« PreviousContinue »
area, including the Los Angeles district, the cities of Portland, Seattle, and Tacoma, and, through its connection with the Southern Pacific Railroad, the San Francisco district.
The production of the company's mines in the calendar year 1942 was 5,283,346 tons; the estimated requirements for the calendar year 1943 ranging somewhere between 6,250,000 and 6,500,000 tons.
While not engaged in the commercial coal business, the company has turned over, in response to emergency appeals, several thousand tons of its production for the use of Government activities and the bunkering of Russian merchant ships transporting lend-lease material to the Russian Government; such deliveries now suspended on account of reduced production occasioned by an extraordinarily heavy labor turn-over and a flagrantly heavy measure of voluntary absenteeism.
On February 20 last, the United Mine Workers of America, over the signatures of John L. Lewis, president; John O'Leary, vice president; and Thomas Kennedy, secretary and treasurer, instructed the various district and local union officers in all bituminous coal producing districts in the United States, including those who represent the U. M. W. of A. in the State of Wyoming, to-between the date of the circular and March 31, 1943—secure applications for membership from "each mine foreman, assistant mine foreman, dock boss, night boss, fire boss, mine examiner, watchman, coal inspector, mine clerk, and all other employees heretofore exempted from membership”; an initiation fee of $10 to be collected with each such application, either in cash or through the medium of deferred payments, the total number of supervisory and clerical forces represented in the circular as adding "some 60,000 new members to the membership rolls of the U. M. W. of A."
The United Mine Workers of America was established in the State of Wyoming commencing September 1, 1907, at which time a provision was written into the first wage contract—which provision, with slight variations, has been continued since 1907 and is in force todayto the effect that the supervisory officials and clerical forces of the coal company would remain specifically exempt from union jurisdiction; this exemption obtaining, to the best of my knowledge, in every mine union wage contract of any importance throughout the United States.
There can be no other construction put on the covert attempt to secure the applications of the supervisory and clerical forces in the coal mines before the expiration of the present wage contract, than that such represents a distinct breach of the existing contract and an arbitrary attempt to extend, by indirection, the union activities of the Appalachian conference upon which our wages and working conditions have been foundationed since April 1, 1934. In other words, Mr. Lewis, not satisfied with the extraordinary demands submitted direct to the coal operators in the Appalachian districts, has engaged in extracurricular activities outside the conference room, which, if successful, would immediately yield his union, in the form of initiation fees, $600,000, and on the basis of a very nominal rate of dues, $1.50 per month, an annual return from the mine supervisory and clerical forces of $1,080,000.
So much for the union situation. From the standpoint of the coal producer, Mr. Lewis proposed to allow the operator to maintain one nonunion operating employee; that is, the mine superintendent, whose duties would be extended over the two or three shifts that the mine or mines might be operated; all instructions issued by him to his supervišory force, when unionized, of no import for the simple reason that union workers will not take orders or instructions from a fellow union member. To attempt to enforce the superintendent's orders would merely bring down on such unionized supervisors the wrath of the union. It is an established fact that a minority of capable, conscientious men rarely have any influence against the major irresponsible number who frequently make up the membership of the local unions. This superintendent alone and unaided would then be charged with the whole responsibility of enforcing the State mining laws and the safety regulations put out by the Federal mine inspectors under the provisions of legislation sponsored in the Congress by Mr. Lewis and other representaitves of his union.
In other words, every element of managerial control, outside of the one single individual, would be concentrated in the U. M. W. of A. union, and those who own the property, and the consumers of coal who pay the bills, would be forced to accept complete domination on the part of the union.
In putting out the circular first referred to, Mr. Lewis has risen to new heights of arrogance, insolence, and effrontery; and if the welfare of the Nation is to be served, particularly at this time when we are in throes of a world-wide war, the outcome of which is far from being determined, this gentleman and his union must be stopped by legislative action, the union recognizing no other control or influence.
The CHAIRMAN. The committee stands adjourned until 10 o'clock tomorrow morning.
(At 1:10 p. m. an adjournment was taken until Friday, April 2, 1943, at 10 a. m.)
FULL UTILIZATION OF MANPOWER
FRIDAY, APRIL 2, 1943
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
Washington, D. C. The committee met at 10 a. m., Hon. Andrew J. May (chairman), presiding.
The CHAIRMAN. The committee will please be in order.
The CHAIRMAN. We will resume the hearings on H. R. 2339 and other bills that have been consolidated with it.
I have had a statement sent to me by the National Lumber Manufacturers Association that they want to be printed in the record and I will submit that for inclusion in the record.
(The statement is as follows:) STATEMENT OF NATIONAL LUMBER MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION ON H. R. 2239
The National Labor Relations Board has held that supervisory employees are entitled to the benefits of the National Labor Relations Act. If this decision is permitted to stand it will mean a radical change in our political, economie, and industrial systems. If supervisory employees are to be allowed to join unions they will join a union of their own or the union of the other workers in the plant. If they join a union of their own they will become involved in jurisdictional and other interunion problems, especially where there is already a closed shop or a union maintenance contract with the workers.
If, on the other hand, they join the union of the other workers and all of the employees in the plant, including the supervisory employees, are members of the same union, it will mean the end of collective bargaining for there will be eventually no representative of the employer with whom the union can bargain. Discipline and disciplinary action would come to an end for it is not to be expected that the supervisory employee who belongs to the same union as the worker supervised will be able to enforce reasonable discipline.
The National Labor Relations Board has heretofore held on many occasions that the employer is responsible for the acts of supervisory employees done within the scope of their employment. Unionization of supervisory employees will involve the anomalous situation of responsibility to a union for acts or discrimination committed by members of the union,
Unless this is corrected promptly a chaotic situation may be expected to develop. Already we hear of efforts to organize the supervisory employees in the coal mining industry and in the Detroit area.
The lumber industry has a substantial interest in this question. It has more than 500,000 employees of whom more than 15,000 are in the classification of supervisory employees. Most lumber companies depend on supervisory employees to maintain continuity of operations and to protect the interest of the employer. If owners in these industries are no longer to be able to rely upon their employed personnel to represent their interests just as they represent the employer's authority it is to be expected that the industry will not operate efficiently or that those who exercise in part the functions of management and at the same time are responsible to a union engaged in collective bargaining with the management, will have a hopelessly divided responsibility. This is especially important in industries whose operations are necessarily decentral. ized, as in mining, oil production, and forest industries.
The bill introduced by Representative Smith of Virginia, H. R. 2239, would correct this situation and assure maintenance of proper relationships between employers and workers. In section 4 of the bill it would make the employer definitely responsible for the acts of executive, administrative, professional, or supervisory employees within the scope of their employment and would make such employees ineligible to membership in any union which is bargaining collectively with the employer.
The National Lumber Manufacturers Association represents 16 regional associations or producers of lumber and timber products, and approximately threefourths of the national production.
We believe that legislation of this kind is urgently needed and hope that the House Committee on Military Affairs will give it prompt approval.
The CHAIRMAN. The first witness we have this morning is Mr. J. Handly Wright, the executive vice president of the Associated Industries of Alabama, of Birmingham, Ala. Mr. Wright, you may proceed with your statement in reference to this legislation and after you have made a general statement about the matter you may be questioned by members of the committee.
STATEMENT OF J. HANDLY WRIGHT, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT,
ASSOCIATED INDUSTRIES OF ALABAMA
Mr. Wright. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am representing on this occasion, gentlemen, not only the Associated Industries of Alabama, an organization comprised of industrial firms, about 400, including all of the war manufacturers in the State, the important ones, and as such it is generally considered that the spokesman for a manufacturing industry in the State of Alabama, but also the Alabama State Chamber of Commerce comprising about 2,000 industrial and commercial firms who have asked me to represent them.
I am here to express the approval of the organizations I represent of H. R. 2339 which you are considering today and also to express the hope that you will see your way clear to give this measure a favorable report.
So many able arguments in support of the bill have already been presented to this committee that I will not take up your time with mere repetition, if I can avoid it. The entire measure commands the support of the organizations which I represent. We hope that it will receive favorable action in its entirety and in its present form. But in view of current efforts on the part of the United Mine Workers to include within the union the supervisory personnel of the soft-coal mines, we are particularly interested in section 4 of this bill which would prohibit the unionization of such supervisory employees.
It is my understanding that you gentlemen also are devoting your attention first to this provision of the bill. The arguments against including such employees in the union are so self-evident it seems almost unnecessary to mention them.
Primarily, we believe that the unionization of such employees would mean a division of allegiance between the owners as represented by the management and the unions and a consequent division or loss of control by management over such employees.
The results of divided allegiance were well described by your own Naval Affairs Committee in a report on private shipbuilding companies on the Pacific coast on February 15, 1943, in which the committee said:
There seems to be a practice of allowing a union member, who has been promoted to a supervisory position of assistant foreman or foreman, to continue his union affiliation. Testimony showed that there were a few instances where the continuation of a supervisor's imion activities created a division of allegiance. Divided allegiance among supervisory officials can result only in improper and inefficient supervision, and your committee believes that there is no good reason for continuation of such a practice.
With the loss of control over such employees goes the loss of discipline. The effect of a loss of discipline on the safety of employees is a matter of cause and effect which is known to and dreaded by every personnel executive in my State. This is not hearsay. It is the actual experience of some Alabama plants.
The loss of control which would inevitably follow the inclusion of supervisory personnel in the union is recognized in this bill you have under consideration for section 1 (c) says that one intent of the bill is to see that those charged with the duty of managing the industrial enterprises of the country * * * shall have and be protected in the exercise of adequate authority to insure uninterrupted service.
The introduction of the union into the management of a plant, which the induction of supervisory personnel would accomplish, would actually precipitate a chaotic condition into management at the very time when the best managerial effort is needed for the production job ahead.
Supervisory employees are agents of management. The divided loyalty between management and the unions which would result from their unionization would bring about a condition of uncertainty, confusion, hesitancy and inefficiency which is bound to have an adverse effect on production.
It has been the custom, not only in the coal industry, but in all industrial plants in my State which have union contracts, specifically to exempt supervisory employees from the union contract. This shows a recognition by the union itself of the essential difference between management representatives and union members. Now, when every industrial nerve is strained to the utmost, is no time to allow the introduction of this new and disturbing note in labor relations. Unless this bill is passed, however, the labor unions, at least as far as John L. Lewis speaks for labor unions, have served notice that they intend to do precisely that.
There are so many arguments in detail which might be brought up against the unionization of supervisory employees and in favor of this bill that the remainder of the day could be spent in discussion of them. There is only one more I would like respectfully to call to the attention of this committee. That is this:
Collective bargaining becomes a farce and a delusion if the union sits on both sides of the table. That isn't bargaining. That is plain farce with management sitting back helpless. If supervisory help is taken into the unions, then you've got the union sitting on both sides of the table where the union demands and the union gives at the expense of voiceless management.
Assuming this to be true, then unless this bill passes, this committee will have encouraged a new industrial system in the United States, a system whereby the control and management of industrial