Green Endorses
Truman Measure
(Continued from Pago 1)
ltms, while the opposition of la
bor—which opposed it—was based
upon a practical and experimental
knowledge of said problems.
Free collective bargaining and
sound labor-management relation
ship is a large part of the basis
upon which a sound national econ
omy rests. When the exercise of
this right is denied either to la
bor or management, by legisla
tion or otherwise, the national
economic structure is seriously af
fected. Labor cannot be recon
ciled by merely telling it that
legislation which it knows to be '
bad is good for it. Why should j
labor be denied the right to en- j
gage in free collective bargaining
and to negotiate an agreement j
with employers, acceptable and
satisfactory to both? The Taft
Hartley law makes it a crime for
labor and management to do this.
This one feature in the Taft-Hart
ley law has created widespread
bitterness, resentment and even
rebellion among the membership
of organized labor throughout the
nation. The resentment of labor
in the United States to the Taft
Hartley law is as uncompromising
and rigid as was the opposition
of our forefathers, the colonists,
to Great Britain when it imposed
upon them government without
representation, and to the work
ing men and women of Great
Britain when Parliament passed
the Trades Disputes and the
Trades Union Act of 1927. There
fore, may 1 appeal to this com
mittee. to the members of the
Senate and to the Congress of the
United States to decisively repeal
the Taft-Hartiey law in its en
tirety.
I respectfully supplement this
request by urging you on this oc
casion to re-enact the Wagner Act
with amendments which would be
constructive and acceptable. Such
action should provide for a mini
mum of interference on the part
of the government in management
labor relationships and in collec
tive bargaining.
At a recent meeting of the Ex
ecutive Council which was con
cluded on February 8, careful and
analytical consideration was given
to each section of Senate Bill 249.
"This was followed by unanimous
approval of each section of said
bBl, including Title II—Mediation
and Arbitration which provides
for the re-establishment of the
De VONDE
Synthetic Cleaiers. Dyers
Hatters. Furriers
Seven Points Why We Arc Oh
of the Sooth’s Loading
Synthetic Cleaners
1. Restores original freshness
and sparkle.
2. Removes carefully all dirt,
dust and grease.
8. Harmless to the (post deli
cate of fabrics.
4. Odorless, thorough cleaning.
6. Garments stay clean longer.
8. Press retained longer.
7. Reduces wardrobe upkeep.
De VONDE
Call 3-5125 121 W. fith St.
United States Conciliation Service
in the Department of Labor. For
more than 30 years the Mediation
and Conciliation Service was an
integral part of the Department
of Labor. The Mediation and
Conciliation Service made an ex
cellent record during all those
years in preventing industrial dis
puted and in the settlement of in
dustrial controversies through
mediation and conciliation. Labor
feels that the Department of La
bor is really the clearing house
for industrial problems and is
firmly convinced thst all agencies
having to do with labor problems,
labor controversies and labor-1
management relations should be
located within the Department at
Labor. Labor deplored the ac
tion taken when the Mediation
and Arbitration Service was cre
ated as an independent agency. It
now appeals to Congress to re
turn it to the Department of La
bor.
I assure you, in approving this
bill, the Executive Council was
moved by a deep consciousness >f
tis obligations to serve the pub
lic interest, to promote labor
management co-bperation. and to
establish and maintain free col
lective bargaining, all of which
is essential to the preservation
and maintenance of a sound na
tional economy. I therefore ex
press to this committee and to
the members of the hist Congress
the definite approval of the Amer
ican Federation of Labor of Sen
ate Bill 249 with the following
slight amendments which are as
follows:
Section 105 of the present bill,
pages 4 and 5, purports to elim
inate the further exercise of
board and federal court jurisdic
tion in all matters in which the
jurisdiction of the hoard or of the
federal courts has been or could
have been invoked under the
Taft-Hartley Act, unless jurisdic
tion in such matters is retained
in the board or federal courts by
the provision of the present bill.
The language of this section,
however, could be made more ex
pressive of this intent to remove
liabilities imposed by the Taft
Hartley Act. As written this sec
tion bars actions or proceedings
under the “National Labor Rela
tions Act, as amended by the La
bor-Management Relations Act,
1947.” (The Taft-Hartley Act.)
The Taft-Hartley Act. however,
contains five titles. Only Title
I amended the earlier National
Relations Act. Thus, as presently
written, the bill would bar only
those actions or proceedings au
thorized under Title 1 of the Taft
Hartley Act. ■ It would, not for
example, bar actions or proceed
ings instituted under Titles II and
111 of the Taft-Hartley Act, such
as civil damage suits against la
bor organizations, injunctions in
national emergency cases or crim
inal prosecution against labor or
ganizations and their officers for
violation of the ban on union con
tributions and expenditures made
in connection with federal elec
MEN’S STORE
Hen's Winter Underwear
UNION SUITS with long
sleeves* and ankle length.
Made of bleached combed
cotton in sizes 36 to 46.
1.98
UNION SUITS by Hanes, j
Long sleeves and ankle
length . . . made of cotton
ribbed material in ecru color.
Sizes 36 to 46.
2.43
BALBRIGGAN SHIRTS and
DRAWERS made of light
weight, bleached cotton.
Shirts with long or short
sleeves . . . ankle length
drawers. Shirts, 36 to 46;
Drawers, 32 to 44.
98c ea.
SHIRTS AND DRAWER^ . . . long sleeves and ankle
length. Made of heavy ribbed cotton in ecru color.
Shirts. 36 to 46 . . . Drawers. 32 to 44.
1.49 ea.
Men's Store . . . Street Floor
^ fti .
tions. Such damage suits and,
criminal prosecutions are present
ly authorised by Title III of the
Taft-Hartley Act. Injunctions in
national emergency cases are pres
ently authorised by Title II of
that act. I suggest that the pro
visions of Section 105 of the pres
ent bill be clarified so as to leave
no doubt that not only Title I,
but Titles II and III of the Taft
Hartley Act, are embraced within
the language of Section 105.
I should like to call the com
mittee’s attention to another
clarifying change that should be
made in Section 105 of the pres
ent bill. The exact language of
this section cancels the jurisdic
tion only of the board and federal
courts to entertain certain . pro
ceedings authorised by the provi
sions of the Taft-Hartley Act.
Section 303(a) of the Taft-Hart
ley Act, however, makes it un
lawful for any labor organization
to engage in certain types of
secondary boycotts and jurisdic
tional disputes and Section 303(b)
authorises any person injured in
his business or property by rea
son of any violation of Section
303(a) to sue, not only in the
federal courts, but “in any other
court having jurisdiction of the
parties’’ (which would seem to
include state courts) and to re
cover damages and the cost of
the suit
Since it appears most likely
Section 105 of the present bill in
tended to foreclose all liability
imposed by the Taft-Hartley Act
and enforceable in any court, fed
eral or state, the provisions of
this section should tie made more
definite by express language em
bracing within its coverage dam
age suits instituted in state courts
or “in any court having juris
diction of the parties.”
Section 405 of Title IV of the
present bill, pages 21 and 22,
states that the provisions of Titles
II and III of the bill Shall not be
applicable with respect to any
matter which is subject to the
provisions of the Railway Labor
Act, as amended.
It is quite evident that the spon
sors of the present bill, in pro
posing Section 405 were of the
opinion that the National Labor
Relations Act, as it existed prior
to its amendment by Title I of
the Taft-Hartley Act, eliminated
from its coverage individuals em
ployed by an employer subject to
the Railway Labor Act. Because
of this, and since Title I of the
present bill is a reenactment of
the original National Labor Rela
tions Act, with certain amend
ments, it was, no doubt, felt un
necessary to extend the proviso
of Section 405 to Title I of the
present bill.
The National Labor Relations
Act, prior to its amendment by
the Taft-Hartley Act, however,
did not by any express language
exempt from its provisions in
dividuals employed by an employ
er subject to the Railway Labor
Act. Such exemption was, of
course, not necessary since the
National Labor Relations Act did
not contain any unfair labor prac
tices on the part of labor organi
zations or employes.
It is suggested, therefore, that
it be made definite in the present
hill that individuals employed by
an employer subject to the Rail
way Labor Act are completely ex
empted from the coverage of the
present bill.
Section 108 of the present bill,
pages 10 and 11, makes it an un
fair labor practice for “an em
ployer or a labor organization” to
terminate or modify a collective
bargaining unless a 30-day notice
of termination or modification is
given to the United States Con
ciliation Service. The notice re
quired of a labor organization is
no notice to an employer, but to
a governmental body. Clearly
this section is designed to aid and
assist the United States Concilia
tion Service in carrying out th«
purposes of its being, as set forth
in the Title II of the present bill.
That being the case, the severe
penalties that may attach to an
unfair practice should not be made
applicable to a failure to give the
30-day notice (which failure, by
the way, may be unintentional,
but nevertheless punishable). Un
der the present wording of the
section, it might be possible for
the board to order cessation of
the strike engaged in. .without
such notice, or to penalize the
strikers as by condoning their dis
charge.
I am of the opinion that the
purposes of Title II, “Mediation
and Arbitration,” the United
States Conciliation Service, of the
present bill can best be carried
out if Section 108 of Title I is
eliminated entirely as an unfair
labor practice and it is made a
matter of “public policy” under
Section 204 of Title II of the pres
ent bill that a 30-day notice be
1.
riven of an intention to terminate
or modify a collective bargaining
contract. I am certain that labor
organizations affiliated with the
American Federation of Labor will
be happy to co-operate with the
United States Conciliation Service
by giving this notice and that it
is entirely unnecessary to R>rce
the giving of this notice by mak
ing a failure to do so, an unfair
labor practice.
While there is no objection to
the requirement that notice be
given it would appear that the
possible penalties are entirely too
drastic for what might be mere
inadvertence. Accordingly, if Sec
tion 108 is not*removed as an un
fair labor practice, as suggested,
this section should be amended to
provide that failure to give such
notice shall subject the offender
to a cease and desist order requir
ing only the giving of notices then
and in the future.
Concerning myself with the
language t>f Section 108. as now
written, I believe it needs clarifi
cation. It makes it an unfair la
bor practice “for an employer or
a labor organization” to fail to
give the required notice. It thus
appears that the penalties of an
unfair labor practice will attach
to both parties even in a situa
tion where both parties got to
gether and by mutual agreement
and without industrial disturb
ance modified a collective bar
gaining contract or terminated one
by entering into a new agreement,
but failed to notify the United
States Conciliation Service 30
days beforehand. I doubt very
much that the sponsors of the
bill desire section 108 to be ap
plicable in such a situation.
Section 204 of the present bill,
pages 14 and 16, places a “duty"
oil employers and employes to ex
ert every “reasonable effort” to
make and maintain collective bar
gaining agreements for definite
periods of time concerning (1)
rates of pay, hours and terms and
conditions of work; (2) adequate
notice of desire to terminate or
change such agreements; (3) ab
stention from strikes, lockouts or
other acts of economic coercion in
violation of such agreements; and,
(4) procedures for the peaceful
settlement of disputes involving
the interpretation or application
of such agreements. It also im
poses the “duty” of participating
“fully and promptly” in meetings
undertaken by the United States
Conciliation Service to aid in set
tling disputes.
The purpose of this section is
to encourage making and main
taining of collective bargaining
agreements containing the four
provisions enumerated above and
to aid in the settling of labor
management disputes. This is a
commendable purpose. Such ob
jective should be sought however
by the voluntary and co-operative
action of parties to collective
bargaining agreements. It should
' not be imposed by government
1 compulsion.
There s danger that the term
“it shall be the duty,” appearing
in Section 204, lines 15 and 13
of page 14 of the bill, might be
deemed to make the specified
duties mandatory in nature and
so authorize injunctions or dam
age suits in state o- ever federal
courts in case of failure to per
form such duties. This construc
tion would involve the possibility
of injunction suits in early stages
of negotiations and even a pos
; sibility of compulsory arbitration.
I do not think that that is the
intention of the sponsors of the
present bill.
I therefore suggest that the
phrase “it shall be the duty of
employers and employes and their
representatives” be eliminated
from Section 204 of the present
bill and that the first four lines
of Section 204 (lines 13 to 17 in
| elusive on page 14) be redrafted
to read that it it the “public pol
icy” of the United States, in order
to prevent or minimize labor
“public policy” of the United
States, in order to prevent or
minimize labor disputes affecting
the free How of commerce or
threatening consequences injuri
ous to the general welfare that
employers and employes, and
their representatives “should” do
the things enumerated in Section
204(a) and (b).
Section 205 of the present
bill, pages 15 and 10, states it is
the public policy of the United
States that a collective bargain
ing agreement "shall” provide
procedures for the referral of dis
putes, growing out of the inter
pretation or application of the
agreement, to final and binding
arbitration. This section is ex
pressive of public policy only and
apparently is not designed to
place a mandatory duty upon
parties to an agreement to pro-1
vide therein the procedures men- ,
tioned. To make this more cer
tain. I suggest that the word
•‘shall” contained in the third
line of this section (line 10, page
15) be changed to “should.”
Sections 301, 302 and 303 of
the present hill deal with national
emergency work stoppages. I have
examined these sections and the
other sections of the present bill
and am happy to find no lan
guage, which in my opinion, pro
vides for the use of injunctions
in these emergency work stop
pages. My views concerning the
use of injunctions in labor dis
putes are well known. Those I
represent are unequivocally and
adamantly opposed to their use
in such situations and if the. pres
ent bill contained a provision for
the use of injunctive sanctions
in these emergency work stop
pages, we would oppose it with
all the force and vigor at our
command.
If these suggestions are adopt
ed and the bill is passed, I be
lieve Congress will have estab
lished the foundation for a na
tional labor policy based primar
ily on faith in the free collective
bargaining process as the prin
cipal means of achieving indus
trial peace and economic stability
with a minimum of federal inter
ference or interjection into realm
more properly supervised bjr local
authorities. The bill will en
courage collective bargaining in
stead of pretending to do so
while actually discouraging col
lective bargaining and sponsoring
individual bargaining as did tha
Taft-Hartley Act. It was because
of this attempt to promote dia
metrically opposed theories that
the Taft-Hartley Act was bound?
to fail.
I hope that this committee wif8
give serious consideration to the
foregoing suggestions. If the
chairman or the committee mem
Ihts have any questions, I will be
glad to answer them.
The Bible is not only tbe
world’s best seller, but is also
the world's best read book.
Millions of people read it daily.
Are you among them? Thricw
happy is the person who reads,
believes, and practices it.
“Faint not—fight ont
row conies the song.”
Tom or
The COMMERCIAL
National Rank
mas the
First
First
First
Bank now in operation
to open in Charlotte.
to install modern time*
saving commercial teller’s
machines.
to open a Drive-In Branch
and provide this convenient
service to customers.
The Commercial will always consider
It's customers First and continue to
provide the community with the most
modern, pleasant, and efficient banking
service possible.
cddt JAou TH 3Zu*
COMMERCIAL
National Bank
.Founded 1874
CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA
■mm* nottu muivi mtiu — mimu* nscm otfosit injumnc* wnuM