possible. It was the opinion of most of the witnesses which appeared before my committee in 1947 and, as I understand it, most of the witnesses who testified before both this and the House Labor Committee last year that a secret strike vote, if one was to be provided by the Congress, should be taken prior to the strike.

For the benefit of this committee, I would like to read at this point the provisions of the Hartley bill (which passed the House in 1947) which provided for a Government-conducted strike ballot before a legitimate strike could be begun. These provisions of the Hartley bill, unfortunately, were deleted in conference. I do think, however, they represented the best that we were able to work out at that time, and, in all frankness, I think they are preferable to any suggestions which are now before this committee. They read as follows:

"(vi) The following requirements shall be applicable as a condition of authorizing, conducting, or participating in, any lockout or strike in connection with the dispute;

"(a) The collective-bargaining representative shall notify the Administrator of its desire to have a strike vote conducted in connection with the dispute; "(b) Within 5 days thereafter, such representative shall inform the employees in writing of the issues in the dispute and the representative's position thereon. Copies of such statement shall be sent by registered mail to the employer and to the Administrator;

"(c) The Administrator shall promptly notify the employer of the representative's request for the strike vote;

"(d) The employer shall have a reasonable time, fixed by the Administrator, to inform the employees of the issues and his position thereon, and of his last offer of settlement. Copies of such statement shall be sent by registered mail to the representative and to the Administrator;

"(e) Within a reasonable time thereafter, the Administrator shall, after due notice to the parties, provide for a secret ballot of the employees in the bargaining unit concerned on the question whether such employees desire to reject the employer's last offer of settlement and to strike;

"(f) The ballot shall be conducted in such manner as may be mutually agreed upon by the parties, or, in the absence of such agreement, conducted and supervised by or under the direction of the Administrator:

"(g) The ballot shall read: 'Shall the employer's last offer of settlement of the current dispute be rejected and a strike be called?' ;

"(h) A lockout or strike may not be authorized or conducted unless in such secret ballot a majority of the employees in the bargaining unit concerned vote to reject the employer's last offer of settlement, and to srike."

14. The President has recommended that the checkoff authorization should be made valid until determination of the collective-bargaining contract, unless the employee himself sees fit to revoke such authorization in writing.

This is a change which might well be enacted. So long as the employee retains the right to revoke the checkoff, his legal status is relatively the same as he has under the present law. And, as a matter of fact, where a strong union is involved, it is a rare individual who would have the courage to fail to renew the annual checkoff requirement. Where a union shop is in effect, naturally he has no real opportunity to save himself from paying tribute, in any event. 15. The President has recommended that reports from unions concerning their organization and finances be simplified.

In view of the fact that these financial and other reports from unions are submitted to the Department of Justice, which has seen fit to deny access to them, they are now serving little or no purpose. Frankly, gentlemen, I would prefer to see this committee make it mandatory upon the Department of Labor that public inspection of these reports be permitted. If this is not done, it is of little or no consequence to labor or management or the public or this committee as to what may be found in the secret files of the Secretary of Labor-where no one is allowed to look at them.

While I have gone into considerable detail in analyzing the President's recommendations, I would prefer to see the law administered by those who want to make the law work. Until this administration came into power, with the exception of Robert N. Denham, it has been administered by those whose objectives seems to have been to try to prove it unworkable.

Hon. H. ALEXANDER SMITH,

OLD DOMINION BOX Co., INC., Charlotte, N. C., February 5, 1954.

Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare,

Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C.

DEAR SENATOR SMITH: I appreciate your invitation to submit my views on the President's recommendations to amend the Labor-Management Agreements Act.

I shall limit myself to one particular phase of this question, with which I have been deeply concerned for several years. I refer to the proposal to make even broader the prehire and union-shop sanctions in the construction, maritime, and amusement industries.

I am a small manufacturer, operating plants in North Carolina and Virginia, and my employees have never chosen to organize. Therefore, I have no business or financial interest in this question whatsoever; however, as an American citizen who believes very strongly in the inherent right of individual freedom, guararanteed us by the Constitution, I oppose any form of compulsory unionism. This is not representative of an isolated viewpoint of mine, but is supported by many other Americans, both businessmen and workers, with whom I have been in correspondence in recent months. You may remember that more than 90 witnesses appeared before the House and Senate committee's hearings last year in opposition to compulsory unionism-more than testified on any other point of the law. There is also ample evidence of the workingman's attitude in the dozen or more suits now being fought through the courts in five States through which railroad employees are attempting to sustain their rights to hold their jobs without joining a union. Incidentally, a recent Texas district court jury returned a favorable verdict to a group of railroad employees opposed to compulsory unionism.

As you know, 14 States have passed laws or amended their constitutions to specifically guarantee that union membership may not be a requisite for employment. These States are Alabama, Virginia, Arkansas, North Carolina, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Nebraska, Tennessee, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nevada, Texas, and Arizona.

Compulsory unionism, however, is sanctioned by the two major pieces of Federal labor legislation. The Railway Labor Act was amended in 1951 to permit union-shop contracts for railroad workers, and the Taft-Hartley Act pointedly does not forbid it, as it does the so-called closed shop, for other workers to which it applies.

Taft-Hartley, however, respects the rights of States to pass laws prohibiting compulsory unionism, while the Railway Labor Act does not. To the contrary, it is specifically declared that the section permitting compulsory unionism on the railroads is effective "notwithstanding any other provision of this act or of any other statute or law of the United States or Territory thereof, of any State."

It is sometimes hard to realize why our Government has thus taken away the rights of a specific group of individual citizens and denied them their constitutional guaranties of liberty for the advantage of no one at all save the leaders of the monopoly unions.

This type of Government partiality began about 20 years ago, when Congress, with a sincere desire to do anything to better the conditions of millions of depression struck workers, passed the National Labor Relations Act.

Mr. Irving G. McCann, the general counsel of the House Committee on Education and Labor during the 80th Congress and a recognized authority on labor legislation, has declared:

"By this act, the Federal Government became the avowed ally of labor organizations in their efforts to unionize the employees and force employers to bargain collectively with the unions as the representatives of the workers."

In his excellent book Why the Taft-Hartley Law? Mr. McCann adds: "By this declaration of policy the Federal Government became the active partner of organized labor. To further aid the labor organizations in their drive for union members, the Government guaranteed to protect workers who joined labor organizations for discrimination and coercion which labor organizations were free to use and did use to force employees to join their unions."

Congress went even further in 1951 when it amended the Railway Labor Act and made the union shop (or compulsory unionism) permissive on the railroads. Just 10 years earlier, when the United Mine Workers threatened to call a general strike over the union shop, President Roosevelt had declared:

"The Government will never compel this 5 percent (of nonunion miners) to join the union by a Government decree. This would be too much like the Hitler methods labor."

With this I everlastingly agree. Any law or decree which forces a person to join a certain union is fundamentally wrong in principle, as well as extremely dangerous. It not only takes away freedom of choice and makes the workers subject to the absolute rule of their union chiefs on peril of unemployment, but it also makes most difficult the throwing out of dictatorial union leadership by the members of the union.

The individual worker has nothing to gain by the union shop; rather, he has a great deal to lose. Only the entrenched union leadership wants the compulsory unionism to shackle American labor.

I respectfully urge your committee to give most careful study to any action which would further limit the individual freedom of workers in the construction, amusement, and maritime industries. They are American citizens, and are entitled to work for anyone who wants to hire them, whether they are willing to pay union dues and assessments, or not.

Sincerely,

Hon. ALEXANDER SMITH,

E. S. DILLARD, President.

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD,
Washington 25, D. C., February 5, 1954.

Chairman, Committee on Labor and Public Welfare,

United States Senate, Washington, D. C.

MY DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: In regard to your invitation to appear or submit a statement to your committee concerning the proposed amendments to the TaftHartley Act as embodied in S. 2650, we feel that it would be inappropriate for the Board to comment on the merits of the proposals.

The administration's position has been stated by Secretary Mitchell, and, inasmuch as the Board will be called upon to administer any amendments which may be enacted, it would be incompatible with our functions as quasi-judicial officers to pass judgment on proposals which we may later have to interpret and apply.

The Board and its staff will be glad to cooperate with the committee in any way and furnish any technical advice or assistance the committee may deem appropriate and helpful.

Sincerely yours,

GUY FARMER, Chairman.

If there is nothing further to come before the committee, we will adjourn at this time until 10 o'clock tomorrow morning.

(Thereupon, at 12: 15 p. m., on Monday, February 8, 1954, the hearing recessed until Tuesday, February 9, 1954, at 10 a. m.)

TAFT-HARTLEY ACT REVISIONS

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 1954

UNITED STATES SENATE,

COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND PUBLIC WELFARE,

Washington, D. C. The committee met at 10 a.m., pursuant to recess, in room P-63, the Capitol, Senator H. Alexander Smith (chairman) presiding. Present: Senators Smith (presiding), Murray, Neely, and Lehman. The CHAIRMAN. The hearing will please come to order.

Senator NEELY. I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask that the roll be called.

The CHAIRMAN. We will call the roll.

Mr. JAMES. Mr. Ives, Mr. Griswold, Mr. Purtell, Mr. Goldwater, Mr. Cooper, Mr. Upton, Mr. Murray.

Senator MURRAY. Here.

Mr. JAMES. Mr. Hill, Mr. Neely.
Senator NEELY. Here.

Mr. JAMES. Mr. Douglas, Mr. Lehman, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Smith. The CHAIRMAN. Here.

The first witness this morning is Mr. George W. Armstrong, Jr., chairman of the industrial relations committee of the National Association of Manufacturers. I will ask Mr. Armstrong if he will come forward and give us his testimony.

Senator MURRAY. Mr. Chairman, before we begin the hearings, I wish to make reference to the letter from the Chairman of the National Labor Relations Board, who declines to appear as a witness. I have a prepared statement here on that matter and I will not take the time to read it.

The CHAIRMAN. Would you like to have it inserted in the record? Senator MURRAY. I would.

The CHAIRMAN. We will be very glad to have it inserted in the record at Senator Murray's request.

(The statement is as follows:)

STATEMENT OF SENATOR MURRAY CONCERNING NLRB TESTIMONY ON SMITH BILL

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your courtesy in furnishing each member of the committee a copy of a letter addressed to you by Mr. Guy Farmer, Chairman of the National Labor Relations Board. The letter states, in effect, that Mr. Farmer deems it inappropriate to appear here and testify on the pending amendments.

I should like to emphasize, Mr. Chairman, the value of such testimony to all of the mbmbers of this committee. The NLRB interprets and administers the National Labor Relations Act in accordance with the law and congressional intent. We have before us for action several amendments to that law which, if passed, will have an immediate impact upon the Board's functions as a quasijudicial and administrative agency. For example, the Board will be primarily

responsible for conducting secret strike ballots. Are we to be denied learning how the Board intends to cope with the manifold difficulties of administering even this one amendment to the law? Is it either appropriate or wise to exclude such expert testimony-particularly testimony of the very agency which will bear the primary responsibility of administering this proposed part of the law? The serious question of whether or not the language of the Smith bill properly and accurately implements the apparent intent of the President's proposals is another reason for the committee to hear the expert testimony of a representative of the Board. Resolution of this question requires expert technical knowledge gained through day-to-day actual experience in the interpretation and administration of our national labor laws. I can think of no one more uniquely qualified or better prepared to advise us on this subject than the Chairman of the Board.

Mr. Chairman, I'm sure you will agree this is the first time a Chairman of the NLRB has refused to testify on revisions of the LMRA. We are entitled to hear expert testimony on these proposals. In the absence of such testimony the record will be incomplete and perhaps misleading. Neither the Secretary of Labor nor any Government official other than a representative of the National Labor Relations Board can speak with authority on subjects exclusively within the purview of that agency. The authority to administer and interpret the LMRA as it stands today or as it may be amended in the future is solely and exclusively vested in the Board.

It seems obvious to me, Mr. Chairman, that without Board testimony this committee is being deprived of knowledge and facts that are indispensable to an intelligent approach to the problem confronting us in passing or rejecting these amendments.

You will recall that at the suggestion of Senator Douglas the committee agreed to invite Messrs. Farmer, Bott, and McCoy to testify. I understand that Mr. Bott and Mr. McCoy have already filed statements in lieu of personal appearances. Mr. Farmer apparently intends to do neither.

I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that Mr. Farmer be asked to reconsider his refusal to testify and that he be given another opportunity to appear here and let the committees have the benefit of the views and advice of the NLRB on these amendments.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Armstrong, we will be glad to have your testimony, sir. I assume that your statement identifies you and your relation to the NAM.

STATEMENT OF GEORGE W. ARMSTRONG, JR., CHAIRMAN OF THE INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMITTEE OF THE NATIONAL

ASSOCIATION OF MANUFACTURERS

Mr. ARMSTRONG. Yes, sir; it does, and I shall read, Mr. Chairman, from the short statement. There was a rather lengthy instrument filed with the committee several days ago and we have endeavored to summarize it as much as possible in order to conserve the time of the committee.

The CHAIRMAN. I appreciate that very much.

Mr. ARMSTRONG. I would like to introduce the gentlemen who are with me, Mr. Chairman.

On my left is Mr. Spencer of the New York staff of NAM and on my right is Mr. Brubaker of the Washington staff of NAM.

Shall I proceed, sir?

The CHAIRMAN. Will you proceed, sir, and we are very glad to have these gentlemen with us and have their names recorded in the hearing. Mr. ARMSTRONG. Thank you, sir.

My name is George W. Armstrong, Jr. I am president of the Texas Steel Co., Fort Worth, Tex. I am chairman of the industrial relations committee of the National Association of Manufacturers and appear here today as the representative of that association.