the folly
of appeasement In dealing with the United
Mine Workers. It will be recalled that just q
few days after the Taft-Hartley Act passed
last year. the bituminous industry, under the
influence of two or three Of the powerful steel
companies which operated captive mines, made
wage concessions of an inf1ationary character
in order to avert strike at that time.
Despite these concessions, however, the oper-
ators failed to obtain an ironclad contract for
year. They not only permitted Mr.. Lewis
to insert the now-famous ready and willing
escape clause but also provided for collection
of the tonnage royalty for the trust fund
before the detailed plan for the administration
of the fund was outlined. When these defects
in the contract came to public attention, the
rather lame explanation given was that pro-
duction of steel was so essential to the national
interest that 1t would have been against public
policy to have risked q strike. Consequently
the operators waived their rights under the
new labor act to insist upon q genuine and
binding contract. Now that the international
situation has made 1t infinitely more essential
that our heavy industries should be in con-
tinuous production. the hollowness of this ex-
planation Is plain.
| D..