« AnteriorContinuar »
Mr. WILTSE. I presume it would.
The CHAIRMAN. I always find myself between two urges here, one to not cut off anything that anyone wants to say, and the other to be fair to the people who still want to come on.
Mr. WILTSE. This is what I left as a written argument in our case, and as I say, the truth lives. I had not looked at this document since it was presented, but I read it over this morning after I got up, and I will say that I read it with satisfaction because it seemed to me to ring with truth and to cover the complaint as far as we see it, and the injustices in this prior case are recorded right in this one paper.
The CHAIRMAN. It will be made a part of the files in connection with the hearing.
(The brief referred to was filed with the committee.)
Mr. WILTSE. There are one or two things more.
After we settled the case-I heard yesterday about people employing spies, and so forth, in the plants, and while I think that any employer ought to have the right to employ someone to find out what is going on in his plant if he thinks that sabotage is being worked or that things of that kind are going on; it is not a disgraceful thing; we never do it, but I heard the testimony yesterday as though it were a terrible crime for someone to protect his own industry by putting in a few friends. You cannot run with all enemies on your pay roll, and all working against you and all determined that you shall not have a single man representing you in the plant. That don't go.
Just to show you how things of that kind go on-one of these strikers, William E. Mattingly, was one of the most vicious types of fellows that I have ever had contact with. I sympathized with him; I employed him at one time when he was let out of a plant of Thomas P. Henry, of Detroit, because he had scabbed, and the proprietor had immediately turned around after assuring him that he would have a job and settled with the union people and threw him out of workafter promising him work. I sympathized with him and put him on our pay roll, and he was an employee-he admitted in the testimony here in Washington that he came in there as a representative of Harry Reifen, employed as a spy on us.
It works both ways, you know. The employers are not the only ones that have spies in the plants; in fact, Roy L. Tucker admitted here in Washington that he was in the Ann Arbor Press purely and solely as an employee of the Typographical Union, and that he collected all kinds of evidence that we were in interstate commerce, and he turned over printed samples, and he watched our work all the time that he was in there in the employ of the Typographical Union, and we asked him how many plants he had worked in in the last 7 years, and he said that he had worked in 500 plants for the Typographical Union. This fellow admitted that he came in there purely as a representative, and it is a part of the record of Henry A. Reifen. We asked him, "Weren't you working for the Ann Arbor Press? You were taking their money?" And he said, "Well, they thought I was." That is the way they formulated and fomented their strike with that kind of people. There were at least three people that were professional strike-makers placed in our plant to organize and make
the trouble. If it was not for any other purpose-it was not that they wanted to affect commerce, it was that they wanted to organize the Ann Arbor Press and collect dues as a shake-down of the workers. But anyway, here are some checks that we received from the Michigan Mutual Fire Insurance Co.
When we had this strike, we had insurance of $200,000 in our plant, because we were afraid that they would blow it up or burn it up or do something to it, and we caught this fellow in a sabotage case. He had destroyed $1,800 worth in 1 week of work where he had changed letters in jobs just going to the press or had misspelled words purposely and had done it after proofreading had been done. I took it up with our insurance company and they immediately paid us $500 in settlement on it. We could not sue the insurance company and be sure of getting the money, so I went peaceably to them and asked them what they would do about it, and they settled for $500. There are the photostatic copies of the checks for sabotage directly worked on us by a member of the Typographical Union.
The CHAIRMAN. What did you do with the man?
Mr. WILTSE. I discharged him, and they have been trying to force him back onto our pay roll ever since. That was since this agreement was entered into. And I have had trouble with them because of this case at meeting after meeting. I fired him for what they say was union activity-that is the kind of stuff right there, union activity. Gentlemen, that about closes all that I have here. I had some good letters to read, but I know that your time is short, and I appreciate having the opportunity to come down and argue with you, and if I have done any good, I know one thing is sure; I come here with clean hands. There are no outside interests; I belong to no manufacturing association or any other association attempting to get any legislation shoved through Congress. It is just the injustice of this act that I am attacking, and I would like to see it righted, because I have a couple of boys and for them I want to see this Government become one in which there is personal liberty as well as collective bargaining. I believe the highest duty of the Senate or Congress is to protect personal liberty, the liberty of the individual citizen who is the unit. We should care nothing about united organizations, we should have no class legislation supporting the Masonic order or the Knights of Columbus, or any private outside organizations such as labor unions. We need not favor them. They collect huge sums with which to battle and protect their rights. An employer wants good men to work for him, and the good man has always got a chance. We are searching for him every day and trying to find him-if there are good and clean and conscientious workmen, we want them, and we do not want to lose them. We are just as desirous of having good labor relations as they are, but what we need in this country now far more than to have the guaranty of the rights of collective bargaining is a guaranty of the rights of individual bargaining, the rights of the small, helpless, individual citizen of the country, and I know that you men of the Senate, the country has been good to you and placed you in high office, and I think that every one of you ought to rise up to the statesmanship at this time, which will bring about again the guaranty of personal liberty, more essential than any collective liberty which can be imagined.
Senator THOMAS. Thank you.
(By direction of the Chairman, the following letter and clipping are placed in the record at this point, at the request of Senator Holman.)
Hon. RUFUS C. HOLMAN,
United States Senator, Washington, D. C.
OREGON WORSTED Co., Portland Oreg., June 2, 1939.
DEAR RUFUS: In last evening's Oregon Journal my attention was called to a dispatch under a Washington date line of June 1 concerning testimony given by Mr. Madden, Chairman of the National Labor Relations Board, wherein he charged certain employers with engaging spies in connection with their laborrelations problems, and the Oregon Worsted Co. was named as one.
This surprises me very much, for such is not a fact, and I don't know where Mr. Madden got his information to support such a statement so far as the Oregon Worsted Co. is concerned. We belong to the National Manufacturers' Association, the National Wool Manufacturers' Association, the Portland Chamber of Commerce, the Industrial Relations Committee, and other organizations which carry on activities in connection with industrial and business affairs, but I feel quite certain none of them employ any spies, and if they do, such service has never been offered to us, nor have we used it. Further than this, I am immediately familiar with every item of expense and every activity incidental to the operation of the Oregon Worsted Co., and I positively know not a "red cent" has ever been spent for any secret service, nor have we ever attempted to set up a means or a facility for getting secret information. In the natural course of events there have been current rumors of what was going on in labor and union matters which we have heard of, but whatever we got was voluntarily offered, was not solicited, and was not paid for.
I don't know that it would do us any good to have you use the foreging, for we are still under the fire of the Board, and anything we do is going to be used against us, which will add further to our annoyance and expense. I did want you to have the knowledge, however, and if you feel the case of sufficient importance you can use your own judgment as to whether or not it should be used.
I note by the papers General Martin is in Washington, and as he has taken quite a part in these matters I would be glad if you would show him this letter if the opportunity presents itself.
With my kindest regards, I remain,
OREGON WORSTED, CO.,
By Roy T. BISHOP, President.
WASHINGTON, June 1 (U. P.).—Chairman J. Warren Madden today recommended enactment of the La Follette bill to regulate employment during strikes and outlaw use of labor spies as a means of curbing vicious practices which he said still are current in American industry.
Madden, in testimony before a Senate labor subcommittee, said enactment of the measure would meet certain deficiencies in the National Labor Relations Act. Experience of the Board, he said, "shows that certain particularly vicious practices still persist in considerable measure to obstruct the right of organization and collective bargaining." He listed nearly 50 corporations which he said the Board had found "engaged in espionage on union activities."
The bill was drafted by Senator Robert M. La Follette, Progressive of Wisconsin, on information developed by the Senate Civil Liberties Committee. Violations would be punishable by fines and imprisonment and by placing the violator on a blacklist making him ineligible to bid for Government contracts. "The National Labor Relations Act is today the chief bulwark upon which reliance is placed for this protection (of the right to organize and bargain collectively)." Madden said, "Despite the notable results of that statute in affording effective opportunity of organization to millions of previously unorganized workmen, it must not be assumed that nothing more need be done." He declared that the "demoralizing effect" of the use of labor spies to counteract union activity "can hardly be exaggerated."
Madden read into the record a list of firms and persons, asserting that N. L. R. B. investigation has revealed that they used labor espionage. list included Oregon Worsted Co. and Crossett Lumber Co.
The (Whereupon, at 11:50 a. m., a recess was taken until 2 o'clock of the same day.)
(The hearing reconvened at 2 p. m.)
The CHAIRMAN. The next witness is Mr. W. R. Wright, of the Atlas Underwear Co.
Mr. Wright, will you give your name and address, and your representation, and any other facts that you care to give for the record?
STATEMENT OF W. R. WRIGHT, OF FEDERATED INDUSTRIAL UNION, LOCAL 210, PIQUA, OHIO
Mr. WRIGHT. My name is W. R. Wright. I represent the Federated Industrial Union, Local 210, of Piqua, Ohio. I am here of my own free will. My expenses are being paid by said local. purpose here is not to offer any suggestions as to what should be done to the Labor Act, the Wagner Act, or offer any amendments. My sole purpose is to prove conclusively to the committee that the National Labor Relations Board has acted in collusion with the C. I. O. and are dominated by the C. I. O.
The CHAIRMAN. Is your local unaffiliated?
Mr. WRIGHT. We are affiliated with the Federated Industrial Union; that is an independent union; its headquarters are at Buffalo, N. Y.
The CHAIRMAN. How big a union is the Federated Industrial Union?
Mr. WRIGHT. I would not be able to answer that. It is growing so rapidly that I have not been able to keep up with it. The Federated Industrial Union, as the name implies, was a union that was started in Buffalo, N. Y., approximately 6 years ago. The purpose of the inauguration of the union was to buck the so-called company unions which were legal at that time; in other words, the man who started this did not think that the worker was getting just representation by the so-called company unions, and he inaugurated this union, one local of it.
Senator BURKE. Who was that?
Mr. WRIGHT. Mr. Herbert Schiffhauer. He is the founder and the national president.
The CHAIRMAN. How many members has it by now?
Mr. WRIGHT. I have just stated that I would not be able to know because it is growing so rapidly. He probably has 30 and 40 locals. Senator BURKE. Is it confined to a certain type of industry?
Mr. WRIGHT. No; it is not confined to any certain type of industry, and I might add here that it is a nonprofit union as far as he is concerned. There are no paid officers either of the national organization or of a local organization affiliated with him.
The CHAIRMAN. You do not mean that you have no dues at all? Mr. WRIGHT. No; I did not say that. I say there are no salaries paid to any officers in the union.
The CHAIRMAN. How does it maintain itself?
Mr. WRIGHT. It maintains itself by dues paid by the members monthly.
The CHAIRMAN. Take your case, for example. You are down here representing your local, and your local pays your way here, I suppose? Mr. WRIGHT. That is correct.
The CHAIRMAN. But there is no one in your local that draws any pay?
Mr. WRIGHT. That is correct. There is no one in any local or any national office that draws any pay.
The CHAIRMAN. Then you have what might be termed a labor union made up entirely of workers, because these people are not independent in means, are they? They derive their income from their work instead of working for workers?
Mr. WRIGHT. I do not grasp the significance of that question, Senator.
The CHAIRMAN. How does your president live?
Mr. WRIGHT. He is a worker.
The CHAIRMAN. Then he only gets his income from his employer? Mr. WRIGHT. That is correct.
The CHAIRMAN. And the union itself has no employees?
Mr. WRIGHT. Correct.
The CHAIRMAN. Excepting probably a stenographer or something like that?
Mr. WRIGHT. No employees is the word.
Senator BURKE. It is really a union of workers?
Mr. WRIGHT. That is correct.
Senator BURKE. Although they may serve as officers of the union, they make their living by the fact that they are on the pay roll of industries?
Mr. WRIGHT. That is correct.
The CHAIRMAN. Now, may I ask you this next question: Have you any theories of unionization at all?
Mr. WRIGHT. I have many theories of unionization, but I do not think that this is the time nor the place to expound my theories.
The CHAIRMAN. If I can make it simpler, you would take an industrial union in or you would take a craft union in; it would not make any difference, or would it?
Mr. WRIGHT. We take any unit in which wishes to take a charter and become members; yes.
The CHAIRMAN. One more question so that we can get these various relationships. You are not in any sense a party to the C. I. O. or the A. F. of L. fight?
Mr. WRIGHT. No; we are just in between. We are fighting both of them.
The CHAIRMAN. Are you caught in the middle of the fight?
Mr. WRIGHT. Correct. We are caught between the C. I. Ö. and the A. F. of L. and the Labor Board; we are in a terrible shape between them.
I will touch briefly on a few points here. Please remember that my sole purpose here is to prove conclusively that the Board is domineered by the C. I. O. specifically.
About June 1, 1938, the employees of the Atlas Underwear Co.'s Piqua plant decided that although there was a T. W. O. C. local