He has told us what he thinks as their representative. the other question that is the responsibility of Congress.

But as

Mr. PUCINSKI. He also said they would have to violently oppos any suggestion that the Kennedy-Ervin bill be passed. Mr. FISCHER. I think the testimony was that

I would violently oppose it, and I would try to make sure that the associatio did.

Mr. PUCINSKI. I am trying to find out, can we somehow resolve this thing to get at the thing that I think the country needs and want most right now. From the mail that I get across my desk from the rank-and-file constituents of my district, and others around the cou try, as opposed to the mail I get from big associations and big corpo rations, the average citizen that takes the trouble to write to me in variably points out that he wants me to do whatever possible to get out of the labor movement those who have abused their privileges & officers of that union.

Now, I must confess to you, Mr. Witness, that I have had prac tically no mail, and I am trying to be fair with you, I do not recall any mail from constituents, the rank-and-file people, who have said, "Get rid of the picketing concept and get rid of the secondary boycott." They want to get the man out who has abused his privileges. That, I think, is the first consideration here.

Now, the amendments to the Taft-Hartley Act, and I agree with you there are badly needed amendments, and I think they are going to be passed by this Congress before the 86th Congress is out, but the people who are trying to steer this legislation through have recognized the complexities of picketing legislation and secondary boycott.

We had a witness here the other day from Akron, Ohio, who was caught right in the middle in a jurisdictional dispute between two unions and the man's business is very gradually deteriorating and he cannot do a thing about it. He is caught right in the middle.

Certainly this Congress has to take steps to correct that sort of thing.

Mr. FISCHER. I would think so.

Mr. PUCINSKI. But these are so complex, you get into constitutional rights of picketing, you get into various other areas. That is why I asked you whether or not, after you have made this splendid presentation in defense of your views, in the wisdom of this Congress we decide that the best thing we can get through right now is the Kennedy-Ervin bill, would your association recognize the fact that praetical situations must be considered and go along with this and then support your Taft-Hartley amendments in subsequent legislation?

Mr. LANDRUM. Mr. Pucinski, if you will yield again, Mr. Fischer's association, or any other man's association, we as individuals, if the Congress passes a law, of course we will recognize it. We will be compelled to.

That has no bearing on what decision he makes in analyzing a piece of legislation. Of course he will have to recognize it. I cannot see how we can try to compel an organization or a representative of an organization to come here and say, "Well, if you cannot do what I want done, at least do this other."

That seems to be, as I interpret your line of questions, what you want.

Mr. PUCINSKI. I am only relying on what the witness said in his closing statement.

Mr. LANDRUM. He says he does not think that the Kennedy bill is strong enough, period.

Mr. PUCINSKI. He also says if we cannot go through, if we have to go back-we can go back in the record—what was that statement you made?

Mr. FISCHER. There are two pieces of the Barden bill. One on this so-called rights of unions, a bill of rights of unions, and I say to you, and I don't understand why you cannot get through the second piece, but if there is some reason why you cannot get through the second piece, I say take the first piece, the bill of rights of trade unions, and put that through intact. That is what I say. That

Mr. PUCINSKI. You have suggested a certain compromise. I merely followed through on your reasonable suggestion, Mr. Fischer. I thought I made that clear, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. LANDRUM. I disagree as courteously and as vehemently as I know how that the gentleman has not offered any compromise. He says in his statement that 4473 is the union democracy bill and should be passed to protect the rights of the union members.

But he goes further and says that 4474 is necessary in order to correct the evils of the secondary boycott feature; 4474 is an amendment to Taft-Hartley.

Mr. PUCKINSKI. He said if we cannot get 4474 through, we should at least get 4473.

Mr. LANDRUM. Yes, and I join the gentleman in saying that.

I would hope that the member from Chicago would also join in saying that we need to get this legislation protecting the rights of union members through and enacted into law.

Mr. PUCINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I have sat here since the committee began its hearings with one sincere effort, that both management and labor and Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle get together and as quickly as we possibly can enact the best legislation we can at this time to get out of the labor movement those men who have violated their privileges because we have a big job ahead of us, there is no question that we have an economic war with the Soviet Union. I think we have a tremendous job confronting this country. That is why I asked this witness-he has made a splendid presentation of his views, ones that I am sure are supported by members of his organization, but when the Members of this Congress sit down to write a law they are going to have to take the views of everybody into consideration.

I was merely wondering whether we could find some inkling of hope that this organization will recognize that if we do come out, I do not know whether we will come out with the administration bill, Barden bill, or Kennedy bill, but whichever bill this committee comes out with I am hoping that the association will get behind it rather than, as already is being done, to lay a foundation to tell the Nation that the Kennedy bill is just a horrible bill.

I think there are weaknesses in all of these bills and there are strong points in all of these bills.

My guess is that the ultimate bill will be a composite of all these bills somewhere along the lines.

Mr. LANDRUM. I think we can best discuss that matter in executive session.

Are there any further questions about Mr. Fischer's statement? Thank you very much, Mr. Fischer. You have been very helpful and your statement, I am sure, will be of value to all members of the committee.

With that the committee stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 o'clock.

(Thereupon, at 12:25 p.m., the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Wednesday, April 15, 1959.)

ABOR-MANAGEMENT REFORM LEGISLATION

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 15, 1959

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
JOINT SUBCOMMITTEE ON LABOR-
MANAGEMENT REFORM LEGISLATION,

OF THE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR,

Washington, D.C. ubcommittee met at 10 a.m., pursuant to recess, in room 429, use Office Building, Hon. Phil M. Landrum presiding.

nt: Representatives Landrum, Wier, Roosevelt, Pucinski, and Hiestand.

present: Russell C. Derrickson, acting clerk, full committee; M. Ryan, general counsel; Melvin W. Sneed, minority clerk; 1 C. McGuiness, labor consultant to minority members, and son Young, subcommittee clerk.

ANDRUM. The committee will come to order.

oday, the committee has, first, Mr. Robert Abelow, representing merce and Industry Association of New York, Inc.

so have another witness following him, Mr. James Searer, of on, Mich.

we will hear Mr. Abelow if he is here.

BELOW. This is Mr. Horace Sheldon, of the Commerce and y Association.

ANDRUM. Do you have a statement, Mr. Abelow?

BELOW. I have a statement, sir. We have submitted it to rk. It is not my intention to read it because I imagine you refer that I talk informally and highlight it rather than it to you.

ANDRUM. You may proceed with what preliminary remarks re and indicate at whatever point you are ready to receive tions that the members might have, as I am sure some of them e questions.

ENT OF ROBERT ABELOW AND HORACE SHELDON, ON LF OF THE COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION OF YORK, INC.

ELOW. Fine.

› perhaps introduce the association for which I appear. It mmerce and Industry Association of New York. We have Ils some 3,500 companies, many of them with plants or offices shments throughout the rest of the country.

1 that we speak for industry in the New York area and the t I express are not only the views of the association as a

whole, but of its employee industrial relations committee which has on it some 50 personnel relations men who are intimately connected with this field.

I think you should note, too, that probably the majority of our companies have union contracts, or have dealt with unions and so we work in the field of trying to improve labor relations for ourselves. for the area generally, and we comment frequently on legislation as it comes up, both State and Federal.

Mr. Horace Sheldon, who sits beside me, is the director of our industrial relations department. When the questioning gets a little tough, I may have to ask him to express the association's position if I do not know it, myself.

Mr. WIER. If you will yield for a moment, I would like to have you clarify just what your activities are in the field of labor relations. Do you consult with firms in negotiating contracts? Do you do any negotiating with the unions?

Mr. SHELDON. We do not negotiate in behalf of our member companies. We do advise with them, however, on labor relations and personnel matters.

As Mr. Abelow said, we are very active in representing the employer point of view on behalf of the New York business community on legislative questions, both State and Federal.

Mr. VIER. Let me ask you the followup question:

Are you attorneys?

Mr. ABELOW. I am an attorney.

Mr. WIER. Are all your associates attorneys?

Mr. ABELOW. No. As a matter of fact, there are very few attorneys on the industrial relations committee, probably no more than 3 or 4, if I recall. Certainly the membership of our association, our attorneys are just a minority.

Mr. WIER. Where do you and your associates get the background for all the knowledge of human relationship in the field of labor management relations to give advice and counsel?

Mr. ABELOW. I am a management attorney representing business in the New York area. I was working with the War Labor Board in 1942.

In 1943 I was the assistant executive secretary in Washington. When they opened the regional office in New York I became the executive director and general counsel.

When I left Government service I joined my present firm and since then I have devoted my time to representing management in problems with unions.

For the most part they are problems involving the negotiation of contracts and the settlement of contracts. I would say that the greater part of my time is in dealing with unions and trying to peacefully settle our disputes and keep our people happy.

Does that answer your question, Mr. Wier?

Mr. WIER. To a degree it does, yes.

I was trying to find what your background was in connection with the understanding of dealing with these unions or whether you were advisers on the National Labor Relations Act.

Mr. ABELOW. I have done that. I frequently go to the NLRB, less frequently into the courts, because we manage to settle these problems along the line.