Page images

Mr. CORBETT (continuing). And I will be guided by what they say. Now, we do not subscribe to what is in that bill.

The CHAIRMAN. Let the Chair-
Mr. MARTIN. Let me make one conclusion.

The CHAIRMAN. Let the Chair direct the reporter to show in the record that the witness refuses to answer. Put that in, Mr. Reporter.

Now, have you anything else to ask him?
Mr. CORBETT. May I put in an explanation to follow that?
The CHAIRMAN. No. That is final. It is your refusal to answer.

Mr. MARTIN. We are giving a great amount of time and attention here to the problem of need for harnessing manpower, and it may well be necessary for us to cut into the manpower available for various occupations within our civilian population. This bill is a specific measure before us for study, and I understand you to say that your study of this particular measure has led you to come in here and say that, as far as this bill is concerned, you think that the transportation business should be left absolutely alone and this bill defeated ?

Mr. CORBETT. Again I have to repeat that the bill as printed was referred to our Cleveland office and that my superior officers said that they were opposed to it and instructed me to come here. When you refer to my study of it or when you refer to transportation, you are stretching the point.

Mr. MARTIN. But you are not opposed to Congress' undertaking to harness and regulate the use of civilian manpower in our war effort, including the transportation field?

Mr. CORBETT. I am in no position to express

Mr. CLASON. We are not interested in anybody in Cleveland. You are the witness here. Answer it from your own standpoint and forget the people back in Cleveland. You can tell us how you feel about it, as long as you are making the statement.

The CHAIRMAN. That is right.

Mr. Clason. Can you answer the question in your own opinion, or have you not any opinion?

Mr. CORBETT. "On something that I do not know about, I have no opinion.

The CHAIRMAN. All right. The witness is excused.
Mr. CORBETT. Thank you.
The CHAIRMAN. We will adjourn until 10 o'clock Monday morning.

(Whereupon, at 12:15 p. m., an adjournment was taken until Monday, April 19, 1943, at 10 a. m.)


MONDAY, APRIL 19, 1943


Washington, D.C. The committee met at 10 a. m., Hon. Andrew J. May, chairman, presiding

The CHAIRMAN. Let the committee come to order. The committee will continue the hearings on H. R. 2239, H. R. 1742, H. R. 992, H. R. 1728, and S. 729.



The CHAIRMAN. We will now hear from Mr. Krimsly. Will you give your full name to the reporter, Mr. Krimsly, and tell us who you represent?

Mr. KRIMSLY. My name is Samuel Krimsly, 1616 Law and Finance Building, Pittsburgh, Pa. I am appearing as counsel for the Mine Officials Union of America which is a duly constituted labor organization consisting of supervisory employees who are engaged in the mining of coal. The members of this union were neither a part of management on the one hand nor were they considered a part of the rank and file employees in the coal mining industry. They never sat on the same side of the bargaining table with the coal operators and on the other hand they were not at least in Pennsylvania, Ohio, and West Virginia eligible to become members of the United Mine Workers of America because of their constitutional requirements, that is, the constitutional requirements of the United Mine Workers and also because at that time the United Mine Workers were under contract with the various coal operators and their contract did not include the supervisory employees.

I would estimate that we have in the United States approximately 60,000 men who are working in the coal mines as supervisory employees and who are eligible for membership in our union. These employees by reason of the foregoing were denied the right of collective bargaining. They had no method whatsoever for negotiating a contract with their employers or for getting security of employment or seniority rights, and they had no machinery whatsoever for the adjustment of grievances and for taking up all the other problems that arise between an employer and his employees. There was, therefore, a very great need for the formation of a labor union for these employees. The need was the father of the deed and in December of 1940 the Mine Officials Union of America was created and organized.

Let me say now to those who have appeared before this honorable committee and who have so boldly stated that a union composed of supervisory employees would result in nothing short of disaster to the United States of America that in the history of our organization going back for a period of about two and a half years we have dealt with many coal operators on a cooperative basis and I know of no instance where the production of coal has been hindered due to the presence of our union. As a matter of fact, because of the benefits that have accrued to the members of our union by virtue of the fact that they have more security their morale has been very considerably increased and as a matter of fact production has increased in a number of the mines where we operate.

I am appearing here as a lawyer, but I will not testify from a strictly legal standpoint. I will testify in a more or less practical manner so that I may give to this committee some of the thoughts and ideas that have imposed themselves upon us as to what will happen should the Smith bill, known as H. R. 2239, be passed. We, of course, are definitely and unalterably opposed to this bill as being contrary to our principles of democracy and we feel that if this bill were passed it will not tend to carry out the purposes and intents that are set forth in the bill but on the contrary its approval or its passage will prove disastrous and will seriously interfere with the prosecution of the war.

At this time, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I would like to digress a little from my argument. Some time ago I understand that Mr. Richard Mays, of the State of Pennsylvania, who happens to be the secretary of the department of mines appeared before you and offered testimony in favor of this bill. Let this committee retain the impression, or lest this committee get the impression that Mr. Mays is speaking for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania I feel that it is my duty as a citizen of that State and as a lawyer, too, to familiarize this particular committee with some matters that are relevant to his testimony. We feel, of course, that Mr. Mays appeared here more or less at the request and with the cooperation of the coal operators of the State of Pennsylvania. As a matter of fact, the department of mines sought to intervene in the case which was pending before the National Labor Relations Board, that is, the Union Collieries Coal Co. case wherein our union sought to establish the principle by obtaining a decision by the National Labor Relations Board, that the supervisory employees are employees within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act and also that they are an appropriate bargaining unit.

Now, in the State of Pennsylvania we have a labor relations board that is governed by what is known as the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Act. The act is drawn in such a way that it more or less recites the same intents and purposes and practices of the Federal act. However, the Pennsylvania act is only applicable to industries that are engaged purely in intrastate business. In other words, they exclude companies that are engaged in interstate business.

The CHAIRMAN. Under the rulings and findings of the Supreme Court of the United States, what kind of industry could you have in Pennsylvania that would be strictly intrastate that is in any way connected with the war effort? There would be very few, wouldn't there?

Mr. KRIMSLY. Well, very few, particularly with the recent decisions that have been handed down not only by the Supreme Court, but by other administrative bodies. However, it seems that we do have a number of industries that are considered in intrastate business. I may add that, in my opinion, this particular company may not even be in intrastate, but I am citing a particular case that was decided by the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board which is directly contrary to the stand that was taken by Mr. Mays, the secretary of mining. I would like to refer this honorable committee to the case known as In the Matter of C. A. Hughes and Company, a Corporation, and the Mine Officials and Maintenance Men's Union of Cambria County. The case is No. 78, year of 1941. This represents a final decision of our Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you have a copy of the decisions?

Mr. KRIMSLY. I do, but I am just going to quote very briefly from the decision. I will be glad to leave it here if you wish to have it.

The CHAIRMAN. I would like to have it printed in the record.

Mr. KRIMSLY. All right. I will, therefore, offer the decision into the record.

(The information requested is as follows:)






THE PENNSYLVANIA LABOR RELATIONS BOARD HEREBY CERTIFIES that the document annexed hereto has been compared with the original thereof, on file in the Office of the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board, at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, in the foregoing captioned matter, to the above number and year, and that the same is a true transcript thereof and of the whole of such original.

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board has caused to be affixed hereto its official seal, in the City of Harrisburg and Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, on this thirty-first day of March, 1942.





No. 78 Year of 1941




A charge was filed with the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board on the eleventh day of July 1941, by Joseph C. Giles, the president of the Mine Officials and Maintenance Men Union of Cambria County, the above-named complaint, of No. 650 Church Street, South Fork, Pennsylvania, against C. A. Hughes & Company, the above-named respondent, of Cresson, Pennsylvania, alleging

unfair labor practices within the meaning ofthe "Pennsylvania Labor Relations Act."

The Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board, on the 21st day of July 1941, caused to be issued a complaint against the said respondent and fixed a time and place of hearing for the purpose of taking testimony in support thereof and in answer thereto.

The complainant alleges that the respondent, on or about the 20th day of June 1941, did restrain, coerce and otherwise interfere with its employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization and collective bargaining and did discriminate in regard to hire, tenure, terms and conditions of employment, and more particularly, on or about the 20th day of June 1941, did terminate the employment of John Drinosky and Clifford Watson, two of its employees, be cause of their known membership in and activities on behalf of the labor organization known as the “Mine Officials and Maintenance Men Union of Cambria County, and for the purpose of discouraging membership therein.

The complaint and notice of hearing was duly served on the respondent, on the complainant union, on counsel for the complainant union, and on John Drinosky and Clifford Watson, the two employees involved.

The respondent, on the 31st day of July 1941, filed an answer denying all the allegations of unfair labor practices contained in the complaint and averring that John Drinosky and Clifford Watson were laid off because there was "no further work for them.” In particular the answer avers that on the 1st day of June 1941 the number of sections under which the respondent's mine was being operated was reduced from three to two and that therefore it became necessary to reduce the number of fire bosses from fourteen to twelve, and that John Drinosky and Clifford Watson were chosen as the two fire bosses to be laid off because of their past inattention to duty. The answer also avers that the respondent has not employed any person or persons to take the places of John Drinosky and Clifford Watson. Finally, the answer avers that the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board has no jurisdiction in the premises because, as a prerequisite to employment, fire bosses must have certificates from the Department of Mines of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and are therefore agents of the Commonwealth in connection with their employment.

Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held before a duly designated agent of the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board, at Cresson, Pennsylvania, at which a full opporunity to examine and cross-examine witnesses and to introduce evidence was afforded all parties interested. The compainant union and the respondent filed briefs.

FINDINGS OF Fact The board, from the hearing and the testimony and evidence presented thereat, and from all other matters and documents of record, finds the following facts:

1. That C. A. Hughes & Company is a corporation organized under and existing by virtue of the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania for the purpose on mining, shipping, selling and dealing generally in coal and its products, and presently owns, maintains and operates two coal mines, one of which is known as C. A. Hughes No. 2 and which is located at Benscreek, Cambria County, Pennsylvania, and which is about seven miles southwest of Cresson, Pennsylvania (N. T. 4, 20, 83, 87, 88).

2. That the Mine Officials and Maintenance Men Union of Cambria County is an unincorporated association of employes, and exists for the purpose, in whole or in part, of dealing with employers concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment and conditions of work, and presenttly has approximately one hundred and forty members (N. S. 5, 12, 13, 14).

3. That R. H. Moore is the president, James Campbell is the superintendent, and Ira Bradley is the general foreman of the No. 2 Mine of C. A. Hughes & Company, all of whom have the authority to hire and discharge the employes thereof (N. T. 10, 20, 22, 24, 25, 32, 44, 83, 84, 85, 87, 95, 104, 123).

4. That Joseph C. Giles is the president Charles Conard is the vice president, Harry Young is the secretary-treasurer, and Ralph Pratt, Frank Mulvehill, and George Staggerts are the trustees of the Mine Officials and Maintenance Men Union of Cambria County (N. T. 5, 12, 13, 17).

5. That assistant mine foreman, fire, weight and tipple bosses, clerks and, in general, all persons who are employed in and about coal mines in Cambria County, Pennsylvania, but who are not eligible to membership in the United Mine Workers of America, are eligible to membership in the Mine Officials and Maintenance Men Union of Cambria County (N. T. 5, 6, 9, 12).

« PreviousContinue »