phraseology "to be done" means. I think perhaps with respect to that there are many people who think Mr. Kearns is right, and there are many people who think Mr. McNamara is right. Both statements have been sort of in the nature of post-legislative history. But since the issue is in litigation, I think that we are sort of in a difficult position to try to formulate a statement that will actually bear on that particular question.

I think it would be entirely clear that with respect to goods that could not-I will not say goods but with respect to work that is not involved in on-the-site construction, the bill would have no application.

Now, there is a little controversy in the area that I have mentioned and I think Congressman Kearns is very familiar with it, which undoubtedly will be like so many of these questions under the statute, an issue to be resolved by litigation. You see, the language here is quite similar to the language in the exception of the hot cargo clause on which that question arose. I think that we are in a little difficult position espousing different language or trying by our statements to affect the interpretation of it one way or the other.

Mr. AYRES. I do not want this twisted, if I vote for it, after I voted for it and then have my people say "You gave them the right to throw the picket line up and refuse to install this because they do not recognize it as union-made material."

Now, we have this situation going on throughout the Middle West now, that a union contractor or plumbing contractor who does not sell goods but sells labor but he is a small contractor working on the job himself with a couple of people, he is a union man, but if the general contractor has permitted the owner of the home who has let the general contract to buy some of his own plumbing fixtures and he goes down to Sears-Roebuck to get them, the plumber won't install them. Now, would that same thing apply here, and would he have to install them or could he just close down the job because the fixture was not union made or handled through a recognized plumbing contractor's establishment?

Mr. SHERMAN. I think that is in the area of controversy which I mentioned. I do want to make it very clear to the committee that we are not talking about cases, for example, where they may have lighting fixtures, let us say, which are being manufactured in some establishment in some other part of the country, and the men want to engage in concerted activity for the purpose of shutting the job down because there are nonunion goods coming on the property. I think it is entirely clear that this bill would have no application to that situation. But there is one of these gray areas with respect to work that could be done at the site and, as I say, because the language of this is almost identical with the language in the hot cargo clause exception, I believe that would be in this area of interpretation which we will finally find out whether the respective views of the Congressman and the Senator to whom I have referred will be borne out in the court decisions.

Mr. AYRES. I think perhaps that should be clarified, because we have many individual citizens who contract to have a home built, who want to buy certain things themselves, and I know for a fact, having worked for a chain organization, that I have had to go out and take plumbing

fixtures back because the job would have been shut down and the man couldn't use them, because there wouldn't be anybody to put them in.

Mr. SHERMAN. Were those cases where the work could have been done on the site?

Mr. AYRES. Yes.

Mr. SHERMAN. I think that is right in this area of the problem. that Mr. Kearns has addressed himself to, and Senator McNamara also.

Mr. GRAY. I think that I could clarify it. There is an honest effort being made by the AFL-CIO to adjust those matters without the strife that you fear. Now, for instance, we have what is known as the Miami agreement. Here you had two groups of labor in this country for 20 years, separate and distinct from each other. They both built up certain practices. All of those have got to be adjusted and you cannot do it overnight, but to give you an example, that agreement, and it is far from being perfect and it is going to be improved upon, and they are wrestling with that at this present meeting in Miami. There were three steps or three teams of investigators, where there would be a dispute of the kind that you are talking about but no stoppage of work, and they would go out and investigate and get the facts. Then the second step took place, and it was Mr. McGavin representing President Meany, Leonard representing the Industrial Union Department, and myself representing the Building Trades Department.

Now, we had 248 cases in the last 4 years that came up that we handled. The third step takes it up to a higher flight, of which I am a member, but it is mostly executive council members of the AFL, and there are 23 cases pending there now that have not been settled at that step. That is due to the construction job being of such short duration, there are many cases that we won before this tribunal, but unfortunately due to the time factor we won the decision but lost the job. That is due to that delay. Those are imperfections but there are people in this labor movement, and I think the majority of them, who are making an honest effort to correct those things and adjust our own houses so that the thing that you fear will not happen.

We have to say as far as this law is concerned, I don't think that it reaches to the question that you asked. That is not this bill.

That is not our intention, to make use of this bill to involve these contentious questions, and we are going to make an honest effort to clear those up ourselves.

Mr. KEARNS. Would the gentleman from Ohio yield?

I would like to remind you, Mr. Gray, my intentions are clearly defined because in the bill that I introduced, 7265, I took care of you. Mr. AYRES. I have one other question.

Now, dealing with the overall problem, so that I have this clear as to what you are thinking, if all of the subcontractors are union contractors but the common laborers aren't and they are laying the soil pipe and digging the ditch and common laborers will lay the sewer pipe and not the cast iron pipe, but just the regular clay pipe. They are not organized, the common laborers, and they dig the ditch and lay the line from the street into the foundation. Could you close the job down until you got organized common laborers?

Mr. GRAY. Certainly. The common laborer has as much right as the skilled mechanic to organize. He has to live.

Mr. AYRES. Under the bill you could close the job down.

Mr. GRAY. That is one of our objectives, that we could strike that job in order to organize the nonunion conditions that exist there. If it was different than that, you would say we lacked some rights to organize. Let us find out first and last, Do we or do we not have the right to carry on organization of trade union people in this country? I don't care what segment it is, whether it is the laborer or the most highly skilled mechanic, we should have equal rights.

Mr. AYRES. We run into this, Mr. Gray, time and time again, where we have a man who works in a rubber shop for 6 hours and he is building a house and he is not a mechanic to the extent that he can do that type of work but he can dig his own ditch. You think that they would be reasonable if a man wanted to do part of his own work.

Mr. GRAY. I don't know. I think if the fellow was the right type of fellow and he needed a home that bad, I have seen times where we have gone out Saturday and Sunday and put up the whole house for him. I worked on that type of house myself, too.

Mr. AYRES. What you are up against in many instances, in our cities, and it certainly applies to my hometown of Akron, is, you have many of your industrial union people working 6 hours a day at their regular job, and they are out painting and paperhanging, and roofing. Mr. GRAY. We object to that.

Mr. AYRES. They are good union men while they are in the rubber shop and they don't belong to your union when they are out painting the house.

Mr. GRAY. They are moonlight workers.

Mr. PERKINS. If the builder wanted to do part of the work himself, then he would have that understanding with the contractor who would deal with the subcontractors, isn't that correct?

Mr. GRAY. That is right.

Mr. PERKINS. Mr. Pucinski.

Mr. PUCINSKI. I am not a member of your subcommittee, but I did sit in on the joint committee last year when I thought we had every right to believe we had corrected this injustice when we wrote the bill. I certainly would like to join in commending Mr. Gray for his appearance here this morning. I certainly share in the views expressed here earlier. I think Mr. Gray has made one of the most profound contributions to trade unionism in the history of this country. I think he has been the sort of labor inspiration that has brought the building trades to the high standard of living in this country and if we are enjoying this high standard it is in no small measure due to his efforts over the years.

Now, Mr. Gray, I would like to ask you one thing: Do you recall if the proposals and the relief that you seek here today, were these proposals included in the Kennedy-Ervin bill, S. 1551, that was passed by the Senate?

Mr. CORNELIUS GRAY. I happen to be more familiar with the details of that, if I could answer it. We testified before the Kennedy-Ervin hearings. We had a bill, I believe it was S. 505, at the time. It had three provisions in it. Senator Kennedy introduced it. One covered our prehire which we got in the Griffin-Landrum bill, and the second

point covered the amendment to Taft-Hartley which would permit an employer to make contributions to apprenticeship training. The third point covered the reversal of the Denver Building Trades case. I think that was S. 3810. That was the bill we addressed our attention to. That was in 1958.

That was the Kennedy-Ives bill. But the same thing holds true on Kennedy-Ervin. When we went before the committee, and this is both Democrats and Republicans, we did not want to raise the issue of boycotts at that time in the labor reform bill. President Meany discussed it with us as a result of talks with the leaders on the Senate Labor Committee. We withdrew or consented to the withdrawal at least and didn't push it for the reversal of the Denver Building Trades. However, as you well know, consequently when the Kennedy-Ives bill passed the Senate, it was not included, although we did testify on behalf of it. When it came out of the committee, it was not in there.

Then we know action was taken in the House, we came into the Kennedy-Irvin bill. We followed our same procedure, we did not push for reversal of the Denver case because we were afraid of the issue of boycotts being introduced. However, as we all know, we got the boycott issue on the Senate floor. Consequently, when the Senate bill came before the House committee, we made our move.

I am glad to say that in the House committee approved bill, it was section 702(c), I believe, had as its purpose the reversal of the Denver Building Trades. That is the history of it.

Mr. PUCINSKI. Of course, what you just got through telling us, showed the fallacy of ramming that bill through as it was in the last session. Would you be good enough, Mr. Gray, to tell me what in your opinion did you feel would be the practical consequences to organized labor in the building trades if this ruling is not corrected in this session of Congress.

Mr. GRAY. Well, I can see a wide range of continuing damage and an extension of it to the right to organize. There has been quite a trend in the direction of some nonunion contractors from certain sections of the country organizing as separate entities, one to operate where they have to as union employers. We want the right to strike against them. As it stands, as the law stands now, they are separate corporate entities, and we have to work for the same employer under a different name as union workmen at the same time he is operating wherever he can another firm, another corporate entity, as a nonunion firm.

Now that in my opinion makes our supposed right to organize a farce. We are tied up through this secondary boycott. Since the enactment of the Labor-Management Relations Act of 1947 and right down to the present time, that thing is getting broader and broader. They do it two and three different ways, and some of our union employers will go in with the nonunion contractors as a coventure, and the nonunion contractor becomes the operating contractor on the job and operates it nonunion.

Now, one of his coventurers is operating a union job in many other sections of the country and our hands are tied. We get an injunction slapped on us if we make any attempt to organize. I know of one particular firm which has three separate entities under three different

names.

Mr. PUCINSKI. Would it be your opinion that the Denver case ruling has increased industrial strife in the building industry?

Mr. GRAY. Yes, sir; it certainly has.

Mr. PUCINSKI. Would it then be your opinion that passage of this legislation would bring about a greater degree of order and peace in this particular industry?

Mr. GRAY. There is absolutely no question about it.

Mr. CORNELIUS GRAY. Could I amplify on that, Mr. Congressman, to show you the truthfulness of that particular statement?

Most general contractors realize the wisdom of an overall labor policy, a uniform labor policy. The good union contractor such as the one that is building the building that Congressman Hoffman just cited, he will have a uniform labor policy. In other words, he will pick only subcontractors who are union. This bill will not present any problem to them.

However, the contractor who subcontracts to a nonunion contractor, and you asked what the effect of that will be, in essence it means that the union bricklayer will have to work side by side with the nonunion electrician, if you want to take that case. He has to his brother building tradesmen are forced, they are compelled to-break down the working conditions of the other trades.

Now, you know what this means. It is this naturally that provokes instability, and unless it is corrected there will be this instability and industrial strife.

Mr. PUCINSKI. Within the last 2 weeks I have noticed an increase of mail into my office, and I presume this is true of all of the other members of this committee, perhaps, following pretty much the same pattern that we had last year, an organized letter-writing campaign protesting against this type of legislation. I don't know whether you are aware of the fact that there is a campaign going on now raising all sorts of dire warnings of what will happen if this legislation is approved.

In view of the fact that on both sides of the aisle, the President and the Vice President, and the outstanding spokesmen on our side of the aisle, have all indicated they want legislation which will reduce or eliminate labor strife, is it your feeling then that this legislation is going in that direction? That is to bring about a greater stability in the industry?

Mr. GRAY. There is no question about it.

Mr. PUCINSKI. I have one final question. The building trades have been doing a considerable degree of pioneering in various aspects of the building industry. I notice for instance Chicago Local 134 of the Electrical Workers have been sending out their business agents to inspect jobs to make sure that these meet the very highest standards of performance, and where the job does not meet that standard the worker goes back on his own time and corrects that work.

I notice in local 1031, Frank Darling's union in Chicago, they have done a great deal in that direction and also in cleaning out some of the Communist elements that had plagued the labor movement years. ago.

Now, I wonder if you could tell us something. So frequently we hear only the bad things about organized labor. I wonder if briefly you could give me some idea of what the building trades have been

52420-60- -3