practical effect of this sort of thing is going to be. In the coal industry the contract of the United Mine Workers of America has always, up until this time, specifically excluded, by express language, the organization of the supervisory personnel. When Mr. Lewis made his demands for a new contract, he took the reverse of that position and now demands that the supervisory personnel, who I am informed number something like 90,000 in the coal industry, shall be included in his union. Incidentally, that calls for a $10 initiation fee, which makes a total of $900,000, and, I believe, $1.50 a month for dues, a total of $135,000. That is not small change in anybody's language, even around here. I should be glad if the committee would now excuse me, subject to its call at any time, and hear some of the men who have the practical experience at their fingers' ends and can tell you the impossibility of conducting their business if this proposition of organizing their supervisory personnel is carried out. The CHAIRMAN. As I understand it, Judge Smith, Mr. Lewis as head of the United Mine Workers of America makes contracts with the operators about every 2 years, and the expiration date of the present contract is April 1; is that right? Mr. SMITH. That is my understanding. The CHAIRMAN. Heretofore there has been no effort on the part of the United Mine Workers as an organization to organize the supervisory personnel, but along with a demand by the president of that organization for a $2-a-day raise, he includes the right to organize the supervisory personnel of all the coal companies; is that correct? Mr. SMITH. Yes. The CHAIRMAN. That embraces about 90,000 persons? Mr. SMITH. I am informed that it does. I think Mr. Lewis says it is 60,000, but I am informed by men in the coal industry that it is nearer 90,000. The CHAIRMAN. Ninety thousand in both the bituminous and the anthracite industries? Mr. SMITH. I assume so; I do not know. The CHAIRMAN. Does that carry with it also the privilege or the right on the part of the managerial personnel of the coal company to join a union affiliated with the United Mine Workers of America, or is it part of it to begin with? Mr. SMITH. It is in the form of some type of manifesto issued by Mr. Lewis and signed by him, Mr. Kennedy, and someone else, directing each local to proceed to bring into their organization all of the supervisory personnel, telling them the amount of the initiation fee, and so on and so forth. The CHAIRMAN. They will all belong to the same local union as is now organized in each coal company? Mr. SMITH. Yes. Mr. THOMASON. I did not know until this morning about this hearing, so I have not read the bill. There are many things, I am sure, about which the committee will want some information. In view of Judge Smith's request and also the fact that he is here, available at any time, I will forego my questions now. I understand that there are people here from out of town who want to get away, and we can have the judge with us at any time. There are several questions that I want to ask the judge. Mr. SMITH. I am at the service of the committee. I will answer questions at any time; but it seemed to me that since there were witnesses here from out of town, you would proceed with them. The CHAIRMAN. All right, Judge Smith. You may stand aside, then, for the present. Whom do you wish to present first? Mr. SMITH. Mr. John D. Battle. STATEMENT OF JOHN D. BATTLE, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, NATIONAL COAL ASSOCIATION, WASHINGTON, D. C. Mr. BATTLE. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, my name is John D. Battle. I am executive secretary of the National Coal Association. I shall speak in very general terms, because we have here witnesses to answer all the detail and practical questions. I want to give you just a little background of the coal industry. Production is our big problem now, as it is with all other industries. I speak only with reference to bituminous coal. Last year we produced 580,000,000 tons; we are called upon this year to produce 600,000,000 tons, probably more. We have lost to the armed services and to other industries an enormous number of men; we do not know exactly how many. This industry is scattered over some 28 States in the Union and has some 15,000 code members-about 7,000 actual, regular coal mines, and a lot of them so small that they run that number up to around 15,000. We have had a terrible time with labor turn-over and labor efficiency, all of which will be explained by witnesses who come right from the properties and know the details. With particular reference to H. R. 2239, that has been introduced by Representative Smith, we have, as he said, devoted our time particularly to section 4. There are other sections that affect us, but section 4 is the primary one at the moment, because we are now up against the problem of negotiating with the union people; and incidentally, my organization, representing all the producers throughout the country, does not participate directly in the wage negotiations. That is why others are here from that conference to answer detail questions if they should be asked. We do feel that in section 4 of this bill, as Judge Smith as said, you have placed a tremendous responsibility upon management, particularly in the first section of it; and in the second section of it you give management some relief, we will say, or give it some protection in trying to run its business. The men who will follow me will explain why that relief is necessary, as we have this growing tendency on the part of the unions to take just a little bit more. This is not a fight against unionism as such at all. Collective bargaining has been going on in this industry for more than 50 years. But supervisory forces and other representatives of management have been excluded from affiliation with the unions by mutual consent of the operating management and the union management. Because these men actually represent management, there has been no place for them in the union. In some States these men actually enforce the State mining laws. Just how that comes about will be explained by some of the witnesses. They are the men who must enforce the union contract that exists between employees on the one side and management on the other. Titles do not mean so very much. A man's authority is not always described. We refer here to the executive, administrative, professional, or supervisory employees. There are a great many others that perhaps those definitions do not properly describe. I am thinking of such as pay-roll clerks, the men who keep the time, who are quite confidential men; the men whom we call the weigh bosses, who will weigh the coal on which the miners are paid for their production of that coal. They are men in very highly confidential capacities, direct representatives of management, and we just do not see any place for those men on the other side of the fence. That goes also, of course, for everyone up to the position of superintendent. That is the demand of the union at this time. We have the coal inspector. That title means a great deal more than you would think. He is the man who inspects this coal, to see that clean coal is produced in accordance with the contract; and that man in many, many instances has the power of applying penalties in enforcing the contract. He is the direct agent and representative of management in that capacity. The CHAIRMAN, Let me interrupt you right there, Mr. Battle. I myself at one time happened to be in the coal business. I recall that one of the ways of trying to get clean coal out to the tipple was, first of all, to clean it at the face. Mr. BATTLE. Right. The CHAIRMAN. That was to prevent its coming out unclean, as, for instance, half a carload of coal and half a carload of slate, which destroyed the value of the whole thing. The man on the tipple who inspects it has heretofore been an employee of the coal company with the consent and agreement of the miners themselves. Now, if he is taken over by the miners' organizations and becomes one of their group, who would look after the cleaning of the coal? Mr. BATTLE. If he is taken over, then the union has taken over that very important function that this man has been performing for management. Maybe at the time you were conducting a mine this man had the right to impose a penalty and even the right to discharge, I believe, if the offense were repeated after warnings and teaching how to clean that coal. It is a very authoritative position that those men occupy. The CHAIRMAN. I have another question-and probably I ought to ask it of someone who is an actual operator-that is, what would be the effect on the marketing of your coal in the event unclean coal got onto the market and was unsatisfactory to the buyer? Mr. BATTLE. I hope you will ask that question of the practical coal men, the operators. We know the answer, but I think they can give it to you absolutely. We have at these mines engineers who are wholly professional men. They would be included in this membership demand. There are other professional men, too. Then, we have watchmen. Now, there may be many, many instances in which a watchman is just a watchman; but there are also many instances in which that watchman is a man deputized with police power by the county authorities. There are many instances in which that occurs, so that he may have proper authority to protect the property there. It is just unthinkable that management, as we see it here, should be deprived of these fundamental rights to operate their business. All kinds of figures have been used, from 60,000 to 90,000, but somewhere in between those figures is undoubtedly the total number of people that have never been included and have been prevented from participating in the union activities. We have here the practical men from several sections, and there will be more here tomorrow. The hearing was called on very short notice, so we did not get here today all we wanted; but we do have practical men here, and we should like to have you propound practical questions to them, because they are in a position to answer them. I think I have been around long enough to know the answers to most of the questions, but necessarily it would be secondhand coming from me. With this preliminary statement, I should like to move right ahead with this hearing. The CHAIRMAN. All right. Are there any questions? Mr. THOMASON. I think I would like to ask Mr. Battle a question in line with the suggestion to get practical, because thus far it seems to me, there has been stressed either the labor end of it, which is, of course, important, or the viewpoint of the mine operators. But since this is the Committee on Military Affairs, that deals strictly with military affairs-and the way I assume that this committee acquired jurisdiction was that the bill proposes to amend the Selective Training and Service Act, though I have not read the bill-I am anxious to find out in the beginning of the discussion, so that we may have a full and fair investigation of the matter, the specific thing it does to the Selective Training and Service Act and what effect it has on the man who does not comply with the preamble you set out in the beginning of the bill, and also the conditions, which I have only hastily read, as set up in section 3, I think. Just how, Mr. Battle, does this amend the Selective Training and Service Act, leaving aside for the moment any question of differences or disputes between the mine operators and the mine workers, or any other line of industries, for that matter? Just what does this bill do to the Selective Training and Service Act and what penalties do you impose upon the man-the individuals-who do not comply with the conditions set forth in the bill? Mr. BATTLE. As I understand it-and I think Judge Smith has touched on it--you lay down certain requirements and place certain responsibilities on management in connection with the manpower problem, and that is where the selective-service phase of it comes in, as I see it. You set out certain things which, if these people do themif these workers do them-regardless of whether they are coal miners or something else, interfere with production and slow-down production. That is the main thing, the thing in which we are primarily interested today. You lay down rules by which management can keep control over its properties. Mr. THOMASON. Speaking about the military angle of the legislation, what happens to the employee who does not comply? Does it mean that under the terms of this bill he is going to be put into class 1-A and drafted into the service? Just what is the specific and practical application of the bill to Selective Service? Mr. BATTLE. You have the penalty here in section 7. Mr. THOMASON. I have not had a chance to read the bill; that is why I am anxious to have somebody explain it in a practical way. Mr. SPARKMAN. Section 5-E of the Selective Training and Service Act of 1940 relates to deferment. Mr. THOMASON. I know it does. Mr. SPARKMAN. This bill amends section 5-E and takes away from such a person that right of deferment. Mr. THOMASON. I am anxious to hear from Mr. Battle what the practical effect of that is going to be. What will happen to the man who does not comply with the provisions of this proposed bill? Mr. BATTLE. Section 7 reads: Any violation of this Act shall be punishable by a fine of not more than $1,000 or imprisonment for a period of not more than one year, or both, in the discretion of the court. Mr. THOMASON. What effect does it have upon his military status? Mr. BATTLE. This bill does not go fully into that point that if he does not do this, he must go into the Army. Mr. HARNESS. Oh, yes, it does; section 2 of the act covers it. Mr. BATTLE. Yes; of course, you provide that some of the provisions of this subsection relating to deferment shall apply to those persons that have incurred the penalties in the regular Service Act. Mr. HARNESS. If that employee does not comply with the provisions of this act, he is subject to being drafted into the military service. Mr. BATTLE. Oh, yes; I would assume he is. Of course, he may be subject anyway, as far as that is concerned, but Selective Service has set up what the penalties are, and this merely says that these are the things they must do in order to maintain orderly production of coal, or what not, in this country. I think the main thing in which we are interested today is maintaining production, and manpower is our big problem. Mr. THOMASON. Does this bill abolish collective bargaining? Mr. BATTLE. Oh, no. Collective bargaining has gone on and has become an established principle of American economy. It does not do that at all. There is just a select group of people who are the direct representatives of management that we feel cannot have two masters. They cannot serve two masters at the same time. Mr. THOMASON. I agree with that, but what does this bill do to collective bargaining? Mr. BATTLE. I do not see how it does anything except prevent these particular men from joining a union as against management, let us say that is, those particular classifications we are talking about. Mr. THOMASON. You say a man cannot join a union? Mr. BATTLE. We say that because of the position he is filling here as a supervisor or as an official, it is just improper for him to belong to a union organization and still enforce the very contract that exists between management and its employees. Mr. THOMASON. That is all for the present, Mr. Chairman. |