Evening star., 1949-02-23
Labor Board Majority
Seen Prejudieed in
Favor Of Unions
Use OF Word Reluctantly
By Herzoe in Opinion
On Picketing Assoiled
Bp David Laurence

Vii lNNCtti9 NSS0tiS0
Bp David Laurence
If a group Of manufacturers
arranged to fix prices in violation
Of the antitrust laws, nobody
would expect the courts to apol-
ogize for finding them guilty.
Certainly no one would expect the
judges to say they had reluctant
ly" come to the conclusion that
the businessmen had been deprived
of their right of assembly of free
speech.
Yet Chairman HerZog of the
National Labor Relations Board,
in his separate opinion concurring
with Messrs. Reynolds and Gray,
says he reluctantly" comes to the
conclusion that picketing in
secondary boycott case is not pro-
tected by the right of free speech.
but is prohibited specifically by
the Taft Hartley Act.
Nobody ever was protected under
the free-speech clause of the Con-
stitution from inflicting damage
to the property or reputation Of an
individual If the attack Is SLAM
derous or libelous or exerts a form
of economic pressure that is for
hidden by the laws of the land.
Recent High Court Ruling.
Only the other day the Supreme
Court of the United States in an
opinion by Justice Black. con-
Cured in by all the judges, set
forth that the argument asserting
a right of free assembly under the
Constitution cannot prevail against
the right Of q State to prohibit
closed shops. When there is
economic pressure accompanying
free speech. the Congress or the
State Legislature can qualify any
right of assembly or free speech
within certain limits.
Chairman Herzog is almost
apologetic in his ruling. 1t is as
if he regrets exceedingly at this
time to have to rule against the
unions. He goes to great lengths
to point out that he has no al
tentative but to do what the law
says and intlmates in effect that
he is sorry the law was written
as 1t was.
The minority-Messrs. Houston
and Murdock-who did reach a
different conclusion rarely ever
rule against the unions. anyway
They pointed out in their opinion
that the free-speech provision of
the ft-Hartley Act must be
read alone and that the other
provision forbidding secondary
boycotts must, in effect, be disre-
garded because free speech was
paramount. The paragraph in
question in the Taft-Hartley Act
specifically says that free speech |
is not to be interfered with except |
when there is coercion or an in
ducement to action accompanying
it in the form of a promise or
benefit. ... 1
Innocent Third Party.
Clearly in a dispute in which an
employer is an innocent party the
placing Of pickets in front Of his
business may be as free from
violence as the hoisting Of a
placard telling his customers not
to buy from him or advising his
banker not to trust him with
money or credit. but Congress has
said such boycotts cannot be used
against man who merely buys .
goods from another businessman
who happens to have dispute
with his employees. Congress in
tended to protect the innocent
third party. To argue that all
kinds of picketing come under the
heading Of free speech" is as
absurd as to argue that the right
of businessmen to meet to fix
prices comes under the head OF
freedom of assembly.
It should not have been neces-
sary for Chairman Herzog or
Messrs. Murdock and Houston to
emphasize a belief that the two
provisions are inconsistent" for
in truth they are not. No such
tender solicitude for free speech
was ever exhibited by Mr.. Herzog
or Mr.. Houston in those cases in
which an employer addressed his
employees during working hours
and discussed the issues in a labor
dispute.
The inescapable conclusion from
a reading of these labor board
cases is that a majority Of the
present personnel is honestly and
conscientiously prejudiced in favor
of the labor-union viewpoint and
hence cannot give fair admin
stration of either the Taft Hartley
Act or any successor statute.
(Reproduction Rights Reserved)