It has unnecessarily limited the rights of workers to strike, and even in some cases compels members of the same local union to strike-break against their own fellow members by forcing them to work on struck goods. Under the National Labor Relations Act the basic objective of our national labor policy was to promote collective bargaining. This the act accomplished by affirming and protecting the right of workers to self-organization, to form and join labor unions, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection. It is the purpose of the proposed National Labor Relations Act of 1949 to return to the policy first declared in the National Labor Relations Act of 1935. The bill regulates collective bargaining only where restraints are needed and practicable and seeks to develop a system of labor relations under which both labor and management, with the friendly assistance of Government, can live together and solve their own problems. I should like to summarize for you at this time some of the important reasons why I believe the Taft-Hartley Act should be repealed: 1. The Taft-Hartley Act's ban upon the closed shop has resulted in the outlawing of collective bargaining agreements which had been mutually beneficial to both labor and management and had assisted in the maintenance of industrial peace for a period of over 100 years. At the time the act was passed more than 11,000,000 workers were covered by union security agreements. Not only was the closed shop outlawed, but restrictions were put upon union shop agreements. The elections called before union shop contracts can be consummated are wasteful and useless. They have merely demonstrated the overwhelming preference of workers for this form of security. In about 97 percent of such elections the workers chose a union shop. 2. The Taft-Hartley Act places special emphasis on the use of injunctions to settle labor disputes. The evils of the labor injunction were recognized by the Congress in the Norris-LaGuardia Act. It is unnecessary for me to repeat here what has so often been said concerning the abuses which arose in the past from the frequent use of labor injunctions. Under the Taft-Hartley law, for example, the Board is under a mandatory duty to seek injunctions against unions in all cases involving secondary boycotts, including those for perfectly legitimate objectives, such as the protection of labor standards. In no case is it mandatory that the Board seek injunctions against employers. 3. The Labor-Management Relations Act removed the United States Conciliation Service from the Department of Labor, where it had functioned for 34 years. It created a new Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service as an independent agency. This was a completely unjustified dismemberment of the Department of Labor. During the 34 years of its existence in the Department, the Conciliation Service successfully settled more than 100,000 cases where serious disputes had arisen. Just before the Service was transferred from the Department, it was settling without a work stoppage over 90 percent of those cases in which no stoppage existed at the time a conciliator was assigned to the case. This record could not have been achieved unless the It has unnecessarily limited the rights of workers to str in some cases compels members of the same local union to against their own fellow members by forcing them to work goods. LABOR RELATIONS 21 Service was operating successfully, efficiently, and fairly and had the confidence of both management and labor. The exercise of conciliation functions outside the Labor Department is inconsistent with the principle, which I have often stated, that labor functions must be centralized in a cabinet department. This centralization is necessary to achieve coherence in the formulation of national labor policies and in the administration of our labor laws. The Service was removed from the Department by the TaftHartley Act on the announced ground that it could not be impartial so long as it was within the Department of Labor. I cannot state too strongly that I, as Secretary of Labor, consider myself to represent the more than 140,000,000 American people and every segment of our economy. Conciliation functions must be exercised impartially if they are to be successful, and the record of the Department during the 34 years it had the Conciliation Service shows this was done and can be done in the Department of Labor. This is not my opinion alone. The President's labor-management conference in November 1945 recommended that the United States Conciliation Service, and I quote, "be established as an effective and completely impartial agency within the Department of Labor." Mr. Ira Mosher, chairman of the executive committee, and Mr. Raymond Smethurst, general counsel of the National Association of ManuJohnston for the Committee for At the time the act was passed more than 11,000,000 workers Development, together with all the major labor organizations, testified LABOR RELATIONS Under the National Labor Relations Act the basic obje national labor policy was to promote collective bargaining act accomplished by affirming and protecting the right of self-organization, to form and join labor unions, to bargain through representatives of their own choosing, and to a certed activities for the purpose of collective bargaining er tual aid or protection. It is the purpose of the proposed National Labor Relat 1949 to return to the policy first declared in the Nat Relations Act of 1935. The bill regulates collective barga where restraints are needed and practicable and seeks to de system of labor relations under which both labor and man with the friendly assistance of Government, can live to solve their own problems. I should like to summarize for you at this time some of the ant reasons why I believe the Taft-Hartley Act should be repe 1. The Taft-Hartley Act's ban upon the closed shop has rest e outlawing of collective bargaining agreements which ha tually beneficial to both labor and management and had s he maintenance of industrial peace for a period of over 100 in red by union security agreements. Not only was the closed awed, but restrictions were put upon union shop agree that no new agency should be created for handling conciliation funcelections called before union shop contracts can be consum tions outside the Department of Labor. If their point of view, that it was not desirable to remove the Conning preference of workers for this form of security. In ciliation Service from the Department of Labor, was sound then, it is asteful and useless. They have merely demonstrated the reent of such elections the workers chose a union shop. The Taft-Hartley Act places special emphasis on the sound now to restore the Service to the Department of Labor. cognized by the Congress in the Norris-LaGuardia Act. Labor Relations Board as the one administrative agency in our Gov ernment which should receive different treatment. The law set up a general counsel who has broad discretionary powers and who is independent of the Board. This is an unwise and unnecessary division sary for me to repeat here what has so often been said the abuses which arose in the past from the frequent us junctions. the Taft-Hartley law, for example, the Board is und of the Board's functions. ry duty to seek injunctions against unions in all cases econdary boycotts, including those for perfectly legiti The administrative procedures established under the original Naprovided for the internal separation of the judicial and prosecuting tional Labor Relations Act, which would be restored under this bill, functions of the Board in accordance with the provisions of the sub such as the protection of labor standards. In no cases that the Board seek injunctions against employers. Labor-Management Relations Act removed the Sequent Administrative Procedure Act. There is no reason why any additional separation should be required. ciliation Service from the Department of Labor, where ned for 34 years. It created a new Federal Mediation a Service as an independent agency. Hartley Act, to determine what complaints should come before the Furthermore, the duty of the general counsel, under the Taftja completely unjustified dismemberment of the Deps Board places a tremendous amount of power in the hands of one man or. During the 34 years of its existence in the Depa since it can be used to control policy in enforcing the act. The division of authority between the Board and the general counsel keeps the Board from considering issues vital and germane to its decisions. the separation of power between the general counsel and the BoardThe President in his veto message of June 20, 1947, predicted that onciliation Service successfully settled more than 100,00 erious disputes had arisen. the Service was transferred from the Department, ithout a work stoppage over 90 percent of those cass toppage existed at the time a conciliator was assigned This record could not have been achieved unless the and its general counsel, since the general counsel would decide, without any * would invite conflict between the National Labor Relations Board right of appeal by employers and employees, whether charges were to be heard by the Board, and whether orders of the Board were to be referred to the court for enforcement. By virtue of this unlimited authority, a single administrative official might usurp the Board's responsibility for establishing policy under the act. This warning, like others contained in that veto message, has proved to be strikingly accurate. 5. By providing for numerous elections-representation, union shop, employer's last offer the Taft-Hartley Act keeps the relation between employers and unions in an unsettled condition, instead of on the basis of stability and confidence so necessary in assuring free collective bargaining. The provision that requires union shop elections at least once each year could, under changed economic conditions, be used to harass and even crush unions. 6. The Taft-Hartley Act completely outlaws peaceful picketing in many situations, even such types as have enjoyed protection of our courts for several decades. Thus, employees who picket an employer because he persists in making them work on partially finished goods produced in another plant at sweatshop wages may be found guilty of the unfair labor practice of engaging in an unlawful secondary boycott. 7. The Taft-Hartley Act places unreasonable restraints on many aspects of collective bargaining agreements. The check-off-a legitimate labor-management practice has been surrounded with many unnecessary procedural requirements, violation of which carries a criminal penalty, to the detriment of harmonious relations between labor and management. 8. One of the most serious consequences of the law is the denial, not only of the right to reinstatement, as under the Wagner Act, but also of the right to vote in representation elections, while granting a vote to strikebreaker replacements. The law thus permits an employer who is faced with a strike to improve wages and hours in his plant, to hire sufficient nonunion replacements to outvote the members of the union and thereupon to demand an election, the result of which can well be to oust the union from the plant. 9. Under the Labor-Management Relations Act, the employer can, by petitioning for a choice of collective bargaining representative, determine the time most advantageous for himself to call for an election, even when not faced with conflicting claims for recognition. The employer can thereby stifle and thwart organization efforts and assure a year's freedom from union organization. 10. The law removes from the area of free collective bargaining a subject which all must agree is a proper objective of workers-welfare funds established for the humanitarian purpose of protecting the health and security of employees. It is made a crime for employers and employees to establish such funds except under rigid rules limiting their purposes and methods of administration. Furthermore, violations may be enjoined without regard to the Clayton Act and NorrisLaGuardia Act safeguards. 11. The Taft-Hartley Act impaired legitimate union security by providing that where State laws are more restrictive than the Federal statute, the State laws should prevail. As a result of this provision, even union shops are banned in some industries engaged in interstate commerce. right of appeal by employers and employees, whether charges the Board, and whether orders of the Board were to be releed enforcement. By virtue of this unlimited authority, a sig official might usurp the Board's responsibility for estable act. LABOR RELATIONS LABOR RELATIONS and expenditures by labor organizations, in my opinion, is unfair and 12. The Taft-Hartley Act's broad ban upon political contributions undemocratic. I consider this to be discriminatory legislation because it selects labor organizations as the only type of voluntary associations which are to be denied effective political participation. 13. The Taft-Hartley Act provides for damage suits in the Federal violation of the prohibitions in the act against secondary boycotts courts for breaches of collective bargaining agreements and for and jurisdictional disputes. These provisions throw upon the Federal courts the task of deciding many issues which should be settled by the parties themselves within the framework of their agree 8 23 This warning, like others contained in that rete es proved to be strikingly accurate. 5. By providing for numerous elections-represent shop, employer's last offer the Taft-Hartley Act keeps between employers and unions in an unsettled confitas condition. on the basis of stability and confidence so necessary collective bargaining. The provision that requires unements. tions at least once each year could, under changed eroti tions, be used to harass and even crush unions. 6. The Taft-Hartley Act completely outlaws peaceful many situations, even such types as have enjoyed proter courts for several decades. Thus, employees who picket because he persists in making them work on partially produced in another plant at sweatshop wages may be fou of the unfair labor practice of engaging in an unlawful Furthermore, the burden of untangling the complicated economic and jurisdictional disputes arise is one that administrative agencies problems out of which the evils of unjustifiable secondary boycotts dealing continuously with employer-employee relations are far better equipped to handle than the Federal courts, where dockets are already seriously overcrowded. and unions which is wholly incompatible with the maintenance of These provisions assume an attitude of hostility between employers peaceful collective bargaining relations and with the assumptions upon boycott. 14. The Labor-Management Relations Act indiscriminately out As the An bor and management. 7. The Taft-Hartley Act places unreasonable restraints which our entire national labor policy is founded. aspects of collective bargaining agreements. The check-ofnate labor-management practice has been surrounded laws all secondary boycotts whether unjustifiable or not. nnecessary procedural requirements, violation of which ca iminal penalty, to the detriment of harmonious relations far beyond merely prohibiting certain unjustifiable secondary boycotts. President emphasized in his veto message, the provisions of the act go The language used is so broad that even boycotts engaged in for the S. One of the most serious consequences of the law is the purpose of protecting the standards of union members against the only of the right to reinstatement, as under the Wagner competition of goods produced under sweatshop conditions are proof the right to vote in representation elections, while hibited. Such types of boycotts have long been reccgnized by the er who is faced with a strike to improve wages and hours the gains made in genuine collective bargaining. to strikebreaker replacements. The law thus permits courts as justifiable in order to preserve the union's own existence and , to hire sufficient nonunion replacements to out vote the me union and thereupon to demand an election, the result of to the supervision of the general counsel, to go into the Federal courts for injunctive relief when he has reason to believe that a union J Yet the act puts a mandatory duty on the regional director, subject ell be to oust the union from the plant. itioning for a choice of collective bargaining representa director, in the preliminary investigation of a charge concerning such nder the Labor-Management Relations Act, the emplot is engaging in such a boycott. And the act requires the regional ine the time most advantageous for himself to call for a boycott to give the case "priority over all other cases except cases of en when not faced with conflicting claims for rect like character in the office where it is filed or to which it is referred." ployer can thereby stifle and thwart organization effort 15. The Taft-Hartley Act grossly discriminated in the application of sanctions against unfair labor practices in favor of employers and year's freedom from union organization. e law removes from the area of free collective bargain against labor organizations. Mandatory injunctive action is provided hich all must agree is a proper objective of workers- for in the case of three employee or union organization unfair labor ablished for the humanitarian purpose of protecting practices. In no case is it mandatory to afford relief to employees or a security of employees. It is made a crime for emple labor organization against any employer unfair labor practice. vees to establish such funds except under rigid rules lim be enjoined without regard to the Clayton Act and Neby injunction, and secret ballots which must be followed in emergency ses and methods of administration. Furthermore. Ta cedures including boards of inquiry, an 80-day waiting period enforced Act safeguards. disputes. Nevertheless, as the President said in his veto message, he and his Taft-Hartley Act impaired legitimate union security at where State laws are more restrictive than the Fede officers are deprived of their power to take effective action in securing tate laws should prevail. As a result of this provis peaceful settlement of such disputes. For example, even the boards ops are banned in some industries engaged in intersta of inquiry are deprived of authority to make recommendations for settling the dispute. In the atomic energy and longshore cases these procedures were unavailing, and agreements between the parties were reached with the assistance of Government conciliation, only after the machinery provided by the law had ineffectively run its course. The 16 objectionable provisions discussed above and others too numerous to recount here could make possible the destruction of labor unions by unscrupulous employers. This is a charge which has been repeatedly made. As was said in the reputable business publication, Business Week, on December 18, 1948: What was wrong was that the Taft-Hartley Act went too far. It crossed the narrow line separating a law which aims only to regulate from one which could destroy. Given a few million unemployed in America, given an administration in Washington which was not prounion-and the Taft-Hartley Act conceivably could wreck the labor movement. These are the provisions that could do it: (1) Picketing can be restrained by injunction; (2) employers can petition for a collective bargaining election; (3) strikers can be held ineligible to vote-while the strike replacements cast the only ballots; and (4) if the outcome of this is a "no-union" vote, the Government must certify and enforce it. Anytime there is a surplus labor pool from which an employer can hire at least token strike replacements, these four provisions, linked together, presumably can destroy a union. By going that far, the law defeated itself. It is my considered judgment that the law has had the net effect of dislodging long established labor relations patterns and weakening collective bargaining. Statutory provisions which unduly restrict and hamper free collective bargaining in this country should be eliminated. I, therefore, urgently recommend immediate repeal of the TaftHartley Act. The Taft-Hartley Act was passed during a period of great emotional stress, arising from abnormal disturbance and readjustments, which was an inevitable accompaniment of the return to a peacetime economy. If the same Congress had been considering such legislation during the 1935 -40 period, it is highly improbable that such a farreaching law would have been written. I intend to discuss this phase of the problem to a great extent later in my statement. I shall now turn to a discussion of the bill which has been submitted to the chairman, which is entitled the "National Labor Relations Act of 1949." Briefly, the bill embodies the legislative recommendations made by the President in his state of the Union message delivered to the Congress on January 5 of this year. The bill would (1) repeal the Labor-Management Relations Act of 1947, (2) reenact the National Labor Relations Act of 1935, (3) amend that act to retain the present Board membership and panel structure, (4) enable the Natinal Labor Relations Board to deal with jurisdictional disputes and unjustifiable secondary boycotts, (5) re-establish the Conciliation Service in the Department of Labor, (6) provide means for the settlement of disputes arising out of the interpretation of existing contracts, and (7) provide means for meeting national emergencies in vital industries which affect the public interest. Title I of the bill embodies the first three of these recommendations. It completely repeals the Labor-Management Relations Act, 1947. It reenacts the National Labor Relations Act of 1935, as it existed |