Evening star., 1949-10-29

Ior attempting to cause employers
to discriminate against employees
in violation Of the statute, from
threatening to engage in strike
action for the purpose of requir-
ing employers to engage in, dis
elimination, and from instigating
or encouraging employees to strike
or to threaten to strike for the
purpose of requiring employers to
engage in discrimination.
Other Findings of Board.
These further f1ndings-prece-
dent-making as far as newspapers
are concerned-were made by the
board:
/. ITU and its top officers were
required to stop coercing employ
ers in the choosing of their FORE
men for collective bargaining
purposes or grievance handling.
2. The board ruled-in TITUS
favor-that the so-called feather
bedding" ban in the Taft-Hartley
law does not apply to certain
practices in newspaper printing.
1t dismissed the publishers CON-
plant against these practices.
3. In the Chicago case. the
international union as well as the
Chicago local. No. Is, were Or
dered to bargain in good faith If
the publishers request it and. if
an agreement results. to make a
contract of reasonable dura-
ton"
Danger to All Unions Seen.
Union sources said this ruling
carried a danger for all unions" !"
If internationals as well as locals
are responsible for local bargain
ing, they suggested. international
officers might be held liable to suit
for the misconduct of locals.
The board split 3 to 2 on this
question.
Unionists claimed major
victory" on another point-the
dismissal of charges that the
union had coerced employees in the
exercise of Taft-Hartley rights.
This was interpreted by union
officials to mean that Taft Hartley
cannot be used to overthrow
union laws" on seniority. priority
in hiring and other points.
The board held that ITU
adopted a bargaining strategy"
designed to avoid the Taft Hart
ley ban on contracts which call
for closed shops, wherein only
union members may get jobs.
The strategy, said the decision,
was simply to post conditions Of
employment" under which ITU
men would work. Since no con-
tract would have existed. ITU was
free to strike any employer who
refused the conditions.
History Of "Uniform Policy"
This uniform policy" was ap-
proved at an ITU' convention on
August 81, 1947. the eve of the
effective date of Taft-Hartley.
Later, when some employers wer1
to NLRB. the union modified its
policy to this extent: It would
permit a contract which the union
could cancel on so days notice.
The board denounced TITUS
strategy as "a deliberate frustra-
ton of the bargaining process
to effect the exclusion of
non-union men, squarely in con-
tlict with the provisions of the
amended act"
The "featherbedding" issue in
volved the practice, in virtually
all newspaper composing rooms. Of
setting up type even though an
advertising agency may have sup
piled a plate in ready-to-use fern.
The board conceded that this
reproduction" practice-involving
the performance of work which is
merely to be thrown away-might
take 5 per cent Of the total work
time, but said it is not forbidden
by the Taft-Hartley Act.
The board compared it to giving
employees paid rest or vacations
a "long established and we'll
known" practice which is Incl
dental to the work actually done.
In this sense. it said, it is like
guaranteed weekly or annual
wage arrangement, which is gen.
orally recognized as a legal de-
mand."
ITU cases now pending before
the board include that of the
Nassau Star-Review of Rockville
Center. Long Island. N. Y, and
printers associations in Chicago,
Baltimore. Michigan, Pittsburgh,
Newark, N. j.. and st. Louis.