Evening star., 1948-05-28
Differs With MIR. Lawrence

To the Editor Of The STAR
In his column of May 20 David Lawrence
quotes the section Of the Taft-Hartley Act
prohibiting labor organization or its agents
from restraining or coercing an employer in the
selection Of representatives for the purpose
Of collective bargaining to support his opinion
that Mr.. Lewis is acting outside Of the law
In refusing to deal with Mr.. Moody Of the
Southern Coal Operators Association in con-
tract negotiations with the Northern Operators.
Then Mr.. Lawrence summarily dismisses the
very heart Of the matter and the sole issue
involved-which Is that the Southern Coal
Operators Association was not signer Of the
original contract with the miners. Says Mr..
Lawrence: THE technicality under which Mr.
Lewis is conducting his veto of the presence
Of Joseph E. Moody Of the Southern Coal
Operators Association is that the latter did
not sign the original contract
Mr.. Lawrence did not see fit to note that
the so-called "technicality" used by Mr.. Lewis
is based on the wording Of Section (d).
Title I, of the Taft-Hartley Act That section
specifically provides. That where there is in
effect a ollective-bargaining contract cover
ing employees in an industry affecting COM
merce, the duty to bargain collectively shall
also mean that no party to such contract shall
party desiring such, etc." and then sets forth
certain procedures which must be followed
by the parties, the first of which has been
complied with by Mr.. Lewis in giving notice
Of the desire of the union to modify the
existing contract upon its expiration date.
Section I'D also provides that in the
process of collective bargaining such obliga-
ton does not compel either party to agree
to q proposal or require the making of
concession"
Reading the two excerpts from Section I'D
together, it does not require legal mind to
understand the significance of the use of the
term party" by the legislature, and thus the
refusal of Mr.. Lewis to accord the status of
4 party" to the Southern Coal Operators
Association. where 1t was not a signatory to
the original contract and Mr.. Lewis refusal
as 4 party" to agree to the proposal that
the representative of that group be included
among the negotiators despite the fact that
the other operators may desire 1t.
Pursuing the subject in his column of May
81. Mr.. Lawrence states that: There is no
rule of law permitting the bargaining agents
to be permanently determined through an
agreement between certain employer groups
and the union"
And again, Mr.. Lawrence dismisses the real
issues In his statement that: 1T is TECHNICALLY
true that last year the southern group was
not a party to the original contract and that
they made a settlement along the same lines
separately"
To the legal fraternity at large it will come
as a surprise to learn that the law of contracts,
generally recognized by the courts throughout
the land, is imperative as to labor contracts
without benefit of ruling to that effect
from the Supreme Court of the United States.
And to the readers of The Star who may
take the trouble to examine the provisions
of Section 8 I'D Of the Taft-Hartley Act, 1t
may occur that Mr.. Lawrence either has not
read the provisions in question or is COM
pletely misinformed as to them.
Final decision as to the whole matter will
be reached, not by the columnists, nor by
the Labor Board but by the U. S. Supreme
Court, and that Court, predict, will uphold
the concept Of contracts as recognized by
the courts throughout the land-that only
those signatory to a contract may be accorded
the status of party and that the mutual
agreement of the real parties to a contract
must be obtained before an outsider will be
considered to have an interest in contract.
PATRICK j. TAFT.