CONSTRUCTION SITE PICKETING MONDAY, FEBRUARY 29, 1960 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, OF THE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met at 10 a.m., pursuant to recess, in room 429, Old House Office Building, Hon. Carl D. Perkins (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Present Representatives Barden (chairman of the committee), Perkins, Wier, Holland, Kearns, Griffin. Mr. PERKINS. The subcommittee will please be in order. I have here several pieces of correspondence from various and sundry people requesting that they be inserted in the record. Without objection, the correspondence mentioned will be placed in the record at this point. I further have a statement from the National Retail Lumber Dealers Association, signed by John H. Else, legislative counsel, requesting that it be inserted in the record. Without objection, it will be inserted in the record at this point. And the New Jersey Manufacturers Association has a statement here that they request be inserted in the record, dated February 29, 1960. Then I have a statement from Mr. Francis Marion, spokesman for the Daniel Construction Co., Inc., who has requested that his statement be inserted in the record. If anybody wants copies of his statement, here are several copies. Also, Congressman Reuss from Wisconsin has requested that his statement be inserted in the record. It is so ordered. We also have some further statements from a Sheet Metal Workers local and a telegram addressed to Congressman Quie and the statement of the International Union of Operating Engineers, Bricklayers, Masons, and Carpenters. Without objection it may go in the record. And Mrs. Sue Morrell, secretary of the late David M. Hall, has enclosed a couple of telegrams which may be inserted in the record without objection. (The telegrams submitted by the secretary of the late Congressman Hall appear in the committee files). Also, Charles Teague, of California, has some telegrams he has requested go in the record. (The telegrams submitted by Congressman Charles M. Teague ap pear in the committee files). Also, telegrams from Lawrence F. Brooks, executive vice president of the Small Business Association of New England. Without objection that may be made a part of the record. Also, Congressman Wright Patman, of Texas, has requested that a statement of a citizen from his district be made a part of the record. (The material referred to follows:) STATEMENT OF JOHN H. ELSE ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL RETAIL LUMBER DEALERS ASSOCIATION Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, my name is John H. Else and this statement is presented on behalf of the National Retail Lumber Dealers and its 33 State and regional associations. The 30,000 retail lumber and building material dealers of the Nation supply most of the lumber and building materials for home construction. Last year the Congress very wisely approved legislation which, among other things, closed a number of the loopholes in the law pertaining to secondary boycotts. We are now confronted with legislation which would undo much of what was accomplished last year insofar as the construction industry is concerned. To approve H.R. 9070 would be a step backward in labor-management relations and would be contrary to the public interest. H.R. 9070 would exempt from the secondary boycott provisions of the TaftHartley Act any "strike or refusal to perform services at the site of construction, alteration, painting, or repair of a building, structure, or other work and directed at any of several employers who are in the construction industry and are jointly engaged as joint venturers or in the relationship of contractors and subcontractors in such construction, alteration, painting, or repair at such site, and there is a labor dispute, not unlawful under this act or in violation of an existing collective bargaining contract, relating to the wages, hours, or other working conditions of employees employed at such site by any of such employers." There is no such thing as a "good" secondary boycott. If such boycotts are bad, and Congress has determined that they are, then they are as bad in the construction industry as in other industries. This bill would give the building trades unions a virtual monopoly over construction jobs of all kinds and would make it impossible for employees on a construction job to have a free choice as to the union they want to represent them or to refrain from union organization. A strike or boycott of a construction job could increase the costs of construction which would have to be passed on to the purchaser or absorbed by the contractor. The bill H.R. 9070 is loosely drawn without defining the terms of the bill and would undoubtedly cause many controversies and suits to interpret the law. The testimony of a representative of the building trades department before the committee is full of examples of the ambiguity of the statute. The Congress would be derelict in its duty if it knowingly enacted a law which is so vague that even its most ardent adherents do not understand what it means. The bill goes far beyond "construction' and includes repairing, altering, or painting of any structure wherever the work is being done by more than one contractor or subcontractor engaged in a "joint venture." There is no attempt to define the above terms. Often, retail lumber dealers construct building components in their lumber yards for delivery to the construction site to reduce costs of construction at the site. The bill is so indefinite and vague it cannot be determined whether such assembly and delivery would constitute "construction" or not. The construction industry is constantly seeking ways to provide better construction for less money. The bill before this committee would increase labor costs without adding to the value of the property under construction. A witness on behalf of the building and construction trades department of the AFL-CIO has testified that H.R. 9070 would merely place the building trades in the same position as unions in an industrial plant. The two situations are not comparable. To approve H.R. 9070 would place the building trades unions in a favored position over other unions. By some stretch of the imagination, proponents of H.R. 9070 argue that all contractors and subcontractors on a construction job are "partners" or "agents" and should be treated as one employer and, therefore, union pressure on sub contractors, with whom the union has no dispute, is not really a secondary boycott. Most subcontractors on a job are independent contractors and the question of whether each contractor's employees desire to be union or nonunion is the decision of the employees of the respective subcontractor and not that of the primary contractor on the job. This is as it should be. H.R. 9070 would deny this right to the employees of the various subcontractors and would place them at the mercy of the building trades unions. It is nothing more than a stamp of approval by Congress for the building trades to do what other unions are not permitted to do to force all employees on a construction job to join the union in order to continue on a job. It amounts to approval of a closed shop on construction jobs for the building trades unions. Furthermore, it places innocent neutral subcontractors and their employees in the middle of any jurisdictional dispute between two unions on the same job. The spokesman for the building trades unions contends that "the employees of a factory can engage in peaceful picketing in a labor dispute. Construction workers are effectively denied this basic freedom * * There is nothing to prevent a strike or a picket line against the regular place of business of any contractor or subcontractor against whom the union has a grievance or dispute. Furthermore, under the present law, the building trades unions can picket a construction job as long as they stay within certain limitations established by the NLRB which are, in the main, designed to protect innocent, neutral parties. (Denver Building Trades case). Rather than putting construction unions and other unions on the same footing, H.R. 9070 will give construction workers a strangle hold over the other unions. The bill will clearly permit secondary boycotts at a construction site to force contractors to use only products approved by the construction unions. Furthermore, it will permit these unions to keep suppliers unsatisfactory to them from coming on the common construction site. The banned products may be manufactured by members of another union and the suppliers employees may also have selected another union to represent them but the new bill would still permit unlimited pressure at the construction site to deprive these workmen of their rights. If the Congress begins destroying the effectiveness of the secondary boycott law piece by piece and industry by industry as provided in H.R. 9070 then everything that was accomplished by the Landrum-Griffin bill amending the Taft-Hartley Act has been for naught. If the building trades unions are successful in their attempt to free themselves of the secondary boycott prohibitions under which other unions must operate, how long will it be before other unions will insist upon similar treatment because of "special situations" existing in their industries? The building trades unions are asking Congress for special privileges and immunities which, if granted, would not be in the public interest, or in the interest of neutral employers or employees. We respectfully urge this committee to reject H.R. 9070. STATEMENT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMITTEE, NEW JERSEY The industrial relations committee, composed of industrial relations directors and personnel directors from the New Jersey Manufacturers Association's 10,900 member concerns, is the associations' policymaking body in industrial relations matters. The members of the association and the industrial relations committee are deeply grateful for this opportunity to present the views of the association on the very important matters dealt with by H.R. 9070. The problem of labor disputes at work locations jointly occupied by several employers is one that has caused a number of problems in the labor relations field. Common situs questions appear to arise most frequently in the building and construction industry, but they are not exclusively confined there. In applying the Labor Management Relations Act, the National Labor Relations Board and the courts have constantly faced the problem of allowing labor organizations to exercise their traditional methods of pressing their demands upon their employers, while at the same time minimizing the effects of these actions upon third parties, secondary employers, and the general public. When we learned that H.R. 9070 was scheduled for hearings before your subcommittee, we immediately contacted the members of our committee to learn their feelings on the subject. Because of the extreme importance of this subject, we also contacted the members of the association to learn their views, so that we might better formulate the position of our association. As you might expect, we received many letters which expressed the thought that the member was opposed to H.R. 9070. Several members were good enough to detail the reasons for their opposition and to give us some indication of the way in which this bill, if enacted, would affect their operations. Since they have asked that their comments be made a part of our statement, I am taking the liberty of citing from several of them. Copies of these letters are appended to our written statement. The first letter I would like to cite is one from the president of a rubber manufacturing company located in New Jersey. Its president stated: "Our men are often engaged in fieldwork lining tanks for chemical companies and other users of rubber lining in the field. In many instances our men have been prevented from working although they have not caused any of its [sic] disturbances. *** our labor contract requires that we pay our men when they are in the field even if they are prevented from working and very often we have a difficult time collecting for the extra labor costs and living accommodations from the prime contractor on the job. This is but one instance of neutral employees, and a neutral employer becoming involved in a labor dispute over which they have no control. The provision in the labor contract to which the company president refers requires him to pay his men for time lost as a result of this involvement, and, since his company is apparently a subcontractor in some instances, they in turn charge these costs to the prime contractor. This, of course, adds to the total cost of the project which ultimately must be borne by the purchaser. Another letter which I would like to cite comes from the president of a company which manufactures vitreous china products. He says: "We feel that the passage of H.R. 9070 would be a grave injustice not only to all firms who have maintained good relations with their employees, but to the employees themselves. It would make it posible for a strike entirely unconnected in any way with either manufacturing operations or relations with the plants' own union to close down a plant, cause severe loses to both the company and its employees. This bill would, in effect, expose any manufacturer to great damages because of disputes over which he has no control whatsoever. We believe that the National Labor Relations Act as it now stands is far more just. Certainly any picketing which arises as a dispute unconnected with the employer and the regular employees should remain an unlawful secondary boycott." The wording of the bill itself is not particularly enlightening on the points that we have mentioned. As you well know, it does not spell out the fact that picketing would be permitted at certain locations, but says only that a strike or refusal to perform services at certain specified places would not be unlawful. Many of our members of necessity deal with outside contractors who are engaged in what is commonly referred to as the building and construction industry. It appears to our committee and to the members of our association that H.R. 9070 would make it possible for a union which has a dispute with a contractor at the site of alteration or repair of a manufacturing establishment to picket that contractor at that site. In other words, the union could establish a picket line around the entire location because of its dispute with a contractor who was performing work at that plant. It has been stated that the reluctance of union members to cross a picket line is notorious. In practical situations this bill would create a situation whereby a small group of outside employees could force a cessation of activities in an entire plant. This certainly amounts to the involvement of neutral employees in a labor dispute completely unconnected with them. This situation would certainly make businesses very dubious about hiring outside contractors to alter, paint, or repair their premises, especially when a labor dispute between the contractor and his employees might well result in closing of the entire plant. It has been stated that the intention of this bill is to reverse the situation created by the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in the Denver Building Trades case. It appears to our committee that the specific wording of the bill would accomplish a good deal more than that. To be specific, the words "the site of construction, alteration, painting, or repair of a building, structure, or other work ***" can mean just about anything. It obviously includes new projects currently under construction. Our |