never be expected to yield to moral suasion. It has demanded a showdown. The answer of the Government to that demand must be the adoption of the bill we are discussing today.

If no other argument were offered in support of this bill, for the enactment of this measure into law, than this one page, it ought to be sufficient to inspire and influence the Members of Congress unanimously to vote for the enactment of this Wagner bill.

This is a notorious case. It has been supported by the steel industry. It is the steel industry's case. Let me point out that Mr. Weir made his agreement for an election with the members of the National Labor Board, and upon that Board at the time that he made this agreement sat the representatives of industry, Mr. Walter Teagle, of the Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey; Mr. Gerard Swope, of the General Electric Co.; Mr. Kirstein, representing a large merchandising company; and every one of these men voted unanimously with labor and the Senator, who is the chairman and myself, that this election should be held and Mr. Weir made a solemn agreement with all of these men and then flaunted it and refused to carry it out.

If I had my way I would pillory Mr. Weir as a public enemy, broadcast it throughout the land, for his refusal to carry out his agreement and abide by the law of the land, which has brought intense suffering into the homes of families. It has caused children to go hungry, women to suffer mental agony as well as physical distress.

At the present time he stands as a challenge to the Government and it is inconceivable to me that in accepting that challenge the Government will surrender to one corporation or one industry.

But what will happen before the courts finally decide? Where will be the cases of these workers who under section 7 (a), in the exercise of their rights, joined a union, committed no other crime, if that could be called a crime, no other offense, if that could be called an offenseThe CHAIRMAN. "Asserted no other right would be better."

Mr. GREEN. We would better never have passed section 7 (a) than to delude men and women into the belief that they could exercise certain rights and then pursuing that policy bring suffering into homes of working men and women.

A second powerful industry to challenge the entire recovery program is that of automobiles. This industry, like steel, is traditionally and fanatically antiunion. The automobile challenge comes in the form of the Budd case. I want to give you a brief outline of that case.

In July, the workers of the Budd plant formed an organization which is known as the "United Automobile Workers, Federal Labor Union, No. 18763," also affiliated with the American Federation of Labor. With a union formed, they asked the company to deal with them. This was entirely logical in view of the provisions of section 7 (a). But Mr. Budd did not conform with the act. He refused to recognize the union's right to speak for his employees and instead proceeded to set up his own employee representation plan, in a planned and deliberate attempt to defeat the act.

He asked his employees to vote for representatives under his em ployee representation plan before the plan itself was revealed. By no stretch of the imagination can this be considered free choice of representatives. The employees had no chance to vote upon this plan. They voted in the dark, because they had jobs which they

must keep as long as possible. Even in view of this, however, a strike occurred in the plant in November because of the continued stubborn refusal of Mr. Budd to meet the representatives of his employees who were freely chosen by those employees.

A decision of the Philadelphia Regional Labor Board was ignored by the company; the case came to the National Labor Board, which decided that an election should be held within 30 days, and that the striking workers should go back to work at once. Again, on the faith of the Board's decision, the strike was ended.

It is pathetic, it is tragic, the faith that these workers have in the Government and in the National Labor Board. They believe implicitly in it. They hoped that justice would at least be done. They gave up the advantage they had gained.

But Mr. Budd refused to rehire the vast majority of the men. Some 800 of them are, in fact, still unemployed, although many new and inexperienced men have been added.

A statement issued by Senator Wagner on the position of the National Labor Board was, in part, as follows:

The essential part of our decision was that the men should be reinstated and an election held within 30 days, supervised by the National Labor Board, to choose representatives for collective bargaining. This would have been the same sort of election as the Board has supervised in many plants and mines. It is a method of settlement against which there can be no valid objection by any employer sincerely desirous of carrying out the letter and spirit of section 7 (a) of the Recovery Act. Mr. Budd's excuse for an objection was that he had an election on September 7 through a plan of representation, which he had posted up in his plant on September 1, the day after a substantial part of his workers had enrolled in a labor union.

That election to which Mr. Budd professed such loyalty was the one which was arranged by the company without consulting the employees, and without informing the employees on what they were voting. The election itself may have been fair-that was never the question. The issue was whether or not the men should enjoy the freedom conferred upon them by section 7 (a). Mr. Budd was and is, apparently, determined that they shall not.

I need not remind you that after 4 years of incredible suffering and hardship, after 4 years of job hunting and unemployment, workers are today in a position in which it is difficult, if not impossible, to defy the employer, no matter what his demands may be. That is why section 7 (a) must be made clear, unambiguous, and enforceable; that is why company unions must be placed outside the law; that is why the National Labor Board must be given the enforcement powers which it has not yet had, and which the present bill will give it. We must have a law which cannot be defied as Mr. Budd has defied section 7 (a); we must have a National Labor Board which cannot be ignored, as Mr. Budd has seen fit to ignore the National Labor Board. Where is any desire for fairness or cooperation either with the employees or with the administration to be seen in any of the actions of Mr. Budd? Is there anywhere an indication that the Budd Co. wants to play fair with its employees? That it wants to play fair with the administration? And the entire issue is that the company refused to meet and deal wth union representatives; that it denied the workers the right specifically granted them in section 7 (a). Four months have been spent in delays, heartbreaking to the employees concerned, and to the union. This delay is due very largely to the

fact that the National Labor Board does not have the power to enforce the decisions which it considers right and fair in the case. Meantime, the Budd Co., like the Weir Co., displays the Blue Eagle, the symbol of the "new deal"; meanwhile, it enjoys Government contracts and Government protection and the benefits of the code. Meanwhile, a tragedy has taken place in Philadelphia directly traceable to the stubborn, unyielding, uncomprising attitude of this country, a tragedy that touches the infant as well as the mother, a tragedy that stalks abroad through the business sections as well as in the home. Eight hundred men walk the streets because they tried to take advantage of their legal rights.

Can a government, so big and democratic as this, permit such a condition to exist? We believe that this bill proposed by Senator Wagner will at least go a long way to remedy such situations as this.

Now, I must hasten. I do not want to give the impression that steel and automobiles are the only industries in which open violation of the National Industrial Recovery Act has occurred. If this were true, the situation would not be as serious as it is. Unfortunately, there are many employers only too willing to follow the lead of the powerful industries in the evasion of the law. I want to give you brief outlines of two other cases, to show how far the intention and the purpose to evade the act has been carried.

One of the two cases I want to cite is that of the Harriman Hosiery Co., of Harriman, Tenn. On July 1933 a union was formed among the employees of this company. On the same day a number of the employees active in the formation of the union were dismissed—many of whom had been with the company for a long time. The representatives of the union attempted to meet with the management, to establish some kind of working basis of cooperation with the management, in what they considered, rightly, to be the spirit of the N.R.A.

They were met with a statement from the general counsel of the company to the effect that "we will not agree at any time to recognize the union, arbitrate on propositions we are unable to agree upon, or to enter into contracts individually or collectively" with the workers. Of course, a strike occurred. There was no other alternative for the workers but to strike. The walk-out occurred in October. Since that time, the Atlanta Regional Labor Board and the National Labor Board have made every possible effort to bring about some kind of agreement. The company has blocked every move by its unwavering refusal to cooperate in the attempts to find a solution of the problem.

The employees have tried to cooperate with the administration. At the request of the National Labor Board, and upon assurance that some kind of settlement could and would be reached, the strike was called off. The company refused to take back most of the strikers. They secured an injunction against picketing or any other activity of the union, and prohibited their striking employees from congregating on the streets or in any way getting together. Some 100 men and women employees were arrested and thrown into jail under the injunction. The representatives of the union who came before the National Labor Board to present their case were, upon return to Harriman from Washington, immediately put in jail. Five days after the National Labor Board had asked that the strike be terminated, upon an understanding that the company would attempt a settlement, the general counsel of the company, in a letter to Senator Wagner, stated:

The company has consistently taken the position that it would not recognize a union in its plant; that it would not enter into written contracts, either with individuals or representatives of a group of its employees; and that it would not submit any question on which it and its employees or their representatives could not agree, to arbitration.

Meantime, the workers were forced to depend upon the Federal Emergency Relief Administration for food and clothing and fuel. Because the industry refused to support the recovery program, the Government was forced to assume responsibility for its employees. These men and women and children suffered hunger and cold because they demanded their rights under section 7 (a). Harriman is a town in which the employees of the company still live in a state of feudalism. They enjoy few of the privileges of freemen and free citizens. They cannot win their battle alone. The odds against them are far too great. They must be freed, they must be protected in their rights. On February 2, the National Labor Board denounced the Harriman Co. as determined "to perpetuate discord, foster industrial unrest and obstruct the forces of recovery." It is such companies at which the bill under discussion today is aimed. It is such companies who will respond to nothing but legal force, resolutely applied. It is such companies who are doing all in their power to destroy the entire recovery program and reduce us to the chaos out of which we are struggling. As a further proof, if further proof is needed of this, let me quote one last statement of the Harriman Hosiery Co. The general counsel for that company, on January 4, 1934, before the National Labor Board stated the position of the company as follows: We are perfectly willing to enter into a unilateral proposition will then post it on our own bulletin board as a rule of regulation of our plant, enforceable against us.

* * *

and

Could a more perfect example of failure to comply with either the spirit or the letter of section 7 (a) be found? Could any better argument be found than the statement that I have just quoted for the amendment of section 7 (a)?

There is one other case I wish to describe very briefly. This is the case of the National Lock Co. of Lockport, Ill. On August 31, 1933, some 800 workers in this plant refused to work unless their rights to organize were recognized. The company immediately obtained very drastic injunctions against the employees, and set about the formation of a company controlled and instituted union. When the Chicago Regional Labor Board attempted to intervene and find a basis for settlement, the company proceeded to secure an injunction against the members of that Board restraining any member of that Board from conducting a hearing, making a report, or making any statement on the case. They did that. They restrained an instrumentality of the Government. The injunction was granted and the Board was forbidden to function and did not function.

Senator DAVIS. Was that a board appointed by the National Labor Board?

Mr. GREEN. That was a board created by the National Labor Board, the Regional Labor Board located at Chicago, a board made up with an equal representation of employers and employees and an impartial chairman.

Senator WAGNER. Under the Recovery Act?
Mr. GREEN. Under the Recovery Act.

Senator WAGNER. Mr. Robert Hutchins, president of the Illinois University

Mr. GREEN. Mr. Robert Hutchins, president of Chicago University, is the impartial chairman of the board.

The CHAIRMAN. Did the legal proceedings which terminated in the injunction raise any question of jurisdiction and authority?

Mr. GREEN. Senator, I am unable to tell you because I have not a copy of the application here, but it was granted by a local judge. The CHAIRMAN. What was the ground?

Senator WAGNER. A question of jurisdiction.

Mr. GREEN. I think it was a question of jurisdiction.

At any rate they got it, and the regional labor board was prevented from functioning. The 800 people are still out and starving unless they are fed by the Federal and State Governments.

Senator WAGNER. What was the date of that injunction approximately?

Mr. GREEN. It was shortly after August. I think it was in September.

The CHAIRMAN. We would be pleased to have a reference to it in the record.

Mr. GREEN. The company secured this injunction restraining the members of this board of conducting a hearing. The employees on strike were prohibited by one injunction from coming within one half mile of the plant. Surely the action of the company in securing the injunction against the regional labor board cannot be looked upon as in any way consistent with the spirit of the recovery program. Then the company secured an injunction against the regional labor board restraining it from coming anywhere near the plant.

Now, they were guilty of deception, too. The company, in an effort to mislead its employees, posted on its bulletin boards a garbled quotation of section 7 (a). Their version of section 7 (a) omitted that portion of clause 1, which states that the employees choice of representatives shall be free from the interference, restraint, or coercion of the employers, and clause 2 of section 7 (a) was quoted as saying that "no employee" shall be required as a condition of employment to join any "organization" instead of "any company union." The entire action of the company, indeed, shows studied hostility to the purposes of section 7 (a). The general counsel of the company in a letter to the National Labor Board said, among other things:

We realize, as this Board must, that you have no jurisdiction to do anything with the company. But this company ought not to be subjected to the annoyance and humiliation of having a report made in any way criticizing it. It will create industrial discord in the plant and in the city of Rockford.

And this company flies the Blue Eagle, notwithstanding the fact that the injunction was granted restraining the regional labor board from functioning, the National Labor Board called them in, employers and employees, to Washington. We tried our best-honestly and sincerely tried to settle that controversy, offered to let them hire these people back as they needed them, creating a preferential list of the employees and selecting new employees from this list, and until all of these old employees who had worked for them for years were returned.

They positively and absolutely refused even the mediation services of the National Labor Board.