LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS

TUESDAY, MAY 27, 1958

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS

OF THE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR,

Washington, D. C.

The subcommittee met at 10: 15 a. m., pursuant to notice, in room 429 of the House Office Building, Hon. Carl D. Perkins (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Members of the subcommittee present: Representatives Perkins, Holland, Teller, Kearns, Rhodes, and Griffin.

Members of the full committee present: Representatives Bailey, Landrum, Metcalf, Roosevelt, Dent, Frelinghuysen, Nicholson, Ayres, Haskell, and Lafore.

Also present: Fred G. Hussey, chief clerk of the full committee; Charles M. Ryan, general counsel; Kennedy W. Ward, assistant general counsel; Russell C. Derrickson, chief investigator, and Melvin Sneed minority clerk.

Mr. PERKINS. The subcommittee will be in order.

This morning we are glad to have with us the Secretary of Labor, Secretary Mitchell, who is here to give us the views of the administration on various labor-management proposals.

You may proceed, Mr. Secretary, in any manner you see fit. We are glad that you are here.

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES P. MITCHELL, SECRETARY OF LABOR, ACCOMPANIED BY STUART ROTHMAN, SOLICITOR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Secretary MITCHELL. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I have a prepared statement here which I would like to read, and then go to the questions thereafter.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to discuss with this committee the proposals made by the President to Congress last January for legislation to provide greater protections for the rights of individual workers, the public, and management and unions in labor-management

relations.

The House bills which would implement the recommendations of the President are H. R. 10235, H. R. 10236, H. R. 10248, H. R. 10272, H. R. 10273, and H. R. 10274.

Since the presentation of this program by the President and introduction of the administration bills, many proposals have been introduced in the Congress designed by their sponsors to correct the abuses

in the area of labor-management relations which are obvious and repugnant to all of us.

None of these other bills, in my opinion, are as reasonable or as well balanced in their approach to the problems that exist as the program in this area proposed by the President.

When the debate has ended and the smoke of controversy has been dispersed, it is my belief that the legislation that will emerge will be in most respects the legislation recommended by the President.

The President's proposals are an approach to the problem of corruption and abuse of power in labor-management relations around which moderate men who desire corrective and not repressive legislation can rally.

My mail indicates to me that the public throughout the country is aroused and expects legislative action by the Congress in the areas covered by the administration's program. Newspaper comment also indicates that it has wide public approval.

The New York Times described the President's program as "a model of high statesmanship" and as one "designed to prevent abuses, not to impose direct Government control."

The Washington Star said:

The administration has presented to organized labor a legislative program designed to help labor itself, as well as to guard broader public interests.

The St. Louis Post-Dispatch described the administration's program as "intelligent" and "enlightened." The Philadelphia Inquirer spoke of it as one which "would deal with situations that have long needed correction."

The Charlotte (N. C.) News said that the program would leave the responsibility for keeping unions on the

straight and narrow path the membership.

precisely where it should be in the hands of

Favorable editorials also appeared in, among others, the Newark (N. J.) News, Pittsburgh Press, Wichita (Kans.) Eagle, and the Dayton (Ohio) Journal Herald.

In his labor message to the Congress of January 23, 1958, the President stated, and I think we will all agree with this, that the American public needs reassurance:

1. That the funds which are set aside for the benefit of working men and women in health, welfare, and pension plans are accounted for;

2. That the moneys which are contributed by workers to union treasuries are being used solely to advance their welfare;

3. That organizations in which working people associate together voluntarily to improve their status through collective action will be administered in such fashion as to reflect their will;

4. That working people are more fully protected from dealings between repre sentatives of labor and management which have the effect of preventing the full exercise of their rights to organize and bargain collectively.

Mr. PERKINS. At this point, Mr. Secretary, I would like to make the observation that the subcommittee of which I am chairman does not have jurisdiction over welfare funds because that subject matter has been retained by the full committee.

However, inasmuch as many of the full committee members are here today, we certainly will be glad to receive your views on that subject matter, in the absence of the chairman of the full committee. But, there is a special subcommittee set up by the chairman to con

sider welfare fund legislation, and especially the bill that has already been passed by the Senate, over which I do not have any jurisdiction. But this morning I see no other way to proceed except to let you proceed in your own manner, and express your views on labor-management and on the subject of welfare funds.

Mr. TELLER. I might say, Mr. Chairman, that as the chairman of that special subcommittee on welfare and pension plans, with the chairman's permission I would like at the proper time to secure the Secretary's points of view on a number of questions which may expedite the deliberations of the special subcommittee.

Mr. PERKINS. I think it is proper, and the members of the subcommittee will agree, that the Secretary of Labor and members should first be entitled to interrogate the Secretary on any phase of labor legislation, and then the other members of the committee, to minimize the Secretary's trips here on the Hill, inasmuch as all of the members have been invited, you will have the opportunity to interrogate the Secretary on his proposals here.

Mr RHODES. Reserving the right to object, the jurisdiction of this subcommittee is a rather broad sort of thing. The subcommittee of the gentleman from New York is a study committee and it is not the committee to take testimony.

The Secretary has already testified before the full committee on the subject of union welfare and pension funds.

Mr. PERKINS. He testified last year before the full committee. That is correct.

Mr. RHODES. And the gentleman from New York stated, at the time his subcommittee was set up, that it was a committee to study testimony which had already been given in this body and on the other side. I would hope that the questions as well as the presentation of the Secretary would follow matters which are germane to the jurisdiction of this committee and not get into the union welfare and pension funds at this time.

Mr. TELLER. Would the gentleman yield for a question? Does the gentleman suggest that I am foreclosed from asking the Secretary any questions on pending welfare and pension plans?

Mr. RHODES. If the Secretary wants to answer questions on that subject, I would have no objection. The only point I am trying to make, Mr. Teller, is that I do not feel that we should sit here as a subcommittee on labor-management relations and go into something which is completely outside of our jurisdiction when our jurisdiction is so broad anyway.

Mr. TELLER. Well, of course, my purpose in opening the questions is in the interest of expedition. If, of course, Mr. Rhodes is of the view that we ought to call the Secretary at a subsequent date in connection with welfare and pension plans, that will of course cause a considerable delay in our deliberations.

Mr. RHODES. Of course, the gentleman from New York knows that can't be true, because his committee is not empowered to call witnesses. The only thing that your committee can do is to study testimony which is already given. That cannot cause delay.

Mr. TELLER. I do not think that that is entirely true. As a matter of fact, at Mr. Kearns' suggestion our committee is expected to confer with people.

Mr. KEARNS. Consult people, that is right.

Mr. RHODES. Of course, the gentleman is free to consult anybody he desires at any time.

Mr. PERKINS. Let us get along, if we can.

Mr. METCALF. Mr. Chairman, as I read on through the Secretary's statement, he is touching on all phases that were touched upon in the President's message, and as long as we understand and clearly define the jurisdiction of the two committees, I would welcome any statement from the Secretary on any of the matters before the Congress.

But I agree with the gentleman from Arizona, that we should clearly delineate jurisdiction of this committee on general labor-management relations, and the jurisdiction of the full committee on this very spe cial activity relating to welfare and pension funds.

As I look through this statement, the Secretary, not knowing the various jurisdictions of the various subcommittees, has mixed them together. It would expedite things if we could inquire into these various things, providing we have in our own mind carefully defined the various jurisdictions of these committees, and perhaps maybe Mr. Teller's committee, of which the gentleman from Georgia and I are members, will feel that it is necessary to call the Secretary before the full committee, because I believe that is a task that we have and which is outlined.

Mr. PERKINS. It is my information that the Secretary is planning on leaving.

Secretary MITCHELL. I am planning on leaving for Geneva, where I will be for about 3 weeks, on June 2, which is next Monday.

Mr. KEARNS. Mr. Chairman, at this time I think it is in order for you as chairman to state the jurisdiction of this committee, so that we don't have any question about it in the hearing.

Mr. PERKINS. Well, Mr. Kearns, I think it is well recognized that this subcommittee does not have jurisdiction over any legislation concerning welfare funds. However, if there is no objection from the members, and in view of the Secretary's desire to leave the country to attend an important labor conference in Europe, if the membership desires to interrogate the Secretary on any other subject matter out of the jurisdiction of this subcommittee, I will not object unless subcommittee members object.

RULES OF THIS COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: RULE 6

The Labor-Management Relations Subcommittee has jurisdiction over amendments to the Taft-Hartley Act, proposals involving the mediation and arbitration of labor disputes and all other legislation dealing with the relationships be tween employers and employees or their representatives.

Mr. RHODES. Mr. Chairman, because the time is limited, might I suggest that as a reasonable compromise, that the first questions which we ask or which each member asks, and we should go through the full subcommittee, should be on the jurisdiction of the committee, and then for the time remaining any questions which might want to be asked on union welfare funds would be germane and in order if the Secretary wants to answer.

But of course, my only point is this: We have not had any hearings on this general field, and I think it is important, and I do not think that it is wise to mix the other things in.

Mr. PERKINS. Do you not think, Mr. Rhodes, that that raises the question as to whether or not you should limit the Secretary's testimony? If we permit the Secretary to testify on all of these phases, is there objection to the gentleman's proposal?

Mr. TELLER. I object, Mr. Chairman. No limitation was placed upon the Secretary's testimony.

Mr. LANDRUM. I would regret to see the members of the subcommittee, either subcommittee, denied the opportunity to hear one in a responsible position such as the Secretary and one who is bound to bring an intimate and profound knowledge of the subcommittee before

us.

The country today is aware as they have never been aware before of the need for remedial legislation in the field of pension and welfare funds. Although this subject itself may be technically outside the jurisdiction of the gentleman's immediate subcommittee, I think that while we are here together and while the Secretary has commenced what appears to be a very broad statement on the subject, and a very informative statement, we ought, as men, to forego a few technicalities and hear this matter out, and it can, as Mr. Teller has suggested, expedite the work of this special study committee.

Through that, I think it will expedite the work of the full committee.

Mr. KEARNS. Will the gentleman yield at that point?

Mr. LANDRUM. In just a moment. To do otherwise, in my judgment, will subject not only the members of the subcommittee but also the members of the full committee to the just criticism that we simply want to evade a responsibility through the avenue of a technicality.

I hope that we can throw off these technical objections, and hear the Secretary out and question him on whatever is in the minds of any individual member here regardless of the jurisdiction.

I now yield the floor.

Mr. HOLLAND. I have kept quiet. We have wasted a half hour, and the Secretary is a very busy man, and he could have delivered his oration, or his speech, or his talk, or his information or testimony, and we would be further advanced, and I move the regular order. Mr. PERKINS. I suggest you proceed, and if anybody has any objection, they will raise it at that time.

Proceed, Mr. Secretary.

Secretary MITCHELL. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I was going to say I was in the middle of reciting the part of the President's labor message to Congress on January 23, 1958.

I was on point 4 which was that the working people are more fully protected from dealings between representatives of labor and management which have the effect of preventing the full exercise of their rights to organize and bargain collectively.

5. That the public is protected against unfair labor and management practices within the collective bargaining relationship which give rise to the exercise of coercive power by one as against the other tending to impede the peaceful development of that relationship, or which infringe the legitimate rights of innocent third parties.

The program of legislation recomemnded by the administration is intended to give the American people this reassurance.