cates that the Board still has in fact only one determining factor as to what is an "appropriate unit"; namely, what does the union want? We can see no reason why the Board should not be compelled to establish reasonable guideposts which would clearly guide the parties. Another example of the Board's circumvention of the intent of the act is its limitation of the free-speech proviso to unfair labor practice matters in total exclusion of the representation procedure. This coupled with the last-word doctrine enunciated in the Bonwit Teller and Metropolitan Auto Parts cases should be corrected.

The successful evasion of the featherbedding provisions of the act as noted in the American Newspaper Publishers and Gamble Enterprise cases also demonstrates the devious thinking of the Board. This should be corrected.

The Board has also practically eliminated the lockout from the labor-relations picture. If you are to retain the strike and picketing as the legal economic weapons of labor, then the use of the lockout should be permitted to the same extent and to the same degree. It is our belief that the effect and inferences of the Morand and Davis Furniture decisions should be reversed and the lockout returned to its proper status. However, we would urge that proper safeguards be written against either strikes or lockouts adversely affecting the national health and safety. To protect the clear public interest, the use of the injunction is not too strong.

The Board's obvious efforts to aid and abet unions have resulted in a very unfair policy permitting exploration into the trade secrets and confidential information of management. We urge that it be specifically required that before an employer need furnish any information to the collective-bargaining agent the requested information must be patently relevant to the bargainable issue; it must not be confidential information to the employer and it must not be available to the union from other sources.

Among proposals for returning labor relations to employees and to further the public welfare, we would urge the following procedure as a condition precedent to a legal strike. If the employer has made a last offer which he is willing to state to the appropriate Federal agency is his bona fide last offer prior to a strike, then a secret-ballot election should be conducted by that agency among his employees only. It should require the vote of a majority of the employees involved to permit a legal strike.

In view of the abuses of unions with respect to filing and withdrawing representation petitions at will before the Board, it is our recommendation that the law be amended to provide for establishment of labor peace and stability in this respect. We urge that a union be barred from filing another representation petition and the Board be barred from conducting another representation election within a period of 12 months after the last valid representation election or the last withdrawal of a representation petition. We also urge that no unfair labor practice charge be permitted to be the basis of delaying a representation election unless it is clearly alleged in the charge that an unbiased and untrammeled decision of the employees is impossible under the circumstances, and under conclusive evidence submitted to the Board within 10 days of filing that charge.

Although its practice of employing confirmed union leaders of long standing is positively frustrating, we nevertheless urge that the

Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service be continued as an independent agency as opposed to putting it back under the Labor Department or placing it under the Commerce Department.

We have a number of other recommendations gleaned from our experience in this field. These have been set forth tersely in the concluding pages of my comprehensive statement and that of Mr. Irving's. It is my sincere hope that you will take the time to examine these carefully as they are not the result of idealistic thinking but created from the day-to-day living with this act.

Thank you for your attention.

Senator IVES. My attention has been called to a question as to whether you are acquainted with the Juneau Spruce Corp. That is a lumber company, as I understand it, which was forced to take its case up to the United States Supreme Court where it obtained a $750,000 judgment against the International Longshoremen's Union. Apparently the company has been unable to collect and has been forced out of business. The statement I have here says that the longshoremen engaged in an unlawful secondary boycott, and judgment was for damages done to the company by the boycott. These statements are not mine. I know nothing about it. Do you know anything about it? Mr. TICHY. Yes, sir. Mr. Card, who is sitting here at the table with us will cover that statement comprehensively.

Senator IVES. Is there any question, Senator Purtell?

Senator PURTELL. No, sir.

Senator IVES. Senator Hill?
Senator HILL. No, sir.

Senator IVES. Senator Neely?

Senator NEELY. Yes. Please refer to page 5 of your statement. Are you in favor of using the injunction generally in disputes between capital and labor?

Mr. TICHY. No, not as a general rule. But I do feel it should be used when it is necessary to protect the national health and interest, or if it is necessary to protect property. When any group in this great Nation of ours abuses its privileges, the injunction is not too strong.

Senator NEELY. Would you favor a Federal court injunction such as has been issued in West Virginia during the last 40 years, by virtue of which one could be fined or imprisoned for giving a striking, hungry workingman a piece of bread?

Mr. TICHY. It is kind of hard to believe that an injunction would be issued so broad in its scope.

Senator NEELY. It is nevertheless true.

Mr. TICHY. I think there are no doubts but that there have been abuses of injunctions, which resulted in you gentlemen passing the Norris-LaGuardia Act. But I am inclined to believe that too many place emphasis on the fact that the injunctive processes have done some wrong in the course of history, and I am inclined to believe that that is more the exception than the rule. As a result the terminology "injunction" seems to have acquired a connotation that we all run away from. We say it is terrible. Actually, I don't think it is, when we look into it. It is the beautiful job these labor unions have done in taking the terminology "Taft-Hartley" and making it sound so ghastly.

Senator IVES. I think one of the difficulties where the injunction is concerned is the connotation or interpretation that is placed upon it. But it is not along those lines as much as another line, and that is that labor itself, the workers, are presumed to be responsible for a condition that has arisen. Automatically they are presumed to be. We can argue all we want that it applies equally to management or ownership, but it doesn't in the eyes of the public. That is where the acid test rests. The injunction is against the workers and forces the workers to work. I am not talking about injunction against secondary boycotts or things of that nature. There is a place for the injunction, I believe, myself. I am talking about the injunction as applied to national emergencies, where it has been used. I think we will have to admit that it is not a fair penalty in the way it is used, to impose on the workers. I will point out this: When we finally drafted the national-emergency provisions of the Taft-Hartley Act, which we did after considerable argument among ourselves, we all recognized that they weren't what we were really after, that they weren't perfect. We felt that we had to have something.

Subsequent events have indicated that we did need something. Yet I think most of us have felt since that time that this isn't exactly what we should have, and the great fault lay in the injunction. I think it is that feeling toward the injunction, the idea that it is in a sense a penalty, that it is an indictment against labor, which has caused a great deal of the criticism to arise.

I am not condemning the injunction as a whole, without qualifying it. The Norris-LaGuardia Act was intended to eliminate the wrong types of injunction, and I think if you are going to deal with unfair labor practices, you must have an injunction. There ought to be a limit. I do not believe an unfair labor practice is actually an unfair labor practice until it has been determined to be an unfair labor practice. I think there ought to be a limit of 60 days or something like that, during which the Board would act on it and find out whether it is an unfair practice or not. I believe the Board has to determine that. I don't see how we can lay down an ironclad rule. I think you are very reasonable in your approach on the injunction.

Mr. TICHY. As you express yourself, you came to exactly the point I was trying to make, namely that the term "injunction" has received such a connotation that we run away from it with fear.

Senator IVES. I was trying to explore your thinking, that is all, to see if your thinking was similar to what I have been expressing. Mr. TICHY. Yes, very similar. However, one thing, as I recall you introduced Senate bills

Senator IVES. S. 1026 and S. 1075, both.

Mr. TICHY. And neither of them provide for the injunction, as I recall.

Senator IVES. I am glad you feel that way about it, because neither one is supposed to.

Mr. TICHY. That is what I gathered. I can't say, sir, that I agree with you. When we do reach a national emergency, I feel that the injunction should be used.

Senator IVES. Should it not be prohibited by law? S. 1075 prohibits the strike by law. It provides that the workers continue on the job. Is it not far better to have the requirement that they continue to work

than have it turned over to some court to issue an injunction requiring them to work?

Mr. TICHY. Was not the injunctive process in the early inception of the law created to fill in the gap where there wasn't a legal remedy? As I read your act, and I do not say I am as familiar with it as you are, the remedy is damages. I don't feel damages are adequate.

Senator IVES. The remedy is having the dispute taken to the Congress for immediate action. That is a remedy, you will find out, if you are up against a real national emergency.

Mr. TICHY. But if Congress isn't in session?

Senator IVES. Congress has to be called into session under my bill. Under the provisions of the bill, the Congress would be called in ample time before there could possibly be any strike or lockout. It applies to lockouts as well.

Mr. TICHY. Surely. But I am afraid, then, that I misread your bill.

Senator Ives. I wish you could read it over. I do not say that it is the final answer. You will never find me saying it is a final answer. I am satisfied that S. 1026 is not, and I do not say that S. 1075 is. I think somewhere in that area can be found an answer which gets away from the injunction, makes labor itself feel a great deal happier about the whole thing, and will generally get the overall support which a provision of that kind should have in this country. There is justification for a complaint regarding the injunction provision in those national-emergency sections as they now exist.

I want to get away from that so nobody can complain. We know they have to work. They should work. They should be compelled to work during a period of national emergency. But why not say so in the law? Why leave it to some action by the President or the court to make them work? That is the Railway Labor Act. Mr. TICHY. However, if the union causes a failure to work in the interim between the time that the emergency develops and the time that Congress acts, what is the remedy?

Senator IVES. Well, there is no such chance. It cannot be possible to fail to work during that time, because in the steps to be taken under the bill, I have provided that the Congress shall be called into session in ample time before any strike or lockout occurs, so that provision can be made to ward it off.

Mr. TICHY. But on the other hand, sir, are not the congressional processes slow and deliberate?

Senator IVES. The congressional processes sometimes are very slow and deliberate. But you will recall when Mr. John L. Lewis had a coal strike, and it got out of hand, the President sent down a proposed bill which called for seizure, and the strike ended almost overnight. The miners went back to work and Mr. Lewis ceased his objection. Congress can act very rapidly in an emergency, and the thing to do is to see that Congress does act rapidly. The provisions that I have in the bill will provide for that. Congress will not be surprised by the emergency at all. In the first place, I think the 60-day provision will work. I think they will work for 60 days. I don't believe they will go out of their way to challenge Congress as they would be doing if they struck during that period of time or if there were a lockout during that time. That would be a direct challenge to Congress; it would be a direct defiance to the Government itself. I don't think they

would do it. You can imagine what kind of a bill you might get through if that happened. I am sorry to take so much time. Are you all through?

Mr. TICHY. Unless there are some more questions.
Senator IVES. Are there any other questions?

Mr. TICHY. Before we conclude, and perhaps after Mr. McMillan and Mr. Card have concluded their statements, I certainly would like to encourage you to inquire of Mr. Irving with respect to his proposal for a new board.

Senator IVES. Which one is Mr. Irving?

Mr. Irving, when you testify, would you mind doing that without anybody making that inquiry? It so happens that I have to leave, probably before you go on. Everybody may have left at that time that is here now, but others will be here in their places. Will you do that voluntarily?

Mr. IRVING. I am not scheduled to appear, but I will volunteer the information.

Senator IVES. You just appear automatically, and if anybody else is presiding, tell them that is the arrangement.

Mr. McMillan, you are up.

TESTIMONY OF ED LEIGH MCMILLAN, SOUTHERN PINE INDUSTRY COMMITTEE, NEW ORLEANS, LA.

Mr. MCMILLAN. My name is Ed Leigh McMillan. I am president of the T. R. Miller Mill Co., a manufacturer of southern pine lumber at Brewton, Ala., and am testifying here for the Southern Pine Industry Committee, an organization representative of all southern pine manufacturers located throughout the broad region from Virginia to Texas and south to the Gulf. The total number of southern pine operators is estimated at approximately 25,000. I am appearing at the request of the National Lumber Manufacturers Association, and I also speak for the Alabama Forest Products Association, of which I am a member.

First, I want to express my personal appreciation and the appreciation of the southern pine industry for this opportunity of appearing before you. I am not an expert in labor law; however, I have had some experience in handling labor disputes between employees and employers. My purpose in appearing here is to give you the views and opinions regarding the Taft-Hartley Act and proposed amendments thereto of the southern pine lumber producers. We ask no special privileges and make no demands. We believe the Taft-Hartley law should be retained. We think it fair and just and equitable to the public-to the employee and to the employers.

There are some parts of the law which should be modified or qualified. If there is anything unfair and unjust about the law, it is in the way it has been administered. This is particularly true with regard to field examinations and hearings. This may be because of the type of field and trial examiners assigned to work in our territory. Our own personal experience with the examiners has led us to the conclusion that their efforts have been to prove the charge of unfair tices made against the employer rather than to determine whether the charge was true or false. It is, in fact, our belief that field examiners

prac