NEW STRIKE LAW

Auckland Star, Volume LXXII, Issue 193, 16 August 1941, Page 6

NEW STRIKE LAW

DRASTIC U.S. BILL CHECK TO TERRORISM EFFECT ON PICKETING (By JAY (1. HAYDEN) WASHINGTON, June ?>O. Organised labour and its Congressional spokesmen, who successfully have blocked every attempt to bring up the Vinson proposal for a mild cooling-oil period before strikes could be instituted suddenly find themselves faced with a far more drastic: plan. Also the legislative situation is such as to irive proponents of compulsory strike prevention a decided advantage.

The House Rules Committee, which earlier had granted right of way to the Vinson Bill, requiring a 30-day interval before a strike could begin, gave on Monday the so-called May Bill a status co-equal with the Vinson Bill. The decision as to when these bills actually will be called up for debate was left in each case to the arch union-hater. Representative Howard W. Smith, of Virginia. Mr. Smith promptly announced the May Bill will be called up at the first opportunity, probably before the end of this week. Further. he intimated that if the May Bill passes, the Vinson Bill is not likely to be called up at all.

The May Bill stems directly from President' Roosevelt's use of troops to break the North American Aviation Company strike. At the behest of Attorney-General Robert H. Jackson, who "was doubtful as to the President's legal authority to take over a plant under the circumstances presented in the North American case, Senator Tom Connallv, Democrat, of Texas, introduced a bi'll to make clear this authority.

President's Powers Limited

In its original form the Connally proposal was a simple amendment to the provision of the Selective Service Act, which already had authorised seizure of a plant if its owner refused to produce defence materials in response to a Governmental order. Connally proposed to extend this seizure authority to situations in which "existing or threatened failure of production is due primarily to a labour dispute."

After much hemming and hawing in the form of high-sounded provisos, designed to prove its undying affection for both plant owners and workers, the Senate passed the Connally amendment without substantial change as to its affects.

However, the House Military Committee refused to accept the Jackson idea that all which is needed to solve the strike difficulty is to authorise the President to seize plants, as stated in its report of the May Bill. This committee decided that "private industry has. without exception, cooperated to the fullest degree in the programme of rearmament now under way by this Government, but in many instances uncontrolled small groups of employees have sought successfully to slow down, and in many instances completely stop, production of needed war materials and supplies, notwithstanding the earnest appeal of their leadership that they go back to work and settle their differences and contentions around the conference table or by conciliation and mediation."

In pursuance of this viewpoint the committee limited the President's power to seize plants to those cases in which the employer refused to

"utilise existing Government con ciliation and mediation facilities."

If the fault is on the side of the workers the President's power would be confined bv the May Bill to ordering "such plant or industry to resume production immediately." and to use of the military or naval forces "to afford protection to all persons engaged in the operation of such plant or industry who voluntarily desire to work."

There has been a suspicion in some qua! tors that with the unlimited niiwrr of plant seizure in the hands of President. Labour unions mi'_'b.l precipitate strikes fur tlie purpo■'<• of bringing about Gov-r-rnmen' ownership and operation of industry. To miard against this

r>f.-:xil>ilitv the May Bill declares that, nothing "in Section 9A <tho strike pre vf niiiin provision) shall he construed to authorise the President or ;iiiv Government agency to seize or operate anv plant or industry or to give to anv neison affected thereby. in anv respect whatever, the status of (iovcmmrr.t employees."

Another paragraph of the bill would forbid the National Labour Relations Board to grant "time lost" payment to an employee striking in defiance of a Presidential order.

In addition to all this the May bill would sharply curb picketing. It says: "It shall be unlawful to prevent or to attempt to prevent by force or violence or threat thereto any person from accepting or continuing in employment in any defence plant, or from entering or leaving any defence plant, in the course of such employment. Nothing in this section shall limit the right of any person or organisation to strike, or to engage in peaceful picketing."

This provision clearly would prevent picketing "violence and terrorism.'' which Senator Vandenberg. among others, has named as the crux of the strike problem.

Finally, it is provided that any person violating the May bill "shall be deemed guilty of sabotage and. upon conviction thereof, shall he fined not more than 5000 dollars or imprisoned for not more than five years, or both."

The vital point of all. perhaps, is that the May bill is offered as a substitute for the Connally bill, already passed bv the Senate. This means that if the May bill passes the House—and it almost certainly will so pass—it will next go to a conference committee for ad.htstment of differences between the two Houses. — Auckland Star and N.A.N.A.