Evening star., 1953-12-07
Supreme Court
Firings
For 'Dis|oya|ty'
6-3 Ruling Backs
Dismissal of N
Workers at Charlotte
BY the Associated Press

BY the Associated Press
Nothing in the Taft Hartley
labor law bars the firing of
workers for "disloyalty" to their
employers, the Supreme Court
ruled today.
The 6-3 decision applied to
Charlotte, North Carolina tele-
vision technicianS who distrib-
uted leaflets criticizing their sta
tion's TV programs.
Justice Burton, writing the
courts majority opinion. said:
There is no more elemental
cause for discharge of an en-
ploye than disloyalty to his en-
ployer."
Justice Frankfurter wrote a
dissenting opinion in which JUS
ticeS Black and Douglas joined.
Justice Burton was joined by
Chief Justice Warren and JUS
tices Reed, Jackson, Clark and
Minton.
Written During Dispute.
The critical handbills were
passed out during a dispute at
station WBTV over a collective
bargaining contract. They at
tackled the quality of the sta
tion's programs and facilities but
did not make any reference to
the labor dispute.
Justice Burton noted that the
TV station regarded the leaflets
as demonstration of such det-
rimental disloyalty as to provide
cause" for dismissal.
1--WE agree said Justice Bur-
ton.
He pointed to a section of the
Taft Hartley Act which says the
National Labor Relations Board
will not require reinstatement of
any employe suspended or dis
charged for cause.
Diverted Attention.
Justice Burton's opinion added:
"The handbill diverted atten-
ton from the labor controversy
1t attacked public policies of the
company which had no discern
ible relation to that controversy
The only connection between the
handbill and the labor contro-
versy was an ultimate and undis-
closed purpose or motive on the
part of some of the sponsors
that, by the hoped-for financial
pressure, the attack might ex-
tract from the company some
future concession"
The United States Court of
Appeals for the District of Co
lumbia had decided the dis
charges were unlawful. 1t said
all concerted activities under
taken in the course of a labor
dispute were entitled to protec-
ton of Taft-Hartley. so long as
the activities do not violate any
Federal or State statute.
See Litigation Stimulated.
But Justice Burton declared:
"The means used by the tech
nicians in conducting the at
tack have deprived the attack
ers from the protection of that
section of the Labor Act. when
read in the light and context of
the purpose of the act.'
Justice Frankfurter's dissent
ing opinion said the labor board
and lower Federal courts will
hardly find guidance" for future
cases from today's decision.
Further, he predicted that the
decision would "needleSsly stim-
ulate litigation"
The Court of Appeals decisions
here had overturned NLRB find
ings that the discharges were
lawful and that the loss of a
unions majority status, as re-
suit of such f1rings, justified the
employer in refusing to bargain.
The union involved was Local
No. 1929, International Brother
hood of Electrical Workers.
The handbill distributed in
1949 said all of the stations pro-
grams were on film and might be
from one day to five years old. 1t
added there were no local pro-
grams because the station lacked
equipment to make such pickups