Senator PURTELL. Are there further questions?

Senator GOLDWATER. Mr. Tichy, I am acquainted with your name. I have never met you, but we have logging operations in our State. I was not here for your testimony, and I wanted to ask you: Where you have these logging camps that are located long distances from a sawmill, how does the Board determine the appropriate bargaining unit in those cases? We have a number of them in Arizona.

Mr. TICHY. You are absolutely correct, and I am quite aware of the firms in Arizona, and the fact that you do haul logs quite a distance to their manufacturing site. We have that same condition in the States of Montana, Idaho, and Washington. There our organization is principally located.

Frankly, sir, to make a long story short, the National Labor Relations Board uses the same guideposts to determine that the collectivebargaining unit should be such as the union requests, irrespective of whether it be a joinder of the logging operations and the manufacturing plant as a single collective-bargaining unit, or whether it be established as two separate collective-bargaining units.

It is our feeling that one of the things which we would like to see you people come up with in any revision of the labor law, is the requirement of guideposts which will be utilized soundly by the Board for determining these matters without always winding up with a circumvention of that amendment you people put in the act in 1947, which states that the extent of organization is not to be the determining factor in these unit problems. Does that answer the question? Senator GOLDWATER. I just wondered how those things were handled because I got into a lot of those camps during the last year and I often wondered about it.

Do

I have another question here, too, that I would like to ask you. you feel the provisions in the section providing for secret ballots serves the purpose?

Mr. TICHY. No; I feel it has not. I do not know of a strike situation in which we have not proposed 203 (c) be utilized.

It provides that the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service should request the parties to submit the employer's last proposal prior to a strike to a secret ballot of the employees. Invariably, the unions decline to go through such a procedure.

It is our feeling-and I am sorry you did miss it-it has been our feeling, as expressed in the statement of Mr. Curren, Mr. MacMillan, and myself, that the last bona fide offer of an employer should be submitted to the employees of the employer involved, for the purpose of having the employees vote as to whether or not they are willing to accept that offer in order to avert a strike.

Now, a typical example of what occurs in the Northwest lumber industry within the International Woodworkers of America, affiliated with the CIO, is as follows:

The union attempts to hold its strike vote among all of the employees in the Pacific Northwest. The area that Mr. Irving and myself represent, known as the western-pine region, encompasses approximately 10,000 of their membership. The area which Mr. Card represents before you, known as the Douglas-fir region, encompasses about 40,000 of the total of 50,000 that this union claims to have in that area.

When they submit the matter of a strike vote to their membership, it is determined on the basis of a majority of that 50,000 voting. It is not on the basis of a majority within a smaller area, or within a plant. The result is that many of the employees in many of the plants would not go out on strike; but, by being controlled through this industrywide strike-vote method, they are all forced out when the time comes. Proof of the pudding results in the fact that the strikes which they have called as a result of this method-to the best of my knowledge, most of them-have been unsuccessful because the people fall off within the local areas.

Senator PURTELL. Are there any further questions?

Senaotr GOLDWATER. Possibly you touched on this but I wanted to ask you about this, because you represent a different industry.

How do you feel about replaced economic strikers voting in NLRB elections?

Mr. TICHY. Distinguishing, of course, between the economic striker and the unfair-labor-practice striker, it is our feeling that an economic striker, when he has been replaced under the MacKay Radio doctrine, has no longer any rights to reemployment in the firm involved. As a result, why should he be permitted to vote in an NLRB representation election and in that manner express his views in a situation in which he is actually no longer interested, and in which his views will be binding upon people who have an actual interest in the matter?

Incidentally, if you do not mind, sir, I know that Mr. MacMillan has had some very practical experience on this, and may want to elaborate in response to that question. Would you like to, Mr. MacMillan?

Mr. MACMILLAN. We have had some actual experience with the replaced economic strikers. That is what I was trying to bring out here in my statement, or I attempted to do it.

There wasn't any question about these people being replaced, and there wasn't any question about the fact that they knew their jobs were gone; and this was an afterthought, as I tried to bring out to these field examiners. That was something that was put in there to bring an unfair labor charge against us so that that would come into play.

Employees of one department of our business, for instance, without management having had anything to do with it, had asked to be decertified. This charge was brought, and they cannot hold an election while this is going on. That cannot be done while the charge is against

us.

These people who knew that their jobs had been filled and they had ben replaced-and they were told that-came back to work with that understanding. It is certainly not fair for them to come in and vote on this election-that is, an election in this creosoting departmentwhere the employes themselves had asked to be decertified.

Now, to have these replaced strikers come in there and vote on that question, I cannot see where there is anything fair or right, or equitable or just, to allow these replaced strikers to come in and vote. Senator PURTELL. Are there any further questions?

Have you any questions, Senator Neely?

Senator NEELY. I have not.

Senator PURTELL. Senator Hill?

Senator HILL. No, sir.

Senator PURTELL. Senator Smith has just come in here in time to recess the hearing. Perhaps he would want me to announce that the hearings will recess until Monday morning, March 30, at 10 o'clock, at which time we will have Walter Reuther, of the CIO, appear.

Next week, since this week was given over to the management side of the picture, the hearings will be devoted to labor's side of the picture.

I thank you gentlemen for coming in here and helping us try to solve this problem.

(Correspondence referred to between Hon. Paul H. Douglas and John W. Commiskey, referred to at p. 282, follows:)

Hon. PAUL H. DOUGLAS,

United States Senate, Washington, D. C.

MCCOBB, HEANEY & DUNN, Grand Rapids, Mich., April 7, 1953.

DEAR SENATOR DOUGLAS: During my testimony before the Senate Labor Committee on Thursday, March 26, you put into the record a statement comparing the enormous assets of the motor companies and their suppliers with the funds of the unions, which I had stated were available for strikes and organizational purposes.

My time before your committee was limited. On that account I made no effort then to reply to your statement, even assuming that you wanted a reply from me. I felt that I should get on with my statement before time might be called on me. Since then I have concluded that perhaps I should answer you, and I hope that my answer may be included in the record at the point of your statement on this subject, or at the end of my completed statement.

The tremendous assets of the companies you referred to, assets in the form of land and buildings and machinery and inventories of raw materials, work in process and finished goods, and cash or its equivalent, are for the purpose of creating and distributing goods and services to the public.

These companies are not in the union-fighting business. They are in the manufacturing business. Their assets cannot be considered in the same light with, or compared to, the assets of the unions, which are in many cases frankly for the purpose of sustaining disputes with the companies. Such disputes, when they arise, are troublesome and costly and some of the assets of the companies must be devoted, reluctantly, to the disputes, but that is not the purpose of the assets at all.

I think I do not have to labor this point with you, but I think it might be well for me to make the point at this time.

I wish to close by thanking you for the opportunity which your committee afforded me to appear before you to state some of my experiences in this field and to summarize my views.

Very truly yours,

JOHN W. CUMMISKEY.

Mr. JOHN W. CUMMISKEY,

APRIL 16, 1953.

McCobb, Heaney & Dunn, Suite 900, Michigan Trust Building,

Grand Rapids, Mich.

DEAR MR. CUMMISKEY: This will acknowledge your letter of April 7 commenting further on our colloquy in the Labor Committee hearing of March 26. I recognize that the companies referred to are not in the union-fighting business.

At the same time, however, we must recall that the unions with which the companies deal are not in the company-fighting business. They represent employees in their relations with employer, even as company representatives act for the management and shareholders. The fights are exceptional. Orderly bargaining is by far the predominant practice in organized industries. The unions also have a direct interest in the continuity and success of the productive or service enterprise in which the management and employees are engaged. Without it, there would be no jobs, and no occasion for a union.

Unions generally have other functions beyond representation of employees in collective bargaining. Some have insurance and pension and retirement plans; some carry on educational, journalistic, and counseling services; others make provision for medical care; many work on legislative issues both related to and going beyond their own direct interests; and some engage in research related to the advancement of their own industries-to mention the more obvious activities and purposes to which some of their funds are devoted.

I believe the unions would say, as you do, that "some of the assets of the (unions) must be devoted, reluctantly, to the disputes, but that is not the purpose of the assets at all." And the point of my questions to you was merely that when, reluctantly, both sides reach an impasse and an economic struggle results, the financial assets upon which the companies can draw in that struggle are far greater than the sums you mentioned as available to the union.

It has been suggested that your letter be included in the record of the hearings, and I shall furnish a copy of this reply to accompany it. I shall also ask the staff to append to my letter in the record the precise figures showing the net worth of the UAW-CIO, to which you referred, and the net worth of General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler, which I then mentioned.

Thank you for your continuing interest in our discussion.

Faithfully yours,

UAW-CIO, as of Nov. 30, 1952:

Total assets_.

Net worth__

PAUL H. DOUGLAS.

$13, 846, 433.84 13, 625, 986. 50

(From audited report presented to the 14th constitutional convention on Mar. 22, 1953.)

General Motors, as of Dec. 31, 1952:

Total assets

Net worth (not including reserves)

(From annual report of 1952.)

Chrysler Corp., as of Dec. 31, 1952:

Total assets

Net worth (not including reserves).

(From Chrysler annual report of 1952.)

Ford Motor Co., as of Dec. 31, 1951 (figures for 1952 not yet

available:

Total assets_.

Net worth (not including reserves).

(From report filed with the State of Massachusetts.)

$4, 001, 294, 708 2,727, 152, 338

$913, 378, 941 547, 519, 278

$1, 584, 172, 000

1, 240, 648, 000

Whereupon, at 3: 10 p. m., the committee was recessed to reconvene

the following Monday, March 30, 1953, at 10 a. m.)

TAFT-HARTLEY ACT REVISIONS

MONDAY, MARCH 30, 1953

COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND PUBLIC WELFARE,
UNITED STATES SENATE,
Washington, D. C.

The committee met at 10 a. m., pursuant to recess, in room 318, Senate Office Building, Senator H. Alexander Smith (chairman) presiding.

Present: Senators Smith (chairman), Taft, Ives, Griswold, Purtell, Goldwater, Murray, Hill, Neely, Douglas, Lehman, and Kennedy. The CHAIRMAN. The meeting will come to order, please.

We have the privilege and pleasure of hearing Mr. Walter Reuther this morning, the president of the CIO.

Mr. Reuther, I am going to ask you to present your case in any manner you may wish.

TESTIMONY OF WALTER P. REUTHER, PRESIDENT, ACCOMPANIED BY ARTHUR J. GOLDBERG, GENERAL COUNSEL, CONGRESS OF INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATIONS

Mr. REUTHER. For the record, my name is Walter P. Reuther. I am president of the Congress of Industrial Organizations, and also president of the United Automobile Workers (UAW-CIO). I am appearing in behalf of both of these organizations, representing approximately 5 million workers in the basic industries of America.

I want to express my appreciation for this opportunity. I have two prepared statements, Mr. Chairman, one in behalf of the CIO and a supplementary statement illustrating some of the difficulties which the UAW-CIO has experienced under the Taft-Hartley. If I may, I would like to submit both of these for the record. I believe all members have copies:

The CHAIRMAN. Might I ask if the CIO statement is the one that contains the 13 recommendations which we received awhile ago?

Mr. REUTHER. The CIO statement is the one that outlines our specific recommendations. The UAW supplementary statement merely outlines some of the specific difficulties which the UAW has experienced under the provisions of the Taft-Hartley.

The CHAIRMAN. All right.

Mr. REUTHER. I would like to elaborate on the prepared statement, if I may, sir.

Mr. GOLDBERG. I take it that both can be admitted to the record? The CHAIRMAN. Yes; both statements will be admitted to the record. (The statements referred to follow :)