網頁圖片
PDF
ePub 版

The gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Ayres, is recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. AYRES. Mr. Zagri, you have presented a very fine statement, and insofar as the colloquy that has gone on between you and members of the committee regarding your fine organization's drive, I must say that you have done a good job in educating your members to the political operation of the Congress, and, frankly, I feel that you have just as much right to operate your drive organizations as the industrialists who are using 14(b) to vent some of their steam, which contribute huge sums to the National Right-to-Work Committee.

Frankly, I think they need a little education.

In talking with two of the members of the committee, contributing members, they were not aware, or at least they did not want to admit, that the repeal of 14(b) did not change the operation of organization at all. Is that not right?

Mr. ZAGRI. That is correct.

Mr. AYRES. In fact, it might be a good idea, since you have had so much experience in organizing committees-I remember you forced me to organize one, the Committee To Reelect the Hoffa-Threatened Congressmen. We did quite well. We elected 55 or 56 that you set out to defeat.

Mr. THOMPSON. I hope you are more thorough in organizing than Mr. Ayres was because I was on the list but he never invited me to be a member of his committee.

Mr. AYRES. It might be advisable, Mr. Zagri, if you were to start a committee for employer responsibility. Frankly, I am becoming a little discouraged with the lack of understanding of many of these people who are pushing this National Right-To-Work Committee, because they will not admit that under the present agreements that many of the industrials have bargained for they did not have to agree to the union shop.

Is that not correct?

Mr. ZAGRI. That is correct.

Mr. AYRES. Have the Teamsters, Mr. Zagri, not organized many employees where you did not have the union shop?

Mr. ZAGRI. As I stated in my opening statement, we have approximately 7.2 percent of our total membership who are not covered by union shop contracts in the 19 right-to-work States.

Mr. AYRES. Is it not true that in some States, such as Indiana, where the right-to-work law has been repealed, that you did not try to break the contract, but you are following through on the open shop agreement?

Mr. ZAGRI. Exactly. In many instances our contracts will not expire for another 18 months, and we will have to live under the terms of the open-shop provisions of that contract. When the contract date is opened, of course, we will then attempt to get a union shop agree

ment.

Mr. AYRES. When 14(b) is repealed, Mr. Zagri, do you anticipate stepped-up activity in the organizational field?

Mr. ZAGRI. Yes, I think that the repeal of 14 (b) will be great impetus to stepping up organization in this country. For one thing, I think it will have great psychological value.

Mr. AYRES. And the repeal of 14(b) will not change the election machinery in any way?

Mr. ZAGRI. None whatsoever.

Mr. AYRES. You will still have to get 30 percent of the employees before you can get an election?

Mr. ZAGRI. That is correct.

Mr. AYRES. And better than 50 percent will have to vote to recognize your union.

Mr. ZAGRI. That is correct.

Mr. AYRES. And then you will sit down across the collective-bargaining table and decide whether or not you are going to have a union shop or an open shop.

Mr. ŽAGRI. That is exactly right.

Mr. AYRES. Would it not be advisable, Mr. Zagri-let me put it this way: Would you have any objection to the election machinery being reviewed so that these elections could be stepped up, speeded up, and to make certain that in each instance there actually had to be an election rather than the organizer going to the employer with 51 percent of the employees signing cards, and saying, "Let's sit down and bargain"?

Do you feel that there should be an election in each case? In other words, the individual that signs a card for an election should be given the opportunity to vote?

Mr. ZAGRI. On the first part of your question, I would like to state that I would favor any procedure which would speed up representation elections. I know the Board has made some progress in the last 3 years in speeding up the time lapse between the presentation of a petition for election and the actual determination of the election by the Board.

If an election were held in each instance where cards were presented, we would be faced with the problem of increasing the membership or staff of the NLRB considerably in order to take care of the tremendous number of elections that would be required.

Mr. AYRES. I believe Congress would appropriate the money so that they could hire the staff.

My question to you, Mr. Zagri, is, Do you not feel that each person who signs a card for an election should be given the opportunity to vote?

For

Mr. ZAGRI. Actually, this is practically the situation now. example, if we have the cards and present them to the employer, and a competing union feels that these cards are phony, let's say, or that the same individual has signed cards in both of the competing unions, the Board will order an election in every case.

As a matter of fact, this is the decision of the Board in Midarest Piping, and it says:

One of the reasons for the Midwest Piping rule is the NLRB view that authorization cards are notoriously an unreliable method of determining the majority States of the unions, where competing unions are soliciting cards, because of the duplications which then occur (Sunbeam Corporation, NLRB, 1952).

So I would say that the problem you raise is, of course, a real one. and the Board, I think, is handling it in almost all cases in the manner in which you suggest.

Mr. AYRES. But you feel that each person that signs the card should be given the opportunity to vote?

Mr. ZAGRI. Yes; if there is any question about whether or not the union represents the majority in the plant; yes.

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. Ayres, I am sorry, but we are going to ask Mr. Zagri to come back and we will resume with your questioning.

First, did Winn-Dixie illegally refuse to bargain with employees? The Court id:

"We find substantial evidence on the record considered as a whole to support e holding of the Board (concerning procedures requesting bargaining) and at respondents (Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc.) violated section 8(a) (5) and (1) of e act (the Taft-Hartley Act) in refusing to bargain with the union."

I ask, Mr. Speaker, does this sound like an attempt to "keep Taft-Hartley Act tact and protect fundamental American rights"?

Second, did Winn-Dixie illegally demand that employees should provide the mpany with statements given under protection of the law by employees to the LRB?

The court said:

"We approve the following language of the Board's decision on this point." The Board was concerned that if the employers "knew of the employees' stateents to them, what they contained, or how the union was viewed, it would exert n inhibitory effect on the employee's willingness to give a statement at all or isclose all of the matters of which he has knowledge for fear of saying somening that might incur the employer's displeasure and possible reprisal,” and sued orders to Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., to cease its activities in this respect. Mr. Speaker, does this charge bear out the adevrtisement's statement that the ommittee of which Mr. Davis is cochairman-and the members of it desired o "safeguard an employee's right to make a free choice regarding union Jembership"?

Third, did Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., illegally interrogate employees as to their lesire for a union? The U.S. court of appeals says it did, and that it should ot have interfered in

"Matters of union membership (discussion of) the nature of extent of union activity, or (the dissuasion of) employees from joining or remaining members of a union or otherwise to interfere with the statutory right to self-organiaztion." Mr. Speaker, does this finding bear out the statement of the committee-of which Mr. Davis was cochairman--and its members that it is in favor of placing reasonable restraints on the powers of each group involved?

Fourth, and last, did Winn-Dixie illegally threaten reprisals against employees, including the threat to close the store if the employees there voted for a union? If Winn-Dixie did, then it is guilty of a dastardly action, threatening reprisals against a group which cannot defend itself, and which fears that its very means of livelihood might be taken away. The court said:

"We find substantial evidence on the record supporting the Board's conclusion that respondents violated section 8(a) (1) (of the Taft-Hartley Act) by interrogation and threats of reprisal, including a threat to close the Owensboro store in event a majority of the employees authorized the union to become their bargaining representatives."

Does this square with the assertion of Mr. Davis, as a member of the committee, that he desires to assure the fundamental right of every American to work in his chosen occupation?

Can it be said, Mr. Speaker, that it was only one store of a number of stores owned by the Winn-Dixie Co., Inc., which did these dastardly things, and that Mr. Davis, as president of the company cannot be connected with the action of one of its stores?

No, Mr. Speaker, as the U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth District, Cincinnati said: "The parent corporation, respondent Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., is liable together with its susidiary for the unfair labor practices found with respect to the Owensboro store."

It further said that:

"The respondents have common officers, directors, and operators; that the common directors and operators formulate and administer a common labor policy for both respondents; that the same directors sit as the ultimate managerial authority for both the parent and subsidiary; and that the basic labor relations policy of the subsidiary emanates from the headquarters of the parent corporation in Jacksonville, Fla."

In order to realize the extent of the dangers inherent in the actions of the Taft-Hartley busting company known as Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., it must be realized that this is a giant corporation, for as the U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth District, Cincinnati, said:

EXHIBIT I-A

[From the Congressional Record, May 11, 1965]

PRESERVING THE TAFT-HARTLEY ACT

Extension of remarks of Hon. John J. Gilligan, of Ohio, in the House of Representatives, Tuesday, May 11, 1965

Mr. GILLIGAN. Mr. Speaker, the Citizens Committee To Preserve Taft-Hartley, a national organization headquartered in Washington, D.C., inserted a full-page advertisement in the Washington Post on May 4, 1965.

The purpose of the advertisement was to form public opinion to support retention of section 14 (b) of the Taft-Hartley Act. It was entitled "Keep the TaftHartley Act Intact and Protect Fundamental American Rights."

As I read the advertisement, Mr. Speaker, I was delighted by the high aims of this group of citizens. I read that the committee sought to "safeguard an employee's right to make a free choice regarding union membership." Further, I found that the committee was working to prevent serious weakening of "the fundamental right of every American to work in his chosen occupation."

What American could deny that these are desirable goals? Impressed by these statements, I read further. An interesting statement of the beliefs of the committee was presented:

"We believe that good labor-management relations depend upon the proper balancing of the rights of individual wage earners, labor organizations, and employers, so that the interests of all are served.

"We believe that the Taft-Hartley Act helps to achieve this balance by placing reasonable restraints on the powers of each group involved."

Finally, the committee stated that the President and the Congress should stand firm against pressures to reduce the effectiveness of the Taft-Hartley Act.

As I read the advertisement, I wondered who are these fine businessmen who are willing to stand up to be counted publicly on the side of the American workingman and to defend him against all sorts of unlawful abuses? What forward looking men they must be who pledged themselves to protect an important Federal law regardless of the consequences, and who felt that they had a duty to "protect fundamental American rights."

I must confess that I was shocked, Mr. Speaker, at the very first name heading the list of 34 active committeemen. It was none other than Mr. A. D. Davis, president of the Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., cochairman of the committee.

I recognized the name of this company, Mr. Speaker, because it was involved in a Federal court action in the city of Cincinnati in my district just 9 weeks ago. The court action involved the findings against the Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., made by the National Labor Relations Board that the company was guilty of unfair labor practices, and that it had violated the Labor Management Relations Act, otherwise known as the Taft-Hartley Act.

The National Labor Relations Board (143 N.L.R.B. No. 848) had found that the Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., was guilty of four charges of unfair labor practices. The company had:

First. Illegally refused to bargain with employees.

Second. Illegally demanded that employees should provide the company with statements given under protection of the law by the employees to investigators from the National Labor Relations Board.

Third. Illegally interrogated employees as to their desire for a union. Fourth. Illegally threatened reprisals against employees, including the threat to close the store if the employees there voted for a union.

There are very serious findings, Mr. Speaker, which were made by the National Labor Relations Board a Federal Government agency set up to enforce the TaftHartley Act and to prevent abuses to both employers and workingmen.

The Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., refused to abide by the finding of unfair labor practices by the NLRB, and would not respect its working people as bargainers for wages. It was necessary for Mr. Arnold Ordman, General Counsel for the NLRB to bring the Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., before the U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth District, Cincinnati, for trial. The case is known as the National Labor Relations Board against Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., and Winn-Dixie Louisville, Inc., and was decided on February 27, 1965, just 9 weeks ago.

Were the Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., guilty of unfair labor practices as charged? The U.S. court of appeals agreed with the NLRB and sustained the findings against the company.

First, did Winn-Dixie illegally refuse to bargain with employees? The Court said:

"We find substantial evidence on the record considered as a whole to support the holding of the Board (concerning procedures requesting bargaining) and that respondents (Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc.) violated section 8(a) (5) and (1) of the act (the Taft-Hartley Act) in refusing to bargain with the union."

I ask, Mr. Speaker, does this sound like an attempt to "keep Taft-Hartley Act intact and protect fundamental American rights"?

Second, did Winn-Dixie illegally demand that employees should provide the company with statements given under protection of the law by employees to the NLRB?

The court said:

"We approve the following language of the Board's decision on this point."

The Board was concerned that if the employers "knew of the employees' statements to them, what they contained, or how the union was viewed, it would exert an inhibitory effect on the employee's willingness to give a statement at all or disclose all of the matters of which he has knowledge for fear of saying something that might incur the employer's displeasure and possible reprisal," and issued orders to Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., to cease its activities in this respect.

Mr. Speaker, does this charge bear out the adevrtisement's statement that the committee of which Mr. Davis is cochairman-and the members of it desired to "safeguard an employee's right to make a free choice regarding union membership"?

Third, did Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., illegally interrogate employees as to their desire for a union? The U.S. court of appeals says it did, and that it should not have interfered in

"Matters of union membership (discussion of) the nature of extent of union activity, or (the dissuasion of) employees from joining or remaining members of a union or otherwise to interfere with the statutory right to self-organiaztion." Mr. Speaker, does this finding bear out the statement of the committee-of which Mr. Davis was cochairman--and its members that it is in favor of placing reasonable restraints on the powers of each group involved?

Fourth, and last, did Winn-Dixie illegally threaten reprisals against employees, including the threat to close the store if the employees there voted for a union? If Winn-Dixie did, then it is guilty of a dastardly action, threatening reprisals against a group which cannot defend itself, and which fears that its very means of livelihood might be taken away. The court said:

"We find substantial evidence on the record supporting the Board's conclusion that respondents violated section 8(a) (1) (of the Taft-Hartley Act) by interrogation and threats of reprisal, including a threat to close the Owensboro store in event a majority of the employees authorized the union to become their bargaining representatives."

Does this square with the assertion of Mr. Davis, as a member of the committee, that he desires to assure the fundamental right of every American to work in his chosen occupation?

Can it be said, Mr. Speaker, that it was only one store of a number of stores owned by the Winn-Dixie Co., Inc., which did these dastardly things, and that Mr. Davis, as president of the company cannot be connected with the action of one of its stores?

No, Mr. Speaker, as the U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth District, Cincinnati said: "The parent corporation, respondent Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., is liable together with its susidiary for the unfair labor practices found with respect to the Owensboro store."

It further said that:

"The respondents have common officers, directors, and operators; that the common directors and operators formulate and administer a common labor policy for both respondents; that the same directors sit as the ultimate managerial authority for both the parent and subsidiary; and that the basic labor relations policy of the subsidiary emanates from the headquarters of the parent corporation in Jacksonville, Fla."

In order to realize the extent of the dangers inherent in the actions of the Taft-Hartley busting company known as Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., it must be realized that this is a giant corporation, for as the U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth District, Cincinnati, said:

« 上一頁繼續 »