Page images

Mr. LARKIN. If there were organizational jurisdiction and the kinds of difficulties that go with organizational drives, there is no doubt that production would seriously suffer.

Mr. SHORT. Under the existing law, no citizen is prohibited from joining a union. From your testimony, there has been a great deal of activity-almost feverish activity-in many of your plants in different sections of the country. It is a determined drive to organize your foremen and other employees of management into unions?

Mr. LARKIN. That is right.

Mr. SHORT. If you could be certain that they would not be—and that is what this Smith bill would accomplish-you would perhaps plan a little more actively and efficiently; certainly you would not have this threat hanging over your head?

Mr. LARKIN. Certainly if we had to divert our attention from the things that are necessary to be done now as a part of management to handle all the difficulties that would arise out of a jurisdictional and controversial question of that kind, production would be bound to suffer.

Mr. Short. You could continue under existing rules, but then there is danger that the rules might be changed?

Mr. LARKIN. That is right. Mr. SHORT. And no game is too tough for American business to play as long as it knows what the rules are?

Mr. LARKIN. That is right. Mr. SHORT. That is all. The CHAIRMAN. Mrs. Luce? Mrs. LUCE. Of the 275,000 employees you have, how many would be affected by the drive to unionize foremen? That is to say, how many foremen do you employ?

Mr. Larkin. Mrs. Luce, we figure that the supervisory personnel is about 7 to 8 percent of the total employment; in other words, it would be about 20,000.

Mrs. LUCE. You said to Mr. Short that such activity would seriously hamper the war effort; but in your statement you said it would produce industrial chaos. Do you seriously believe that the unionization of the foremen would bring about a situation in which there would be no guns, no tanks, and no airplanes made in the United States within 6 months ?

Mr. LARKIN. I do not mean to imply that there would not be any made.

Mrs. LUCE. That is industrial chaos.

Mr. LARKIN. Then, I stand corrected on the use of the word. I used the word “chaos” in another sense, and this is your interpretation.

Mrs. LUCE. I would like to know what you mean by it.

Mr. LARKIN. I used it in the sense that we would just be in constant turmoil.

Mrs. LUCE. Yes; but if this turmoil does not cause production to go down to the point where there are no guns, no tanks, no ships, and no planes, then it has not destroyed the war effort.

Mr. LARKIN. I think it will. I certainly think it would reduce war production and interfere with production.

Mrs. LUCE. But not to the point of industrial chaos.

Mr. LARKIN. Well, I think I will have to defer to your use of the word and stand corrected on my use of it.

Mrs. LUCE. You say it would slowly but surely interfere and that strikes would break out. Would that be over a short period of time or a long period of time? I just want to see what you envisage. I want you to write the headlines for tomorrow morning.

Mr. LARKIN. I think it would not be even a short period of time; I think we would begin to find out immediately.

Mrs. LUCE. And over a period of a year you think it might destroy the war effort ?

Mr. LARKIN. I certainly think it would have a most detrimental effect upon it. Mrs. Luce. Fifty percent? Twenty percent?

Mr. LARKIN. I cannot use a percentage; I am sorry. It would be very substantial.

Mr. Short. I may observe, Mr. Larkin, that when you are talking to Mrs. Luce you are dealing with an erudite playwright who knows the meaning of words.

Mr. LARKIN. Yes, indeed; I realize that. I defer to her use of the word.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Johnson?

Mr. JOHNSON. From your statement I received the impression that you feel that if we do not pass this bill or something similar, that would in a sense throw the support of Congress back of the ruling of the Labor Board.

Mr. LARKIN. I feel this way: That now that this question has come up and the attention is focused upon it before the country, unless Congress takes some action now in support of this bill it is going to be tantamount to putting the stamp of Government approval on the organization of this important segment of management.

Mr. JOHNSON. When the decision came out, your company lawyers, of course, knew about it in a very short time, did they not?

Mr. LARKIN. Of the decision, sir?

Mr. JOHNSON. The decision of the Labor Board that defines "employee” to include foremen. That is what brought all this about; you understand that?

Mr. LARKIN. Yes.

Mr. JOHNSON. Certainly your lawyers knew of that decision, did they not?

Mr. LARKIN. I presume they did.
Mr. JOHNSON. Did they not report it to you?
Mr. LARKIN. I had knowledge of it.
Mr. Johnson. You found out about it rather quickly!
Mr. LARKIN. Yes.

Mr. JOHNSON. Was not the great concern in your mind and the minds of your associates how the thing could be corrected ?

Mr. LARKIN. That is right. We thought it was pretty terrible.

Mr. JOHNSON. Did not your lawyers outline to you a way in which that matter could be corrected ?

Mr. LARKIN. I do not recall that they did.

Mr. JOHNSON. Did they not suggest to you that if necessary the Wagner Act could be modified and that the word "employee” could be defined to exclude any of the supervisory employees?

Mr. LARKIN. No; not specifically. I think the action that is now being taken in Congress, in considering this bill, is the proper action.

Mr. Johnson. Well, did you have anything to do with the drafting of this bill? Is it your bill?


Mr. Johnson. There is nothing improper in that. Did your law, yers have anything to do with drafting any of the provisions or did they look the bill over?


Mr. JOHNSON. You realize that the way the bill is drawn, all that is done is to amend the selective-service law. It does not do it directly. It just tries to amend the selective-service law and tries to take these people into the armed forces.

In your opinion, would it not be better to define the word "employee” so that it would be very plain that no organization was to be allowed of any of these foremen, because they were excluded from the definition of the word "employee”?

Mr. LARKIN. Well, if Congress will take the action that will clearly and definitely indicate that to the people who are now being considered as eligible for membership in these organizations, if Congress will take the necessary action so that it is clearly and definitely understood by them that it is the policy of the United States Government that they should not join these organizations, then I think you will have taken a very constructive step.

Mr. JOHNSON. Have you read the bill concerning which you have testified here?

Mr. LARKIN. Yes.
Mr. JOHNSON. Have you read the whole bill?
Mr. LARKIN. I have.
Mr. JOHNSON. I presume you are not a lawyer?
Mr. LARKIN. I am not.

Mr. Johnson. Anyway, you know what in a roundabout way this bill seeks to accomplish?

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Johnson, do you not think that that is a job for this committee to determine?

Mr. JOHNSON. That is true, Mr. Chairman, but here is a man who employs a quarter of a million men.

The CHAIRMAN. More than a quarter of a million men. Mr. JOHNSON. His company employs 275,000 men. He has testified about a bill. I think that he ought to know what that bill is and what it is trying to accomplish.

The CHAIRMAN. We all know exactly what it is that is sought to be accomplished, but the question of the legal way to do it and to stay within the Constitution and not violate men's rights is for us.

Mr. SHORT. They want prevention.

Mr. JOHNSON. The way to prevent this is simply to define in the Wagner Act what an employee is and eliminate clearly by definition any foreman or anybody higher than foremen.

Mr. LARKIN. I do not know whether just that act in itself will accomplish what is necessary.

Mr. HARNESS. That is what Congress thought it did when it passed the act. The interpretation of the National Labor Relations Board has upset the whole applecart.

Mr. JOHNSON. Many times laws are interpreted differently than they were drafted. We all know that.

Mr. HARNESS. You may have a different interpretation tomorrow when you have these agencies interpreting the laws.

Mr. JOHNSON. You say that anything that would accomplish the purpose of keping necessary production up would be favorable. Do you think we should freeze men on farms?

Mr. LARKIN. If that is necessary.

Mr. JOHNSON. Is not the Bethlehem Steel Co. in San Francisco one of your units?

Mr. LARKIN. That is right.
Mr. JOHNSON. What else do you have in San Francisco?
Mr. LARKIN. We have shipbuilding plants and a steel plant.

Mr. JOHNSON. You realize that a good many of your workers are now taken off our California farms?

Mr. LARKIN. Well, they make good workmen.

Mr. JOHNSON. I realize that, but they do not produce food in your plants.

That is all, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. What is the amount of the contracts you now have with the War Department? I would like to have you say a word now about war production.

Mr. LARKIN, I have a short statement that I can read for the record, Mr. Chairman.

At the beginning of 1942 we had undertaken to produce $1,300,000,000 worth of ships and war materials. Our war-production commitments now total $2,400,000,000, and that is as of I will say, the 1st of March.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you produce anything at all in your plants that is not directly or indirectly for war purposes?

Mr. LARKIN. I would say nothing, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, sir.

Mr. DURHAM. Mr. Larkin, do your supervisors at the present time settle many of these problems before they are referred to the National Labor Relations Board ?

Mr. LARKIN. The supervisors' board? Yes, indeed.

Mr. DURHAM. Most of the interest up to the present time has been centered on the organizational method or procedure of the unions, I would like to have you comment on subsection (4) of this bill.

Mr. LARKIN. That is, H. R. 2239?

Mr. DURHAM. Page 3, subsection (4). We are interested all along the line in this war effort, not in just one phase of it. Your company is a large company and evidently has some of these troubles.

Mr. LARKIN. I do not have any direct illustration to offer as to how we are concerned with that section right now.

Mr. DURHAM. You do not feel that this section has anything to do with your trouble at the present time?

Mr. LARKIN. I do not know of any particular incident I can cite at this time.

Mr. DURHAM. If there is a disagreement about the use of a certain tool, do you refer that matter to your management to straighten it out with the union? Explain the procedure.

Mr. LARKIN. Yes.

Mr. FENTON. To what do you attribute the reason for the shortage of miners in your coal mines?

Mr. LARKIN. Well, as I said, it may be that they have gone into other lines of activity, although the argument or the answer that the union has used publicity is that they are being drafted.

Mr. FENTON. You do not think it is for higher wages in other locations?

Mr. LARKIN. I do not know. I think their wages are on a pretty good level.

Mr. FENTON. I just want to say that in our particular area, which seems to have been forgotten, if I may use that term, by our own Government, as far as war

industry is concerned, our people are very glad to have such people as you to go to for some employment.

The CHAIRMAN. It is a good company.

Mr. FENTON. That is the reason why I brought the question up about your people advertising in our local papers. Our people are very glad of the chance to get a job somewhere.

Mr. LARKIN. We have been glad to have them.

Mr. HARNESS. Do you have a closed-shop agreement with the union now?

Mr. LARKIN. The agreement in the coal mines is a closed-shop agreement.

Mr. Harness. Outside of the coal mines there is an open-shop agreement?

Mr. LARKIN. We have also a closed-shop agreement in one shipyard on the west coast, in San Francisco.

Mr. HARNESS. Are you now negotiating new contracts with the unions?

Mr. LARKIN. We are now negotiating a new coal contract.

Mr. HARNESS. It is in these negotiations that there has arisen this question about the eligibility of the supervisory employees?

Mr. LARKIN. Yes. One of the demands of the mine workers' union is that everybody up to a mine superintendent shall be a member of the union.

Mr. HARNESS. That is all.
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Larkin.
Mr. LARKIN. I thank you, gentlemen.

The CHAIRMAN. We will next have a statement by Mr. Eugene McAuliffe, president of the Union Pacific Coal Co., Omaha, Nebr.



Mr. McAULIFFE. In my capacity as president of the Union Pacific Coal Co., I desire to voice my support of legislation, including

H. R. 2239, introduced in the Congress by the Honorable Howard W. Smith, written to prevent the unionization of industrial supervisory forces, particularly as applied to coal mines, in which branch of industry my company is engaged.

The Ünion Pacific Coal Co., with its predecessor, the coal department of the Union Pacific Railroad, first undertook the production of coal in the State of Wyoming in 1868, the coal company succeeding the railroad in the operation of the Wyoming coal properties immediately subsequent to its incorporation on September 25, 1890. On the Union Pacific Coal Co. rests the major responsibility of fueling the Union Pacific Railroad, which serves the entire Pacific coast war

« PreviousContinue »