about how it might be written into the law so if the closed shop were granted in particular unions-there has been some discussion of it in the building trades and perhaps in the maritime industry-how we can make sure that people who are qualified are permitted to join unions, and at the same time make sure that the rights of union members are protected from casual employees, as, for example, in the movie industry.

Mr. ŠHROYER. I do not have any amendment in technical language to suggest today, Senator Kennedy, but I would be glad to think about it. I think you do have that problem. Everybody agreed back in 1947, on both sides of the table, that you cannot have closed unions and closed shop. If you are going to permit a closed shop, you have to go in and regulate internal affairs to some extent so you do not have a closed union. Otherwise you are saying to a lot of American boys that here is an area that you may want to go into as your life's work but you cannot do it.

Senator DOUGLAS. I have always felt if we permitted a closed shop, the union should be open and that we should not have a closed union and closed shop combined.

Mr. SHROYER. I know you have, Senator.

Senator DOUGLAS. But there are two difficulties with this which I think should be faced. The first is the case of a declining industry, where employment is falling off and where the number of union members is in excess of the jobs available. Under those conditions for the union to open its books might permit the labor market to be flooded. Second is what Senator Kennedy referred to, namely, that certain employments are casual employments to which people may resort temporarily who have lost permanent jobs elsewhere. That is characteristic, of course, of longshore work. In those cases the docks absorb virtually the entire labor surplus of the labor force as a whole. Under those conditions you can understand the workers who are already there trying to protect themselves from the influx of what Senator Kennedy succinctly and properly termed "casuals."

The CHAIRMAN. I have just one question, if I might ask it, Mr. Shroyer. Will you tell us briefly the difference between the procedure of the national-emergency provisions of the Taft-Hartley Act and of the Railroad Act. It has been called to my attention by some people interested in railroad legislation in the past that the national-emergency provision has been very successful. They have asked why did we not place a similar provision in the Taft-Hartley Act?

Can you give us just briefly the difference between the two procedures, in your judgment, if you are willing to give it?

Mr. SHROYER. In section 10 of the Railway Labor Act, the emergency section, no injunction is spelled out. However, I think both sides have always assumed, at least they have always told us when they testified here, that they felt an injunction would lie if they went on strike during the period that the emergency board has the case. I do not think I can agree that the emergency provisions of the Railway Act have been a success.

The CHAIRMAN. I said I have been told it has been a success until fairly recently. I think the seizure action taken by the President in the railroad situation was certainly not a success.

Mr. SHROYER. The testimony we had in the committee hearings last year developed that in at least the last several years it had not been a success in any instance.

The CHAIRMAN. I think the suggestion was made because the word "injunction" is so much disliked by the labor group as a whole, that the language used in the Railway Act, which many people think has the same effect and ultimately leads to an injunction in the case of union violation, might be better language to use to cover that difficulty.

Mr. SHROYER. Senator Ives has it in his bill. I do not know whether he thinks an injunction

Senator IVES. The penalties are in the bill. injunction at any time, come to Congress.

Rather than have the

We appreciate very

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Shroyer. much your testimony. We may ask you to come back to us to answer questions.

The next witness is the American Mining Congress representative. I see on our list here Mr. Charles R. Kuzell, mining engineer, Douglas, Ariz.

Mr. Kuzell, will you take the stand?

TESTIMONY OF CHARLES R. KUZELL, MINING ENGINEER, DOUGLAS, ARIZ., AND DENISON KITCHEL, ATTORNEY AT LAW, PHOENIX, ARIZ., ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN MINING CONGRESS

The CHAIRMAN. For the record, will you please state your general background and your qualifications to appear here today as a witness in this proceeding?

Mr. KUZELL. Mr. Chairman, my name is Charles R. Kuzell, of Douglas, Ariz. I am appearing here at the request of the American Mining Congress to express its views on labor legislation. I appeared in the same connection before the Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare in February 1947 prior to the passage of the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947.

As to occupation, I am general manager of Phelps Dodge Corp., which is engaged in the mining and processing of ores and is the second largest domestic producer of copper. I have spent 42 years in the mining industry since entering it as a common laborer, and during that period I have also served in operating capacities as foreman, superintendent, and manager.

Mr. Chairman, we believe it would save the time of the committee if we might be permitted to read our condensation of our statement, and then we would be pleased to attempt to answer any questions.

The CHAIRMAN. I appreciate that. Our time is limited. Naturally you may file your whole report for the committee and give us your summary of it so we know what the main issues are as you see them. Mr. KUZELL. The portions which have been condensed are marked in the margins of the written statement which are before you.

The CHAIRMAN. Is that the larger statement or the smaller one? Mr. KUZELL. The larger one.

(The statement referred to follows:)

STATEMENT OF CHARLES R. KUZELL AND DENISON KITCHEL ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN MINING CONGRESS

QUALIFICATION OF WITNESSES

My name is Charles R. Kuzell, of Douglas, Ariz. I am appearing here at the request of the American Mining Congress' to express its views on labor legislation. I appeared in the same connection before the Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare in February 1947 prior to the passage of the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947.

As to occupation, I am general manager of Phelps Dodge Corp., which is engaged in the mining and processing of ores and is the second largest domestic producer of copper. I have spent 42 years in the mining industry since entering it as a common laborer, and during that period I have also served in operating capacities as foreman, superintendent, and manager.

As to my experience in the field of labor relations, I have been directly involved for the past 15 years in all its aspects as they affect employers and employees. During this period I have dealt with AFL unions, CIO unions, brotherhood organizations, and independent unions, and I have been employed where there have been various types of compulsory unionism and also where open shop conditions prevailed. I have been closely associated with the development of resolutions adopted by the American Mining Congress on labor law and related matters, having been chairman of the labor subcommittee of its resolutions committee since 1946.

Also present with me at the request of the American Mining Congress and authorized to appear on its behalf, is Denison Kitchel, of Phoenix, Ariz., who is a member of the law firm of Evans, Hull, Kitchel & Jenckes, western counsel for Phelps Dodge Corp. For the past 17 years, except for a period during World War II when he was in the Armed Forces, Mr. Kitchel has devoted the major portion of his time to matters of labor relations law. In addition to handling cases in the State and Federal courts, including the Supreme Court of the United States, involving the interpretation and application of State and Federal labor laws, he has had extensive experience in the negotiation and administration of collective bargaining agreements and in the presentation of labor arbitration cases. For the past several years he has assisted and advised the resolutions committee of the American Mining Congress in the consideration of labormanagement problems and the formulation of policy statements on those problems.

INTRODUCTION

Every sincere person is hopeful that these hearings will be so conducted and that the information and opinions which they develop will be such as to bring the problems of labor-management relations back down to earth, and to place the unsolved problems again in proper perspective before the Congress and the people of the United States.

This is all-important because probably never before in the history of this country has a campaign designed to affect legislation assumed the proportions in martyred self-righteousness and irresponsible falsehood that have typified the campaign conducted by union bosses ever since the passage of the TaftHartley Act. For almost 6 years now they have incessantly pounded the ears, the minds, and the emotions of the electorate with propaganda which is basically and intentionally false. Their development of catch phrases, such as "slavelabor law," and their constant repetition of untruths have come as close to the technique used by Hitler to make truths out of lies as this country has

ever seen.

In the face of this relentless onslaught it is a very difficult task which the Members of the Congress are undertaking. And yet your task has been made easier by the expression of the people's will in the recent election. As was

1 The American Mining Congress is the national organization of the mining industry of the United States, embracing in its membership producing companies of the ferrous, nonferrous, and precious metals industries, and the producers of nonmetallic minerals and coal and manufacturers of mining equipment. It represents the great bulk of the output of the mineral-resource industries but does not include petroleum or gas producers in its membership.

true with respect to other major issues affecting the welfare of the Nation, the people have demonstrated that they are not willing to have a few arrogant labor bosses dominate the lives of our working population and the economic future of our country. This expression of the people calls for an earnest and unemotional analysis of the legislative problem.

The claim that the Taft-Hartley Act has hurt organized labor is not true. Since 1946 membership in labor unions has increased by about 1 million persons. In its report to the 1952 convention of the American Federation of Labor, the A. F. of L. executive council stated that membership stood at 8,098,302 as of June 30, 1952, an all-time high and an increase of 3.2 percent over the previous year. The Congress of Industrial Organizations claims that it has made up in new members the approximately 800,000 members it lost in 1949 and 1950 by expelling 11 unions for alleged Communist domination. The available statistics are not too accurate but it appears that the so-called independent unions, that is to say, the unions not affiliated with AFL or CIO, have made substantial gains in membership during the past 6 years. These figures give no support whatsoever to the charge that the Taft-Hartley Act has weakened organized labor.

What of the charge that the Taft-Hartley Act is a slave-labor law? As a result of collective bargaining, by November 1952 the average hourly straighttime rate of pay in all manufacturing had increased more than 37 percent since the passage of the act in July 1947 while, during the same period, the cost of living had increased only 21 percent. In addition to this increase in rates of pay, collective bargaining during the past 6 years has resulted in a host of new fringe benefits. More paid holidays, longer vacations, improved health and welfare plans, and pensions are but a few of these benefits. In cost to employers and value to employees they represent a substantial sum. If these advances add up to slavery, that word has lost its former meaning.

These facts concerning the continued growth of union membership and the substantial increase in rates of pay and other economic benefits, all under the Taft-Hartley Act, are cited solely for the purpose of dispelling the cloud of emotional falsehood in which that law has been enveloped by the labor bosses. These are facts, true facts. The problem of further legislation in the field of labor-management relations cannot be properly considered and solved unless we get down to earth and accept the fact that organized labor has continued to flourish under Taft-Hartley.

While labor unions and union members have been greatly benefited during the past 6 years, how have the public and the individual worker fared during that same period? The public has been put to great inconvenience and expense and the individual worker has been too often deprived of his right to earn a living by monopolistic strikes which have crippled the economy and created national emergencies. The public and the individual worker have been forced to pay tribute to the labor bosses, the public in the form of inflated prices, the individual worker in the form of compulsory payments to the union for the right to work. And the public and the individual worker have had their future security jeopardized by the continued presence of Communists and communistic influences in the hierarchy of labor bossism. These evils have continued to exist and the public and the individual worker have continued to be hurt even under Taft-Hartley. It is the opinion of those in the industry which I represent that the Taft-Hartley Act was a constructive and timely step in the right direction, but that further steps must be taken to curb the evils of labor monopoly, compulsory unionism and communism in organized labor. As we see it, these are some of the major problems which emerge when the cloud of falsity is dispelled and the true facts become apparent.

For many years the American Mining Congress, before and during its annual conventions, has given careful consideration to the problems of labor-management relations. These considerations have been based on the actual experiences of men engaged in day-to-day operations. Each year they have resulted in recommendations for national policies designed to remedy recognized evils. In its annual convention held in Denver, Colo., in September 1952, and attended by more than 5,000 representative mining men, the western division of the American Mining Congress adopted a resolution, or declaration of policy, which included a statement of its views and its recommendations in the field of labor-management relations. That declaration of policy was subsequently approved by the national board of directors of the American Mining Congress. This current program is not one designed to make the present laws more palatable to the labor

bosses. It is one designed to continue the job of correcting abuses and evils which still exist and which were only partially corrected in 1947.

The statement of our recommendations is brief and to the point. It reads as follows:

"Labor relations

"Adherence to sound fundamental principles is necessary to properly guide the national policy in social, political, economic, and governmental matters. There is increasing evidence that such paramount and essential principles as nondictatorial government, security of individual rights and protection of the public interest are being deliberately ignored in attempts to circumvent and weaken the Labor-Management Relations Act. Congress should reassert and make fully effective those necessary principles by amending the act to

"1. Prohibit compulsory unionism in any form;

"2. Prohibit labor monopolies and industrywide bargaining;

"3. Uproot communistic influence from the internal affairs of unions;

"4. Require the President, in threatened national emergency strike or lockout situations, to utilize the provisions of the act;

"5. Prevent industrial sabotage;

"6. Safeguard, from union encroachment, the functions of management and the rights of workers;

"7. Effectively outlaw mass picketing, violence, intimidation and similar terroristic devices in labor disputes;

"8. Require that decisions of the National Labor Relations Board be based upon preponderance of evidence;

"9. Restore stability to labor agreements; and to

“10. Create a Department of Employer-Employee Relations in lieu of the Department of Labor.

"The emasculation of the national emergency provisions of the Labor-Management Relations Act through administrative nonfeasance such as occurred during the recent steel crisis deserves severe censure. Measures designed to authorize plant seizure, to impose terms in labor agreements, or to compel arbitration by governmental agencies in labor disputes inevitably promote further domination of the public welfare by bureaucracy, and should be defeated.

"Our problems will be solved by adherence to sound fundamental principles rather than through a bureaucratic or socialistic approach."

I have been authorized to present this statement to you and to explain in more detail each of those 10 points and the reasons in support of them. With your permission I shall proceed to do so.

1. COMPULSORY UNIONISM

We believe that compulsory unionism should be recognized as a major domestic issue facing this country today. Corruption in Government and extravagant governmental expenditures are also major problems, but they involve situations which can be corrected by proper administration without corrective legislation. If, however, the compulsory unionism recognized and encouraged by the TaftHartley Act and the amended Railway Labor Act is permitted to flourish and grow, the entire working force of the Nation will eventually become a subservient group dependent on labor bosses for its livelihood. Thus the way is paved to labor dictatorship. World history will show that wherever labor has attained this ascendancy, national socialism has been instituted.

Let us first dispel the myth that those who oppose compulsory unionism are out to destroy organized labor. Justice Brandeis, known as a great, "liberal" jurist and perhaps the most able advocate of trade unions, had this to say on the subject:

"The objections-legal, economic, and social-against the closed shop are so strong, and the ideas of the closed shop so antagonistic to the American spirit, that the insistence upon it has been a serious obstacle to union progress.” (A)2 Later on he wrote:

"But the American people should not, and will not accept unionism if it involves the closed shop. They will not consent to the exchange of the tyranny of the employer for the tyranny of the employee." (B)

There are some employers today who both practice and preach compulsory unionism. They believe that they are better off with a closed shop or a union

2

* Capital letters in parentheses designate sources listed in appendix.