Mr. POWER. I don't remember his name.

Mr. HOFFMAN. At that same time when there was a hearing here there was also a representative of the bartenders and the restaurants and the same ruling was made by Mr. Denham as to both. None of the three was under it. Do you know when that rule was changed? Mr. POWER. I know as of October 2, 1958, the restaurants doing an annual volume of business in excess of $500,000, the NLRB will take jurisdiction.

But prior to that date even there was another standard used on the direct inflow of goods from out of State and on interstate business itself, used by the National Labor Relations Board that made restaurants come under the act.

Mr. HOFFMAN. But you do not recall that date?

Mr. POWER. No, I do not recall the initial date. I frankly thought that there was never any exclusion of restaurants as there has been of hotels as a matter of policy by the National Labor Relations Board.

Mr. HOFFMAN. I recall that the restaurant and the bartenders representative was here at that hearing. I assumed that Mr. Denham's ruling applied not only to the hotels, but to the restaurants and to the bartenders.

Mr. POWER. I suppose you are talking about the Restaurant and Bartenders Union, something of that nature.

Mr. HOFFMAN. There was a Bartenders Union representative, & small fellow.

Mr. POWER. He would be in hotels.

Mr. HOFFMAN. No, not necessarily so. He was a bartender. He represented a Bartenders Union.

Mr. POWER. There would be several bartenders in hotels.

Mr. HOFFMAN. Yes.

Mr. POWER. That would have a sufficient interest to have the hotel industry covered as well as the restaurant industry.

Mr. HOFFMAN. Now, with respect to this statement on page 1. organizational picketing, by that do you mean where one union is attempting, though it has no members there, to force the employees who are working to join, say, Union A?

Mr. POWER. That is in principle what I am referring to.

Mr. HOFFMAN. Do you mean anything else?

Mr. POWER. I mean an instance where a union might picket a restaurant, a minority union might come in and picket the establishment that has a majority union.

I am also referring to instances where there is no union in the establishment and a union would come in and set up organizational picketing for the purpose of organizing a union.

Mr. HOFFMAN. Assume this situation: The gentleman on your left is an employee where there is no union. I represent a union. You are the employer. I come in and picket your business to force him to belong to the union of which I am a member. What is the purpose? Mr. POWER. The purpose in picketing?

Mr. HOFFMAN. Yes.

Mr. POWER. To force him to join the union.

Mr. HOFFMAN. Why do I want him into my union?

WER. I would think from the practical standpoint the princion is to obtain the dues contribution that he would be regive your union.

FFMAN. I would get the dues he is paying in?

WER. That is right; that is what I would think, sir.

FFMAN. If I belonged to a minority group the purpose is the t not?

WER. Yes.

OFFMAN. Do you know how that has been described? That ›, the objective.

WER. No; I am not sure what you are referring to.

OFFMAN. You are familiar with the case wherein a dispinion of the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court deas highway robbery?

WER. Yes, I am.

FFMAN. Í call your attention to another one-and I ask perput it in the record at this point, a summary of the decision ichigan Supreme Court where the opinion was written by

irr.

KINS. Without objection, that may be done at this point. al referred to will be filed with subcommittee clerk when

.)

FFMAN. Now, the U.S. District Judge for the Western Disichigan, Southern Division, described it as being highway That was the Supreme Court Justice. Our Justice said a galized extortion.

VER. I am familiar with that.

FFMAN. Do you know any other objective except to get the case where the employer has no employee who belongs to a ere he has no employee who wants to join the union, at ot signified any desire.

in with my pickets and goons-let us leave out the goonsful picketing. Is there any other objective that you can

VER. Well, there might be some personal gain, individual

MAN. What do you mean by that?

VER. I mean that the union business agent or the union t be looking for personal gain, for graft.

FMAN. You mean he might want to induce the employer Oss?

ER. Yes, pay off picketing.

MAN. Of course, he might have strong religious and charis and want to help the poor fellow who does not know elp himself.

CR. That is possible.

MAN. Do you know any case where that has occurred? ER. Where the union's motivation was to help a poor fellow have sense enough to help himself?

MAN. Yes.

R. No, I don't.

MAN. I think that is all.

INS. Are there any further questions? 59-pt. 2 -8

If there are no further questions, the witness will be excused. Thank you very much, Mr. Power.

Mr. POWER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. PERKINS. The next witness is Mr. Herbert W. Voorhees, president of the New Jersey Farm Bureau, together with Mr. Matt Trigg of the American Farm Bureau, their representative in Washington STATEMENTS OF HERBERT W. VOORHEES, PRESIDENT, NEW JERSEY FARM BUREAU, MEMBER OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE AMERICAN FARM BUREAU FEDERATION, AND MATT TRIGGS, WASHINGTON REPRESENTATIVE, THE AMERICAN FARM BUREAU FEDERATION

Mr. VOORHEES. My name is Herbert W. Voorhees, president of the New Jersey Farm Bureau, and member of the executive committee of the board of directors of the American Farm Bureau.

I am a farmer in the central part of New Jersey, about 400 acres. The opportunity of presenting the views of the American Farm Bureau Federation with respect to labor reform legislation is appre

ciated.

Farmers have many interests in this issue. Prices of the goods and services farmers buy, farm production costs, farm returns, and net incomes are all affected.

Many farmers or members of their families work full or part time in establishments where conditions of employment would be affected by labor reform legislation. Most importantly, farmers have an interest in these issues as citizens.

Our statement deals primarily with general principles and objectives. We do not appear here as labor law specialists.

Further, we do not have specific policy on a number of the specific provisions of the bills under consideration by the committee. But on the major issues involved, the American Farm Bureau Federation has long had strong convictions, founded on consideration of such issues by State and county farm bureaus.

A labor bill of rights: First, we want to express our support for the general approach contained in the Barden bill, H.R. 4473. We favor legislation to establish by law the rights of the individual union member, including most importantly, the right to seek legal remedy against violation of such rights, and the further right to be free of discipline by union leaders if he so proceeds.

We submit this is a basic prerequisite of meaningful labor reform legislation. The failure of H.R. 3302 and H.R. 3540 to provide any protection from union discipline to the member who seeks to establish a right constitutes, in our opinion, a fatal defect.

On the other hand, we do not favor delegating to any official of the executive branch of Government, an authority or responsibility to regulate by administrative action the internal affairs of any private organization. Such delegation means that the personal beliefs and ideologies of the administrator, and the nature and scope of political pressures, loyalties, and relationships, will inevitably influence administrative action. This goes counter to a cardinal principle of our political system, that Government should be by law rather than by men.

We believe that the individual should be protected by law, that statutes should safeguard in as precise form as possible the rights of the individual, and that such protections should be buttressed by ready access of the individual to the courts.

We do not mean to imply that the law should not contain any criminal provisions, but these should be administered by the regular prosecuting agency of the Federal Government through our established judiciary system.

We submit that a proposal that establishes basic rights, freedoms, and privileges of a union member in his relationship to his union, involves a principle that can readily be embraced by all groups and interests, irrespective of their views on other aspects of the legislation under consideration.

Picketing and boycotts: It is our belief that workers and the general public should be protected against the use of picketing and secondary boycotts under certain circumstances.

We would like to illustrate our recommendation by an example from my home State of New Jersey:

Early in July 1955, representatives of local 56, AFL Amalgamated Butchers and Teamsters organizing committee, called on the management of the New Jersey Poultry and Egg Cooperative Marketing Association, a farmer-owned cooperative near Flemington, N.J., engaged in marketing eggs produced by about 4,000 member poultrymen in the area.

The union representative asked the cooperative to sign up with the union as bargaining representative for their workers. At no time was any worker in the cooperative plant a member of the union.

Upon the refusal of the cooperative to sign up, with the union, picket lines were thrown about the property and secondary boycotts were instituted by pressure on buyers in a number of markets in which the cooperative marketed eggs.

This picketing and boycotting continued for a period of nearly 6 months, during which the cooperative continued to operate, but on a greatly reduced scale.

Many members had to find other outlets for all or a portion of their eggs. The cooperative continued to employ all its employees and thus suffered substantial operating losses.

Appeals by management to NLRB to hold an election were denied. because it was held the cooperative was not doing a sufficient volume of interstate business.

Eventually, a prominent local citizen was prevailed upon to conduct an unofficial election. All 22 employees voted and all 22 voted against union affiliation.

At this juncture, the union withdrew its pickets and terminated. its boycott operations.

In this connection, however, it should be noted that even under the circumstances outlined, the union could, under the present law, have continued to picket and to bring pressure on buyers to boycott eggs from this cooperative from that day to this.

Mr. LANDRUM. Will the gentleman yield at that point?

Mr. VOORHEES. Yes.

Mr. LANDRUM. Do you, of your own knowledge, know of instances. where just such a thing as you have cited has taken place?

Mr. VOORHEES. This did take place, this incident did take place. Mr. LANDRUM. I mean other examples. You said after the elec tion, after the 22 employees voted against recognizing the union, that they withdrew their pickets, the union withdrew the pickets, but you follow that by saying that they could have continued to picket. Mr. VOORHEES. Let me explain.

Mr. LANDRUM. I think I will make my question clear.

Are there instances where they have actually continued to picket after an election has been held?

Mr. VOORHEES. This, you will recall in my statement, was an unofficial election. This was not an election held by the National Labor Relations Board. This was unofficial. We could not get either the Federal or the State labor people to hold an election. So we had a very responsible citizen. There was an agreement. We worked out an agreement with some organization committee and employees to hold a sort of off-the-record election to see how well they were doing and how well we were doing.

It happens that this responsible citizen was then a Congressman, and still is. Does this answer your question?

Mr. LANDRUM. Since we have interrupted your speech and gotten this into the record, may I add my question is that despite the fact that the election, whether on the record or off the record, indicated no desire to join the union, they withdrew in your case the picket line. There are instances where they have, even after an official election, continued to picket the organization they were seeking to organize. Is that not true?

Mr. VORHEES. Undoubtedly, Mr. Triggs knows of cases like this. Mr. TRIGGS. We can testify on numerous cases. I will mention one. in Sebastopol, Calif. This is a major marketing area that markets most of its apples in the State of California. There are a half dozen packing plants, half dozen apple-processing plants. We were faced by a demand, again from a unit of the Teamsters Union, to sign up with the union. Eventually an election was held. And of 8 or 10 plants-I am estimating-in one of the small plants the workers voted to join the union; in all of the other plants they did not.

Nevertheless, picketing did continue. Secondary boycotts which were extremely effective, continued in the Los Angeles area for a period of 8 or 10 months.

Eventually, the employers in the group, which included several apple shipping and processing cooperatives, folded in the face of the loss of their markets and they did sign with the union which, of course, meant that they forced their workers into the union against their wishes.

Mr. HOFFMAN. Will you give us the date and the names?

Mr. TRIGGS. This was about 1952 or 1953.

Mr. HOFFMAN. The name?

Mr. TRIGGS. It was the Sebastopol industry. This included 8 or 10 different companies. I know the name of one company. It was the Sebastopol Cooperative.

That is the only one that occurs to me at the moment.

Mr. HOFFMAN. Will the gentleman yield for a couple of questions? Mr. LANDRUM. Yes.

Mr. HOFFMAN. Are you familiar, either of you, with the Associated Farmers of California, that co-op?