Evening star., 1949-06-03
Appeals Court Ruling
Affects Whole Subject
OF Wildcat Strikes
Labor Unions Now Given
Warning Of so Days
Notice on WoIkouts
By David Laurence

S1AA AA1lpo1 bdAAG GEIAoAoll JAoN
been rendered by the Court of
Appeals of the District Of Colum-
bia which affects the whole sub
ject of wildcat strikes.
Labor unions as we'll as en-
ployers are now given warning
that they must give so days no
tice of an intention to begin q
strike or a lockout.
This is a specific provision of
the Taft Hartley Act. and it is
one which is certain to be retained
in any new statute adopted to
replace the existing law. But the
National Labor Relations Board.
by twisted Interpretation. has
greatly restricted the meaning Of
the provision.
The issue arose between the
Boeing Airplane Co. in Seattle and
the International Association OF
Machinists. Originally the union
and the company had contract
with a no-strike clause which ex-
pired in March, 1947, but it pro-
vided that it would remain in
effect until new agreement has
been reached by the parties either
through negotiation or arbltra-
ton"
Proper Notice Given.
In April, 1947. the union gave
the proper notice of intention to
strike as provided under the then
existing Smith Connally law. Ne
gotiations broke down in the mid
die of May. 1947, and the union
members rejected the companys
offer and authorized the calling
of a strike. Although the strike
was authorized. it never occurred,
and the Court of Appeals opinion
states that: 1.-The subsequent con-
duct of the union members ana
officials shows clearly that their
intention was abandoned"
Work continued at the Boelng
plants and negotiations were re-
sumed in October. 1947. In jan
uary. 1948, representatives of the
company and the union arrived
at a tentative agreement with re-
spect to all but three OF the IA
points in dispute. Then, suddenly.
on April 20, 1948. the union made
a new proposal and threatened a
strike unless it was accepted with
in "a hours. The company re-
jected the proposal and the next
day approximately l4.5oo mem
bers of the union went out on
strike.
The Boeing Company thereupon
notified the union that 1t would
no longer deal with 1t as a collec-
tive bargaining agent because it
had failed to give the 60-day
notice required by the Taft-Hart-
ley Act. This law had gone into
effect on August %. 1947. during
the period when there was lapse
In the negotiations.
The Boeing Company asserted
It's right not to rehire those en-
ployes who had severed relations
with the company by means Of
the strike. The trial examiner for
the National Labor Relations
Board took the position that the
notice originally given under the
Smith -Connally law was suff-
cient and that. anyhow. the con-
tract could not have been con-
strued as being Of indefinite
duration. The National Labor
Relations Board upheld the trial
examiner.
Point Made in Ruling.
The Court of Appeals. in revers-
Ing both the trial examiners view
and that Of the Labor Relations
Board, said on this point:
I'VE agree with the principle
OF law that a contract of inde-
terminate duration may become
terminable by unilateral action
on the part Of either party after
a reasonable lapse of time. In
enacting section s CD Congress
specified what the reasonable no
tice Of termination would be,
namely, sixty days. In this case
the company was allowed no more
than twenty-four hours to con-
slider a proposal containing de-
mandS which were far-reaching in
their effect upon the company.
The company did not accept the
proposal and the strike occurred.
This is not in compliance with
the no-strike clause of the con-
tract and. even assuming the ex-
istence of an interim contract.
it was not sufficient notice under
either the 1916 contract or the
so-called interim contract.
1--WE are of the view that the
union violated both section 8 Cd
of the National Labor Relations
Act, as amended. and the no
strike clause of its own contract,
and that it forfeited all right to
be considered as a collective-b bar
gaining agent for the employees of
the company"
1t is gratifying to find that the
Court of Appeals, unanimously by
a 80 vote. interpreted the law
and the facts judicially and with
out the prejudices of economic
partisans which so often have
characterized in the past the rul-
ings of the National Labor Rela-
tions Board.
Reproduction Rights Reserved)