Mr. Hurd, attorney for the defendant, and I prepared this order and submitted it to the chancelor for his signature.

At this time there was a discussion between counsel for the union, and Mr. Hurd explained to R. S. Cahoon the procedure to follow in order to have the court hear a motion to dissolve the injunction. I have known Mr. Hurd for many years as an honorable man and lawyer and when he personally presented the question to me as to when the union could move the court to dissolve the injunction I made a verbal agreement to return to Sevierville on Friday, June 2, 1950, at 10 a. m. so that the union could present its motion. I waived written notice, which is the usual procedure when counsel on each side have confidence in each other.

I was present, as agreed, at 10 a. m. on Friday, June 2, but counsel for the union did not appear.

When the chancelor granted the second fiat on May 24, Judge George Shepard of the second judicial circuit, Cliff McMahan, the clerk of the circuit court for Cocke County, and Fred Myers, assistant attorney general for the second judicial circuit, came into the chancelor's chambers and asked permission to look at the photographs and exhibits. While they were examining these exhibits I presented the amended bill to the chancelor. Mr. Hurd was present in the room part of the time. After these parties left, George Allen, an attorney in Sevierville, was in the room and perhaps other attorneys when the chancelor signed the fiat for the second and more comprehensive injunction which does very little more than "spell out" what was in the first injunction.

It will be noted that I am, as attorney, the affiant in the amended bill. I could and did make the affidavit because I had personal knowledge of the facts set out therein. I had seen the large aggregation at the entrance to the plant, heard their vile, vicious and abusive remarks, seen them stop cars and harass the occupants thereof. I personally talked with men and women who had been threatened.

I was present in the municipal court when a striking employee was tried and convicted of committing an assault and battery upon a nonstriking employee. I was present when three persons testified under oath they heard this striking employee threaten the life of the nonstriking employee.

I talked with nonstriking employees whose cars were damaged as they went through the aggregation of striking employees at the entrance to the plant and personally examined the damaged vehicles.

As a law student and for 20 years as a member of the bar I have regarded any order of the court as final, conclusive, and binding until overruled or modified. In my judgment as a member of the bar this injunction was then being violated. I have a basic respect for all citizens of the community in which I live. In concluding that the injunction was being violated by some of those persons I examined the facts with the utmost care.

In order that there could be no mistake or misunderstanding of the times and provisions of the injunction I procured the second fiat. An examination of this injunction will disclose that there is little room for the most unlearned person to misunderstand or misinterpret its provisions.

When the clerk and master issued the injunction on May 24 I took a copy and had 750 copies printed and gave them to the sheriff of Hamblen County to be used in serving the injunction upon the union, its agents, and the striking employees so that each one of them would be fully cognizant of its provisions and could not claim ignorance of its provisions.

About 5:30 a. m., May 25, I received a call from the plant to the effect a large crowd of striking employees had gathered at the plant and by their talk, conduct, and actions it could be easily ascertained they were going to cause trouble. These calls continued at short intervals until after 8 o'clock.

Throughout the remainder of the day I received numerous calls.

This condition continued and grew worse day by day and shift change after shift change until the National Guard arrived upon the scene.

On May 25 I prepared a petition for contempt, citing the union officials and certain members of the union for contempt of court for violating the injunction. These violations consisted, among other things, of assulting Paul Haun, stopping vehicles, entering or attempting to enter the plant or leaving or attempting to leave the plant.

I prepared a petition for citing the union officials and certain members of the union for contempt of court for violating the injunction in molesting, interfering with, abusing, cursing, and committing assaults upon nonstriking employees.

I prepared a petition for citing the union officials and certain members of the union for contempt of court for violating the injunction by casting missiles at and into moving vehicles and threatening the occupants.

In all, there has been filed six petitions, citing union officials and certain individual members for specific violations.

These petitions were all supported by affidavits of individuals and photographs of violations of the injunction. Five petitions were presented to the

chancellor on May 25 and one on May 26, 1950.

The chancellor ordered an attachment to issue in each petition for the defendants named therein. The clerk and master issued the attachments and they were delivered to the office of the sheriff for execution.

I received numerous calls from the plant to the effect there had been further violations but due to other matters, I was unable to prepare further petitions citing the union officials and individual strikers for violating the injunction. This can and may be done at any time in the near future.

On Monday, May 29, I was called to the American Enka plant at Lowland to confer with Adjutant General Wallace, General McReynolds, of the National Guard, Mr. Sam Neal, State commissioner of safety, Capt. John Davis of the Tennessee Highway Patrol, Sheriff Robert Medlin of Hamblen County, and Mr. Faust of the State attorney general's office. It was asked for copies of the injunction which were examined. I was then asked to procure certified copies which I did. The union officials had insisted the injunction was not in force and effect and I assured the officers that it was valid and in full force and effect. After the guard arrived no violence at the plant or entrance was reported to me, but visitations to the homes of nonstriking employees by union members were reported. In each instance the individuals or their property was threatened. At the request of someone at the county jail, I went to my office and prepared three or four State warrants charging J. H. Ball, Silas Switzer, R. S. Cahoon, and L. A. Warrick with certain violations of the criminal code of Tennessee. The person calling stated that the sessions judge could not be located and gave that as his reason for making the request of me. I did not recognize the voice of the person who called. I ate my evening meal, then went to the jail and prepared the warrants and gave them to an officer or the jailer. The offices at the jail were full of local individuals, local officers, State highway patrolmen and National Guardmen. Immediately upon completion of the warrants I felt without engaging anyone in conversation.

I have assisted in the prosecution of those persons charged with violating the criminal statutes of this State in the preliminary hearings before the general sessions judge, except in one instance where I appeared in defense of a Mr. Dawson, charged with running into a picket with his automobile. Mr. H. C. Haynes, an attorney in Greeneville, called me long distance and asked me to defend this man.

Tuesday, June 6, I was requested to go to Nashville for a conference with Governor Browning so that I might inform him as to the specific acts of violence against nonstriking employees and furnish him with affidavits in my possession in regard thereto. He removed the guard and stated he was doing so upon the assurance given him by union officials and especially H. S. Williams that there would be no further acts of violence.

Wednesday, June 7, the picket line was crowded, the highway jammed and I was advised of further acts of violence and the renewed spreading of roofing nails and tacks on the public highways.

Thursday, June 8, prosecution of violations of the criminal statutes consume the entire day.

Friday, June 9, there were increasing acts of violence and threats. Friday evening I was at the plant, in conference with Mr. Theodore Iserman and his associate. Leaving the plant around 11: 15 I had to drive through a field to avoid tacks and roofing nails on the pavement. A large crowd was then gathering at the plant entrance. As I proceeded to Morristown there were numerous cars going toward the plant. Shortly after midnight I received a call from the plant and was advised as to the overturning of one car and the stoning of several others.

While there may be no connection, it was passing strange to me as a lawyeralways searching for the cause and effect of acts-that the concentrated acts of violence have always occurred after a union meeting has been announced and held.

On June 6, 1950, I heard over the radio, a statement that Chancelor Ben Robertson had told the union attorneys that the injunction which I obtained was

illegal and void. This I knew was untrue. It was a reflection upon the court and upon me and cast a suspicion upon my actions.

To correct this misstatement which had been obtained in my absence, Mr. Iserman and I took a recording of the broadcast to Chancelor Robertson who, in the meantime, had written a letter to the union attorneys advising them that the injunction of May 24, 1950, was legal. Chancelor Robertosn gave me a letter to the same effect.

It is my well-considered opinion that a hearing of the entire cause by the court will determine the merits of the case.

Sworn to and subscribed before me this June 16, 1950. [SEAL]

My commission expires July 16, 1952.

W. J. BARRON.

KATHLEEN NICHOLSON, Notary Public.

Senator MURRAY. We will recess for an hour, until 9 o'clock. (At 8 p. m., the subcommittee recessed, to reconvene at 9 p. m., same day.)

EVENING SESSION

Senator MURRAY. The committee will be in order.
Mr. COOLEY. Mr. Kabler, will you come up, please?

the

Senator MURRAY. You do solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

Mr. KABLER. I do.

TESTIMONY OF JOHN N KABLER, ASSISTANT TO THE DIRECTOR, SYNTHETIC DIVISION, TEXTILE WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA, NEW YORK, N. Y.

Mr. COOLEY. Will you state your full name and your position with the union?

Mr. KABLER. John N. Kabler, assistant to the director, synthetic division, Textile Workers Union of America. I work out of the New York office, 99 University Place. My home is Roanoke.

Senator MURRAY. That was my old stamping grounds about 52

years ago.

Mr. KABLER. Very well.

Mr. COOLEY. Mr. Kabler, will you state what your connection was with the negotiations in this, leading up to and during this strike, particularly with reference as to when you entered into the picture? Mr. KABLER. I was in the picture from the beginning. I led the union's negotiators in most of the sessions that we had with company representatives in an effort to reach an agreement.

Mr. COOLEY. Can you give us an approximate starting date?

Mr. KABLER. February 13, I can give you all of the dates if you would care for them.

Mr. COOLEY. I don't want any very greatly detailed dates, but to keep it more or less in line with the chronology we have already had. You just indicated you would go along in a general way. About what period are you talking about? That will keep it straight enough. I take it you heard Mr. Iserman's testimony?

Mr. KABLER. That is right..

Mr. COOLEY. Would you describe in your own words your view of that series of negotiations?

Mr. KABLER. Well, in submitting the union's demands on January 26, we submitted in detail a complete proposed work-load section of the agreement. In the meetings on the 13th and 14th of February,

70620-5011

we went through the proposed agreement from the start to the end. The company just asked questions, what we meant by different proposals.

Later on we started back at the beginning and attempted to reach agreement. Of the 44 changes that the company stated they agreed to, many of them were insignificant changes, such as changing the designation of the local union from a local union that might be chartered by the Textile Workers Union of America, with accepting as members of the employees of the Lowland plant of America Enka, changing that to local union No. 1054.

Any material change, Mr. Iserman representing the company would argue hours at a time over a single word. He insisted that the negotiations be only from 10 a. m. to 12 noon and from 2 p. m. to p. m. He spent more time in trying to convince the five members of the local union on the negotiating committee that the international union's representatives were not interested in the welfare of the 729 workers at the Lowlands plant, but they were more interested in doing something or building up something that they could use in future negotiations in the rayon industry. Other representatives of the company had very little to say. Mr. Moritz did not put in an appearance until during the last week preceding the strike.

When we came to the workload section, the union's proposal, Mr. Iserman said repeatedly, "We will pass that until we agree upon arbitration, then we will negotiate the details."

We repeatedly asked the company if they would not agree to our proposals to submit a counterproposal. They submitted no counterproposal until March 23 or March 24, when they submitted their first counterproposal.

During the negotiations up until then they stated that they were satisfied with the old agreement with a few changes in it, and those changes that they wanted were detrimental to the union.

One significant change that they insisted upon in the present agreement, it states that on transfer from one job to another, that you get credit for your previous service. They wanted to change and you would get credit for your previous service, everybody except a helper going to a second-class craftsman. He would not get credit for previous service.

The week preceding the strike in discussing the workload section, I again made the statement that if we could agree upon reasonable arbitration, that we would accept the old workload section with a few changes, and I proceeded to read off the changes, and how we would want it changed. The company was not interested enough in the changes that we were proposing to make notation of them, and not until several weeks, it was the third meeting that was held after the strike, did they take the trouble to write down the changes that the union proposed in the old workload section of the agreement.

It is true we have agreements with other plants, one of them an agreement with one company that operates three plants in the rayon industry; on workload arbitration it reads as follows:

When any grievance regarding a workload change should remain unsettled and go to arbitration, the parties agree that such arbitrator shall preferably be a mutually accepted qualified industrial engineer.

This company at each of its three plants on a changed workload furnishes the union with copies of the proposed time standard showing the elements, the time allowed for each element, and the fatigue allowance.

They then sit down with the union and negotiate on the application of the proposed job assignment. In our many years with this company we have not had to take a single workload grievance to arbitration. We have an agreement with another company at another plant.

Mr. COOLEY. If you know, is that experience you stated, as to this other company, parellel to the experience you had under the contract with the Enka company as to arbitration on workload?

Mr. KABLER. With the Enka company under the old agreement where you had to submit workload cases to the arbitration of not an industrial engineer, but a firm of industrial engineers, we knew that arbitration under those conditions would be such an expensive procedure that the local union could not afford, and had to forego, had write off any grievances that they might have had on workloads.

Under the agreement with the American Enka Co., the company refused to give the union the workload data that they based their job assignment on. They only made it available, and in making it available, they would only agree to show it to the president of the local union in the company's office. The president of the union, while he was a splendid boy, was not familiar with the technicalities surrounding workloads and only one time during the entire year did they allow the international representative of the union to see that workload data, and they consistently refused to agree to submit to the local union copies of their workload data upon which they proposed job assignments. Does that answer your question?

Mr. COOLEY. Yes.

Mr. KABLER. With one other company covering one plant we have a workload provision as follows:

In the event that the union and the company disagree as to the reasonableness or correctness of the points standard, the union may within 30 days after the trial period make written demand for arbitration, giving the name and address of its arbitrator. The company will thereupon name its arbitrator in writing within 48 hours. The two arbitrators shall select a third, and if they are unable to agree within 72 hours of the appointment of the company arbitrator, either party may request Robert Breet, of the Wharton School of Commerce, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pa., to appoint an impartial time-study engineer to act as umpire. The decision of any two arbitrators shall be final We offered this section, a similar section to the company, and they refused it. They would have no part of it.

Mr. COOLEY. I understand from your statement that the arbitrator they did propose was one of their choice, or was he to be selected by some system?

Mr. KABLER. What they proposed, if the union and the company could not agree upon a reputable firm of industrial engineers to act as arbitrator, that the firm of Stephenson, Jordan & Harrison would be the arbitrator. If I may, the arbitration agreement for all of the disputes provided that if the company and the union were unable to agree upon an arbitrator, the American Arbitration Association would appoint the arbitrator and in our 12 months' experience with the company and with that section of the agreement we were never able