Evening Star Newspaper, April 30, 1940, Page 31

-y Halleck, in Forum, Surveys Conclusions Of Smith Commitfee Contends Changes in Wagner Act Merit Non-Partisan Verdict Representative Halleck, Repub- lcan, of Indiana discussed proposed changes in the National Labor Re- lations Act last night in an address on the National Radio Forum, ar- ranged by The Star. The talk was broadcast over a national hookup of the National Broadcasting Co. and ' was heard locally over Station WMAL. The complete text of the address follows: Sound and equitable labor legis- L, lation is always a major concern ) 7 change gets completely out of hand? « hauling of the act and its admin- ~ the board, in its determination of of Congress. This is particularly the case in the present session be- cause of complaints from so many sections and groups in the country to the effect that certain of our existing laws have worked & hard- ship on some divisions of labor, have retarded full economic recovery in various industries and in other lines have tended to create more unem- ployment. An increasing number of our people want more jobs rather than more laws. In bringing this lively question before the great Radio Forum. The Star performs a distinctive public service, and I am honored by the invitation to discuss pending labor legislation with the vast Forum au- dience. Policies Above Partisanship. T shall not carry my discussion into the field of partisan debate. Industrial relations and the smooth, orderly working of national labor policies are matters far above nar- row partisanship. I shall seek, therefore, merely to eoutline some of the major pro-| posals now before Congress and to survey the conclusions of the special investigating committee of bor Relations Act. As a member of this special in- the| carefully whether the benefits of the ' House which has been inquiring into | t administration of the National La- | REPRESENTATIVE HALLECK. THE EVENING STAR, WASHINGTON, D. —Star Staff Photo. with bias and with an attempt to apply their own peculiar philosophy in the disposition of cases, rather than the plain provisions of the act. The board, in our judgment, is anything but a judicial body. * * *” Lewis Criticism Quoted. In the same vein, we have the statement of John L. Lewis in his annual report to the C. I. O. Con- vention last October 9 at San Fran- cisco. Referring to the dimcumes‘ encountered by labor under the Wagner Act, he said: “But when the act is so admin- istered as to thwart the develop- ment and maintenance of stable industrial relations, then it becomes necessary to consider and weigh act outweigh the dangers which its administration inflicts upon or- ganized labor.” vestigating committee I have heard voluminous evidence and examined | many exhibits bearing on the diffi- cult day-torday problems of ad-| ministration. As a member of Con- | gress I have given much thought| and study to the relationships 0” employer and employe, capital and | labor, and the responsibilities of | Government in respect thereto.| ‘The extended hearings before our special committee have demon- strated clearly that prompt action is desirable if the country is to avoid further unnecessary and costly labor strife flowing directly from imperfections in the National La- bor Relations Act and its adminis- tration and if the fundamental ob- | Jectives of that act are to be at-| tained. | Let me make it clear at the outset | that the demand for amendment of | the Labor Act comes with vigor and | Sinsistence from both organized labor | and the employers. The issue be- fore us distinctly is not one in which labor stands on one side of the dis- cussion and employers on the other. In fact, I think it is fair to say that there is throughout the country | a clear majority which demands | changes both in the law and in its administration. Opposition Critical. Of course, there are those who oppose any amendment and who | immediately characterize any offered | amendment, however slight, as an | attempt to emasculate the law. { I do not concur in that view. For myself, I believe implicitly i the right of workers to organize and | bargain collectively through repre- sentatives of their own choosing. Only in that way can labor achieve a balance of bargaining power with | the employer. That such is the view of an overwhelming majority | of the House cannot be disputed. ‘What the opponents of revision mean is that the current demand over the country for some changes will certainly be felt in the House; which leads me to another state- ment some enemies of revision of the Labor Act may think a little harsh. If there are irritants in the act or its administration which are creating so much sentiment for change, should not those irritants be removed before the demand for The action which will be taken in the House now in respect to amending the act undoubtedly will go farther than it would have gone a year ago. It may well be that if conditions continue as they are, amendments which might bel adopted a year from now would go | much farther than those which would be acceptable today. A true friend of the act, and one who | believes in its fundamental pur- poses and objectives, should cer- tainly recognize this very obvious fact, face the situation with cour- age, and remove those irritants which, if allowed to continue, may ultimately uproot the entire law. Rights Recognized. Let me say again that there has not been evident here in Congress any intention of limiting or re- stricting labor's right to organize and bargain collectively. These rights were recognized by the ma- jority of our employers and by the courts long before they were writ- ten into the N. L. R. B. Act in 1935. ~ They have long been recognized as fundamental in the American sys- tem of life and government. As a result of the increasing and consistent demand for some over- istration, regular committees of the House and Senate during the last year or two have held extensive hearings. No legislation was forth- coming as a result of those hearings. ‘Then, on July 20, 1939, the House, by a vote of 254 to 134, adopted a resolution providing for appoint- ment of a special committee of five to investigate the National Labor Relations Board. Our committee, acting under that resolution, has been investigating the workings of the act since Au- gust, 1939. In the majority report to the House, on March 30, we pointed out that both the Ameri- can Federation of Labor and the Congress of Industrial Organiza- tions were on record concerning the faltering administration of the law. William Green, president of the A. F. L, for example, charged that certain cases invelving union rep- resentation, had been guilty of “all the crimes in the calendar.” Mr. Green'’s statement continues: ¥ “We believe that the act has been administered contrary to both | amendment of the law. Acting on | man Smith of Virginia, Representa- | were incorporated in a bill, H. R. Our committee was scrupulously careful to get facts and to avoid prejudiced conclusions and opinions which would be of no value. Most of the evidence in the record comes from the files of the labor board itself. The investigating committee did not hasten its report. It sent out | more than 60,000 questionnaires, di- | recting one of them to every person who ever had been a party to a case before the labor board. These in- cluded employers, unions, individual employes, attorneys and many inter- | veners. More than 10,000 answers were received and tabulated by the committee. By the end of Febru- ary of this year, our hearings made up 10,000 typewritten pages of trans- script, supported by some 1,300 ex- bits presented through various | witnesses. I mention these facts merely to demonstrate that the | whole inquiry has been conducted on a judicial basis, directed by a conscientious effort to serve the na- tional interest through the sound promotion of labor welfare, the elim- | ination of bitter and demoralizing | industrial strife and the stabilization | of labor relations generally. | The resolution under which our committee was acting directed us | to make recommendations for that direction, the committee care- fully considered the many and varied proposals then before Congress and the country. The majority of the committee, which included Chair- tive Routzohn of Ohio and myself, finally agreed upon certain recom- mendations for amendment. They 8813, which was introduced in the House by Mr. Smith on March 7. Referred to Committee. It should be noted that our com- | mittee is not a legislative committee. | It had no authority to take its| recommendations direct to the floor for action. The bill which was in- troduced was referred to the Labor Committee for its consideration. Thereafter, that committee con- sidered the Smith bill, together with other proposals then before it. The | result was the reporting of a bill, H. R. 9195. on April 2, known as the Norton bill. That bill provides for four amendments. Briefly, they are to increase the board from three to five, to provide that if a majority in a craft unit desire separate bar- gaining rights, such rights shall be granted them; to give employers the | right to force an election under cer- tain conditions, and to prevent elec- tions for one year after a certifica- tion. The latter two of these amend- ments were recommended in the majority report of the Smith com- mittee. On April 19 the Rules Committee, of which I am also a member, voted a rule, making the Norton bill in order for consideration on the floor of the House, and providing further that the Smith bill could be offered as a substitute. Whichever bill pre- vails then shall be wide open to amendment on the floor. It thus appears now that the House will be permitted to exercise its judg- ment in respect to the various pro- posals for amendment. Let us consider what some of these proposed amendments are. If they are shown to be desirable and fair, then they should be adopted. Procedure Impairs Confidence. One of the things most frequently charged against the labor board is that it is prosecutor,” judge, jury and executioner. That accusation stems from the fact that under the law as it is now written, the board, and its agents, investigate charges, file complaints, prosecute the com- plaints and then decide the cases. The evidence before our committee demonstrated clearly that in many instances the labor board itself was very closely associated with the preparation and prosecution of cases which it subsequently undertook to decide upon merit. To say the least, such procedure, dealing as it did with highly controversial and important affairs, was not conducive to the utmost confidence upon the part of litigants in the decisions of the board. As a remedy, some persons sug- gested that the Government should not be charged with the duty of prosecuting cases before the board— that such duty should be left to the individuals feeling themselves ag- grieved under the act. Our com- mittee, and may I say I refer to accomplish this, we would create the office of administrator. He would have under his jurisdiction the in- vestigators and attorneys who would prepare and prosecute the cases. ‘The board would retain all of its present judicial powers, having the trial examiners under its jurisdic- tion, and having the sole power to decide the cases brought before it. It should be clearly understood that this proposal involves only a separation of powers, not a sub- traction of powers. Every power now vested in the board would be vested in either the administrator or the board as it would be created under the committee proposal. That being true, how can it be said | that this proposal is destructive of the true purposes of the act? It has been suggested that the admin- istrator might not be diligent in the performance of his duties. That is not a fair assumption. He would be appointed by the President, sub- Jject to confirmation by the Senate, and would be answerable to the President. He could be removed at the will of the President. How long would be last if he did not do his job? This method of separating ad- ministrative from judicial functions has worked admirably in the Civil Aeronautics Authority, established by Congress as recently as 1938. It is a sound principle, in full har- mony with the fundamental Ameri- can concept of checks and balances in government. Provides for New Board. Furthermore, our proposal pro- | vides for the appointment of an | entirely new labor board. It will| avail nothing at this time to go! into an extended discussion as to | why such a recommendation was| deemed advisable. Neither can we! weigh here the charges that in many instances the activities of the board or particular members of its staff | were such as suggested strong sym- pathies with Communism. Suffice it to say that I, for one, arrived at the need for'a new board with some reluctance. It is undoubtedly true | that the present board has had a | difficult and troublesome job, which | certainly has not been lightened | by the division in the ranks of la- | bor. But it is likewise true that a fair consideration of the evidence before our committee will sustain | much of the contention generally prevalent that a great part of the difficulty has been in the adminis- tration of the act, rather than in the act itself. Of course, under our | proposal the President could re- appoint the present members if he should so see fit. Or he might ap- point new members with a view to making an entirely fresh start. I referred earlier to the amend- ment of the Labor Commitee, which would increase the board from three to five. To my mind, such action can be justified only on the basis that it is desirable to dilute the faulty administration or judgment of three members with the un- known and untested judgment of two additional members. Three members can decide the cases as expeditiously and fairly as five members. If something needs to be done, why not meet it fairly and squarely? By another amendment previous- ly mentioned, an employer would be permitted to force an election when two or more rival and bona fide labor unions are contending they represent a majority of his em- ployes. Certainly under such cir- cumstances the rules of fair play should give an employer the right to require a show-down to the end that he may know with whom he should bargain. I can conceive of no plausible reason why such an amendment would in any way adversely affect the rights of labor ortthe fundamental purposes of the act. Permits Plant to “Quiet.” ‘The same may also be said of the proposed amendment which would prohibit a second election within one year after a vote has been held and the board has certified the union having & majority. Indus- trial relations in a plant should cer< tainly be permitted to quiet down for at least a reasonable time after & decision has been made. As a matter of fact, both of ‘these last two amendments have been more or less accepted in principle by the rules and regulations of the board itself recently adopted. In the celebrated Fansteel case, decided by the Supreme Court, the right of sit-down strikers to be re- instated and given back pay was at issue. The board had ordered such reinstatement. The court reversed the board, holding that employes could not be immune from dis- charge for acts of trespass or vio- lerx;;,e against the employers’ prop- erty. To my mind, the overwhelming sentiment in this country condemns sit-down strikes. The majority of our committee deemed it advisable to write this provision into the law, particularly in view of certain ac- tlons and decisions of the board which apparently refused to recog- nize the principle 1aid down by the Supreme Court. In connection with this proposal, it has been suggested that an in- advertent or harmless scuffie on a | the courts. picket line might result in the loss the majority report, rejected that proposal. However, we did recom- mend a separation of the functions of the board as between tion its spirit and letter. We charge the board with maladministration, Pprosecuf and Jjudicial review of facts. 1'0 by a striker of his rights under the act. The proposed amendment re- fers to employes who have “wilfully engaged in violence or unlawful de- struction or seizure of property.” - b It seems clear to me that the use of the word “wilfully” in connec- tion with violence would preclude any such result as suggested ahove. However, this is probably a good place for me to say that among those in Congress who are earnestly trying to do something to bring about, a fair solution of these prob- lems none is wedded to amy par- ticular language or any particular amendment. Let them be sub- Jected to the light of critical anal- ysis and adopted or rejected as they stand the test of careful ex- amination in the debates of the House and Senate. Prohibits Employer Interference. The law as it now stands pro- hibits an employer from interfering with, restraining or coercing em- ployes in the exercise df their right to organize. Such a provision is deemed necessary to protect em- ployes in their organizing activities. However, it is earnestly contended by many fair and honest employers and employes that the application of this provision by the board has been so severe and rigid as| to interfere seriously with the maintenance of friendly and effec- tive relationships between employer and worker, thereby seriously affect- ing the ability of plants to operate. Then, too, it has been urged that the rulings of the board have ac- tually violated the constitutional provision protecting the right of free speech. On this proposition, we took the recommendation of the American Federation of Labor and strength- ened it to provide that an employer shall not be prohibited from making any expressions of opinion with respect to any matter which may be of interest to employes or the general public, provided that such expressions of opinion are not accompanied by acts of coer- cion, intimidation, discrimination or threats thereof. In this recommendation, we have, | to my mind, received aid and com- fort in a recent decision of the Supreme Court in which Justice | Murphy said, “Publicizing the facts of a labor dispute in a peaceful way through appropriate means, whether | by pamphlet, by word of mouth or by banner, must now be regarded | as within that liberty of communi- cation which is secured to every person by the 14th amendment.” And Justice Murphy’s opinion also ruled that States may not “impair the effective exercise of the right to discuss freely industrial relations which are matters of public con- cern.” Rules of Evidence Discussed, Another amendment which has caused considerable discussion is| that which has to do with the appli- cation of rules of evidence to hear- ings conducted before the board or ! its agents. The law as it is now| written provides that the rules of | evidence shall not be controlling. It was disclosed that that provision | has been construed on occasion as something of an invitation to the board to ignore the most funda- mental rules of evidence. I am of | the firm opinion that by and large the rules of evidence have been | established throughout all our his- | tory as the best and most effective | may of arriving at true facts and fair decisions on questions of pub- lic policy. Decisions of the labor | board involve questions of fact.| Why will not the ends of justice be | served if some fair consideration | is given to the general rules of | evidence? After all, our proposal is not much more than the invitation to follow the rules of evidence, rather than a requirement that they be followed. We would provide that | the rules of evidence, so far as practicable, shall prevail. Certainly this recommendation is not subject to the harsh criticism to which it has been subjected in some quarters. The majority of our committee, in connection with judicial review of the board’s decisions, adopted verbatim two provisions of the Wal- | ter-Logan bill adopted by the House | last week by an overwhelming vote. | In brief, our suggestion is that the | decisions of the board be final if they are supported by substantial | evidence and are not clearly erro- | neous. The rule of substantial evi- dence has already been adopted by | That the decision is not | “clearly erroneous” is likely going little farther than the substantial | evidence rule. Clearly, it would not | provide for a court review of the | weight of the evidence, or for the supplanting of the decision of the board simply because the court | might view the weight of the evi- dence differently. But it would give the court clear authority to reverse the board in those cases where the evidence supporting the decision is 5o insubstantial as to shock the conscience of the court. Changes Subpoena System, We also learned during the course of our investigation that respondents on trial before the board or its examiners frequently had great dif- ficulty in obtaining subpoenas for witnesses. It seems clear to us that any party to an action under this act should be permitted to obtain subpoenas in order to procure and present his evidence. That is merely a matter of common justice. So an amendment is recommended to ac- complish that end, safeguarding the rights of every one by providing that if a person subpoenaed believes the subpoena unjustified, he may have that fact determined by the board and be excused from appearing if proper showing is made. In conclusion, I may add that all of us have been besieged with de- mands which would place additional responsibilities and liabilities upon employes, such as to provide that if a union breaks a contract validly entered into, it shall forfeit its rights under the act. Such proposals would rather definitely put labor on trial in a number of ways. Our committee rejected these proposals except as to our recommendation following the outlawing of sit-down strikes as laid down in the Fansteel case by the Supreme Court. Time forbids a detailed analysis of other amendments. I have, how- ever, touched upon some of the questions presented by the commit- tee’s painstaking study of our national experience under the Wag- ner Act. The very foundation prin- ciples of constitutional government require that the necessary amend- ments should be made by Congress and by Congress alone. This is not & matter to be determined by any one committee, nor any one group. It is a problem which touches the prosperity and welfare of all the people. It is not a problem of any one political party. It must be ap- proached and dealt with in the due processes of orderly representative government. My faith in America is abiding, that if the problem is so approached and so dealt with it will yield a solution equitable to all and con- tributing mightily to the recovery and economical progress of the en- tire Nation. A \ C., TUESDAY, APRIL 30, 1940. WOODWARD & LOTHROP 10 11™ F AND G STREETS PHoNE DIstrICT 5300 "Annual May Savings Fine Luggage —now is the time to buy the smart, dependable year-'round luggage you want especially for Summer traveling—and enjoy unusual savings i Hartmann World Famous Trunks —solve the problem of what to take—for these have room for everything—sturdily made. Regular-size Wardrobe Trunks: Fiber, regularly $35 ____ Canvas, regularly $45 __ Canvas regularly $62.50__ Canvas, regularly $69.50 Canvas, regularly $79.50_ Canvas, regularly $150__ Extra-size Wardrobe Trunk: Canvas, regularly $85__ Canvas, regularly $95._ Canvas, regularly $125 Steamer-size Wardrobe Trunks: Fiber, regularly $50___ Fiber, regularly $60__ Canvas, regularly $100 --$29.95 --$37.95 Hartmann Convenient Tourobes —amazing capacity—light and handy—ggonven- iently sized to fit most luggage compartments. Regularly $25__$19.95 Regularly $35__$29.95 Regularly $30__$24.95 Regularly$42.50,$34.95 Women’s Matched Hartmann Sets —distinctive in styling—yet practical in service. Striped or plain-color canvas with sturdy cowhide- reinforced edges—easy-to-grip post-type handles. Sky Robe carries dresses on hangers, almost wrinkle- less. Regularly $20 18-inch Overnight Case. Regularly $15_ Men’s De Luxe Two-suiter Cases —of top-grain saddle leather—extra-wide bindino —hand-fitting handle—carries two suits—and needed accessories ___$17.95 Men’s or Women’s 29-inch Suntan Cowhide Hanger Cases ___ s o __--%$29.95 Men’s Hazel Pigskin Two-suiter Cases with rein- forced edges and extra-heavy corners Men’s or Women’s Matched Sets —black or brown leather—edges heavily bound— solid post handles—rayon lined—generous pockets. 18, 21, 24 inch Suitcases, regularly $10 __ $7.95 26, 29 inch Pullman Cases, regularly $20__$12.95 Two-suiter Hanger Cases, regularly $15___$12.95 ch Wardrobe Cases, regularly $15___$12.95 nch Hanger Cases, regularly $25 $19.95 Men'’s, Women’s Luggage . . . $7.95 Women’s Vanity Bags in cobra-grain cowhide in colors. Drop front with handy Talon-fastened edges—fitted with two bottles, two jars, mirror, toothbrush holder $7.95 Men’s Leather Sports Bags of top-grain walrus and seal. Talon-fastened—double handles—black or brown. 18 or 21 inch $7.95 Women's Fitted Vanity Cases with two bottles and two jars. Alligator-grain Fabrikoid in smart col- ors. Mirror in lid. 14-inch size $7.95 Women’s 16-inch Fitted Bottle Cases with two bot- tles, hairbrush, shoehorn, file, comb, mirror. movable Talon-fastened pocket $7.95 Women's 16-inch Alligator-grain Fabrikoid Cases :i:h two bottles, two jars, mirror, toothbrush older 3 Men'’s, Women'’s Luggage . . . $12.95 Men's 22-inch Russet Bags— T alon-fastened—dou- ble handle—box construction ______ ____$12,95 Men’s 20-inch Suntan Cowhide Bags—double handle—Talon-fastened $12.95 Men’s 20-inch Walrus Bags in black or brown— double handle—Talon-fastened $12.95 Men's Suntan Pigskin Sports Bags—double,handles —welt seams—ideal for sports $12.95 Men’s 20-inch Gladstone Bags of black or brown walrus or suntan cowhide. New-style streamline construction match—of black, blue or brown alligator-grain Fabrikoid, both pieces Men’s Luggage . . . . . .$19.95 Men’s 20, 22, 26 inch Russet Cowhide Overnight Cases with Yale locks—solid-leather handles—ex- tended edges < $19.95 Men'’s Aniline-dyed Leather Frame Bags—double handles—French-edge construction $19.95 Men’s Suntan Cowhide De Luxe Two-suiter Cases with extra-wide leather binding—Yale locks—top- seam handles $19.95