I see no excuse for the no man's land. I think very strongly it is the responsibility of Congress, if we can get permission from the Supreme Court, to correct it.

Mr. PERKINS. Mr. Griffin.

Mr. GRIFFIN. I just want to clarify one thing in my mind.

I am going over to the floor to vote on an amendment to put $100 million into the Defense Department budget which is over and above what the administration requested.

Was this $600,000 less than what the administration requested for your agency?

Mr. FENTON. Substantially.

Mr. GRIFFIN. The Appropriations Subcommittee took it out and, as I remember, it came to the floor and there was an attempt made to restore it there and it failed, so it went through the House, the appropriation bill, with $600,000 less than the administration requested. Mr. FENTON. That is correct.

Mr. GRIFFIN. I just want to be sure of that.

Mr. FENTON. You are right.

Mr. GRIFFIN. Well, we have to go over and answer a rollcall so I will not ask any more questions.

Mr. PERKINS. What is the will of the committee? When do we want to come back?

What about tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock?

Mr. FENTON. Would you like me here at 10 o'clock?

Mr. PERKINS. Will tomorrow at 9 o'clock be suitable, Mr. Fenton? Mr. FENTON. Did you say 9 o'clock?

Mr. PERKINS. I mean tomorrow at 9 o'clock, Friday.

Mr. FENTON. I will be here tomorrow morning at 9 o'clock.

Mr. PERKINS. All right, the committee will recess and reconvene tomorrow morning at 9 o'clock.

(Thereupon, at 11:05 a. m., the committee was recessed, to reconvene at 9 a. m., Friday, June 6, 1958.)

LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS

FRIDAY, JUNE 6, 1958

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS,

OF THE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR,

Washington, D. C. The subcommittee met at 9:30 a. m., pursuant to recess, in room 429, Old House Office Building, Hon. Carl D. Perkins (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Representatives Perkins, Holland, Kearns, Rhodes, and Griffin.

Committee members present also: Representatives Wier and Gwinn. Staff members also present: Fred G. Hussey, chief clerk of the full committee; Charles M. Ryan, general counsel; Russell C. Derrickson, chief investigator; Kennedy W. Ward, assistant general counsel; and Robert E. McCord, clerk (Subcommittee on General Education).

Mr. PERKINS. The committee will come to order.

Mr. Holland, have you any questions this morning? If so, proceed. Mr. RHODES. Did he have a prepared statement?

Mr. PERKINS. Yes.

Mr. RHODES. I would like to have a prepared statement to look over. Mr. PERKINS. Yes. Get a prepared statement for Mr. Rhodes. You may tell the committee just when you took over as General Counsel for NLRB.

STATEMENT OF JEROME D. FENTON, GENERAL COUNSEL (ACCOM-
PANIED BY J. NEAL TOMEY, SPECIAL ASSISTANT), NATIONAL
LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

Mr. FENTON. Yes, sir. I was appointed 15 months ago.
Mr. PERKINS. Who preceded you as General Counsel?

Mr. FENTON. Mr. T. C. Kammholz.

Mr. HOLLAND. Mr. Chairman.

Mr. PERKINS. Go ahead.

Mr. HOLLAND. I was getting some information, and I didn't get it this morning. I would like to ask you a few things. You have been General Counsel for how long, did you say?

Mr. FENTON. Fifteen months, Mr. Holland.

Mr. HOLLAND. Fifteen months. You have sole authority over the issuance of complaints in unfair labor practices, do you not? Mr. FENTON. Under the statute, yes, sir.

Mr. HOLLAND. I have a table here comparing the issuance of complaints between the years ending June 30, 1953, and June 30, 1957.

It shows the total number of complaints issued by the General Counsel is down. The number of complaints issued against the employer is down. But the number of complaints issued against unions is up. Would you explain that?

Mr. FENTON. I take it that the dates in question antedated me in point of time.

Mr. HOLLAND. In 1953, total of 950 cases, against the employer it was 757, against the unions it was 193. In 1957, it was 689 complaints, 394 against employers, 295 against unions.

In other words, if you compare the years, the individuals were going down and the unions going way up.

Mr. FENTON. And would you like my observation on that, sir?
Mr. HOLLAND. Yes.

Mr. FENTON. I have no doubt that my predecessors in this office, like myself, have sought to treat this area of the issuance of complaints in a very even-handed fashion.

I think that the arithmetic for any one fiscal or calendar year, in terms of the incident of the impact against unions or the impact against employers, is purely incidental to that even-handed judgmental exercise by each of my predecessors. I think that my conduct of this office is no different than their conduct when they were incumbent. I think that that is borne out pretty well.

To fill out your picture of complaints issued during my incumbency, it so happens that since I have taken office, the number of complaints against employers has risen and against unions has gone down.

Now, for example, in the calendar quarter of the current year, January to March 1958, the complaints issued against unions by me totaled 36, against employers 85. Now I hasten to add that I do not think that those figures that I have just recited would characterize my activities as prounion, any more than I would assert that the other disparity that you have read would suggest that a predecessor has been antiunion. To put it differently, I think that the office I occupy has been carried out by me and my predecessors in an even-handed way, and I think that the arithmetic is purely incidental. I claim nothing for the arithmetic I have given you for my incumbency, nor do I care to characterize the arithmetic of my predecessors.

What I would like to emphasize in this area, however, is that I have long felt that this dichotomy of complaints against unions or against employers has an inherent distortion in it, because I think the point of emphasis ought to be who are bringing the complaints, whether they be against unions or against companies. And the remarkable thing, Mr. Holland, is that the high increase in complaints is by individuals who claim to be aggrieved by a company or by a union or both. That is the signficant thing here.

If an employee gets discharged and he thinks the union caused it, he may file a complaint against the union. He could file the same complaint against a company. Now if his case is just and it is before me, I will issue the complaint. It is by sheer accident which one he charged. Do you see my point?

So if he only complains against the union, I issue the complaint because his cause is just, not because the respondent charged happens to be a union or happens to be a company.

So I want to just insert, if I may, a word of caution that the dichotomy "against" unions and "against" companies can be very misleading if the arithmetic is translated into basic attitude.

Mr. HOLLAND. I have noticed in the January issue of the chamber of commerce magazine, they gave a whole list of decisions by the courts which changes considerably approaches in the relationship between labor and management. Do you think that that would have some bearing on your case, that is in making your complaints?

Mr. FENTON. I am not sure that I follow you. What cases are they talking about? I don't read that publication with great regularity so I am not familiar

Mr. HOLLAND. They gave a complete list as to what management can do to oppose the labor union organizing their plant. They were made by decisions by the courts.

Mr. FENTON. Do you mean such things as the employer's so-called right of free speech and the like?

Mr. HOLLAND. That is right.

Mr. FENTON. I have some reluctance to characterize the particular publication or any other publication, albeit I take it that we must all be mindful that in the labor union-management relationship generally, that they are involved in what is essentially a contest. I would not deplore the fact that publications for either side of that contest would point out to its particular interested readership judicial developments that may affect their day-to-day problem.

I happen not to be influenced myself by what a particular publication might say respecting the advantage or disadvantage of one particular decision vis-a-vis the balance of power in this struggle that is going on.

Mr. HOLLAND. I do not want to monopolize all the time here.

Mr. PERKINS. Mr. Rhodes.

Mr. HOLLAND. I yield to my good friend, Mr. Rhodes.
Mr. RHODES. Thank you, Mr. Holland.

Mr. Fenton, in the President's recommendations on labor legislation, there was an item regarding authorizing the appointment of an Acting General Counsel at such times as the office of General Counsel becomes vacant. I presume that the reason for such a recommendation is the present state of the law, is it not?

Mr. FENTON. Rather than the present state of the incumbent? Mr. RHODES. That is correct. I am sort of asking you to pass on your own demise perhaps, but we don't anticipate that demise coming soon so perhaps it won't be as sensitive as it might otherwise be.

Mr. FENTON. My understanding of that corresponds with yours, Mr. Rhodes. I think because of the endowment of the General Counsel at any given time with statutory power unique to the incumbent rather makes it imperative that this power not be lost by demise or other disability or departure of a particular incumbent.

Mr. RHODES. In other words, the law, the National Labor Relations Act, gives certain powers to the General Counsel himself, which could not be exercised now by some individual who might be acting because that individual has not actually been confirmed by the Senate and therefore does not have the statutory power.

Mr. FENTON. That is correct, to avoid a hiatus.

Mr. RHODES. That is correct. Actually it allows the President to make an interim appointment?

Mr. FENTON. Among other things, yes, sir.

Mr. RHODES. Yes. I do not know whether there was questioning yesterday about the present backlog of the National Labor Relations Board or not. Has that point been covered?

Mr. PERKINS. Pretty well, but not thoroughly.

Mr. RHODES. Might I ask if Mr. Fenton has any thoughts as to the manner in which that backlog could best be cleared up? While you are answering that, perhaps it might be well to bear in mind that my next question is going to concern the no man's land and the possibility that the Board might not only clear up its backlog but expand its activities so that at least a portion of the no man's land would be cleared up.

Do you want to answer the two of them together? It would be perfectly all right.

Mr. FENTON. Let me see if I can be helpful in both areas.
Mr. RHODES. Yes, sir.

Mr. FENTON. Respecting current backlog, we have it in rather great abundance. There is nothing about that backlog that more money would not cure.

Mr. RHODES. Would you care to stop there and give the committee an estimate as to how much money would be required to cure the backlog in a reasonable time, say, to catch it up in 3 years or 2 years? Mr. FENTON. Yes, sir. I will give you approximate figures, if you will allow me some slight arithmetic tolerance.

Mr. RHODES. Absolutely. We are dealing in an intangible here. and I just want to get your ideas.

Mr. FENTON. There are two components of money that are vital to clearing up the backlog. The first component is in the price area of about $650,000. I earmarked that component because that is about the amount of money that your companion committee, the House Appropriations Committee, and indeed the House, was not persuaded, guess, that it was necessary to have. The fact is that money is nec essary.

I

Mr. PERKINS. Let me ask you at this point, if the gentleman from Arizona would yield, was that money in the budget this year, and the committee refused to go along?

Mr. FENTON. That is correct, Mr. Chairman.

Now that amount of money is what I call the first component of our fiscal distress. The second component is in the neighborhood of a million and a quarter plus, which is needed in addition to the first component to address ourselves to the backlog.

Mr. RHODES. You split these into components. What would the $650,000 be used for, and what would the $1,250,000 be used for?

Mr. FENTON. All for the same purpose. The fact is that the sixhundred-thousand-odd dollars money is the amount that was authorized in the President's budget and the same amount the House declined to appropriate. We have filed now a supplemental budget that has the kind of arithmetic of a million and a quarter plus, as a supplemental appropriation for the coming fiscal year. Both those amounts are needed if we are going to keep abreast of our workload and clean up the backlog.