Evening star., 1949-01-30
New Labor Bill Scored
As Breach of Faith
"One Package" Measure Seen As
Capitulation to Union Pressure
Ry Gerard n Ro;Uv


By Gerard d. Reilly
= Members Of industry and the general public
who have been lulled into a sense of security
by Secretary Tobin's periodic statements that
the Labor Department was at work on o bill
to replace the Taft-Hartley Act which would
adequately safeguard the interests OF manage
ment, unions and workers, must have received
rude shock when the long g-delayed admins
tration draft was presented to the Senate Com.
mittee on Labor and Public Welfare.
The bill not only proposes to turn the clock
back to the days when the wagner Act and
the Norris-La Guardia Act were the principal
embodiments Of Federal labor policy, but
weights the scales more heavily in favor Of
labor unions than ever before. Even the mild
est reforms made by the Taft-Hartley law
with regard to the National Labor Relations
Board have been omitted. Missing are the
six unfair labor practices by labor unions de-
fined in existing law; missing are all the pro-
cedural improvements such as the separation
of prosecuting and judicial functions the abo-
lition of the centralized review division and
the rules Of evidence provision; missing are
the safeguards with respect to welfare funds
and the checkof OF union dues and assess
ments.
The bill preserves the five unfair labor prac-
tices by employers enumerated in the present
act viz:
Cd Interference and coercion of employees
in connection with organizing drives.
co Establishment Of company unions.
90 Discrimination against employees.
"a Reprisals for furnishing testimony to the
National Labor Relations Board, and
80 Refusing to bargain with the majority
union.
Its authors were not content with these
however. The draft also adds a sixth and
novel unfair labor practice by employers re-
fusal to assign work to a union which is the
beneficiary of an award in a jurisdictional dis
pute, even though such union does not repre-
sent the employees Of that employer.
Moreover the bill recognizes only two unfair
labor practices by labor unions-a watered-
down description Of q secondary boycott di-
rected against union certified by the board
and unions refusal to abide by an arbitra-
tion decision in jurisdictional strike. The boy
cott provision was transparency intended to
convey the impression that the administration
bill was "two-sided." Actually its inclusion is
meaningless, for the only effective method Of
coping with a secondary boycott -injunctive
relief-was studiously avoided.
In many respects the bill is even more eX-
treme than the so-called Murray substitute
which was presented to the Senate in the clos
ing hours of debate on the Taft bill in 1947
That bill at least made half-hearted attempt
to deal with such problems as the issue Of su-
pervisors being compelled to join unions and
discrimination against minority employees by
unions having closed shop contracts. Never
theless, when the weakness Of the provisions OF
that measure were pointed out. it was success
fully denounced on the floor as sham.
The new measure ignores the brilliant rec
ord Of Cyrus r. Ching, the director OF the In
dependent Mediation and Cancellation Service
under the present act by abolshing his auton-
omy and returning the service to the Labor
Department.
The men responsible for this draft defend
1t on the ground that they are merely carrying
out the repeated statements on labor policy
expressed in the Presidents message and in
the Democratic platform. This defense is dis
ingenious. In various messages the President
has stated that he is in favor of constructive
legislation" to cure certain union abuses. He
has also proposed specifically that secondary
boycotts and jursdictional strikes be prohibited.
The President has never publicly implied, how
ever, that these two kinds Of union misconduct
should be the only abuses dealt with.
bill does not carry out the Presidents pledges.
1t should be noted that the Taft-Hartley Act
fatty prohibits jurisdktional strikes unless the
striking union has been certified by the board
for the disrupted work and the employer is
ignoring the certiflcation. The administration
measure, however, does not forbid jurisdic- =
tionai strikes or even make them an unfair
labor practice. 1t simply provides for Govern
ment arbitration of the dispute should such
strikes arise. A union which has never organ.
lied any OF the employees could thereby obtain
status as a party in such an arbitration by lns
citing an industrial strike.
~
The Democratic platform also contains O
plank calling for effective" legislation to oust
Communists from positions OF leadership IN
labor organizations Apparently the premise
Of this resolution was that the requirements In
the Taft Hartley Act that union ofncials should
sign Communist disclaimers in order to avail
themselves Of the facilities Of the board were
ineffective. To some extent this has been true.
as certain unions which were strong enough
to do without relief under the act failed to
have their officials conform to these provisions.
The current draft, however not only omits the
Taft Hartley Act language, but completely ig- ~
nores the whole problem of Communist In.
filtration of trade unions.
In view of the partisan character OF this
draft, its approval by the White House secre-
tariat is clearly the result of the same kind
of union pressure applied earlier in the week
to stampede the Senate committee into re.
porting out legislation without adequate hear
ings Secretary Tobin, . well-meaning man,
but newcomer in industrial relations, did
not consult the most experienced Government
lawyer in the field, the general counsel OF
the Labor Relations Board, Robert N. Denhan.
Moreover he had only the most superficial
contact with Mr.. Ching and the members OF
the board itself, most of whom regard the
present act as having made sound contribu-
tions to Federal labor policy.
At one stage in the preparation OF the
LII 1lar,, RI 6lraf uuhn