It states, that five or more individuals assembled for an unlawful purpose and threatening violence to the person or property of a person supposed to have violated a law is a mob and if damage is inflicted, they are guilty of a felony.

R.

The N. L. Ř. A. contains no identical provision. However, under all the rulings as we have interpreted them, mass picketing is prohibited.

Section 6037, the subject of strike breaking, is as follows:

Employers are prohibited from engaging nonresidents for police duty or im any way to assist in the execution of the State laws.

The N. L. R. A. contains no such provision. However, an employer engaged in strike breaking would violate section 8 (a) of the act. Then, there is the interference with political activity under section 175. It is unlawful for an employer to influence the political actions or opinions of his employees by the threat that if any political candidate is defeated or elected work will cease or any other threat.

It is also unlawful to prevent an employee from voting by threat of discharge. N. L. R. A. contains no such provision, nor a like provision. An employee may absent himself from work for 3 hours in order to vote in an election without deduction of pay and those who violate this provision are guilty of a misdemeanor. That constitutes all that we are able to find in the laws of West Virginia dealing with labor relations directly or

Senator NEELY. I think that your failure to find anything similar to the Taft-Hartley law in the statutes of West Virginia is so complete that I shall be obliged to continue to support Senator Taft for the Republican nomination. [Laughter.]

Mr. DENHAM. I still withdraw.

Senator NEELY. I want one or the other of you two to be nominated on the Republican ticket but I think I must prefer Senator Taft. Senator TAFT. As I understand it, Mr. Denham, in effect, the laws of West Virginia simply contain a prohibition against mass picketing. Mr. DENHAM. In effect that is the only prohibition. I could read the résumé

Senator TAFT. And they have failed to adopt a little Wagner Act when the Wagner Act was enacted nationally.

Mr. DENHAM. We could not find it.

Senator DONNELL. Mr. Denham, I do not want you to take too much time on this, because I am going to have you, if you will permit. us, to put all of this in the record, but I wonder if you would be willing to give us an illustration or two more of just any State that you might pick out.

Senator MURRAY. Does the Senator intend to have this printed in the record?

Senator DONNELL. I think it should be, Senator.

Mr. DENHAM. There are certain States, Senator, that we know have prohibitory statutes with reference to closed shops, and things of that

sort.

Senator DONNELL. Yes.

Senator TAFT. How many? Not that I am interested in it, because this attempts to invalidate those.

Mr. DENHAM. I am not able to tell you exactly, but Mr. Smith tells me there are 14 such States we know of.

Senator DONNELL. That have prohibitions against closed shops?
Mr. DENHAM. Against the union-security provisions.

Senator DONNELL. Yes.

Mr. DENHAM. They are all in here, but for instance, the next one I happen to come to is Georgia, and Georgia has a provision which says that nothing in the powers of arbitration, mediation given to the Commissioner of Labor shall limit the employee's right to bargain collectively, and then it is unlawful for any person acting alone or in concert with others to compel any person to join or refrain from joining any labor organization or to strike or refrain from striking against his will by any threatened or actual interference with his person.

Senator DONNELL. Now, that prohibition, if I may interrupt, is directed against any person. That would include not only an employer but an employee and a labor organization.

Mr. DENHAM. Yes, sir.

Senator DONNELL. Just like the Taft-Hartley Act has provisions leveled against both employer and employee.

Mr. DENHAM. A hasty reading would lead me to that conclusion. Senator DONNELL. Very well.

Mr. DENHAM. To strike or to refrain from striking against his will by any threatened or actual interference with his person, immediate family, physical property, or by any threatened or actual interference with the pursuit of lawful employment by such person or by his immediate family. Violations are made misdemeanors.

Then, the digest of the closed shop and union-security limitations. which have been made here read as follows:

Georgia has enacted an anti-closed-shop law which in substance provides that no individual shall be required as a condition of employment or continuance of employment, to be or remain a member or to affiliate with a labor organization or to refrain from membership in or affiliation with a labor organization; nor shall any individual be required as a condition of employment or continuance of the same to pay any fee, assessment, or other sum of money whatsoever to a labor organization.

The comment here on this memorandum is:

Georgia thus outlaws even the union-security provision contained in the proviso to section 8 (a) of the Taft-Hartley Act.

Senator DONNELL. Yes, sir.

Mr. DENHAM. If you desire to continue with these

Senator DONNELL. I do not want to pursue this in great detail because the record will show that. I am wondering when was this compilation made that you are reading?

Mr. DENHAM. This compilation that I have here was made quite recently, within the last 30 days.

Senator DONNELL. I am wondering if it shows in my own State the so-called King-Thompson labor bill.

Mr. DENHAM. I think it does, sir.

Senator DONNELL. Would you be kind enough to turn to that? Mr. DENHAM. In Missouri, article I, section 29 of the Missouri Constitution says the right of organizing and bargaining

Senator DONNELL. That is the new Constitution of Missouri that was adopted in 1945; is it not?

Mr. DENHAM. I think so.

Senator DONNELL. I believe it was 1945.

Mr. DENHAM. I do not have the date of it. Employees have the right to organize and bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing. We are familiar with section 7 of the TaftHartley Act.

In Senate bill 79, laws of 1947, section 2, subsection 1-by the way, that is not a quotation of the law, these are simply digests made by the men who handle the stuff-controversies between unions or between employers and employee groups over representation or work will be settled between the parties to the dispute without work stoppage, otherwise they will submit the controversy to final and binding arbitration as is agreeable to the parties. Failing this, the industrial commission thereupon upon application by either party may make a determination, which is binding on all parties.

Section 303 of our act makes it unlawful for labor organizations to engage in a jurisdictional strike, as we know.

Then, the next section, a subsection of the above section, states that the industrial commission may conduct an election among the employees for the purpose of determining the bargaining agent upon a majority vote.

Another section subsequently-it is noted here-states that employees will not strike unless such strike has been authorized by a majority vote of all employees eligible to vote at an election, after notice to all voters and held not more than 60 days prior to such strike. In section 5 of B. S. 79, laws of 74-what is "B. S."? Senator DONNELL. I have no idea what it is. [Laughter.] Mr. DENHAM. Maybe it is "R. S.", Revised Statutes. Senator DONNELL. Yes; Revised Statutes.

Mr. DENHAM. I can think of a lot of other things, Senator, too— collective bargaining contracts are enforceable at law or in equity, and the breach thereof is subject to the same remedies, including injunctive relief, as other contracts.

Senator DONNELL. Mr. Denham, do you observe as you scan the pages that you are now looking at from Missouri any provision with regard to strikes of employees of public utilities?

Mr. DENHAM. Yes, sir.

Senator DONNELL. Would you tell us what it says there?

Mr. DENHAM. "It is a misdemeanor for a State employee to strike," which is in section 7.

Senator DONNELL. That has a striking resemblance to section 305 of the Taft-Hartley Act; at least in substance.

Mr. DENHAM. Yes, sir. That is the one you are speaking of. When we come to the secondary boycott-

Senator DONNELL. Pardon me, the one to which you referred is governmental. I am talking now about public utilities. To illustrate, I am talking about an electric light company or a power company, a water company, a gas company, or anything of that type.

Mr. DENHAM. I do not find it, unless it would be included. These résumés sometimes may overlook something of that sort that would be in the act unless it directly is applicable to that, and dealt with no other subject.

Senator DONNELL. Mr. Denham, I will not take more time on that, but would you be kind enough to have your representative in your office examine the law of Missouri and if you find additional provisions which you will find with respect to strikes against public utilities, to have that added, if it is not already in here?

Mr. DENHAM. If it is not already in here I shall see that it is added; yes, sir.

Senator DONNELL. I think you will find a very strong vigorous provision in the Missouri law with respect to that, which was a recent matter, recently the subject matter of considerable public comment in Missouri.

Senator TAFT. May I ask the Senator whether the legislatures that passed these laws were Republican or Democrat?

Senator DONNELL. Republican. I cannot say in regard to every provision; I cannot say that, but the King-Thompson Act was an act which the authors submitted, and they were Mr. King and Mr. Thompson. Mr. King is a very well known member of the Republican Party, and Mr. Thompson was the Republican candidate for governor this year, this past year, 1948.

Senator HILL. What happened to him?

Senator HUMPHREY. How did he come out? [Laughter.] Would you like to give us the vote?

Senator DONNELL. Yes, I can give you the vote. [Laughter.]

Senator HILL. Senator, let me ask one question. I imagine that this bill was discussed quite a bit in that campaign, was it not, since his name was on it?

Senator DONNELL. Yes, I think it was; yes, sir.

Mr. DENHAM. I shall have that investigation made, Senator, and whatever there is on that in the record, I will have added, and I have a recollection of that bill myself.

Senator DONNELL. Yes.

Mr. DENHAM. That will be added to what you have here. If you desire the group, as I say, this incorporates a digest made by my staff of the laws of the 46 States.

Senator DONNELL. Yes.

Mr. DENHAM. Which deals with and does

Senator DONNELL. Well, now, generally speaking, Mr. Denham, would you say there are a considerable number of provisions of the various States which evidence a striking similarity to the provisions of the Taft-Hartley Act, at least in principle?

Mr. DENHAM. A very substantial number of them will be found to contain one or more of the outstanding features of the Taft-Hartley Act. It would be quite a chore to attempt to take them one by one, and analyze them here with the time as precious as it is.

Senator DONNELL. Mr. Chairman, I offer in the record at this time the complete compilation, and ask that it be supplemented by such, if any, additional data that Mr. Denham furnishes from Missouri or any other State.

Senator MURRAY. Yes, it may be done.

(Mr. Denham subsequently addressed the clerk as follows:)

Mr. EARL B. WIXCEY,

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Washington 25, D. C., February 16, 1949.

Clerk, Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare,

United States Capitol Building, Washington 25, D. C.

DEAR MR. WIXCEY: During my testimony in the day session on February 9, Senator Donnell offered in the record a compilation of comparative statutes in the various States as they related to the matter that is touched upon in the Taft-Hartley Act. These were offered to be printed, in full, in the record. The reference on this is found on page 2132 of the transcript for the day session, February 9, 1949.

Senator Donnell asked me, also, to supplement the material with reference to the laws of Missouri by whatever might be found pertaining to labor relations in public utilities in Missouri. I have done that, and have attached to the abstract of the Missouri laws the material pertaining to labor disputes in public utilities, which is found in the Laws of 1947 of Missouri.

It was also asked that I have these various compilations documented so as to refer them to the various enactments on which the provisions of the respective codes are based. That has been done, as indicated in the covering memorandum which is descriptive of the material.

I think this is now complete and submit it for inclusion in the record, as indicated on page 2132 of the transcript.

Very truly yours,

ROBERT N. DENHAM, General Counsel.

Each of the 48 States has some legislation covering one or more of the general type of subjects affecting labor-management relations as is covered in the National Labor Relations Act, as amended.

In the attached memoranda each item of such legislation is summarized and compared with the comparable provision, if any, of the Federal statute.

The dates of the State legislation are given either in the body of the memorandum on the State or on a separate sheet attached to it.

ALABAMA

1. Alabama has no separate labor relations act similar to N. L. R. A.

(a) It is the policy of the State, in the exercise of its police power, and in the public interest, to promote voluntary and peaceful settlement and adjustment of labor disputes and to regulate the activities and affairs of labor organizations, their officers and agents and other representatives.

(b) Section 1, N. L. R. A.: It is declared the policy of the act that industrial strife may be minimized if employers, employees, and labor organizations recognize each other's legitimate rights and, above all, recognize that they have no right to engage in acts which jeopardize the public health, safety, or interest. Also, to prescribe the legitimate rights of each party, to provide orderly procedures for the protection of these rights, and to prevent practices which are inimical to the general welfare.

3. Title 26, section 382 (registration)

(a) Every labor organization functioning in the State must file a copy of the constitution and bylaws of both the local and national union with the State department of labor and any future changes therein. Unions with more than 25 members must execute and file an annual written report with each member and the department of labor, showing its name and location, names and addresses of its officers and agents and their salary, date of election and number of members,. a financial statement and a statement of property owned and money on hand.

(b) Section 9, (f) and (g), N. L. R. A.: Prior to the processing of representation cases, union-shop elections, or charges of unfair labor practices, the union, as well as any national or international with which it is affiliated, must have filed specified financial and organizational reports with the secretary of labor, and must prove that it has furnished copies of the financial report to all of its members. This information must be kept current by annual reports. 4. Title 26, section 390 (fees, dues, and assessments)

(a) Unions may not collect any fee as a work permit or as a condition for the privilege to work. This does not prevent the collection of initiation fees or dues. (b) N. L. R. A. contains no like provision; however, section 8 (b) (5) prohibits requirement of payment of initiation fees which the board finds to be excessive or discriminatory from employees covered by union-security agreements. 5. Title 26, section 383 (right to organize and bargain)

(a) Every person (except supervisory and professional employees) is free to join or refrain from joining labor organizations. In the exercise of such freedom they shall be free from interference by force, coercion, intimidation, or by threats. of injury to family.

1 References are to Alabama Code of 1940.

85905-49-pt. 3—10