LABOR: Board v. Bench

Under the New Deal the U. S. Government for the first time in its political history has a national labor policy. That policy, however, was codified, in the Wagner Act, two years ago before the Great Schism in U. S. Labor—at a time when men thought there were only two parties to a labor dispute, employer and-employe. But the body that administers this new labor policy—the National Labor Relations Board—soon found that there could be three major parties to a dispute— employer, A. F. of L. and C. I. O., that the greatest bitterness is frequently not between Labor and Industry but between Labor and Labor.

Last week the Board took by no means its first but certainly its most spectacular dive into the muddied waters of dual unionism. The case involved National Electric Products Corp. Bidding for National Electric’s 1,600 workers in Ambridge, Pa., near Pittsburgh, vere the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (A. F. of L.) and the United Electrical & Radio Workers (C. I. O.). Last May the company suddenly signed an A. F. of L. contract providing not only for exclusive bargaining but also for a closed shop. That meant that every C. I. O. man in National Electric’s plant had to join the A. F. of L. union and have union dues deducted from his pay. Since it claimed a majority, C. I. O. was hopping mad, promptly called a strike, complained to the Labor Board.

Before the Labor Board could pass on the case, the A. F. of L. took its iron-clad contract to a Federal district court, which ordered National Electric to live up to its terms—an order the company gladly obeyed. Last week, just as National Electric was posting this order throughout its plant, the Labor Board cracked down with a thunderous ruling that the A. F. of L. contract was “void and of no effect.” Its “precipitate granting,” held the Board, smacked of trickery, since the company knew that the A. F. of L. union “did not represent the free choice of a majority of its employes.” The only fair thing to do was to start afresh by holding an election.

“A dastardly decision,” stormed President Dan Tracy of the A. F. of L.’s Electrical Brotherhood. “These internal matters are things in which the Board has no right to interfere,” bumbled William Green. And Secretary Julius Emspak of C. I. O.’s United Electrical & Radio Workers gloated: “The only decision possible.”

Whatever its effects on the other two parties to the dispute, the Board’s decision left the third party clearly on the spot. If National Electric’s President William Christopher Robinson obeyed the Board, he would defy the bench. If he obeyed the bench, he would defy the Board. For either—contempt of court or “unfair labor practice”—he may go to jail. This was a dilemma which all the ripe experience of President Robinson’s 70 years could not resolve, and he swiftly sought counsel of the U. S. Circuit Court of Appeals.*

To the Court of Appeals the Board must also look for ultimate enforcement of its dictates. Whatever the outcome in that jurisdiction, the case will probably be carried to the Supreme Court in another Wagner Act test. At stake is more than a question of labor jurisdiction. It is a question of jurisdiction of two governmental agencies. Intervention of the lower Federal courts in such labor disputes is a direct challenge to the Board’s power and vice versa. The Board insisted last week that the Wagner Act “embodies a public policy of national concern and is the supreme law of the land on the subject matter covered by it. It empowers the Board to prevent any unfair labor practice . . . and expressly provides that ‘this power shall be exclusive.’ ”

Two days later William Green said of John L. Lewis and his speech: “He denounced in autocratic and dictatorial terms the greatest friend of Labor who has ever sat in the White House. … I resent it. I resent it emphatically. . . .”

*Filling out his marriage license when he wed Mary Laughlin of the old Pittsburgh steel family in 1902, crusty, patrician President Robinson listed his occupation as ”gentleman.”