Evening star., 1949-04-19
Labor Board Decision
On Police Chief Sure
To Be Appealed
Action LeveIed Against
Local Government Aide
Called Unprecedented
By Dapid Laurence


CuIled Unprecedented
By David Laurence
The long hand of the Federal
Government has reached into a
local government and told chief
Of police that he isn't doing his
duty In labor dispute.
This delicate point around which
the whole civil-rights controversy
has been waged for some time had
nothing to do with racial or color
problems at all, but If the principle
Is valid. then the Southerners have
conducted their filibuster in vain
and there really isn't any need OF
civil-rights legislation.
For. If q Federal agency can tell
. police chief or mayor what to
do in labor dispute. 1t can tell
the governor of a State. too. It
can order q police chief not to in
terfere with the rights of workers
who want to cross a picket line. 1t
can tell police chief who is over
friendly to a union and winks at
violence on the picket line that he
Is indulging in an unfair labor
practice.
Under the Taft-Hartley Act 1t
is an unfair labor practice for en-
ployers to interfere with the rights
Of workers to join or not join a
union, and 1t IL also an unfair
labor practice for any union to in
terfere with the right Of worker
to refrain from joining In union
activities.
Unfair Practice Ruling.
In the case in question the Ma
tional Labor Relations Board ruled
that q police chief and two of his
policemen in Alexander City, Ala.
were guilty of an unfair labor
practice" because they interfered
with the rights of the union or
ganizer to carry on his activities
In that town.
The police chief, Of course, was
performing what he thought was
his constitutional duty in seeking
information and taking those steps
which he believed would avoid
riot. But the National Labor Re-
lations Board, which asserts the
privilege of looking into other peo-
pies minds and deciding what
their motives are or may be in the
future, ruled that the police chief
couldn't have had any reasons ex-
cept those that sought to interfere
with the rights Of the union or
ganizer.
The Labor Board in referring
to the individual police officers in
volved said 1t found 1t difficult to
believe that they would engage In
such elaborate, expensive and time
consuming efforts to obtain infor-
nation about the union and to
discourage its activities for purely
personal reasons. or In the conduct
Of their official duties. without
prior approval by the corporate
respondents" ,arsa1 art @o
Such an action leveled against
. member of q local government
is unprecedented. Hitherto the
Labor Board has shrugged its
shoulders when disputes broke
into violence on the local front.
Labor -mion lawyers. moreover.
have insisted that the Federal
Government shall not attempt to
police local happenings. When the
Wagner Act was passed in 1885.
the Senate debate waxed hot on
the subject of coercion from any
source" and the assurance was
given by the labor-union support
ers that there was no need for the
exercise of Federal police powers
since these were amply cared for
by the local governments.
Appeal Seen Likely.
One of the controversial aspects
Of the anti-lynch law proposals
is that the Federal Government
should have power to punish sher-
IFS who permit lynching. Up to
now 1t has been argued that such
q law would be unconstitutional.
But the National Labor Relations
Board which rushes in where con-
stitutional lawyers fear to tread,
and insists that the board has un-
written powers to do almost any
thing until an explicit and specific
decision of the Supreme Court of
the United States says it may. now
tackles with characteristic bold
ness the matter of Furnishing
local police chief.
It will be interesting to see
whether the case will be appealed
to higher courts. Certainly the
leaders Of States rights in the
South will not be content to let
the ruling of the Labor Board go
unchallenged. For If the Labor
Board can inflict punishment on
local police chief. so can the JUS
tice Department prosecute locally
with respect to the violation Of
civil rights generally. Also 1t opens
up quite a field of litigation for
those citizens who have been in
Inundated on the picket line or had
their heads Dashed in or their
autos overturned by mobs in labor
disputes. 1t certainly can be
proved In a number Of instances
that local police chiefs are in
cahoots with labor unions and that
many a mayor has been in alliance
with labor unions to do their bid
ding In strike disorders. The case
Just decided will doubtless be a
precedent both ways--as against
labor unions and employers who
allegedly control police chiefs and
mayors.
Reproduction Right Reserved)