Toledo union journal. [volume] (Toledo, Ohio) 1942-current, 1950-08-04
How aft~Hartley Act
Harnesses Unions With
Checkoff Contract
BY BRADFORD v. CARTER
For Labor Press Association

WASHINGTON OPA) - The Taft-Hartley
w act has been used to block organization
and to break unions. 1t is also a device to
harass unions even when there is a union shop
contract. And who does the harassing? Why
that great pal of labor, Bob Denham, general
counsel of the National Labor Relations
Board.
Take the story of John Cavicchia, who
worked for the Ch~isholm-Ryder CO. at Mia
CARA Falls, N. Y. and was fired because he
was delinquent in his union dues.
The contract was clear. After he was ex-
PEELED Cavicchia was told by the union that
he could use the grievance machinery of the
contract or carry appeals, step by step within
the union, all the way to the international.
He failed to do so, but instead ran to Denham,
and Bob obligingly issued a complaint against
the union and the company.
That was June II, 1949. 1t was not until
exactly 13 months later that the NLRB trial
examiner issued his report, throwing Den
hams case out. But meanwhile the union had
had to go to the expense of preparing briefs,
offering testimony, and bringing in witness
es-not at one hearing, but two.
And Denham issued the complaint, charg-
ing unfair labor practices, despite the fact that
the u. S. Supreme Court has ruled that a la
Dor organization has the right to reject or
expel persons who refuse to abide by any
reasonable or lawful policy adopted by the
union"
Cavicchia was no novice. He knew the
rules. He'd been working for the company
since 1941. The union had had a contract In
1945 and 1916. In 1947 another union got the
bargaining rights, and Caticchia had been
active in getting the second union in, had
served on its negotiating and grievance COM
mittees, as a steward, and before that as a
teller in the representation election. In l948
another election took place, this time only the
first union was on the ballot. Cavicchia open
ly campaigned against the union.
The union then got a contract, and won
the union shop in an NLRB election. The COM
pany posted notices that all employees must
join within a stated time. The union posted
notices that those not in good standing would
be subject to dismissal, and notifying those
who did not sign check-off cards on the dead
line for paying dues.
Cavicchia waited until the final day to
offer his initiation fee. He got several ex-
tensions of time to pay his dues. He got two
hearings before the local, while the union held
up its letter to the company asking his dis
missal. When he was expelled he was notified
that he could appeal further. Previously the
steward had even offered to stand good for
a loan so Cavicchia could pay his dues. He
had insulted the stewards time and again In
regard to requests to get on the check-off, or
to pay up.
When the union had a contract in 1945
and 1916, the contract also had a union shop
clause. And Cavicchia then always waited the
full 90 days of grace before paying his dues,
and often even longer. In fact, he was fired
once for being four months delinquent, but
was taken back by the union when he finally
paid up, and got his job back.
All of which Denham could have dis
covered-if he had wanted to. Instead, in issu-
ing the unfair labor practices charge, Den
hams complaint alleged that Cavicchia had
been fired for other reasons than failure to re-
main in good standing.
So, Denham's office accused the company,
the union, the local president, the chief stew
ard, and the unions international representa-
tive. Hearings were held before George Bokat,
NLRB trial examiner, at Buffalo, N. Y, Aug
ust o and 10, 1949. Another hearing was held
March FL, 1850. The trial examiner had to di-
gest the voluminous testimony, and his deci-
sion was made public July II, 1850.
Had the union and company lost, the usual