Evening star., 1950-08-03
| Defied John L. Lewis
By Lloyd H. Sidener


CANTON, ILL.,, Aug. 3.-The
charges made against me in my
union local in Canton In early
March were, Of course. completely
false. However, a standing vote
: was taken with the district rep
resentatives in attendance and
control.
The vote to oust me and
heavily fine me on the trumped-
up charges was unanimous. OF
course, any man who stood up to
defend me with the Lewis agents
looking on would have instantly
found himself in the same posi-
ton I was in-and every miner
knew it.
Most of the men present in
that union were my personal
friends. Many of them had ap-
pealed to me for help to get back
This is the last of five articles by the
miner who returned to the pits in de-
fonee Of the UNIV.
to work; but not a man in that
room, and assuredly only a few
United Mine Workers in the
country, had any knowledge of
the protection afforded by the
unfair labor practices section of
the Taft-Hartley Law.
went to Chicago March Isl
and filed charges of unfair labor
practices against John L. Lewis,
president of the UMWA; Hugh
White. president of District IL;
the officers and members of Local
7455, and the United Electric Coal
Co. Of Chicago. The labor board,
after routine investigation, was
able to substantiate the charges
had made. and then events hap
pened rapidly.
Agreement Without Hearing.
The UNIV attorneys knew some
thing about the Taft-Hartley Act.
They lost no time in getting in
terested in it. A representative
of the NLRB advised me that
John L. Lewis had sent one of
his legal aides to Chicago. I
understand that this gentleman
was Harrison Combs. This was
about May 81.
Immediately thereafter I was
informed by the NLRB that an
agreement had been reached
without a public hearing and that
all charges against me were with
drawn. The union agreed to re-
instate me at once, and the mine
superintendent phoned me May
% that he had received a note
from my local union saying I
could go back to work any time.
On May % the press reported
these events.
Now, I want to make one point
clear. The vote in my local union
to exonerate me and withdraw all
charges was unanimous. This
shows the power of the represen-
tatives of the UMWA. In one
meeting, trumped-up charges are
sustained among my own friends
to the tune of 100 per cent. Two |
and one-half months later, al
though the conditions have not
changed, the charges are COM
pletely withdrawn by exactly 100
per cent of the members present.
Unable to Express Convictions.
So long as the UMWA members
do not have the secret ballot in
any United Mine Workers local,
the vote will always be unanimous
in any action the UMWA high Of
ficials take, and there will be no
question and no opposition.
But, as the knowledge trickles
through the coal fields that the
miner has instant protection un-
der the Hartley Law before
the local NLRB, a lot of men will
voice their honest opinions.
If autonomy can be obtained by
The coal miner whereby he can
elect his own district off1cials-of-
dcials who now have complete
power over him-the miner will
largely be free to express his per-
Bonal conviction.
However, there will never be
complete freedom of speech in the
union halls of the UMWA until
major issues are settled by secret
ballot and not by a standing vote,
where each miner is subject to in
slant reprisal from fanatics or
''pets" of the district chiefs.
Each miner, during the strike,
lost a minimum of $4,000. There