the fact that our union is composed of supervisory employees. Those men feel that they have the right to organize themselves into a labor union, which they have done. Not only that, there are in this country hundreds of thousands of workingmen who are members of labor organizations at the present time who have been engaging in collective bargaining for many, many years. These contracts that are now in existence are voided by section 4 of the act.

The CHAIRMAN. You mean of this bill?

Mr. KRIMSLY. Yes. It becomes illegal for an employer to enter into a contract or to continue to operate on a contract with any labor union that either has exclusively supervisory employees or that has nonsupervisory and supervisory employees in its ranks.

The CHAIRMAN. Then you contend that section 4 is unconstitutional in that it impairs the obligation of existing contracts?

Mr. KRIMSLY. It does that. But it goes even further. This bill, and I have been addressing myself to the bill from the standpoint of a maximum efficiency of manpower and to obtain increased production because of the war emergency, that after all is the intent and purpose of this bill, now, how can you effectively carry out the purposes and intents of the bill if you with one stroke of the pen void contracts that affect millions of working men, contracts that have been in existence for many, many years and in industries where the relationship between the employer and the employees has been splendid. On Saturday, Mr. Luhrsen testified on behalf of the Railway Brotherhood. He told you his union had 1,250,000 employees, supervisory and nonsupervisory employees. Read section 4 of the act and see what it will do to contracts in existence between that union and the various railroads. I can cite you other instances. Mr. Hutching testified before the National Labor Relations Board several weeks ago representing the International Association of Machinists. That union functions mainly in the airplane plants. They have a membership exceeding 400,000 including supervisory as well as nonsupervisory employees. They have existing contracts with the biggest airplane manufacturers in the country. Section 4 voids these contracts. Will that increase the efficiency of the war effort? I will cite you the Master, Mates, and Pilots Union. This union has been in existence for over 50 years composed of masters, mates, and pilots who operate steamboats on the rivers and lakes of this country. It is a union composed exclusively of these supervisory employees. These men have the highest authority. They can imprison a man while they operate a ship. They can discipline their help. This union has been operating peacefully and efficiently and yet this section of the act will void their contract.

The printing industry has supervisory and nonsupervisory employees in the ranks. I can name dozens and dozens of unions involving I would say millions of employees wherein there are supervisory and nonsupervisory employees. And, of course, you know that there are instances where there are just purely supervisory employees. Now, I can see nothing to justify a provision in this statute to prohibit a group of supervisory employees to band themselves together for the purpose of collective bargaining. If a man does not have the right then the fight is not worth fighting for. In Pennsylvania and all over the United States the coal companies have organized them

selves in associations for the purposes of collective bargaining. If it is right for the coal companies to so organize under strong associations, wherein is the wrong where there are supervisory employees who also organize and bargain with the company collectively?

Of course, section 5 of the act would go one step further than section 4. It is as follows:

SEC. 5. Any concerted action, or threats, by any persons whatsoever, designed to coerce any contractor to deal collectively with a labor organization, including such executive, administrative, professional, or supervisory employees in its membership, shall be unlawful and punishable hereunder.

The remarks I made with regard to section 4 of course apply to section 5 only section 5 is even a little stronger than section 4.

I think I have made my position clear. I have tried to analyze this statute practically and I feel it is definitely un-American. It is undemocratic and instead of helping the war effort I think it will seriously injure the war effort.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there any questions by members of the committee?

Thank you very much, Mr. Krimsly.

STATEMENT OF CHARLES R. FERGUSON, INTERNATIONAL FIELD REPRESENTATIVE, MINE OFFICIAL'S UNION OF AMERICA

I will confine my remarks to those sections of the bill dealing with the rights of supervisory employees to organize and bargain collectively with their employers through representatives of their own choosing, particularly the supervisory employees now employed in the coal industry throughout the Nation. While I feel this bill is unconstitutional in that it strikes at the heart of our rights of free assembly and freedom of speech and is a striking example of class legislation in the most glaring form, I will pass those points on to more legal minds than mine.

The supervisory employees in the mining industry have sought to organize and have organized into a union of their own choosing. The union was organized not to bring chaos and dissension into the industry, as the operators declare, but to bring to this forgotten class of men some of the benefits of the industry that have accrued to the production employees through the orderly processes of collective bargaining, and written contracts secured for them down through the years by their great leader, John L. Lewis, and his competent staff. Various reasons have been advanced here to show that to have the supervisory employees organized into a union would be an invasion of managerial rights. I say, and an examination of the history of the mining industry will show, that these employees are not part of management and have no voice in management. For example, they do not hire or fire. They have no voice in the policy-making meetings of the companies; in fact, even in the matter of extracting the coal on the various sections of the mine, they are governed by a plan which was projected from some central office and which they cannot alter without express authority from some superintendent or higher-up. Many questions have been asked here as to where management begins; in the mines the line is definitely drawn at the superintendent, and no employee below him in rank has any managerial authority

whatever. They only carry out the orders of the superintendent, who is the direct voice of the operators.

If these employees are denied the right to organize, they will surely be forced back into the dark days of economic starvation that existed prior to their unionization, and may I suggest that for a complete picture of the economic standing of these employees the pay rolls of some coal companies for the past few years be examined.

It has also been charged here that to have these employees unionized would result in a let-down in enforcement of discipline and safety rules and enforcement of the mining law. I take just the opposite view and declare that safety, discipline, efficiency, and enforcement of the law will be more rigidly enforced because of the fact that the employees will no longer be forced through fear of reprisal on the part of management to ignore safety violations or violations of the law. It is a matter of public knowledge that officials in the mines today are forced through fear of discharge to ignore many violations of the law and safety rules. Under the job protection furnished by a union, this condition will be eliminated and greater safety in the mines attained. As to the contention that the mining law will be violated by these employees, I defy any operator who has appeared here or elsewhere to prove that joining a union makes a man more prone to break the law. The various coal associations and operators raised the same cry when the United Mine Workers were organizing the production employees, yet the records show that since unionization of these men that accidents have decreased and production has increased. As a matter of fact, the coal operators have a record of opposing any change which will tend to destroy their despotic control over the mining industry and over the lives of the men and women who work therein. In 1939 Mr. Battles, secretary of the Western Pennsylvania Coal Operators Association, bitterly opposed passage of the Federal inspection bill. Claiming it was an invasion of States' rights and that it would add extra cost to the mining of coal, hamper the coal companies in coal production, and result in confusion and chaos within the coal industry. The duties of supervisory employees are defined by statute, and no union, no matter how strong, can or will protect a criminal. In Pennsylvania we have a State mining law. We have a department of mines with a secretary and mine inspectors. However, the department and its personnel are completely dominated by the coal operators. The personnel are recommended by the coal operators, and it is impossible to get a job without their backing. I think that what the operators really are afraid of is that, with these employees organized, they will be forced to put into effect rules and regulations which will really protect the workers and that the State department of mines will no longer be able to protect them in their dangerous and lawless mining practices. It is a matter of public knowledge that the inspectors are forced many times to overlook dangerous practices in order to placate some operator who might use his influence to have him removed.

The State mining law of Pennsylvania definitely states that before any men enter a gaseous mine, an examination must be made by a certified fire boss. Yet the coal operators continuously violate this law by working men on idle days without an examination being made. This practice has resulted in many explosions and fires down through

the years. Two of the most recent being the Harwick mine explosion, which resulted in 12 men losing their lives and the Kramer mine explosion, which resulted in 48 men being killed. If the supervisors at these mines had been protected by a union at this time, they would have insisted that the law be complied with. It is our contention that these practices are carried on with the full knowledge and consent of the department of mines of Pennsylvania, otherwise they would not exist.

The coal operators of Pennsylvania have organized themselves into various associations and they have given to these associations the right, power, and authority to bargain collectively for the individual members. These associations are designated, such as the Western Penna Coal Operators Association, the Central Penna Coal Operators Association, and so forth. There are similar associations in the States of West Virginia and Ohio and in many other States. The coal operators, by their action in joining these associations and in delegating to the association their rights to collective bargaining, seem to find no fault whatsoever in such actions. If it is right for the coal company to join an association for such purposes, why, therefore, is it wrong for the supervisory employees of these coal companies to likewise band themselves together for the same purpose.

Similarly the mine inspectors, including secretary of mines for the State of Pennsylvania, have formed an organization known as the Mine Inspectors Institute of America. These men who are directly and undeniably employees of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and other States by whom they are employed have found it necessary and proper to belong to such an association. Naturally the association was formed for the purpose of advancing the interests of its members. As a matter of fact, this association has worked with the various coal companies in a very amicable manner, and I can assure you that if the coal companies had any objections to these associations, they would never have been formed. Again if it is right and proper for the mine inspectors and the secretary of the department of mines to belong to an association, wherein is the evil if the supervisory employees do likewise? Certainly Congress will not now, in the year 1943, deprive the thousands of supervisory employees from forming an association or a labor union for the purpose of promoting the health, the welfare, the security, and the safety of the coal industry, as well as to increase and promote the production of coal.

If it is right for the association for the advancement of management to work collectively and for the mine inspectors to have the inspectors' institute to organize on an industry-wide basis, why in the name of democracy cannot the supervisory employees organize for their advancement and protection and for collective bargaining?

I could go on here for hours quoting illustrations, but I see no reason to go into detail now. However, if it is the desire of this committee that I appear personally before them, then I stand ready and willing to appear and to answer any questions.

In closing, I feel that it is a sad day in American history if the laborhating, antiunion employers can take advantage of this grave emergency to try to push through Congress such bills as this; if that day has come and this can be accomplished, then surely democracy is a farce, our Constitution is void, and our boys are dying in vain.

STATEMENT OF ALBERT E. CONRADIS, SOUTHERN STATES INDUSTRIAL COUNCIL OF NASHVILLE, TENN.

Mr. CONRADIS. My name is Albert E. Conradis. I am associated with Mr. Taylor in the practice of law. My office is located at 712 Jackson Place NW., in this city. I am appearing today in behalf of the Southern States Industrial Council, of Nashville, Tenn. The council represents various industries throughout the South, including lumber, textiles, chemicals, steel mills, coal mines, furniture factories, food-processing factories, and so forth. It has approximately 2,500 members.

The council strongly favors H. R. 2239, and, Mr. Chairman, I am only addressing myself to that bill this morning.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. CONRADIS. We feel that the passage of this bill will prevent the already badly muddled manpower situation from becoming more

First, by preventing the unionization of individuals in an executive, administrative, professional, or supervisory capacity; second, by preventing "featherbedding"; and, third, by eliminating certain other union practices which interfere with the full utilization of the Nation's manpower.

Suppose we consider first the effect of unionization of individuals. in an executive, administrative, professional, or supervisory capacity. On June 15, 1942, in the Union Collieries decision, the National Labor Relations Board held that the definition of "employees" was broad enough to permit the inclusion of managerial and supervisory personnel within the definition. On February 20, 1943, Mr. John L. Lewis, president of the United Mine Workers of America, instructed all district and local union officers of the United Mine Workers to enroll some 60,000 management representatives of bituminous coal companies. In this instruction Mr. Lewis announced his determination to enroll every supervisory employee below the rank of mine superintendent.

Now we respectfully raise the question, gentlemen, if this is done, what will happen to the basic principle of collective bargainingnamely, that there must be two parties to a bargain?

Individuals engaged in a managerial or supervisory capacity are employed to represent and safeguard the legitimate interests and rights of the employer. I am aware, of course, that the assumption that the employer still has rights which, under Federal law, labor is bound to respect may be a violent assumption, and former Assistant Attorney General, now District Appeals Court Judge, Thurman Arnold thought it was. Testifying a year ago before the House Judiciary Committee, Judge Arnold said:

I think today, under the Federal law, there is no right in the farmer which labor is bound to respect; there is no right in the consumer which labor is bound to respect; and the independent businessman has no right which labor is bound to respect. In other words, labor's pressure on these three groups is independent of any law whatever. It is entirely up to the will of the particular labor union.

But assuming the employer does still have some rights which his managerial and supervisory employees are supposed to safeguard and represent, what would happen to these rights and these interests if