both unions from getting anywhere. To date, this company has failed to carry out the decision of the Board. Before this case goes through the courts, it will take another year or longer. The employees of this company have been deprived of the benefits of collective bargaining for over 6 years, through the most ruthless methods.

It is the president of this company, W. Gibson Carey, Jr., who was recently honored by his fellow manufacturers with the chairmanship of the National Chamber of Commerce. It is the president of this company that is now leading the fight against the Wagner Act. Yet the Yale & Towne Co. is being awarded United States Government orders amounting to tens of thousands of dollars.

SERVEL ELECTROLUX CORPORATION

This company manufactures gas refrigerators and employs between four and five thousand workers. Its president, Mr. Ruthenberg, served as local chairman of the National Metal Trades Association, whose spies, as your subcommittee found, were on its pay roll. These spies were successful, during 1935 and 1936, in destroying an American Federation of Labor organization. They were able to provide a strike in one of the departments which resulted in the firing of American Federation of Labor members.

Following the investigation of the National Metal Trades Association in the spring of 1937, the United Electrical, Radio, and Machine Workers commenced an organizing drive in Servel. When large numbers of employees joined the union, the company discharged almost all of the local officers and leaders, which naturally retarded the progress of the union and frightened many of those who had already joined.

In 1938, a hearing was held by the National Labor Relations Board on charges preferred by the union. The intermediate report of the trial examiner found the company guilty of fostering a company union and of discriminating against the local officers of the United Electrical, Radio, and Machine Workers. The report ordered the company to disestablish the company union and reinstate, with back pay, the officers and leaders of our local.

Following the announcement of the report of the trial examiner sentiment in favor of organization again began to rise. Attendance at union meetings increased. Dozens of new application cards for membership came in. Final order of the Board was expected to come out shortly thereafter.

It was at this point that several shop stewards began to agitate for immediate strike action. The sentiment for strike grew so strong that it was necessary for me to go to Evansville, Ind., at the end of January of this year, to meet with all the shop stewards. After 4 or 5 hours of discussion, I was successful in convincing them that a strike at that time was detrimental to the employees. We agreed that a contract be drawn up and presented to the company and that a request for conference be made. This was done, but the company refused to negotiate or to meet with the union. The same individuals who demanded strike in the past again started their propaganda for strike and were successful in bringing about a strike on

March 15. Some of our best union members were influenced by these provocateurs.

Just as soon as the strike was called, a couple of these individuals. who were mainly responsible for the calling of the strike, were standing in front of the factory gates recruiting strikers to return to work. The union did not permit this strike to continue and convinced the people to call it off after several days.

I wish to quote from the report of our international representative on the scene, as to what transpired during the strike.

* * * Judge Spencer, county circuit judge, called Meloan and me into a conference. We went along, taking a couple of local labor attorneys with us. When we got there, the judge advised us that although no serious trouble had arisen, that two of his men had advised him that the union would stir up violence the following day. Of course, we told him that we would continue in our present course of running the strike and picketing. That night on the picket line two of our members were shot, and a number of fights took place. That same night, a speaker by the name of Bender, from a private detective agency in St. Louis, spoke before the American Legion, and at that meeting were all of the local administration officials. This fink from St. Louis followed the old formula of communism, violence, etc. Then these same local officials got up and endorsed his speech. The thing was timed just right to coincide with the violence which was prepared for the plant that night.

Over the week end the company has installed a floodlight system around the plant that must have cost thousands of dollars. They have moved spotlights on the top of the building that follow cars around the streets when they approach the building.

* * *

* * * our local attorneys, are filing civil suits against the company for the two men who were shot by the guards. We will have other cases involving men who were beaten with blackjacks, etc.

* * *

* * * A number of arrests were made for throwing bricks and concrete into people's windows, and it was found that the people who threw them were not Servel employees, and were not on strike. The circuit judge had told us that there would be violence that night, and so it happened. This judge seemed to always know in advance when something would happen, and cooperated with the company in playing up the stuff they planned as the fault of the union and its members. ** *

Grocery stores were called on the telephone by Servel and told to cut off the accounts of strikers. * * *

Foremen and other company workers called on a large number of those on strike over the last week end and invited them to return to work. * * * The company, through its agents, had certain fraternal organizations pass resolutions against the union and the strike, and this aided in influencing public opinion against us.

* * *

Although the Labor Board decision has been announced sometime ago, the company is making no effort to carry out this decision, and the union is compelled to start another effort to rebuild the organization. New spies will replace those who were exposed-new violence will be planned and prepared by the company. It is under these circumstances that the employees once again must build up their organization.

S. W. FARBER CO.

This company employs about 200 employees and is one of the companies found by the subcommittee to employ National Metal Trades spies. Efforts have been made to organize these employees since 1932 with very little success.

At the end of 1937 a majority of the employees joined our organization. From that date, until February 1938, all efforts by the union to secure a contract with this company proved fruitless. At the

beginning of 1938, the company declared its intention to institute a wage cut, and in view of this a strike was called in February of 1938. In the ninth week of the strike, one of the former spies of the National Metal Trades Association, whom I named in my testimony 2 years ago, and who lost his job as a result of the investigation, came to our office and offered information pertaining to the S. W. Farber strike.

This ex-spy was very bitter against the National Metal Trades who dischargd him, left him penniless, and in a state of starvation. He informed us that the National Metal Trades was sending in several finks to the S. W. Farber strike who would appear on the picket line on a certain morning. They were to attack the picket line and then enter the plant. He gave us the names of two of these finks: Tibbets, an ex-policeman, and John McGowan. The strikers prepared prominent picket signs with the names of these finks inscribed on them, and also cameras to take pictures. On the scheduled morning, the finks appeared. The unexpected publicity took them by surprise and as a result, violence was avoided.

In order to cover itself up, the company named one of the finks. as personnel manager, another as chauffeur, still another as doorman, and so forth. These finks continued to work during the entire strike which lasted 7 months. In August 1938, the strike was terminated with a signed contract. After the contract was signed, these finks disappeared and were since seen active in other strikes in New York.

Since the signing of this agreement, the relationship between the company and the union has been entirely harmonious and peaceful. A couple of months ago, a foreman of this shop, while on his way to work, was attacked and seriously injured by unknown persons who used lead pipes. We were compelled to explain this incident in only one way, and that is, a desire on the part of some individuals to disrupt the present harmonious relationship between the union and the company and possibly sell unnecessary "protection" to this company.

I could cite many more similar instances to show that the labor spy, strikebreaker, and fink still occupy a prominent place in American industry, but that is hardly necessary. We cannot wipe out a labor espionage and strikebreaking institution of long standing through publicity and investigation alone.

The enactment of S. 1970, in my opinion, will go a long way in accomplishing the desired result. Unless this legislation is enacted without delay, the great value of 22 years of investigation by the subcommittee of the Committee on Education and Labor will prove to be a complete waste, and the practice of industry in employing spies, strikebreakers, and finks will continue to flourish as in the past.

In conclusion I wish to say that this powerful minority of manufacturers which engage in the business of labor espionage and strikebreaking is found among the loudest critics of the Wagner Act on the grounds that it is one-sided. I fully concur in the idea that labor relations in this country is still one-sided and decidedly in favor of employers.

This bill, when enacted into law, will go a long way in placing both parties engaged in collective bargaining on an equal footing.

Those employers who will continue to employ oppressive practices against their employees (1) will be deprived by the law from receiving Government contracts; (2) they will be deprived of Government loans and subsidies; (3) they will be compelled to pay substantial fines; and (4) above all, they will be given the choice of either obeying the law or of serving some time in jail and really be convinced that crime doesn't pay.

That is all, Mr. Chairman.

Senator LA FOLLETTE. Thank you for your statement. Mr. Paul Meggart.

STATEMENT OF PAUL MEGGART, CLEVELAND, OHIO

Senator LA FOLLETTE. Will you please state your full name and address, Mr. Meggart?

Mr. MEGGART. Paul Meggart, 7914 Lorain Avenue, Cleveland, Ohio. Senator LA FOLLETTE. You were a witness appearing before the subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Education and Labor, were you not?

Mr. MEGGART. I was.

Senator LA FOLLETTE. Will you proceed in your own way, please? Mr. MEGGART. Mr. Chairman, I was a witness subpenaed before the Civil Liberties Committee with regard to strikebreaking activities in the Cleveland area. I testified on the witness stand on April 13, 1938, and at that time explained that while I was a convinced and loyal union man, that I had once been connected with the strikebreaking racket and had secured a lot of practical information of how those agencies operated, having been employed on strike work by many of the agencies in Cleveland and vicinity. That information, I believe, may be helpful in your consideration of S. 1970.

I want to make it clear that I am now and have since 1936 been a member in good standing of the International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 874A. It is through the support of that organization that I am able to be here, and my appearance here is with the approval of my local union officers and of William Green, of the American Federation of Labor.

I want to state here that I first got a job with strikebreakers or finks, as they are known among themselves, through Ralph Smith's Corporation Service Bureau during the depression about 1932, when I knew nothing about strikes or unions. I was told that it was a job supporting law and order. The strike was at the Cleveland Worsted Mills. There our job was to go in and out of the picket line at shift change time as though we were workers. There was no production attempted in the plant, and we just stood around or did guard duty at the gates.

There were some fights with the pickets, and our orders were to go outside and stand around and act to get the pickets to burning up at different times. I was paid on this fink work as high as $84 a week and was influenced by that as well as by the indications that police and the law were supporting us. I was also influenced by the idea the finks put out and actually believe, which is that no union is on the level.

Later on as I got more experience and saw what stunts were pulled against union men, I tried several times to get away from those kind

of jobs. Finally in April 1936 I got a chance at an honest job and subsequently joined my union and have been as much opposed to the strikebreaking racket as any other union man and have tried to do as much as I can to stop that racket. That is why I am here. I have read Senate bill S. 1970, called the Oppressive Labor Practice Act of 1939. I believe I can tell you from practical experience how some parts of that bill will affect the labor-spy and strikebreaking business.

First, your bill certainly covers and makes labor-spy reporting of all kinds against the law. This section of the bill certainly gets right at the center of the whole business. The labor spy and his reports are the backbone of all union-busting operations and the main stand-by for the earnings of strikebreaking agencies. All the tricks that are pulled by these detective agencies or other unionbusting outfits are based on inside information they get from their

spies.

For instance, on my first strike job I was on at the Cleveland Worsted Mills, Ralph Smith had an undercover man in the union who was on the picket line and who kept us posted on all plans and moves. This fellow was pointed out to us and we were told to be careful not to slug him if we got in a fight. One night this spy tipped us off that when we left the plant we were going to be followed and he would be among the union men trailing us. We laid a trap and when our two cars drove out and were followed we drove into the trap, where other finks were waiting and surrounded the union men. We all had orders to break heads but not to beat up the spy who would yell "arrest me."

We had metal bars and when we got these two cars of union men in the trap we moved in on them from front and rear, but they drove their cars up on the sidewalk and got away without damage except to the windshield of one car which was busted with one of the metal bars we had. This sort of trapping and attempted slugging couldn't have been carried out if the spy hadn't been in there reporting.

On this job I was told by Ralph Smith's man in charge of undercover operations to be sure to keep away from the windows on the ravine side of the plant because Smith had one of his men there with a rifle who would shoot at the building from the ravine and shoot out some of the windows. We were told each time before this would happen, and on about three different times windows were shot out as scheduled. Of course, the union got the blame for that, and the strikebreaking agency profited since the company hired more finks and the job paid better. That stuff could be pulled without reporting to anybody. It wouldn't be necessary to write or phone reports as the bullets would tell the story when they hit. If Smith's spy, who was doing the shooting, got some of the union members to join him and also shoot the gun, that would be something he would want to report. I don't know whether reports like that would come under your bill or not.

I do not know that violence was ordered by Smith's men to scare the clients and give the union a bad name, because I was ordered to see that the chief engineer was kept scared. He was nervous anyway. My job was to keep him on edge at night. I would look out a window when he was around and claim I saw a picket