Mr. PUCINSKI, I would suggest if any of these bills go through, Mr. Hoffman, it will be such a field day for the lawyers that I do not think they will have to worry too much about compensation.

All of these bills are lawyer's dreams bills.

Mr. HOFFMAN. Are you on the track of some legislation for the lawyers?

Mr. PUCINSKI. No.

Mr. HOFFMAN. I did not see the point in it; that is all.

There are remedies, but for some reason or other they have not pursued them in the past as much as they might, although under Pennsylvania law the Apex Co. recovered when the U.S. Supreme Court said they could not under the Federal law.

What happened in your case was then that the union came along, tried to force your people to join the union and necessarily pay dues, and they also tried to get you to argue with them that they should join.

Mr. McKIBBON. That is right.

Mr. HOFFMAN. That is what the Michigan Supreme Court, Judge Starr, held flatfooted was racketeering.

You would so characterize it, would you not, Mr. Pucinski?

Mr. PUCINSKI. Yes.

Mr. HOFFMAN. Certainly you do not approve of that?

Mr. PUCINSKI. No, sir. I am sure that this committee is going to take care of that problem pretty well.

Mr. HOFFMAN. You think they are?

Mr. PUCINSKI. I hope so.

Mr. HOFFMAN. I hope it does not shock me into insensibility if they do.

Mr. WIER. I would not want my colleague from Michigan to lead these gentlemen into a field that might not prove productive because I have some fear that perhaps if the union representatives in Chicago had the influence that they did in stopping the sales, they might also have the same influence in convincing the merchants in Chicago that they ought not to testify.

Mr. HOFFMAN. As I read the papers over here in the McClellan committee, they have been doing a fairly good job at that. In fact, Chicago is an expert in a lot of things and one of them is that racketeering business.

Mr. PUCINSKI. Mr. Hoffman, since Chicago is my hometown it is my personal privilege here to point out that Michigan and Detroit has contributed a good share to the McClellan hearings.

There is no question but what we have set the pattern. It shows up in the last election.

Chicago has one of the finest labor records in the country.

Mr. HOFFMAN. That Capone made a lot of money.

Mr. PUCINSKI. That is when you were a young man and I was not even born.

Mr. HOFFMAN. You were not even thought of.

Mr. LANDRUM. Are there any additional questions of Mr. McKibbon with regard to his testimony?

Mr. HOFFMAN. I have only one.

That situation sums it up as a case of attempted racketeering, as I see it. I do not know whether anybody else has a different view,

or not.

Mr. LANDRUM. Mr. Pucinski.

Mr. PUCINSKI. Mr. McKibbon, I was very much interested in your statement that there is a right-to-work law in Georgia. I presume that this right-to-work law provides that those members who want to join the union may do so and those who do not want to join the union do not have to do so. Is that reasonably correct?

Mr. McKIBBON. That is correct.

Mr. PUCINSKI. I know there is a great deal of discussion around the country in other States demanding so-called right-to-work laws. The question that comes up in my mind is: If you have such a law in Georgia, why, then, did you not agree to sign a contract with this union for those 28 employees who had indicated in the election that they wanted a union as long as 76 of the employees said they did not want a union?

I do not quite understand why you did not go ahead and sign a contract if your law in your State allows that sort of practice.

Mr. McKIBBON. I just did not want my company to be represented by the union.

Mr. PUCINSKI. Then were you not denying certain rights to these 28 employees under your State law? Were you not then, Mr. Witness, under your particular law in your State, denying by your action certain rights to these 28 employees who said they wanted to join the union?

Mr. LANDRUM. Is it true, Mr. McKibbon, that the sort of contract asked of you was not to represent the 26 or 28 that voted, but to represent your entire plant?

Mr. McKIBBON. That is true, sir.

Mr. PUCINSKI. Along those lines, regardless of what the contract was that was recommended by the union, you have a State law that says those people who want to joint the union may do so and those who do not want to join the union do not have to do so.

Mr. LANDRUM. But those were not the terms proffered to you by the union agent.

Mr. PUCINSKI. But the fact remains that this election was held by the NLRB and 28 people said they wanted a union; 76 said they did not want to join a union.

Mr. LANDRUM. The gentleman from Illinois full well knows no such condition as that can exist.

Mr. PUCINSKI. Along with that statement you made, I want to know if these right-to-work laws, as so many claims is the panacea, for all the labor problems of Americans are workable. Obviously in your own State you have resource to that and you have not used them. Mr. CHEATHAM. I would like to make this comment:

We are not here as I understand today to put on trial the right-towork laws of the sovereign States of the United States of America. We are in favor of H.R. 4474. You have the testimony of our witness here. We would like to rest there and say we are for that bill and we will submit a detailed legal analysis of that bill and assign our reasons for that.

However, we do not want to place the right-to-work laws of the United States of America on trial here today.

We understand that is not the purpose of this inquiry. Is that correct?

Mr. PUCINSKI. Are you suggesting, then, that the members of this committee are to be foreclosed on asking questions which are going to guide them in coming up with legislation that is going to help men like Mr. McKibbon and the rest of the Nation?

Mr. CHEATHAM. I did not mean to be hasty.

Mr. LANDRUM. Pardon me. We have another witness. If there are questions of Mr. McKibbon, relating to the statement, the Chair will be glad to recognize you.

Mr. PUCINSKI. That question of mine has not been answered by the witness. I would like to get an answer and then I am all through. The question was whether or not this witness was not denying certain rights under his State laws to 28 employees who indicated they do want a union.

Mr. McKIBBON. I thought it was majority rule, sir.

If 78 of them had said the other way, we would have gone along.
Mr. LANDRUM. All right.

Mr. PUCINSKI. I am merely suggesting that under your State rightto-work law these 28 employees have the right to have a union there. Mr. HOFFMAN. You mean a minority union?

Mr. PUCINSKI. Yes.

Mr. HOFFMAN. Then I object.

Mr. LANDRUM. The Chair rules the question out of order.

Is there any further question?

Mr. ROOSEVELT. Mr. McKibbon, I think you have done a commendable job before this committee. I would like to know, in order to follow through because of Mr. Hoffman's remark that this would seem to be a question of coercion or blackmail, and I would think the law today would outlaw that, but if it does not, in my opinion certainly I would think it should be strengthened.

In order to make sure that we are discussing that, would it be proper for you to tell us who in the Bonton Poultry Co. called you and told you that he had specifically been threatened by labor trouble? Mr. McKIBBON. It was the owner of the company, James Christy. Mr. ROOSEVELT. Thank you very much.

Mr. LANDRUM. Thank you, Mr. McKibbon.

Mr. PUCINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I have no question, but I would like to make a request that we ask our staff to provide us with a copy of the local hearing officer's decision on that original hearing regarding this company and then the NLRB.

Mr. LANDRUM. You can get that from the NLRB or the staff can get that for you.

Mr. PUCINSKI. Will the staff get it for me?

Mr. LANDRUM. Yes; I am sure they will be glad to get it for you. Thank you, Mr. McKibbon and Mr. Cheatham.

Mr. McKIBBON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

(Pursuant to the direction of the chairman the following supple

mental material is hereby made a part of the record :)

APPENDIX TO STATEMENT BY J. B. MCKIBBON, JR., REPRESENTING GEORGIA STATE

CHAMBER OF COMMERCE

The secondary boycott has been called everything from economic blackmail to the most vicious labor practice, second only to union violence.

But the secondary boycott is a weapon that is used nearly everyday in all parts of the country by unscrupulous professional unionists seeking to win labor dis

putes, to force employees into unions, to compel restrictive practices and increas costs, and to limit the public's free choice of goods. In theory secondary bocotts are against the law. Congress outlawed them as an unfair labor practiwhen it passed the Taft-Hartley Act more than 10 years ago. Congress reeg nized the unfair effect of boycotts upon the neutral public employer-employee union or nonunion. But in reality, union officials have a free rein to use near all the secondary boycotts they want if they are careful.

During the past decade major leaks or loopholes have crept into the TaftHartley's ban against union secondary boycotts, so that there are now two kinds of secondary boycotts, legal and illegal. In brief, it is section 8(b) (4) of the Taft-Hartley Act which attempts to ban secondary boycotts. The section says that it is unfair labor practice for a labor organization or its agents "to duce or encourage employees of any employer to engage in a strike or a ecz certed refusal in the course of their employment to work on any goods. or to perform any services. . . where the object is any one of four purposes." These purposes are (1) to force an employer to stop using the product of another employer, (2) to force another employer to recognize an uncertitel union, (3) to compel an employer to recognize one union when another has bee certified, and (4) to win jurisdictional disputes.

The words above are important. Their interpretation by some courts and the National Labor Relations Board has resulted in at least three of the halfdozen major secondary boycott Taft-Hartley loopholes. It will require new legislation to correct this language and restore the original intent of Congress. It is the first of the above purposes which bears directly upon Mr. McKibbon's plight.

Through the exertion of economic pressure upon-not employees-but enployers, McKibbon has been made the victim of what is at present a "legal" see ondary boycott. Pressure has been exerted upon his customers, not upon his his customers' employees; but the direct result has been the same as if it had been exerted through or by employees; loss of an estimated 60 percent of his business volume. And, it is important to remember, this coercion came as the result of the Amalgamated Meat Cutters Union's disgruntlement over their failure to organize Mr. McKibbon's employees and as the result of that union's avowal to make McKibbon "sign over" his workers to an organization to whit they did not care to belong. The employees of the Mar-Jac Poultry Co. prior to the union threats had expressed their desire to remain unorganized in an National Labor Relations Board-conducted election on April 15, 1958, by a 76 to 28 vote.

The Georgia State Chamber of Commerce, with Mr. McKibbon's concurrence as its witness, feel that the new legislation required for restoring the original congressional intent should incorporate features of one of the following bills: H.R. 4474, H.R. 5545 (or in the Senate), S. 76 or S. 3099.

S. 3099, the administration bill, is a measure which would serve to stop some secondary boycotts and yet permit others. It would give the building trades unions an open season for all secondary boycotts at construction sites. Chatractors, manufacturers, and distributors (and their employees) would becomS the chief victims. The bill also fails to close "hot cargo," course of employ ment, and secondary picketing loopholes. It would, however, curb employer pressure, concerted refusal, and the "definition" loopholes.

On the other hand, S. 76 would close these loopholes: employer pressure loopholes, hot cargo loopholes, course of employment loopholes, concerted refusal loopholes, employee definition loopholes, and secondary picketing loop

holes.

It is our position that both H.R. 4474 and H.R. 5545 would deal effectively with the evils of secondary boycott situations. The latter, H.R. 5545, would be particularly effective in closing the hot cargo, employer pressure, concerted refusal, course of employment, economic coercion, and secondary consumer borcott loopholes. H.R. 4474 would, in our opinion, also afford some effective relief on these scores.

The Senate labor reform measure receiving the most widespread attention. S. 1555 (the Kennedy-Ervin bill), deals in no fashion with the secondary boycott problem. We believe it to be deficient in this, and other major respects. We respectfully request that this committee give most careful consideration to the favorable reporting of H.R. 5545 or H.R. 4474 as its solution to the problems arising in the secondary boycott area.

It is our belief that the oral testimony of witness McKibbon has graphically demonstrated the need for such remedial legislation.

Statement by S. W. BARKER, DIRECTOR, POULTRY DEPartment, AmaLGAMATED MEAT CUTTERS AND BUTCHER WORKMEN, AFL-CIO SUBMITTED TO THE JOINT SUBCOMMITTEE ON LABOR LEGISLATION OF THE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, IN REPLY TO A STATEMENT BY J. B. MCKIBBON, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE MAR JAC POULTRY Co., GAINESVILLE, Ga.

My name is S. W. Barker. I am the director of the poultry department of the Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen, AFL-CIO.

On behalf of our union, I should like to set the record straight concerning the events of our organizing campaign at the Mar Jac Poultry Co. in Gainesville, Ga. You have received testimony on this matter from J. B. McKibbon, vice president of the firm, on April 14, 1959.

Mr. McKibbon's testimony is misleading. For example, it states that the National Labor Relations Board dismissed our unfair labor practice charges against the firm. This is not true. The case is still before the NLRB awaiting a decision. And you have been given a wrong case number to check by the witness. The unfair labor practice case is not 10-RC-4080, as the testimony states, but 10-CA-3487.

I would like to develop the true events of our organizing campaign at the Mar Jac Poultry Co. But before going into them, I would like to give you some background on this drive. Our union has about 375,000 members. Some 35,000 of them work in poultry processing plants. We have collective bargaining relationships with about 1,000 poultry firms, large and small.

The wages in the poultry industry are low compared with those in other industries in which our members work. This is due to the large unorganized part of the industry which is in national competition with the organized firms.

Besides this, there are wide variations in the wages paid by the firms within the industry. A wage spread of 40 to 70 cents exists. Poultry firms on the west coast and northern industrial areas have contracts with our union providing $1.45 or $1.50 an hour as the lowest wage in the plant. Unorganized firms, such as Mar Jac, on the other hand, pay $1 an hour. And wages are only one factor. For involved also are fringe benefits, holidays, payments for call-in time, and other benefits for workers.

Since poultry can be transported easily and quickly to any part of the country, the poultry processed in one area can compete with poultry processed in another area for the same markets. The wage and labor cost differential has, therefore, been a factor in the competition of poultry firms. The result is that, in collective bargaining with long-organized firms, we are continuously faced with the problem of the substandard-wage firms. The wage rates and the employment of our members are continuously endangered.

In other words, we would have to organize to stand still-just to protect the interests of the present members of our union. But, besides that, wages and working conditions in unorganized poultry firms are so primitive that a continuous demand for organization is expressed to our union by workers in unorganized poultry plants.

The Gainesville area of Georgia is one of the major poultry-processing regions of our country. The plants there ship throughout the Nation. Since 1950 we have had organizing campaigns in this area because of the request of workers for organization and because of the need to safeguard our wages and working conditions against this low-wage competition.

This organizing has been fantastically difficult. In 1951 one of our organizers was purposely forced off the road and nearly killed in the area.

Campaigns of intimidation to prevent employees from joining a union have been common and vicious. It is not unusual for a union to have an overwhelming majority of the employees sign authorization cards before the National Labor Relations Board election, and then have the union get a small percentage of the votes in the election after the company has staged its campaign of intimidation. Even after winning elections, we sometimes cannot keep the plant under contract because the companies use a carrot and stick campaign to break up our membership with very generous help from Georgia's right-to-work laws.

The makeup of the work force also offers special problems in organization. The workers are often dominated by the supervisors. They are in dire poverty. Even when they work a complete week-which is far from being always-these poultry workers have a take-home pay of less than $40 a week.

They often have large families and live in fear of being laid off or fired. They are afraid they will not have the money for even their inadequate diet.