Evening star., 1953-02-10
Council Pickets
School Project
In Alexandria
Building Workers
Protest Refusal
To Sign Contract


Aparochial school construction
picketed yesterday by the WASH
ington Building Trades Council.
The pickets were sent to publi-
ciZe the refusal of the builder.
Eugene Simpson & Bro. Of
Alexandria, to sign a contract
with the Trades Council. accord.
ing to Henry Kaiser. attorney
for the council. The council Is
an affiliation of area labor unions
in the building field.
A spokesman for the Simpson
firm said the company employs
only union labor. He confirmed,
however, that the company has
no contract with the council,
which represents various con.
struction unions.
The Simpson spokesman said
work on the addition to the
school. st. Mary's. at Green and
Royal streets, was generally
proceeding" today. There were
no picketS.
Police Bar Picketing.
Yesterday. police shooed pick.
cts away from four Simpson
including an addition to
the Fairfax County Courthouse.
The dispute was seen as de-
veloping into q possible new test
of Virginia's "Right-to- Work"
law.
Pickets said they were warned
that the law prohibits picketing
by any one who is not an en-
ploye or former employe of q
firm involved in a strike or lock.
out. None of the pickets were
Simpson employees.
Mr.. Kaiser said there was no
strike involved in this instance.
he said 1t wasn't the councils
to call a strike. but ha
there was a complete
work Stoppage at the courthouse
project yesterday until the pick
cts were sent away.
May Be Test Case.
Mr.. Kaiser said the dispute
might be the beginning of a new
test Of the "Right-to- Work" Law.
A section of the law prohibiting
picketing by other than en-
ployes was declared unconstitu.
tional two years ago. In 1862.
the Legislature adopted the new
section, modifying the ban to
apply only when strike or lock-
outs are involved.
Commonwealth Attorneys
Howard w. Smith, jr.. of Alex
andria and Hugh B. Marsh of
Fairfax said the picket lines were
called to their attention yester-
day by Andrew w. Clarke, attor-
ney for the Simpson firm. Both
Mr.. Smith and Mr.. Marsh said
they accepted Mr.. Clarke's word
that a strike was involved and
agreed with him that the pickets,
therefore. were violating the law,
"The men were coming of the
job at the Fairfax Courthouse.
and that certainly Is a strike az
far as I'm concerned" said Mr..
Clarke. THAT was the purpose
of putting the pickets on the
job-so other workmen wouldn't
cross the picket line"
Denies Work Stoppage.
Clarence Simpson of the build
ing firm meanwhile told report
ers that the picket lines had not
caused any work stoppage on
any OF his jobs.
Regardless of pressure from
certain groups in the District"
said Mr.. Simpson, "our firm will
continue it's policy of upholding
the laws of Virginia"
The Simpson firm has not had
a contract with the trades coun-
Gil since last July. Mr.. Clarke
said the Simpson firm would not
sign a contract it felt would
cause the firm to violate Vir-
ginia'S "Right-to- Work" Law.
Other Case Involved.
The picketing yesterday CO.
incided with a hearing in the
complicated Alexandria Redevel-
opment and Housing Authority
case. which also involves provi-
Sions of the "Right-to- Work"
law and the Simpson firm.
Mr.. Simpson noted that tho
picketing occurred simultane-
ously with the hearing. Mr..
Kaiser said the decision to picket
was not connected with the liti-
cation.
The case involves the Alex.
andria agency'S decision to re.
ject the low bid for million
dollar housing project because it
came from union builder. The
low bid was submitted by Victor
Beauchamp. Inc. of Washing
ton, which belongs to q builders
organization that has a con.
tract with the Washington Build.
ing Trades Council.
Court Weighs Motions.
Judge Albert v. Bryan took
four motions under advisement
after hearing them argued yes
terday. The major issues pend
ing before him are whether the
case should be returned to State
court as requested by Southern
Iron Works, a non-union steel
fabricator which initiated the
litigation; whether the right-to-
work Law and Taft-Hartley Act
actually apply in the case, and.
If so, whether either would be
violated by awarding the cons.
tract to Beauchamp.