Evening star., 1950-03-16
Making Unions Toe the Mark

II the Governments appeal from the con-
tempt acquittal OF John L. Lewis and the United
Mine Workers is decided on It's merits, as dis
tinguished from some technical ground help
ful light will be shed on murky area of the law.
The Government is concerned, and rightly
so, at some of the implications which flow from
Judge Keech's refusal to sustain the contempt
charges. So it will urge the Court of Appeals
to approve in general outline at least, principle
enunciated by Judge Goldsborough in an earlier
Lewis contempt case-namey, that as long as
union is functioning a union 1t must be
held responsible for the mass action of It's
members.
unanimous Court of Appeals upheld Judge
Goldsborough, and the Supreme Court refused
to grant review. But in that case, Mr.. Lewis
failed for period of days to issue any back-to-
work order as commanded by the court. He sat
tight and did nothing And it was on this ground
that the appellate court affirmed the contempt
conviction. 1t did not so much as mention the
mass action" theory, which Judge Goldsborough
himself had described as new principle of law
In the second caSe-the one decided by
Judge keech-the union officials acted immedi-
ately to instruct the men to go back to their
jobs. Thus there no open contempt by
them as in the former case. But the men did
not 60 back to work, and the Government follow
ing Judge Goldsborough's line of reasoning
argued that the union nevertheless should be
adjudged in contempt; that, regardless of the
action taken by the union officers, it should be
held responsible for what its members did or
refused to do. Judge Keech did not agree.
where the union,' he said, "has sent commune
cations (back-to-work Instructions such as are
included in this record the apparent good faith
OF such communications must be controverted
not by mere suspicion based on failure to obtain
results, but by clear and convincing evidence,
if they are to be ruled by a court of law to
constitute only a token compliance" In other
words, on the facts of the second case he refused
to adopt the mass action" theory.
This leaves unanswered the question of how,
lacking proof of bad faith by union officers,
a union can be compelled to meet its RESPONSE
bilities to the public And that is the question
which the Government, through the Department
OF Justice, will press upon the Court Of Appeals.
Can this be done through the courts within
the narrow framework of the Taft-Hartley Act,
or Is new legislation needed? If Mr.. Lewis has
found a way to get around the law, that is not
a condition which can be corrected by perverting
the power of the courts to punish for contempt.
In this area, the power of the courts is broad.
But the dangers of abusing that power are
obvious. The last thing that court should do
is to overreach itself-even to the desirable end
of making John L. Lewis toe the line. And
the Department of Justice, of course does not
contend to the contrary.
This newspaper has been of the opinion that
what is needed first in this situation is newer
and more stringent legislation. But if that is an
erroneous view, If the higher courts can be per-
suaded of the correctness of the position taken
by Judge Goldsborough and the Department of
Justice, then something, certainly, can be done
to hold irresponsible unions in line. But there
is one thing which must be kept in mind. The
basic concern is the public welfare. And even
If the Government should prevail in this appeal.
the most that any court could do. under existing
law, would be to compel the miners in some
future dispute to stay on the job for eighty days.
After that they would be beyond the reach of
any court any law now in force. And that
if the real aim is to safeguard the public-is
simply not enough.