Evening star., 1949-03-11
Unions Seen Seeking
10 Bar Right Of States
To LegisIate on Labor
Leaders Reported
Reversing Stond on
Closed Shop Curbs
By David Laurence

Closed Shop Curbs
By David Laurence
Union Labor leaders have COM
pletely reversed their attitude to-
ward State regulation of closed
shops and now have asked Con-
gresS to do what Senator Wagner
and the late Representative Con-
merry. comanagers in the handling
of the National Labor Relations
Act in 1895. promised the country
would not be done.
Instead Of mere revival of the
Wagner Act, which did not at
tempt to interfere with the right
OF the States to prohibit closed
shops or other forms Of union Sc
curity. the unions now want to
extend the power of the Federal
Government so as to deprive the
States Of their rights to legislate
on employer-union relationships.
The language inserted in the bill
Just reported out of the Senate
Labor Committee is different from
that which was written into the
administration bill when first in
troduced early in January.
The reason for the change. of
course, Is the remarkable unanim-
ity of the justices of the Supreme
Court in holding that the original
Wagner Act and its successor, the
Taft-Hsrtley Act, did not take
away from the States the right to
prohibit or regulate closed-s shop
practices.
Frankfurter Opinion Cited.
The Supreme Court, since the
first of this year, has ruled on a
number Of State laws dealing with
the CLOSED shop" and has upheld
the constitutionality Of all of them
on the ground that Congress did
not intend to foreclose the rights
Of the States in these matters.
Justice Frankfurter only this week
referred pointedly in his opinion
in behalf of the court to the fol-
lowing speech oy Senator Wagner
in support of his bill in 1885:
While outlawing the organiza-
ton that is interfered with by the
employer, this bill does not estab-
lish the closed shop or even en-
courage it. The much discussed
closedshop proviso merely states
that nothing In any Federal law
shall be held to illegalize the con-
firmation of voluntary closed shop
agreements between employers and
workers"
The court opinion then quotes
from a statement by Representa-
tive Connery, chairman of the
House Labor Committee at the
time. who said to the House:
The closed shop proposition in
this bill does not refer to any
State which has any law forbid
ding the closed shop. It does not
interfere with that in any way"
Bill Bars Interference.
The new bill which the ad-
miniStration is now supporting
specifically says that no State law
can interfere with the right of any
union and employer to make
closed-shop agreement. The ques-
ton Of whether the clause as now
written would stand the test of
constitutionality is still undeter-
mined. Justice Black earlier this
year stated that there cannot be
wrung from a constitutional right
of workers to assemble to discuss
improvement of their own work.
ing standards, a further consti-
tutional right to drive from re-
munerative employment all other
persons who will not or can not
participate in union assemblies.
Justice Black went on to say
that the conduct of unions must
conform to valid law" There
have been suggestions both in the
opinions of Justice Frankfurter
and Justice Black that such a reg
uld Ia IL NdllO lll OIL oJLlCl
respects, might be derived from
the commerce power Of the Fed
eral Constitution. But it is a
fair inference that there also cam
not be wrung from the commerce
power any right ito drive from
remunerative employment all
other persons" who refuse to join
unions.
Provides for Deductions.
The new language Of the Sen
ate bill does apparently recognize
the weakness of any fiat sanction
of compulsory unionization with
out allowing for the right of work.
ers not to join. For the new bill
does put in an alternative phrase
or two whereby workers who do
not wish to join may be required
to pay sums equivalent" to those
required by membership obliga-
tions in union and specifies that
deductions may be made from
wages and salaries by employers
TO cover SuCn QueS.
The union leaders, in striving to
have a valid law" written, have
also yet to come face to face with
the historic controversy over con-
current power as between the
States with their police power
governing working conditions and
the Federal as well as State poWer
over commerce itself. Any explicit
clarification of where the Federal
power and State power may coin
eide or overlap or conflict is a
long ways off and will be the sub
ject of much litigation. no mat
ter how the Congress finally
phrases the pending substitute for
the Taft-Hartley Act
q IoL+