fer to other agencies, and issuance of cease-and-desist orders. Thus, 94 percent of the cases have been adjusted before reaching the stage of formal hearing. Of the total cases closed, 2,059 were strike cases involving 356,264 workers, and of these, 1,547, or about 75 percent, were settled and 227,603 workers were reinstated after strikes and lockouts. An additional 15,083 workers were reinstated after discriminatory discharges.

Now, judging from that, Mr. Clarke, of 20,192 cases that were filed with the Board up to April 1, 1939, 6 percent of them reached the Board, and I notice from your own statement that all of yours have reached the Board, have they not?

Mr. CLARKE. No.

Senator ELLENDER. You fought them through all stages?

Mr. CLARKE. There are many of the cases that we have had where the Board did not issue a complaint and did not go to hearing after they found that we would not settle.

Senator ELLENDER. In other words, they looked into them and dismissed them?

Mr. CLARKE. The cases I have indicated are the only cases that have gone to the Board out of possibly 25 or more cases.

Senator ELLENDER. How many cases, if this is a fair question, how many cases have you handled altogether since the Wagner Act has been in force?

Mr. CLARKE. Twenty-five, probably; that is my estimate.
Senator ELLENDER. How many have been settled?

Mr. CLARKE. None have been settled.

Senator ELLENDER. You have gone to court with all of them?

Mr. CLARKE. No; most of them have been dismissed by the Board after they found that I would not settle them.

Senator ELLENDER. If you would not settle, that was after an investigation was made and they found that there was no evidence? Mr. CLARKE. You can put it either way.

Senator ELLENDER. I am not interested in putting it in any way except the right way.

Mr. CLARKE. An effort is made is almost every case to secure a settlement from the employer-in almost every case. No doubt an investigation took place, and a part of that investigation was whether or not we would settle.

Senator ELLENDER. Of the 25 cases, how many did you actually join in compromising with them?

Mr. CLARKE. None.

Senator ELLENDER. I thought so.

Senator BURKE. Does not your record show the number of cases now pending before the Board? I think Mr. Clarke said there were 4,000.

Senator ELLENDER. There are not that many.

Mr. CLARKE. In the release which the chairman is reading from, if it is release 1635 of the National Labor Relations Board of Wednesday, April 5, 1939, it is stated in the ninth line, "The Board announced that 16,018 cases, which they have handled, or about fourfifths have been closed, leaving 4,171 cases pending on March 1."

Senator ELLENDER. That is those which have not reached the Board. The ones that have reached the Board for decision according to your statement aggregate about 6 percent.

Mr. CLARKE. As a matter of fact, they indicate that only 6 percent of the cases have been closed or disposed of, otherwise than through

settlement or agreement of the parties or through dismissal or withdrawal.

Senator ELLENDER. All that have come before the Board for adjudication?

Mr. CLARKE. For adjudication; yes.

Senator ELLENDER. Öne thousand two hundred cases out of 4,000. Mr. CLARKE. Well if you were an employer-if you were one of the 52 percent, or 8,378 who were approached to close the case by agreement of the parties, you would understand why that is true.

Senator BURKE. What did that release say about the 4,174 cases pending on March 1?

Mr. CLARKE. That on March 1 there are pending 4,174 cases. Senator BURKE. Does that mean pending anywhere along the line, before the trial examiners and everywhere else?

Mr. CLARKE. I presume pending all along the line. Some of them may be just charges filed, and some of them may be in the Supreme Court, I imagine; in other words, I imagine that is all along the line and undisposed of.

Senator BURKE. I mean those that were pending before the Board. Mr. CLARKE. Before the Board, if they are undisposed of. They are on their docket.

Senator ELLENDER. That is what you mean, cases on their docket? Mr. CLARKE. I think I said they are over 4,000 cases on their docket. They are all on the docket or they would not be listed.

Senator HOLT. Some of these cases that they claim were settled may have been just a complaint that they waived aside as a case of practically no consequence, and yet they were balanced against cases of great importance and involving a large number of workers. In other words, in the right or the wrong, it is not a question of percentage.

Mr. CLARKE. NO; particularly when you realize that this Board has the power of an investigator, a prosecutor, a judge, and a jury; and no court, even the Supreme Court of the United States, can upset its determinations if there is any substantial evidence to support them, and if you consider that the employer who comes in and contests one of these cases ordinarily has some thousands of dollars of expense that he goes through, you can readily understand why some eightthousand-odd cases, or 52 percent, have been settled by the Board, as they say, by agreement of the parties.

Senator HOLT. The great issue is how they have been settled.

Mr. CLARKE. There is a lot of different ways of agreeing to things as is evidenced by the suggestion of shotgun settlement. Are there any other questions?

Senator ELLENDER. I think not. We will stand in recess until 2 o'clock.

(Recessed at 12: 10 p. m. until 2 p. m.)

AFTERNOON SESSION

(The hearing was reconvened at 2 p. m.)

Senator ELLENDER. The first witness this afternoon is Mr. James B. Pierce.

Mr. Pierce, will you give your name in full and such descriptive matter as you desire to go into the record?

STATEMENT OF JAMES B. PIERCE, JR., BARIUM REDUCTION CORPORATION, SOUTH CHARLESTON, W. VA.

Mr. PIERCE. My name is James B. Pierce, Jr., Barium Reduction Corporation, South Charleston, W. Va.

Senator ELLENDER. Have you a prepared statement, Mr. Pierce? Mr. PIERCE. I have a prepared statement; yes, sir.

Senator ELLENDER. Do you mind if we interrupt you as you go along, or do you prefer giving your story first?

Mr. PIERCE. Not at all; you may interrupt me at any time.
Senator ELLENDER. You may proceed.

Mr. PIERCE. I have a short statement that I might read and then amplify it somewhat later on, verbally, if that is satisfactory to you. Senator ELLENDER. Proceed in your own way, Mr. Pierce.

Mr. PIERCE. I appear before you, gentlemen, to urge the passage of Senator Burke's amendments to the National Labor Relations Act which will prevent the following, in my opinion, unjust treatment of employers and employees by the National Labor Relations Board, based on my own experiences during the past 6 months.

On January 7, 1939, the local C. I. O. organizer in Charleston, Mr. Armando Folio, advised me they had a majority of our employees signed up.

Senator HOLT. Mr. Pierce, right there, would you mind telling the committee something more about the corporation, the size of it, and some of the details? I am familiar with the case, and I feel that the committee should have the benefit of that knowledge.

Mr. PIERCE. The Barium Reduction Corporation employs approximately 125 men; has a net worth of approximately $500,000. It or its predecessor companies have been in business since 1914. I have been with the company since 1914. I am a chemist and I started with the company as a chemist.

Senator HOLT. In other words, you have been with the company since you started in that section of the State?

Mr. PIERCE. Exactly so.

Senator HOLT. And rose from an employee to the presidency and control of the corporation?

Mr. PIERCE. That is correct, sir. I might state there that the control of the corporation passed to me in October of 1938 as the result of over a year or more of bitter litigation over certain stock holdings in the corporation, a certain proportion of which were awarded to me as the result of that litigation, and as the result of which the old management went out and I assumed the active management of the corporation; in other words, it is an ownership-management corpora, tion. The management of it is not dictated by any other outside influences or otherwise; it is a purely ownership-management corporation.

Senator ELLENDER. Did you help to organize the company or did you come into the picture after it was established?

Mr. PIERCE. I did not help to organize the original corporation, no, sir. I was only an employee of it then. I came into the picture and secured my first interest in the corporation, I would say, through the fact that I have taken out some 20 patents that form the basis of the operations of the corporation, or have over a period of years that it has been in operation.

Senator ELLENDER. And you got stock for your patents? Mr. PIERCE. Essentially; yes, sir; and then I acquired some by purchase and then after this litigation I acquired control.

Senator ELLENDER. Since you have volunteered to go into the details of it, what is your corporation engaged in?

Mr. PIERCE. The manufacture, primarily, of barium chemicals, such things as barium carbonate, barium sulphate, sodium sulfide. Senator ELLENDER. Barium is your trade name?

Mr. PIERCE. Barium describes what we make. It is a line of barium products. They are largely used by the rubber and the artificial silk and photographic paper industries.

Senator HOLT. You came up as an employee to the management of the corporation?

Mr. PIERCE. Yes, sir; I started to work for the corporation shortly after I left the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. I have come up in that manner, and I might say in passing that throughout the 25 years of my association with the corporation we never had any labor trouble until the instance which I am about to describe here as a portion of this statement, but there were never any labor troubles—I would say none at all, at least inconsequential.

Senator ELLENDER. Mr. Pierce, were your employees unionized in any manner?

Mr. PIERCE. No, sir; only such as we might have had an electrician that was a member of the Electricians Union. You understand what I mean by that-it was an open shop, they could be or not. But there was no union as such that covered the entire plant, you understand.

Senator ELLENDER. Did your employees sponsor unionization or collective bargaining in any manner?

Mr. PIERCE. Not until the C. I. O. entered the picture.

Senator ELLENDER. Are there other corporations in your locality engaged in the same kind of business that you are?

Mr. PIERCE. Yes, sir; that is, in the chemical business.

Senator ELLENDER. How did the wages paid to your labor and the hours that you worked, compare with these other corporations? Mr. PIERCE. At the present time for the same types of work, they are comparable.

Senator ELLENDER. How were they before this trouble that you say occurred when the C. I. O. came into the picture?

Mr. PIERCE. They were comparable, but the old management had made such a mess of the business, the hours were so short, that the monthly earnings of the employees were lower. I am going to give that in my statement when I come to it.

I wish to say that in comparison with these wages, there are no other plants directly analogous to us. The ones that are right next to us have high-pressure processes running into the thousands of pounds per square inch, and they employ mostly college men and high-school men just to run those. You have to have them for safety. Originally, when they started, they could not get any insurance protection-just as an example of the difference. We had no difficulty with that at all, although they pay higher wages, but it requires and must have a superior type of help.

Senator HOLT. That is not comparable work?

Mr. PIERCE. No, sir; that is not comparable work, but for work that is comparable with ours, the wages are comparable. I just wanted to be understood on that. They happen to be our next-door neighbor.

On January 11 we were notified by the N. L. R. B. that Mr. Folio had filed charges against us of having discriminately dismissed eight of his C. I. O. members because of their union activities, and that we had intimidated and coerced all of our employees in their union activities.

I might digress a second to say that I have these exhibits here which, in my opinion, are prima facie evidence of all of my statements, which exhibits and the like I will, of course, be glad to read from or submit as a part of the record of the case at the close of my statement.

Mr. Martin Wagner of the Labor Board stepped into the picture, advising he had a number of affidavits substantiating the discriminatory dismissals and had examined Mr. Folio's membership roll and that he did have a majority of our employees. I might say that we had dismissed or laid off for lack of work about 16 people, and among them we also laid off 8 men in whom the Labor Board is not interested. They are only interested in the 8 men who were allegedly members of Mr. Folio's union.

Senator ELLENDER. In laying off these eight men, how did you go about doing it? Did you consider the length of time that they were in your employ?

Mr. PIERCE. Some consideration was given to that, sir. It was largely based, however, on my having been with the corporation for 25 years and on my knowledge of their ability to work. As an example, I might say that Mr. Folio wished to compel me to take back one man who had been convicted of a felony, and that was why we let him go. With that exception, it was largely on the basis of my own judgment of their value to the corporation.

Senator ELLENDER. Did any of these eight men belong to the C. I. O. before you discharged them or laid them off?

Mr. PIERCE. Allegedly so; yes, sir. Not to my knowledge, but that is what is claimed.

Senator HOLT. But you knew all of the employees? You knew practically all of them and their work?

Mr. PIERCE. Yes, sir.

Senator HOLT. And had grown up with the company?

Mr. PIERCE. Yes.

Senator HOLT. It was your judgment that they were the ones to be discharged?

Mr. PIERCE. I did not know that they were members of the C. I. O. when they were laid off.

Senator BURKE. You laid off 16 men at that time?

Mr. PIERCE. Yes, sir.

Senator BURKE. And as it turns out, it is claimed that eight of those that you selected, was because you thought that they could be best spared from the operations of the company, and eight of them claimed that they were C. I. O. members?