Mr. JOHNSON. Your idea is that you would much prefer to have some kind of legislation set up that would make this a continuing thing? Irrespective of the war-war or no war-you would make a permanent set-up of it?

Mr. Voss. A permanent set-up, so that the unions will know where their membership starts and where it ends.

The CHAIRMAN. Mrs. Luce?

Mrs. LUCE. Mr. Voss, would you say that if this bill was a temporary piece of legislation, to be passed for the duration of the war, it properly falls under this committee as a bill to prevent the deterioration of wartime production; but that if it is to be a permanent thing, it then falls, perhaps, under the Committee on Labor?

Mr. Voss. It is rather difficult for me to answer that question. I believe that your honorable committee is in a better position to say just where it does fall.

Mrs. LUCE. You have said that this situation will affect wartime production?

Mr. Voss. That is right.

Mrs. LUCE. Therefore, it is the business of this committee?

Mr. Voss. That is right.

Mrs. LUCE. So far as it affects wartime business or production, the bill has then to be construed or written or contrived just to affect the war?

Mr. Voss. I believe that is right.

Mrs. LUCE. That is all.

Mr. JOHNSON. Will it also affect peacetime production?

Mrs. LUCE. It certainly will.

Mr. JOHNSON. If the set-up you now have is broken down by unionization of foremen, do you think it would affect peacetime production just as it would wartime production?

Mr. Voss. Yes, sir.

Mr. JOHNSON. That is all.

Mr. THOMASON. The gentlewoman from Connecticut asked you if you did not understand that they way this committee acquired jurisdiction was that the matter affected wartime production. But do you not also contend that the way this committee acquired jurisdiction was that the bill proposes to amend the Selective Service Act, section 5E? Is not that the way in which the bill got here?

The CHAIRMAN. I think that that is a jurisdictional question for the committee. We take up too much time discussing whether or not this committee has jurisdiction. The committee itself will have to determine that, so the witness should not be asked about it. Unless he is an expert, I think he should not be asked.

Mr. ANDREWS. I think it is unfair to ask the witness why this bill was referred to this committee. The reason why it was referred to this committee is that it does provide an amendment to the Selective Service Act. Unless that was done, the bill could not come to the committee. The reason, therefore, why it came to this committee was that it was known that it would not get anywhere in the Labor Committee.

Mr. THOMASON. I think the gentleman from New York is right in that statement; but at the same time I undertake to say that 90 percent of the testimony here has affected labor relations between

employees and employers, and thus far there has been no testimony about military affairs or what it does to the Selective Service Act. Mr. HARNESS. We have before us here a bill to draft the men and women of this country into the service of the United States for the war. It is a war manpower bill. Does not that give this committee complete jurisdiction over this question of production?

Mr. THOMASON. I will not quarrel with you. I still say that we have not had pointed out one detail of how it affects the Selective Service.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair holds that this is all irrelevant and believes that this committee when it finishes these hearings will write a good bill, as it usually does.

Thank you very much, Mr. Voss.

Mr. Voss. I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee.

The CHAIRMAN. Our next witness is Mr. E. F. Blank.

STATEMENT OF E. F. BLANK, DIRECTOR OF PERSONNEL RELATIONS, JONES & LAUGHLIN STEEL CORPORATION, PITTSBURGH, PA.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Blank please state your full name, whom you represent, and what your views are toward the legislation that is now before this committee.

Mr. BLANK. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen: My name is E. F. Blank. I represent the Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation, of Pittsburgh, in the capacity of director of personnel relations. I am charged with the responsibility of good relations with 40,000 employees engaged in the production of steel and steel products being manufactured 100 percent for the war effort. We also are a fully integrated company, having our own coal and ore mines, limestone quarries, railroads, steamship companies, and fabricating plants.

I came here today because we are vitally concerned with the subject of foremen's unions that is being discussed. Our company is especially interested at this time because an attempt is being made currently to organize foremen in our Pennsylvania coal mines and also watchmen in our Cleveland plants. The watchmen, we feel, are in somewhat the same category as supervisors, inasmuch as they are charged with the responsibility of plant protection. A hearing is being held in Cleveland tomorrow by the National Labor Relations Board in connection with the proposed election to determine whether the watchmen at our Otis works want the same union that represents our rank-and-file steel-plant employees to represent them in a separate bargaining unit. Membership cards are being currently passed out to the mine foremen for the first time by the United Mine Workers of America. These supervisors are being urged to join the union. Up to this date, April 1, supervisory employees have not been eligible in the United Mine Workers of America. That makes this date very current in connection with this problem.

However, on February 5, 1943, in formal session, the international executive board of the United Mine Workers of America adopted a resolution

making mine foremen, assistant mine foremen, dock bosses, night bosses, mine examiners, watchmen, coal inspectors, mine clerks, and all other employees heretofore exempted from membership, eligible to join.

Our company has many union-labor agreements. We believe that rank-and-file employees should have the right to bargain collectively through organizations of their own choosing. We have contracts with the C. I. O., the A. F. of L., and the railroad brotherhoods, and even with one bona fide independent union that was certified by the National Labor Relations Board following a contest with the A. F. of L. union. All these agreements, including the one with the United Mine Workers, which was negotiated 2 years ago and expired last night, exclude foremen and assistant foremen in charge of any classes of labor, watchmen, and salaried employees from the bargaining unit. You can realize why this subject is of vital concern to us at this time. We have seen the results of these organizing campaigns in other plants. Our first interest today is in maximum production in the furtherance of the war effort, and anything that interferes with these objectives is alarming to us.

The thought of having foremen, coal inspectors, mine examiners, and watchmen, who are responsible for the direction of the working forces, discipline, safety, and property protection, belonging to the same union as the rank-and-file employees at such a time as this terrifies us with its potentialities.

The National Labor Relations Board has ruled that a supervisors' bargaining unit may include only supervisors on the same level in a company. This would mean that we might have separate units for assistant foremen, foremen, shift foremen, general foremen, and perhaps assistant superintendents and superintendents.

The CHAIRMAN. And night bosses?

Mr. BLANK. Yes; and vice presidents, if you want to add them. This is not fanciful, as the foreman is just as much a representative of management as the superintendent; he is just at a different level. The Wagner Act says: "The term 'employer' includes any person acting in the interest of an employer, directly or indirectly." This would include any person from assistant foreman to chairman of the board.

Mr. HARNESS. I did not get your last statement; I would like to understand that.

Mr. BLANK. In connection with the Wagner Act?

Mr. HARNESS. Yes.

Mr. BLANK. The Wagner Act says: "The term 'employer' includes any person acting in the interest of an employer, directly or indirectly." That is quoted from the definition in the National Labor Relations Act.

Mr. HARNESS. It is your notion that that language in the Wagner Act would preclude foremen and supervisory employees from going into a union?

Mr. BLANK. Yes; we say the act itself precludes them.

The CHAIRMAN. But the Board has construed the act to mean otherwise in a different union.

Mr. BLANK. Since the act was enacted; but I think that when the act was enacted it meant rank-and-file employees when it defined "employee." But I am only saying what it says about "employer." The definition of "employer" is quite clear; the definition of "employee" under the act is a little bit confusing.

Mr. HARNESS. By a process of elimination you arrive at the same conclusion with respect to employees.

Mr. BLANK. I would, but the Labor Relations Board has interpreted otherwise.

Mr. HARNESS. And there is no appeal to the courts from the Labor Board's decision?

Mr. BLANK. I am not a lawyer either; I do not know.

Mr. ELSTON. Have you the definition of the word "employee" as used in the Wagner Act?

Mr. BLANK. I have the Wagner Act before me.

Mr. ELSTON. I think it would be well to read that.

Mr. BLANK. Section 2 (3), which follows section 2 (2).

Mr. JOHNSON. Did the definition you read include the whole paragraph that defines "employer"?

Mr. BLANK. No, sir; just the first line of the paragraph.
Mr. JOHNSON. Would you read the whole paragraph?

Mr. BLANK. Let me read section 2 (2), which defines "employer." and then section 2 (3), which defines "employee."

(2) The term "employer" includes any person acting in the interest of an employer, directly or indirectly, but shall not include the United States, or any State or political subdivision thereof, or any person subject to the Railway Labor Act, as amended from time to time, or any labor organization (other than when acting as an employer), or anyone acting in the capacity of officer or agent of such labor organization.

That is the full paragraph.

(3) The term "employee" shall include any employee, and shall not be limited to the employees of a particular employer, unless the Act explicitly states otherwise, and shall include any individual whose work has ceased as a consequence of, or in connection with, any current labor dispute or because of any unfair labor practice, and who has not obtained any other regular and substantially equivalent employment, but shall not include any individual employed as an agricultural laborer, or in the domestic service of any family or person at his home, or any individual employed by his parent or spouse.

Mr. HARNESS. There is nothing in the act which says that any individual shall or shall not join a union.

Mr. BLANK. That is right. That is why we are here talking about these particular people. We think it is necessary at this time.

Mr. HARNESS. There is nothing whatsoever in any statute enacted by Congress which says that a man shall or shall not join a union, is there, as far as you know?

Mr. BLANK. I do not believe so, as far as I know.

The CHAIRMAN. All right; you may proceed with your statement. Mr. BLANK. The foreman also qualifies as an executive under the Fair Labor Standards Act, which defines the difference between exempt and nonexempt employees.

I believe I can agree with John P. Frey, president of the A. F. of L. Metal Trades Department, who recommended last week to the Truman committee that the election activities of the N. L. R. B. be suspended for the duration of the war.

If there is any merit to foremen unionization-and I am not going to argue the point-certainly this is not the time to start it. It would be a great help to war production if these organization and membership campaigns could be set aside for the duration and union officers and organizers devote their time to improving the relations with corporations with which they have contracts. The agitation caused by quarrels of rival unions over recognition and membership and the attempted organization in new fields, such as among foremen and

watchmen, can have nothing but a disruptive effect on worker morale and production.

We feel that such activities should be suspended for the duration, in order to prevent the confusion that results therefrom, and which we feel would seriously interfere with the war effort.

Mr. THOMASON. If I understand you correctly, you believe in the principle of collective bargaining?

Mr. BLANK. Yes.

Mr. THOMASON. You, speaking for yourself, do not want to repeal the law as it now stands, providing for collective bargaining between. employees and employers?

Mr. BLANK. No; I believe they should be free to choose the agencies which they want in order to bargain collectively.

Mr. THOMASON. Employeees and employers generally are pretty much sold on the wisdom of that principle?

Mr. BLANK. But we would like to emphasize the point that we do not believe that now is the time to go out organizing in new fields, such as among foremen. It is a very controversial question, and the mere organization campaign will be disruptive of the war effort.

Mr. THOMASON. Do you concur in the statement of some of the witnesses who have said that if foremen join the unions, under this bill, if it becomes law, their deferments could then be canceled, and they would then be placed in the military service?

Mr. BLANK. I do not think that that necessarily is true. If a foreman is classified as being in essential employment, he might still be classified as being in that employment.

Mr. THOMASON. Under section 4, the contractor has the responsibility of setting the "rules, practices, policies, or requirements," to quote the words of the section. Later in that same section it is declared that it shall be his duty to impose "lawful disciplinary meas

ures."

Now, assuming that a foreman either joined a union or violated one of the rules and practices set up by the employer, what is the penalty you are going to impose upon that man under this act?

Mr. BLANK. Do you mean the penalty on the foreman?

Mr. THOMASON. On anybody who violated one of the rules or practices set up by the employer?

Mr. BLANK. If the foreman becomes a member of a union, whether it is the same union or is a different union, it will make very little difference. The foreman is the man who handles the workers down on the floor. The minute he becomes a member of a labor organization, he is over on the other side of the fence, and he loses that discipline you are talking about there.

Mr. THOMASON. But whatever kind of foreman he is, what is the disciplinary measure that is used? What is the penalty you put on that man if he joins a union or breaks one of the rules set forth by his employer?

Mr. BLANK. Well, there might be several different kinds of discipline.

Mr. THOMASON. Among others, it could be cancelation of his draft deferment, could it not?

Mr. BLANK. That is not up to us.