pe a though most of my life has been spent as a representar who has had extensive dealings with unions, some -hat I am qualified to stand in an impartial position yrs and unions. I flatter myself by believing that valed friends holding this opinion are many whose devoted to the cause of organized labor. I hope that t in their judgment that I am a completely imparts sted fellow-but my age, experience, and naturals acht me to recognize the force of these two truths: an being is qualified to testify that he, himself, is impar han he is qualified to testify that he has a sense of heard anyone deny that he had a sense of humor; nor yone admit that he was biased. t, impartiality, to the extent that it can be actually sc is considerably upon the institutional settings in which imself. Show me the judge of the courts of the Unite onored for his objectivity and lack of bias. That rep not survive the act of sitting on a case in which a form ative is an interested party. However impartial hem estimation, he is no longer impartial in the eyes of the or the public. The responsibility of a mediation agency is to promote collective Effective mediation bargaining and to assist the parties in their negotiations. depends entirely upon the degree of confidence and trust which unions and con ployers repose in mediators. The mediator is a bridge between the parties. His strict impartiality and his freedom from coercion, intimidation, or influence from any source, together with his wide experience in industrial relations situations, earn him confidence, and a position as an adviser which makes him of great value to the He has no ax to grind; he is answerable to no who has more than a disinterested public concern in the outcome of the dispute. He is not necessarily wiser or more able than the representatives of the parties- but his middle position gives him the advantage of objectivity which they frequently do not possess. This advantage enables him to prevent each party from underestimating the strength and determination of the other. Possessing confidential information of what the parties may give and take, he can be of assistance in narrowing the issues and bringing about an agreement which might otherwise be withheld until there is an actual trial of economic strength. Further, he does not confine his activities to dispute settlement. Under the preventive program of the service, it is a part of his regular duties to seek out and enlist the confidence and support of key representatives of management and labor in the industries in his area. He makes suggestions for the improvement of human relations and contract administration during periods of relative peace when tempers are cool and thereby anticipates and forestalls future difficulties. In short, it is essential to the effective performance of the mediator's duty that his institutional and personal relationships be such that neither side will have its suspicions aroused, however unjustly, that he is answerable to another with a suspected partisan stake in the future. There must be no thought that he is performing anything other than a disinterested public duty. br I mean to convey is that the important thing about I should like to test these ideas, which I believe to be sound, against and disinterestedness is that it is to be measured not personal convictions of the man himself, but by the some of the provisions of the bill. I now address myself specifically e is regarded by others. Personal impartiality which to section 201 (c) of the legislative proposal before you which disented and supported by a reputation for impartiality continues the independent status of the Federal Mediation and Soul through the gates of Heaven; it is of little value to Conciliation Service and requires that it be administered under the mediators of labor disputes. And the nature of the general direction and supervision of the Secretary of Labor who will ting in which he pursues his calling vitally affects his re have review power over all of the policies and standards for the impartiality. operation of the Service. It is with real regret that I find that candor HAIRMAN. I cannot help but say, Mr. Ching, that this and devotion to the public interest require that I say to you that such I have ever heard in my life that there was an impart action will seriously damage the effectiveness of government mediaaven. (Laughter.] It seems to me the whole the tion. It would be a step backwards in the terribly important job of strengthening our industrial democracy by promoting sound practices hows it is very much one-sided. [Laughter.] hust be some meaning in that story about the goats and usages of collective bargaining and minimizing and preventing labor disputes. NG. That was probably a poor analogy. Before stating my reasons for this conclusion, I want it to be clear AIRMAN. Probably on a higher plane up there, but that nothing I say here should be understood to reflect on the Department of Labor or its officers and personnel, or to refer to any particular case. NG. Nothing is more important to the effective med individuals among them. I have no right or basis or desire to impugn putes than the known, recognized, and acknowledge the loyalty to their oaths of office or devotion to duty of any officer the mediator with respect to the conflict of interests of that Department. We are dealing here with a difference of opinion. between employers and unions. This is so because Ironing out differences of opinion by open discussion is a process all of us regard as precious and fundamental to our way of life. I do wish to observe that however impartial those departmental terest of one side or another corrodes and destroys of large sections of the community without which effective mediation in dispute; and because any suspicion or belief that officers may regard themselves to be, they will not have that confidence cannot be performed. Such lack of confidence will not be restricted years I have given serious thought to the problem of to high departmental officials; it will exist with respect to the field mediation as it should be performed by governmommissioners of the present Service who would be transferred to the to the qualifications of mediators. Permit me to t exclusively on persuasion; because a mediator cant major conclusions from the introduction to the F present Service has been that dozens of our most able mediators who found the doors of many employers closed to them for years under it of the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service departmental administration found such doors ajar when they introduced themselves as representatives of an independent agency. Apparently, these commissioners, many of whom were formerly labor union officials, discovered that the independent status of the Service afforded them a new opportunity to make a valuable contribution to the national welfare by improving relations between employers and unions and furthering the interests of industrial peace. It may well be asked why this should be so. The men haven't changed. How does a mediator previously regarded as a partisan suddenly become accepted as an impartial public servant? The best answer is, of course, that they were not partisans, the vast majority of them, while they were in the Department of Labor. The difference lies in the fact that the suspicion of bias associated with the terms "Department of Labor" in the minds of many employers has been effectively dispelled by establishment of the Service as an independent agency of government, divorced from the Department of Labor. It would be a great pity if this progress should be arrested, and suspicion renewed. Senator SMITH. Mr. Ching, that would be the same effect if it were in the Department of Commerce, for example? Mr. CHING. Yes, sir; I make that point a little later on. Mr. CHING. I say that those suspicions, whether ill-grounded or not, are facts which cannot be wiped away by protestations of disinterestedness or by a statutory provision such as section 203 (e) of the bill, which says that "the Director and the Service shall be impartial." My health is good, but I do not expect to see the day when a reputation for impartiality can be enacted by statute. The committee is entitled, however, to such speculations as I can make as to the probable basis of those suspicions. It must be recognized that, rightly or wrongly, most employers and employer groups interpret the organic act of the Department of Labor as making it the spokesman and advocate of organized labor in the executive branch. Senator DONNELL. Mr. Chairman, would Mr. Ching have any objection to having inserted at this point the sentence from the act creating the Department of Labor, which reads: The purpose of the Department of Labor shall be to foster, promote, and develop the welfare of the wage earners of the United States, to improve their working conditions and to advance their opportunities for profitable employment. The CHAIRMAN. There is no objection. Mr. CHING. All right. I shall not debate the proposition. I only assert that such an interpretation, by one of the groups to be mediated, is a stubborn fact which frankness requires us all to face. That interpretation was supported and given weight by other circumstances. When Samuel Gompers, years ago, said that the Department of Labor should be "labor's voice in the President's councils," most people took the statement in its literal meaning and elected to believe that the Department, whether or not pro public, will be antiemployer and pro union. When the present Secretary of Labor, in a public address, recently, said "I want a department that will be what Sam Gompers wanted it to be-labor's voice in the President's councils' " their suspicions may have been fortified. 56 LABOR RELATIONS co departmental administration found such doors ajar he wed. my ator SMITH. Mr. Ching, that would be the same eff*** Department of Commerce, for example? CHING. Yes, sir; I make that point a little later on. mind. ator SMITH. Yes; I want to get it clear in CHING. I say that those suspicions, whether ill-g e facts which cannot be wiped away by protestaties redness or by a statutory provision such as section which says that "the Director and the Service shall My health is good, but I do not expect to see the d on for impartiality can be enacted by statute. The co ed, however, to such speculations as I can make basis of those suspicions. st be recognized that, rightly or wrongly, most emplo groups interpret the organic act of the Depart making it the spokesman and advocate of organize cutive branch. DONNELL. Mr. Chairman, would Mr. Ching have having inserted at this point the sentence from th e Department of Labor, which reads: e of the Department of Labor shall be to foster, promote, and f the wage earners of the United States, to improve the * d to advance their opportunities for profitable employment IRMAN. There is no objection. debate the proposition. I only assert that such a "W It is true that there were spokesmen for management interests who testified against removing the mediation function from the Department of Labor on the occasion of hearings on the Taft-Hartley Act. Without solicitation of their views, I have been informed by some of these individuals that, as a result of the experience of the last year and onehalf of the administration of an independent service, they now favor retention of the status quo. Senator DOUGLAS. May I ask the witness a question? Were these statements made to you in confidence, or would you be willing to furnish the names of these gentlemen to the committee? Mr. CHING. I will check with the people, Senator Douglas. Mr. CHING. And I will do so. Senator DOUGLAS. If they give permission to furnish their names Mr. CHING. I will certainly do so. Mr. CHING. I do not pretend to know all of the reasons which lie behind this judgment, but the record should contain some of the reasons which have been advanced to me. Again, I do not comment on their merit. It has been observed to me that for many years the rapidly maturing labor-union movement has sought recognition of its political, economic, and social development in the executive branch through representation by a Department whose strength and prestige would reflect its own growing strength and prestige. It has desired an official home in the same sense as, it is alleged, other economic groups find official haven in other departments of Government. It is a natural desire. This striving of labor unions received partial recognition in political-party platforms pledging that the Secretary of Labor would come "from the ranks of labor." It also received partial fulfillment in the creation of two assistant secretaryships which, by common agreement, are to be filled by individuals chosen from the ranks of the two great labor organizations. Senator DONNELL. It is a fact that not only are they to be filled, but they have been filled by individuals chosen from the ranks of the two labor organizations. Mr. CHING. That is my understanding. Senator TAFT. Until the present Secretary. Mr. Tobin comes directly from Mr. CHING. I did not say that. I said the two Assistant Secretaries. Mr. CHING. Whether this legislative development be regarded as meritorious or otherwise, it stiffened the convictions of many employers that the Department, in issues arising between employers and unions, would favor unions. The events of the last 3 years are fresh in our minds. It has been pointed out to me, that at least the present and the last Secretary of Labor have found themselves almost without exception alined on the side of labor unions in respect to all legislative and administrative programs on which employers and unions differed. You and I know, through our associations and experience, that it would be most unfair to hold that this coincidence demonstrates that the Department is subservient to unions. Unfortunately, however, many people do not know that, and believe that it is so subservient. At this point, I want to observe most emphatically that it is in respect of employers who hold such views, as well as others who have confidence in the Service, that effective mediation must be carried on if we are to have industrial peace. Other employers and unions will solve their problems with or without mediators, and regardless of the agency to which the mediators are attached. How is the Department of Labor to convince the skeptical employers that it holds no brief for the unions with which they must bargain? It should be borne in mind that the Secretary of Labor and his assistants are obliged, by the nature of their offices, to take leadership in legislative programs to advance the welfare of workers. Many employers find themselves combating these programs. Moreover, the Secretary issues minimum-wage and child-labor orders and makes other determinations in the public interest pursuant to statutory mandate which are directed against employers who fail to operate in accordance with working standards prescribed by Congress. Many such employers, whether or not justified, tend to regard such action as anti-employer and proworker, despite the fact that the basis for the enactment of the legislation is propublic. Some of such employers find themselves in disputes of national significance which are required to be mediated personally by the top departmental officials who issued such orders, or testified in favor of such programs, or who came out of the labor organizations to be Assistant Secretaries. Are the functions and organizational setting of such officials calculated to give confidence to employers that in issues between them and unions they can be assured of the most even-handed treatment? No such difficulties face the Director of an independent mediation service, whoever he may be. He issues no orders or directives. His only business is preventing and settling labor disputes. He can and should be successful in avoiding all controversial issues as to which employers and unions are on opposite sides of the fence. A Director who makes enemies, even when he is in the right, is a failure, just as surely as a clergyman is a failure when he antagonizes and can no longer reach, by persuasion, the erring members of his flock. The public interest in industrial peace requires that the skeptical and suspicious employers in the industrial community be encouraged to walk the path of free collective bargaining, as well as the trusting. It should be clear that mediators must be completely insulated from law-enforcement and take no sides in legislative programs on which employers and unions disagree. If they are insufficiently insulated or divorced from such matters, and take sides, their usefulness as mediators is at an end. What I am saying is not to be construed to mean that the Department of Labor should not be entrusted with the enforcement of labor laws, the promotion of worker education and other germane matters. It is right and proper that the Labor Department should be strengthened to play, through its able personnel, a more important role in the industrial life of our country. This role, however, should not include mediation. I limit myself to this narrow proposition; mediation must be performed in a setting in which every encouragement will be given to both parties to extend the fullest confidence and trust to the mediators; it is a mistake to place a mediator in an organiza LABOR RELATIONS the 2 as Unfortunately, however, many people do not know that it is so subservient. At this point, I want to ew phatically that it is in respect of employers who holds well as others who have confidence in the Service, that ation must be carried on if we are to have industrial per employers and unions will solve their problems with or ators, and regardless of the agency to which the mediators How is the Department of Labor to convince the skepti hat it holds no brief for the unions with which they mast It should be borne in mind that the Secretary of Law sistants are obliged, by the nature of their offices, to ip in legislative programs to advance the welfare of work ployers find themselves combating these programs. Me cretary issues minimum-wage and child-labor orders er determinations in the public interest pursuant to ndate which are directed against employers who fail to ordance with working standards prescribed by Congress employers, whether or not justified, tend to regards nti-employer and proworker, despite the fact that the he tment of the legislation is propublic. Some of such themselves in disputes of national significance which are mediated personally by the top departmental officials orders, or testified in favor of such programs, or whe labor organizations to be Assistant Secretaries. Are and organizational setting of such officials calculated ence to employers that in issues between them and assured of the most even-handed treatment? ich difficulties face the Director of an independent whoever he may be. He issues no orders or directives siness is preventing and settling labor disputes. He e successful in avoiding all controversial issues as to s and unions are on opposite sides of the fence. etor who makes enemies, even when he is in the night st as surely as a clergyman is a failure when he antag no longer reach, by persuasion, the erring members he public interest in industrial peace requires that the uspicious employers in the industrial community be e alk the path of free collective bargaining, as well er be clear that mediators must be completely insulated nent and take no sides in legislative programs on nd unions disagree. If they are insufficiently insu from such matters, and take sides, their usefulnes at an end. saying is not to be construed to mean that the De r should not be entrusted with the enforcement of notion of worker education and other germane matte proper that the Labor Department should be streng through its able personnel, a more important ro life of our country. This role, however, should on. I limit myself to this narrow proposition; me performed in a setting in which every encourageme both parties to extend the fullest confidence and tris ; it is a mistake to place a mediator in an organiz : 59 LABOR RELATIONS tional environment which may possibly throw a shadow on his disinterestedness. If it were proposed tomorrow that the mediation function should be transferred to the Department of Commerce, I should testify as I am doing today, in favor of an independent mediation service. I have diligently sought light and understanding of the reasons why, unlike the National Mediation Board, with which the Service bears the closest comparison, the Service should be placed in the Department of Labor. I believe that the independent status of that Board, which mediates railroad and air-transportation disputes, has had much to do with its success. I have never heard an employer or union official attack it on the ground that it was partisan. The bill very wisely refrains from putting that board under the Department. Why should the Service, which is supposed to be doing an effective job, be treated otherwise? The only argument supporting the incorporation of the Service, which I hear that has at least surface substance, is that the step is necessary to strengthen the Department. Size, in the case of Government agencies, as in the case of individuals, does not mean strength. By itself, it does not necessarily confer prestige or authority. If the Department is not as effective in mediation as it should be, and as I fear it would not be, the Department would not be strengthened and its prestige would be impaired. I think that the problem we are discussing is too important to consider in terms of the strengthening or weakening of a particular agency of the executive branch. It is a problem which surmounts jurisdictional ambitions or disputes between agencies. It is bigger than individuals. It involves the great public interest. I have not heard any argument advanced for the transfer of the service which would indicate that the public interest would be better served if mediation were performed within the Department. In conclusion on this subject, I want to say that when I was honored by being offered the chance of heading a mediation agency of the Government, for the first time independent, I saw a great opportunity. I am an immigrant to this country, and I owe to it more than I shall ever be able to repay. When I entered into the performance of my duties, I knew that a small part of the obligation might be discharged by improving the Service, expanding its preventive activities, and making it the most effective instrument possible to promote free collective bargaining as the way of life in industrial America. In a year and a half, I hope we have made some progress toward the fulfillment of that goal. Many people tell me that we have, and I earnestly trust that they are right. Much of the job remains to be done. Whether I finish it or someone else does is not a burning public question. It is important, however, that the progress made be not lost, that the job be completed, and that the mediators of the Service Occupy a position in the organization of the Government that will immunize them from the slightest suspicion that they favor any interest other than that of the whole people of the United States. It is my conviction that this requires that the mediators be in an independent agency. Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, I shall be happy to answer any questions on the subject matter of my statement in relation to the bill. In view of my stated conviction that the public interest requires that the head of a mediation service should not take |