makes a lot of purchases. Like he did of shirts and neckties and cars and everything else, and include that as a part of his legal advice. Mr. ISERMAN. He not only had to report it but he would go to gaol for it if he did report it.

Mr. WIER. That is what I am saying exactly.

Mr. RYAN. He goes to gaol if he does not report it?

Mr. ISERMAN. He goes to gaol if he does not report it and he goes to gaol if he does.

Mr. WIER. Do you have a contract with your association? How can anybody find out what is your attorney's fees and what are the costs that you encounter in trying to straighten out a mess?

Mr. ISERMAN. The Commerce and Industry Association of New York does not engage in collective bargaining or any activity in that field. Speaking for myself, as a lawyer, I fix my fees the best I can and if I were I don't go out to make speeches to employees in order to persuade them in connection with their organizing activities, but if I did, the employer would have to report how much he paid me for that job and if I then represented the same employer in a law suit or a Labor Board proceeding or at the collective bargaining table, Congress says he would not have to report how much he pays me for that. There is that distinction. What Congress was getting at is precisely what you said, the activities of people like Nate Shefferman out in Chicago who set up dummy committees.

Mr. WIER. You have some in New York, too?

Mr. ISERMAN. I daresay we have. But Shefferman came from Chicago and his activities were primarily in that area. We have people of that sort in New York too and they operated all over the country. Unfortunately labor relations consultants do not have to be governed by the code of ethics that most lawyers have to adhere to. When lawyers or labor relations consultants or anyone else engage in these activities, Mr. Wier, to persuade employees in their collective bargaining activities, even though the persuasion is wholly noncoercive, everything they say is perfectly all right, then the employer has to report that. But Congress thought and I think that he should not have to report, the employer should not have to report concerning legal advice or otherwise or representing the employer before the Labor Board or in collective bargaining.

Mr. WIER. Do you uphold the right of an employer to tell his employees just before a representational election that if you vote for a union tomorrow this plant will be closed Monday?

Mr. ISERMAN. No, sir. That is not protected. He would have to report it. As a matter of fact, it is only noncoercive statements that would be in any way protected.

Mr. PERKINS. Are there any further questions, gentlemen? Thank you very much, Mr. Iserman. I doubt whether there are as many men who know more about labor legislation than you know.

Mr. ISERMAN. Except the members of this committee. And may I add this, that I just hope very much this is not the last time I testify before Judge Barden if there is some way you gentlemen can get him to change his mind.

Mr. WIER. Before you leave, I want to pose one question. I think your representation here today with all of your talent brings to me the beginning of Baltimore all over the United States with your posi

tion. I don't know whether you are acquainted with the open shop construction situation in Baltimore now where the laborers in Minneapolis get as much money as your skilled trades do in Baltimore and these workers now are finding themselves where they can't even get a job with the open shoppers because they have been active in the unions. That is what we are going back to now. Why don't they go someplace else? Then can't move their home away. So you have a nasty, dirty situation in Baltimore, all as a result of just this kind of conniving.

Mr. ISERMAN. I am not familiar with that situation, Mr. Weir, but I do know that there is an awful shortage of help in the skilled trades, construction trades. Our respected friend, Dick Gray, who is on the job, today at least, can confirm that.

Mr. PERKINS. Come around, Mr. Smith-Mr. Ellison Smith.
Do you wish to read your statement, Mr. Smith?

Mr. SMITH. It is a very short statement. I think I would prefer reading it if I might.

STATEMENT OF ELLISON D. SMITH, JR., ON BEHALF OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA STATE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I am Ellison D. Smith, Jr., for 4 years an Associate General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board here in Washington, and for the past 6 years specializing in labor relations law practice at Columbia, S.C.

I am appearing on behalf of the South Carolina State Chamber of Commerce in opposition to H.R. 9070, now pending before this committee.

The South Carolina State Chamber of Commerce believes that enactment of H.R. 9070-or the Senate version, S. 2643-would be inimical to the best interests of the thousands of employees who work or seek work in the construction industry.

Also, it believes that neutral employers should not be innocent victims of a labor dispute over which they have no control.

The McClellan committee, at great expense to the taxpayers of America, conducted extensive hearings in the labor field. These hearings led to the exposure of graft and corruption in certain unions.

You have already heard testimony, by a previous witness, which recalled the findings of the McClellan committee regarding certain unions affiliated with the building trades.

The records of the McClellan committee well show that the secondary boycott was an instrument used frequently to the detriment of employees and employers.

So much was the concern about secondary boycotts that Congress in the recent Landrum-Griffin bill sought to close the loopholes that had been carved in the secondary-boycott provisions of the TaftHartley Act.

This action on the part of Congress clearly indicates that the Congress considered the secondary boycott an economic device which had been so abused by organized labor that it should be stringently regulated.

In view of this it seems rather startling that we now have-following immediately on the heels of this legislative decision to curb sec

ondary boycotts an attempt through legislation to place the whole construction industry at the mercy of secondary-boycott pressures and all the attendant results.

In fact, secondary boycotts in this industry would be a legal device by which employees and neutral employers can be injured and involved in a labor dispute.

Congress having concluded just recently that the secondary boycott provisions of the law should be strengthened, it seems illogical that Congress should immediately undo what it has done and make lawful the secondary boycott in the entire construction industry.

A secondary boycott is a secondary boycott regardless of the industry involved.

Indeed, National Labor Relation Board records show that, for the last 3 years, a greater percentage of secondary boycott charges have been filed against building trades unions than any other. The Teamsters have run a close second.

This statistical evidence has already been presented to this committee by a previous witness.

The enactment of this legislation would simply mean that building trades unions could coerce employees at construction sites into union membership regardless of their desires in the matter. How?

Simply by compelling employers to sign collective bargaining

contracts.

The net effect of such legislation could eventually establish closed shop conditions in the construction industry.

This legislation would bring full circle the unrestrained economic power of the building trades unions. Already they enjoy special status under the law. They may lawfully bargain for prehire contracts, hot cargo contracts, 7-day union shop, job notification, and minimum training requirements.

These special exemptions alone impinge upon the basic rights now guaranteed to employees in other industries. The enactment of this legislation would further destroy employee rights and injure neutral employers by embroiling them in labor disputes of no interest to them.

The Congress in promoting the free flow of commerce has concluded that certain protection should be afforded the workingmen of America.

One major aim is to guarantee to employees their right of freedom of choice. The enactment of this law would seriously impair employees in the construction industry in their right to refrain from union activity, a right now guaranteed to all other employees covered by law.

Congress has also concluded that it is necessary to impose legal sanctions on secondary boycotts thus protecting the rights of emplovees and neutral employers.

Why, then, should not employees engaged in work in the construction industry be entitled to the same protection under law? Why should neutral employers in the construction industry be subjected to the disastrous pressure of a secondary boycott?

Officials of the building trade unions, in an effort to justify this special exemption from the secondary boycott provisions of the law, make the following contention:

That there is no such thing as a neutral at a construction site, and that the general contractor and all subcontractors are one employer. Therefore, if a labor dispute exists between an independent contractor and the building trades, on a jobsite, secondary pressure should be permitted against all other independent contractors and their employees in an effort to compel the independent contractor with whom the building trades has the labor dispute to capitulate to the demands of the building trades.

For example, this device could and would be used to keep nonunion workmen off the job.

The Supreme Court has already determined that each independent contractor on a construction site is a separate employer (NLRB v. Denver Building and Construction Trades Council, 341 U.S. 675–689; 95 Leg. 1286).

The building trades would have Congress sweep aside the status of independent contractors in the construction field although independent contractor status is recognized under existing law in all other industry.

The building trades unions are not now prohibited from bringing economic pressure at a construction site, so long as such economic pressure does not involve natural third persons.

In establishing the rules in the so-called common situs cases, the Board will not hold picketing in support of a labor dispute illegal if the picketing conforms to standards prescribed by the Board. Such standards are already in evidence before this committee.

In conclusion, let me say that if Congress should enact this law a large industry and all of its present and future workmen would be without the protection from secondary boycotts now afforded other industries and their employees.

The result: Many innocent employers and innocent employees could and would be subjected to a coercive pressure of secondary boycott which has been found by the McClellan committee to be one of the most vicious tools in the labor movement.

Congress should not now be considering wholesale exemptions of unions from the secondary boycott provisions of the law, but, instead, considering ways and means to eliminate the secondary boycott entirely.

I have come here on behalf of the State chamber with the hope that what I have said my be helpful to you Congressmen in fulfilling your responsibility to the American people.

Mr. PERKINS. Thank you very much for appearing here this morning. We appreciate your testimony.

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, sir.

Mr. PERKINS. Are there any questions?

Come around, Mr. Alexander Wilson, Jr.

Is Mr. Wilson here this morning?

Mr. William van Niess, New Jersey Manufacturers Association of New Jersey. Is he here this morning?

Mr. Joseph Martin, is he here this morning?

Are there any other witnesses in the hearing room who wish to be heard today? If there are no further witnesses to be heard the Chair wants to make this statement. Unless I am overruled by the subcommittee the record will remain open only until next Monday,

which is March 7, to enable Members of Congress and any other individuals who want to get a statement in this record. They should endeavor to do so by next Monday. After that time I would like the clerk of the committee to make the necessary arrangements to get the record printed at the earliest possible date.

This concludes our hearings. If there is some other witness who comes in this afternoon who wants to be heard give my office a call and I certainly will come over and hear him. But after today, unless I am overruled by the subcommittee, I intend to stick by my statement that I made at the outset, that the hearings would be concluded on the 29th day of February.

Tomorrow morning the subcommittee will meet at 9:30. We stand in recess until 9:30 in the morning.

(Congressman LeRoy H. Anderson submitted four letters in opposition to H.R. 9070.)

(Congressman Charles E. Bennett submitted a letter from E. M. Fillingham in opposition to H.R. 9070.)

(Congressman Joseph W. Barr submitted several telegrams in opposition to H.R. 9070.)

(Senator Margaret Chase Smith submitted two letters in opposition to H.R. 9070.)

(Telegrams submitted by Congressman Emilio Q. Daddario, in support of H.R. 9070 appear in the committee files.)

(Telegrams submitted by Congressman Frank Kowalski, in support of H.R. 9070 appear in the committee files.)

(Letters in support of H.R. 9070 were received by Chairman Perkins from the following: Thomas J. Holleran, Benjamin J. Petrone, Leslie E. Simpkins, Frank McConnell, John Gallen, Henry L. Hackenbery, W. A. Komula, John R. Myurator, Guerino Volpe, Everett Sanford, Willard R. Hess, L. Wilbursen, Louis Donoto, Stephen J. Secula, Paul E. Eberling, Christian Torre, Robert Gant, Alfred S. Gant, Ernie Haybo, Thomas J. Hood, John Sepelya, Eugene Rinker, Ted Kania, Raymond P. Stevens, Anthony Mahhiodi, Manfred Bucco, Edward Zienowicz, Rolet C. Josh, Paul E. Karney, John Bender, George F. Schildknecht, George W. Gant, John Verbeke, Kurt Frede, Bernard Lawlor, John P. C. MacDonald, William F. Miller, Frank Losurdo, Maurice Boileau, Frank S. Kuejacick, and Steve Stichy.)

(Chairman Barden received letters from the following in opposition to H.R. 9070: Southern Sash of Florida, Griffin & Byron, Inc., Federal Millwork, K.A. Strassburg, Wells-Fisher, Inc., Harry's Roofing, Montgomery-Barnett Construction Co., Victor A. Maffey, Latite Roofing Co., Inc., Robert J. Bissett Construction, Inc., Gable Roofing Co., Inc., Louis C. Menefee, Gas-Oil Products, Inc., Thomas A. Hodges Construction Co., Empire Terrazzo, Commercial Roof Decks, Inc., Chris A. Lucey, Florida Construction Co., Floridale Products, Inc., John R. Elwell Construction Co., Elliott McCauley Co., Inc., Caldwell-Scott, Industrial Metal Products, Inc., T. Ronald, superintendent, U.S. Concrete Pipe Co., Fort Lauderdale, Fla.: Gillis Block & Supply Co., Boca Raton, Fla.: A. J. Merkhofer, Lakeland, Fla.; Arthur J. Collins & Son, Inc., Oakland Park, Fla.; Thomas Pagan, Inc., Garden Builders, Inc., Zinke-Smith, Inc., Pompano Beach, Fla.; Klug & Smith Co., Milwaukee, Wis.; Elliott, Lee, Carney & Thomas, Beck Constructors, Seattle, Wash.; J. W. Morton, Ruston, La.) (The following material was submitted for the record:)