« PreviousContinue »
There are many instances in which that occurs, so that he may have proper authority to protect the property there. It is just unthinkable that management, as we see it here, should be deprived of these fundamental rights to operate their business. All kinds of figures have been used, from 60,000 to 90,000, but somewhere in between those figures is undoubtedly the total number of people that have never been included and have been prevented from participating in the union activities.
We have here the practical men from several sections, and there will be more here tomorrow. The hearing was called on very short notice, so we did not get here today all we wanted; but we do have practical men here, and we should like to have you propound practical questions to them, because they are in a position to answer them. I think I have been around long enough to know the answers to most of the questions, but necessarily it would be secondhand coming from
With this preliminary statement, I should like to move right ahead with this hearing.
The CHAIRMAN. All right. Are there any questions?
Mr. THOMASON. I think I would like to ask Mr. Battle a question in line with the suggestion to get practical, because thus far it seems to me, there has been stressed either the labor end of it, which is, of course, important, or the viewpoint of the mine operators. But since this is the Committee on Military Affairs, that deals strictly with military affairs—and the way I assume that this committee acquired jurisdiction was that the bill proposes to amend the Selective Training and Service Act, though I have not read the bill—I am anxious to find out in the beginning of the discussion, so that we may have a full and fair investigation of the matter, the specific thing it does to the Selective Training and Service Act and what effect it has on the man who does not comply with the preamble you set out in the beginning of the bill, and also the conditions, which I have only hastily read, as set up in section 3, I think.
Just how, Mr. Battle, does this amend the Selective Training and Service Act, leaving aside for the moment any question of differences or disputes between the mine operators and the mine workers, or any other line of industries, for that matter? Just what does this bili do to the Selective Training and Service Act and what penalties do you impose upon the man—the individuals—who do not comply with the conditions set forth in the bill?
Mr. BATTLE. As I understand it—and I think Judge Smith has touched on it-you lay down certain requirements and place certain responsibilities on management in connection with the manpower problem, and that is where the selective-service phase of it comes in, as I see it. You set out certain things which, if these people do them, if these workers do them-regardless of whether they are coal miners or something else, interfere with production and slow-down production. That is the main thing, the thing in which we are primarily interested today. You lay down rules by which management can keep control over its properties.
Mr. THOMASON. Speaking about the military angle of the legislation, what happens to the employee who does not comply? Does it mean that under the terms of this bill he is going to be put into
class 1-A and drafted into the service? Just what is the specific and practical application of the bill to Selective Service?
Mr. BATTLE. You have the penalty here in section 7.
Mr. THOMASON. I have not had a chance to read the bill; that is why I am anxious to have somebody explain it in a practical way.
Mr. SPARKMAN. Section 5-E of the Selective Training and Service Act of 1940 relates to deferment.
Mr. THOMASON. I know it does.
Mr. SPARKMAN. This bill amends section 5-E and takes away from such a person that right of deferment.
Mr. T'HOMASON. I am anxious to hear from Mr. Battle what the practical effect of that is going to be. What will happen to the man who does not comply with the provisions of this proposed bill!
Mr. BATTLE, Section 7 reads: Any violation of this Act shall be punishable by a fine of not more than $1,000 or imprisonment for a period of not more than one year, or both, in the discretion of the court.
Mr. THOMASON. What effect does it have upon his military status?
Mr. BATTLE. This bill does not go fully into that point that if he does not do this, he must go into the Army.
Mr. HARNESS. Oh, yes, it does; section 2 of the act covers it.
Mr. BATTLE. Yes; of course, you provide that some of the provisions of this subsection relating to deferment shall apply to those persons that have incurred the penalties in the regular Service Act.
Mr. HARNESS. If that employee does not comply with the provisions of this act, he is subject to being drafted into the military service.
Mr. BATTLE. Oh, yes; I would assume he is. Of course, he may be subject anyway, as far as that is concerned, but Selective Service has set up what the penalties are, and this merely says that these are the things they must do in order to maintain orderly production of coal, or what not, in this country. I think the main thing in which we are interested today is maintaining production, and manpower is our big problem. Mr. THOMASON. Does this bill abolish collective bargaining?
Mr. BATTLE. Oh, no. Collective bargaining has gone on and has become an established principle of American economy. It does not do that at all. There is just a select group of people who are the direct representatives of management that we feel cannot have two masters. They cannot serve two masters at the same time.
Mr. THOMASON. I agree with that, but what does this bill do to collective bargaining?
Mr. BATTLE. I do not see how it does anything except prevent these particular men from joining a union as against management, let us say—that is, those particular classifications we are talking about. Mr. THOMASON. You say a man cannot join a union?
Mr. BATTLE. We say that because of the position he is filling here as a supervisor or as an official, it is just improper for him to belong to a union organization and still enforce the very contract that exists between management and its employees.
Mr. THOMASON. That is all for the present, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. ANDREWS. I shall address my remarks' to the Chairman. Has the committee requested Selective Service and the War Department to report on this bill?
The CHAIRMAN. Yes.
Mr. ANDREWS. As I understand it, the people who are here today are proponents of the bill?
The CHAIRMAN. Yes.
Mr. ANDREWS. It seems to me that we ought to hear from someone an outline of the bill and what it does and to give us your point of view on it, instead of just general terms.
Mr. BATTLE. I thought that was what Judge Smtih was going to do.
The CHAIRMAN. I shall ask one other question of Mr. Battle. I agree with Mr. Andrews that if there is someone here from the coal industry who knows the situation, we ought to hear him first.
Mr. Battle, does not this bill really provide that the provisions of the National Labor Relations Act relating to collective bargaining and union membership shall not be applicable to the managerial personnel or executive or supervisory employees?
Mr. BATTLE. That is correct. The CHAIRMAN. So, in effect it really is equivalent to amendment of that act to cover the question that you are raising!
Mr. BATTLE. That is correct, sir.
Mr. THOMASON. Is it not more than that? Is it not in effect the repeal of it?
Mr. BATTLE. No.
Mr. KILDAY. Mr. Chairman, if I may interrupt, I think I should say that I made some preliminary study of this at your direction.
The CHAIRMAN. Yes. Go ahead, Mr. Kilday.
Mr. Kilday. I have made a preliminary study of the proposal to consolidate all the manpower bills that we have. I think a correct statement of the situation is that while the bill does not in terms in anywise amend the National Labor Relations Act, it has the effect of legislatively repealing a decision of the National Labor Relations Board, in which that Board, as I understand it, by a 2-to-1 decision, held that the supervisory personnel were entitled to organize for collective bargaining under the National Labor Relations Act. So, this bill would have the effect of setting aside that 2-to-1 holding of the Board and of providing by law that the supervisory personnel is not eligible under the National Labor Relations Act to organize for collective bargaining purposes.
The CHAIRMAN. I think that is a clear statement.
Mr. KILDAY. I may say that the National Labor Relations Board personnel has changed since that decision was made, and one of the two who held that the personnel were entitled so to organize has left the Board.
Mr. BATTLE. Thank you, sir,
STATEMENT OF EDWARD R. BURKE, PRESIDENT, SOUTHERN COAL
PRODUCERS ASSOCIATION, WASHINGTON, D. C.
The CHAIRMAN. Senator Burke, will you tell the committee whom you represent, what your relations to your employer are, and what your attitude is toward this legislation! Make any statement you care to make. Having served in the Senate, you know, of course, how to proceed. Mr. BURKE. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I
appear here as the president of the Southern Coal Producers Association, which is an organization that represents practically all of the bituminous coal operators in the southern Appalachian area--that is, southern West Virginia, eastern Kentucky, Virginia, and Tennessee. There are employed by the companies represented in this organization something like 185,000 miners. They produce in this area, I think, approximately 35 percent of all the soft coal that is produced in the entire country.
The main purpose of this organization, the Southern Coal Producers Association, if I may say so, is to carry on what have been the biennial wage conferences with the United Mine Workers of America, conducted by Mr. Lewis, the president of the international union; and it happens that we are right now engaged, and have for the past 3 weeks been engaged, in such a conference in New York City. I came here this morning in order to appear very briefly before this committee to give you my views; I must then hurry back to New York to go on with the conference. I am interested in this bill for a number of reasons. One reason is that it proposes to amend the Selective Service Act. In the brief period that I served in your ranks, in the other legislative branch, it was my privilege to take part in many controversies and cast many votes, some of which I. would be glad to change after more mature deliberation, and some of which I would like to make more emphatic. But in the whole experience that I had, nothing gives me more satisfaction now as an outsider looking back than the fact that it came to be my lot, along with your own colleague, Representative Wadsworth, to be a sponsor of the Selective Service Act which it is now proposed to amend. I may say that I have been somewhat finicky on the subject of amending this act, and I realize the great force of the position that I think is in the mind of my friend Representative Thomason in reference to this matter.
It would occur, I think, at least to the casual observer, that if we are going to deal with matters directly pertaining to labor relations, there is in the House another committee to which this bill might be referred. We start in with the assumption, which we must necessarily make, that this bill is correctly referred, because the great Speaker of the House of Representatives referred it here; and we know, of course, how these matters work; namely, upon the advice of your very learned and capable 'parliamentarian. So, there is at least the assumption that the bill has been correctly referred, although we all have in mind
experiences where a change of reference was made. I was concerned at first with whether or not this was the proper way to approach at least the one phase of the problem in which I am primarily interested. I think I can demonstrate to you how deep my
concern was in that matter, because within the past 3 weeks or so I appeared before the Senate Committee on Military Affairs to testify in connection with the Austin-Wadsworth bill for a National Service Act. I think, if my remarks there were taken down and preserved and I assume they were—that you will find that I said there that I was fundamentally and strongly opposed to perverting the Selective Service Act to accomplish other purposes; that I thought, as I expressed it there, that if there were a need for shifting workers from one branch of industry to another, and if that could not be done by the voluntary method or in any other way, then the Congress should give attention to that particular bill, the Austin-Wadsworth bill, or to something of that nature that would cause the manpower to do the things that must be done all over the wide extent of this country if we are going to win this war as quickly as we all want it won.
So, when this bill, H. R. 2239, was presented, I examined it with some care. Let me digress here to say that I would not want to attempt to explain the various provisions of the bill; someone else will have to do that. But I came very quickly to the conclusion that this was an amendment that could very properly be made to the Selective Service Act because, as Judge Smith said a moment ago, what this bill proposes to do is to make it possible to utilize the existing manpower in industry. That is not, as I understand it, quite similar to the proposal to force people from nonessential industries into essential industries under the penalty that if they do not make the transfer they may find themselves in the military service. That is not what this bill does. But this bill provides in certain respects a formula and a procedure under which the existing manpower can be used fully and adequately where it exists without any transfer at all.
I do not want to labor that point at all, and I know you could ask many questions about it. But let me pass on to matters that I consider I can deal with more intelligently because I am directly concerned with them. However, I do say, and I give you my own judgment, that as one of the authors of this Selective Service bill, and after a careful examination of what this bill proposed to do, I am fully and completely satisfied in my own mind that it is a proper, germane, and perfectly legitimate way in which to proceed to accomplish a purpose which I am sure you will be inclined unanimously to support when it is fully laid before you. That is one reason why I was interested in coming here to say just a word about the amendment of an act which, at least, did bear my name—I suppose it doesas one of its sponsors.
I am interested in it also because of the larger purpose of the bill as expressed by Judge Smith; namely, that it will make it possible to utilize the manpower of this country more effectively and thus make available in larger measure for our fighting forces not only the machines and equipment that they need, but will also use more effectively the manpower in industry where it exists and make available a larger reservoir of manpower for use in the military services.
There is a third reason why I wanted to come and give you my brief statement, and that is that there is a section of the bill which deals directly with one of the most important problems, as I see it, confrnting industry and the economic welfare of this country that exists today. I had not talked to Judge Smith about the matter, and I