On or about October 10, 1980, a large group of approximately 150 gathered at our yard in the predawn hours. Our workmen were inside our fenced yard preparing for the day's work. The crowd outside was shouting and yelling obscenities. Numerous pickets were parading slowly in front of our gate. When our men began exiting the yard with their equipment and vehicles, the pickets and hecklers crowded together to prohibit our egress. Rocks were thrown at our equipment and truck windows and the crowd noise greatly increased.

There was no question that our people were upset and apprehensive. At that time, our supervisor instructed the men that there would be no work that day. Rocks were thrown into our yard, car and truck windows were broken, and tires slashed. Prior to and throughout this time, we had sought the assistance of the local police, the county sheriff, and the State patrol. It was evident to me that all were somewhat reluctant to involve themselves in what they referred to as a labor dispute. However, to their credit, they were able to stop a great deal of the obviously unlawful activity after the Felton Co. and ourselves had gone to the expense of obtaining a restraining order against the unions.

Because the Universal and Felton Cos. continued to work and ignore the turmoil instigated by the unions, taking our lumps and assuming the cost of security, the unions and their members apparently lost interest in continuing their tactics of harassment. Both contractors completed their contracts. However, our persistence was certainly not without substantial and unforeseen costs.

I would ask this committee to seriously consider legislation to prevent the type of irresponsible violence with which both the Felton and Universal Cos. had to contend in order to complete a public works project financed largely by the Federal Government. The motto of the National Utility Contractors Association [NUCA] is "We Dig America"-a principle in which we fervently believe. However, when a sector of society, such as a labor union, is permitted to attempt to bully an employer into accepting a collective-bargaining agreement unsatisfactory to the employer and not approved by the employees, then we feel the ideals which led to the enactment of the National Labor Relations Act are perverted.

We feel that new legislation is necessary to protect both those employers and employees who sincerely want to remain unaffiliated with labor unions. Intimidation by any group against a person or persons is an unacceptable means of attaining its objectives. Thank you for the opportunity to speak before you today.

Mr. Chairman, I have copies of affidavits that were taken in support of restraining orders we obtained at Aberdeen. I hope that you will accept them into the record.

I also have a compilation of newspaper articles from throughout the Nation regarding labor violence.

I ask that you also accept those into the record.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak.

Senator MATHIAS. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Legg.

The exhibits you have offered will be included as a part of the record.1

'The affidavits and newspaper articles submitted by Mr. Legg can be found in the appendix.

In the light of the constraint of time and the fact that we are close to this live quorum, I am going to forego what would be for me the pleasure of questions and let your testimony rest on your statement.

Thank you very much.

[Witness excused.]

[The prepared statement of Mr. Legg follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOHN S. LEGG

Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the Committee, my name is Steve Legg. I am representing the National Utility Contractors Association and I am employed by the Universal Utility Contractors of Seattle, Washington.

I have come here today to present testimony to advocate substantive changes in the Hobbs Act. I am aware that speakers who have previously testified before this hearing have cited statistics and dollar figures in providing you with a general overview of the problems faced by American businessmen as a result of the wording of this federal statute. In the testimony that follows, I feel that I can best present my argument by relating my own personal experience with the violent and unlawful activities to which my company and others were subjected in the Fall of 1980 in Washington State.

The problems we encountered were a direct result of our failure to reach agreement on a new collective bargaining pact with the Teamsters, laborers and operating engineers labor unions. Negotiations with union representatives commenced on or about May, 1980, and continued on a sporadic basis until September of 1981, when an impasse was reached. During this period, our company was constructing new sewer pipelines in Aberdeen, Washington, a heavily unionized logging community. Prior to starting the project, we had been contacted several times by local business agents, who informed us that it would be to our advantage and that things would go smoother if our company signed a compliance agreement. We informed the business agents that we were in the midst of negotiations with the operating engineers and laborers unions in Seattle and that we wished to await the outcome of those discussions.

-

One negotiating session that took place in Grace Harbor County, the site of our sewer job, left a deep impression on me. Representatives from our company and the Felton Construction Company of Missoula, Montana, met with the Teamsters, operators and laborers at their invitation. The Felton Company had also been awarded a major sewer job in Aberdeen. During the course of our talks, an assistant business manager for the District Council of Laborers responded to my comment that I did not appreciate having an agreement "shoved down my throat." He responded, "Steve, I'm going to shove our agreement down your throat." This outburst signaled the end of that negotiating session, and it gave me the distinct impression that the unions with which we were dealing were not accustomed to contractors who did not submit to their terms and conditions.

I want to emphasize that, at no time, did the unions even attempt to discern whether our labor force desired to enlist any of the local unions to act as their representatives.

In the Summer of 1980, Felton Construction started its sewer project at Aberdeen, and we were to begin our project about a month later. Due to the fact that neither company had reached any agreement with the unions, we felt that union-inspired problems may develop.

The Felton Company was the initial target, as well as the local sand and gravel company which had agreed to supply both sewer contractors with trucking services and rock products. The management of this company had also been unsuccessful in its attempts to reach a fair agreement with the unions. The employers of both companies, and their wives and families, were subjected to verbal and physical abuse by union members and their sympathizers both during the day and in the evenings. Some of Felton's workmen were beaten and, in at least one instance, a man dining with his wife was attacked as they left a local restaurant. A number of drivers with the sand and gravel company were forced off the road by individuals in cars displaying guns. Nails were dumped on the roadway outside of the company's office, leading to a substantial tire repair bill.

As a result of the beatings, threats of bodily injury, harrassment of wives and families and verbal abuse, many of Felton's employees quit. The prevailing attitude of these workmen was that it was not worth the daily risk of bodily harm to continue working. The Felton Company, however, did not quit. New employees were hired,

and they obtained a court-issued restraining order against the union. Copies of affidavits taken to support the restraining order are available, Mr. Chairman, and, if there is no objection, I would like to submit them for inclusion into the record at this time.

Another tactic employed by union members and their sympathizers was to travel in numbers to the various job sites, surround Felton Company crew workers, shout obscenities at them and block the movement of their equipment so they were unable to work. The restraining order helped greatly in eliminating this type of activity. However, worker output decreased significantly and the Felton work force was visibly frightened.

The Universal Company arrived in town about a month

-

after the Felton Company had begun its work. We had been warned by Felton management of what to expect from the unions. As a result, we hired a local detective agency -- at a substantial unprojected cost to patrol our work yard and check our equipment on the various job sites. During this time, rumors had been spread in this small town of some 30,000 inhabitants, and we were informed through various channels that our equipment would be dynamited and pipe material burned. Despite these threats, we began work on our project.

On or about October 10. 1980. a large group of approximately 150 gathered at our yard in the predawn hours. Our workmen were inside our fenced yard preparing for the day's work. The crowd outside was shouting and yelling obscenities. Numerous pickets were parading slowly in front of our gate. When our men began exiting the yard with their equipment and vehicles, the pickets and hecklers crowded together to prohibit our egress. Rocks were thrown at our equipment and truck windows and the crowd noise greatly increased.

There was no question that our people were upset and apprehensive. At that time our supervisor instructed the men that there would be no work that day. Rocks were thrown into our yard, car and truck windows were broken and tires slashed. Prior to and throughout this time, we had sought the assistance of the local police, the county sheriff and the state patrol. It was evident to me that all were somewhat reluctant to involve themselves in what they referred to as a "labor dispute." However, to their credit, they were able to stop a great deal of the obviously unlawful activity after the Felton Company and ourselves had gone to the expense of obtaining a restraining order against the unions.

Because the Universal and Felton companies continued to work and ignore the turmoil instigated by the unions, taking our lumps and assuming the cost of security, the unions and their members apparently lost interest in continuing their tactics of harrassment. Both contractors completed their contracts. However, our persistence was certainly not without substantial and unforeseen costs.

I would ask this committee to seriously consider legislation to prevent the type of irresponsible violence with which both the Felton and Universal companies had to contend in order to complete a public works project financed largely by the federal government. The motto of the National Utility Contractors Association (NUCA) is "We Dig America" -- a principle in which we fervently believe. However, when a sector of society, such as a labor union, is permitted to attempt to bully an employer into accepting a collective bargaining agreement unsatisfactory to the employer and not approved by the employees, then we feel the ideals which led to the enactment of the National Labor Relations Act are perverted.

We feel that new legislation is necessary to protect both those employers and employees who sincerely want to remain unaffiliated with labor unions. Intimidation by any group against a person or persons is an unacceptable means of attaining its objectives. you for the opportunity to speak before you today.

Thank

Senator MATHIAS. Our next witness is Mr. David Previant, the chief labor counsel of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters who, I understand, will be accompanied by Mr. Robert Baptiste.

STATEMENT OF DAVID PREVIANT, CHIEF LABOR COUNSEL, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, ACCOMPANIED BY ROBERT BAPTISTE, COUNSEL, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS

Mr. PREVIANT. Good morning.

My name is David Previant. I am chief labor counsel of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, and I am accompanied by Robert M. Baptiste, labor counsel for the International Brotherhood of Teamsters.

I have been a practitioner in the field of labor for over 47 years. I believe I have acquired some expertise in the area of the legislative process and the legislation that purports to correct evils which may have surfaced over a period of time. I know how that legislation has been perverted and distorted.

Our opinion is that although S. 613 may on its face appear to be a law against sin, it is not really that, but is a reversion to the preWagner days of trial by combat when labor unions were fighting for recognition, and when they were denominated criminal conspiracies.

For that reason, it is extremely painful for me to watch this legislation drift through this Congress, on a tide of anti-union propaganda which has been manufactured, and I use that word advisedly, by professional $1 million union-busting organizations.

Although, I should point out that recently in the Wall Street Journal it is reported that:

Most major business organizations have not joined the effort to boost this bill. An official at one large business group conceded privately that picket line violence is not a high priority item or major problem for many companies.

As noted by Chairman Mathias at the previous hearing, the committee is really interested in whether or not the supporters of the bill have been able to establish that violence is pervasive, that State and local law enforcement agencies have not been able to control alleged violence, that existing Federal laws are inadequate, and that the Federal Government is better able to deal with violent acts occurring at the local level, than are the many local law enforcement agencies, without adversely affecting the ability of the Federal Government to pursue other high priority responsibilities. My reading of the testimony already presented makes it clear to me that these burdens have not been met. It has also occurred to me because these burdens have not been met, the attempt is made here to regale this committee with a parade of horribles, to persuade the committee that there is some great crisis abroad in the land which needs immediate attention by this august body.

It is just not so.

S. 613 TO RETURN LABOR POLICY OF UNITED STATES TO PRE-WAGNER ACT DAYS

Congress recognized almost 50 years ago that institutionalizing industrial conflict and defusing it through mandatory collective