people the officers I am speaking of, of course is the best way to get the job well done. The people by nature are honest, the great majority of them. And the people who work in factories and plants we think are average.

Chairman BARDEN. That is all right. You are talking about the great American people when you are talking about those folks. But has it worked with Hoffa, Dave Beck, and the rest of those fellows like them?

Mr. MAHON. Congressman, I do not claim to be able to speak for those unions. Their record is well known. I have about all I can do to try to handle the business of these small unions. That is what I am trying to do. We think that the record shows that where they have had this right protected that they have taken care of it and when people were not doing a satisfactory job they eliminated them and they went on. They have not made headlines over there before the McClellan committee either.

Chairman BARDEN. This is what I believe in with all my heart. I believe that if this Congress will give the proper recognition to ways for the average unionman to protect himself, he will go and not only protect himself but contribute to the welfare of his union, just like your men, by taking part in the running of that activity. Now that is my belief. Maybe I am wrong. But I believe that the more authority and the more democracy you put in the hands of the average rank and file union, the cleaner your outfit will be, and I use yours as a perfect illustration.

Mr. MAHON. I appreciate that, Congressman, and I believe we have demonstrated it. That is why you notice my proposals have been directed toward making it easier and more desirable for this local person to hold local union office and not scare him to death with a bunch of criminal penalties which are attached if he does not file the right form at the right time or put down the right figure or something like that.

Chairman BARDEN. Now, I am not going to set any steel trap for anybody. In working over this bill in detail you can rest assured I am not going to knowingly or intentionally leave any gadgets in there that will grab up some fellow for a mistake he made.

Mr. MAHON. I appreciate that. We have been through a running battle with the Labor Board for the last year over a similar situation. If I may, let me cite this as an illustration of why we are afraid of the administration of these laws.

The Labor Board for a long time recognized 5-year contracts in certain industries, the automobile industry for one. You may recall that. One of our independents signed a 5-year contract, and it was thrown out because, they said, that is not the major part of the industry. It was one of the big companies, Autolite, in fact. So they broke that 5-year contract with this little independent.

Last year we filed some 80 petitions I say we, I am talking about unions either associated or affiliated with the independents-on General Motors, Chrysler, and Ford plants.

The Labor Board had a meeting out in Detroit and they, in spite of what we thought was very clear wording in the act, which said that employees shall be certified in the plant, department, craft, or subdivision thereof, in spite of the language in the act the Board threw

out all of these petitions because they said there was a multiplant pattern in the automobile industry and in order for these petitions to be honored they would have to go out and get everybody in that category.

In the General Motors plants that came under the Auto Workers contract. That is what they called the multiplant doctrine.

We turned around and signed a contract, a so-called master agreement on a number of plants that belonged to the same company. One of the big unions came along and decided to carve out a unit. They said we will carve this one out because in this particular case that is not a major part of the industry represented here and we have set up a new board policy and although you have a 3-year contract in effect we have determined that anything beyond 2 years shall not be a bar to election, so they knock off this plant two-thirds through a 3-year

contract.

So these rules are subject to change even retroactively.

That is why, Mr. Barden, we are so reluctant to go along with administration of laws by people who are left to use their own discretion as to the rules. That is why we are trying to exempt our people from

that.

Chairman BARDEN. Mr. Mahon, I know there is not any other man who has ever sat around this table who is more reluctant to give discretionary power to administrators. When we come out with a final law there will very likely be some power vested in the administrator. but it won't be any retroactive power and what is in there has a good chance of being polished up a little bit.

Somewhere in there somebody must have some authority.

Mr. MAHON. That is inescapable, I agree with you.

I would like to make one more comment, Mr. Barden.

I appeared before the committee here in 1947 when the Wagner Act was amended. Among other people Senator Taft recognized that there was a dual standard that has been exercised between independent unions and international unions, so-called.

As a result of that they wrote into the Taft-Hartley Act that there must be equal treatment at least on unfair labor practice charges, but there still unfortunately exists this dual standard I have referred to, like General Motors and master agreement cases. I hope that when this legislation comes out that there won't be any of that in it.

I have seen one indication that there was some consideration being given to it. I think in one of the bills, and I know some of you fellows who are expert in it can tell me which one it is, there is a limitation of 3 years for local officers, which, of course, would cover all independent unions practically, but there are four or five proposed for so-called national or international officers. It does sort of make a distinction.

Chairman BARDEN. That is, that they have elections?

Mr. MAHON. Yes, sir.

Chairman BARDEN. You know there is some basis for that?
Mr. MAHON. No doubt.

Chairman BARDEN. Those fellows across the way answer to the people once every 6 years. We do every 2 years. Our Governor is elected once every 4 years, and the legislature is elected every 2 years The basis with me was that there was something about the time they

held the bigger conventions. In your local unions, within a union you can set that out within the law, but I remember spending some time discussing that very feature with Mr. Ryan. What we were trying to do was fit the pattern in some way so that the local could have a pretty free way to elect their officers and so forth. Frankly, what I was trying to do was make it fit the general pattern of organization at the present time.

Mr. MAHON. I was not finding fault with that part of it, Congressman. We recognize that because some of our unions work that same way. The only fear I had was that it appeared there was some distinction between the local union and the large so-called international union and there was one place where I could see the difference, in the term of office. It is not that I disagree with that. I realize that where conventions are held and it costs a lot of money for a union to send its delegates, or the international to send them.

One thing I was hoping was that in this new law there would be definite language in there, there would not be a definite standard for one union that might have one local as opposed to the union that might have 10 or 100.

Chairman BARDEN. I can see how you can feel a little sensitive as to that, but it had not crossed my mind. I want to assure you that that was not the basis. The basis for that difference in time was to try to fit the pattern of organization as it is now.

Mr. MAHON. We have no dispute with that. We recognize that, too. The only thing we wanted was, so that it would be in the record, that so far as the standards that apply to local unions, they will be the same as apply to a national union. In other words, this criterion that the Labor Board uses now says that in order to be recognized in the Department of Labor-and we have talked to Mr. Mitchell about this and he apparently resents it, but we have always claimed that if a union was certified under the law and recognized that it was entitled to recognition. They have this directory of unions in the United States, national and international unions they call them, and in this directory I can show you unions with less than 100 members that are considered international unions. I can show you organizations affiliated with us with thousands of members that are not so listed because they do not happen to have locals in more than one State or contracts with more than one company or more than one local.

Chairman BARDEN. Just trading ideas and that is what we are holding hearings for, that is why I go to them, just trading ideas, you have pretty strict requirements to meet for your tax exemption purposes, do you not?

Mr. MAHON. That is right.

Chairman BARDEN. Just throwing this out, why would that not be sufficient determination that a union is a union already without leaving to the discretion of the Secretary of Labor to say which is a union and which is not?

Mr. MAHON. That is one of them.

Mr. PUCINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I do not quite understand. How would you follow that up? Would you have the Internal Revenue people then police these locals to see whether or not they come within the prerequisites of a tax exemption?

Chairman BARDEN. They already police it. The getting up and keeping up of your records and so forth that qualifies you for that tax treatment is a tremendous job.

Mr. MAHON. Yes, it is. We file it every year.

Chairman BARDEN. It is tremendous, it is detailed, very inquiring, and very exacting, too.

me.

Mr. MAHON. Yes, sir.

Chairman BARDEN. Now, just momentarily, that makes sense to

Mr. PUCINSKI. You have not finished it, Mr. Chairman. Your point is well taken, but what do you want to do with it now? I do not quite understand. It is true that these people make these very exhaustive reports in order to qualify for a tax exemption. The witness has said that it is true, but I do not quite understand what you are suggesting as a followup on it.

Chairman BARDEN. Here is the point that was under discussion. Mr. Mahon is reporting here, and to my own knowledge there is some tendency toward just not recognizing his union as a union and not recognizing them on boards and things of that kind. If what just pops in my head momentarily, and I have not gone into it, but instead of the Secretary of Labor saying, to take an extreme, that he won't recognize but just two unions, the CIO and the AFL, instead of that we will relieve him of that trouble, and if the Bureau of Internal Revenue grants that exemption to a union, then the only basis on earth for them granting it is that they are a union and if they are a union, then they are entitled to the same recognition, whether they have 30 million or 30,000.

Mr. PUCINSKI. Then, Mr. Chairman, following your logic, and it is a good one, I have no quarrel with it, I was wondering, would you want to carry it to the next step? The witness here has expressed grave concern about this requirement that unions must report their financial standing and he claims that it puts them in an unfavorable or difficult bargaining position in negotiations.

Would you want to carry that to its next logical conclusion, your point now, that if the union satisfies the Internal Revenue Bureau in its exhaustive report for a tax exemption, that the funds of that union are being properly handled, that you would then be willing to exclude that union from making a public disclosure of its financial position? You have already satisfied under oath the Internal Revenue people that there are no shennanigans going on there as regards that money.

I was wondering if you wanted to carry it to the next logical step. Chairman BARDEN. No, I would not want to go that far. Of course, the Teamsters, for instance, with all of their shennanigans, have been getting tax exemption. That is from the standpoint of the operation of the union, you see. Then certainly they are not guaranteeing the purity of the situation. When they make that grant of tax exemption they go to the qualifications of the union as a union. Isn't that right, Mr. Mahon?

Mr. MAHON. We have to swear to that, yes.

Chairman BARDEN. Listen, you already right now make a report worse than anything in the Barden bill.

Mr. MAHON. It is not published though, Congressman. That report that we make to the Internal Revenue is not published.

Chairman BARDEN. There is no reason why it should not have been. There is no word of law against it.

Mr. MAHON. That is probably true, but the information to the best of my knowledge is not publicized.

Mr. HIESTAND. Will the chairman yield?
Chairman BARDEN. Yes.

Mr. HIESTAND. Mr. Mahon, about how many of your unions are now recognized by the Board?

Mr. MAHON. So far as I know, all of them have recognition.

Mr. HIESTAND. That is, they are all eligible for protection, socalled?

Mr. MAHON. They maintain compliance with the Labor Management Relations Act. A great preponderance of them have been certified. They are all recognized, of course. Those that do not come

under interstate naturally are not certified by the board. Mr. HIESTAND. About all the interstate ones are?

Mr. MAHON. That is right.

Mr. HIESTAND. Thank you.

Mr. PUCINSKI. Will the chairman yield for a question?
Chairman BARDEN. Yes.

Mr. PUCINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I would like to pursue that further because I think you have really brought up a very important subject and one which I think could possibly be very valuable to this whole committee, where you have pointed out that the Teamsters Union is now getting exemption, that is, they are tax exempt, they file their reports to the Internal Revenue people and everything else.

In these many discussions here we have frequently said that local authorities have failed to do a job, Federal authorities have failed to do a job. Perhaps we have overlooked one area.

Perhaps the Internal Revenue people could take some action to get behind many of these abuses that we are now trying to correct with this very complicated legislation. You opened the subject and it is a fascinating subject. I never thought of it that way.

Chairman BARDEN. I would not want to impose an administrative activity on the Internal Revenue Department other than their interest into the question of whether or not it is a legitimate union. Of course, your reporting is pointed at cleaning out the monkeys that steal the cash and so forth.

Frankly, I have never regarded that as an absolute remedy for the simple reason that in the Taft-Hartley Act, you have to report everything. I don't think they overlooked anything.

Do you think so, Mr. Mahon?

Mr. MAHON. The way it is broken down it is pretty complete, I would say.

Chairman BARDEN. They have been giving them for all these years and I bet there are two warehouses full that have been received by the Labor Department and, yet, everybody tries to act like it was absolutely news and nobody knew anything about this rascality that has been going on in these reports in the warehouse.

Mr. PUCINSKI. The reason I raise this question, Mr. Chairman, is that in this legislation requiring this very exhaustive reporting of all financial transactions of the respective unions, I presume that the purpose of these reports is to ascertain whether or not the funds that