NLRB Triumphant

In suit after suit, till it has become a commonplace, the National Labor Relations Board has been 1) challenged in the courts, 2) upheld by the Supreme Court. In the last fortnight of its term, the Supreme Court upheld NLRB in no less than six decisions, holding that:

Mackay Radio & Telegraph Co. NLRB had properly ordered reinstatement of five Strikers, although it had not submitted an interim report to the company before reaching its final findings.*

Remington Rand Inc. James H. Rand Jr. had no valid complaint against NLRB orders to his company, and 4,000 employes whom the company hired to replace strikers in 1936 have no legal claim to jobs which Remington Rand was ordered to restore to A. F. of L. unionists.

Republic Steel Corp. NLRB was right in demanding, and retiring Justice Joseph Buffington's Third Circuit Court of Appeals was wrong in denying permission to withdraw and revise the Republic record before the corporation appeal is heard.

Carlisle Lumber Co. (of Onalaska, Wash.). NLRB's jurisdiction extends to strikes called before the Wagner Act was passed, provided the dispute continued afterward.

Black Diamond Steamship Co. NLRB has jurisdiction over marine labor (which U. S. Maritime Commission would like to rule).

Thus NLRB concluded an undefeated season in the Supreme Court. There remained only one form of attack which could stop NLRB's work: a change in the Wagner Labor Act itself. Although employers' talk of amending the Act has met little response from Congress, for a time last week it looked as if NLRB in its hour of triumph might be given a sudden jolt.

Two correspondents of the New York Daily News, John O'Donnell & Doris Fleeson, who often produce scoops from Administration sources, announced that Franklin Roosevelt had decided that: 1) there is merit in employers' plaints that the Wagner Act is cruelly prejudicial to them; 2) Congress should do something about it. As a first step, they reported the President was picking a commission to study British labor practice, bring back suggestions for watering down the Wagner Act. As a result of the report, C. I. O.'s John L. Lewis hastily informed Secretary of Labor Frances Perkins: "The C. I. 0. cannot sanction such an enterprise. ... It will oppose amendment or modification of the Wagner Act."

The morning the news came out, the President held one of his regular press conferences. Vexed, he proceeded to read the press a sermon. The report (said Mr. Roosevelt) was essentially cockeyed. There had been a deal of misinformation about Britain's famed Trade Disputes Act and how it works. So, out of the kindness of his heart, he wished to get some information for the press, and especially for editorial writers and columnists. To that end, a commission would go abroad and eventually report in words of one syllable. As for the Wagner Act. he had said before and he repeated again that the whole subject of labor relations is in a process of evolution and the U. S. has a great deal to learn.

Years ago this would have been comforting news to U. S. industrialists who then talked about making unions responsible. Since then many an employer has informed himself better about the British Trade Disputes Act. Enacted primarily to prevent a repetition of the great General Strike of 1926, the British law: 1) prohibits sympathetic strikes in any industry other than the one in which a dispute originates; 2) forbids sympathetic lockouts in the same category; 3) requires unions to keep political funds separate from all others, and permits unions to spend members' contributions for political purposes only with the written permission of the workers who pay the money; 4) forbids strikes or lockouts intended to coerce a public official or influence public policy; 5) severely penalizes violations of working agreements with agencies which operate power, transportation and other essential public services.

Viewed alone, this statute weighs more heavily upon Labor than upon employers. But it is only part of an elaborate structure. British trade unions are not incorporated, need not register unless they wish. The larger ones do because registration entitles them to legal privileges which they would not otherwise enjoy. They are almost wholly free from civil and criminal suits to which any U. S. union is liable in any Federal district court and many State courts.

*This strengthened XLRB's hand against Ford Motor Co., Consolidated Edison of New York, Douglas Aircraft, and other potent companies who thought after the Supreme Court's decision in the Kansas City Stockyards case (TIME, May 16) that NLRB had slipped up by failing to publish interim findings.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.