compare wages in certain areas of the country to some of these lowwage countries, particularly in the Far East, there is a differential. In our industry the cost of labor is the main competitive factor. My associate points out to me that we have had some cases in the Southwest in Phoenix, Ariz. We have had some cases in Portland, Oreg., where it has operated, where it is in part of your country, ma'am. We have also had it in Pennsylvania and Ohio. So, this is not limited. I say the effect of employers' words have greater coercive effect in the smaller rural communities. This is where most of the industry that we have to contend with-namely, the garment industry-is settling now. I don't need to tell you that a move of this nature is not the same move that is contemplated where you are dealing with a heavy-goods manufacturer like General Electric or Westinghouse. The amount of capital investment is small. We have had recent cases arising in New York where on Friday the plant was open and on Monday the workers came to work and it was located in a town in Mississippi. The whole factory had been moved out.

Certainly, we had certain contractual obligations. We had certain legal means, so we were able to bring pressure to bear to finally bring this runaway employer back to New York City.

Mr. PUCINSKI. Mr. Witness, just to get some idea of what this relationship of the Board to organizing activities really means—I don't think it is in your statement-I wonder if you can give the committee some idea of the wage differential in this example that you cited of the New York garment maker where on Friday he was operating in New York and on Monday he was operating in Mississippi? Would you have any idea?

Mr. SHEINKMAN. The average wage in New York is well over $2

an hour.

Mr. PUCINSKI. Do you have any idea what it is in the South?

Mr. SHEINKMAN. The average wage we found in the nonunionized plant where the minimum was a dollar, it is a little more than a dollar. I mean when the Federal minimum at that time was a dollar an hour, which is now to be changed to $1.15 an hour, thanks to this Congress. We find that the wages of employees in these areas is very close to the minimum and not much more above.

Mr. PUCINSKI. What you have then been trying to do, if I understand your testimony correctly

Mr. SHEINKMAN. I might add something, Mr. Chairman. You also have difference in unemployment laws and the amount of unemployment insurance that has to be paid in some of these States. You also have the question that in most of these States there are no fringe benefits where the plants are nonunion. I am talking about direct labor costs. I am not talking about the indirect fringe benefits which add 20 to 25 percent onto the labor bill.

Mr. PUCINSKI. The problem that I have been giving a great deal of thought and consideration to is that by condoning these very low salary standards in these areas where northern industry moves, I think that indirectly this Board is contributing to the tremendous migration that we are experiencing in Chicago. We are getting some 2,000 workers in the Chicago area every week from the low-income areas. These people find difficulty in adjusting to the urban community. They create a whole series of serious social problems for

communities such as Chicago. It would appear to me that if these people were given an opportunity to bargain collectively for a better remuneration once industry has moved down there, that perhaps some of the problems that we are now suffering might be alleviated to some extent. Is that a fair statement on the basis of your experience?

Mr. SHEINKMAN. We say, as we state in our statement, that the law as presently constituted and as interpreted by the Board does aid and assist in the pirating away of industry from these highly unionized and urbanized areas. This is our opinion. It sets a premium. The inducements are very hard to withstand sometimes. If someone is going to build a factory for you, air-conditioned, lay it out for you and in many cases you have to put out a nominal amount of money, and you also know with a fair degree of certitude that you will not have to contend with a union because the community forces will rise to assist you, there is a problem.

Mr. PUCINSKI. You would not object to that sort of arrangement if a community wanted to attract industry for that community and create employment for its people? Ireland right now will match 50 percent of any money you want to invest in plant equipment in Ireland and give you a 10-year tax moratorium to encourage you to bring your plant to Ireland. I presume these are plain economic realities in a competitive market for industry.

Mr. SHEINKMAN. I believe in the free enterprise system.

Mr. PUCINSKI. I think perhaps you would agree that this sort of initiative cannot be too severely criticized by a community.

Mr. SHEINKMAN. We are not criticizing that, sir.

Mr. PUCINSKI. Providing this community does give the people of that community an opportunity to exercise their full rights under the law.

Mr. SHEINKMAN. You have stated our position.

Mr. PUCINSKI. And the law is that they have a right to organize into unions for the purpose of collective bargaining. Your testimony here today certainly demonstrates-if it is correct, and I have no reason to doubt that it is—that this Board has frustrated that national labor policy; namely, the right of workers to organize into unions for the purpose of collective bargaining. Is this correct, sir? Mr. SHEINKMAN. I would say that the Board has frustrated it in terms of the statute under which it is operating.

Mr. PUCINSKI. I have one final question to ask of you, Mr. Witness. In recent years there have been three General Counsels operating at the Board. Have your difficulties been more or less the same under all three of these counsels, or have you noticed any appreciable or significant change in one as against the other?

Mr. SHEINKMAN. I would say that there have been different kinds of problems under the various General Counsels. One of the problems which we face under all General Counsels was pointed out by Mr. Hartnett. I happened to be sitting here. That is where is a refusal to issue a complaint. All we get is a form letter saying there is insufficient evidence demonstrated to warrant an issuance of a complaint. There is no further demonstrable record on which we could attack such a determination by the region and on which we can appeal ultimately to the appeals section. I would say our experience is such

that I have no desire to comment as to the various difficulties we have had or other unions have had with the different General Counsels. Mr. PUCINSKI. The reason I ask you this question is that Congress passes laws, but it still takes a human being to administer these laws, in this case a General Counsel. I was trying to get some idea as to whether or not the varions counsels of the Board over the years have done different things with the same law. If they have, then obviously Congress has failed to sufficiently spell out the intent of this Congress on the one hand, or these General Counsels have just taken upon themselves through administartive edict to completely flout the intentions and dignity of legislative process and national laws. This is why I had asked you that question, to get some idea of what has been the experience.

Mr. SHEINKMAN. Let me say this. We have not had any cases of the kind that have resulted in a determination by the Board, for instance, in the Mountain Pacific case, or the Boston Gas case, or in the Wolf Bakery case, where we believe that the Board and the General Counsel did go beyond the limits set by the statute, and we are very pleased to see that in a few of these cases the Supreme Court has told them so in so many words. There is no question in my mind that to a certain extent during the past 8 years, there has been an over-zeallousness in enforcing the 8(b) section of the statute, and one of our complaints has been, and the tenor of my testimony has been that the basic statute and cornerstone of this policy is still basically the right to organize. This has been neglected to a large extent.

One thing we feel very strongly about is that it has taken from November 1959 until May of 1961 for the Board and the General Counsel were able to agree on a delegation of authority to the regions to expedite elections under section 3(b). We don't understand why it took this long, when the Board and General Counsel had no difficulty in issuing regulations with respect to expedited elections under 8(b) (7).

Mr. PUCINSKI. Perhaps this Board was merely being consistent when you consider that it takes 450 days on the average to resolve an unfair labor complaint, and it takes, I forget the figure at this moment, to resolve a recognition petition. Then perhaps the Board was being consistent in its policy of delays in promulgating effective plans for carrying out the spirit of the 1959 amendments.

Mr. SHEINKMAN. We will let the record speak for itself. I think you have stated it well. I just want to get one other statement in there which represents a very interesting question in terms of the question of agency which was raised with me by the Congressman from Ohio.

There is an interesting case which is not referred to in our statement which involved another garment union, which is known as the BVD case. Interestingly enough, the Board had difficulty in finding agency relationship where these willing henchmen in these communities come to the aid of employers. But it had no difficulty where a union was on strike engaged in lawful picketing. There were acts of violence by people who were not the pickets. The Board had no difficulty in finding and refusing to reinstate all of the strikers because they failed to disavow these acts of violence in positive terms.

Fortunately the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia reversed the Board, and I would like to give you the citation on that case, if I may, for the record. That is the Garment Workers Union v. NLRB, 30 Labor Cases, paragraph 69, 923, 237 Fed. 2, 545.

Mr. PUCINSKI. Are there any further questions? If not, thank you very much, Mr. Sheinkman, for you contribution today. I am sure your testimony is going to be of great value to the committee in drawing conclusions on the appraisal of the Board's activities in recent years. We are most grateful to you for taking the time to appear before us and I again apologize for keeping you so late.

Mr. SHEINKMAN. I would like to thank you for giving us the opportunity on behalf of myself and my associate to appear here. Mr. PUCINSKI. The committee will stand adjourned until 2 o'clock tomorrow afternoon in room 429.

(Thereupon at 5:10 p.m., a recess was taken until Wednesday, May 17, 1961, at 10 a.m.)

ADMINISTRATION OF THE LABOR-MANAGEMENT

RELATIONS ACT BY THE NLRB

WEDNESDAY, MAY 17, 1961

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
OF THE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR,

Washington, D.C.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to recess, at 2 p.m., in room 429, Old House Office Building, Hon. Roman C. Pucinski (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Representatives Pucinski and Griffin.

Also present: Howard Gamser, chief counsel for full Labor-Management Committee; Livingston L. Wingate, associate counsel for full Labor-Management Committee; James M. Harkless, subcommittee counsel; Joseph I. Paper, counsel-investigator of subcommittee; Miss Laurine Pemberton, subcommittee clerk; and Richard T. Burress, minority counsel.

Mr. PUCINSKI. The committee will come to order.

Our first witness today, in resuming our study of the National Labor Relations Board, is Mr. Julian Goldberg, general counsel of the American Federation of Hosiery Workers, AFL-CIO.

Mr. Goldberg, would you be good enough to identify yourself and give your address to the reporter?

STATEMENT OF JULIAN E. GOLDBERG, GENERAL COUNSEL,

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF HOSIERY WORKERS, AFL-CIO

Mr. GOLDBERG. My name is Julian E. Goldberg. My address is 2028 Delancy Place, Philadelphia, Pa. I am general counsel for the American Federation of Hosiery Workers, AFL-CIO.

Mr. PUCINSKI. Mr. Goldberg, I think it is a very safe statement that we probably are going to be called back to the floor very shortly. There is an important bill on the floor now and there are going to be, undoubtedly, quorum calls and whatnot. I would very strongly recommend that perhaps at this time we take your prepared statement and include it in its entirety in the record. Perhaps you would like to then paraphrase the statement for the purpose of eliciting some questions and observations from the members of the committee. Is that agreeable to you, sir.

Mr. GOLDBERG. Yes, sir.

Mr. PUCINSKI. Your statement will be included in its entirety at this part of the record.

Mr. GOLDBERG. Thank you, sir.