Unfounded fears
The following letter to the editor of the Scranton Times Tribune appeared July 10, 2008:
Unfounded fears
Editor:
In the June 29 letter by the Rev. Patrick Mohr, S.J. about Michael Milz, president of SDCTA, we have a comparison of apples and oranges. Milz is defending proposed amendments to the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Act, not the act as it presently reads nor the present National Labor Relations Act. The amendment forbids the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board to “define or interpret religious doctrine,” to “alter the employer’s organizational structure” or to “determine who within the employer’s organization has the power to resolve religious controversies relating to the structure of the employer.”
Father Mohr failed to state that in Catholic Bishop of Chicago v. NLRB, the Supreme Court did not adopt the constitutional discussion of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court’s decision was based on the absence in the Wagner Act of any mention of religious teachers. Chief Justice Warren Burger’s theorizing about possible grounds for entanglement was not part of the Catholic Bishop of Chicago v. NLRB case. Hence, the comment carries no greater weight than other personal Burger choices. Furthermore, Supreme Court decisions squarely addressing the constitutional protections of religion have been heard since the Catholic bishop case in 1979 and have proven the fears of entanglement raised by Chief Justice Burger and the Seventh Circuit to be unfounded.
Preferable to select legal comments or personal biases about present state and federal labor-management legislation are efforts to obviate the pitfalls in that legislation by a proper understanding, from a voice of experience, of what collective bargaining and labor relations law really entail.
In March 1978, John H. Fanning, a graduate of Catholic parochial schools, Providence College and Catholic University Law School, NLRB member since 1957 and chair in 1977, spoke about the NLRA. “A comparison . . . with the Preamble of the . . . National Labor Relations Act would suggest that the meaning of Rerum Novarum was equally a function of its perception (not only of its source).”
The reference was to the influence of Catholic University Monsignor John A. Ryan and Monsignor Francis Haas. The former aided in the formulation of the NLRA and the latter almost became its chairman.
Fanning quoted a section from Rerum Novarum calling for public remedial measures to remove the threat to public peace which lurks in an unregulated labor management setting. Fanning found an “immediate irony” that one of the principal issues that the Supreme Court would consider in 1978 would be the applicability of the National Labor Relations Act to the Catholic school system. Fanning said, “Whether we are at a crossroads, then, should not be so much an issue as it should be our hope.”
THE REV. PATRICK J. SULLIVAN C.S.C., Ph.D.
WILKES-BARRE
Unfounded fears
Editor:
In the June 29 letter by the Rev. Patrick Mohr, S.J. about Michael Milz, president of SDCTA, we have a comparison of apples and oranges. Milz is defending proposed amendments to the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Act, not the act as it presently reads nor the present National Labor Relations Act. The amendment forbids the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board to “define or interpret religious doctrine,” to “alter the employer’s organizational structure” or to “determine who within the employer’s organization has the power to resolve religious controversies relating to the structure of the employer.”
Father Mohr failed to state that in Catholic Bishop of Chicago v. NLRB, the Supreme Court did not adopt the constitutional discussion of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court’s decision was based on the absence in the Wagner Act of any mention of religious teachers. Chief Justice Warren Burger’s theorizing about possible grounds for entanglement was not part of the Catholic Bishop of Chicago v. NLRB case. Hence, the comment carries no greater weight than other personal Burger choices. Furthermore, Supreme Court decisions squarely addressing the constitutional protections of religion have been heard since the Catholic bishop case in 1979 and have proven the fears of entanglement raised by Chief Justice Burger and the Seventh Circuit to be unfounded.
Preferable to select legal comments or personal biases about present state and federal labor-management legislation are efforts to obviate the pitfalls in that legislation by a proper understanding, from a voice of experience, of what collective bargaining and labor relations law really entail.
In March 1978, John H. Fanning, a graduate of Catholic parochial schools, Providence College and Catholic University Law School, NLRB member since 1957 and chair in 1977, spoke about the NLRA. “A comparison . . . with the Preamble of the . . . National Labor Relations Act would suggest that the meaning of Rerum Novarum was equally a function of its perception (not only of its source).”
The reference was to the influence of Catholic University Monsignor John A. Ryan and Monsignor Francis Haas. The former aided in the formulation of the NLRA and the latter almost became its chairman.
Fanning quoted a section from Rerum Novarum calling for public remedial measures to remove the threat to public peace which lurks in an unregulated labor management setting. Fanning found an “immediate irony” that one of the principal issues that the Supreme Court would consider in 1978 would be the applicability of the National Labor Relations Act to the Catholic school system. Fanning said, “Whether we are at a crossroads, then, should not be so much an issue as it should be our hope.”
THE REV. PATRICK J. SULLIVAN C.S.C., Ph.D.
WILKES-BARRE
posted by SDACT at
8:35 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home