You still agree with that statement, don't you? Mr. CHING. I agree that in the Coal case, the Longshoremen's case, the National Maritime case, the Oak Ridge case, as I remember those cases, the injunction stopped the strike at the time it was threatened. However, in some of the cases, after the injunction had expired, we still had the same problem. Senator TAFT. Oh, well, yes; that was contemplated in the law. Mr. CHING. It was a temporary stoppage of the strikes. There is no question about that. Senator TAFT. It gave you 60 days more time to try to work it out. Going back now to your recommendation, it is that the President have the power to first request a continuation. Second, if that is not involved, I would take it from this he should have the power to apply for an injunction. Mr. CHING. No; I would not recommend-as I said, I do not believe it is proper. I think it is rather improper for the Mediation Service to do so, and I did not intend any recommendations. I was suggesting here ways that could be used; and every one of them, every suggestion you make, of course, you find you get yourself at the end of a street. somewhere, where you do not know what to do. I am not taking a position on the use of the injunction or nonuse of the injunction, because I do not believe that the head of a mediation service should make recommendations in matters of controversy between labor unions and employers. Senator TAFT. Well, if you had not already done so, I would say that was a proper position; but it seems to me you have already done so in your report and testimony before the Joint Management Relations Committee. Mr. CHING. I think if you will read that in the proper light, Senator, you will find it is not intended to be a recommendation to the legislature. It is something based on our experience, assuming that the use of the injunction would continue. Our thought was that if Congress should continue the general structure of the emergency provisions in the act, it might be interested in knowing what parts of it failed to work too well in order that it might improve them if it so desired. The injunction was in the Taft-Hartley law, and what we were thinking about there was that there was an opportunity where you did not have to use the injunction except in a case where they did not comply with the President's request, and further, that the use of the injunction for 80 days was not working as well as we thought some other scheme would work. Senator TAFT. The only recommendations that I can see that you made and they are both recorded by the committee-the only definite recommendations for changes in the law were, first, that we eliminate this postwar vote. Mr. CHING. Yes. Senator TAFT. Which I never thought much of, anyway; and second, that this board, this fact-finding or board of inquiry, be not appointed until after the President had acted. It would require him to withhold his action in order that he could wait until the last moment and give the Mediation Service the opportunity up to that last moment to continue the efforts to mediate to the deadline date. Those are the two recommendations that you made for changes in the Taft-Hartley law. Mr. CHING. Yes. Senator TAFT. And you made no others, is that correct? The CHAIRMAN. Senator Douglas, please. Senator DOUGLAS. Mr. Ching, have you gone into the question as to where the mediation services in foreign countries are located, in Great Britain or Sweden, for example? Mr. CHING. No; I have not. Senator DOUGLAS. Is it true that the mediation service in Great Britain is located in the Department of Labor? Mr. CHING. Do they call it the Department of Labor or the Ministry of Labor? Senator DOUGLAS. Ministry of Labor. Mr. CHING. I think you will find if you go into the organic act there we will call it the organic act-you will find that the act creating the Ministry of Labor was under entirely different circumstances than what we have in our organic act. Senator DOUGLAS. Isn't it true that the conciliation and mediation services are within the Ministry of Labor? Mr. CHING. I do not know. Senator DOUGLAS. I think that is correct. Senator DOUGLAS. And it is true that the British employers have confidence in the British Mediation Service, or comparative confidence. Mr. CHING. Pardon me, Senator Douglas, I do not think you can draw any conclusions at all from that. I do not know what the set-up is, although it is called the Ministry of Labor; it may have entirely different responsibilities and duties as to what they have to do and what our Department of Labor has to do, and I would not want to go into that or venture or hazard an opinion on that until I knew more about it. I do not know whether the governmental set-up, the historical relationships between employers and unions and other matters in Great Britain and the United States make the situation comparable. Senator DOUGLAS. Isn't it true that in 1945, as an outgrowth of the labor-management conference, a committee was set up to go into the workings of the Mediation and Conciliation Service in this country which had employer representatives on it, and public representatives, and that they said the Service had been doing a good job? Mr. CHING. You say 1925? Senator DOUGLAS. No; 1945. Mr. CHING. 1945. Senator DOUGLAS. 1945-46. Mr. CHING. Yes; there was emphasis, as I understand it, in that conference-I was not a member of the conference-that the Service should be an independent agency. Senator DOUGLAS. But, I mean a continuing small Mr. CHING. I mean an impartial agency. They didn't specify how independent of the Department the Service would have to be to be impartial. Senator DOUGLAS. Wasn't it a small continuing committee which was set up out of that conference to work with the Department of Labor and the Mediation and Conciliation Service which reported that this Service inside the Department of Labor had been doing a good job? Mr. CHING. I have not-I do not have such a report. I assume that there are men who served on that committee who could be called before this committee to testify as to what their ideas are. I do not know. I was not a party to that conference, and my testimony here today is based on my experience, not only in the Service, but outside, together with the best judgment I can use. Senator DOUGLAS. I have not had the opportunity, I am sorry to say—it has been my fault-to go over your annual report on your Service, and this is purely for information on my part. Do you have any statistical measurement other than a general impression, as to the greater degree to which employers have used the Mediation and Conciliation Service now that it is an independent agency, as compared with the degree to which they used it when it was inside the Department of Labor? Mr. CHING. You mean statistically? Senator DOUGLAS. Yes. Mr. CHING. The only thing I have to base an opinion on is what our men in the field tell me, what our regional directors and our commissioners tell me, and they tell me that there is greater acceptance of the Service by employers than they ever had before; and some employers have told me that the acceptance by employers was entirely different; that they had a different feeling toward our men because, as one fellow expressed it, they act differently. He said, they act as if they know that they will be accepted, not only by unions, but also by employers as impartial representatives of the Government. They do not feel the same about their own jobs as they did before. Employers have told me that they have much more confidence in our mediation since they have been divorced from the Department of Labor. Senator DOUGLAS. Do you have a record of the number of cases successfully conciliated during the period that you have been an Independent agency, compared with the number of cases so adjusted when the Service was inside the Department? Mr. CHING. We have all kinds of statistics, of cases, and all that sort of thing, but I think any one of them would be valueless because there are so many other variable factors. Senator DOUGLAS. I know. That is one step, and we are not passing final judgment on it. Mr. CHING. What do you mean about successfully conciliated? Senator DOUGLAS. Adjusted to the satisfaction of both parties. Mr. CHING. Oh, well; I do not expect to ever do that. [Laughter.] Senator DOUGLAS. This is an imperfect world. Mr. CHING. You may get a working agreement. Senator DOUGLAS. Where working agreements have been reached. Mr. CHING. You may get a working agreement, but we never expect to have a case settled to the satisfaction of both parties. Senator DOUGLAS. Would you be opposed to having the Service put inside the Department of Labor for housekeeping purposes, provided the head of the Service were independently appointed by the President and had the power of appointment of his staff? Mr. CHING. A poor housekeeper can make it awfully uncomfortable for you. [Laughter.] The housekeeper can make it awfully uncomfortable for you at home. Senator DOUGLAS. Well, in what way can you suggest Mr. CHING. I think the housekeeper who controls your budget and controls your personnel, pretty nearly controls your Service. I do not see that you can have for housekeeping purposes a very good set-up, because when your budget is in the control of someone else, the personnel policy is in the control of someone else, and that is pretty nearly controlled. Senator DOUGLAS. Of course, this question as to the location of quasi-judicial bodies is a very perplexing one, which is coming up in connection with the proposed reorganization efforts of the Government. Did you read the testimony of President Hoover which he is reported to have made in the morning's press, before the House Committee on Expenditures in the Executive Departments? Mr. CHING. I have not studied the testimony yet and, of course, I am in entire sympathy with the reorganization of the executive branch of the Government for greater efficiency. I still maintain that there should be some study given as to how the functions of various agenties are carried on before you start putting them together. I think if you will pardon me for suggesting it, that a possible alternative deserving attention is an agency of Government on industrial relations which might encompass the National_Labor Relations Board, and the Railway Mediation Board, and the Federal Mediation Service. All of these agencies would be dealing with the same problems, that is, the relations between employers and unions. They must all be impartial. Senator DOUGLAS. Well, as I read the press reports, if Mr. Hoover was correctly reported he did not wish to have the quasi-judicial bodies expressly excluded from any program of administrative reorganization, on the ground that, if you start to make such exemptions, you simply open the barn door, and we will have a multiplicity of independent organizations operating outside of the departments; the present considerable degree of chaos would be continued, as I understand his position and, he favored instead giving the President power to include them in any reorganization plan. What always happens, of course, is that every agency which has any judicial function-and many of them do not-want to maintain their independent status. But there is an over-all problem as well as a specific problem. Mr. CHING. I do not think the term "judicial functions" can be applied to us. Our Service does not perform a judicial function, but I do believe, I quite agree with you, Senator Douglas, that in the consideration of this matter you cannot have independent agencies all over the lot. But I think that a great deal of consideration, serious consideration, should be given to what agencies you put together and where you put them. Senator DOUGLAS. Thank you very much. Mr. CHING. If you would care to have me, I can give you a memorandum of ideas that we have on the Department for house-keeping purposes. Would the committee care to have that? The CHAIRMAN. We would be glad to have that. Senator DOUGLAS. That is very fine. (Memoranda were submitted by Mr. Ching which follow:) FEDERAL MEDIATION AND CONCILIATION SERVICE-EFFECTS OF A HOUSEKEEPING TRANSFER TO DEPARTMENT OF LABOR The Service has been requested to comment on the suggestion that it be transferred to the Department of Labor for housekeeping purposes in the light of the stated position of the Director of the Service that its absorption by the Department for all general purposes would seriously impair the effectiveness of Government mediation. This position was taken on the ground that large sections of the employer groups who require mediation services, if industrial peace is to be promoted, regard the Department of Labor and its top officials, whether or not justifiably, as biased and favorable to the interests of unions in any conflict between unions and management. The Service most earnestly believes that those reasons which counsel against a transfer of the Service to the Department, generally, apply with equal force to the transfer of the Service to the Department for housekeeping purposes. Housekeeping, usually refers to those administrative management functions having to do with the hiring and firing of personnel, the formulation and justification of budget estimates and the control of the obligation of funds. Control of any one of these functions would have a vital effect upon the basic substantive policies and programs of the Service. Policies and programs are formulated and administered by personnel. It is generally recognized that the official who has the power of appointment of personnel is in a most strategic position to control policy and program. A Director of the Service, with bureau status, would not have any effective control over its policies and programs if the appointment, promotion, transfer, discipline, assignment, and separation powers over personnel were lodged in his superior officer. A transfer for housekeeping purposes would give the Secretary of Labor full and final control over the selection and assignment of personnel within the Service. Under such circumstances, independence, with respect to the formulation and execution of policies and operations, would be an illusion. The transfer of the mediation function for housekeeping purposes, in fact and in truth, would not be to a new bureau in the Department of Labor, but to the Secretary of Labor and to the particular Assistant Secretary, to whom he would assign immediate superintendence over the operations of that bureau. The same considerations apply to budgeting. Budgeting is synonymous with planning. Planning encompasses both policies and programs. That official who controls the budget or who approves or has veto power over the budget of the Service determines its policies and programs. Similarly, with respect to the control of the obligation of funds. A Secretary of Labor in a position to withhold funds from expenditure for desired purposes or to veto certain expenditures would as surely control policies and programs as if the mediation function were transferred directly to the Secretary of Labor instead of to a bureau in the Department. It is apparent, from the above, that housekeeping is a deceptive term if it includes control over the matters referred to above. It should be understood that the effective operation of a mediation service aside from the actual work of mediation involves budget planning, the formulation of basic policies, the supervision and control of personnel and the prudent and efficient expenditure of funds. A transfer for housekeeping purposes would repose in the Secretary of Labor effective control either directly or indirectly over all such functions. It would lodge in the Secretary power over all policies, programs, and operations of the Service to the same extent as though a full transfer of the mediation function were made to the office of the Secretary of Labor. FEDERAL MEDIATION AND CONCILIATION SERVICE-COMPARISON OF EFFECTIVENESS OF UNITED STATES CONCILIATION SERVICE IN DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND FEDERAL MEDIATION AND CONCILIATION SERVICE, AN INDEPENDENT AGENCY During the course of his appearance before the Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, on February 1, 1949, Cyrus S. Ching, Director of the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, was requested by several Senators to furnish |