The fact of Communist leadership of some unions, mainly in the CIO, is undisputed. Such internationals as the electrical workers, fur workers, farm equipment workers, mine, mill and smelter workers, and food, tobacco, agricultural and allied workers of the CIO have been found by congressional committees to be Communist-led and some have been attacked as such by the CIO's own leaders. Likewise, the record shows that the non-Communist affidavit requirement has aided tremendously the fight of union members to rid their unions. of such Communist leadership.

The 1949 hearings furnish ample proof that the requirement is accomplishing its purpose.

Howard I. Young, president of the American Zinc, Lead & Smelting Co. and vice president American Mining Congress, told at some length of his company's experiences with CIO International Union of Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers, headed by Reid Robinson and termed "Communist-led" by the CIO and its president, Phil Murray (pp. 4167-4182). The mine-mill union won bargaining rights in all seven of the company's plants around 1940 and the company had contracts with the union until 1948. Relations were very unsatisfactory because Communist leadership was continually stirring up trouble, with grievances, wildcat strikes, etc. In the spring of 1948, the company informed the union that it would not bargain with it until its leaders signed non-Communist affidavits. The company also mailed out material documenting the evidence of Communist leadership to all its employees. At four plants, locals broke away from mine-mill workers and affiliated with gas and coke workers, CIO, and now have union shop contracts. But strikes began 6 months ago and still continue at three plants-Fairmont City, Ill.; Hillsboro, Ill.; and Columbus, Ohio. In all, Young said, 65 locals have left mine-mill international on the Communist issue.

Young told of the union tactics and some incidents prior to the strikes (pp. 4170-4175) which led to the company's refusal to bargain in 1948 (p. 4176). Young said that attempts to get CIO officials to clean out Communists got nowhere because the international was said to have autonomy (p. 4221). He described Communist disruptive tactics during the war and said his company did not feel free under Board decisions to tell its employees what was happening until after passage of the Taft-Hartley Act (pp. 4223-4). Young related some incidents during strikes showing Communist tactics (pp. 4205-4206 and 4208). He strongly endorsed Taft-Hartley nonCommunist affidavit, suggesting employers also be required to sign (p. 4182).

Precision

William J. During, vice president and general manager, Casting Co., told (pp. 5145-5152) how four provisions of the TaftHartley Act-namely the non-Communist affidavit, free speech, union shop safeguards and decertification and employer petitions for election-enabled management and employees in four of his company's plants to get rid of or avoid being taken over by CIO Communist-dominated Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers Union.

The mine-mill union had bargaining rights and contracts at three plants-Fayetteville, N. Y., Cleveland, and Kalamazoo, Mich., while the Syracuse plant had always been nonunion. In 1944, the bargaining agent for the union was former Communist candidate for Cleveland council (p. 5145) and in 1945-46, the bargaining agent had been a

sponsor of the New York City Communist May Day celebration. In early 1948, the mine-mill union demanded recognition at the Syracuse plant. The company petitioned for an election and the Board dismissed the petition when the union's officers would not file nonCommunist affidavits. The company refused to bargain with the union unless affidavits were signed at the other three plants and informed the employees about the Communist leaders of their union. being protected in so doing by the Taft-Hartley Act's free speech provision (pp. 5147-5152). Strikes were called on March 1, but were ineffective in all but the Cleveland plant, where the strike ended on April 21 after the company had mailed evidence of communism in the union to the employees' homes, the union having prevented a word-ofmouth presentation. At Kalamazoo, the employees petitioned the Board for decertification and voted no union. At Cleveland, the employees chose an AFL union, and at Fayetteville, they chose UAW-CIO. During testified the job could not have been done without the provisions of the Taft-Hartley Act cited.

William Green, president of the American Federation of Labor, testified that he had no objection to the non-Communist oath requirement, but was not requesting that it be kept in the law (p. 3360). Harvey Brown, president of the International Association of Machinists, said that he had no objection to the requirement if it were made to also apply to employers (p. 2985).

William E. Guffey, a former regional director for the Board, supported Taft-Hartley provision for non-Communist affidavit, arguing that since our Government is anti-Communist, it is perfectly logical to deny services of Government to Communist-dominated unions (pp. 2991-2992).

Ludwig Teller, New York attorney and labor relations expert, urged the non-Communist affidavit requirement be retained and strengthened by making it apply to all paid employees of unions as well as officers (pp. 1332-1333). The nature and revolutionary purpose of the Communists is plain, Teller said, and the Taft-Hartley Act's provision has helped to get rid of some. To the argument that it stigmatizes unions, Teller said laws like the Securities Exchange Act and this act are passed to take care of "bad boy" fringe and protect the majority of good people (pp. 1508-1509).

L. R. Boulware, of General Electric, said the affidavit should be required of both unions and employers (p. 3768). He also placed in the record letters to his company from the Atomic Energy Commission directing it not to recognize and bargain with the United Electrical Workers (UE-CIO) as the representative of the employees at the New Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory at Schenectady. The Commission justified its action upon information concerning alleged Communist affiliation or association of various officers of UE, and the failure of such officers to file non-Communist affidavits under the act. Commenting upon the effectiveness of the affidavit requirement the Joint Committee on Labor-Management Relations reported at page 35 of its December 31, 1948, report:

Despite the protests by many union leaders and officials against the act, and against the filing requirements, accompanied by a threat of concerted refusal to file affidavits and registration statements, it is to be noted that no such boycott of the National Labor Realtions Board and of the procedures of the law has ensued. Officers of a large majority of labor organizations have complied with the filing requirements. In many instances, unions have taken decisive action

to compel reluctant officers to comply with the filing requirements. Refusal by incumbent officers to make the affidavit has been an issue in a number of union elections which resulted in such officers being denied reelection. One large international union amended its constitution to require all of its officers to make the non-Communist oath. There has been considerable evidence of membership dissatisfaction with the policy of those unions who have sought to boycott the processes of the Board. Other unions whose officers have complied have had marked success in NLRB representation elections whereby they have supplanted the noncomplying union. It has already been fairly well demonstrated that the American workingman will take steps to rid his union of communistic leadership when the character of that leadership has been identified to his satisfaction.

The amendment proposed by the minority requires that employers, their officers, and agents having responsibility for the employers' labor relations file affidavits if they desire to avail themselves of the benefits of the act. With respect to labor organizations the requirement has been modified by defining "officer" in order that it be clear who in the union must make the affidavit. The required oath has also been extended by the adoption of language from the appointment affidavit required of all employees of the Federal Government. See Form 61 of the Civil Service Commission, promulgated for subversive activity and affiliation.

Registration of labor organizations

The Labor-Management Relations Act, 1947, requires labor organizations to file certain information and financial reports with the Secretary of Labor as a condition precedent to use of the facilities of the Board. A further provision requires that copies of the financial report be furnished to all members of the labor organization. Provision is made that such information be kept current by annual reports.

The Secretary of Labor has established a new office within his Department known as the Office for the Registration of Labor Organizations. This Office has prepared a form which is mailed to unions upon their request. Proper completion of the form furnishes all the information required by the act. The Secretary has ruled that the information submitted is not open for public inspection but may be seen by persons such as the members of the filing organization who can demonstrate a legitimate interest.

This filing requirement was provided in the 1947 Senate committee bill. In conference a subsection was added calling for 12 additional items of information with respect to how the union conducted its internal affairs. Since most of the information required by the added provision may be found in the union's constitution and bylaws (already required in another provision) and since it tends to make the requirement more burdensome we have eliminated that subsection in the amendment proposed below.

Commenting upon this section of the act, the Joint Committee on Labor-Management Relations stated on page 34 of its December 31, 1948, report:

Unquestionably the filing of financial statements of labor unions with the Secretary of Labor, covering receipts and expenditures, reserves, and other sums of the unions, has been productive of improved and standardized practices in accounting for such funds and put added emphasis on the responsibility of union officers for their safekeeping.

The requirement did not receive much attention in the 1949 hearings. It was generally approved by the witnesses who mentioned it. Secretary Tobin testified (p. 91) that he did not seriously object

to requiring unions to file financial reports and furnish them to their members. William Green, president of the American Federation of Labor, said that he favored the practice of furnishing such reports to the union membership, but objected to it being made a legal requirement (p. 3365).

The great majority of labor organizations have for years furnished to their members audited financial reports. However, there have been a few examples of bad practices in this regard. Since the Government has granted special privileges and immunities to unions, notably exclusive bargaining rights on winning a majority, thereby strengthening the inducement to all employees to become union members, it owes the individual worker and union member some protection against misuse of the funds he pays into the union.

Welfare funds and check-off

There are now over 3,000,000 employees covered by various forms. of welfare funds which are supported by employer contributions. The National Labor Relations Board has ruled, and a United States court of appeals has affirmed its ruling, that pension and retirement plans are within the area of compulsory bargaining. The most publicized plan, United Mine Workers welfare and retirement fund, is receiving from the bituminous coal industry $1.30 per man per day worked, or $250,000 per day (pp. 4915-4916). The number of persons covered by such plans has doubled since 1947. Since the money paid into these funds by employers is really money earned by the employees, the minority believes their rights to participate in the benefits should be protected. The bill, S. 249, offers nothing for their protection.

The Taft-Hartley Act prohibited employer payments to union representatives for welfare purposes unless the payment was made into a trust fund established for payment to his employees of medical and hospital benefits, pensions, or disability benefits, or insurance for any of these, providing that the trust fund is jointly administered and that the detailed basis on which payments are to be made is set forth in an agreement between the parties. The provision is similar to that of the Case bill of 1946, which was vetoed by the President. It was first considered at a time when a dispute was in progress in the coal industry over a demand for a welfare-fund payment directly to the union.

The Joint Committee on Labor-Management Relations paid considerable attention to the effect of the 1947 act on these funds and among other things concluded on page 5 of its December 31, 1948, report:

The provisions of the act dealing with union welfare funds are inadequate in many respects, and the whole subject requires further study, with probably a much more fundamental regulation. Section 302 was written largely to prevent the payment into welfare funds of moneys earned by employees, calling for compulsory deductions, the proceeds often completely at the disposition of the officers of labor unions. To a certain extent, the law has resulted in a much more impartial supervision and audit of these funds and has protected the equal rights of the employees entitled to participate.

Because we believe the provision has resulted in greater protection. of the rights of employees entitled to participate, the minority believes some such protection must be maintained. The rapid growth of such funds under the act has demonstrated that it in no way operates as a

90033-49- 4

deterrent. It has no doubt, actually promoted sucn funds by keeping them respectable and not subject to racketeering or arbitrary dispensation by union officers.

The amendment proposed below departs from the restrictions of the present law in several respects. The most important change is the elimination of the criminal penalties provided by subsection 302 (d) for violation of the requirements and the substitution of the necessity for approval of such funds by the Secretary of Labor. Before granting approval, the Secretary is required to make a thorough examination of all the provisions of the agreement establishing such fund (including the holding of a hearing if requested by any person demonstrating an interest) and certify that the fund meets certain requirements. The requirements follow closely those of the present act except that the employer is permitted to waive his right to participation in the administration of such fund. The absolute requirement for joint and equal representation in administration has created practical problems in those funds where many hundreds of employers contribute to a fund created by a single union.

Check-off-Section 302 of the Taft-Hartley Act also prohibits employer payments to labor organizations of

money deducted from the wages of employees in payment of membership dues in a labor organization unless the employer has received from each employee, on whose account such deductions are made, a written assignment which shall not be irrevocable for a period of more than 1 year, or beyond the termination date of the applicable collective agreement, whichever occurs sooner.

After passage of the act this provision was generally interpreted by employers and their counsel to forbid the check-off of fines, assessments, penalties, initiation fees, and any other payment except regular periodic membership dues. It was also interpreted by many to require the union to obtain new authorization cards from each employee

every year.

While no action has been brought by the Department of Justice based upon a violation of this section, and the Attorney General has not given an official opinion, the thinking of that Department has been expressed in a letter dated May 13, 1948, to the Solicitor of the Department of Labor signed by the Assistant Solicitor General.

*

*

The Assistant Solicitor General stated his opinion to be that the term "membership dues" includes initiation fees and assessments as well as regular periodic dues. He further stated that an employer was not prohibited from honoring a written check-off authorization signed by an employee which provides that it may be revoked within a designated period prior to the end of each year, but if not so revoked shall continue to be irrevocable from year to year until revoked during the period designated for annual revocation.

There is still considerable doubt as to what and for how long an employer may legally check off and what and for how long a union may legally accept moneys from the employer. In order to resolve that controversy the amendment we have proposed makes it clear that only dues and initiation fees may be checked off and that the authorization, once given, continues from year to year unless revoked by the employee.

We are, however, unable to accept the proposal of the majority to permit an unlimited right in the employer and the union to agree with