The CHAIRMAN. Eleven pages.

Mr. KEENER. I am summarizing it verbally, however.

The CHAIRMAN. Let us see what you can do in 10 minutes.

STATEMENT OF J. W. KEENER, VICE PRESIDENT, B. F. GOODRICH CO.

Mr. KEENER. My name is Ward Keener and I am vice presider: of the B. F. Goodrich Co., Akron, Ohio.

Our company, as most of you know, is a manufacturer of rubband rubber products, chemicals, plastics, and other products of t sort. We manufacture in about 12 States of the country and I all States.

I think I owe your committee an apology because I have to confess that I am not a lawyer. I am a practicing industrial-relations ma The CHAIRMAN. That is not an apology, that is a bit of welcor.

news.

(

Mr. KEENER. We are concerned with this legislation because company and our employees and our unions have to live under We have about 40,000 employees in the country and 60 percent of th are in bargaining units. There are 81 bargaining units with wh we deal, of which some 25 are in factory locations and some 56 17in retail and warehouse locations.

The largest number of our employees in bargaining units is in t United Rubber Workers who represent employees in seven plants f the company in the rubber products business. We have approa our study of labor legislation from the standpoint of the prine j'that we think ought to be incorporated in that legislation, and feel quite strongly that it should take into consideration not of the interests of unions as such but the interests of the public, they terests of the employers and the interests of the employees as in .. viduals.

We think it should provide for a fair and impartial administrati of the law as it is passed. We are concerned on this matter of pr ciples of labor legislation by virtue of the fact that the policy star! in the Wagner Act as such is the policy of promoting collective la gaining almost without regard to consequences. I think the question of whether collective bargaining is or is not to be the national pol is academic.

It is the national labor policy; and our concern, starting with ta as a base, has to be a recognition of what other rights there are involved in addition simply to the rights of unions as organizations I wanted to review with this committee our own experiences over the last 2 or 3 years and see if we can learn from those experiences t: effect that these labor laws have upon the normal day-to-day job of living together insofar as management, unions, and employees are concerned.

We have nearly all the time, a union-organizing drive on at or place or another, and since August 1947 when the Labor-Managen. Relations Act went into effect we have had ten such drives a: elections.

Of those 10 elections 7 went in favor of unions and 3 went in fav of no union. We feel that the criticism that has been made of the National Labor Relations Act that union organization would be

hampered by that act isn't borne out by our own experience, nor do I think it is borne out too well by the experience nationally.

There were criticisms against the Labor-Management Relation Act because it was said that the union men would be drastically injured by the voluntary check-off provisions. In our own case in our Akron plant, which is the largest one, our union collected about $250,000 by a voluntary check-off in 1947. It had 93 percent of the bargaining unit participating in that voluntary check-off. We had a voluntary check-off in 1948 and while there were 132 percent fewer employees on the average in 1948, we collected for the union $230,000 from 97 percent of all of the employees in the bargaining unit. So the experience we have had certainly doesn't indicate any damage to the financial position of the unions resulting from the voluntary check-off. We were told that the Labor-Management Relations Act would damage contract standards. Well, since August 22, 1947, we have given in our rubber workers' contract an 11-cent increase, six paid holidays, 3 weeks' vacation for 15-year service employees, severance pay, and improved wage guarantees in addition to other minor con

cessions.

We think the contract standards are very definitely improved. We have made similar concessions, not idential ones, in 78 other agreements that we have negotiated since August 1947.

Now in the settlement of these 78 wage and contract agreements 76 of them were peaceful settlements. We had two legal strikes involving about 212 percent of our total employees, and both of those strikes were over contract issues; both were settled on the basis of the company's prestrike offers.

We have had work stoppages in violation of contract, both under the Wagner Act and under Labor-Management Relations Act. We had work stoppages in our Akron plant in 1947, what was really the 1946-47 period, up to August of 1947, a 12-month period, 104 work stoppages in that plant in Akron.

Senator TAFT. Sit-downs?

Mr. KEENER. Sit-downs, walk-off-the-jobs, various kinds of stoppages over grievance issues primarily, and there was a loss of 122,000 manhours. During the 12 months from November 1, 1947, until October 31, 1948-and I chose those 12 months because our contracts went into effect on November 3, 1947-we had 19 work stoppages with a loss of 25,000 man-hours. That is a reduction of approximately 80 percent in work stoppages over grievances and in man-hours lost.

We think there is some significance to the fact that since the election we have had 10 work stoppages with 67,000 man-hours lost in that plant, nearly three times as many man-hours lost in the last 3 months as there was in the entire preceding 12 months.

Grievances are always filed when anybody feels injured, and just to show you that there has been no particular change in that regard during the 12 months preceding Taft-Hartley we had 1,140 in the Akron plant. During the 12 months, succeeding 12 months, we had 1,102. But the difference comes about in the methods chosen for settlement. I have indicated what happened in the way of work stoppages. During the 12 months preceding the Taft-Hartley Act we had 24 arbitration cases under the contract. During the 16 months

85905-49-pt. 2-30

following-and the reason for choosing 16 is not of significance, wa just happened to count it that way-we had 71 arbitration cases, that in our case under the Taft-Hartley, arbitration pretty well replaced work stoppages as a final resting point for grievance bas dling.

Now we were told that there were going to be a lot of suits. W. haven't sued anybody, nobody has sued us, we haven't threatened t sue anyone and so far as I know no one has threatened to sue us. W. have found that the complaints about coercion against employees: dividually or goon-squad activities have substantially declined. I fact, I don't think we have had a complaint to my knowledge, I a year or a year and a half.

I think the Labor-Management Relations Act had something to with that. We have had no experience to speak of with Commur: unions. Our unions so far as we know all we are dealing with ha filed under the act and we have had only one case where a non-C'og munist affidavit was not filed. That was the case of a union that w trying to organize a warehouse. As soon as the employees found og that it had not filed a non-Communist affidavit, they switched over an A. F of L. group which was certified by NLRB and they are now living under a contract which has been negotiated with us.

We felt very strongly in the discussions preceding the passage 4 the Taft-Hartley Act on the question of the exclusion of supervis We still feel strongly that way. We had an experience in 1945 wies a Foreman's Association of America group was successful in striking our Akron plant for a period of 4 weeks. We found very defin in that strike that there was collusion between the FAA group : the CIO rubber workers union and the plant was very effectively clo down by the fact that the rubber workers would not work in a fa where the foremen were on strike. They had previously agreed do so, they reneged on their agreement, and we are concerned a with the plans the CIO and AFL already announced in the field of foremen's organization. We feel that the foremen's exclusion sho continue in any new legislation.

(Mr. Keener submitted the following prepared statement :)

STATEMENT OF J. W. KEENER, VICE PRESIDENT, THE B. F. GOODRICH Co Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am Ward Keener, vice pres dent of the B. F. Goodrich Co., Akron, Ohio. The B. F. Goodrich Co ma tures rubber, rubber products, airplane wheel and brake assemblies, tett e chemicals, plastics and plastic products in plants located in Massachsets New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky, Tennessee, Georgia. Aa bama, Texas, Oklahoma, and California. Sales operations and employs == extend into every State.

Approximately 40,000 people are employed by the B. F. Goodrich Co. wit the United States and about 60 percent of these deal collectively with the no pany on wages, hours, and other conditions of employment. Eighty-one harga ing units are involved, 25 include groups of factory employees and 56 inebre retail and warehouse employees. The United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum Plastic Workers of America, CIO, through certified units in seven rubber produca plants, represents approximately 70 percent of those employees of the com£27 included in bargaining units. Production and maintenance employees in these seven plants are covered by a single uniform agreement, together with loca supplementary agreements.

Since the National Labor Relations Act was replaced by the Labor-Mara ment Relations Act of 1947, our company has negotiated 78 contract and wig

The current rubberagreements with unions representing our employees. workers' agreement was in process of negotiation when the Labor-Management Relations Act became effective on August 22, 1947, and the life of this agreement almost parallels the life of that act. It is my desire in appearing before you today to tell you of our experiences under the Labor-Management Relations Act, to evaluate these experiences in the light of the propaganda and criticisms that have been aimed at the act, to relate them to the conditions that the repeal bill now before this committee would impose and to present certain views which we feel the Congress should consider.

Opponents of the Labor-Management Relations Act claimed it would cripple efforts to organize the unorganized. In B. F. Goodrich 10 representation elections have been held under the act, resulting in seven new certifications and seven new agreements. Three units voted for no union. Nationally, during the first 14 months of the act's existence, 3,948 new bargaining units were certified in spite of the fact that several large unions were no qualified to enjoy the privilege of an NLRB election. Total union membership is the highest on recordover 16,000,000 at the end of 1948. Certainly it cannot be claimed that organization has been crippled, or that it would have advanced further under the old Wagner Act or the proposed new bill.

Opponents of the present law claimed it would result in severe cuts of contract standards and force strikes to gain union objectives. Our experience has been exactly the reverse. Concessions have come further, and faster and more peacefully than ever before. Typical are these benefits granted to the United Rubber Workers:

1. An 11-cent-an-hour wage increase in 1948.

2. Pay for six holidays not worked.

3. Three weeeks paid vacation for 15-year service employees.

4. Severance pay for mental and physical disability cases and for retiring employees.

5. Increased incentive wage guaranties.

6. Holidays not worked to be counted as hours of work when computing overtime.

7. Other minor changes such as provision of special union bulletin boards. Similar benefits were granted in the 78 agreements reached with only 2 legal strikes, both over contract issues, and both settled by vote of employees on the basis of the company's prestrike offers. Certainly there is no basis in fact or fancy for the claim that contract standards have been cut or strikes incited. Certainly no better progress could have been achieved under the old Wagner Act or under the proposed new bill.

Opponents of the present law claimed that employers would become more adamant and uncooperative in settling grievances and that work stoppages would increase to achieve satisfactory adjustment of grievances. Our experience both under the Wagner Act and under the Labor-Management Relations Act has been that we have few greivances and practically no work stoppages in plants other than Akron, which is our largest operation. During the last 12 months of the Wagner Act's existence 1,120 grievances were filed in our Akron plants while during the 12 months following the passage of the Labor-Management Relations Act, 1,102 grievances were filed.

To eliminate any excuse for work stoppages during a contract period, our agreements with the United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum and Plastic Workers of America have provided, since 1944, for arbitration as the terminal point in the grievance procedure. Nevertheless, work stoppages do occur, mostly in connection with grievances which have not been referred to or negotiated under the established grievance procedure. During the last 12 months of the Wagner Act's existence, 104 work stoppages took place in our Akron plants with a loss of 122,000 man-hours. Work stoppages for the 12 contract months from November 1, 1947, through October 31, 1948, were 19 in number, involving a loss of 25,000 man-hours, reductions of 81 percent in number of stoppages and 80 percent in man-hours lost. That arbitration replaced work stoppages as a means of settling differences is indicated by the fact that 24 arbitration decisions were rendered during the last 12 months of the Wagner Act's existence against 71 during the next 16 months.

There is obviously nothing in these experiences with grievances and work stoppages to support the claims that grievance handling would become "more adamant and uncooperative," and that stoppages would be necessary to achieve satisfactory adjustment. Exactly the reverse has happened. The bill before

this committee, viewed in the light of the Wagner Act experience, holds no wurb promise of peaceful handling of problems.

It is significant that during the 3 months since the November elections 19 work stoppages have occurred in our Akron plants with work losses of at 68,000 man-hours, nearly three times the losses of the entire year preced g This points up the intangible element that was the greatest contribution of the Labor-Management Relations Act-that is, the realization of labor leaders that they were responsible for and accountable for their actions. Expectations that there would soon be a new labor law have been reflected in an assumption that responsibility and accountability are no longer required. If this should be i typical reaction to the legislative proposals now before this committee grav doubts would exist regarding the future of labor-management relations

Opponents of the present law have claimed that the unfair-labor-practice tions, as applied to unions, would be used by employers to harass, delay, ar! otherwise interfere with the organization of employees and the conduct of us. affairs. The B. F. Goodrich Co. has never filed, nor threatened to file, an unfa labor-practice charge against any union. Union practices have definitely change for the better under the act.

One of the avowed purposes of the proposed bill is to protect the exercise br workers of full freedom of association, self-organization, and designation of representatives of their own choosing, for the purpose of negotiating the terga and conditions of their employment or other mutual aid or protection. H can this be accomplished realistically if the restrictions on unfair activities to unions are removed almost completely? To say, as the old Wagner Act 4: that a union can do no wrong requires imagination and tolerance beyond ordr human limits. To say, as the proposed bill does, that the only unfair activ in which unions have engaged the jurisdictional strikes and limited seconde boycotts is to beg the issue. The proposed bill would, for all practical purp again legalize goon squads, threats to the individual and his family, mass picke ing, and the many other forms of coercion which some unions exercised aga workers under the Wagner Act. The rules of fair play require that the ind vis be free of all coercion in the exercise of his rights. This includes his right refrain from as well as to engage in collective-bargaining activity his righ work as well as his right to strike. The present safeguards of these rights she be retained.

The proposed bill will again permit unions to discriminate against union at nonunion employees who fail to see eye to eye with the leaders. Those un holding closed- or union-shop contracts could deprive a man of his job for 1:1 reason at all. The proposed bill should carry a provision that nonpayment of dues would be the only reason for loss of union membership and employme under any compulsory union-membership contract.

Opponents of the present law have claimed that union security would b jeopardized. At the B. F. Goodrich Co. we have a long-standing policy tha question of membership or nonmembership in a union is a matter for the dividual employee to decide. Except in two instances, our agreements do "" require union membership as a condition of employment. However, we have agreed to voluntary check-off of dues wherever requested by the union. og experience both under the Wagner Act and the Labor-Management Reisters Act has been that voluntary check-off has resulted in real union security. D ing 1947, dues check-off in our Akron plants exceeded $250,000. Approximate 93 percent of all employees in the bargaining unit were covered in the check plan. In 1948, we deducted union dues amounting to approximately $2 in spite of a reduction of 13% percent in the average monthly enrollment i 1948, over 97 percent of the employees in the bargaining unit participated in the voluntary check-off program. A program resulting in the union's collecti $230,000 in 1948 from 97 percent of the eligible employees is, in our optier real union security. The present safeguards of individual rights should be retained.

To date, we have found no specific objection from the opponents of the prese law to the requirement that unions and employers both bargain in good fa.th The repeal bill eliminates this requirement insofar as unions are concerned. I' takes two to make a bargain and if the law is to require a bargain to be made both parties should have equal responsibility with respect to the duty to barga The only fair rule is to require that the employee representative bargain with the same good faith as the employer. The repeal bill also eliminates the clear cut definition of "to bargain collectively." The lack of such definition in the