tion (6) under section 8 (a), to include as an unfair labor practice on the part of any employer

to deduct from the employees' wages and dues, fees, assessments, or other contribution payable to labor organizations, or to collect or to assist in the collection of any such dues, fees, assessments, or other contribution.

We also approved the addition to section 8 which S. 1264 shows as section 8 (b), designed to raise the standard of union organization and administrative practice, to protect union members from wrongful acts of their leaders, and to discourage illegal and irresponsible actions by union leaders. We felt that the entire six proposed subsections were right and proper.

We desire to record our approval of section 9 (a) as revised in Senator Burke's bill, these revisions being designed to stop the Board from imposing upon employees representatives who were selected by a minority.

We favor the amplification of section 9 (b) as proposed in S. 1264, to limit the discretionary power of the Board in the selection of bargaining units: To force the Board to accept the wish of the workers.

The CHAIRMAN. You mentioned the amendment to protect the union members from their leaders. In your experience, do you think that there is a rather general demand on the part of the unions to be protected from their leaders?

Mr. STONEBRAKER. I think there is a general demand generally except the very radical labor people, to be protected from labor leaders. I think we all agree that quite a lot of the labor leaders are irresponsible and all that they have in mind is to stimulate or stir up strife and getting the unions organized, regardless of what the results may be thereafter, and I think that this union would be a-that this section would be a big help in probably the class of labor leaders that are put out in the field as organizers. Some of them seem to be very irresponsible.

The CHAIRMAN. In these States where you have passed reform or reactionary-whichever way you look at it-labor laws in the last legislature, such as Wisconsin, Oregon, and now Pennsylvania, was there agitation on the part of labor itself for these laws?"

Mr. STONEBRAKER. Was there agitation for these laws?

The CHAIRMAN. On the part of labor.

Mr. STONEBRAKER. That I could not say.

The CHAIRMAN. Have you in your experience throughout the South, have you found members of labor unions who feel that they need protection from their leaders anywhere?

Mr. STONEBRAKER. I should say yes, to a large extent. Except as I stated, the irrational labor leaders.

The CHAIRMAN. The labor leader would not be in favor of protecting somebody against himself?

Mr. STONEBRAKER. No; I should have said the laborers themselves. I think you will find in the South especially that the laborer is a little more-well, is not so radical in most cases as in the North, and there they are stronger to know who their labor leaders are and what they are doing, and not to do anything that would stir up strife.

The CHAIRMAN. Would you go so far as to say that throughout the South organized labor is not a popular movement yet?

Mr. STONEBRAKER. It is not as popular as it is in the North. It is popular as far as conservative labor unions are concerned, but it is not popular with the radical element that we sometimes have in these labor unions. The South is, I would say, in favor of conservative labor unions but not the radical ones that a majority of them I would say would ask to be protected against.

The CHAIRMAN. Then the sum and substance of your statement would be that where there are radical labor leaders, the labor members would like to be protected from them?

Mr. STONEBRAKER. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Not from the ordinary labor leader?

Mr. STONEBRAKER. Not generally; no, sir. Just where they are of that type that they would like to be protected from.

Senator TAFT. Your complaint is more against the organizers than the heads of the unions?

Mr. STONEBRAKER. That is it; more against the organizers and the type of organizers sometimes that they put out.

We feel that the proposed extension and revision of section 9 (c) as suggested in S. 1264, will assure the democratic choice of representatives and a free expression of the will of the workers, and will tend to assure more prompt determination of representation questions and discourage false claims.

The addition of a new subsection, (e), as set forth in S. 1264, will promote responsibility in labor organizations and discourage the conduct of union affairs by aliens and racketeers, in the opinion of those present at our meetings. That helps to cover that same question.

We were also unanimous in approval of section 10 (b) in S. 126, the proposed revisions and amplifications we considered well designed to provide for clarity and definiteness in the complaint, to provide for notification of intention to file charges, to extend the time for the answer to accord with Federal practice, to encourage a more judicial attitude in the amplification of rules of evidence, and to prevent amendments of complaints after hearing to fit the evidence. All of these objectives we agreed were highly to be desired.

In this connection, we have a record of a case where the A. F. of L. had called in conciliators from the Department of Labor. The A. F. of L., in trying to provoke or induce a complaint in order to scare the employer into signing an unsatisfactory agreement, had sought in vain for evidence of any violation of the act. Accordingly they brought a complaint before the conciliators, and this was in 1937, based on an alleged act of the employer in 1931, over 4 years prior to the passage of the act. I quote from the record of the hearing

The CHAIRMAN (interposing). Do you think that this record has been tampered with?

Mr. STONEBRAKER. No, sir; absolutely not. This is a stenographic copy of the record, the statement of the conciliator. He said:

I don't know when this happened. I don't care when it happened-whether it happened 2, 3, or 4 years ago.

As stated, this was a complaint made in 1937, based on an alleged violation of a 1935 law in 1931.

The CHAIRMAN. That is the conciliator of the Department of Labor?

Mr. STONEBRAKER. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Not of the Labor Board?

Mr. STONEBRAKER. No, sir; this is the conciliator from the Department of Labor. And 4 years before the passage of the act.

As stated, this was a complaint made in 1937 based on an alleged violation of a 1935 law in 1931. You can readily see our interest in subsection 10 (b), particularly in the provision that no complaint shall issue from the Board based on an alleged unfair labor practice occurring more than 6 months before the date of the complaint.

Without going more into detail, it was the unanimous feeling of those present at this meeting that Senator Burke's proposed amendments, as embodied in S. 1264 and S. 1580, reflected a very conscientious and thoroughgoing study of the problems involved, and the meeting therefore unanimously approved the Senator's proposed amendments in total, with the addition I have mentioned respecting section 4 (a) (the employment of conciliators from the Department of Labor).

It was the confident belief of those present that if these suggestions were enacted into law, that this law would be a real contribution to the prosperity of the country.

The CHAIRMAN. No amendment to the National Labor Relations Act would affect the Conciliation Department of the Department of Labor, would it?

Mr. STONEBRAKER. No. We mean that as a general statement.

The CHAIRMAN. But you have brought in something that has not occurred before in these hearings, a complaint about the Conciliation Department. We are generally given testimony, when the Labor Department has been mentioned-it has been praised. We have been surprised to hear the other sort of thing.

Mr. STONEBRAKER. We bring this is because Senator Burke suggests the conciliators still be used from the Department of Labor, and therefore we would suggest that that section not be left as it is. The CHAIRMAN. You do not like the conciliators?

Mr. STONEBRAKER. Our experience with the conciliators from the Department of Labor has been that they are being used by the unions to further their purposes to a large extent.

The CHAIRMAN. What would you suggest to be substituted?

Mr. STONEBRAKER. I would suggest that if this new board is set up, that they have their own conciliators instead of the concilia

tors

The CHAIRMAN (interposing). That is, you would like to see connected with the National Labor Relations Board a mediation and conciliation division?

Mr. STONEBRAKER. Free from bias in any way, and then to conciliate without any pressure from either the employer or from the Labor Department. We feel now that the conciliators are in very many cases favoring the Labor Department and the unions in order to help them to have unsatisfactory agreements signed with the employees. We do not feel that they are acting just fair, therefore our suggestion would be that that if a new National Labor Relations

Board is set up, that they have their own conciliators, unbiased in any way whatsoever. Absolutely all we are asking for or expect is a fair deal with our employees.

We in this industry are confronted with a serious situation due to the fact that there is a continual fight between the A. F. of L. and the C. I. O. each trying to get an advantage over the other. In numerous cases the shop work is under one, while the field erection work may be under the jurisdiction of the other. The result is that one union may refuse to put up, or to erect or install, products of shops under the jurisdiction of the other union, and the employer is caught between the opposing unions. We have a case of that kind that I have a record of here.

Unless there is a revision of the National Labor Relations Act that will enable employers to cope with this situation, there remains not only a burden on trade and commerce, but a potential cause for rioting and bloodshed. The act as it now stands, instead of promoting peaceful labor relations, causes just the opposite.

We believe that primarily and foremost is the necessity for the employer to be free to consult with his employees.

Generally speaking, this industry is a highly paid one, and we are glad that this is so, as we certainly are not in favor of starvation wages. In most cases we are not employers of large groups. In the smaller groups that we employ, our employees are one of us. We are familiar with each man and his family. His troubles are our troubles. Our most sincere wish is for peaceful industrial relations. We sincerely believe that these revisions of the National Labor Relations Act will go far in this direction, and will also go far in promoting business recovery, which, in our opinion, should be the greatest desire in the hearts of the American people, so that the thousands now walking the streets in idleness may find places again in gainful occupations and become self-supporting, self-respecting American citizens.

Senator ELLENDER. Does your association belong to the National Association of Manufacturers?

Mr. STONEBRAKER. As individuals. Quite a number of the individuals belong to the national association, not as an association. You see, our individuals-I suppose the biggest majority of them belong to the National Association of Manufacturers.

Senator ELLENDER. Do you know whether or not the other associations for whom you are speaking today belong to the National Association of Manufacturers?

Mr. STONEBRAKER. That I am representing here today?

Senator ELLENDER. Yes.

Mr. STONEBRAKER. Yes, sir. That is that we have members that belong to these associations.

Senator ELLENDER. I am talking about the membership.
Mr. STONEBRAKER. Generally speaking; yes, sir.

Senator ELLENDER. What has been the attitude of your associations and the one you represent as to unionization of your employees? Mr. STONEBRAKER. We do not object at all to labor unions that are not radical. We believe that if the employer has the right to talk things over with his employees, a peaceful solution can be arrived at where the employees may be unionized and yet work very peace

fully with the management, and the employee being allowed to sit down and talk things over; but the trouble with the bill is now that an employer is almost afraid to open his mouth to an employee for fear that it will be taken to the National Labor Relations Board and emphasized and maybe stretched out a dozen times and an unfair labor practice presented against him. For instance, if the union organizer comes into a shop, they will use this method very oftenthey will probably get in a shop of 50, they will probably get 8 or 10 or a dozen signed up. Then they will go from one to another and they will say "We have most of the men signed up now, and if you don't sign up now, we are going to have a closed shop pretty soon and you will be out of a job." And the employee, he does not know what to believe or what to do about it, and the employer is afraid to discuss it or talk it over with him in any way whatever, and maybe at that time the employer may know that the union does not have a majority and could not show a majority as bargaining agent, but at the same time-there are lots of things that we can talk over personally especially where as I say in our organization, industry, many of them employ 20 to 50, and in the smaller towns we associate with our employees, and we are glad to do that and to mix with them, and we would be glad to advise them on other things that would be helpful for peaceful labor negotiations both ways, for the employer and the employee. But as it is, we are afraid to do it.

Senator TAFT. What proportion of your plants are unionized, or were unionized, say, 3 years ago?

Mr. STONEBRAKER. I don't know-I would say-well, probably in Ohio and Pennsylvania and in the national association-this national association covers the bronze end of the industry. I would say probably 75 percent. In the South I do not suppose there is over 25 percent. There has not been much headway in organizing in the South in the last few years, because

Senator TAFT (interposing). What were your relations with the unions before the Wagner Act came in, and the relations with your employees in the North-were they friendly with the labor-union officials?

Mr. STONEBRAKER. In the South they were very friendly. I could not say especially for the North. I think possibly about the same

situation.

Senator TAFT. Had you had much record of strikes?

Mr. STONEBRAKER. No. We believe that this National Labor Relations Act has done more to cause strife than it has to make peaceful relations between the employer and the employee. I would state that without any qualifications whatever.

Senator TAFT. What was the union that you dealt with?
Mr. STONEBRAKER. The A. F. of L.

Senator TAFT. What is its name?

Mr. STONEBRAKER. The International Structural Steel and Ornamental Iron Workers, I believe, they called themselves. We are not interested in any fight between the C. I. O. and the A. F. of L. as to which shall be the bargaining agent, as far as we are concerned, any more than that they do get us in between them sometimes in a fight between themselves.