into the bill. It seems to me the way it is drawn it goes far beyozi that. Mr. MEANY. I don't think that was the intent. I think the Senate committee should correct that. If a loan is made for definite trade union purposes, I think it should be exempted. Mr. ROOSEVELT. I thank you. Mr. PUCINSKI. One final question. In the McClellan hearings I got the impression that a great many of the abuses that have bees brought to light have been caused by the so-called no man's land The chairman, sponsor of H.R. 4473, says that his bill would eliminate the no man's land. I do not see where it would. I was wor dering whether you have been able to find any instance where it would. Or perhaps you would like to define to us what do you construe no man's land to be? Mr. MEANY. I think the case of Florida is a good case in point. where they had a State labor relations act and the purpose of the State labor relations act-and I may be a little wrong on my details. but I think in general I am correct-the purpose of the State labor relations act was to give representation to workers through the instrumentality of a trade union for purposes of collective bargaining. However, the State law provided no`machinery for that, no måchinery for holding an election for representation purposes. Then we come along with an industry that, in the interpretation of interstate commerce, could be brought in under the national act and the National Labor Relations Board just simply says "We don't take jurisdiction." So that leaves the workers then in a no man's land. Mr. PUCINSKI. Right. Mr. MEANY. I think that is a perfect case as an example where the NLRB said we will not take jurisdiction over the collective bargaining problems and the representation problems in the hotel industry and the State law puts certain restrictions on unions; they could not picket, so and so forth, unless they had proved they had representation rights. But there was no machinery in the State law, none whatsoever, to ascertain whether the workers wanted any union to represent them or not. So here the workers were caught with an injunction against their activities, with the NLRB saying we won't go into this, we won't decide, we won't use our machinery to give you representation rights, and a State law which had no machinery to give them those rights. So they were caught in a no man's land. Mr. PUCINSKI. I am grateful to you for that explanation, because we have in Illinois some 2 million workers who are now living in a no man's land simply because of the arbitrary decisions of the NLRB. But I believe that the Kennedy bill does correct that to a great extent, does it not? Mr. MEANY. We think so, yes. Mr. PUCINSKI. Mr. Meany, I am grateful to you for your very informative answer. I am sure your testimony has proved helpful to me. Mr. MEANY. Thank you. Mr. PERKINS. On behalf of the committee I take this opportunity to thank you again and compliment you for coming before us and especially for giving us 6 hours of your valuable time. If there are no further questions, the committee is recessed at this time. Mr. MEANY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (Whereupon, at 12:50 p.m., the hearing was recessed, to reconvene at 10 a.m. the following day, Tuesday, March 17, 1959.) LABOR-MANAGEMENT REFORM LEGISLATION TUESDAY, MARCH 17, 1959 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, JOINT COMMITTEE ON LABOR-MANAGEMENT REFORM Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met at 10:15 a.m., pursuant to recess, in room 429, Old House Office Building, Hon. Carl T. Perkins (cochairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Present: Representatives Perkins (cochairman of the subcommitstee), Wier, Teller, Dent, Pucinski, Kearns, Hoffman, 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. We have with us this morning Mr. Gerard Reilly, who is representing the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Many of the members of the committee who have been acquainted with Mr. Reilly in the past, particularly those of us that were here in 1949, know that Mr. Reilly is one of the experts on labor-management relations problems. He was the counsel for the Senate committee at the time the Taft-Hartley Act was written, and took a great part in the writing of the Taft-Hartley law. I am sure, Mr. Reilly, that the members of the committee welcome you here this morning. You may proceed in any manner you wish. STATEMENT OF GERARD D. REILLY, LABOR RELATIONS COMMITTEE, U.S. CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, ACCOMPANIED BY WILLIAM B. BARTON, GENERAL COUNSEL, U.S. CHAMBER OF COMMERCE Mr. REILLY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I have with me here Mr. William B. Barton, general counsel of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. If it is agreeable with the committee, I would like to read a good deal of the statement, but I will summarize some parts of it because I realize it is quite lengthy. Mr. PERKINS. We will insert the full text of the statement in the record. You may proceed. Mr. REILLY. I appreciate that very much. 38488-59-pt. 1——19 285 I am appearing here today in behalf of the U.S. Chamber of Comerce, as I have been chairman during the past year of the suboonmittee on labor legislation. The chamber is a federation of 3,300 local and State chambers of commerce and professional and trade associations which have a men bership of 2,600,000 businessmen. The businessmen whom we represent, and their customers whom we wish to protect, are deeply concerned with the measures this com mittee is considering which are intended to correct abuses and elimi nate corrupt practices in the field of labor-management relations. Fr this reason we appreciate this opportunity to express our views on the major bills which have been referred to your committee. The chamber, far from being opposed to reform legislation in this field, is whole-heartedly in favor of congressional action which would (1) free workers from having their rights trampled upon by either employers or union officials, and (2) would effectively remove racketeers and other dishonest persons from union office and restore to rank and file members the control of the great labor organizations which by law enjoy the right to negotiate exclusively for the wages and working conditions applicable to millions of employees in every branch of American industry. Accordingly our position is that any thoroughgoing labor reform bill reported by your committee should be drawn with three general objectives in mind. 1. Elimination of union pressures which have as their object tempting or compelling employers to deal with unions not of the choosing of their own employees. This would mean, of course, the establishment of effective remedies against secondary boycotts and organizational picketing. 2. Safeguarding the right of union members to participate in the internal policies of their unions, the election and recall of union officers, and freedom from the arbitrary imposition of union fines, penalties, and other so-called disciplinary actions. 3. Protection of union funds through the imposition of fiduciary standards upon union officials and accounting and reporting requirements with regard to receipts and expenditures. We have placed the first objective at the head of our list because of its essential relationship to our basic national policy embodied in section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act, viz, the right of employees to be free from interference in the manner of selecting or rejecting bargaining representatives. The hearings of the McClellan committee have revealed two major weaknesses in existing law in this respect which clamor for correction. Time after time, these hearings have disclosed that the provisions in the Taft-Hartley Act which fail to prohibit certain types of organizational picketing and secondary boycotts have been used by racketeering leaders, quite without regard to the wishes of employees to seize economic power in our great metropolitan centers and to make a mockery of the basic principle of freedom of choice. No matter how effective any piece of legislation might be in improving the standards of honesty among union officials and promoting democratic processes in unions, the most important freedom of the worker is still in jeopardy if the labor organizations and employers in combination may continue to force em |