網頁圖片
PDF
ePub 版

Lunn, Charles E., D.D., pastor, University Heights Baptist Church, Spring-
field, Mo., statement of....

Lyons, John H., general president, International Association of Bridge,
Structural & Ornamental Iron Workers, statement of...
Majors, Loise, legislative representative, Local 90 ACWA, telegram from__
May, Arnold N., president, A. N. May Builders, Inc., Richmond, Ill., letter
to Chairman Thompson, dated May 14, 1965---
Moerdler, Charles G., president, New York Young Republican Club, letter
to Chairman Powell, dated May 19, 1965, enclosing article in New York
Herald Tribune entitled, "Mayor Hit for Inaction on Building Bias"-

Moore, Mack A., associate professor, School of Industrial Management,

Georgia Tech, statement by..

Mott, William C., executive vice president, U.S. Independent Telephone
Association, letter to Chairman Thompson, dated June 11, 1965---
Murphy, D. Hayes, chairman, the Wiremold Co., Hartford, Conn., state-
ment by..

Page

1002

919

997

956

1006

900

1000

[blocks in formation]

National Farmers Union, press release entitled, "NFU Blasts Taft-Hart-
ley Organization".

988

Packard, Arthur J., chairman, Governmental Affairs Committee, Ameri-
can Hotel & Motel Association, statement of__

978

Pollock, William, president, Textile Workers Union of America, AFL-
CIO, statement of

921

Quill, Michael J., international president, Transport Workers Union of
America, AFL-CIO, telegram from..

997

Robinson, H. Delmer, Jr., president, National Apple Institute, letter to
Chairman Thompson, dated April 29, 1965

990

Schaufenenbil, Francis, secretary-treasurer, United Textile Workers of
America, letter to Chairman Thompson, dated June 1, 1965_-.

1022

Shull, Leon, national director, Americans for Democratic Action, letter to
Chairman Thompson, dated June 9, 1965---

987

Smith, Celestia S., statement of

1004

Smith, Milan D., National Canners Association, letter to Chairman
Thompson, dated June 3, 1965-

937

State of Alaska, Senate Joint Resolution No. 52-

951

Stolk, William C., chairman, American Can Co., and chairman, Subcom-

mittee on Labor Policy Research and Policy Committee of the Com-
mittee for Economic Development, statement of ---

991

REPEAL OF SECTION 14(b) OF THE LABOR-MANAGE

MENT RELATIONS ACT OF 1947

FRIDAY, JUNE 4, 1965

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SPECIAL SUBCOMMITTEE ON LABOR

OF THE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR,

Washington, D.C.

The subcommittee met at 10 a.m., pursuant to recess, in room 2175, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Frank Thompson, Jr. (chairman of the subcommittee), presiding.

Present: Representatives Thompson, O'Hara, Scott, Sickles, Griffin, and Andrews.

Also present: Representatives Gibbons and Ford.

Staff present: Robert E. McCord, director of the subcommittee; and Mike Bernstein, counsel to the minority.

Mr. THOMPSON. The subcommittee will be in order.

On yesterday afternoon unhappily we ran out of time and the Chair said to Mr. Simunich that his statement would have to appear in the record rather than to be given.

In view of the fact that one of the witnesses scheduled for today will be unable to be here, Mr. Schmidt, whose statement we will put in the record, the Chair will recognize Mr. Simunich first.

Mr. GRIFFIN. Mr. Chairman, I understand that the National Association of Orchestra Leaders, or whatever the official name of the group is, on behalf of Mr. Schmidt who was to testify, are represented here this morning.

Was it the intention of the Chair not to listen to the person who is appearing here in place of Mr. Schmidt?

Mr. THOMPSON. It was the Chair's intention to put Mr. Schmidt's testimony in full into the record and give his time to Mr. Simunich in view of his absence.

Mr. GRIFFIN. I think that the request was made on behalf of this group and Mr. Schmidt was unable to represent them. They want to appear. I just think that it would be a rather unfortunate and arbitrary decision from their point of view not to let their representative appear.

Mr. THOMPSON. The Chair doesn't mean to be unfair to them but we are in possession of a statement by Godfrey P. Schmidt and it is accompanied by a rather lengthy letter in addition. Mr. Schmidt isn't here. He couldn't be examined with respect to his statement and the letter. I see no unfairness about it. I rather think that it would be less fair to the members of the committee to have someone read his statement who didn't write it.

Mr. BEN CUTLER (National Association of Orchestra Leaders). Mr. Chairman, I am the proxy for Mr. Schmidt and I request permission to read Mr. Schmidt's statement and I am familiar with all the contents and am in a position to answer any questions that might be put to me about the content of his speech. I request permission to read his statement which was prepared only yesterday from a sickbed and he requested me to come down.

Mr. THOMPSON. I understand he is ill and I am sorry that he is. Mr. CUTLER. May I have permission to read his statement on behalf of the association?

Mr. THOMPSON. I think that we will proceed. I will have the subcommittee go into executive session for a few minutes to discuss that matter later.

Mr. CUTLER. Does that mean that we may not be able to appear this morning?

Mr. THOMPSON. It means that the subcommittee will go into executive session and I want to discuss the matter with the subcommitee and see what the

Mr. CUTLER. As to whether we can appear or not?

Mr. THOMPSON. Yes.

Mr. CUTLER. Thank you.

Mr. THOMPSON. Good morning, sir. You may proceed. Glad to have you back this morning.

STATEMENT OF BERNARD SIMUNICH, CHICAGO, ILL.

Mr. SIMUNICH. In view of the special attention that was given to section 9(a) yesterday I am especially appreciative of the chairman's consideration. I think I have some very substantial testimony, practical testimony, to offer on this point.

I am Bernard Simunich. Up to last week I was a charter member of local 1199, Chicago, IUE. I have been unionized and NLRBized out of a job and my right to work.

I thank the chairman and the committee for the privilege of testifying.

In keeping with the rules of the committee I will briefly outline my testimony-which is my experience as a member of a voluntary union which became a compulsory union, controlled by the same union officials in the same plant, operated by the same management.

This testimony will show that union security of the individual worker can best be had in a voluntary union, in which a membership card is a worker's sign of distinction, and more than just a right to work. It also shows that security for union officials lies in a compulsory union.

What I say here is substantiated by minutes from grievance meetings, NLRB letters, Justice Department letters, records from the Circuit Court of Cook County, court reporter transcripts, a union legal admission of criminal conspiracy to defeat the act, miscellaneous papers signed by union stewards, chief stewards, assistant chief stewards, management letters, and other management documents.

In our 1948 voluntary union the worker's rights to job security under the union constitution were best protected on a "do-it-ourselves" basis; so that most of our troubles with union representation stopped almost

as soon as trouble began; because for example, if union officials betrayed the union constitution by failing to process a grievance, we would talk about stopping the payment of dues as a corrective action. The threat of withdrawing from the union was enough to insure better concern over the union membership.

To that extent we controlled our officials. We never had such a basic problem as a refusal to process a grievance.

In 1950 it was different after the men voted in the compulsory union with automatic collection of dues for the union by the company. No free riders. I talked against compulsion and went on record against it. I refused to join the union.

Finally the company and union called me into the office and told me that if I didn't join the union immediately, I lost my right to work. It was a shotgun union which turned the union gentry into tall men, and made shadows out of the worker.

Once compulsion was established, the same union officials openly tolerated the company's violations of the labor agreement. Relief through grievance procedure was more uncertain. The threat of withdrawing from the union was useless because that meant the loss of their right to work. Compulsion gave company and union the chance to discipline any worker who disagreed with them. That explains the treatment of my grievance in 1951.

My steward tried to process my 1951 grievance on seniority violation but the chief steward kept it in his pocket. The steward body of 30 men ordered the chief steward to process it, and were ignored. The local membership in quarterly meetings directed the grievance committee to process the grievance and they were ignored. The membership was ineffective-they were shadows.

In April 1952, my relations with top company and union officials. became so harassing to me that I offered to quit my job as soon as the 1951 grievance was heard-regardless of the outcome; and I asked management for a letter of recommendation.

The letter was short, very conservative, but nevertheless a good recommendation dated April 25, 1952. However, the company made no effort to clear away my grievance; so I talked to NLRB about it.

On June 2, 1952, the officer of the day wrote a Taft-Hartley charge in my name against company and union for refusal to process the grievance. He assured me that the grievance would have to be processed. The case was turned over to Lawyer-Investigator I. M. Lieberman who repeated that assurance to me.

Ten weeks later the NLRB advised me that my charges were dismissed because there was "insufficient evidence" of violations. My repeated appeals to Washington NLRB were so useless that I wondered if my letters to Mr. Lieberman and Director Ross Madden were actually in the file sent to Washington on appeal. The files were secret and no information was given me except unbelievable explanations of the meaning of the simple worded section 9 (a).

In 1953, during a plant meeting-still determined to have my griev ance processed-I paraded a placard bearing the legend "Hear My Grievance" down the middle aisle of the meeting. My pleas to the membership were overcome by the officials' malicious and slanderous replies.

« 上一頁繼續 »