did not notice how the bill came to be drafted; but as I understood him when he spoke here briefly this morning, he said that the general provisions of the bill had been worked out or were in contemplation, at least, and that he had conferred with a private citizen, Mr. Grenville Clark, who had much to do with the working out of the Selective Service Act and also of this National Service Act; and that it was agreed that a bill should be introduced amending the Selective Service Act to take care of and provide for the full utilization of manpower. There then came to white heat this present conflict about the attempt of organized labor to take within its ranks supervisory officials; to reach over to the other side of the table and drag over or pull over or persuade to come over to the side where union labor sits a very vital part of management. So, that section dealing with that matter it was thought proper to place in the bill. I think it is entirely proper, and I think it is a most important feature of the bill. I should like to direct my remarks to that part of the bill.

As has already been said by Mr. Battle, the understanding and agreement between the operators in the coal industry and the United Mine Workers of America have always been that each had its own. separate field. Throughout the years there has been in the constitution of the International Union of the United Mine Workers a provision that men connected with management were not eligible for membership in the union. I asked the vice president of the international union, Mr. John O'Leary, what people were now exempt from membership in their miners' union, and he said they had it stricken out last October, this provision that exempted anybody connected with management. That is out. They still prohibit membership in the union, he said, to members of the Ku Klux Klan and to persons connected with any Nazi or Fascist organization. As I recall it, he mentioned only one other class; members of the United States Chamber of Commerce, he said, were still exempted.

In any event, what I am getting at is that last October the international convention of the union struck from its constitution the provision that had been there for a great many years that prohibited the union from taking into its membership members of the supervisory forces of the operators who employed eligible members. Now, how could anyone think that that provision was written into the constitution of the United Mine Workers and carried there throughout the years because the Mine Workers wanted to unduly restrict their membership or wanted to shut off a profitable source of income? There must have been another reason, and there was another reason, and it was this: That the union leaders, Mr. Lewis and his associates, as they thought about this matter calmly through the years, realized that collective bargaining could be a real success in this country only if the people representing opposing interests sat_on opposite sides of the table and carried on collective bargaining; that by mixing the two groups, by taking a substantial part of management over on labor's side, very soon there was going to be serious interference with collective bargaining.

It was for that reason that they carried this provision in their constitution. It was not only in the constitution of the union that that prohibition was carried, but I shall read to you also from the present wage agreement, which is identical throughout the entire

86329-43

bituminous area, with some exceptions governing rates of pay outside of the Appalachian area, where 75 or 80 percent of all the soft coal is produced. I shall read to you first this provision from the present agreement, which expires by its terms on March 31, and on which we are now carrying on the conferences in New York to see what revisions, if any, should be made of it. [Reading:]

It is agreed that the United Mine Workers of America is recognized herein as the exclusive bargaining agency representing the employees of the parties of the first part. It is agreed that as a condition of employment all employees shall be members of the United Mine Workers of America, except in those exempted classifications of employment as provided in this contract.

Following that there is a note covering the exempted classes. However, I shall read first this further provision covering exemptions:

Exemptions under this contract: The term "mine worker" as used in this agreement shall not include mine foremen, assistant mine foremen, fire bosses, or bosses in charge of any classes of labor inside or outside of the mine, or coal inspectors or weight bosses, watchmen, clerks, or members of the executive, supervisory, sales, and technical forces of the operators.

Then, there is this one further and final provision contained in these contracts:

The amendments to the enabling clause of the basic agreement, covering recognition of the United Mine Workers of America, do not change the rules or practices of the industry pertaining to management. The mine workers intend no infringement upon the rights of management as heretofore practiced and understood.

That provision was placed in the contract as the inducement to the operators a few years ago to agree to the closed shop. If time permitted, I would like to read to you the statement made by Mr. Lewis and the questioning that went on back and forth between the operators and Mr. Lewis at that time, the operators being very unwilling to grant the closed shop, and Mr. Lewis stating his position, over and over, that this was going to be for all time restricted, so far as the closed shop was concerned, to the workers in the mines; that there was no intention to infringe upon the rights of management; that all those connected with the supervisory part of the establishment would under their constitution and under the agreements always be recognized as part of management and rot come within the provisions of this agreement. Well, I think that I could say to you in the utmost sincerity that I have not the slightest doubt that Mr. Lewis and his chief advisers in the United Mine Workers still believe that that is the right policy to follow, still believe that collective bargaining will be better, and still believe that the great union over which Mr. Lewis presides and which has accomplished great things in bettering the coal industry in this country would be better off if we were permitted to continue in just that way.

Well, you may ask, Why does he make this sudden demand? That requires the recital, as briefly as I can make it, of the history of this matter. Something over a year ago, in a very restricted area in the bituminous-coal industry, in western Pennsylvania, there came to the Union Collieries Co., operators of three mines there, one or two men who circulated among the supervisory officials. In those three mines, as it later developed, there were 55 men out of all the employees of those three mines, who were in this supervisory class. They did not cover foremen as such, as they then had not set their

sights so high as to think they ought to reach up into management so high as to have foremen; but they started with assistant foremen and went on down the line.

They came to the superintendent on a certain day and said:

We want to sit down with you and bargain for this list of people, starting with assistant foremen.

The management said:

We do not carry on collective bargaining with ourselves. These people are part of the management. They sit with us, they help work out policies of management, they enforce the rules; we do not bargain with them as a group. They are a part of us.

Well, that would not do at all. The majority of them wanted these outsiders to be their spokesmen, and so the matter went through the regular channels. A National Labor Relations Board examiner found that that was an appropriate unit for collective bargaining. The matter came before the Board itself, and, as stated by Representative Kilday, that Board by a 2 to 1 decision decided that that was an appropriate unit for bargaining.

While this matter was not in the field that I represent, we could see clearly that it was the start of a movement, and so I was authorized by my association to appear in the case in any way that seemed to me to be best. I did appear, made oral argument, and filed briefs in an effort to get a rehearing after the decision had been made; but the two members of the Board, Dr. Leiserson and Dr. Millis, adhered to their original decision, while Mr. Reilly wrote a very strong dissenting opinion. They adhered to it when the question of rehearing was under consideration. I talked to all the members about it in the hearing, and individually they were in great doubt. They saw the serious implications of the matter. But Dr. Leiserson said:

What we do is enforce the act of Congress, and that contains a very broad definition of "employee."

He said:

I do not see how we can read into the definition of "employee" as contained in the National Labor Relations Act any restriction upon the right of those particular men to form themselves into a unit to bargain.

In the brief that I filed, I developed the argument this way: That I was very sure that all Members of Congress who were here and considered the National Labor Relations Act when it was on its way toward passage thought that they were throwing safeguards around the right of workers in industry to organize and to bargain collectively. I said that I doubted whether a single Member of the House or the Senate at that time would have considered one to be other than out of his mind who suggested that they were providing a means by which a part of management could either be turned into the union with the workers over whom they had supervision or could form a union of their own for purposes of bargaining with the rest. of management. But those arguments were of no avail.

I pointed out that in the preamble of the act, which often discloses quite fully what the intent of Congress is, it is stated-I cannot give you the exact language-that it is an act for the benefit of workers. It

uses the term "workers." However, when you get down into the act itself, the terms "employer" and "employee" are used side by side. So, there are distinctions between "employee" and "worker." But I am very certain that Congress thought it was passing a measure to open a way fully for collective bargaining for the workers in industry in this country and not to provide some new and radical and thoroughly unsound method by which a part of management could band themselves together in order to carry on collective bargaining with the rest of management, or that a part of management could be taken over by the workers and amalgamated with them in the bargaining that they would carry on with what would be left of management.

Anyway, that is the situation; and as Representative Kilday has pointed out, there has been a change in the membership of the Labor Board, in the majority. There is a new member there, a former colleague of yours. I do not know what his views are on this subject, but I do know that there was no certainty in the mind of either of the two members who voted to give this wide extension to the rights of management to organize. I know that there was no certainty in the mind of either of them that they were right, and I assume that they will all want to have a rehearing on that question.

I want to point out this fact, though it is not connected with the matter directly before us, that there is pending in this House an amendment to the National Labor Relations Act, appropriately referred to the Committee on Labor, I understand-I assumed it would be-to write into the National Labor Relations Act the definition of "employee" almost exactly as you wrote it in the Fair Labor Standards Act; and under that amendment to the National Labor Relations Act, if it were passed and the act changed in that respect, that phase of the matter would be taken care of. But that would not really solve this problem. That is why we think it is essential that this section should be contained in this bill. If you were to pass that amendment, which would exempt from the provisions of the National Labor Relations Act supervisory officers of all classes, members of the executive staff, and so forth, you would merely by that say that those men were not entitled to the benefits of the machinery set up under the National Labor Relations Act for the settlement of their disputes. They could not go, if that were done, before the trial examiners, the regional examiners, or the Board itself, or assist on elections, unfair labor practices, or anything else, if that amendment were passed. But they would still have the full right to go ahead and join à union, any union that they wanted to join, as I understand it, as long as they did not rely upon the Labor Relations Act.

So, we are going to have to have this broader provision, if we are really going to meet the problem, that will say to men who are part of industry, "You are not eligible to join bargaining units, units that engage in collective bargaining.'

I now come back to the question I raised a moment ago, the thought in my mind that led me to state that I felt very sure Mr. Lewis and his associates would much prefer to have followed the procedure that was set up by their constitution and by their wage agreements. I think you can see what I have in mind. Under this most unfortunate decision of the National Labor Relations Board, great impetus was given all over the country to the organization of foremen. Mr.

Lewis says and I can understand his position there very fully"We have in our contract a provision that says that we are the sole collective bargaining agent for all the workers in the mines. We are not going to let any other union come in, be it C. I. O., independent union, A. F. of L., or any other. We are not going to have another union come into the mines and organize this smaller group."

As a representative of management I would have to say there is great merit in his position in that respect. I could not think of anything in the field that we are now considering that would be worse than to have unions carrying on jurisdictional contests in the mines of this country. If we had a C. I. O. union of all the supervisory officials below superintendent and they had some grievance and went on strike, as they would have a right to do, or as they would do under those circumstances, whether or not they had a right, the miners could not work; they would be losing their pay; there would be no fire bosses there. Under the laws of all these States, every entry, every place where the work is carried on-that is rather hazardous work, and extremely hazardous work in some instances-must be inspected before men can be permitted to go in and rick their lives. They are inspected constantly. If those fire inspectors, because of some grievance that their union had, decided that they would not work, the whole mine would have to shut down, and the members of the United Mine Workers would very properly say, "Why do those bosses keep us from earning our daily bread? We cannot cross the picket line. We cannot go into the mine because it has not been inspected. There is no one there to advise us."

The CHAIRMAN. May I interrupt you? Is not that an argument that there ought to be just one union around the mine?

Mr. BURKE. That very question was put to me by Mr. O'Leary last week in these hearings, and I will give you my answer to him. Mr. O'Leary had already stated that this was one of their major demands and that they were going to strike out in the new agreement this exemption clause. I said in reply to that that we considered that one of the most vital and vicious of the demands that they made, and that we did not propose, as long as we were free agents, to consent to it. Mr. O'Leary then wanted to know if he could ask me some questions, and I said that he could.

He said, "Do you want other unions around the mines?"

I said, "No; certainly not. If we are to have unions-I assume we always will have them-we want one union in the mines and we do not want that union to have another one in its ranks. We want a union for our employees, the workers in the mines; we do not want in that union any part of the managerial class."

That would be my answer to you, Representative May. We certainly do not want more than one union. I agree to that extent with the position of Mr. Lewis, but I say that the way to meet the matter is to pass legislation of this kind, which would make it impossible for any other union to come in and organize this part of management. I think I can assure you to the best of my belief that Mr. Lewis would very readily acquiesce in that, even though it meant the loss of this very large revenue to which Representative Smith

referred.