◆ SpookStack

ta ny wr: BAT Mr. Cottey - 7 Mr. Nichots___ | Closed Shop Ruling Puts a es Per > mY 1.1L... Dt Confusion in Labpor © iciure i Labor and industrial attorneys today predicted a recent de- | cision of the U.S “Supreme Court ‘will necessitate re ~~. Wagner Act's provisions for “closed Shop", contracts between temployers rifons™ — Termed “ohe of the most per~ plexing and “unsettled decisions in the history of labor legislation,” the ruling said, in effect, that an employer may not sign a closed shop agreement with a union ithe knows that the union intends thereby to ‘exclude certain em- ‘ployees from membership in the union because of their prior op- {position to the union. Thea danicaiawn dame han de aA Aaur 1 The decision was han Dec, 18 in a 5-4 split. Justice Jackson, in dissenting, expressed belief that the majority opinion, if carried out, “denies the right of each union to control its own “admissions to membership,” and permits the emplover ta nolive” So GWT the internal affairs ‘ot ‘the union. Must Open Roster, In the majority opinion, Justice Black said, in effect, that an em- ployer must see that the union with which he has been ordered the closed shop contract and then denied membership to 43 of the 83 employees who voted for the other union, ‘In accordance with the con- tract, the company was then forced to discharge these 43 em- ployees who were not admitted to union membership, The com- pany protested the discharge on the grounds that the loss of such a large number of experienced workers would hamper produc- tion, but the union was adamant. Discharges Ruled Ont, The Supreme Court then de- cided that the discharges were iJ- legal, despite the closed shop con- trant) and nedanad tract, and ordered the colpany to reinstate the discharged work- ers and pay them for the time lost. It also, in essence, abrogated the closed shop contract, in the eyes of most labor attorneys, Francis Heisler, counsel for several CLO. UmioTis, declared io- day that the majority opinion ‘“‘is not a body blow to labor or to the closed shop, as some attor- neys seem to think,” Most unions, Heisler explained, do not restrict their membership | to bargain, after an election had |2UY 10 Wose Who were members been held, makes proper terms for admission into that certified }union of all-employees, including i the union's former enemies and jtivals. The cace arose after an slactian Case Ares’ SLlSr BM DScuch at the Wallace plant, in which an independent union was the victor over a C.1.O. union in a plant election. Prior to the election, the company contracted to acc a closed shop with the union that before an election, but welcome all employees who desire to join after a contract has been signed, re- gardless of their prior antagonism te the union. Called Club on Labor. 1 On the other hand, Daniel Car-| mell, counsel for the Illinois and Chicago Federations of Labor, as- the majority opinion as bludgeon in the hands of employ- ner Act in that, by requesting em ployers to make sure that unions do not restrict membership in a YL VORAA Olly by Tre violating the “unfair Practices” provision of the labor law. He asserted, further, that ion conflicts with the Wa alasad thea oamnloavare Sean pee yee chan are According to several attorneys for industrial corporations, the ef- fec* of the new decision is one of “confusion and chaos.” Hitherto, lawyers for both management and ° unions have believed that once an election has been held, a unidn recognized a3 a bargaining agent, and a clesed shop contract signed, then the company’s responsibility ends insofar as union member« abi aa Sap is eT a ‘Motives’ Under Scratiny. But, in light of this decision, it ‘is presumed that the employer must examine the “motives” of the union before agreeing to a closed shop provision in the con- tract; and “that he may refuse to sign such a contract unless the union admits all employees to membership. Because of this ambiguity of interpretation, labor relations ex- - perts agras that the next move is up to Congress, which must amend or clarify the National Labor Re- lations Act in conformity with the decision. “As things stand now,” one at- torney pointed out, “the employer in the middle v he intorferad iB in the muaa.e, and tells the union he won't sign a contract for a closed shop un- less membership is inclusive, un- der the law he is guilty of unfair labor practices. wera SS be *“Contrariwise, if he does not ne ee ae nae ae | bn | compel the LARkAtEA OL RCE LD. l eligibility to membership, he is guilty of an unfair labor practice under the Supreme Court decision. 55 FEB 101 wan tha salactian After winning ee. | qe wifes Meth CaSO wGl, Sasso We ATiiig, § arg who walt te ODSIruct a aoe the independent union executed | shop in their plants. CHICAGO Druil KS ol ota 0 p22 P44 & M8 Lg FEB 8 1945 tT Z id