munist affidavits, and by filing and publishing to members its financial statements, then the union pickets instead of going to the Board.

It is unreasonable and illogical to permit a union to picket for recognition when, if it is entitled to recognition, it can attain its ends peacefully, and with the full backing of the Federal Government, and this is all more logical since the purpose of the picketing may be to force the employer to commit an unfair labor practice by recognizing a minority union.

We would now like to address ourselves generally to the various bills before you for consideration, such as:

H.R. 3302, Congresswoman Green; H.R. 3372, Congressman Roosevelt; H.R. 3711, Congressman Bowles; H.R. 4610, Congressman Udall; H.R. 3028, Congressman McGovern; H.R. 3766, Congressman Thompson; H.R. 3450, Congressman Kearns; H.R. 4473, Congressman Barden; H.R. 4474, Congressman Barden; H.R. 5545, Congressman Lafore.

These bills all have good features, some better than others.

We will not attempt to analyze these bills in detail because they have been analyzed by preceding witnesses far more expert in the field. These bills are not perfect in any sense, each has its defects and it goes without saying that none of the bills pleases all parties in interest.

As a distinguished member of your body once said:

I have the perfect piece of legislation-it pleases no one.

We have no doubt the committee will, after careful study of the bills, and the various witnesses' testimony, come up with a composite bill with something borrowed from each. We would, therefore, submit the following suggestions. We believe that any legislation to be worthwhile should have as its basic objectives:

(a) The prevention of corrupt practices on the part of both labor and management. We feel that the cure for the corruption disclosed by the McClellan committee lies in Mr. Barden's bill, H.R. 4473, which Mr. Barden refers to as the bill of rights for the rank and file union members.

In our opinion, H.R. 4473 is the best calculated to protect the rank and file union members and, at the same time, put management on notice that any fraudulent dealings with union officials will be dealt with severely.

(b) The outlawing of the organizational picketing. We feel the bills best calculated to accomplish this are again the Barden bill, H.R. 4474, and the Lafore bill, H.R. 5545.

(c) Plugging up the loopholes in the Taft-Hartley Act with respect to secondary boycotts. Again, we feel the bill best calculated to plug these loopholes are the Barden bills.

It is true that Mr. Kearns' bill, H.R. 3540, addresses itself to organizational picketing and secondary boycotts, but, to our mind, it loes not go as far as the Barden and Lafore bills.

For example, the Kearns bill makes no provision for "hot cargo"

contracts.

(d) Elimination of the no man's land jurisdictional problem. We believe that no situation should arise wherein either management or abor is without a forum to present its grievances. This no man's and jurisdictional issue is treated in the Kennedy bill, S. 1555, the Barden bill, H.R. 4474, and the Kearns bill, H.R. 3540.

The big problem concerning no man's land jurisdiction arises from the Federal preemption doctrine. This doctrine, as you know, ws reaffirmed in the Garner and Guss cases by the United States Supreme Court. Under the doctrine, State courts cannot take jurisdiction when the National Labor Relations Board fails to exercise the juris diction given to it under the National Labor Relations Act. This leaves a large part of the restaurant industry, essentially small busi ness, without protection. Both management and labor suffer.

We would like now to say a few words concerning section 103 of the Kennedy-McGovern bills, known as the employer reporting section We feel the language in these two bills is too broadly written. Since the right to organize and bargain collectively and the manner in which the right is exercised covers a wide range of activities, pract cally anything that an employer does that has any impact on his employees may be said to have some persuasive effect upon the matter of exercising such rights and would have to be reported.

We feel it is vitally essential that the provision in Mr. Barden's bill, H.R. 4473, which would repect the lawyer-client relationship in labor relations matters, should be included in any bill reported by

this committee.

The Kennedy-McGovern bills violate one of the landmarks of our American system in requiring reports on the confidential lawyerclient relationship.

We have no desire to presume on the time of the committee and will conclude by saying that, like every other right-thinking and decent American citizen and businessman, the National Restaurant Associa tion wholeheartedly supports legislation which will eliminate the vicious abuses on the part of both labor and management revealed over the last few years by the McClellan committee-legislation, if you will, that will return the unions to the rank and file, thereby giving the members their inalienable democratic right to a voice in the affairs of their particular union.

We also support legislation that will stamp out the vicious practice of organizational and recognition picketing, as well as legislation plugging loopholes in the Taft-Hartley Act regarding secondary boycotts-loopholes that were never intended or in contemplation when the Congress enacted the Taft-Hartley amendments in 1947.

Again we say, while there are meritorious features in all the bills before you, we feel the legislation drafted by Chairman Barden and the Labor Committee staff, as set out in H.R. 4473 and H.R. 4474, would be a giant step in curing the present ills in the labor-manage ment field; and we endorse both bills."

We appreciate the opportunity of presenting our views in behalf of the National Restaurant Association. Thank you, gentlemen. Mr. PERKINS. Are there any questions, Mr. Landrum?

Mr. LANDRUM. What percentage of your two hundred thousand-odd members are staffed by people belonging to the unions?

Mr. POWER. I do not have any real valid figures on that, Congressman. I know some areas, Congressman, are almost completely union-for instance, on the west coast and in the New York City area. But I don't know if there are any real valid figures anywhere on total unionization.

Mr. LANDRUM. Is it true that in the larger cities, or in the metropolitan areas, most of your restaurants are staffed by members of organized labor unions?"

Mr. POWER. I would say that in the North. I do not think that is particularly true in the South.

Mr. LANDRUM. That is all I have right now, Mr. Perkins.

Mr. PERKINS. Mr. Griffin?

Mr. GRIFFIN. I do not have any questions, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. PERKINS. Mr. Wier?

Mr. WIER. I would like to ask you one question.

Were any of your associations involved in the Miami hotel strike a year ago?

Mr. POWER. No; none of our associations were involved in the strike. Mr. WIER. That was strictly hotels?

Mr. POWER. Some of the members of the Hotel Association might also be members of the National Restaurant Association. I believe one or two were. But, generally, a hotel that is in both the restaurant business and in the hotel business will belong to both the American Hotel Association and the National Restaurant Association.

Mr. WIER. The hotel and restaurant employees local unions have jurisdiction over both hotels and restaurants?

Mr. POWER. That is correct.

Mr. WIER. Whether in separate business or in combination?
Mr. POWER. That is right.

Mr. WIER. You said that you perhaps take in some of the hotels that have eating places as members of your association?

Mr. POWER. Yes.

Mr. WIER. Are you familiar with that association down in Miami? Mr. POWER. I am, but only from reading the labor reports.

Mr. WIER. Listening to your comment there about the no man's land-that is quite an issue in Miami. The National Labor Relations Board felt that they had no jurisdiction and still you say here that you want the jurisdiction to be thoroughly made known.

And I assume that you prefer the National Labor Relations Board to have jurisdiction over the hotel and restaurants?

Mr. POWER. No; I did not say that, Congressman.

Mr. WIER. I will ask you that, then?

Mr. POWER. I could not answer in behalf of the National Restaurant Association because we discussed that question and we could not really arrive at a decision ourselves. There was a conflict of authority among our own group whether or not they preferred the National Labor Relations Board or the State agencies, or the State courts. Mr. WIER. That is what I am wondering.

Mr. POWER. The same conflict exists within the group of restaurant operators. In the North they prefer the National Labor Relations Board, generally speaking.

Mr. WIER. I can understand that.

Mr. POWER. Well, they are normal.

Mr. WIER. In our State I think both the hotels and restaurants prefer the State labor department.

Mr. POWER. I would say that is true the majority of the time.
Mr. WIER. In the first place, they get quicker action there.
Mr. POWER. That is true.

Mr. LANDRUM. In these instances you have cited as examples here and any others for that matter, was there any dispute between thr management and the employees of any of those restaurants as to the wages being paid or the hours being worked.

Mr. POWER. No, there were no labor disputes involved in any of these.

Mr. LANDRUM. Was there any effort on the part of the union agens or organizers to increase the amount of wages being paid in a partier lar restaurant they were picketing or reduce the number of hous worked?

Mr. POWER. In none of these instances we are speaking of did the union represent the employees.

Mr. LANDRUM. What was the basis of their putting in a picket line! Mr. POWER. They were trying to organize.

Mr. LANDRUM. They just wanted members?

Mr. POWER. That is right.

Mr. LANDRUM. They were not holding out any particular gain for the employees of the restaurant except if you can call membership in the union a gain; is that correct?

Mr. POWER. I would say that is true, Congressman.

Mr. WIER. Let me supplement that, if I may. I think what Mr. Landrum is trying to determine is whether there were demands made at the same time that there was picketing. I think it is customary that before you can make any demands on any employer that you have to get a consent election, a representational election. Then you propose your contract.

Mr. LANDRUM. The truth, Mr. Wier, is simply that they were out trying to bludgeon these people into joining the union and they were not offering them any inducement. It is just that they come there to club you over the head with a blackjack.

Mr. WIER. No, I would not agree with that, Mr. Landrum, because I could pick out, let us say, Thompson's Restaurant here, or any other group of restaurants, and call a meeting of the employees or what employees I could assemble and tell them what our hopes were. I might not be able to sign any of them up at that time because of fear.

Mr. POWER. There was in that case in Utah, for instance, an effort to contact the employees and tell them what the hopes were, but there was no success, the employees did not show up at the meeting.

The second step was to go out and picket without a contract.
Mr. LANDRUM. That is possible.

Mr. PERKINS. Mr. Ayres.

Mr. AYRES. Out of these 200,000 restaurants, do you have any of them, or how many of them have bars?

Mr. POWER. How many have bars?

Mr. AYRES. I do not mean that from a personal interest, but do you have a list of them?

Mr. POWER. No; I really don't know. When we accept a member, we are only interested in whether or not he serves food. We don't have anything to do with the bar or liquor element at all.

Mr. AYRES. Do you have any controversy between the bartenders organizing, and the waitresses?

Mr. POWER. Not that I am aware of. I am sure it exists, but I am not aware of any particular controversy between the two.

I know there are some restaurants that have union jurisdictional ɔroblems.

Mr. AYRES. Does your organization deal with one union when they are negotiating for the bartenders and waitresses?

Mr. POWER. We don't deal with the unions ourselves. The national loes not. Some of the local and State, or, particularly, I would say, the local restaurant associations, do bargain collectively in behalf of several members of a particular group.

Mr. AYRES. You do not get into the field where the waitresses are complaining that they make so much less than the bartender? You do not get into that controversy!

Mr. POWER. NO. Some of the restaurant operators might, but we lo not, as an organization.

Mr. AYRES. I know a restaurant in the Middle West where there is a picket line up, sponsored by the waitresses and bartenders, trying to get them to take it down because they are very happy with the conract they have negotiated.

Mr. POWER. I am not familiar with it enough to know. I know here are some jurisdictional problems between one union and another inion in the same establishment on occasion.

Mr. AYRES. It is most unfair to the employer when they throw a picket line up outside?

Mr. POWER. Yes; it is.

Mr. AYRES. Of course, the bartender is very unhappy, but he is working not only on a salary but a percentage. A lot of people will not cross the line.

Mr. POWER. Absolutely.

Mr. AYRES. That is all I have.

Mr. PERKINS. Mr. Roosevelt.

Mr. ROOSEVELT. Mr. Chairman, I am sorry that I was not here to hear all of Mr. Power's statement. But I will read your testimony with great care.

I have no questions at this time.

Mr. PERKINS. Mr. Hoffman.

Mr. HOFFMAN. I don't have very many questions, if Mr. Griffin wants to go ahead.

Mr. GRIFFIN. I do not have any questions.

Mr. HOFFMAN. When did the restaurant people and the bartenders come under the labor legislation?

Mr. POWER. Under the National Labor Relations Act?

Mr. HOFFMAN. Yes.

Mr. POWER. The most recent one would be October 2.

Mr. HOFFMAN. No, when did they first come under it?

Mr. POWER. I am sorry, Congressman, I could not answer that. Mr. HOFFMAN. There was a period when they were not under the ct; is that not so?

Mr. POWER. I think you are thinking of the hotels now, sir. Mr. HOFFMAN. Yes, but at the same time of the hearing for the hotels, do you remember who was president of the hotel association at that time? Someone from Lansing, Mich.