UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Harrison, George M., president, Brotherhood of Railway and Steam- ship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employees, accompanied by Edward J. Hickey, Jr., general counsel for the Rail- way Labor Executives Association__. Jones, Roland, president, American Retail Federation___. Mahon, Don., secretary, National Independent Union Council__ Meany, George, president, AFL-CIO_. Meany, George, president, American Federation of Labor-Congress of Industrial Organizations, accompanied by J. Albert Woll, general counsel, Thomas E. Harris, associate general counsel, and Andrew Mitchell, Hon. James P., Secretary of Labor, accompanied by Stuart Reilly, Gerald D., labor relations committee, U.S. Chamber of Com- merce, accompanied by William B. Barton, general counsel, U.S. Rothman, Stuart, Solicitor, U.S. Department of Labor_. 1, 58 160, 186 Schmidt, Godfrey P., New Rochelle, N.Y., member of the board of Strand, Mrs. Mae, assistant buyer and sales clerk, Maurice-Albenberg, 358, 380 Harrison, George M., president, Brotherhood of Railway and Steam- ship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employees‒‒‒‒ Hoffman, Hon. Clare E., a Representative in Congress from the State Analysis of of letters received by Mr. Hoffman from members of 226 225 Letters, prepared and supplementary statements, etc.-Continued Hoffman, Hon. Clare E.-Continued Supreme Court of the United States, No. 86.-October Term, 1952. Local Union No. 10, United Association of Journeymen Plumbers and Steamfitters of the United States and Canada of the Ameri- can Federation of Labor, et al., Petitioners, v. O. J. Graham, O. T. Graham, and E. M. Graham, Partners, Trading as Graham Brothers. On Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of Ap- Page peals of the Commonwealth of Virginia [March 16, 1953.)---- 232, 235 Meany, George, president, AFL-CIO____ Mitchell, Hon. James P., Secretary of Labor, letter, regarding testi- Reilly, Gerard D., labor relations committee, Chamber of Commerce 99 444 LABOR-MANAGEMENT REFORM LEGISLATION WEDNESDAY, MARCH 4, 1959 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, JOINT SUBCOMMITTEE ON LABOR-MANAGEMENT REFORM Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met at 10 a.m., pursuant to call, in room 429, House Office Building, Hon. Carl D. Perkins (cochairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Present: Representatives Barden, chairman, full committee, Bailey, Wier, Landrum, Roosevelt, Udall, Holland, Teller, Dent, Pucinski, Daniels, Brademas, Kearns, Hoffman, Frelinghuysen, Ayres, Griffin, and Hiestand. Present also: Russell C. Derrickson, acting clerk, full committee; Charles M. Ryan, general counsel; Melvin W. Sneed, minority clerk; Kenneth C. McGuiness, labor consultant to minority members; and W. Wilson Young, subcommittee clerk. Mr. PERKINS. The committee will come to order. I want to say at the outset that we have tried to obtain a larger room in view of the trade and building representatives visiting the hearings this morning from throughout the country, but we have not been able to get a larger room. Everything is being occupied today. We regret the circumstance, but we will have to do the best we can. We are glad to have with us this morning the Secretary of Labor, Secretary Mitchell, to explain the views of the administration on labor-management relations. You may proceed in any manner you desire, Mr. Secretary. STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES P. MITCHELL, SECRETARY OF LABOR; ACCOMPANIED BY STUART ROTHMAN, SOLICITOR, AND WILLIAM T. EVANS, OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR Secretary MITCHELL. With me is Mr. Rothman, Solicitor of the Labor Department, and Mr. Evans, of the Department. Mr. Chairman, I would like to, if I may, read my statement and then subject myself to questions. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I am pleased to be here to discuss with this joint subcommitttee the administration's proposals for legislation to deal with corruption and improper practices of unions, employers, and their representatives in the labor and management fields. Before we get into a discussion of the differences between the bills before this committee, let me stress these central ideas: First, it is my conviction that the vast majority of union members in this country, and the vast majority of union officials in this country, are honest, industrious Americans, the officials interested in the welfare of their people, and the members interested in performing their jobs. However, I think we must get on the books this year legislation which deals carefully and completely with the following problems: Corruption affecting management-union relations, and in the internal affairs of unions. Use of blackmail picketing and improper use of secondary boycotts. Giving workers and employers a place to seek redress of injustice by closing the gap between Federal and State jurisdiction, thus eliminating the so-called no man's land. I will discuss in detail what I believe to be the advantages of the administration's approach. In general, it avoids extremes. Legislation can try to do too much and cause new problems. It can dodge existing problems and leave the public unprotected. The administration's proposals are neither too heavy handed nor too hesitant. They do the job. I have come here in the hope that from a close study of different approaches, we may carry good labor-management reform legislation closer to enactment. To make comparisons as clear as possible, I will discuss Mr. Kearns' bill, H.R. 3540, which contains the administration's proposals; Mrs. Green's bill, H.R. 3302, which represents another main type; and H.R. 4473 and H.R. 4474, both introduced by Chairman Barden of this committee, representing a third approach. All three undertake, although by somewhat different means, to provide better assurance that labor organizations will function democratically and be responsive to the will of their members. All three would provide, again in somewhat different ways, for disclosure of transactions in which improper labor-management practices have occurred under cover of secrecy, so as to prevent such practices or make possible prompt corrective action through opening them to public scrutiny. In addition to differences in how these objectives would be carried out, there are also differences as to whether certain proposals must be included in legislation dealing with the true reform of abuses of labor and management practices. The Taft-Hartley Act, of course, will be amended by any legislation which would change the reporting requirements from those now in that act. The approach proposed by the administration, which was outlined in the President's labor message of January 28, is that contained in H.R. 3540, introduced by Mr. Kearns, and in the similar bills introduced by nine other Congressmen, including Mr. Ayres, Mr. Griffin, and Mr. Hiestand, members of this joint subcommittee. The bills H.R. 4473 and H.R. 4474 introduced by Chairman Barden of this committee, and the bills such as H.R. 3302, introduced by Mrs. Green, represent the other two main approaches to the problem of labor reform legislation. If the three types of proposals are laid side by side for purposes of overall comparison, I believe it will become evident that the administration's proposal represents the fairest, the best balanced, and the soundest legislative approach to dealing with disclosed abuses in the field of labor-management practices. |