ÆäÀÌÁö À̹ÌÁö
PDF
ePub

tionship to both the labor movement and to the employer responsibility. Out of that you get a very much sounder permanent system, it seems to me, than if you rely upon those who have already given over active responsibilities for the conduct of industry and leadership of labor.

I think one of the most important things that will grow out of such a board as this is that the active participation of both employer and employee in the educative experience of finding a formula, will develop a technique which is for the welfare of the whole American people.

I also wish to recommend to you, sir, that this board should be located not as an independent office of the Government, but should be located in the Department of Labor. I could, with equal logic, recommend that it be located in the Department of Commerce, or located in the Department of Justice, if you like, but I think it should be located in a regular department of the Government, a permanent department of the Government, one which has an officer, who has a place in the Cabinet of the President. I think that only by such location will you get that attention, that prestige and that continual cultivation and fostering of this important new function in our life that it deserves and that it ought to have. I am very much afraid if we pass into a period of prosperity, when these problems become less acute, that there will be that neglect of such a board in the public mind and in the conceptions of Congress, and in the conceptions of any administration which happens to be in power that it may lose its prestige as a national body. I think that its purposes can best be served by being attached to a regular department of the Govern

ment.

You will forgive me for a certain jealousy when I say I think it should be attached to the Department of Labor, I really believe that that department will be the department in which it can be developed into its soundest activities and can be given the very fullest cooperation. Here it can find the greatest integration with the other activities of the Department of Labor.

The CHAIRMAN. And especially if you are going to maintain the functions which you now have in the Bureau of Conciliation?

Secretary PERKINS. Especially if you are going to maintain the functions which we now have in the Bureau of Conciliation.

The CHAIRMAN. Don't you think the membership of seven is a little large? This bill provides a membership of 2 representing the employers, 2 representing the employees, and 3 representing the general public. The three representing the general public are given a salary of $10,000. Don't you think it would be better to have just a board-I would like to have your views about thatthree members, those representing the employers and employees to be associate members?

Secretary PERKINS. That is a possible device. You mean by "associate members" members without a vote but in an advisory capacity?

The CHAIRMAN. In an advisory capacity. Let the responsibility rest upon the three representing the public interest.

Secretary PERKINS. That is a perfectly possible device and one that is not without sound and reasonable basis.

The CHAIRMAN. May I suggest that you and Senator Wagner give some consideration to that suggestion which has been made?

Secretary PERKINS. I shall be glad to, but I would like to say at this moment, that after having given that considerable thought, my conclusion-although this is susceptible of correction, if the Senator wants to talk it over with me-my thought is that on the whole it would be wiser to maintain representation with vote by both employer members and labor members. That is for the present. It may be that we shall work out of that, but we are engaged at the present time in a mutual experience in this country, one in which the educative experience of responsibility in this field, is, I think, of extreme importance both to the employers' and employees' repre

sentations.

When an employer comes to take responsibility for a suggestion affecting the public interest, which he must take when he is sitting on one of these boards, he does begin to take a more impersonal and impartial view of the dispute than he does if he is only an adviser, and therefore in almost a special pleader's relationship. I think the same is undoubtedly true of the labor side.

The CHAIRMAN. My experience is that where you have a board composed of officials who are paid a full salary and other members of the board are paid a per diem, there is apt to be conflict in the feeling that the full-paid officials have superior rights, and are apt to assume them and proceed without consulting those who are on a per diem basis on the board.

Secretary PERKINS. In this proposed board you have self-interest motivating both sides.

The CHAIRMAN. I think if you have one commissioner, one representative of the employers and one representative of the employees, that my objection would not be so sound, but I think with 3 fullpaid public officials serving on the commission and the other 4 being called in on a per-diem basis, there is apt to be a feeling that the other 4 are inconsequential in their rights and powers. At another stage we can discuss this section of the bill.

Secretary PERKINS. I think Senator Wagner can tell you more clearly than I can, out of his very large experience this summer, that the problems before the labor board have been so great as to make it physically difficult to handle the number of cases coming before it, and it is highly desirable it should be able to reconstitute within itself a group to hear a special case, and in that group there should be representation of all three parties.

Senator WAGNER. I will discuss that with the committee later on. Secretary PERKINS. I also wanted to point out, sir, another reason for placing it in the Department of Labor is that the Department of Labor already has a large personnel which could be called into the service of this labor board appropriately, because they are already specialized on certain fields with which this labor board would have to come in contact. They could be called to do this service appropriately, if it were in the Department of Labor, and so save such expenditures that might otherwise be necessary by a growing staff for such a bureau or board.

The CHAIRMAN. I think Senator Wagner would probably agree if this board should be under the direction of any department it should be the Department of Labor.

Senator WAGNER. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. It isn't necessary, but it could go there.

Senator WAGNER. I am agreeing with Madam Secretary on that particular phase of it. We rarely differ on anything.

I

Secretary PERKINS. I want to point out one more thing on this. I do not think the board, if it should be placed in the Department of Labor, should be under the authority of the Secretary of Labor. want to make that quite clear. I think the board should be appointed by the President and should have the distinction and prestige that comes from such appointment, and the independence from any rule or any imposition of a point of view by the Secretary of Labor. It should be an independent board. The fact it is attached to the Department of Labor would not in any way bring it under the control of the Secretary of Labor, and I do not think it should be.

I think, looking forward into the future, we recognize that this board will be judicial in its nature, and should, therefore, not be dominated by any Secretary or any Secretary's point of view, but that the attachment to the Department of Labor, as a purely administrative function, would be relatively simple.

Senator Wagner will recall in the Department of Labor in the State of New York there exists a judicial board appointed by the Governor, not responsible to the Commissioner of Labor in any way, and yet able to call on the Commissioner of Labor for such services and personnel as it needs, and the Commissioner of Labor is obliged to give them such services. It has worked out in a very satisfactory way for the particular judicial function which has to be performed there, and has made a minimum of cost and of conflict.

The CHAIRMAN. We have such a board in Massachusetts, in the department of industry and labor.

Secretary PERKINS. Yes. That is similar and is appointed also by the Governor and is separate from the Commissioner's authority and has a very definite usefulness.

With regard to the substantive provisions of title I, I think the time has come to review very seriously the responsibility of the Government to various individuals who have taken literally, in the course of the past 9 months, the meaning of section 7 (a) of the Recovery Act. The Department of Labor has investigated over 3,200 complaints against 264 employers where it was charged that there had been discharge and discrimination against individuals because they had attempted to organize a union or an organization of employees independent of the employer. There are other cases I know in the hands of the Labor Board and in the hands of other departments of the Government. These individuals undoubtedly acted, it seems to be clear on investigation, within what they believed to be their rights and their opportunities under section 7 (a) of the National Industrial Recovery Act.

The Government and Congress certainly has an obligation to people who find themselves in that position, who are discriminated against, and there should, therefore, I think, be some clear definition of just what the responsibility and responsibilities, opportunities, and obligations of both parties to this contract are. Workers should be reassured and reconfirmed in the rights of free speech, free assembly, free association in any organization of their choice, and the right to elect representatives to represent them in the details of their collective bargaining, and there should be some clear definition by Congress that the management itself cannot interfere or intervene in the free choice of the workers of their representatives.

We have used the term "company-dominated union", for want of a better term. That is almost identical with what we mean by the term which is used when they speak of the captive mines. It is a union or an organization formed by the ownership or management of the company, dominated in its policies, and in many cases the officers salaried or paid on time by the employer. No such organization can, or course, exercise really independent judgment with regard to the major issues and the major points of difference between the employers and employees in that plant or in any industry.

The free opportunity for organization of the workers for purpose of being represented in a collective bargain is, it seems to me, essential to the further development of a sound industrial relationship in the interests of all of the people of America.

We are now in a transition period in our history and in our economic life. There is no reason why a people who are committed as we are to the conception that by the proper use and employment of political democracy we can solve our problems cannot avoid the major injustices which people have suffered under any other transition periods. I am not one of those who think that industrial dispute is necessarily wrong or always disastrous. There is a natural conflict of view in many aspects of life which springs up, and there must be a settlement of that conflict. It must be settled either by the economic action of those who are in control on either side, or it must be settled by some appeal to a constituted judicial procedure. It may sometimes involve utilization, and probably should involve the maintenance of both methods and both techniques, but unless we have an orderly judicial process there will assuredly always be the appeal to economic force even at times when it is not necessary and not wise, and when it involves an unnecessary hardship upon the whole community as well as upon those who are parties to the dispute. A useful and practical alternative is desirable-the public interest.

Therefore it seems to me that this session of Congress should give very great heed to the possibilities of the further development of the judicial method as an opportunity for the settlement of such industrial disputes as can be properly settled by the judicial method.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there any questions by the committee? If not, Madam, let me express the thanks of the committee for your able presentation and to express the hope that we may keep in touch with you and have your further advise and cooperation.

Secretary PERKINS. I shall be very glad to keep in touch with you. The CHAIRMAN. Is Dr. Francis J. Haas in the room?

Senator WAGNER. He is coming here tomorrow.

The CHAIRMAN. Milton Handler, general counsel National Labor Board and professor of law at Columbia University.

STATEMENT BY MILTON HANDLER, GENERAL COUNSEL TO THE NATIONAL LABOR BOARD AND PROFESSOR OF LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY

The CHAIRMAN. Your full name, please.

Mr. HANDLER. Milton Handler.

The CHAIRMAN. And your present occupation or profession?

Mr. HANDLER. General counsel to the National Labor Board, professor of law at Columbia University.

The CHAIRMAN. How long have you been general counsel?

Mr. HANDLER. Since October 8, 1933.

The CHAIRMAN. We will be pleased to have your views in regard to this legislation.

Mr. HANDLER. If it please the members of the committee, I should like to review briefly the experience of this board since its establishment on August 5, 1933, last year, and to acquaint you with some of the difficulties under which it has labored, to explain the need of new legislation and to analyze some of the important features of the pending bill.

I have with me in my brief case some of the documents you requested in the testimony of Senator Wagner, which I should like to present to the reporter, if I may.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes; you may leave them with the secretary.

Mr. HANDLER. The present Board was established primarily as a board of mediation to compose industrial disputes, and for that reason it was organized on a bipartisan basis, with equal representation to labor and to industry, with an impartial chairman at its head. The volume of disputes during the early phases of the recovery program required the establishment of regional or local boards throughout the country in order to handle this tremendous volume of cases.

The CHAIRMAN. Do the regional boards act in those cases that are referred to them by the Federal board here?

Mr. HANDLER. Well, we have worked out a procedure whereby cases come before the Board either on the complaint of the parties or on the motion of the Board, and when a dispute arises either our boards in the field may take action on their own motion, or the cases may be referred to them by the Department of Labor, or they may be referred to them by the administrative staff of the Board. We have worked out necessarily a complete and whole-hearted cooperation between the Department of Labor and the administrative tive staff of the Board in order to avoid duplication of effort in any of these cases.

The CHAIRMAN. I do not quite understand what the regional board does.

Mr. HANDLER. Well, the regional boards are composed of equal representatives of management and labor under the head of an impartial chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Do they first try to settle any local trouble, and if they are unable to settle it, it comes to the larger and central board here in Washington?

Mr. HANDLER. Precisely. The Board has assembled a staff of competent mediators whose function it is of adjust the disputes in the field, in cooperation with the regional boards.

Senator DAVIS. How many conciliators have you?

Mr. HANDLER. We have approximately 10.

Senator DAVIS. May I ask you what they receive monthly? Are they all on a per-diem basis or a monthly salary?

Mr. HANDLER. Some are on both, but I do not have those details

just now, Mr. Senator.

The CHAIRMAN. You will furnish us with that information?
Senator DAVIS. Will you produce it for the record?

Mr. HANDLER. I will be delighted to.

The CHAIRMAN. You might let us have a record of the complete personnel of the organization. I suppose there is no objection to that, Senator Wagner?

« ÀÌÀü°è¼Ó »