thrown up in front of these establishments because three companies refused to agree to a closed shop. There is a case of boycotting where it was not a question of jurisdiction. Senator TAFT. Nor a question of wages? It was not a question of wages? There was no dispute on wages? Mr. HAMPTON. No dispute on wages; no dispute on recognition; but a dispute over the closed shop. Senator TAFT. So they boycotted third parties in order to force that employer to sign a closed-shop agreement with these employees who were in their own union? Mr. HAMPTON. That is correct. Here is another example. In 1944, April I think it was, there was a firm of truck operators in Boise which was a sort of a family affair, father, son, sons running the trucks. The union moved in for the purpose of organizing that establishment, and the employees did not desire to be represented by the union. The teamsters' union threw a picket line around the place and declared that the products consigned to the docks of that transfer company or from it were "hot," and as a result of that there were six over-the-road truck operators that were drawn into the dispute. They operated in and out of Salt Lake to Boise, east to Denver, and west to San Francisco. This was during the war. That lasted for several weeks; and merchandise consigned to China and various places where it was needed for the processing of the war was being dammed up on the docks at San Francisco. Finally, after several weeks, with a public indignation meeting, appeal was made to the Army and Navy to break this secondary boycott. That is all it was, "hot" cargo; and they finally threw up and they gave up the sponge. There is a case of where your secondary boycott works an injustice on innocent persons. Senator TAFT. In that case the teamsters were trying to force the teamsters' union into this plant. Was that it? Mr. HAMPTON. In that case the teamsters' union was trying to force a truck operator up in Boise to recognize the union. Senator TAFT. There, you mean. Mr. HAMPTON. It was not a question of wages; it was not a question of anything, except recognition of the union. Senator TAFT. Of course, the question then is whether a majority of the employees wanted to join the union. Mr. HAMPTON. That was it. The employees did not want to join. the union, but the union was attempting to force the company to recognize the union as the bargaining agent, even though the employees did not wish to come in. It was a question of using economic force or the secondary boycott to force an employer to do something against his will and against the will of his employees. The President has been forced to use steps to prevent national strikes on six different occasions in 1948. He has expressed his opinion that there should be provisions of this type in any new labor legislation. The coal miners and coal mines in our State are at the mercy of John L. Lewis. We agree with the President that national strikes affecting public safety and health should be prohibited in any new legislation. Strikes against the Government should be prohibited under any conditions. The right to picket stems from the right of free speech. Mass picketing makes a mockery of this right; it becomes coercion and intimidation and as such should be prohibited. Taft-Hartley provisions in this regard should be retained. It is our opinion that contracts or agreements between responsible parties should be carried out. If union agreements are to be worth the paper they are written on, both parties to the agreement should be held accountable for their acts thereunder. Employers have been accountable under the Wagner Act. The TaftHartley Act also made unions accountable for the acts of their responsible leaders. We think this is a basic principle for any labor law and the Taft-Hartley provisions should be retained. We consider the injunction as one of the mildest methods of enforcement. If an injunction is obeyed, it is no more than a slap on the wrist. Its use should be permitted to prevent irreparable damage before cease and desist orders can be obtained. It would be a tragic mistake to abolish the unfair labor practices by unions. Are we to assume that labor unions can do no wrong? Instances in our own State already referred to and actions which have already been promised by labor leaders if the Taft-Hartley Act is repealed convince employers and farmers alike that unfair labor practices by unions should be part of any new legislation. Labor leaders have not been blameless in the past. They will not be in the future. If they wish to accept responsibility, let it be guided by rules of fair play which apply equally to both parties. These regulations must remain. I think that if it is unfair for an employer to coerce or intimidate his employees, it is unfair for a union to intimidate his employees. I maintain that if it is unfair for an employer to intimidate a union, it is unfair for a union to intimidate the employer. This, with all due respect to Chairman Thomas, I think Senate bill 249 fails to cover the field of labor relations. I think it no more covers it than an Army blanket would cover a three-ring circus. I think we need in our law every unfair labor practice defined for labor. I am representing the small employer in Utah. Oh, yes. I have got the Utah Copper and the Kennecott Copper and the Geneva Steel. But I am not talking for them. I am talking for the small manufacturer and the small merchant, and I say that if the union is not required to bargain in good faith, these employers should not be required to bargain in good faith. I say that the union in Utah is stronger than any one of these little individual manufacturers, and they have got more economic strength and more power; and if they are going to be permitted to strangle those fellows, I think it is unfair. I think that the rules and the regulations governing bargaining should be equally divided. I mean by that, there should be as much responsibility on the part of union leaders as there is on management to bargain in good faith. I think if one is restrained, the other should be restrained, One of the most controversial parts of the Taft-Hartley Act is the provision that employees on strike who are not entitled to reinstatement shall not be eligible to vote. In the early days of the Wagner Act, the Supreme Court held to this doctrine in the Mackay Radio case. The Taft-Hartley Act, in effect, wrote this doctrine into law. The logic is compelling. We know that labor leaders have bitterly attacked this provision, yet it is an essential part of any labor legislation and should be retained. The National Board should be retained as an independent agency and should not be returned to the Labor Department. The latter department was established to foster and protect labor. If it does this, it cannot remain impartial in the handling of labor matters. The Board should be an impartial agency, therefore cannot be under direction of a department head who is not impartial. Suits by and against unions; this provision of the Taft-Hartley Act has been widely criticized by labor leaders. It has been little used, and aside from a salutory effect, is of little value. Injunctive relief and cease and desist orders are more effective, but it is the belief of the Utah employers that it is fair and equitable, and also a deterrant to uncontrolled action and should be retained. Under the Wagner Act the Conciliation Service was part of the United States Department of Labor. It was distrusted by employers. Since its advent as a neutral agency, its agents in our area have been rendering far more efficient and effective service. It should be continued as an independent agency. I am basing my statement on experience, not on theory. I know that before the Conciliation Service was an independent agency, insofar as Salt Lake City was concerned, the representatives of the. Mediation Service-they then called them Commissioners—would make a regular organizer or a business agent look like an old maid Sunday-school teacher when it came down to promoting and developing organized labor. I have yet to see in my experience, prior to the enactment of the Taft-Hartley Act, any Commissioner out of the Department of Labor who I thought was anything other than prolabor. Today, since we have our independent agency, we have the utmost respect for the mediator that we have had out there. I have heard the employers say that he was prolabor and I have heard the labor group say that he was promanagement. So, under those circumstances, I would say he was pretty good. I have tried, gentlemen, to convey to you briefly and accurately the wishes of the employers in Utah relative to pending labor legislation. We live in a young and vigorous area of America, and consequently we have a young and vigorous development in progress. People are treated as equals. Our people resent outside controls and limitations on their personal freedoms. They are unwilling to surrender this personal freedom, which has been developing since the dawn of history, for a tyranny of any minority. They believe the Taft-Hartley Act aimed to guarantee these freedoms, and they wish to continue the Taft-Hartley Act, always cognizant that improvements which will further guarantee these equalities and freedoms should be in order. The employers of the State are in full accord with these views, as are the farmers, who constitute a substantial portion of our electorate. That is all, gentlemen. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Hampton. We have five more minutes if anyone wants to ask any questions. Senator MORSE. Mr. Hampton, I wish only to ask you this general question. As I interpret your statement, is it correct to say that the position of the management groups that you represent is that they want this Congress to bring forth a labor bill that is fairly balanced, in that it gives the same procedural rights to the employers as the old Wagner Act gave to unions? Mr. HAMPTON. That is right. We want a code of ethics set up, or rules, or procedures, that will govern the conduct of both sides. Senator DONNELL. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to ask Mr. Hampton if he is filing these copies of letters that he has here. I think those should go into the record. For instance, there is one letter here that I particularly noted that I would like to be certain that it goes in, from the Utah Manufacturers Association to Senator Thomas, in which this sentence appears [reading]: It was James Preston, official of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, who said, "The Wagner Act is loaded against the employer." These letters you are intending to file? Mr. HAMPTON. That is right. The CHAIRMAN. They will all appear in the record. (Letter from Utah State Farm Bureau Federation addressed To Whom It May Concern, dated January 26, 1949; letter from the Utah Retail Grocers Association to Senator Elbert D. Thomas, dated January 21, 1949; letter from the Utah Manufacturers Association addressed to Hon. Elbert D. Thomas, dated January 26, 1949; and letter from Utah Automobile Dealers Association addressed to Hon. Elbert D. Thomas, dated January 21, 1949, follow in turn :) To Whom It May Concern: UTAH STATE FARM BUREAU FEDERATION, The Utah State Farm Bureau Federation authorizes Mr. L. B. Hampton to represent it in accordance with the following resolution: "We favor maintaining such provisions of law as will protect the general welfare. Strikes in industries essential to the public welfare, jurisdictional strikes, secondary boycotts, hot cargoes, closed shop, wildcat strikes, the use of force and violence, obstruction of commerce, or destruction of property, are not in the national interest, and consequently not in the long-time interest of labor itself. "Management must cooperate with labor to improve working conditions, assure policies which will give high real income to workers, and follow such other policies as will contribute to full and sustained industrial production and employment. Monopolistic practices which result in low production and high prices, unreasonable profits, inefficient management, lock-outs, and other activities which provide the basis for instability in labor-management relations must be corrected. "Uncontrolled economic power in the hands of either management or labor leaders can equally be a threat to our national well-being. Legislation should be designed to protect the public interest against the selfish exercise of autocratic power either by labor or by management. "We support a reasonable minimum wage for labor. In our judgment, a reasonable minimum wage should fluctuate either up or down with the cost of living. "We urge our Government to develop and aggressively follow a vigorous antimonopoly program. The elimination of all monopoly except that under Govern ment regulation and control is essential to the successful operation of the competitive system. Farmers and others cannot produce for a free market if prices in large segments of our economy are rigged by monopolistic practices." To the extent of this resolution only is Mr. Hampton authorized to represent this organization. Respectfully, FRANK G. SHELLEY, Senator ELBERT D. THOMAS, UTAH RETAIL GROCERS ASSOCIATION, Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR THOMAS: The Utah Retail Grocers Association, which represents the home-owned retail food stores of Utah, both large and small, has a real interest in present developments regarding the Taft-Hartley law. We are cognizant of the prominence of your role in this most important domestic issue, and feel that Utah is honored by the recognition which you have earned. Our industry has long felt that the bargaining agents of union labor, with whom we have dealt for several years, have been encouraged to be overbearing as a result of what we consider to be their advantages at the bargaining table. Since the passage of the Taft-Hartley law, we have felt and believed that union representatives have felt that there has been more equality in bargaining negotiations. So far as this industry is concerned, we support the Taft-Hartley bill. However, we realize that changes at this time are probable. Press reports also indicate that you are favorable to a change. However, we have confidence that you will give full weight to the problem of management in your deliberations. This association has confidence in the judgment of the Industrial Relations Council, and in the management of the council represented by Mr. Leon B. Hampton. In discussions on changes to the present Taft-Hartley law, we support the statements which are made by Mr. Hampton, and we trust that you will give the most careful consideration to the problem as he presents it. Sincerely yours, UTAH RETAIL GROCERS ASSOCIATION, Hon. ELBERT D. THOMAS, UTAH MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION, Salt Lake City, Utah, January 26, 1949. Chairman, Senate Committee on Education and Labor, Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR THOMAS: Mr. L. B. Hampton, president of the Industrial Relations Council of Utah, is thoroughly familiar with the problems of Utah employers, and we are pleased to have him represent us in presenting the views of Utah manufacturers on labor legislation. Nothing unreasonable or unfair is sought by Utah employers in this matter. The Wagner Act and its expanded interpretations had created an intolerable condition in labor-management relations which has been to some extent alleviated by the provisions of the so-called Taft-Hartley Act. No doubt this act of 1947 is imperfect. Balance has not yet been reached, particularly for smaller manufacturers, such as constitute almost the whole of the 350 Utah manufacturers which we serve. At least 300 of these employ fewer than 75, and it is among these that the most concern is felt, for they are the least able to protect themselves against unreasonable union practices. Everything we delight in as Americans is based on the idea of equality and fairness-our sports, our public associations, our fundamental law. It was James Preston, official of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, who said, "The Wagner Act is loaded against the employer." We must not return to such a law. All that Utah employers want is fair labor legislation. We believe the |