Senator SCHWEIKER. I am not clear on one point. I think one of you brought out earlier that under the present contract your mine safety committee of three members can shut down a mine if it is unsafe. Is that accurate?

Mr. TRBOVICH. Yes, Senator.

Senator SCHWEIKER. In the areas where you have had wildcat strikes or you had conditions that you felt were unsafe, what position did the mine safety committee in those cases take? In other words, where is the problem here?

You have a mine safety committee, and you have wildcat strikes. Mr. YABLONSKI. Frequently they don't use that because there is another provision in the contract that says if they are wrong in calling a strike, then they can be fired.

Senator SCHWEIKER. In what?

Mr. YABLONSKI. If they are wrong in closing down a mine, they can be fired. So there has developed a sort of ad hoc system of staying really outside the contract, because the men don't feel that they get the kind of backing in a grievance case that is necessary to insure their staying on the job.

Now we talked of some instances where gentlemen have been fired. I don't know whether the mineworkers maintain statistics on how frequently that provision of the contract is invoked or how frequently people are fired.

Senator SCHWEIKER. You say if they are wrong in making a determination, they can be fired under the contract?

Mr. YABLONSKI. That's right.

Senator SCHWEIKER. What section of the contract is that?

Mr. YABLONSKI. I don't have it with me, but the section of the contract, if I understand the language, is that if a dangerous condition exists, the safety committee has the authority to go to management and to ask that the mine be closed.

In practice it has worked out that the safety committee tells the management it is closing the mine. Right in the same section if he is wrong, if he is found to be wrong, that that condition is not dangerous, then the company will fire him, and they fire him and they litigate the propriety or the validity of his safety complaint in a grievance case. Senator SCHWEIKER. That is a sort of "heads you win, tails I lose" situation. I would like to see that section.

Mr. TRBOVICH. It is in here, Senator.

Senator SCHWEIKER. You don't have to give it to me now.

Was that the section they used to fire the three men in district 6? Was that the technique they used there? You recommend what happened in district 6 and the three men were fired after a wildcat strike?

Mr. TRBOVICH. The safety committee said it was unsafe. The company said it wasn't. The mine went on strike, so they fired the safety committee.

Mr. YABLONSKI. The problem we are getting into is that we are dealing second and third-hand. One of the rumors I heard was that the Bureau of Mines enforced the position taken by the men that the mine was, in fact, unsafe.

Senator SCHWEIKER. The Interior Department backed up the men in District 68

Mr. YABLONSKI. That's right. I have the section of the contract.

Senator SCHWEIKER. I would like to hear it.

Mr. YABLONSKI. It says: "In those special instances where the committee believes that imminent immediate danger exists and the committee recommends that the management remove all the mine workers from the unsafe area, the operator is required to follow the recommendations of the committee.

"If the Safety Committee closes down an unsafe area arbitrarily and capriciously, members of such committee may be removed from the committee. Grievances that arise as a result or request for removal of the Safety Committee under this section shall be handled in accordance with provisions providing for settlement of disputes."

Senator SCHWEIKER. Who makes the judgment whether they act capriciously and who decides he can be removed?

Mr. YABLONSKI. I guess the person that ultimately makes the decision would be an arbitrator or umpire under the contract, but the company could go ahead and fire him and say, "We will sit back and litigate."

Also included in this contract is a section which says that if any man interferes with the operation of a mine, he can be fired. In reading all these sections together, that is essentially what happens.

Senator SCHWEIKER. That section there mentions removal from the committee?

Mr. YABLONSKI. That is what I was pointing out. There is also a section in here that if a man interferes with the operation of a mine, he can be fired. What they do is that they read those sections together and-goodby.

I will be happy to put in the record a copy of the mine workers contract. They are proud of it, but, as I said in the statement, I think the contract is just as you pointed out, Senator Schweiker. It is even more restrictive than the Federal labor law, which says if a man has a good faith belief that a dangerous condition exists, he can walk off the job and encourage his fellow employees to walk off the job and that can't be determined to be a strike.

I don't think he has to go use the contract, because the contract does put him in jeopardy.

Senator WILLIAMS. I wonder if we can turn now to an inquiry by Senator Randolph and I would like to say that following Senator Randolph's discussion and inquiry with you, we will then turn to our Department of Interior witnesses and if there is anything that we feel or you feel from this panel should be covered that has not been covered, we will go maybe into it this afternoon.

Mr. TRBOVICH. Senator, there is one thing I would like to bring out, if you will yield to me. I have one more point here.

The safety awards issued in the coal industry is the biggest farce that you have ever seen. The J & L Steel Corp. mine where I work and the other big coal companies get an award for the best safety record. Yet in all of these mines you can go into the lamphouse and you can see men sitting with broken legs, bad backs, broken toes, broken arms. They sit in the lamphouse and they sit in the shop or someplace around the mine. The company pays their wages, but yet this accident is not reported to the Department as a lost-time accident.

Just recently, several months ago, they put one on the bulletin board in the mine where I worked and everybody at the mine had to laugh because it is a joke. The sad thing about it is this: When a man sits

in the lamphouse and he collects his wages, if permanent injury results from that accident, you have one hell of a time collecting compensation after that, because the first thing they tell you is that you didn't lose any time, you maintained the wages, you didn't lose any wages. So this is the sad thing about it.

This is all I have to say.

Senator WILLIAMS. Thank you. Senator Randolph ?

Senator RANDOLPH. Mr. Chairman, I was asked by Senator John Sherman Cooper of Kentucky, who is not a member of this subcommittee or the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, to indicate his continuing interest in these hearings. He had his representative present yesterday as the matters concerning the small mines were discussed.

As you recall, Mr. Chairman, he has had a special interest in the problems of those mines, particularly in Kentucky. He indicated to me that he had desired to be present personally today and he might have asked the question if it was within his province, Mr. Chairman, to do so.

Although we have not always agreed with Senator Cooper in this subcommittee or in the provisions of the bill, we do recognize in Senator Cooper a man who is very much concerned about workers, about the conditions under which the miners toil.

Mr. Chairman, Mr. Yablonski, just before Mike spoke, was talking about the strike, the problems of the strike related to the most recent incident. I want the record to show again, as I have had it show in the past, that I believe any coal miner who feels that his health or safety is impaired by working in a coal mine, has not only the right but he has the responsibility to leave his job.

I think he has a further right and responsibility. That is to talk with other miners, very frankly. I am not saying that this would be an attitude of a walkout or a shutdown or a closure of a mine, but I believe that we redress our grievances when we do not appear in the role of members of a silent majority or a silent minority.

We speak about these matters as many, many persons by the scores have spoken about these problems, their concerns and their grievances. during the hearings as we brought about the passage of the bill which in these hearings is a review of what has been done or apparently has not been done to implement the provisions of the act.

Now, I had mentioned earlier, Mr. Chairman, that there were certain figures which indicated the impact of the recent mine closures. So, as an effort on my part to not just give those figures, but to implement them, I have received these figures in the last few minutes.

They are not from the owners, they are not from the union, they are U.S. Government figures. I do not wish to make comment on them, but will read them in the record.

On July 28 there were 168 coal mines that were closed by the strike. By that closure there was a loss of 420,000 tons of production. That resulted, as I understand it, in a loss of $168,000 in the miners' health and welfare fund on that 1 day.

On August 4 the number of mines closed by the strike was reduced to 71 and the production loss was 200,000 tons on that day.

On August 6, 32 mines were closed by the strike and the loss was reduced to 89,000 tons on that day.

For the week ending July 25, production, Mr. Chairman, on a national basis because of the strike or strikes was down to 10,140,000 tons. For the week ending August 1 the tonnage was down to 9,955,000. The normal average weekly production, as I understand it, nationwide is 11 to 12 million tons.

For the week to end tomorrow, August 8, the total of production will apparently be back to 10.5 million tons. As I understand it further, the major production losses today, as of this date of the hearing, are in Harlan County, Ky., and Logan County, W. Va.

Mr. Yablonski, you have spoken, as other witnesses have spoken, and as members of the subcommittee also have agreed, that the provisions of the 1969 Health and Safety Act were not being enforced. There has been no mention made, Mr. Chairman, during these recent hearings of the enforcement policies within the State agencies.

They have regulations by which the States are to operate. I am not sure whether you, Mr. Yablonski, or someone else wishes to speak to this point. Mr. Chairman, I think it is important that we have reports from some of the States that are concerned with their own regulatory agencies.

I think Senator Schweiker has indicated at least in part, and I would not want to speak for him, that in Pennsylvania there have been problems within the State agency. I am not sure about that, but I think that concern has been expressed.

Senator SCHWEIKER. No, I haven't said that.

Senator RANDOLPH. I am wrong?

Senator SCHWEIKER. Yes.

Senator RANDOLPH. I will strike that from the record myself. Senator WILLIAMS. I want to say I certainly agree. We are fortunate to have Mrs. Mazie Gutshall, executive deputy secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of Mines and Mineral Industries. We have the assistant director of West Virginia's Bureau of Mines, Mr. Paul Riley, as you know, for today.

Senator RANDOLPH. When did I receive this information that these persons would testify?

Senator WILLIAMS. Just 30 seconds after I did.

Senator RANDOLPH. When did you get it?

Senator WILLIAMS. I just picked it up here.
Senator RANDOLPH. Thank you.

Mr. TRBOVICH. Senator, I would like to say one thing before you go any further. There is too much emphasis placed on the royalty from the tonnage they are getting. This is the position the UMW takes. They multiply the 40 cents a ton by the tons we are losing and they are saying you had better go back to work if you want benefits or if you want more benefits.

I think there is too much emphasis placed on the royalty from this coal where they should be working on safety.

Senator RANDOLPH. I think that is a comment that the subcommittee would well receive. I made it very clear I made no comment on the figures whatsoever.

Mr. TRBOVICH. Right.

Senator RANDOLPH. Only that it was the information that had been provided by the U.S. Government in these strikes that have occurred. We do know that in certain areas, Mike, apparently there have been

certain reasons for the strike at one point and other reasons at another point.

I am informed that this is true. Maybe I am incorrectly informed. But I want to repeat what I said, that the miner often feels that his safety and his health is impaired by the work that he carried on in the mine, he has not only the opportunity, I think he has the responsibility.

I realize that he can't do this as one person. It has to be a multiple matter. That is why I said further that he has the responsibility to work with others and to give them his feelings about the problem that exists.

Now the State agencies question you feel, Mr. Chairman, that does not need to be discussed? I was only thinking that some of these witnesses might wish to comment and I am not going to belabor that point. We can pass it by on the State agency.

Mr. YABLONSKI. These strikes, particularly the Pennsylvania one, that was in northern West Virginia and Ohio also, the one that is presently going on in West Virginia focussed national attention on the loss of production at a critical time so far as our national economy is concerned and the power shortage and everything else.

But I want to call to your attention, Senator, that it is a little bit like Farmington. It goes on all the time. I think the subcommittee has requested information which I believe shows that on the average over the last 3 or 4 years some 700,000 man-shifts are lost due to wildcat strikes.

If we just take the figure of 15-tons per man, we are talking there about something far in excess of what has been lost in West Virginia today. Again I say that without any comment, but just for the committee's information of just what a wildcat-prone industry this is.

Senator RANDOLPH. I am sure what you are saying is correct. Of course, regardless of the exact amount of money, it does lessen the welfare fund, is that correct?

Mr. YABLONSKI. Yes.

Senator RANDOLPH. To whatever point it might be.

One final question: On your statement on page 8, Mr. Yablonski, in the final paragraph on that page, you have stated the quickest way to get effective safety in the mines is to call a halt to the union's romance with the coal operators.

I do not urge you to make a fuller discussion, but I think it might be helpful to the committee. We might be indulging in a generalization a little when we talk of "romance." I want you to be specific as to what you feel.

Mr. YABLONSKI. I think this is essentially the crux of what we were discussing earlier. There is entirely too much harmony between the union and the industry. If this law is to be enforced, the union has to go out and start pinpointing, it has to start saying, you never picked up the United Mine Workers journal in the last 5 years and read of any company that is under contract being criticized for its safety policy.

I think the union could be very effective. The idea of working handin-glove with the industry to promote it and things of that nature may be all well and good, but it should come to an end when coal safety is involved, because the men have to rely on the union.