Mr. ROTH. No; there is no such requirement, and to do that would substitute government edict for collective bargaining.

Senator PEPPER. These honorable gentlemen never think about any coercion upon the employer to make him make some amends to these men who feel wronged and want to withdraw their labor.

They always think that in order to preserve the public health and security you have got to forbid these men to withdraw their labor from an employer about whom they feel they have been wronged, so it depends considerably, after all, upon whose ox is being gored, doesn't it?

Senator TAFT. May I correct what seems to be a misapprehension. The law, of course, says [reading]:

Whenever in the opinion of the President of the United States a threatened or actual strike or lock-out affecting an entire industry or substantial part thereof, will, if permitted to occur or to continue to, imperil the national health or safety

and so forth

upon receiving a report from a board of inquiry the President may direct the Attorney General to petition any district court of the United States having jurisdiction of the parties to enjoin such strike or lock-out or the continuing thereof, and if the court finds that such threatened or actual strike or lock-out affects an entire industry

so under this bill there is a parallel power to seek against an employer the same remedy that there is to seek against the union; isn't there? Senator PEPPER. They always try to get

Senator TAFT. In the case, the Atomic Energy case, the employer was attempting to change the conditions of employment. I think perhaps the wages and certain conditions of employment in one of his plants, to make it uniform with others, and the injunction was against the employer to compel him to continue the same wages and conditions and go on operating whether he wanted to or not during this 80 days; wasn't it?

Mr. ROTH. That is true.

Senator PEPPER. The same but not better.

Mr. RоTн. That is true. I was going to say, Senator, when you brought this point up, that if employers are locking out the dissenting unions, everybody striking, you would find public resentment against lock-outs just as there is against strikes.

Senator DOUGLAS. I believe Senator Pepper has not finished his interrogation, and I should like to ask Senator Pepper if he will be willing to yield to me for a question.

Senator PEPPER. Yes.

Senator DOUGLAS. Mr. Roth, since the Taft-Hartley law has been passed, has your association and its members hired many more lawyers than formerly?

Mr. ROTH. We have not.

Senator DOUGLAS. No more lawyers?

Mr. ROTH. No; we have not.

Senator DOUGLAS. Have you used the services of those lawyers which you had more fully? In other words, has the Taft-Hartley law compelled you to use legal services more fully than before?

Mr. ROTH. We have not. We have had very few cases for the NLRB.

Senator DOUGLAS. I mean internal advice. Have you resorted to legal counsel much more than before?

Mr. ROTH. We have not; no, sir. We have exactly the same staff as we had before.

Senator DOUGLAS. And you have used no more outside attorneys?
Mr. ROTH. We have not.

Senator DOUGLAS. That has been true of your members, too?
Mr. ROTH. As far as I know, it has.

Senator DOUGLAS. I want to congratulate you on an unique experience, I would say, because it seems to me that over the country as a whole the Taft-Hartley law has resulted in lawyers being used to conduct negotiations on both sides much more than was the case prior to the passage of the Taft-Hartley law.

Mr. ROTH. We have exactly the same negotiating staff we han, eight men, of whom only three are lawyers, full-time negotiators. Senator TAFT. Mr. Roth, do you remember the days when the Wagner Act started?

Mr. ROTH. I do.

Senator TAFT. Do you remember how many lawyers were added to every staff to deal with the operations before the National Labor Relations Board under the Wagner Act?

Senator PEPPER. Was that the consequent test, the test of its constitutionality or are you speaking about some other phase of the act?

Senator TAFT. All the features of that law, the big increase of legal actions relating to unions came with the operation of the Wagner Act, and, of course, this Taft-Hartley law is only a modification of the Wagner Act, adding a few sections to it.

Senator MORSE. Mr. Roth, before I ask a few questions, I want to make a good-natured comment on your observations concerning the statement of Secretary Tobin to the effect that 90 percent of the trouble with the Taft-Hartley bill grows out of the secondary boycott provision. I was aghast when I heard the Secretary of Labor say that, because I thought he thereby became Senator Taft's best witness thus far in the hearing, and at some length later on the floor of the Senate I shall support the proposition that the secondary boycott provisions are only about 1 percent of the bad features of the Taft-Hartley law. Now, Mr. Roth, Secretary of Labor Tobin said on page 5 of his statement of last Monday [reading]:

The President's Labor-Management Conference in November 1945 recommended that the United States Conciliation Service be established as an effective and completely impartial agency within the Department of Labor.

You were a member of that Labor-Management Conference, were you not?

Mr. ROTH. I was.

Senator MORSE. Without making it necessary to ask you a series of questions to draw out this information, I will give you one broad question.

Will you please explain to this committee in some detail your experiences as a member of that Labor-Management Conference, with particular reference to such knowledge as you may have as to how it finally happened that the Labor-Management Conference made the recommendation in regard to the conciliation service as set out in Secretary Tobin's statement?

Mr. ROTH. I was chairman of the Working Committee which met in Washington a week previous to that conference to prepare the very statements on the points which were on the agenda and the proposals which the management group would submit to the conference, and our Working Committee made this specific recommendation which was approved unanimously prior to the beginning of the conference as the position of the employers, and I read from the proposal:

To assure impartiality the United States Conciliation Service should be an independent agency. As a part of the Department of Labor it does not assure impartiality. The purpose of the Department of Labor, as stated by law, is to foster, promote, and develop the welfare of the wage earners. The Service belongs far more in the Department of Labor than in the Department of Commerce. We then went into

Senator MORSE. May I interrupt at that point so I can emphasize that, pointing it up in the record.

I understand you to say, Mr. Roth, as an industry member of the Industry-Labor Conference of 1945, that prior to the formal convening of that conference the industry members did meet and they did unanimously agree among themselves on a resolution that the Conciliation Service should be set up as an independent agency in order to give industry the assurance of impartiality. Is that correct? Mr. RоTн. That is true.

Senator MORSE. Well, then, will you explain to this committee_ Mr. ROTH. Then we broke into subcommittees and we had a Subcommittee on Conciliation Service.

Senator MORSE. Let me complete my sentence and then you can give that testimony.

You then explained to this committee what organizational steps on the part of management were taken after the adoption of that resolution that led to the adoption of a resolution later or a recommendation later that the Conciliation Service be left in the Department of Labor. Mr. ROTH. That was the position of management when we sat down with labor to see if we could arrive at common understandings on these various items on the agenda. We split into committees. We had a Committee on Conciliation Service.

Senator DONNELL. Mr. Roth, you say that was the position of management. You mean the position that you read a few minutes ago? Mr. ROTH. That is right.

Senator DONNELL. Namely, that it should be an independent agency?

Mr. ROTH. That is right.

Senator DONNELL. That the Conciliation and Mediation Service should be an independent agency; is that right?

Mr. ROTH. Because we thought that was the only way it could be in fact an impartial agency.

We then met in a joint committee which had on it representatives of employers and representatives of labor. Labor took exactly the opposite position when we met, which was that the Department-Conciliation should be retained in the Department of Labor.

We argued back and forth over that for some time, then began trading with the idea of doing what we could to insure greater impartiality in the operaion of the Department.

Senator MORSE. Just a moment, Mr. Roth. You say you argued back and forth with the labor members of the committee as to the respective positions of management and labor on this issue which was directly opposite positions. Then you say "we started trading." Mr. ROTH. That is right.

Senator MORSE. Would you educate this committee a bit as to what you mean by "trading" under those circumstances?

Mr. ROTH. Well, we were convinced after discussing the matter with labor that there was no possibility that we could come out of this conference with a joint recommendation for the separation of the Conciliation Service from the Department of Labor.

We therefore proceeded to see what we might work out that we could agree upon which we thought would improve the situation from the standpoint of impartiality of the Department, and it was finally suggested by management that an advisory committee be set up comprised of representatives of industry and of labor which would consult with the Director of Conciliation and make recommendations to him from time to time concerning qualifications of the personnel, the field men, and so on, and the original suggestion even went beyond that and added that the appointment of the head of the Conciliation Service be subject to the recommendation of this group.

The A. F. of L. members of that committee were inclined to go along on that recommendation. The CIO members voted against it.

A report was finally rendered to the executive committee of the whole conference which contained a recommendation that such an advisory committee be set up. A dissent was filed to that by CIO members on the ground that that gave the employers some voice in the Labor Department and in the Department of Conciliation and they objected to that, quite frankly, on that ground.

In the final analysis, however, the CIO voted in the executive committee to approve the final recommendation which was that the Conciliation Service remain in the Department of Labor but that this advisory committee be set up.

The whole thing was a matter of expediency, the employers getting what they could to improve a situation which we thought was not satisfactory.

Senator MORSE. Let me check my review of your testimony because I consider this to be testimony of great importance as far as its bearing upon the testimony of the Secretary of Labor last Monday in which he says that the Labor-Management Conference in November 1945 recommended that the United States Conciliation Service be established as an effective and completely impartial agency within the Department of Labor.

He does not go on in the statement to explain to the committee the modus operandi by which that recommendation was reached, and you are giving testimony to that point and I want now to review it.

As I understand, the record now shows, through you as a witness, that when the management members of that conference met in 1945 they not only individually preferred an independent conciliation and mediation agency, but they adopted by unanimous vote of their membership a resolution to that effect.

Mr. ROTH. That is right.

Senator MORSE. They submitted the resolution to the labor members of the conference. That is correct?

Mr. ROTH. That is correct.

Senator MORSE. The labor members of the conference had taken an opposite point of view. They wanted a hands-off policy, so to speak, adopted by the conference in regard to the Conciliation Service, and because one of the purposes of the conference was to see what compromises labor and management could agree upon in order to diminish the area of disagreement that in 1945 characterized labor-management relationships in this country, you started as management members to do what you have termed trading. You wanted to improve the Conciliation Service. Is that right?

Mr. ROTH. That is true.

Senator MORSE. You believed as management representatives that in November 1945 it needed to be improved because of an employer fear and feeling that it was not impartial. Is that correct?

Mr. ROTH. That is correct.

Senator MORSE. And so as a compromise you suggested that you would go along with its retention in the Department of Labor providing an advisory committee would be set up within the Department on which management would have members, and that committee would be empowered to proceed with a study and survey of the operations of the Conciliation Service to the end of endeavoring to improve its efficiency. Is that correct?

Mr. ROTH. That is correct.

Senator MORSE. And with even some labor opposition to that proposal the conference finally did agree upon that proposal which was offered as a compromise by the management members, is that correct? Mr. ROTH. That is correct. That is exactly what happened.

Senator MORSE. Now, Mr. Roth, in view of the procedures by which that recommendation was reached, do you think it is a sound conclusion for the members of this committee to draw from the final recommendation itself the inference that the management members of that conference preferred to have the Conciliation Service in the Department of Labor?

Mr. ROTH. There is no question about that.

Senator MORSE. I want you to clarify your answer so that I am sure I understand. I want to restate my question, unless the reporter could read the question.

(The reporter read back the last question.)

Mr. ROTH. The answer is: Yes it is a fair conclusion.

Senator MORSE. Let me restate the question. On the basis of the compromise that you entered into with labor at the Labor-Management Conference to the effect that management would go along with the retention of the Conciliation Service in the Department of Labor if they should set up an advisory committee with management members on it, is it a fair conclusion that that would be the preference of the management members of the conference if it were left to their own choosing?

Mr. ROTH. It is a fair conclusion.

Senator MORSE. Then we are to understand that the management members of the conference then and now would prefer to have the