Evening star., 1948-04-21

) New Dealers Dominate
Labor Board; One Is Up
For denomination Now
By David Laurence
AZ predicted last year ut the time
President Truman decided 70 keep
the present majority Of three on
the National Labor Relations Board,
the Taft-Hartley Act Il being sabo-
tagged by Interpretation"
Three New Dealers today domi-
nate the hve-man board. One OF
them-John M. Houston-is up for
denomination now. II he is con-
firmed by the Senate, New Deal
control OF the National Labor Re-
lations Board will continue for the
next several years even II Repubt-
can President is elected.
The latest example Of fiagrant
disregard OF the will and intent OF
Congress Is to be found in the de-
cision in the General Shoe Corp
case by the three New Dealers
Paul M. Herzog, John M. Houston
and Abe Murdock. The other two
board members-James ]. Reynolds
tr., and J. Copeland Gray-dis.
sented vigorously.
Although Congress specifically
said that free speech was to be
safeguarded and that the employer
has Just as much right to speak his
views anywhere and at any time
as do the spokesmen Of enploye
organizations, the majority of the
board narrowly construes the words
of the law not to apply to cam
paigns conducted before company
elections are held.
What the Act Says.
The Taft Hartley Act says:
"The expression OF any views
argument, or opinion, or the dis
semination thereof, whether In
written. printed, graphic, or visual
form, shall not constitute or be evil
dence OF an unfair labor practice
under any of the provisions Of this
act, II such expression contains no
threat of reprisal or force or prom
ise of benefit"
The majority Of the board In
their opinion absolved the General
Shoe Corp. Of any charges OF "un.
fair labor practice" for what the
eompany's spokesmen said in their
pamphlets disagreeing with the
unions viewpoint. The board ca
priciously ruled nevertheless that
the election must be set aside be-
cause the free-speech paragraph OF
the law doesn't apply to so-called
representation cases" where elec-
tions are held to determine whether
q union has or has not a majority
for collective bargaining purposes
In other words, what Congress
explicitly said was not an unfair
labor practice" Is nevertheless held
to be sufficient to set aside this
election. Obviously this was be-
cause the employees happened to
vote against representation by q
union. The custom of the labor
board is to consider any such re-
suit virtually illegal on its face be-
cause the board majority Is COM
mitted to unionism as an theology
Did Congress mean free speech Is
to be permitted only against an "un-
fair labor practice" charge or is ii
to be permitted in the campaigns
before elections? Are the unions
alone to be allowed to express their
views but not the employers? The
AFL and CIO are complaining to
the courts that the Taft Hartley
law interferes with free speech In
campaigns for election of Federal
officials, but probably not single
labor union leader will protest this
new disregard of the rights Of free
speech in q labor union election.
Decision Is Vague.
The decision by the majority OF
the board Is rather vague and ab-
stract as to the grounds for setting
aside the results of an honestly
conducted election. The board says:
conduct that creates an atmos-
phere which renders improbable q
free choice will sometimes warrant
invalidating an election, even
though that conduct may not con-
stitute an unfair labor practice"
The board further objects to
propagandizing employees at their
homes because this goes beyond
the custom of campaigns directed
at employees reasoning faculties.
It says that employers cannot dis
cuss these matters of unionization
with employees anywhere and can't
70 to their homes to talk about ii
or call them into the executive
Offices for purposes Of discussion and
persuasion. There was not the
slightest evidence adduced in this
case of coercion or promises of bene-
fits or reprisals. 1t was simply a
campaign which most Americans
believe is under the protection OF
the constitutional guarantees OF
civil liberties.
But the majority Of the board
with Olyn1pian wisdom, says that
when the employer talks to the en-
ploye about these matters. there
can be no assumption that the
election results represent the EN-.
ployes' own true wishes"
The boards decision in the Cen
eral Shoe Corp. case was customary
under the Wagner Act, but Con-
gress, after debating the free-speech
issue, decided specifically to prevent
evidence of discussion to be used
against the employer in any way
The New Dealers. however. have
found a technicality or loophole
and that's the way they expect tt
prevent the true enforcement Of
the Taft-Hartley law no matter
what was intended by Congress.
Reproduction Rights Reserved)
@V&ac6sB8gg9ag2e0aealDo01o0 Do01o0e1s7] ~ ~