North Carolina Newspapers

Subscription $2.00 Per Year
Green Predicts ‘Slave’ Law Repeal, Defeat Of Foes;
Meany Flays GOP As Instrument Of Big Business
. 1._____— ■■■" -I _: ' *
Chicago.—In a fighting speech keynoting the nation’s
celebration of Labor Day, AFL President William Green
predicted the eventual repeal of the infamous Taft-Hartley
law and the political defeat of its supporters.
'Mr. Green spoke to a vast throng gathered in Soldier
Field for a mammoth celebration sponsored by the Chicago
Federation of Labor. His address, delivered to the en
thusiastic multitude of 100,000 union members and their
families, was carried over the nation-wide network of the
National Broadcasting Company to additional millions of
listeners. i >■
Introduced by William A Lee, president of the Chicago
Federation of Labor, the AFL chief was accorded a tremen
dous ovation by the throng gathered for an afternoon of
festivity and entertainment. His address was constantly
interrupted by applause as he recited the accomplishments
of labor and expressed its determination to fight the forces
hoping to crucify the labor movement.
“Today, labor is rallying its
forces to fight against oppression
and depression,” Mr. Green de
“Our goals are freedom and
security for all Americans. We
will never be satisfied with less.”
Mr. Green asserted that, dur
ing the past half century, labor
exerted its economic power ef
fectively to raise wages and im
prove working conditions within
the framework of our democratic,
free enterprise system which the
American Federation of Labor al
ways stalwartly defended against
encroachment by any and all
forms of totalitarianism. „ .***
“But the economic progress of
labor is now being threatened,”
he said, “by the enactment of re
strictive anti-labor legislation
which would outlaw the basic
terms of collective bargaining con
tracts negotiated for more than
half a century and provide for!
the imposition of criminal penal
ties upon employers and employes
who negotiate these contracts will
ingly and voluntarily. Such laws
have on main purpose—to make
strong unions weak—weak unions
weaker, and to make it difficult
for all unions to function.”
Citing the Taft - Hartley law
as the most reprehensible of all
the Federal and State restrictive
labor laws, Mr. Green reiterated
the determination of the AFL to
wage an unrelenting fight against
it until its repeal is accomplished
and the political defeat of its sup
porters is assured. He said:
"It is the purpose and policy
of the American Federation of
Labor to challenge the constitu
tionality of this reprehensible
legislation in the courts of the
land. We are firmly convinced
that man/ of the sections of the
Taft-Hartley Bill are unconstitu
tional and will be held invalid by
the Supreme Court of the United
States. In addition, we will seek
the repeal of this most highly
objectionable anti-labor legisla
tion. Our concentrated efforts
will be directed toward the ac
complishment of this purpose.
“Furthermore, we will call upon
the membership of organised la
, bor and all its friends throughout
the nation to defeat all candidates |
for reelection to Congress and
State Legislatures who voted for
the passage of reprehensible legis
“Special detailed efforts will be
put forth to prevail upon all
workers and their friends to
qualify to vote in the election
and to see to it that nothing will
prevent them from casting their
ballots on election day. If we
succeed in this effort, nq worker
or the friend of a worker will
have any excuse for failing to
“Our platform for 1948 calls
for many other positive measures
for human betterment, measures
which Congess has consistently
defeated or ignored in the past
few years.
“First, we demand that action
be taken to reduce exhorbitantj
prices and bring the cost of liv-|
ing gradually down to a more
(Centiaued ea Page 4)
Lo? Angeles.—Joseph A. Pad
way, AFL General Counsel, was
assaulted and knocked down by
Irving G. McCann, counsel fo* the
sub-committee of the House La
bor Committee investigating labor
disputes in the movie industry.
The attack upon Padway came
(Continued on Page 4)
Business Interests Condemn
Hartley For Loose Talk
New York City. —* Even Big
Basinets cannot stomach all the
tripe dished up by Representative
Fred A. Hartley, chief of the an
ti-labor bloc in the House.
Reporting on his statements to
the effect that management would
be held responsible, along with
labor, for attempts to evade the
Taft-Hartley law’* restrictive pro
visions concerning the conduct of
labor-manegemtn relations, the
“Wall Street Journal.” a mouth
piece of business and finance, gave
him a sound spanking.
In a front page article, the
paper pointed out that the agree
ments which annoyed Hartley are
“mutually accepatable compro
mises," whereby unions assume
full responsibility for acts au
thorised by them and employers
a (free not to seek damages for
acts of individual employes “which
are beyond union control.”
Then in bold face type, it
rapped Hartley’s contention that
suoh agreements violate the new
law and his threat to call in the
parties to Washington to “ex
“This is idle talk,” the paper
declared. “It cannot have been
the intent of Congress to punish
men or organizations for acts they
neither authorised nor instigated
much less those which they have
n good faith attempted to pre
“It is inconceivable that the
courts would And illegal the give
and-take efforts of employers and
unions to maintain peace in in
“Not even the Taft-Hartley law
can compel an employer to resort
to the legal remedies open to him
if he thinks he sees a more pa
cific way of protecting his inter
Another indictment of Hartley
came from the Washington
“Post,” owned by a multi-mil-1
lionaire banker.
“Abusive language and threats
i of this kind are calculated to
niffen opposition to the law by
! strengthening the conviction of
labor leaders that it was framed
| -.vith the deliberate intention of
' undermining unions,” the"' paper
I ointed out.
Washington, D. C.—The pro
gram designed to test the loyalty
of Federal employes got under
«•*** .
The Civil Service Commission,
charged with the responsibility of
administering, the President’s plan,
announced that with few minor
exceptions all employes on the
Federal payroll as of October 1
are required to:
1. Be flngerprinted on a new
2. Fill out a new loyalty iden
tification form.
These forms must be sent to
the Federal Bureau of Investiga
tion for checking against FBI
records. Findings made by the
FBI are to be reported to the
Civil Service commission.
In the case of persons appointed
to the Federal service after Oc
(Continued on Page 4)
Rejects Industrialist’s Proposal
Washington, p. C.—Organized
labor went on record as strongly
opposing the scheme of indus
trialist Frank Cohen to purchase
through the city of Eastport, Me.,
the facilities *t Passamaquoddy
Project for the purpose of op
erating a training school for dis
placed persons and veterans.
Cohen offered to buy the sur
plus Government real estate for
Eastport if he was permitted
to operate an industrial establish
ment to assemble tractors. Un
’er his plan displaced persons
would be employed there without
wages on a temporary basis.
Latdr, after a six-months training
period, they would be shipped ofT
to South America, presumably to
>e utilized in some of the Cohen
interests there.
The War Assets Administration
released a statement on, the pro
posal prepared by the agency’s
Labor Policy Committee, of which
Boris Shishkin, AFL Economist,
is a member. The statement flat
ly rejected the “Cohen formula"
is a disguised measure to make
use of the sieve labor of displaced
persons without any protection
>f the .human rights.
The committee indicated that
it would approve the use of the
Quoddy Project for educational
or training purposes, but only with
the guarantee of the following
1. That the training and em
ployment at the project will be
made available only to persons
who have the^puiyilege of perma
nent residence in the United
States, including veterans, stu
dents, and immigrants, without
distinction or eniphasis as to race,
color or creed.
2. That the project will be
operated on a genuine “training
within industry" plan, approved
(Please Tara te Page 4)
Washington, D. C.—The Republican leadership in Con
gress is the mouthpiece and political instrument of big
George Meany, Secretary-Treasurer of the American Fed
eration of Labor, made this charge in the AFL’s radio pro
gram "Labor, USA.” Mr. Meany, interviewed by Harold
Steppler of the American Broadcasting Company staff,
answered some pointed questions on the outlook for labor
in this country. 4J
Mr. Meany’s blast at the GOP raises a policy question
for consideration by the AFL Executive Council at its
forthcoming meeting in Chicago on September 8th. The
Council is expected to prepare a program of political action
for the AFL during the coming election year. Any plan
adopted by the Executive Council will be submitted to the
AFL convention to be held in San Francisco in October.
ram cases unless
Washington, D. C.—Cases al
ready died with the National La
bor Relations Board will be dis
missed in wholesale lots if the
unions involved fail to file regis
tration forms and non-Communist
affidavits required by the Taft
Hartley law.
This drastic NLRB policy was
announced by Robert N. Denham,
(Continued on Page 2)
(Thg is th fifth bulleton issued
by the American Federation of
Labor explaining that Taft-Hart
ley Act. It was prepared by the
office of its General Counsel,
Joseph A. Padway.)
Civil and Criminal Penalties for
Violations of the Taft-Hartley Act.
Includes Injunctions and Loss of
There have been many inquiries
as to just what might happen in
case any provision of the Taft
Hartley Act is violated or dis
regarded. This Bulletin is design
ed to inform unions what penal
ties particular violations of the
new law involves. Included will
; be a discussion of what violations
I involve criminal penalties, what
i violations involve injunction suits,
| what violations involve suits for
i damages, what violations involve
I cease and desist orders, and what
violations involve loss of status
or protection under the act.
1. Criminal Penalties
There are four acts which in
volve a' criminal penalty of fine
or improsonment or both. These
(1) Violation of Section 302 of
the law which makes it unlawful
for any employer to pay or agree
to pay money ojr other thing of
value to a union representative
or for such representative to re
ceive or agree to receive money
or any other thing of value. Cer
tain payments are exempted, bow.
ever. Among them are payments
• to trust and welfare funds made
| under certain conditions, and pay
ments made under agreements for
| the check-off of membership dues,
if the check-off is individually
authorized by the union employe.
The penalty for a violation of Sec
tion 302 is a fine of not more
than $10,000.00 or imprisonment
for not more than one year, or
(2) Violations of the prohibi
tions against political contribu
tions and expenditures (Secton
304). Labor organizations can
be penalized by a fine of not more |
than $5,000.00 for each violation
of this section, and an officer of
a labor organisation who violates
this section can be penalized by
a fine of not more than $10,000
or imprisonment for not more than
one year, or both.
(3) Falsification of an affida
vit by an officer of a labor or
ganization certifying that such
officer is not a member of the
Communist Party, is not affiliated
with such party and does not be
lieve in, and ia not a member of
or supports any organization that
believes in or teaches, the over
throw of the United States Gov
ernment by force or by any il
legal of unconstitutional methods.
The penalty for the falsification
of such an affidavit is a fine of
not more than $10,000.00 or im
prisonment of not more than ten
years, or both.
(4) As under the old law, in
terference with any member of
the board or any of its agents or
agencies in the performance of
duties pursuant to the act is pun
ishable as a criminal offense. The
penalty that may be inflicted is
a fine of not more than $5,000.00
or imprisonment for not BMW*
than one year, or both.
2. Injunction*
An injunction can be obtained
by a private employer in only one
instance under the act, and that
is to prevent the making or en
forcement of „ welfare or trust
fund agreements or check-off
agreements which are in violation
of Section 302. In no other in
stance can a private employer ob
tain an injunction in the federal
courts to restrain any violations
of any of the provisions of the
Taft-Hartley Act.
On the other hand, the new La
bor Board has very great power
to obtain injunctions against vio
lations in unfair labor practice
cases. In one class of cases the
board has a discretion to seek an
injunction, and in another class
of cases the board is required to
seek an injunction.
The discretionary type of case
is as follows, t After a complaint
has been issued against either a
union or an employer, alleging a
violation of the unfair practice
provisions of Section 8, the new
board is authorized to apply to
a federal court for an injunction
restraining the continuation of
such alleged practices until after
the board has determined the case
on its merits. This, it should be
noted, applies to both employers
and to unions. Under the new
designations of "Union Unfair
Practices," many additional and
heretofore lawful activities of la
bor organisations are declared un
lawful, and the board may pro
ceed to obtain injunctions where
no injunctions could previously
have been issued. Thus, injunctions
could be secured against union|
by th« board to prohibit juris
dictional strikes and boycotts, aa
defined in the act to prevent so
called interferences with employes
in the exercise of their , rights not
to belong to a union, or to pre
vent attempts to enfoype a union
security agreement not meeting
all the requirements of the act.
The mandatory type of case,
where the board is required to
seek an injunction, is M follows:
In any case where a charge has
been filed alleging that the union
it engaging in an unlawful strike
or jurisdictional trike, even
though a complaint has not yet
been issued, the board must go
into court for a temporary in
junction if it thinks the charge
has any substance.
The only other injunction which
can be obtained against unions
under the act is by the Attorney
General of the United States to
enjoin a strike in a so-called na
tional emergency situation as de
scribed under Sections 206-208 of
Title. II. A national emergency
strike is one which affects an en
tire industry or substantial part
hereof, and whose continuance
will imperil the national health
gnd safety. The Attorney Gen
eral cannot obtain such an in
junction until after the President
has taken notice of the strike,
has appointed a Board of Inquiry,
and the Board of Inquiry, after
hearings, has determined that the
strike is one which imperils the
national health and safety. Ap
parently, such an injunction is <
effective for a maximum of 80
days, during whjfch time various
conciliation and mediation steps
are taken.
3. Civil Penalties
Unions can be sued for dam*
aces by private employers or any
other persons injured in their
business or property by union ac
tivity in the following two gen*
eral situations:
1. Where a union has violated
an existing collective bargaining
agreement (Employers are like*
wise subjected to damage suits
for their violations.)
2. Where a union has engaged
in any of the boycotts and juris
dictional strikes as defined in Sec
tion 303 (discussed in Bulletins
1 and 2).
These are the only instances
in which damage suits against un
ions are specifically authorised by
the new law.
4. Cease and Desist Orders j
A cease and desist order is one
issued by the new Labor Board
to prevent the continuance by
either an employer or a union of
an unfair labor practice as de
fined in Section 8. It can be' is
sued only after the issuance of
a complaint, the holding of hear
ings, and a decision by the board.
The order simply states that the
union shall not engage in such
practices in the future. Refusal
to comply with this board order
does not involve any penalties.
The order can be enforced only
by a proceeding in the Circuit
Cfeurt of Appeals. After argu
ments and briefs have been pre
lented, the court either affirms
»r reverses the order of the board.
[f the order is affirmed, then the
(Pleaae Tara to Page 4)
in support oi nis cnurge against
the Republican leadership in Con
gress, Mr. Meany offered ample
evidence. He declared that the
Republican National Committee
endorsed the Hartley Bill, which
was even more drastic than t!y;
final Taft-Hartley law.
“The GOP inserted in the of
ficial publication of the Republi
can National Committee a full
page propaganda appeal for the
Hartley Bill and had the audacity
to offer free mats to any business
organization which cared to pub
lish it as a newspaper advertise
ment. That was partisanship
with a vengeance.’ ‘
Turning to other national prob
lama, Mr. Manny declared the iu
gsMon of the OOP-fed Congress
is another indication of the source
of its inspiration and guidance.
"Congress did not lift at finger
to halt the advancing tide of
prices. It even encouraged higher
living costs by adopting a new
rant control bill which is bound
to force rents up by 15 per cent
in many parts of the country.”
The housing shortage offers
another example of how the Re
publican leaders in Congress have
disregarded the popular will when
ever it conflicts with the demands
of property interests, Mr. Meany
“There was a bill before the
80th Congress, the Wagner-El
iender-Taft bill, which would
have encouraged the construction
of 15 million new homes in the
next 15 years. This action the
nation badly needed, especially the
veterans. Yet, although Senator
Taft, the real leader of the Re
publican Congress, lent his name
to the bill, he didn’t lift a finger
to advance its passage. Perhaps
it is only a coincidence that the t
powerful real estate lobby op
posed the bill. But it should make
the American people wonder about
Senator Taft.”
The GOP record on social se
curity was also assailed by Mr.
Meany. He pointed to the need
for broadening of the present
coverage provided by law and
urged the lifting of benefits paid
to compensate for the increased
living costs.
“Legislation to bring these
changes about has been lying on
the congressional shelf for some
time now and the Republican
leaders have deliberately blocked
it,” Mr. Meany declared.
“They are also responsible for
blocking a new proposed feature
of social security known as health
insurance. Strictly speaking, that
is a misnomer, because the pur
pose of the Wagner-Murray
Dingell bill is really insurance
against the cost of medical care.
These costs are huge today and
many people cannot afford to get
the proper care except through
insurance. No private insurance
company, or combination of them,
is big enough to swing an in
surance policy covering all the
American people. That is the
Government’s responsibility.
“Even Senator Taft publicly ac
knowledged tHfe need for action in
this field, .but instead of support
ing an honest and constructive
measure like the Wagner-Murray
Dingell bill, he sabotaged it and
(Continued on Page X)

Page Text

This is the computer-generated OCR text representation of this newspaper page. It may be empty, if no text could be automatically recognized. This data is also available in Plain Text and XML formats.

Return to page view