Mr. THOMPSON. If you feel the need to exclude minor acts of violence, then I think Senator Grassley's amendment is a proper way to go, and a necessary way to go. I don't think that S. 613 clearly excludes. Senator MATHIAS. You don't think it does? Mr. THOMPSON. No, sir, I don't. Neither do I think it necessarily needs to be excluded. I think as a practical matter in enforcement and processes, they would probably be excluded because I don't think the Federal Government would trouble itself with such things as really minor fisticuffs on picket lines. But I would have to be honest and say to you, I don't think the statute, the bill is clear on that point. If it is clear at all, it is clear the other way. Senator MATHIAS. In your statement, you say that the chamber believes that all parties to a labor dispute, employers, employees, and labor organizations, must be equally accountable under the law for injuries to the person or property of others inflicted by wrongful acts. Mr. THOMPSON. Yes, sir. Senator MATHIAS. Now, does this really mean that the chamber would not support a proposal that penalized certain conduct of labor but not management, and if that is what you really mean, how would you then respond to the contention of the opponents of this bill, that it is one-sided, since management would not be acting to obtain the property of another if it employed violence in the course of a labor dispute? Mr. THOMPSON. Well, I think the bill is designed to attack or pinpoint a very real and serious problem in this country and that is, union violence in labor disputes. I am not aware, I don't think anyone has really made a case for some of the problems on the other side. We made the statement and we will stand by the statement that we feel that anyone whether it's management, labor employees, unions, anyone else, should be accountable for wrongful acts and violence. My answer to the proposition that it is a one-sided bill is that it is a one-sided problem. And, indeed, it needs to be corrected. If there is a case made for stamping out management violence in labor disputes, then I would have no problem or quarrel with a law which would-Federal law which would deal with that. I am just not aware that there is a problem there. I don't know many businessmen who either themselves or through the employment of others, go about in any calculated way to commit violence. I suppose you could say there is some minor violence on the other side on the picket line, on the part of employees, who might be trying to get through a picket line, to get to work, and if they are the aggressor, if they are the ones who bring about the violence, then they are to be held accountable. If they are agents of the employer, and commit violence, the employer ought to be accountable for it, and I think under most laws would be. Senator GRASSLEY. Mr. Chairman, could I interject a thought? Senator MATHIAS. I am going to yield to you, Senator Grassley. You can say anything you like. Senator GRASSLEY. Thank you very much. On that point, whether or not the legislation is evenhanded, it could be questionable in S. 613 the extent to which it is equally applicable to management and labor. I am not even sure what the intent of the main sponsor of the bill is. But in regard to my amendment to the criminal code that deals with the same area, it is intended it be evenhanded. Mr. THOMPSON. I think it is clear. I think Senator Mathias asked me specifically about S. 613. Senator GRASSLEY. Then I would like to state that my amendment to the criminal code is meant to be evenhanded, equally applicable to management as well as labor and to the extent it isn't we are going to make it clear in the legislative history. The code also contains strikebreaking provisions as well, because we feel that interference with a strike is just as wrong as something labor might induce. Mr. THOMPSON. As long as you're dealing with violence, destruction of property, those types of acts, we have absolutely no quarrel with that and we so stated in our prepared statement. Senator MATHIAS. Do you have any further questions? I have in front of me, just as one example, a bulletin that has gone out from the Amalgamated Clothing & Textile Workers Union, which refers to this as an anti-union legislation. It reads: "We must take immediate action. Now they want to make it easy to put union members like ourselves in Federal prisons when we exercise our rights to walk the picket line." This is an example of many things I could read into the record, so I would like to ask you, is it true as stated in a newsletter like this, that this legislation will encourage violence as a strikebreaking tactic by employers? Mr. THOMPSON. This legislation encourage violence? I stated, I think, before you came in the room, I think this legislation will go a long way toward deterring violence because the threat of Federal prosecution, I think, is a greater deterrent in most places throughout this country, than is the threat of State or local prosecutions. In answer to Senator Mathias' question, what do you say about the potential for overburdening the Federal authorities who already are overburdened, I made the statement I think in the long run, if anything, it will relieve not only the Federal authorities, but State authorities of a lot of prosecutions that would have taken place otherwise because of this deterrent effect that this law will have. I see this as a missing link in our comprehensive labor laws in this country, both Federal and State. I think it is a very, very needed piece of legislation for that reason. Just to give you an idea, I don't know, I am not trying to be cute by bringing up the State of Maryland, but we recently went through a very violent strike in Baltimore involving the public utility over there, a construction company that was trying to perform construction work. We got six State court injunctions in that dispute and finally we were able to get a Federal court injunction which brought things to a halt. It is that kind of thrust or that kind of weight that the Federal enforcement authorities have that I think would come into play if you put this law into the books. Senator MATHIAS. In another committee this morning, there is a hearing on the New Federalism. Maybe we should go over and repeat this testimony there. Mr. THOMPSON. I thought about that, and I think you have gone so far in the labor field with Federal law, it is too late to turn it back. Senator MATHIAS. I urge you to stop downstairs in room 3302, the Governmental Affairs Committee. They will be glad to hear from you. Mr. THOMPSON. I think, if you don't mind, I will sit that one out. Senator GRASSLEY. I don't have any other questions of these wit nesses. But when they leave, I'd like to put a statement in the record. Senator MATHIAS. I have no further questions. Thank you very much. Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you very much. [The prepared statement of Mr. Thompson follows:] PREPARED STATEMENT OF ROBERT T. THOMPSON My name is Robert T. Thompson. I am senior partner in the law firm of Thompson, Mann and Hutson of Washington, D. C. and Greenville, South Carolina. I am also Regional Vice Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Chamber of Commerce of the United States and serve as Chairman of its Labor Relations Committee. Accompanying me is Arthur F. Rosenfeld, a labor law attorney on the staff of the U.S. Chamber. The U.S. Chamber is the world's largest business federation, representing more than 225,000 members, including over 220,000 business firms, 2,700 state and local chambers of commerce, and 1,300 trade and professional associations. Our members are greatly concerned with the effects of the judicially 1/ created loophole in Section 1951 of Title 18 of the United States Code, commonly known as the Hobbs Act, and we welcome this opportunity to express support for a Hobbs Act Amendment. The Chamber endorses legislation which prohibits extortionate acts of violence during a labor dispute. Violence, intimidation, and other coercive methods do not belong in labor disputes, are contrary to the public interest, and should be banned. - - The effect of the 1973 Enmons holding was to create a position outside the law beyond the jurisdiction of federal authorities for labor unions which engage in threats of violence, or actual violence, in order to secure objectives such as increased wages or benefits. The Chamber believes that all parties to a labor dispute employers, employees, and labor organizations must be held equally accountable under the law for injuries to the person or property of others inflicted by wrongful acts. We are convinced that Congress intended, in passing the Hobbs Act, that extortionate acts which result in obstruction of interstate commerce constitute a federal offense, even though the illegal act may have been committed in order to obtain property or concessions which are legitimate objectives of collective bargaining.. Congress did not intend to deny to federal courts the power to interdict violent criminal acts simply because those acts are committed by persons participating or interested in a labor dispute. The Hobbs Act A. The Local 807 Case The 1946 Hobbs Act, an amendment to the original federal anti-extortion statute known as the Anti-Racketeering Act of 1934, was passed in response to a Supreme Court interpretation of the earlier statute. In United States v. Local 807, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, 2/ the Court overturned convictions of union members who, through use of violence or threats of violence as trucks entered New York City, obtained the equivalent of wages for driving and unloading the trucks from the owners, even though this work was not performed by the defendants. In effect, these illusory "wages" were paid 1/ United States v. Enmons, 410 U.S. 396. (1973). 2/ 315 U.S. 521 (1942) 3/ 18 U.S.S. § 1951. by the owners, and received by the defendants, to guarantee safe passage into New York City. The issue in Local 807 centered on a provision in the Anti-Racketeering Act which excluded from the Act's coverage "... the payment of wages by a bonafide employer to a bona-fide employee.' In the final analysis, the Local 807 decision eliminated the effectiveness of the 1934 Anti-Racketeering Act in regard to labor union violence. In addition, the opinion of the Court in Local 807 gave rise to a legacy which continues to limit the use of federal anti-extortion laws in situations involving labor unions. Specifically, the decision implies that legitimate ends justify violent means. 31 The 1946 Hobbs Act was a direct response by Congress to Local 807. The Act provides in pertinent part that: (a) Whoever in any way or degree obstructs, delays, or affects Commerce or the movement of any article or commodity in commerce, by robbery or extortion or attempts or conspires so to do, or commits or threatens physical violence to any person or property in furtherence of a plan or purpose to do anything in violation of this section shall be fined ... or imprisoned ... or both. (2) The term "extortion" means the obtaining of property color of official right. The passage of the Hobbs Act was a clear repudiation of the Local 807 decision, and of the violent behavior practiced by the defendants in that case. However, in U.S. v. Enmons, the Court again misconstrued Congressional intent, rendering enforcement of the Hobbs Act impotent. B. The Enmons Decision During an economic strike, certain members and officers of the striking union were alleged to have committed five specific violent acts against the employer, the purpose of which were to strengthen the union's bargaining position. The charges included firing high powered rifles at Company transformers, draining oil from a Company transformer, and blowing up a Company transformer substation. These allegations certainly go beyond minor acts of picket line "animal exuberance" that the opponents to a Hobbs Amendment seem so interested in protecting. It is important that the case in which these acts of violence were averred, U.S. v. Enmons, be analyzed with the scope of the violence committed kept well in mind. Repeated references, by representatives of organized labor in testimony presented to this Committee on December 10, 1981, to spontaneous picket line "fistfights," are misleading. Proposed amendments to the Hobbs Act are not directed toward, and, indeed, have been carefully drafted to exclude, this type of minor, exuberant behavior. The issue facing the Supreme Court in Enmons was whether the Hobbs Act proscribed the major acts of violence committed by the union for the purpose of forcing the Company to agree to wage and benefit demands at the negotiating table. Focusing on the word "wrongful" in the Hobbs Act's definition of ex |