Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1958-05-30
CURLING Union Abuses

cisions in the labor field will do much
to protect individuals against abuse OF
union power. And in the long run, we
think, this will be good thing for the
unions as well as for the public.
One case dealt with the illegal ex-
pulsion Of member by the Interna-
tional Association of Machinists. After
the man had been expelled, the union,
through its control of the hiring hall,
kept him from getting work. The court,
in a 6-to-2 ruling, upheld the mans
right to recover in the California State
courts for lost earnings and punitive
damages The Machinists, we dare say,
will think twice before trying this sort
of stunt again.
The second case involved a suit in
the Alabama courts by man named
Paul Russell against the UAW-CIO.
Again the Supreme Court split to 2,
with Justice Black not participating and
with Chief Justice Warren writing a dis
sent in which Justice Douglas joined.
The union called a strike at a plant
in Decatur, Alabama. Russell, not a
union member, was forcibly prevented
by a mass picket line from going to
work. A union regional director told
him he could not enter the plant, and
he was threatened, but not physically
injured, by strikers on the picket line.
Russell sued the union in the State court
and recovered $500 for lost wages and
$4,000 in punitive damages. The SUI
preme Court majority upheld this re-
covery, ruling that Congress, in the
Taft-Hartley Act, did not intend in such
a case as this to deny access to the State
courts.
Chief Justice Warren took the con-
trary view on this point, and also ex-
pressed much concern for the effect
the ruling might have on the unions
finances. BY reason of "vicariouS liabil-
ity" for its members "ill-advised" con-
duct on the picket lines, he said, "the
union is to be subjected to a series of
judgments [other suits are pendingl
that may and probably will reduce 1t
to bankruptcy, or at the very least de-
prive 1t Of the means necessary to per-
form It's role as bargaining agent Of the
employees 1t represents"
We think this misses the point. In
the first place the mass picket line tech
nique, with its use of force and threats,
is not "ill-adviSed" conduct. 1t is out
rageouS conduct. Secondly, we do not
think the union, in most instances, is
the victim of "vicariouS liability" The
responsible union officers know or should
know what the strikers are doing, and
their liability, and the unions liability,
is as direct as though they were on the
picket line themselves. Finally, we do
not think judges should excessively con-
Germ themselves With the condition of
union treasures or with the financial
ability of union to act as bargaining
agent for the employees it represents. An
employe who is not represented by a
union has a right to get to his job If he
wants to work, and he also is entitled to
appropriate consideration.
The proper function Of a picket line
in the course of strike is to advertise
the grievances Of the strikers and to at
tempt to perSuade-but not to compel
others to support the strike. The effect
of the decision in the Russell case will
be to discourage union compulSion and
coercion of nonstrikers We think this
is a very desirable result, and we do
not believe that it runs counter to the
intent of Congress.