Schedule D-Wage-rate increases in various representative companies since World War II

1 If WSB recommendation of 17.5 cents is added, the figures are: 85.2 cents from 1946 and 33.5 cents from 1950.

If 3-cent cost-of-living increase already granted and the 1952 annual improvement increase are added, the figures are: 75 cents from 1946 and 31 cents from 1950.

The CHAIRMAN. The next witness is John C. Bane, industry member of the steel panel.

(See comment on steel companies' Analysis of Staff Report to the Senate Subcommittee on Labor and Labor-Management Relations on the Wage Stabilization Board's Recommendations in the Steel Dispute, p. 417.)

STATEMENT OF JOHN C. BANE, JR., INDUSTRY MEMBER OF THE STEEL PANEL

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Bane, would you state your full name and background for the record?

Mr. BANE. My name is John C. Bane, Jr., and I was born in Pittsburgh, Pa., and I have always lived there.

I have engaged in the general practice of law in Pittsburgh since 1928, first as an associate and later a partner in the law firm called Reed, Smith, Shaw, & McClay.

I think I have been given the privilege of stating my comments here today because of my recent experience as one of the six individuals who served on the special panel in the steel case before the Wage Stabilization Board.

I was one of two industry members. The other was Admiral Earle W. Mills, United States Navy, retired.

and Mr. Ralph P. Seward, of Washington, both professional arbitraThe two public members were Dr. Hardy Shulman, of New Haven, tors in labor matters. The two labor members of the six-man panel were Mr. Arnold Campo, an international officer of the United Steel Workers of America, and Mr. Eli Oliver, who is well known as a professional adviser and consultant of labor unions.

The evidence in the steel case was presented to our panel, and not to the Board itself. We then made a written report to the Board, a paper dated March 12, 1952.

I think it was not available until the next morning because the work was completed so late in the day. From that time until the Board's recommendations which had been reached 8 or 9 days later, we were admitted to the deliberations of the Board itself under an order of a kind made by Dr. Feinsinger to the effect we were to be treated as ex officio members of the Board taking part in the case as the other members of the Board, except that they would vote and we would not.

The Board's written recommendations were filed on March 20.

In the record of your proceeding here 2 or 3 weeks ago, the one that has been printed that contains a part of Mr. Feinsinger's testimony, you have printed both our panel report of March 12 and the Board's recommendations of March 20.

My specific preparation for this appearance before you has, to my great regret, been excessively slight. I have had an opportunity, however, to read Senate bill 2999, to read the report of the proceedings of your Subcommittee on Management and Labor Relations on March 31, 1952, and to read an official, but incomplete typewritten transcript of the testimony offered here on April 15, 1952, by Mr. Nathan P. Feinsinger, the Chairman of the Wage Stabilization Board.

I might suggest that in the typewritten transcript of Mr. Feinsinger's testimony in his appearance on April 15, that several points show that there are statements but something is to be included that had not been included in my copy. I think there are probably documents that were offered in evidence.

In my case I think it may be helpful to state such general qualifications, as I have to discuss the matters which are before you.

repre

Since long before I was associated with it, our law firm has sented steel companies. It is one of several in Pittsburgh that does, because Pittsburgh is a steel center and there are many steel companies there. We represent both large companies like Mr. Stephens' and some of the much smaller ones that are in this industry.

We have also represented a good many other people who hire union labor and who deal with unions.

In the course of the firm's practice since I was admitted in 1928, I have been called on pretty steadily to represent employers in both disputes and negotiations with laboring people and labor unions. It has been a much more important matter since 1933 and since that year, although I have never pretended to be a labor specialist or devote all my time to it, there has never been a time that I wasn't interested in some labor matter.

I think I can say I have been involved in negotiations with unions in grievance proceedings, arbitrations, strikes, governmental procedures before boards. We have had numerous boards since 1933 and cases in the courts.

Like any other lawyer who is interested in labor affairs in Pittsburgh, I have had to know from time to time what contracts the United Steelworkers had with employers. That was true in 1935 or 1936 when this union was organized as the United Steelworkers of America.

I will say I was in close touch with the union at the time it was formed.

This background I have given you probably explains why I was chosen to serve on the steel panel, but it is not intended to explain why

I am here. I think I have been called here because I was on the panel and tell you facts that I learned in the course of my experience there. Senator HUMPHREY. May I ask a question there?

Would you name some of the companies that you represented prior to your being appointed as a member of the panel?

Mr. BANE. Steel companies?

Senator HUMPHREY. Yes.

Mr. BANE. I have represented the United States Steel Co. and various other companies that were merged to form it recently.

Senator HUMPHREY. What did you say?

Mr. BANE. The United States Steel Co. is a rather new corporation because of the merger of several others that existed before.

Senator HUMPHREY. What do you mean by new?

Mr. BANE. The United States Steel Co. has not existed, as now constituted, for more than a year. I am not sure just when it was formed. Senator HUMPHREY. What was its predecessor called?

Mr. BANE. We had the Carnegie-Illinois Steel Corp., and before that we had the Carnegie Steel Corp. We had the American Steel & Wire Co. and the American Sheet & Tinplate Co., the National Tube Co. They were all subsidiaries of the United States Steel Corp., which is the one in which you can buy stock on the big board.

I have also at times represented the Bethlehem Steel Corp. and I have represented the Jones & Laughlin Steel Co.

I have represented Crucible Steel Co. of America, and a number of smaller companies in the basic steel industry.

I do not want you to think that is my entire career. I have specialized in litigation and I will have a case for the Bethlehem Co. once in a while, one for Crucible once in a while, and as is true of a good many lawyers who litigate, they come to you only when they have a lawsuit that seems to make it worth their while.

Senator HUMPHREY. Are you presently representing any of these companies?

Mr. BANE. No.

When I am here

Senator HUMPHREY. I mean within the last 2 months during the period in which you were a member of the Wage Stabilization Panel. Mr. BANE. I would say our firm is on a retainer with some of the steel companies. In fact, I know it is. The Crucible and United States Steel both pay us steadily. I know there is never a time I am not interested in some matter for both of those companies. You understand the lawsuits that began several years ago are still going on. Senator HUMPHREY. They take a great deal of time.

Mr. BANE. I could not disassociate myself from those.

Senator HUMPHREY. During the time of your incumbency as a member of the Wage Stabilization Panel, you have not disassociated yourself from the cases which your firm has been handling for the companies?

Mr. BANE. I have not.

Senator HUMPHREY. I just wanted to get that clear for the record. Mr. BANE. If I had done that, I think I might have been obliged to go into some other line of business. A lawyer cannot do that.

Perhaps I had better say, to clarify what I am going to say here, that the statement I am making is one I prepared yesterday after

noon. It was cleared with no steel company. No steel company officer or agent assisted me in its preparation.

Senator HUMPHREY. You are rather familiar with the steel companies from your litigation?

Mr. BANE. Yes. I have been working with them for over 20 years. The CHAIRMAN. All of the matter that is in your statement here is fresh in your memory?

Mr. BANE. I wrote it myself yesterday in longhand.

The CHAIRMAN. So you could save a lot of time by just going over the high spots and the entire statement would be printed in the record as if read by you.

Mr. BANE. I will move right along with it. I am not sure what the high lights are because I have not had an opportunity to read it since it was typed.

The CHAIRMAN. Give what you think are the high lights. You have been sitting here this afternoon. Have you been here before?

Mr. BANE. No. I have never been before this committee. I have attended Senate hearings before, but never in any connection with this present flurry.

The CHAIRMAN. This is one of the fairest committees on the Hill. We give everybody an opportunity to present their views, and it seems to me because you are familiar with the problem you might be able to just offhand give us a complete picture as you see it and have your entire statement printed in the record.

Mr. BANE. Well, sir, as I understand your purpose here, you are studying Senate bill 2999.

Senator HUMPHREY. And S. 3016.

Mr. BANE. The second bill is the one that I have not had an opportunity to study. I have read S. 2999, particularly in the light of Mr. Feinsinger's testimony.

The Feinsinger testimony, particularly that on April 15, was directed to the same point. As I read it, Mr. Feinsinger did not undertake either to approve or disapprove Senate bill 2999.

The implication of his testimony to my mind was he did not think it necessary. His argument goes about as follows:

He said that in the President's view of the law the President of the United States has under the Constitution and present laws, the choice of two things when a national emergency threatens to cut off the supply of some indispensable commodity like steel.

As Mr. Feinsinger analyzed it, the President had as one alternative the procedure laid down by sections 206 to 210 of the Taft-Hartley Act. The other alternative as Mr. Feinsinger sees it is to refer the case to the Wage Stabilization Board. Mr. Feinsinger told you, and I think it was a previously undisclosed matter-I think it was a secret up to then, but Mr. Feinsinger stated it as a matter of his own personal knowledge that in December of last year when it became apparent that the negotiations between the union and the United States Steel Co. were not going to reach any good conclusion in time to forestall a strike, the President was considering seriously the adoption of the Taft-Hartley procedure.

But that he chose to reject that and to proceed before the WSB because Mr. Feinsinger said he had assurances from the union that the union would not strike.

99423-52-18

Starting from that premise Mr. Feinsinger went on to say, as I read his testimony, that the President's decision was a wise one because as Mr. Feinsinger sees it, the method of settling disputes provided by the Wage Stabilization Board under Executive Order 10233 is, in Mr. Feinsinger's opinion, much more effective and useful and practical than that provided by the Taft-Hartley Act.

If that were true, of course, you would not need to worry about the need of perhaps amending the Taft-Hartley Act. You would leave things to the Wage Stabilization Board.

It is my opinion and observation from the somewhat limited experience I have described to you that in his testimony here in trying to prove to you that the practice afforded by his Board is better than the procedure provided by the Taft-Hartley Act, and Mr. Feinsinger has greatly overrated the power and capacity of his Board to solve labor disputes and greatly overstated the drawbacks of the TaftHartley procedure

Senator HUMPHREY. Should we stop for a moment and clarify the two approaches here so we will have the record complete?

Under the Executive order which established dispute power functions of the Wage Stabilization Board, the employer and employee groups may voluntarily submit a case to the Wage Stabilization Board for adjudication or settlement and in so doing will undertake to accept the recommendations.

Mr. BANE. I believe so. I think it constitutes an arbitration. There is no point in it if you are not going to abide by the results. Senator HUMPHREY. And there have been a number of such cases? Mr. BANE. A number.

Senator HUMPHREY. The parties since they have voluntarily submitted the dispute to the Board and have voluntarily stated they would accept its recommendations, have so abided; is that correct?

Mr. BANE. As far as I know. It is certainly the natural assumption. Senator HUMPHREY. The second means of handling a dispute before the Wage Stabilization Board is for the President to certify to the Board that a dispute of national emergency proportions, or of emergency proportions, prevails, and to ask the board to make findings and recommendations for the settlement of said dispute; is that correct? Mr. BANE. Roughly. There is a little more to it in the Executive order.

Senator HUMPHREY. But I mean the general idea is the President certifies to the Board. The Board then gathers the testimony and proceeds to get the evidence through hearings and through conferences and negotiations, and ultimately issues a set of findings and recommendations. Is that about the way it develops?

Mr. BANE. That is about it. I think the recommendations are the essential thing.

Senator HUMPHREY. That is a very important point.

Mr. BANE. I do not know any findings are required.

Senator HUMPHREY. It appeared before you would make recommendations, you would have some findings.

Mr. BANE. You would have to have them in your mind.

Senator HUMPHREY. Tangible or intangible, they would have to be there.

Under this second procedure of the President certifying a dispute, the Wage Stabilization Board is not empowered to enforce its recommendations; is that correct?