of the case, ruled that it was lawful for the union to raise its initiation fees for all new members about a week before certification and to warn all employees of the impending increase. Section 8 (b) (1) (A) allows a union to make its own rules with respect to obtaining and retaining members so long as they are not discriminatory and do not violate the LMRA.

Veterans' Reemployment

Defense Work Position of Indefinite Duration Held Not Temporary; Offer of Like Job Instead of Eliminated Job Satisfies Requirements. (1) A defense worker was hired during the World War II period and then entered military service. A district court, noting that he was hired for an indefinite period, held " that he left a "position other than temporary."

The court ruled that the results of war expansion and shrinkage were provided for in the reemployment statutes by relieving an employer from the duty to restore a veteran's employment if the employer's circumstances had so changed as to make restoration impossible or unreasonable. The conditions obtaining when reinstatement is refused and the reasons for not granting it should be examined to determine whether a refusal was justified, said the court.

(2) In the same case, another question arose. The veteran on induction had left a production position as checker. When he applied for restoration, the division had shut down and the job of checker had been abolished. The employer placed him on a recall list, with about 1,200 senior employees ahead of him. The veteran asked for clerical work, which, though qualified to perform, he had not done for this employer. This was refused. About a year later, the employer offered a production position as stock clerk, which the veteran declined. No positions in the division in which the veteran had worked, that he was qualified to fill, were held within the year by employees with less seniority.

The court inferred, in the absence of dispute, that the position of stock clerk was one of like seniority status and pay to that of checker. In determining whether the employer's earlier refusal to give the veteran a clerical position violated the statute, the court considered the following facts significant. When the veteran applied for reinstatement, the job of checker had disappeared and its functions had been substantially discontinued. Seniority was not company-wide but existed within divisions and was not transferable. No "like" positions in the division were held by employees of less seniority. Clerical positions found only in other departments were not within the collective-bargaining agreement or within established seniority schedules.

Clerical workers were salaried; checkers were production workers on hourly pay. Many clerical positions were confidential and hiring procedures for them were more selective.

On the basis of these facts, the court held, the veteran had no statutory right beyond that accorded him and, therefore, no right to a clerical position. The statute does not require the employer to place a veteran in a position unlike his former one in seniority, character, and

status, merely because there is work for which the veteran may be qualified. Nor does he have a right to such a position merely because valid, existing agreements do not preclude him from filling it.

Effect of General and Special Agreements on Veterans' Promotion Rights. In a recent case, a district court applied 14 the reemployment statutes to certain electrical workers' agreements with a railroad. A veteran, employed as electrician's helper when inducted in 1941, was reinstated as such in 1946. He claimed that on reinstatement he had a right to promotion to electrician, with seniority ahead of the first junior helper who had been advanced during his military service.

The veteran's first request to be made electrician, the court found, came 10 months after his return; meantime, he had not pursued his alleged earlier demand and had failed to apply for any of nine intervening vacancies as electrician. The local union chairman had informed the veteran that he must wait for an advertised vacancy and then apply. When he finally did this, he was appointed electrician, with seniority from date of appointment. The agreements considered provided as follows: Seniority for helper and electrician were separate, each beginning with active work and pay. The senior qualified helper had preference for promotion to a vacancy he bid on, but a show of qualifications, by interview or examination, could be required. (The veteran admitted that on return from service he might not immediately have qualified but claimed that he might have in 30 days.) The employer was free to fill vacancies from outside instead of by promotion. In practice, any employee using seniority to displace another used it-"physically"-by appearing in person and claiming the particular job. The general agreement required a person returning from leave to exercise seniority rights within 5 days, to any position advertised in his absence; this was in addition to rules governing promotions. Under a special practice, a returning veteran, exercising seniority as to a promotion missed and complying with all rules (if found qualified and promoted) was allowed to become an electrician, senior to junior helpers who were promoted during his military service.

Returning veterans, the court held, have statutory rights limited to contractual rights of persons on leave or furlough. The statute gives a returning veteran on promotion to a higher position no greater seniority in it than the agreements provide.

The veteran's promotion was subject to conditions as to promotions in general, and also to the 5-day limit applicable under the general agreement on return from furlough. This limit, as applied to veterans, is not discriminatory nor unreasonable, because it is identical with the limit in earlier agreements.

For the following reasons, the court held that the veteran had no valid claim to the earlier seniority date: Promotions did not depend on seniority only; the employer could hire from without; the veteran did not request promotion within the required 5-day period nor offer to demonstrate his ability; he made no effort "physically" to displace a junior electrician; he did not bid on any of nine advertised vacancies.

Veteran Granted Executive Position on Special War-Work Record Cannot Later Exercise Seniority as From Former Position. The veteran in this case, 15 a railroad electric worker, entered military service which involved advanced work in electricity. Before his discharge from military service and after his reinstatement as electrician on March 29, 1946, he asked the employer for a superior, appointive position not within the seniority areas established by agreement for his former position. In May 1949, on application for such executive position, he became assistant power director and in July 1949 power director. Thereafter, because of frequent layoffs at those levels, he applied unsuccessfully for the position of gang foreman in the electrical field. In November 1950, he asked the court to declare his statutory right to be a gang foreman, with seniority ahead of two junior electricians who became gang foremen during his military service. During that absence, gang foremen were initially brought within the reach of electrician's seniority. An agreement had always permitted persons returning from leave to claim positions within their seniority area, but only within 5 days after return. During this veteran's absence it was agreed that returning veterans, acting within 5 days after reporting as ready to work, might claim positions missed during military service and receive therein seniority ahead of junior promoted employees. The veteran claimed ignorance of these changes but had received the current "rules" from his employer when reinstated.

(3)

The court held the veteran had no right to the position and seniority of gang foreman for the following reasons: (1) The veteran failed to claim such right within the time limit, the agreements being nondiscriminatory and valid. (2) No right outside the "leave" clauses was shown. The veteran, a former president of the local, with long service, could not excuse his inaction by the employer's failure to inform him of the change as to gang foreman. The agreement does not require the employer to take the initiative in informing the veteran what positions are available for seniority exercise; it makes the local chairman the worker's representative. (4) Further, this veteran's long-delayed claim to the gang foremanship, made after he became a minor executive, was an afterthought, inconsistent with his intention on return from service to capitalize his new qualifications in the executive position.

Unemployment Insurance

Availability for Work of Claimant Who Moves to Another State.

The Wisconsin Circuit Court for Dane County held 16 that a 19-year-old girl who left her employment in Wisconsin to move to California with her parents was eligible for benefits under the Wisconsin law. By registering for and seeking work in California in accordance with the Interstate Benefit arrangement to which Wisconsin and California are parties, claimant met the availability for work requirement of the Wisconsin law.

Availability During Pregnancy. The New York Appellate Division of the Supreme Court held 17 that a married woman, temporarily "retired" from her employment under a general policy of the employer-because she was 5 months

the statute does not expressly so provide, the court held that the declaration of public policy to compensate "involuntary unemployment" and "persons unemployed through no fault of their own" showed a legislative intent that good cause for quitting work must be a cause attributable to or connected with the claimant's employment.

Labor Dispute Disqualification-Membership in Union. The Pennsylvania Superior Court held 19 that an assistant mine foreman was disqualified for benefits when he became unemployed because of a strike called by the union of which he was a member. He had continued his membership in the union after promotion, although as a supervisory employee he could not participate in its benefits, and was excluded from the collective-bargaining agreement between the union and the employer. The statute disqualifies an individual unemployed due to a stoppage of work existing because of a labor dispute at the premises where he was last employed, unless, among other things, he is not a member of an organization which is participating in or directly interested in the labor dispute which caused the stoppage of work.

1 Prepared in the U. S. Department of Labor, Office of the Solicitor. The cases covered in this article represent a selection of the significant decisions believed to be of special interest. No attempt has been made to reflect all recent judicial and administrative developments in the field of labor law or to indicate the effect of particular decisions in jurisdictions in which contrary results may be reached, based upon local statutory provisions, the existence of local precedents, or a different approach by the courts to the issue presented.

This section is intended merely as a digest of some recent decisions involving the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Portal-to-Portal Act. It is not to be construed and may not be relied upon as interpretation of these acts by the Administrator of the Wage and Hour Division or any agency of the Department of Labor.

Tobin v. Anthony Williams Mfg. Co. (D. C. E. D. Ark., Mar. 5, 1951). 4 United States v. Silk, 331 U. S. 704.

'Newton Investigation Bureau (93 NLRB No. 261, Apr. 18, 1951).

• William Penn Broadcasting Co. (93 NLRB No. 201, Apr. 2, 1951).

7 Midwest Piping and Supply Co., Inc., 63 NLRB 1060. NLRB v. Vulcan Forging Co. (C. A. 6th, Mar. 23, 1951). Roure-Dupont Mfg., Inc. (93 NLRB No. 230, Apr. 9, 1951).

10 Pipe Machinery Co. (22 LRRM 1510).

11 Teras Co. (93 NLRB No. 239, Apr. 16, 1951).

12 Ferro Stamping and Mfg. Co. (93 NLRB No. 252, Apr. 17, 1951).

13 Weinmann v. Colt's Mfg. Co. (S. D. N. Y., Feb. 9, 1951).

14 Little v. Pennsylvania R. R. (D. C. Md., Feb. 9, 1951).

1 Allison v. Pennsylvania R. R. (D. C. Md., Feb. 9, 1951).

10 Western Printing & Lithographing Co. v. Morgan (Wis. Cir. Mar. 3, 1951). 17 In re Aufieri (N. Y. App. Div. Mar. 14, 1951).

18 Stone Mfg. Co. v. Employment Security Commission (S. C. Sup. Ct., Apr. 11, 1951). Accord: Woodmen of the World Life Ins. Soc. v. Olsen (141 Neb. 776, 4 N. W. (2d) 923); John Morrell & Co. v. Unemployment Commission (69 S. D. 618, 13 N. W. (2d) 498). Contra: Reger v. Administrator, (132 Conn. 647, 46 A. (2) 844); Department of Labor v. Unemployment Board (164 Pa. Super. 421,65 A. (2d) 436); Hollingworth Tool Works v. Review Board (119 Ind. App. 191, 84 N. E. (2d) 895).

10 Jablonsky v. U. C. Board of Review (Pa. Super. Mar. 21, 1951).

Chronology of Recent Labor Events

April 13, 1951

THE SECRETARY OF LABOR met with representatives of education, Federal and State governments, agriculture, industry, labor, and parent and civic interests to discuss problems of the increase in child labor. (Source: U. S. Department of Labor release, ST-51-460, Apr. 13, 1951.)

A CONTROLLED MATERIALS PLAN for allocation of steel, copper, and aluminum was announced by the National Production Authority, effective July 1, 1951. (Source: NPA release, Apr. 13, 1951; for discussion, see p. 696 of this issue.)

April 17

THE CIO announced creation of a new union organizing committee the United Department Store Workers of America. (Source: CIO release, Apr. 17, 1951.)

THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, in the case of Ferro Stamping and Manufacturing Co. and Mary Miranda; International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, Local 753 (CIO) and Mary Miranda and Blanche Woodin, ruled that difference between union initiation fees charged to employees who failed to join union before effective date of union-shop clause and those charged new employees who joined thereafter was discriminatory. (Source: Labor Relations Reporter, vol. 27, No. 49, Apr. 23, 1951, 27 LRRM, p. 1593.)

April 20

THE PRESIDENT accepted the resignation of Cyrus Ching as Chairman of the Wage Stabilization Board and designated Dr. George W. Taylor of the University of Pennsylvania, as his successor. (Source: White House release, Apr. 20, 1951; and New York Times, Apr. 20, 1951.)

On April 21, the President, by Executive Order No. 10233, reconstituted the Wage Stabilization Board, with powers to assume jurisdiction over any labor dispute not resolved by collective bargaining or conciliation and mediation facilities and which threatens the national defense. The 18-member Board is to be tripartite, with

(Source: Federal Register, vol. 16, No. 79, Apr. 24, 1951, p. 3503.)

On May 3, the President appointed the 18 members of the Wage Stabilization Board. (Source: Washington Post, May 4, 1951; for discussion, see p. 711 of this issue.)

April 21

THE ECONOMIC STABILIZATION ADMINISTRATOR established a policy, to be utilized by the Office of Price Stabilization, whereby no industry would be permitted to raise prices if its dollar profits amounted to 85 percent or more of those in its 3 best years in the period 1946-49. (Source: New York Times, Apr. 22, 1951; for discussion, see p. 664 of this issue.)

April 23

THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES denied review in the case of Joy Silk Mills, Inc. v. NLRB, No. 569, thereby in effect upholding a lower court's decision which set limits on the type of questions which an employer may ask his employees about their union activities in preparation of a case before the NLRB. (Source: Labor Relations Reporter, vol. 27, No. 51, Apr. 30, 1951, LRR p. 308.) April 24

THE ECONOMIC STABILIZATION ADMINISTRATOR, on recommendation of a special wage panel (see Chron. item for Apr. 10, 1951, MLR May 1951), issued Wage Adjustment Order 1-the first permitting wage increases above the 10-percent formula-approving the 6-cent escalator clause increase granted nonoperating railroad workers. (Source: Federal Register, vol. 16, No. 81, Apr. 26, 1951, p. 3559; for discussion, see p. 664 of this issue.)

April 25

THE OPS issued Ceiling Price Regulation 22, effective May 28, establishing ceilings on most manufactured products, based on pre-Korean prices plus increases in material and labor costs through December 31, 1950, and March 15, 1951, respectively. (Source: Federal Register, vol. 16, No. 81, Apr. 26, 1951, p. 3562.)

On April 30, the OPS issued 4 ceiling regulations covering beef prices. CPR 23, effective for accounting periods beginning on or after May 20, fixes prices of slaughterers of cattle and provides for future reductions after July 29 and September 30, 1951. CPR 24, effective May 9, outlines specific ceiling prices for wholesalers of beef and beef products; it further provides for lower prices on August 1 and October 1, 1951. CPR 25, effective May 14, establishes retail dollar-and-cents ceilings on beef and certain beef products and provides for future price reductions on August 1 and October 1, 1951. CPR 26, effective May 14, establishes dollar-and-cents ceilings for kosher beef sold at retail. (Source: Federal Register, vol. 16, No. 84, May 1, 1951, pp. 3696, 3721, 3739, and 3704; for discussion of the above, see p. 663 of this issue.)

On May 1, the OPS issued Amendment 2 to CPR 1 (see Chron. item for Feb. 27, 1951, MLR Apr. 1951), ordering ceiling prices for the automobile manufacturing industry to remain at existing levels. (Source: Federal Register, vol. 16, No. 85, May 2, 1951, p. 3828.)

On the same day, the OPS issued CPR 27, establishing ceiling prices for solid fuels received and sold by Lake coal dock operators. (Source: Federal Register, vol. 16, No. 86, May 3, 1951, p. 3891.)

On May 2, the OPS issued CPR 28, effective May 7, establishing specific ceilings for new cotton, linen, and underwear cuttings. (Source: Federal Register, vol. 16, No. 86, May 3, 1951, p. 3895.)

On May 3, the OPS issued CPR 29, effective May 8, fixing specific ceilings for pure nickel scrap, Monel metal scrap, and stainless steel scrap. (Source: Federal Register, vol. 16, No. 87, May 4, 1951, p. 3945.)

On May 4, the OPS issued CPR 30, effective May 28, and CPR 31, effective May 9. CPR 30 establishes ceiling prices for sales by manufacturers of machinery and related goods, and the services furnished in connection with installation and erection. CPR 31 provides a formula for computing ceiling prices for importers, wholesalers, and retailers of imported commodities. (Source: Federal Register, vol. 16, No. 88, May 5, 1951, p. 4108 and Federal Register, vol. 16, No. 89, May 8, 1951, p. 4184.)

On May 7, the OPS issued CPR 32, effective May 12 and CPR 33, effective May 7. CPR 32 fixes the ceiling price for crude petroleum at the receiving tank. CPR 33 establishes ceiling prices for ferrotungsten, tungsten metal powder, and other tungsten products. (Source: Federal Register, vol. 16, No. 89, May 8, 1951, p. 4189 and Federal Register, vol. 16, No. 90, May 9, 1951, p. 4273.)

On May 9, the OPS issued CPR 35, fixing dollars-andcents ceiling prices for wool and related fibres. (Source: Federal Register, vol. 16, No. 91, May 10, 1951, p. 4335.)

On May 11, the OPS issued CPR's 34 and 36, both effective May 16. CPR 34 establishes the ceiling price of most services at December 19, 1950 to January 25, 1951, levels. CPR 36 establishes specific ceiling prices for certain used steel drums. (Source: Federal Register, vol. 16, No. 93, May 12, 1951, pp. 4446, 4451.)

April 27

THE NLRB, in the case of Western Electric Co., Inc., Point Breeze Hourly Employees Association, and Communications Workers of America (CIO), establishing a new policy, ruled that an incumbent union and an employer may voluntarily modify their collective-bargaining agreement, without thereby opening the way for a rival union to obtain a representation election before the contract expires. (Source: NLRB release R-368, Apr. 30, 1951.) April 28

THE PRESIDENT, in an amendment to Executive Order No. 9835, specified that the standard for refusal of or removal from employment in an executive department or agency on grounds relating to loyalty "shall be that, on all the evidence, there is a reasonable doubt as to the

loyalty of the person involved to the Government of the United States." (Source: Federal Register, vol. 16, No. 84, May 1, 1951, p. 3690.)

April 30

THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, in the case of U. S. v. Pewee Coal Co., Inc., affirming a decision of a lower court, ruled that a seizure by Government of a struck coal-mine was a "taking of property" which entitles the mine owners to "just compensation" under the fifth amendment to the U. S. Constitution. (Source: Labor Relations Reporter, vol. 28, No. 2, May 7, 1951, LRRM p. 2001.)

THE NLRB, in the case of Electronics Equipment Co., Inc. and Charles Penchansky, ruled that requesting employer's customers to bring pressure on employer in aid of union's drive for recognition was protected concerted activity under amended NLRA. (Source: Labor Relations Reporter, vol. 28, No. 2, May 7, 1951, LRRM, p. 1009.)

THE UNITED LABOR POLICY COMMITTEE, after a 2-month period of withdrawal from Federal mobilization agencies (See Chron. item for Feb. 15, 1951, MLR Apr. 1951), voted unanimously for the immediate return of labor representatives. (Source: ULPC release, Apr. 30, 1951; for discussion, see p. 712 of this issue.)

May 1

RESIGNATION of William H. Harrison as Administrator of the Defense Production Administration (see Chron. item for Dec. 16, 1950, MLR Feb. 1951) became effective and the President designated Edwin T. Gibson, assistant to Mr. Harrison, as Acting Administrator. (Source: White House release April 25, 1951, and Federal Register, vol. 16, No. 84, May 1, 1951, p. 3690.)

May 2

THE CIO announced affiliation of a new union-the
National Association of Broadcast Engineers & Tech-
nicians. (Source: CIO release, May 2, 1951.)
May 3

SECOND THREATENED STRIKE (see Chron. item for Apr. 3, 1951, MLR May 1951) of shipyard workers of the Industrial Union of Marine and Shipbuilding Workers of America (CIO) was postponed 30 days, following a conference between union representatives and the Chairman of the WSB. (Source: New York Times, May 1, 1951.) THE SECRETARY OF LABOR, amended General Order No. 48 (see MLR Nov. 1950, p. 575) designating the 13 regional directors of the Department's Bureau of Employment Security as regional directors of the Defense Manpower Administration and providing for the establishment of Regional and Area Labor-Management Committees for Defense Manpower. (Source: U. S. Dept. of Labor General

Order No. 48, Amendment No. 2, May 3, 1951; for discussion, see p. 695 of this issue.)

THE DIRECTOR of the Office of Defense Mobilization established a Labor-Management-Manpower Policy Committee, to be composed of representatives from the fields of labor and industrial and agricultural management. The Committee is to be co-chaired by Dr. Arthur S. Flemming of the ODM and Dr. Frank P. Graham, Administrator of the Defense Manpower Administration in the U. S. Dept. of Labor. (Source: U. S. Dept. of Labor release, May 1, 1951, and ODM Defense Mobilization Order No. 9, May 3, 1951; for discussion, see p. 695 of this issue.) May 5

THE ACTING ADMINISTRATOR of the U. S. Department of Labor's Wage and Hour Division announced minimum hourly rates, ranging from 17.5 to 52 cents (formerly 15 to 40 cents), for employees in the needlework and fabricated textile products industry in Puerto Rico, under the Fair Labor Standards Act, effective June 4. (Source: Federal Register, vol. 16, No. 88, May 5, 1951, p. 4101.) May 6

THE TEXTILE WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA (CIO) strike in the cotton-rayon industry (see Chron. item for Mar. 15, 1951, MLR May 1951) was called off in the interest of "national safety and welfare", following an appeal by the Director of the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service. (Source: Textile Workers Union of America (CIO) release, May 8, 1951.)

On May 7, the Director of the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service named a special 3-member mediation panel to seek settlement of the dispute. (Source: New York Times, May 8, 1951.)

May 7

THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, in a 4 to 4 vote, upheld the dismissal of 26 Post Office Department workers and again affirmed the Government's right to dismiss employees on disloyalty charges. (Source: U. S. Law Week, vol. 19, No. 43, May 8, 1951, p. 3301.)

SECOND THREAT of a strike against the major meat packers (see Chron. item for Mar. 14, 1951, MLR May 1951) was averted when the Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America (AFL), and the United Packinghouse Workers of America (CIO), agreed to postpone their deadline until May 20. (Source: New York Times, May 5, 1951, and Washington Post, May 6, 1951.)

May 8

THE ECONOMIC STABILIZATION ADMINISTRATOR established a Salary Stabilization Board, to be composed of 3 publie members, and responsible for development of a stabilization policy. (Source: Federal Register, vol. 16, No. 91, May 10, 1951, p. 4356.)

At the same time he established a Salary Stabilization Division for administration and enforcement of policies. (Source: Federal Register, vol. 16, No. 91, May 10, 1951, p. 4356; for discussion, see p. 696 of this issue.)