The companies are interested in production and it is a natural collective bargaining of countervailing forces that we are talking about. I think the union association in NCPC, I think that the attitude that they have taken over the years of never being critical of the industry except to criticize the industry, as I said earlier if Bethlehem Steel runs good mines, let us praise Bethlehem.

If Consolidated Coal Co. runs good mines, let us praise them. If some company runs bad mines, let us tell all coal miners.

After all, as you pointed out earlier, it is a coal miners' market. Today they can pick and choose where they work. Today if Clinchfield is killing men in Virginia, these men ought to know it because they don't have to work there. They can work for U.S. Steel if the Gary mines are safe.

We have asked the Bureau-and I think the Bureau is going to move in this area of providing statistics, accident rate, fatalities, and everything else on a company-by-company basis, so that those who do have safety records can hold them up and say we do run safe mines. Over the years our fatality rate has been half of what the industry has been.

Our accident rate is, with the built-in problems that Mr. Trbovich has described, one-fourth of what the general norm is in the industry. We think that this is really a great way of saying to companies, shape up or ship out.

We are encouraging the Department to work right along this line. I think, Senator, this really points out. You were indicating yesterday that there has to be greater cooperation and by such statement you were meaning to say that the union has to work more closely without the traditional give and take, then I do object.

I don't think you take that position.

Senator RANDOLPH. No, I do not. If it were read to you at this point, you will find that I said the Congress itself must take a portion of this criticism.

Mr. YABLONSKI. Then I apologize, because I thought you meant you were endorsing the

Senator RANDOLPH. We will place it in the record. I can't recall the exact words.

I said very frankly that I wanted to bear part of the blame, I thought the Congress must bear part of the blame. I spoke of the different elements that I thought are involved with shortcomings and mistakes and errors and the record so indicates.

Now, I think there is a responsibility, Mr. Yablonski, within let us say partially the jurisdiction that we have, although there are reasons sometimes that are very motivating that can permit you, in fact, to bring about a responsibility for you to speak just beyond what your jurisdiction is.

I think that is true on the legitimate matters. Our major task is to pass legislation, to consider legislation, and then it has been written and passed we are doing something now in the Congress very frankly that we didn't do 5 or 10 years ago.

Mr. YABLONSKI. You should be applauded for it, too.

Senator RANDOLPH. The Congress is coming back to look at the implementation of the act or other laws, because I use the word advisedly-often the action of the Congress is subverted by the agency or agencies that carry forward the law which has been written.

I do not refer just to this measure alone, but that has been discovered or determined by so-called oversight hearings, not only within this committee, but I have been doing it time and time again in the Public Works Committee in reference to air and water pollution and other major subjects, economic development, the environment generally, including the housing and dislocation of people.

So I think there is a responsibility of the Congress, of the union, of the ownership.

Mr. YABLONSKI. And of the men, too.

Senator RANDOLPH. Yes, and I so said earlier. I pinpointed that. I think there is a multiple responsibility on all of us to ferret out and bring to the attention, to make it known when health and safety under an act is not being observed, because there has been failure to bring stringency into being, particularly with reference to inspections which are written into this law.

Mr. TRBOVISH. Senator, I would just like to say one more thing and then I am going to stop.

Senator WILLIAMS. I will say that you can remain if there are any further inquiries to be made or if you have anything more to say after our other scheduled witnesses come on.

I know I will be available to sit. It might be wiser if you do stay. Senator RANDOLPH. I believe, Mr. Chairman, that Mike performed today as if he had been here before because he asked you if you would yield to him.

Senator WILLIAMS. I know, he has all of the protocol.

Senator RANDOLPH. He has all the parlance of the Senator.

Senator WILLIAMS. We will ask you, will you yield at this time? Mr. TRBOVICH. Yes, I will, Senator.

Senator WILLIAMS. For the Department of the Interior—

Mr. YABLONSKI. I would like to introduce a comparison of the nature of the different kinds of inspections that were involved in the Pittsburgh litigation. I would like to offer them into evidence, because I think they disclose the difference between the present PBR inspections and the old ones.

(The information referred to is available in the files of the subcommittee.)

(A letter to Senator Williams subsequently received follows:)

At the recent hearings of the Subcommittee, MJoseph A. Yablonski, Jr. and Mr. Mike Trbovich testified on a number of matters in which they were in error and the record needs to be corrected.

First, Mr. Trbovich stated that three mine safety committeemen, namely, Messrs. James Holland, Harry Baker and Jerry Hendricks were discharged because they objected to unsafe conditions; that Mr. Holland went to District 6 and asked for help but they would not meet with him; that the men had to close the industry down for three weeks and, as a result, the company finally caved in and reinstated him.

The facts are as follows:

These men were discharged on February 5, 1970 when they asked the foreman to shut down one section of the mine to catch up on rock dusting. When the foreman refused their request, the safety committee asked if they could go outside to talk to district officials or someone with authority. This request was refused, but all the men came outside and the three safety committeemen were discharged. The district representatives, including William Howard District 6 Safety Coordinator, met the following morning at 10:00 a.m. with about thirty members of the local union. After a preliminary investigation of the facts William Howard requested the United States Bureau of Mines to make an immediate inspection of the mine. District representative Leonard McVey immediately contacted the management of the Allison Mine, which is owned by the Y & O Coal Company, and advised them that the discharge was in violation of the 1963 contract and that the men must be reinstated.

The Honorable

Harrison A. Williams, Jr.

Page Two

September 9, 1970

The mine was inspected by the Bureau of Mines on February 7, 1970, and a notice was issued for a violation of Section 209 of the Federal Mine Safety Code. The violation was corrected by 1:00 p.m. that same day.

On February 8, Mr. McVey, in a special meeting of the local union, informed the members of what action was taken and the men agreed to return to work.

On February 11, a meeting was held with Ford Sampson and Lester Zimmerman, Ohio Coal Association; Baxter Ellison, Mine Superintendent; Paul Sparkman, Mine Foreman; Dave Cunningham, General Manager; John Riley, Assistant Mine Foreman; Robert Bunting, Shift Foreman; Leonard McVey, District 6 Division No. 3 Board Member; William Howard, District 6 Safety Coordinator; Hubert Cook, Tom Perkins and Tom Freeman, Mine Committeemen; Harry Baker, James Holland, Jerry Hendricks, and the three discharged employees. At this meeting the union demanded that the three discharged employees be returned to employment immediately with pay for all lost time. The union took the position that the contract did not permit the company to fire safety committeemen in the performance of their duty. The company agreed to reinstatement but not back pay for lost time. At 8:00 a.m. on February 12 the mine again went on strike. District officials held almost daily conferences with the coal company officials or its association representatives. In addition, John Owens, International Secretary-Treasurer, contacted the Bituminous Coal Operators Association and asked them to immediately correct this contract violation.

On Saturday, March 7, the Y & O Coal Company agreed to reinstate the men with back pay and the men were so informed at a special meeting of the local union on March 8, 1970. The employees returned to work on March 9. Since that time, Mr. James Holland accepted the job as section foreman at the Allison Mine. Mr. Harry Baker returned to his job as a mechanic and is still a member of the safety committee. Mr. Jerry Hendricks, although reinstated, quit the coal industry in July and is reportedly working in Florida.

Because of this testimony, I have caused an investigation to be made in the districts to determine if any other mine safety committeemen have been discharged and what action was taken by the

47-135 O 7124

The Honorable

Harrison A. Williams, Jr.

Page Three

September 9, 1970

various districts. This preliminary investigation shows that on August 13, 1969, at the Vail Mine operated by the Island Creek Coal Company which is located in District 6, nine men were discharged when they refused to work because there was no communication between their section and the outside. Eight of these men were reinstated at the mine level, and one was reinstated at the joint board level. On April 13, 1970, two employees of the Rose Valley Mine operated by the Hanna Coal Company, were discharged because they refused to operate an unsafe rock duster. These men were reinstated after a meeting was held at the mine level. Although these latter cases do not involve mine safety committeemen, they did involve discharges over safety questions in District 6.

In District 5 over a period of many years only one safety committeeman has been discharged for shutting down a mine. This occurred on June 11, 1969. Richard Collins, an employee of the Peggs Run Coal Company, was discharged. Mr. Collins was returned to work with full seniority rights and back pay.

In District 17, three members of the safety committee at the Amherst Coal Company Mine #7 were discharged on August 22, 1969 after the safety committee had made certain recommendations. The company refused to comply with the committee's recommendations, whereupon, the men walked off the job and the safety committee followed. These employees then shut down the #2 mine of the Amherst Coal Company and also other mines in the area. The company contended that the parties were discharged, not for any safety reasons, but because they failed to perform their duties as mine safety committeemen. Again, upon the insistence of the District officials, these men were reinstated with back pay.

On January 26, 1970, Robert Pruitt, a safety committeeman employed by the Pocahontas Fuel Company located at Newhall, West Virginia, was discharged after the company had failed to make a preshift examination of the mine. The men refused to work. The company permitted Pruitt to work under protest while a grievance was being processed on the contention that Pruitt violated the agreement by interfering with the operation of the mine. However, before the grievance could be processed, the company withdrew its protest. Pruitt has continued to be an employee of the mine and a member of the safety committee.