Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1949-01-16
Chaos Seen in Two-Step
Repeal Of Taft Law
Drive of Unions Toward Monopoly
Viewed as National Danger
By Gerard D. Reilly

By Gerard D. Reilly
The current controversy Is to whether the
majority leadership in Congress should spon-
sor program calling for summary repeal OF
the Taft-Hartley Act and repassage Of the
| Wagner Act before substitute legislation is
even considered should not be lightly dis
missed, as some commentators have done, a.
q mere procedural squabble. The issue is
far more serious one 1t poses the question Of
the very continuance Of free Government, II
labor monopolies can shake of all restraints
Despite his denunciations of the Taft-Hartley
Act, 1t was clear from the beginning Of the
campaign that President Truman never had
In mind returning the country to the one
sided situation which existed before the 8oth
Congress His own helplessness in coping with
labor warfare in l945 and 1916 had been a Bit
ter lesson. Therefore each reference OF the
President to repeal" was accompanied by
pledge to seek remedial legislation which would
protect the public interest as well as being
equitable to unions and management.
If there was any doubt that the President
sought no restoration Of the status quo in the
labor field for even a brief interval, 1t was
dissipated at White House conference q few
days before the new Congress convened. On
that occasion Mr.. Truman informed the men,
bers of the National Labor Relations Board
that what he had In mind was an amendment
in the nature Of a substitute preserving what
he regarded as the worthwhile features Of the
ls47 amendments to the Wagner Act.
Presumably similar advice was given to the
Democratic leaders in the House and Senate
when they met with the President while he
was preparing his message on the state Of the
Union. Shortly thereafter Speaker Sam Ray
burn and Senator Scott Lucas, the new ma
jority leader, announced at press conferences
that any changes in existing labor legislation
would be handled within the framework of Q
single bill.
There was apparently some confusion about
this at the time for Senator Ebert D. Thomas
Of Utah, the new chairman of the Senate
committee. had introduced q repeal measure
which made no changes in the old Wagner
Act except to retain q tive-man, rather than
three-man board. Representative John
Lesinski had intimated that he favored .
similar BILL but two or three days later, after
talking with the House leaders, he stated
that he believed all labor legislation should
be wrapped up in a single package. On the
following morning Senator Thomas intimated
that this was also his view OF the proper
course to take.
Immediately Senator Thomas and Mr.. Lesin-
ski became the targets Of the fercest sort Of
union pressure. Threats Of political reprisal
were made not only to get them to retreat
from their positions, but to induce them to
staff their committees with persons selected
by the unions. They were informed that Or
ganized labor wanted repeal bills Immediately
brought to the floor without even the for
maity OF a hearing. Meanwhile, the White
House wavered by limiting that the President
was leaving such legislative details to the
discretion Of Congress.
Should the White House and the Congress
capitulate to these tactics, the greatest chaos
would Immediately ensue. There are literally
hundreds of cases pending both before the
board and in the courts based upon provisions
of the act which the President has repeatedly
indicated should be retained. The status Of
all these cases would become so doubtful that
the legal rights Of the parties would be .
matter OF dispute for years should only Q
temporary hiatus result.
The motives Of the union officials are, Of
course. transparent. They are aware that II
general legislation replacing the Taft Hartley
Act Is soberly considered by the standing com.
mittees a case will have to be made for every
change in the present law. But II they can
pealer even the procedural improvements in
they would be in q position to block any sub.
stitute legislation.
One of these reforms which extremists on
the union side hope to blanket out OF exist.
ence is the separation Of the judicial and
functions Of the board In all the
conferences which have been held on the pros
posed legislation with members of the execu.
tive branch of the Government, General Coun-
sci Robert NJ Denham, whose ONCE has had
more experience with the actual operation Of
the sact than the judicial side Of the board or
any other branch Of the Government, has been
absent. Nor has he been invited
to serve on any Of the numerous informal
drafting committees"
Yet the improved efficiency OF the regional
ofnces OF the board As O result Of the separa-
ton OF functions has been one Of the most
achievements of the new act. In
the 16-month period between its effective date
and the close OF l94S, the general counsels
ofice which includes the agents Of the board
In the field, has disposed Of more than $4,000
election cases. In the same period it had also
either completed the trial of or settled approx.
nately $500 complaint cases.
While there are still tremendous number
If cases remaining on the boards docket, the
real bottleneck appears to be in the trial
examiners section, 1t now takes six months
wen after the regional attorney is ready for
rial to have hearing examiner assigned to
he matter. The absence of disparity OF treat.
nent in the handling of cases by the prosecut.
ng arm Of the board is shown by the fact
hat all OF the cases disposed of by the general
ounsel less than 1000 originated with em-
,loyer charges against unions. The balance
we're concerned with allegations of unfair labor
PRACTICES by employers
In the face of this record OF impartiality,
would be difficult for union spokesman in
,earing before congressional committee to
xplain their hostility to retaining the indie.
'endence OF the general counses Office Re-