intimidation. Whatever antimonopoly rules are applied against employers—no more, no less-should be applied against unions.

The public approves the conduct of industrial relations on a businesslike rather than an emotional basis.

Forcing self-employers in one-man businesses-or "mom and pop" businessesto join a union is simply tribute or "taxation without representation." There can be no services rendered to these people on wages, hours, and working conditions through representation by a labor organization.

Free speech.-Freedom of speech is guaranteed by our Constitution. There can be no valid quarrel with its written expression in a law laying down the rules for the prevention and handling of economic strife. Empleyees expect and appreciate accurate information, and the frank opinions of their employers. Employers acting in good faith should not be penalized for unintentional misstatements.

The NLRB has resumed its curtailment of employer freedom of speech. This curtailment of an essential freedom should be throttled by the Congress.

Obligation of employers and the representative of employees under collective bargaining.—The terms under which contracts may be terminated or modified are sound. They are protection to the public.

Representatives and elections.—Requiring a secret-ballot election, conducted under Government auspices, is a proven, democratic, and American process.

Individual employees and their grievances.-Most grievances are settled at the immediate supervisor-workman level. This eliminates a most irritating aspect of day-to-day collective bargaining. The provisions that collective-bargaining agreements shall be complied with in such grievance adjustments, and that the union shall have an opportunity to be represented in discussions, are sufficient protection to the unions.

Craft units.—The National Labor Relations Board has usually done a good job on this question of unit determination. Nothing would be more disturbing to the economic atmosphere of this country than for every manufacturing employer to have to deal collectively with each of the craft units that could conceivably be set up in his organization.

I once handled an NLRB case in California, where the L. and S. W., AFL, and the IWA-CIO, sought industrial units among employees of a lumber manufacturing concern. The teamsters sought to represent logging truck drivers in woods operations and carrier operations in lumber plant operations, as well as all employees working in the loading or unloading of such equipment. In the same case, the operating engineers sought a unit composed of logging caterpillar tractor operators, truck road construction crews, and hoisting engineers in the woods operation, together with the powerplant employees and the operators of machines used in hoisting lumber in the plant operation. Neither of these two unions claimed any jurisdiction over the balance of the employees actually engaged in handling logs and lumber. At the very best, the granting of their petitions would have meant 3 union contracts and 3 sets of collective bargaining negotiations for an employer with a labor force of 140 people.

To carry this craft business to its ridiculous extreme at this small operation, the machinists might have sought a unit composed of the machine shop and mechanical employees, the electricians for a small electrical crew, the carpenters and joiners for a few millwrights, the various brotherhoods in a small 10- or 15-man railroad operation and track crew, and the Culinary Alliance in the cookhouse. In addition there could have been a professional employees unit, a unit for guards, and a unit among clerical workers, and I am sure I've missed a few.

The special protection to craft units, if interpreted narrowly, is dangerous, and a constant source of industrial strife between unions as well as employers and unions.

We have dealt and deal with craft unions in special circumstances, usually of a temporary nature. We are now sometimes successful as their former “take it or leave it" attitude has been succeeded by an attitude of reasonable argument and negotiation under the Labor-Management Relations Act, 1947 (Kogap Lumber Industries, NLRB Case No. 36-CC-11).

Guards.-Guards and watchmen do a better job of plant and property protection when excluded from units containing production employees. When watchmen used to be in a unit with production workers, they often looked to union strike leaders for instructions in strike situations, because of their fear of retribution through the union, and with consequent loss in efficiency of protection. Divided loyalty can only be harmful to this type of employee; and to the results of his work.

Twelve month periods between elections.-Prior to the passage of the LaborManagement Relations Act, 1947, some of our member companies have experienced 3 or 4 elections within a 3- or 4-month period. Obviously, the union can lose 2 or 3 elections and then win another one through the sheer force of repetitive voting. The employees, even though they may not desire a union, get disgusted, and believe that Government is alined with unions against them.

Since enactment of the Labor-Management Relations Act, 1947, we have noted that unions apply for elections only after they have done a selling job in organization. When unions do this job well, they are strong unions because of member understanding and participation.

Unions should be required to sell their product or service just as any other product or service is sold. Employers, and their employees, have a right to expect freedom from organizing pressures for a reasonable period of time after the employees have expressed themselves on the subject in fairly conducted secret-ballot elections.

Employees should not be required to follow precise timing or procedures in decertification proceedings. When unions fail to exercise the bargaining rights they won, employee and employer petitions should be accepted.

Filing of union records and financial statements.-Union members, especially are appreciative of the information such filing gets them concerning the financial performance of their officers.

Non-Communist affidavit.-There are suggestions that employer representatives should be required to sign the affidavits on the same terms as union representatives. Only a Communist has a valid reason for refusing to sign a nonCommunist affidavit in order to secure the benefits of democratic laws.

Recent court interpretations, however, highlight a need for enforcement legislation to control perjury. Without this, there should be no affidavit requirement. (See p. 10 for additional comment.)

Prevention of unfair labor practices.--If enforcement injunctions are to be used against employers, they should be used against unions to maintain necessary equality of law.

The decentralization theory, accomplished by conceding jurisdiction to recognized State agencies, should be retained. The theory should be implemented by action. Centralization is a chief enemy of democracy. Recognition of State jurisdiction can help solve the borderline commerce problem.

The statute of limitations in the filing of unfair labor practices and the requirement that evidence substantiating the charge shall be submitted within 10 days of the charge are good rules. Misleading charges are often filed for the advertising value they contain in organizing employees, and with no idea of actual processing. The Labor-Management Relations Act, 1947, has gone far toward eliminating the use of the NLRB, and the unfair labor practice charge, for organizational publicity purposes only.

Technical commentators on this section should always bear in mind the inalienable right of an American citizen-whether he be an employee, an employee representative, or an employer-to seek and secure justice through the courts. Investigatory powers.-These are sound technical provisions.

Limitations.-The right to strike should be protected so far as it is consistent with public welfare, but strikes should require the prior approval of involved employees, within a bargaining unit, in secret-ballot election.

Supervisors should be excluded from the definition of "employee." (See comment under "Definitions" above.)

The right of States to consider local conditions, and the desires of its citizens to enact more restrictive provisions regarding compulsory union membership has been recognized and should be vigorously defended. In this vast country with varying conditions in various areas, there is every reason for decentralization of control.

Along this line, Supreme Court comment in the decision upholding North Carolina, Nebraska, and Arizona "right to work" laws is necessary reading not only as to the validation of State laws restricting compulsory union membership but as to whether unions really need this form of security.

Effective date of certain changes.-A revised law will make it necessary to meet time requirements all over again, even though these time requirements have been met. A great deal of constructive inquiry and work toward a better solution of difficulties between labor organizations and employers will have been wasted. Learning a new set of rules, all over again, will not be conducive to economic peace in our Nation, and we need that peace if we are to achieve our aim of leadership in securing world peace. At any rate, no contract changes should be

required until the next annual contract anniversary date, but should then be required.

More than anything else, our employers and employees need stability. They like to be able to figure ahead. Every time the laws governing industrial-relations procedure are changed, there is the need to consult lawyers, accountants, etc. These changes and consultations do not make for stability.

Title II-Conciliation of labor disputes in industries affecting commerce; national emergencies

Employers have gained confidence in the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service because of its independent-agency status. Today, employers are accepting arguments that the Service is impartial. Employers will not have confidence in any mediation or conciliation agency that is under the direction of the Secretary of Labor, or in the Labor Department. They take the dictates in the enabling act creating the Department of Labor literally, and expect to follow those dictates and act as labor's representative in the administrative branch of the Federal Government. (Tobin did so.)

National emergencies.-The provision has not had a fair trial in sympathetic hands. If there are ways to secure improvements, they should be used since the present law has had little effect on law-defiant unions.

It is certain that neither unions nor employers have a complete right to go their own way in their desire to accomplish some of their aims if that be at the expense of the American public. The Federal Government of the United States will always have a hard time justifying a proemployer position or a prounion position. They should have no trouble in justifying a pro-American-public position.

Title III-Suits by and against labor organizations

The right to redress through the courts has been a powerful and stabilizing influence on every matter connected with the history and development of America. There should be the right of redress to the courts, either by a labor organization, employees, or an employer, when damage results from breach of contract or any illegal action. This right to redress through the courts should especially be open to third parties.

This particular provision of the Labor-Management Relations Act, 1947, has had more to do with the acceptance of contractual obligations and responsibility by unions and their agents, as well as their members, than has any other single thing. Employers, too, have been brought alive to the fact of their responsibilities and their obligations. The American public can only benefit from such acceptance of responsibility.

Restrictions on payments to employee representatives.-The restrictions on payments to employee representatives should be ruthlessly enforced. (See New York dock situation.)

Fines and assessments should be prohibited as withholding items. I see no objection to collecting initiation fees, as well as regular recurring monthly dues through the medium of a voluntary, revocable, individual checkoff, if the contracting parties agree to that procedure. (See p. 14 below.)

Unless there is a real joint control in administration of pension and health and welfare funds, legislation should require equality of financing, and automatic transfer of control of funds to a neutral party.

Employees like the idea of a check against either union or employer management of their benefits. They are entitled to have it. Many employers are reluctant to share with the union the joint responsibility for health and welfare and pension programs since, in practice, many unions have avoided statutory requirements.

We've had experience with a compromise of this problem by a wage increase which the employer deducted and paid to finance a union-controlled health and welfare program. Such compromises should be authorized by statute with employees permitted to reject the program or to participate by written, revocable, payroll deduction authority. If such participation is not put on a voluntary basis, the statute should prevent the unions from spending the employees' money.

Boycott and other unlawful combinations.-There is no place in the American scheme of things for coercion or intimidation by any means, or by any persons or organizations. Secondary boycotts, jurisdictional disputes, hot cargo, etc., offend the public. The restrictions and controls on these matters should be continued and strengthened.

Restrictions on political contributions. However, this thing cuts, it should cut both ways when applied to either corporations or unions.

It is to be hoped no labor "bossed" political machine can develop. Because such a political machine would be national in scope, it would be more dangerous to the common welfare than have been localized political machines. It is more dangerous, too, with compulsory union membership in the picture.

Strikes by Government employees.-A study of the events in some of the western European countries with whom we have been trying to live-and work forduring the past years should be sufficient evidence that strikes against the Government should be outlawed.

Title IV-Creation of joint committee to study and report on basic problems affecting friendly labor relations and productivity

The public liked this businesslike approach to legislation. The joint committee could have functioned except for the adamant union demands for full repeal, and the harmful effects of trading labor policy for possible labor votes.

Title V-Definitions

(See our comment on title I, above, "Definitions", and the dangers in broad interpretation of the term "affecting commerce.")

Saving provision.-The right of any employee to quit his employment should be protected. It has not been damaged by the Labor-Management Relations Act, 1947.

Separability.-This seems to be good legislative draftsmanship.

PART II

S. 655

Economic strikers allowed to vote in elections

This provision is a radical departure from a practice developed under the Wagner Act, and continued under the Labor-Management Relations Act, 1947. It is not good legislation.

If the provision is adopted, an economic striker who has no right to a job would have a right to vote in an election that could not affect him. It is impossible to tell, in advance, if this would benefit anyone. It's never possible to determine whether the former employee who has lost his job as a result of an economic strike blames the employer or the union for his situation. Actually, it is not important to determine how the economic striker who has lost his job will feel on this subject. The really important thing is to determine how the presently employed employees feel on the subject of a union as their bargaining agent. There could be-if this is adopted-a majority of voters who are not employees.

The NLRB has ruled that the employer must take positive action to discharge economic strikers, or they are eligible to vote. That is a fair rule.

Loss of bargaining rights, and loss of employment rights for the economic strikers they lead on strike, is a calculated risk that the union should be required to take when it assumes the responisibility for a declaration of economic warfare. Unions will not attempt to avoid irresponsible declarations of economic warfare if this penalty for a loser is removed. Legislation should not encourage strikes— especially gambling strikes.

Wildcat strikes during 60-day waiting period before expiration date or anniversary date of collective-bargaining agreement

All strikes having to do with negotiations on contract changes should be prohibited during the 60-day period. Wildcat strikes during the 60-day period should be handled as they would be during the balance of a contract term. (I, personally, believe that a minority long suffering from union and/or employer inefficiency or complacence to a condition not involved in pending negotiations, should not be penalized if the matter comes to a head during the 60-day period. All reforms are started by minorities.)

Hearing officer recommendation prior to representation elections

This is not a good provision. The development of facts will be more accurate, and more complete, if these facts do not have to be slanted to justify a finding and a recommendation.

This change would substitute speed for impartiality in resolving representation controversies. Impartiality before the law is too important a factor in industrial relations to be jeopardized in this manner. Recent administrative improvements instituted by the General Counsel demonstrate there is no real need for change to secure expeditious work by the NLRB.

Anti-Communist affidavits

"-so help me God." The oath of Hippocrates of all professional men- -of all public officers and agents carries an affirmative obligation of tried and proved worth in this country. A negative oath has proved of little except publicity value.

No honest non-Communist should hesitate to sign such an affidavit. I believe that no Communist should represent either an employee or an employer in anything as important to the national welfare as is labor relations. Unless the affidavits are used-vigorously and capably-help to eliminate communism in this country, any provision for such affidavit is, and will be, a nullity. If the Congress should determine to continue or extend the affidavit requirement, it should instruct the appropriate governmental agencies to use such oaths for the protection of use of our agencies-and the elimination of Communists. Elimination of injunctions against secondary boycotts

Secondary boycotts, of any description, are offensive to the American public, and harmful to the American public. There can be no justifiable defense for them. When a strike commences, the answer does not lie in spreading the strike and the effects of the strike. A better answer lies in "dikes" to provide isolation.

There is no justification for eliminating this provision. The determination of "reasonable cause" is all the discretion that should be allowed an administrative board in legally halting secondary boycotts. In the interest of the public, speed is a necessary element in NLRB action against secondary boycotts. Anything less than a requirement for speedy action by the NLRB will not protect the public right, or satisfy the public need.

Legalizing secondary boycotts on work subcontracted by an employer whose own employees are engaged in a legitimate strike

This should not be done. A struck employer who has his goods processed elsewhere at greater cost uses only a proper economic defense. If production elsewhere is cheaper, it will never return to the struck plant. The public welfare demands production. Economic facts-and not restrictive laws-must determine where production continues.

Free speech in representation cases

This amendment should be passed. In NLRB decisions curtailing this freedom for employers, the Board has emphasized what can happen when-probably through a legislative oversight-such an agency is given too much discretionary power. The Board found a hole in the line, and poured through it, despite the fact that their philosophy had been repudiated.

Many and varied kinds of abuses of the free-speech privilege by unions have been ignored by the NLRB as not affecting the results of an election, or as being the natural excesses of an organizing campaign. If a union promises a 15-cent-anhour increase with double vacation benefits, the Board says this is only an election campaign exaggeration. If a conscientious employer, who believes a union will not earn its dues from his employees, says that he will give a 5-cent increase 30 days from now-it is an inducement which invalidates an election. wrong.

This is

The only explanation for the different treatment when applied to employers must be that the Board believes employees have more faith in the statements of their employer. If this be true, then the employees are entitled to hear from the employer, and the employer has a real obligation to exercise his legitimate right of free speech to express his beliefs and his expectations-even though they might affect an election.

This amendment should go even further and provide that the so-called equalfacilities doctrine shall be discontinued by the Board. If the employer wants to spend his money on a so-called captive-audience speech-it's his money. The union-by spending their own money--could get a crowd of "captives" out to listen to them. The Board's doctrine requires the employer to finance a part of the union organizing campaign.

In dissenting from the National Labor Relations Board adoption of this doctrine, Chairman Paul Herzog said in part:

“*** But I had not supposed until today that this Board believed that its obligation to assure free choice in elections included a requirement that labor organizations, like others sometimes thought weaker, must always have the last word" (31 L. R. R. M. 1007).