Some Instruments of Industrial Peace
| Author | Cyrus S. Ching |
| Published date | 01 March 1951 |
| Date | 01 March 1951 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/000271625127400126 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
179
Some
Instruments
of
Industrial
Peace
By
CYRUS
S.
CHING
S
this
article
is
being
written,
plans
A are
being
formulated
for
methods
of
promoting
the
settlement
of
labor-
management
disputes
during
a
period
of
production
for
national
defense
or
war.
Those
engaged
in
this
planning
share
the
hope
that
any
procedure
agreed
upon
will
be
temporary
in
char-
acter
and
will
not
outlast
the
urgent
circumstances
which
may
call
them
into
being.
The
problem
is
how
to
de-
vise
procedures
that
will
be
well
adapted
to
cope
with
defense
or
wartime
needs,
but
will
be
not
too
inconsistent
with
the
principles
on
which
the
American
in-
dustrial
system
is
based
and
under
which
it
has
made
such
extraordinary
progress
in
the
last
five
decades.
This
article
will
not,
of
course,
deal
with
such
extraordinary
machinery,
but
rather
with
the
peacetime
methods
of
promot-
ing
industrial
peace
in
vogue
and
use
prior
to
the
invasion
of
Southern
Korea.1
COMPULSORY
INSTRUMENTS
The
methods
employed
by
govern-
ment
to
promote
and
maintain
indus-
trial
accord
may
be
roughly
classified
as
compulsory
(law-enforced)
and
vol-
untary.
The
compulsory
instruments
of
industrial
peace
are
relatively
well
known
and
understood.
They
include
state
and
local
laws
making
it
a
crime
to
disturb the
peace
in
the
course
of
a
labor
dispute
or
any
other
controversy.
Laws
dealing
with
violence
in
general
are
applicable
to
labor
disputes.
In
addition,
there
are
federal
statutes
such
as
the
federal
Anti-Strikebreaking
Act
which
punish
by
fine
or
imprisonment
certain
modes
of
conduct
regarded
as
inimical
to
labor-management
accord.
Beyond
this
there
is
&dquo;protective&dquo;
leg-
islation
such
as
federal
and
state
wage
and
hour
acts,
government
contract
acts,
minimum
wage
and
maximum
hours
of
work
acts,
and
others.
Sometimes
the
sanctions
in
these
statutes
are
penal
in
character
and
are
enforced
by
the
state
or
federal
government;
sometimes
they
are
remedial
and
are
enforceable
by
private
suit.
Then
there
is
legislation
such
as
the
National
Labor
Relations
Act
as
amended
(Title
I
of
the
Labor-Man-
agement
Relations
Act,
1947),
state
la-
bor
relations
statutes,
and
fair
employ-
ment
practice
acts.
These
statutes
pre-
scribe
standards
and
norms
of
conduct
for
employers
and
unions
or
their
mem-
bers.
Agencies
of
government,
through
the
exercise
of
injunctive
powers,
are
given
authority
to
prohibit
violations.
The
limitations
of
space
do
not
per-
mit
an
examination
or
analysis
of
these
compulsory
instruments.
Suffice
it
to
say
that
in
such
enactments
as
I
have
mentioned,
legislative
wisdom
has
de-
creed
that
certain
practices
and
acts
of
commission
or
omission
of
employers,
unions,
or
workers
are
contrary
to
the
public
interest
and
welfare
and
that
Violations
will
be
punished
by
govern-
ment
or
by
means
of
private
suit,
in
the
course
of
which
the
plaintiff
vindicates
the
public
interest.
MEDIATION
AND
CONCILIATION
There
are
other
and
extremely
impor-
tant
methods
of
action
by
government
which
do
not
involve
the
use
of
sover-
1
In
view
of
the
limitations
of
space,
no
spe-
cial
consideration
will
be
given
to
the
role
of
the
government
in
the
settlement
of
disputes
involving
rail
and
air
transportation,
which
are
covered
by
the
Railway
Labor
Act.
To continue reading
Request your trial