(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Children's Library | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "Hearings regarding communist infiltration of labor unions. Hearings"

r^ 



^ 






en 




Given By 



^ 



3^99905018 31 



HEARINGS REGARDING COMMUNIST INFILTRATION 
OF LABOR UNIONS— PART II 

(Security Measures Relating to Officials of the UERMWA-CIO) 



, HEARINGS 

f,/, Qmpl^'flCUi^i BEFORE THE 

COMMITTEE ON UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES 
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 



EIGHTY-FIRST CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 



DECEMBER 5 AND 6, 1949 



Printed for the use of the Committee on Un-American Activities 




UNITED STATES 
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 
95613 WASHINGTON : 1950 



COMMITTEE ON UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES 

United States House of Representatives 
JOHN S. WOOD, Georgia, Chairman 
FRANCIS E. WALTER, Pennsylvania J. PARNELL THOMAS, New Jersey 

BURR P. HARRISON, Virginia RICHARD M. NIXON, California 

JOHN McSWEENEY, Ohio FRANCIS CASE, South Dakota 

MORGAN M. MOULDER, Missouri HAROLD H. VELDE, Illinois 

Frank S. Tavennbr, Jr., Counsel 
LoDis J. Russell, Senior Investigator 
John W. Carrington, Clerk of Committee 
Benjamin Mandel, Director of Research 

II 



CONTENTS 



December 5, 1949 — 

Testimony of: Page 

Julius Emspak 833 

James J. Matles 854 

Julius Emspak (recalled) 858 

James J. Matles (recalled) 859 

December 6, 1949— 
Testimony of : 

Oscar Smith 8G3 

Col. Ernest A. Barlow 871 



HEAEINGS KEGARDING COMMUNIST INFILTRATION OF 

LABOR UNIONS PART II 

(Security Measures Relating to Officials of tlie UERMWA-CIO) 



MONDAY, DECEMBER 5, 1949 

United States House of Representatives, 

Subcommittee of the Committee on 

Un-American Activities, 

Washington, D. G. 

The subcommittee of one met, pursuant to call, at 3 : 30 p. m., in room 
226, Old House Office Building, Hon. Morgan M. Moulder, presiding. 

Committee member present : Hon. Morgan M. Moulder. 

Staff members present: Frank S. Tavenner, Jr, counsel; John W. 
Carrington, clerk; Benjamin Mandel, director of research; and A. S. 
Poore, editor. 

Mr. Moulder. The committee will come to order. 

Let the record show that on November 8, 1949, the Honorable John 
S. Wood, chairman of the Committee on Un-American Activities, 
ordered, authorized, and directed Morgan M. Moulder, a member of 
this committee, as a subcommittee thereof, to hold, conduct, and pre- 
side over hearings scheduled for this day. 

Are you ready to proceed, Mr. Tavenner ? 

Mr. Tavenner. Yes. I call as the first witness Mr. Julius Emspak. 

Mr. Moulder. You solemnly swear the testimony you are about to 
give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so 
help you God ? 

Mr Emspak. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF JULIUS EMSPAK, ACCOMPANIED BY HIS COUNSEL, 

DAVID SCRIBNER 

Mr. Tavenner. What is your full name, please ? 
Mr. Emspak. Julius Emspak. 

Mr. T- vi:N'r ER. Are yoi: represented here by counsel ? 
Mr. Emspak. Kepresented 'i No. He is with me. He is not repre- 
senting me. 

Mr. Tav'enner. Are you accompanied by counsel ? 

Mr. Emspak. Yes. 

Mr. Tavenner. Will counsel identify himself for the record ? 

Mr. Scribner. David Scribner. 

Mr. Ta\tenner. When and where were you born, Mr. Emspak ? 

Mr. Emspak. August 6, 1904, Schenectady, N. Y. 

Mr. Tavenner. What i§ your present address ? 

833 



834 COMMUNIST INFILTRATION OF LABOR UNIONS 

Mr. Emspak. 49 Cliff Side Drive, Tuckahoe 7, N. Y. 

Mr. Tavenner. What is your present occupation ? 

Mr. Emspak. General secretary, United Electrical, Eadio, and Ma- 
chine Workers of America. 

Mr. Tavenner. Are you also a member of the executive committee 
of that organization ? 

Mr. Emspak. Ex officio ; yes. 

Mr. Tavenner. How long have you been an official of the UE ? 

Mr. Emspak. Since its inception. 

Mr. Tavenner. And that is how long ago ? 

Mr. Emspak. Since April 1, 1936, or 1 or 2 days either way. 

Mr. Tavenner. What have been the official positions held by you 
since that time in UE ? 

Mr. Emspak. Just that. 

Mr. Tavenner, Will you state for the committee, please, in a general 
way, what your previous employment has been ? 

Mr. Emspak. Well, Mr. Chairman, I began work in the General 
Electric plant in Schenectady when I was old enough to get working 
papers, 14 years old, in January 1919, and served my apprenticeship 
there, working as a tool designer and so on. 

Mr. Tavenner. I would like to ask you a few questions about the 
organization of the UE. How many districts are there in the United 
Electrical, Radio, and Machine Workers of America organization? 

Mr. Moulder. How many what ? 

Mr. Tavenner. Districts, 

Mr. Emspak. The constitution prescribes 12. 

Mr. Tavenner. Are there 12 districts ? 

Mr. Emspak. Not functioning ; no. 

Mr. Tavenner. A district normally comprises what territory ? 

Mr. Emspak. It is a geographical and industrial entity that we try 
to develop as a district. They vary in size both as to area and mem- 
bership. 

Mr, Tavenner. How many locals are there in UE ? 

Mr. Emspak. Perhaps 400. I can't give you the exact number. I 
just don't have it in my head, 

Mr, Tavenner. Aren't there considerably more than 400 locals ? 

Mr. Emspak. No. Perhaps you are thinking of the contracts with 

employers. 

Mr. Tavenner. How many rank and file members are there m the 

UE? 

:Mr. Emspak. We represent in collective bargaining approximately 
half a million, covered by collective bargaining agreements. 

Mr. Tavenner. You have persons known as organizers, do you not? 

Mr. Emspak. Oh, of course. 

Mr. Tavenner. "VAHiat are their functions ? 

Mr. Emspak. To service the local unions, organize the unorganized, 
help the local unions negotiate agreements, and so on. 

Mr. Tavenner. Are they pretty close to the rank and file of the mem- 
bership? 

Mr, Emspak. Yes. They usually live in the communities where they 

work. 

Mr. Tavenner. How many organizers are there at one time m your 

union ? 



COMMUNIST INFILTRATION OF LABOR UNIONS 835 

Mr. Emspak. At one time ? 

Mr. Tavenner. Yes. 

Mr. Emspak. It is not a static number. I suppose 120 or 130. 

Mr. Ta\t<]nner. Are they assigned to the various districts ? 

ISIr. Emspak. Yes, and locals. 

Mr. Tavenner. How are the organizers selected ? 

Mr. Emspak. Recommendations of people, local unions, individual 
members, and so on. 

Mr. Tavenner, The local members make recommendations ? 

Mr. Emspak. On occasions they do. 

Mr. Tavenner. Then who does the appointing? 

Mr. Emspak. The general executive board. 

Mr. Tavenner. The executive board. How many are on the exe- 
cutive board ? 

Mr. Emspak. Twenty. 

Mr. Tavenner. Twenty? 

]\Ir. Emspak. Plus three officers. 

Mr. Tavenner. Plus the three officers, of whom you are one ? 

Mr. Emspak. Yes. 

Mr. Tavenner. You have in your organization what are known 
as international representatives ; have you not ? 

Mr. Emspak. Correct. 

Mr. Tavenner. Will you describe the duties of international 
representatives ? 

INIr. Emspak. They are in effect, in charge of a group of organizers 
in a given area or district, working in conjunction with the district 
officials. 

Mr. Tavenner. They assist in negotiating contracts ? 

ISIr. Eimspak. Yes. ' Their functions are essentially the same as 
the functions of organizers except they coordinate the activities of the 
staff and they are superior to the organizers, if you want to call it 
that. 

]\rr. Tavenner. How many international representatives are there 

inUE? 

Mr. Emspak. I can't give you the exact number. I suppose 15 
or 20. 

Mr. Ta\t:nner. How are they selected ? 

Mr. Emspak. Out of the staff. The organizers usually are 
promoted. 

Mr. Tavenner. And they are selected by the executive committee ? 

Mr. Emspak Yes. 

Mr. Tavenner You have also what is known as a business agent ? 

Mr. Emspak. Tliey are employees of local unions. 

Mr. Tavenner. How are they selected ? 

Mr. Emspak. The membership of the local usually elects them. 

Mr. Ta\tenner. Is their appointment or selection ratified or ap- 
proved by the executive committee? 

Mr. Emspak. No. 

Mr. Tavenner. How many business agents represent the union at 
any one time ? 

Mr. Emspak. That T can't answer. T just don't know. 

Mr. Tavenner.' Briefly, what are the duties of the executive com- 
mittee, of which )^ou are a member ? 



836 COMMUNIST INFILTRATION OF LABOR UNIONS 

Mr. Emspak. Administer the affairs of the national organization. 

Mr. Tavenner. Determine policy of the organization? 

Mr. Emspak. No ; the convention determines policy. 

Mr. Tavenner. Does the executive committee have any function in 
the negotiating of contracts or wage disputes? 

Mr. Emspak. No; other than whatever the framework of the col- 
lective-bargaining policy happens to be at a given time. 

Mr. Tavenner. In the adjustment of grievances which may occur 
from time to time, what part do the officials of the UE play in such 
adjustments? 

Mr. Emspak. It depends on the nature of the grievance and what 
the situation may be. By and large that is a routine administrative 
job that the locals handle themselves. A grievance is something that 
develops on a job, and most of the grievances are handled within the 
locals. National officers as such rarely participate. 

Mr. Tavenner. Will you give examples of instances in which the 
officials or the members of the executive board have functioned in 
settling or adjusting grievances? 

Mr. Emspak. Will you repeat that? 

Mr. Tavenner. I say, will 3?ou give me an illustration, or cite in- 
stances, of when officials or members of the executive board function 
in the adjustment of grievances? 

Mr. Emspak. You mean a specific type of case ? 

Mr. Tavenner. Yes, and the procedure. 

Mr. Emspak. Well, I haven't been involved in one in several years, 
and I would have to search my memory to tell you that. I can go 
back in history and give you examples of them. 

Mr. Tavenner. Suppose you do that. 

Mr. Emspak. Understand, I am playing entirely by ear on this one. 
I recall some years ago a grievance arising in a plant of the General 
Electric Co. involving two men in a midwestern plant, which could 
not be settled locally, and it finally landed in the national office. I 
went out there and talked with the local management, and met with 
our committee, and had a joint meeting of the committee and man- 
agement, and called the vice president of the company in charge of 
manufacturing and had a long conversation with him on the phone, 
and finally worked out an approach to it and it was resolved. Other 
times we would have formal meetings set up and carry on regular 
discussions on the basis of forms that were made out, whether it is a 
dispute on wages or lay-off or whatever it might be. 

Mr. Tavenner. What other types of services do officials or members 
of the executive committee render the rank and file in the way of 
adjustment of grievances? 

Mr. Emspak. We provide all sorts of information. We provide 
the information and personnel necessary to work out a given problem. 
That is our main job. 

Mr. Tavenner. Does that require your going on the job? 

Mr. Emspak. On occasion we go in the field ; yes. 

Mr. Tavenner. Is that frequently done, or infrequently done? 

Mr. Emspak. Rather frequently. After all, problems are constantly 
pressing. That is the chief reason for the existence of the organiza- 
tion. 



COMMUNIST INFILTRATION OF LABOR UNIONS 837 

Mr. Tavenner. The union has a contract with various employers, 
I suppose, in whicli your union is recognized as the bargaining agent 
in any disputes tliat might arise between labor and management? 

Mr. Emspak. Yes. 

Mr. Tavenner. How many contracts, roughly speaking, do you 
have with employers ? 

Mr. Emspak. Approximately 1,500. 

Mr. Tavenner. That covers the work being performed in approxi- 
mately how many plants ? 

Mr. Emspak. That many plants. No; I take that back; roughly 
that many plants, but a few more plants than that, because some 
national agreements cover a number of plants. 

Mr. Tavenner. In negotiating those contracts, and in the settlement 
of disputes arising under them, do the officers and members of the 
executive committee visit those plants ? 

Mr. Emspak. No ; we don't go into plants, if that is what you mean. 
We go to local union meetings and have district meetings and national 
conferences with delegates from those plants, and so on, and work out 
whatever has to be worked out, whether a collective-bargaining agree- 
ment or an approach to a grievance settlement. 

Mr. Tavenner. Are there occasions when the officers and members 
of the executive committee are required to exercise disciplinary action 
over lesser officials and rank and file members of the union ? 

Mr. Emspak. I don't know what you mean when you say dis- 
ciplinary action. We don't operate the way some or most unions do. 
Essentially — not essentially, but in every instance — the membership 
ultimately makes the decision on any proposition. Sometimes we may 
find ourselves where our point of view is not carried ; other times it is. 
That goes on every day. 

Mr. Tavenner. In the event there is an infraction of the rules of 
your union, what action is taken or may be taken by your conimittee ? 

Mr. Emspak. The membership of the local union where it occurs, 
or area where it occurs, makes the decision on that, with a right to 
appeal to the convention, which takes place every year. 

Mr. Tavenner. You spoke of virtually 1,500 plants which are 
covered by contracts with the UE. In how many of these plants do 
you consider there is being done classified or restricted work for the 
Army, Navy, or Air Corps? 

Mr. Emspak. I have no way of knowing. 

Mr. Tavenner. You have no way of knowing in which plants re- 
stricted work is being done ? 

Mr. Emspak. No. 

Mr. Tavenner. Is it being done in a considerable number? 

Mr. Emspak. I just can't answer that. I can't give you a sensible 
answer to that. 

Mr. Tavenner. Does the UE have an official publication? 

Mr. Emspak. Yes. 

Mr. Tavenner. Wliat is the name of it ? 

Mr. Emspak. UE News. 

Mr. Tavenner. Where is it published ? 

Mr. Emspak. New York. 

Mr. Tavenner. How is it financed? 

Mr. Emspak. Dues of the membership. 

9561 3— 50— pt. 2 2 



838 COMTvIUNIST INFILTRATION OF LABOR UNIONS 

Mr. Tavenner. Collected through the union? 

Mr. Emspak. Local unions. 

Mr. Tavenner. And paid by 

Mr. Emspak. Paid by the individual members to the local union. 

Mr. Tavenner. And the local union 

Mr. Emspak. Transmits a portion of that to the general olSice. 

Mr. Tavenner. And the general office pays for the financing of the 
paper ? 

Mr. Emspak. Yes. 

Mr. Tavenner. How is the editor of that paper selected ? 

Mr. Emspak. Officially I am the editor. 

Mr. Tavenner. You are at the present time ? 

Mr. Emspak. Yes. 
. Mr. Tavenner. How long have you been editor ? 

Mr. Emspak. Since we set up the union. 

Mr. Tavenner. How were you selected ? 

Mr. Emspak. By the executive board. The constitution provides 
that one of the paid officers be designated editor. 

Mr. Tavenner. Is the editorial policy of the paper controlled and 
directed by the executive board ? 

Mr. Emspak. The basic editorial policy is controlled by convention 
decision. 

Mr. Tavenner. Does the executive board function also in that 
connection '? 

Mr. Emspak. The function of the executive board is to carry out 
the affairs of the union between conventions on the basis of the policy 
decisions of the convention. 

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Emspak, are you acquainted with Joseph 
Persily ? 

Mr. Emspak. Mr. Chairman, I would like to say something at this 
point. 

Mr. Moulder. You mean in response to the question ? 

Mr. Emspak. I will answer the question; yes, in response to the 
question and as a statement of position. 

What I say revolves around two points, one organizationally and 
another as an individual. Organizationally, mj^ job as an officer of 
this union is to represent the interest of the membership as they de- 
termine it at the annual conventions and at other means they have of 
getting together and expressing themselves. My job is to administer 
that aspect to the best of my ability, using one very simple measuring 
stick, and that is: Does a given policy or action contribute to the 
well-being of the membership, individually and collectively ? 

As an individual I would like to say one thing, and that is this: 
The line of questioning that counsel is developing now is a line that 
has been used on numerous occasions by this committee and other 
congressional committees in an attempt to harass the union, its leader- 
ship, and its members. It is a line of questioning that goes against 
my grain as an American. I was born in this country. Everything 
I am 

Mr. Moulder. How long will this statement take, Mr. Emspak ? 

Mr. Emspak. About two or three more minutes. 

Mr. Moulder. Proceed. 

Mr. Emspak. Everything I am, I owe to the rich heritage and tra- 
dition of this country. I do not believe that a committee of this kind, 



COMMUNIST INFILTRATION OF LABOR UNIONS 839 

especially in vieAV of the recent record of this committee where it 
stooped to interfere in the partisan affairs of a local union, or any 
congressional committee, because of the rich tradition of this country 
whi'ch, if not perverted, will lead to a greater and better country— 
I don't think a committee like this or any subcommittee has a right 
to go into any question of my beliefs, my associations, or anything 
else. I have a couple of kids. ^ They have a stake in this country, too. 

Mr. Moulder. I want to give you full opportunity to express your- 
self in answer to the question, but you are making an oration now. 

Mr. Emspak. It is not an oration. It happens to be a very profound 
personal feeling. 

^Ir. jMoulder. What is the question ? 

Mr. Tavenxer. The question is : Are you acquainted with Joseph 

Persily. 

IVIr. IMoTjLDER. How do you spell that? 

Mr. Tavenner. P-e-r-s-i-1-y. 

Mr. Emspak. Because I have a stake in this country 

IMr. Moulder. You are not answering the question. He asked you 
if you are acquainted with this man. 

Mr. Emspak. I will answer it. 

Mr. Moulder. Are you or not ? 

Mr. Emspak. I was on the verge of answering it. 

IMr. IMoulder. If you have any explanation to make you will be 
permitted to do so after you answer the question. 

Mr. Emspak. Because of my interest in wdiat is going on these days, 
because of the activities of this committee 

Mr. ]\Ioulder. Are you going to answer the question? 

Mr. Emspak. Because of the hysteria, I think it is my duty to 
endeavor to protect the rights guaranteed under the Constitution, 
primarily the first amendment, supplemented by the fifth. This com- 
mittee will corrupt those rights. 

IMr. IMoulder. Do 3'ou think it corrupts you to answer the question? 

Mr. Emspak. I certainly do. 

My. ]Moutj)er. Why does it corrupt you ? 

IMr. Emspak. Your activities are designed to harm the working 
people of this country. Every action this committee has ever taken 
has done that. You interfered last summer in the election of a local 
union at the request of a priest. You know that. You dragged down 
the prestige of this country. 

]Mr. Moulder. You are not going to take over this committee. 

Mr. Emspak. I don't want to. 

Mr. Moulder. And your statements are preposterous. The purpose 
of this committee is to expose communism as it exists in this country. 
What is the question? 

]Mr. Ta-\t:nner. Are you acquainted with Joseph Persily? 

Mr. Emspak. For the reasons I stated before, I answered it. 

Mr. Moulder. Then you refuse to answer the question ? 

Mr. Emspak. No. I answered it. 

Mr. Taatenner. Are you or are you not acquainted with Joseph 
Persily ? 

Mr. Emspak. I answered the question. 

Mr. Ta-vennter. Your replies are a refusal to comply with the request 
to answer it ? 



840 COMMUNIST INFILTRATION OF LABOR UNIONS 

(Witness confers with his counsel.) 

Mr. Moulder. The record will reveal that you have not answered 
the question. 

Mr. Emspak. I have answered it to the best of my ability under the 
circumstances. 

Mr. Moulder. Any further questions ? 

Mr. Tavenner. Yes. In what capacity is Joseph Persily associated 
with the UE at this time ? 

Mr. Emspak. It is the same question over again. I will give the 
same answer. 

Mr. Tavenner. Is he an organizer in the UE ? 

Mr. Emspak. Mr. Chairman, it is the same question. 

Mr. Tavenner. You refuse to answer that ? 

Mr. Emspak. I answered it. 

Mr. Tavenner. Are you acquainted with Albert Smith? 

Mr. Emspak. The same answer applies to that. 

Mr. Tavenner. In other words, you are refusing to answer whether 
you are acquainted with him or not? 

Mr. Emspak. I have answered the question as I see the answer. 

Mr. Tavenner. Is he employed by UE ? 

Mr. Emspak. Mr. Chairman, I answered the question. 

Mr. Moulder. Could you tell us who those people are, Mr. Counsel ? 

Mr. Emspak. Excuse me, please. 

(Witness confers with his counsel.) 

Mr. Tavenner. Joseph Persily and Albert Smith are the two per- 
sons whose names were mentioned. 

Mr. Moulder. Who is Joseph Persily? 

Mr. Tavenner. I thought he was connected with the UE, but I am 
unable to understand from this witness what the connection is, if any. 

Mr. Moulder. Do our records reveal who he is ? 

Mr. Tavenner. I do not know whether they do or not, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Emspak, has Max Helford ever been connected with UE as a 
field organizer ? 

Mr. Emspak. Mr. Chairman, on these questions, which are all essen- 
tially the same, of course, when this hearing was announced accord- 
ing to the press reports, at least, it was announced because this com- 
mittee presumably was interested in finding out things with reference 
to individuals in our organization by using whatever means it has at 
its disposal, and for the purpose of trying to perhaps frame people 
for possible criminal prosecution. 

I don't see how or why any individual should be subjected to that 
kind of questioning here if he is going to maintain, you know, his 
feelings on these questions, and I tried to express the feeling before 
when you interrupted me. I just don't intend, as I said then, to be 
a party to any kangaroo court proceedings of this committee or any 
other congi'essional committee. I think I have the right to reserve 
whatever rights I have in that respect to whatever appropriate bodies 
may be set up to deal with questions that come up. 

Mr. Moulder. Do you mean to say you have people in your organ- 
ization who have information that would subject you to criminal 
prosecution ? 

Mr. Emspak. No ; I don't, Mr. Chairman. As a basic proposition — 
and it has worked over the years and over the last few months as far 
as this committee is concerned — a slick job — — 



COMMUNIST INFILTRATION OF LABOR UNIONS 841 

Mr. Moulder. Do you know tliem or not ? 

Mr. Emspak. That does not concern this committee at all. 

Mr. Moulder. Is it your feeling that to reveal your knowledge of 
them would subject you to criminal prosecution? 

Mr. Emspak. No. I don't think this committee has a right to pry 
into my associations. That is my own position. 

Mr. Ta\t:nner. Is Max Helford at the present time a field organizer 
for the UE? 

Mr. Emspak. Mr. Chairman, that is repetition of basically the same 
question, and the same answer stands. 

Mr. TA^^ENNER. Was Phil Saba originally from local 155 ? 

Mr. Emspak. I answered that question. 

Mr. Tavenner. And is he now a field organizer for the UE in 
district 1 ? 

Mr. Emspak. I answered that question and that is the only answer 
I will give on any of my associations, for the reasons stated. 

Mr. Tavenner. Is Hank Rhine presently an international repre- 
sentative of the UE ? 

Mr. Emspak. Same answer. 

Mr. Tavenner. Is Jack Gorelick now affiliated with the UE ? 

ISIr. Emspak. Same answer. 

Mr. Tavenner. Is Ernest Moyer a field organizer for UE in the 
Easton area ? 

Mr. Emspak. Same answer. 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you know James Lustig ? 

Mr. Emspak. Same answer. 

Mr. Tavenner. Is he an international representative of UE ? 

Mr. Emspak. We can go on endlessly like this, I suppose, but the 
same answer holds. 

Mr. Tavenner. Is Morris Kersten an international representative 
of UE? 

Mr. Emspak. Same answer. 

Mr. Tavenner. Is Fred Haug an international representative of 
UE? 

Mr. Emspak. Same answer. 

Mr. Tavenner. Is Charles Newell an international representative 
ofUE? 

Mr. Emspak, Same answer. 

Mr. Tavenner. Is Leo Turner a field organizer in district 6 ? 

Mr. Emspak. Same answer. 

Mr. Tavenner. Is Hugh Harley a field organizer for UE ? 

Mr. Emspak. Same answer. 

Mr. Tavenner. Is Arthur Garfield an international representative 
of UE? 

Mr. Emspak. Same answer. 

Mr. Tavenner. Is Ernest DeMaio presently an international rep- 
resentative of UE ? 

Mr. Emspak. Same answer. 

Mr. Tavenner. Is Henry Fiering a field organizer for the UE ? 

Mr. Emspak. Same answer. 

Mr. Tavenner. Is Herbert Hirschberg an international representa- 
tive of UE? 

Mr. Emspak. Same answer. 



842 COMTilUNIST INFILTRATION OF LABOR UNIONS 

Mr. Tavenner. Is K. M. Kirkendall a field organizer of the UE? 

Mr. Emspak. Same answer. 

Mr. Tavenner. Is Kobert Harrison a field organizer of the UE ? 

Mr. Emspak. Same answer. 

Mr. Tavenner. Is William Santora a field organizer of the UE ? 

Mr. Emspak. Same answer. 

Mr. Tavenner. Is Marcel Scherer an international representative 
of theUE? 

Mr. Emspak. Same answer. 

Mr. Tavenner. Is Louis I. Sorti a field organizer of the UE ? 

Mr. Emspak. Same answer. 

Mr. Moulder. Same answer is your refusal to answer for the rea- 
sons given ? . . 

Mr. Emspak. I gave specific reasons why I felt I should not partici- 
pate in this kind of questioning, and I stand by that. 

Mr. Tavenner. Is Philip V. Gelder an international representative 
of theUE? 

Mr. Emspak. Same answer. 

Mr. Tavenner. Is Perez Zagorin a field organizer of the UE ? 

Mr. Emspak. Same answer. 

Mr. Tavenner. Is Carl Brant connected or associated m any way 
as an international representative or otherwise with UE ? 

Mr. Emspak. Same answer. 

Mr. Ta\-enner. Is A1 Clough a field organizer ? 

Mr. Emspak. Same answer. 

Mr. Tavenner. Is Kermit Kirkendall a field organizer ? 

Mr. Emspak. Same answer. 

Mr. Tavenner. Is John Thomas a field organizer? 

Mr. Emspak. Same answer. 

Mr. Tavenner. Is Fred Keller a field organizer with UE ? 

Mr. Emspak. Same answer. 

Mr. Tavenner. Is John Mitchell a field organizer? 

Mr. Emspak. Same answer. 

Mr. Tavenner. Is Fred Sheppart a field organizer? 

Mr. Emspak. Same answer. 

Mr. Tavenner. Is L. B. Slagle a field organizer with UE ? 

Mr. Emspak. Same answer. , 

Mr. Tavenner. Is Martin Sramek a field organizer with UE i 

Mr. Emspak. Same answer. 

Mr Tavenner. Is Kobert B. Logsdon an international representa- 
tive of UE? 

Mr. Emspak. Same answer.  • ■, 

Mr. Tavenner. John Bittman is a field organizer, is he not? 

Mr. Emspak. Same answer. 

Mr. Tavenner. Is William B. Elconon an international representa- 
tive? 

Mr. Emspak. Same answer. 

Mr. Tavenner. Is H. M. Martinson a field organizer ? 

Mr. Emspak. Same answer. 

Mr. Tavenner. Is Anthony DeMaio an international representa- 
tive of your union ? 

Mr. Emspak. Same answer. 

Mr. Tavenner. Is Irene Berman an international representative? 

Mr. Emspak. Same answer. 



COMMUNIST INFILTRATION OF LABOR UNIONS 843 

Mr. Tavenner. Is Allan Bjorklund a field organizer ? 

Mr. Emspak. Same answer. 

Mr. Tavenner. Is Thomas Foley a field organizer ? 

Mr. Emspak. Same answer. 

Mr. Tavenner. Is Kobert Kirkwood an international representa- 
tive ? 

Mr. Emspak. Same answer. 

Mr. Tavenner. Is Lee Lundgren an international representative ? 

Mr. Emspak. Same answer. 

Mr. Tavenner. Is William Maiisetli a field organizer? 

Mr. Emspak. Same answer. 

Mr. Tavenner. Is William Sheehan a field organizer ? 

Mr. Emspak. Same answer. 

Mr. Tavenner. Is Phillip H. Smith an international representa- 
tive with the TJE ? 

Mr. Emspak. Same answer. 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you know John T. Bernard ? 

Mr. Emspak. Same answer. 

Mr. Tai-enner. Is he a field organizer for the UE in the Chicago 
district? 

Mr. Emspak. Same answer. 

Mr. Tavenner. Is Peter Besch an international representative? 

Mr. Emspak. Same answer. 

Mr. Tavenner. Is T. Louis Majors an international representative ? 

Mr. Emspak. Same answer. 

Mr. Tavenner. Is Eobert McNaughton a field organizer ? 

Mr. Emspak. Same answer. 

]Mr. TA^^:NNER. Is John Paradise a field organizer ? 

Mr. Emspak. Same answer. 

Mr. Tavenner. Is Nick Tomasetti a field organizer ? 

Mr. Emspak. Same answer. 

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Emspak, have you ever been affiliated with the 
National Federation for Constitutional Liberties? 

Mr. Emspak. I answered that, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Tavenner. I say, have you ever been affiliated with such an 
organization ? 

Mr. Emspak. I answered that. 

Mr. Moulder. You mean you refuse to answer for the reasons pre- 
viously stated? 

Mr. Emspak. I answered it in the terms I did when I said as far as 
my associations and affiliations are concerned, that is something a com- 
mittee of this kind should not pry into. 

Mr. Tavf^nner. In other words, you do not care to disclose whether 
you are affiliated with that organization? 

Mr. Emspak. I answered that. 

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Emspak, were you not a signer of a statement 
which hailed the War Department's order for commissions for Com- 
munists ? 

Mr. Emspak. Same answer. 

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Emspak, do you know that the National Fed- 
eration for Constitutional Liberties has been cited as a subversive or- 
ganization by two Attorneys General, as well as by the Committee 
on Un-American Activities? 

Mr. Emspak. It may have been. I don't know. 



844 COMMUNIST INFILTRATION OF LABOR UNIONS 

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Emspak, were you a sponsor of the so-called 
Win the Peace Conference held in Washington, D. C, on April 5 to 7. 
1946? 

Mr. Emspak. Same answer to that. 

Mr. Ta^^nner. You are acquainted, are you not, with the fact that 
the organization has been cited as Communist and subversive by the 
Attorney General and by this committee? 

Air. Emspak. Not necessarily. I don't recall. 

Mr. Tavenner. You don't recall, or you weren't concerned 
enough 

Mr. Emspak. I just don't recall. 

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Emspak, have you ever been associated with the 
Civil Bights Congress? 

Mr. Emspak. Again, basically the whole line of questions is the 
same, so I will say I take the same position I expressed earlier. 

Mr. Tavenner. Are you familiar with the fact that the Civil Rights 
Congress has also been cited as a Communist-front organization by 
the Attorney General? 

Mr. Emspak. Same answer. 

Mr. Tavenner. Are you acquainted with Louis Budenz? 

Mr. Emspak. Same answer. 

Mr. Tavenner. Louis Budenz was former editor of the Daily 
Worker, was he not ? 

Mr. Emspak. Same answer. 

Mr. Tavenner. You are acquainted with the fact, are you not, that 
on March 18, 1947, in testimony before a committee of Congress, he 
identified you as a member of the Communist Party ? 

Mr. Emspak. Whatever Budenz does, don't ask me to underwrite. 
Sure, I am acquainted with him. 

Mr. Tavenner. You know that he did so identify you as a member 
of the Communist Party. Do you desire to deny it ? 

Mr. Emspak. I have no desire to express any opinion on my asso- 
ciations to this committee, for the reasons I stated. 

Mr. Tavenner. So you decline to deny or affirm that you were a 
member of the Communist Party ? 

Mr. Emspak. I answered the question. 

Mr. Tavenner. Are you acquainted with James MacLeish? 

Mr. Emspak. Same answer. 

Mr. Tavenner. Is he now president of District 4, United Electrical, 
Radio, and Machine Workers of America ? 

Mr. Emspak. Same answer. 

Mr. Tavenner. Are you acquainted with Salvatore M. Vottis ? 

Mr. Emspak. Same answer. 

Mr. Tavenner. That is all you care to say about that ? 

Mr. Emspak. Same answer, that is all. 

Mr. Tavenner. On July 25, 1947, Mr. Emspak, Mr. Vottis, in sworn 
testimony before this committee, stated that he had attended fraction 
meetings of the Communist Party along with you and other members 
of the UE. Do you deny or affirm the statement made b}^ Mr. Vottis? 

Mr. Emspak. I won't discuss it at all other than in the terms I have. 

]\Ir. Tavenner. Mr. Emspak, Mr. Vottis also testified you attended 
Communist Party meetings held in his home in Schenectady, N. Y. 
Do you deny or affirm that statement ? 



I 



COMMUNIST INFILTRATION OF LABOR UNIONS 845 

Mr. Emspak. I neither deny nor affirm it, Mr, Chairman. 

Mr. Tavenner. You have ah-eady testified that from the inception 
of the organization of UE News you have been its editor. I will make 
several rather long statements as a basis for questions which I would 
like to ask you. 

Before August 1939 the Comintern and its affiliated Communist 
Parties attacked Hitler as a warmonger and nazism as barbarism. 
The American Communist Party and affiliates of the Soviet Com- 
munist Party demanded international boycotts and blockades. 

A review of UE News for the period mentioned reveals it had the 
same attitude as the Communist Party toward Hitlerism. For in- 
stance, the UE News, in its first issue of 1939, praised the idea of an 
embargo on Germany, and on January 14 UE News carried a critical 
story on forced labor in Germany. On March 25 it reviewed Hitler's 
promises of nonaggression and deplored the rape of Czechoslovakia. 
But in August 1939 the Hitler-Stalin pact was signed, and Commissar 
Molotov on that occasion remarked that: "Fascism, after all, is a 
matter of taste." 

A week after the signing of the pact, World War II began when 
the Nazis invaded Poland. The American Communist Party line 
quickly reversed itself, along with the Communist Parties of all other 
countries, and, until June 22, 1941, the Communist press was filled 
with attacks on American and British leaders. The war was de- 
nounced as an imperialist war and President Roosevelt became a 
warmonger. Aid to Britain and the other countries fighting Hitler 
were violently opposed, as were proposed amendments to the neutrality 
law which would allow England to purchase munitions. 

The UE News, like the Communist Party, reversed its sentiments 
concerning the Hitler government and quickly took the position that 
the war was a profiteers' war. The UE News said that — 

Labor in America, watching the sorry sight, Is watchful lest our own tories 
involve us in the conflict. 

On September 30, 1939, the UE News, in a full-page editorial entitled 
"Let's Do Our Fighting Here" declared that — 

The war that is going on is no exception to the rule that wars are fought for 
money. American labor wants no part of this fishy war. 

For the rest of the year 1939 the UE News praised the fight of the 
so-called isolationists in Congress, and on November 11, 1939, attacked 
Congress for making the United States "the arsenal of the world." 
The administration was condemned by the UE News as "bomb 
peddlers." 

Mr. Emspak, could you explain why the UE News, of which you 
were editor at the time, followed the line of the Communist Party 
and expressed the same views as the Communist Parties of the world 
both before and after the signing of the Hitler-Stalin pact? 

Mr. Emspak. UE News followed the line expressed by the member- 
ship at its conventions, and the line to the best interests of the working 
people. I think any time we can do anything at all to fight fascism 
and war, we are helping the people. The fact that the line followed 
by UE News coincided with the Communist Party line is purely coin- 
cident. Whenever we can do anything to help the laboring people, 
we do it. 

95613— 50— pt. 2 3 



846 COMMUNIST INFILTRATION OF LABOR UNIONS 

Mr. Tavenner. So it was a coincidence that the policy of the UE 
News coincided with the Communist Party line? 

Mr. Emspak. The policy of UE News is determined by the mem- 
bership at the conventions. 

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Emspak, in 1940 the Communist Party's anti- 
war and isolationist line was continued and intensified. President 
Koosevelt was vilified as a warmonger and dupe of British imperial- 
ism. Throughout the United States the Communist Party held 
'•peace rallies" and "keep America out of war" meetings. There were 
marches on Washington and numerous petition campaigns. Lend- 
lease was denounced as were moves to modify the Neutrality Act. Aid 
to Britain of any kind was opposed. One piece of propaganda, a 
pamphlet entitled "The Yanks Are Not Coming" which was written 
by a west coast Communist was of particular interest to the Communist 
Party. 

A review of the UE News for the same period reflects that, like the 
Communist Party, it attacked President Roosevelt as a warmonger 
and charged that "the forgotten man has yielded to the man in uniform 
as the chief object of concern of the national administration." 

On January 20, UE News said that "national defense is a gag." 
Also on January 20, 1940, UE officials in district 6 signed a proclama- 
tion declaring that "The Yanks are positively not coming." 

Throughout the year, in numerous stories and editorials, UE News 
denounced United States foreign policy and aid to the allies. On 
February 24, 1940, UE News devoted a full page to the Communist 
pamphlet The Yanks Are Not Coming, and, like the Communist Party, 
praised the pamphlet as a history-making publication. 

On June 8, 1940, James MacLeish, president of district 4 of the UE, 
issued a statement which claimed that — 

A war hysteria is being developed with terrific speed in the United States. The 
entire Federal administration, including the President, is giving leadership to 
this campaign. 

The UE News, on July 20, 1940, attacked the Selective Service Act 
and on September 21, 1940, demanded its repeal. 

Mr. Emspak, can you explain how it was that the UE News during 
the year 1940 followed the program of the Communist Party without 
deviation in its attitude toward the Second World War? 

Mr. Emspak. UE News did not follow the line of the Communist 
Party, Mr. Chairman. UE News followed the line the membership 
developed for themselves in the UE. 

Mr. Tavenner. Was it the Communist membership in the UE that 
developed that policy which was the same as the policy of the Com- 
munist Party? 

Mr. Emspak. We have no political tests in our organization. A 
member expresses any views he wants to, and one member does not 
make a decision. 

Mr. Tavenner. In 1940 the Communist Party also violently opposed 
the President's plan to lend United States arms to England and his 
proposal to transfer the group of over-age destroyers to Britain in 
return for Atlantic bases. 

During 1940, while the Hitler-Stalin pact was still in effect, very 
little criticism of Hitler and nazism was contained in the Communist 
press. The Communist Party and the Daily Worker repeatedly at- 



COMMUNIST INFILTRATION OF LABOR UNIONS 847 

tacked Sidney Hillman and his work in the Office of Production Man- 
agement and the War Production Board. 

In 1940 the Communist Party was fanatically opposed to President 
Roosevelt and ran its own Presidential candidate, Earl Browder. On 
April 8 and 9, 1940, Germany invaded Norway and Denmark. The 
Communists defended this invasion on the ground that Norway and 
Denmark were provoking Hitler. On June 15, 1940, Russia invaded 
Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania, and occupied these Baltic countries. 
The Communist Parties throughout the world hailed the invasion of 
the three countries by the Soviets as a great military victoiy for Stalin. 

On September 27, 1940, Germany, Italy, and Japan signed the Axis 
Pact. The Communist line was that this pact was justified because 
of the imperialist designs of England and the United States. 

During the same period, the UE News opposed the transfer of over- 
age destroyers to England, particularly in its issue of September 14, 
1940. On December 28, 1940, it attacked the President's proposal to 
lend England a quantity of American arms. During 1940 the UE 
News reflected the Daily Worker and the Communist press, printing 
no more than one or two small items speaking harshly about Hitler 
and nazism. 

On October 19, 1940, the UE News attacked Sidney Hillman's work 
in the national-defense agencies, despite the fact that Hillman at 
the time was the president of another CIO union. Throughout the 
year 1940 the UE News attacked the President, despite its endorse- 
ment of the previous year of the third term. During the same year, 
like the Daily Worker, it failed to criticize the German invasion of 
?^ orway and Denmark. Strangely, there was no comment from the UE 
officials or from the UE News on the Soviet occupation of the Baltic 
countries. UE News and the UE officials at no time during the year 
1940 criticized the formation of the Fascist Axis which was created 
on September 27, 1940. 

Mr. Emspak, could you explain how the UE News adhered to the 
same line as the Communist Party, changing each time the Communist 
Party changed ? 

Mr. Emspak. Of course, I denied that it adhered to it. I told you 
before, and repeat again, that whatever appears in that paper, what- 
ever appeared then or now, appears as a result of whatever the basic 
policy of the union as such is. It certainly is not an organ of the Com- 
munist Party, nor are your attempts to prove it so by these long 
statements going to succeed, because it just isn't so. 

Mr. Tavenner. The most active Communist front during the first 
7 months of 1939 was the American League for Peace and Democracy. 
However, when the Hitler-Stalin Pact was signed in August 1939, the 
American League for Peace and Democracy, of which I believe you 
were a member, was dissolved promptly. 

Immediately thereafter the Communists created the American Peace 
Mobilization, and the White House was picketed with signs declaring 
"The Yanks Are Not Coming," and the American Peace Mobilization 
sent numerous delegations to Washington to exert pressure on Con- 
gressmen who agreed with President Roosevelt on aid to England and 
<he Allies. 

Mr. Emspak, officials of the UE were prominent in the American 
^ jeague for Peace and Democracy, and when the League was dissolved 



848 COMMUNIST INFILTRATION OF LABOR UNIONS 

these officials promptly switched to the new Communist creation called 
the American Peace Mobilization. 

Can you explain why the UE in this particular instance followed 
the same line as the Communist Party '( 

Mr. Emspak. Well, Mr. Chairman, I just don't get this. I do, of 
course, in a very real way, but basically you are asking the same re- 
curring question as to whether the UE News was an organ of the 
Communist Party, which it isn't. It reflects the views of the UE 
membership, and that is that. 

Mr, Ta^'enner. In other words, you contend there was no influ- 
ence or pressure brought to have the editorial policy of the UE News 
follow the Communist Party line, though it did follow it? 

Mr. Emspak. Not only do I contend it, I assert it didn't. 

Mr. Tavenner. In 1941 the Communist Party line regarding the 
Second World War was a continuation of its 1940 position. The na- 
tional-defense program was constantly condenmed, aid to England 
was violently opposed, and the Communist Party and its front or- 
ganizations lobbied against lend-lease, against the loan of arms to 
England, and every other move in and out of Congress designed to 
{issist England and stop the Nazi world conquest. 

The UE News on January 11, 1941, attacked the President's mes- 
sage to Congress asking for increased defense funds and aid to the 
Allies. Also on January 11, the UE News, on page 4, carried an 
article in which you attacked Sidney Hillman for serving as a mem- 
ber of the National Defense Advisory Committee. 

On January 25, 1941, the UE News devoted a full page to the 
American Peace Mobilization, which had you as a member of its 
national council. 

The American Peace Mobilization, even on the very day that Hitler 
attacked Russia, was picketing the Wliite House. On June 17, 1941, 
just 5 days before Hitler's invasion of Russia, James MacLeish, presi- 
dent of district No. 4 of the UE, attacked the Defense Mediation 
Board, and on June 7, 1941, on page 3 of the UE News, district No. 6, 
Council of the United Electrical Workers, declared : 

It is becoming clearer every day that tlie heat is on to wind up a drive to push 
us into war, being conducted by big business interests who stand to profit and by 
the administration of Franklin D. Roosevelt and the Republican and Democratic 
Parties. 

Mr. Emspak, can you explain how it was that you and your organ- 
ization's newspaper, the UE News, followed the Communist Party 
line which I have outlined in my question ? 

Mr. Emspak. UE News did not follow the Communist Party line. 
UE News is not the organ of a foreign power. UE News is a trade- 
union paper governed by the policies of the membership of the union. 

Mr. TA^^NNER. Also prior to the date of the attack by Germany 
upon Russia, the Communists in the United States were in favor of 
strikes in defense industries. For instance, when Wyndham Morti- 
mer, a known Communist, called a strike at the crucial North 
American Aviation plant at Inglewood, Calif., the Communist Party 
and its press gave it their full support. The President eventually 
ordered Government seizure of this important defense plant ; and, as 
a result, the Communist press said that this move was outright fas- 
cism and meant the end of civil liberties in this country. 



COMMUNIST INFILTRATION OF LABOR UNIONS 849 

Despite the fact that Pliil Murray instructed the strikers to return 
to work, the UE supported the North American strike. On June 14, 
1941, the UE News condemned Government intervention and de- 
clared, editorially : 

As war fever reaches a new liisrh. more and more openly the forces of the 
Government are being turned to the suppression of the people's democratic 
liberties for the announced purpose of "defending democracy." 

You, yourself, proclaimed that the Government action — 

has parallel only in the blackest pages of history in this country. 

Mr. Emspak, again I ask you how it was that you and the organ of 
your organization supported the Communists in the North American 
Aviation strike? 

Mr. Emspak. We supported the North American Aviation strike, 
but we didn't support the Communists. I said then, and I repeat 
again what I said then about the use of troops in a labor dispute. Our 
country was not at war. It was 2 years before our country was at war. 

Mr. Tavenner. On June 22, 1941, Hitler invaded Russia, and the 
Conununist Party, within the space of 2 hours, completely reversed 
the party line. The war they had been calling an "imperialist" war 
became a "people's" war and a "great democratic crusade." Hitler, 
for whom the Communists had no harsh words for the past year and 
a half, became a raving beast. The President, who was reviled as a 
warmonger on June 21, on June 22 became a great democratic leader. 
The Communist opposition to aid for England and the Allies was 
transformed into a tremendous campaign for all-out assistance to 
every nation lined up against Hitler. The class struggle was sus- 
pended by the Comintern, and Earl Browder publicly declared that 
he was willing to work with J, P. Morgan and the National Asso- 
ciation of Manufacturers. 

Mr. Emspak, the line of the UE News and of its officials after the 
invasion of Russia by Hitler was changed to the same line as that 
of the Communist Party. For instance. Local 1224, in the first issue 
of UE News following the invasion of Russia, passed a resolution 
demanding immediate aid to the Soviet Union. District 4, in the 
July 5, 1941, issue of UE News, went on record demanding that "the 
Soviet Union, Great Britain, and all others sincerely fighting the 
Fascist Axis be accorded the fullest assistance to avail themselves of 
our industrial or material resources." 

On July 10 in UE News, district No. 1 council announced that it 
"supports without reservation all-out aid for Britain, China, and the 
Soviet Union." 

Also, the Communist Party said that nothing must interfere with 
war production. Strikes were outlawed, and Earl Browder said he 
could see no reason why the wartime amity between labor and employ- 
ers could not continue. 

The UE on July 2'6, 1941, proposed that President Roosevelt should 
"immediately call a national conference of labor, agriculture, Gov- 
ernment, and industry." 

Mr. Emspak, can you explain how it was that prior to the attack 
by Germany upon Russia the UE supported strikes in defense plants 
the same as the Communist Party, whereas after the attack by Hitler 
upon Russia the UE, the same as the Communist Party, opposed 
strikes in defense industries ? 



850 COMMUNIST INFILTRATION OF LABOR UNIONS 

Mr. Emspak. The UE didn't take any position on strikes as such 
until after Pearl Harbor. Then we made a commitment to our Gov- 
ernment on strikes, and I was a party at the meeting of the industry- 
labor conference that worked out that agreement. 

Mr. Tavenner. After the attack by Germany upon Eussia, the Com- 
munist Party uttered hardly a word of criticism of President Roose- 
velt, who, until June 22, was branded an enemy of the working class 
and a destroyer of peace. 

On October 25 the UE News printed a three-column story asking 
for complete repeal of the Neutrality Act which had been advocated 
sometime before by President Roosevelt and opposed by both the Com- 
munist Party and the UE News. 

Mr. Emspak, can you explain why this shift in the sentiment of the 
UE occurred regardmg the repeal of the Neutrality Act? 

Mr. Emspak. Whatever the position of the union was at the time, 
I suppose. 

Mr. Tavenner. On October 25, 1941, the UE News devoted a whole 
page to a plan developed by Joseph Selly and the American Com- 
munications Association to keep spies out of the country. Can you 
explain why it is that when this committee is trying to keep spies out 
of the country the UE refers to its efforts as "Red baiting"? 

Mr. Emspak. Because that is what it is. It is union-busting. It is 
antipeople. It is everything that is bad in this country. It is more 
than "Red baiting." It is the first step of fascism. 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you feel that we should permit spies to come in 
this country ? 

Mr. Emspak. No ; I don't, and you know I don't. 

Mr. Tavenner. In the latter part of the year 1941 the Communist 
Party from time to time admitted that England and her allies had 
actually been fighting fascism before Russia was invaded. However, 
prior to Russia's entry into the war, England was engaged in fighting 
an "imperialist" war, according to the Communist Party line. I think 
I have pointed out that the UE also followed this line. 

In September 1941, the UE convention went on record and said 
that England was worthy of securing aid from the United States, and 
one of the resolutions adopted at the convention stated that "the 
tremendous sacrifices being made by the British, Russian, Chinese, and 
other peoples in this resistance to Hitlerism are sacrifices made on our 
behalf as well as their own, and contribute directly to the defense 
of our coimtry." This resolution asked that all possible aid be given 
to Great Britain, the Soviet Union, China, and other nations resist- 
ing Hitlerism. 

Mr. Emspak, can you explain why it was that the United Elec- 
trical Workers' convention adopted such a resolution as this, whereas 
prior to the Russian invasion by Germany the UE was opposed to aid- 
ing Britain and its allies ? 

:Mr. Emspak. I suppose the people changed their minds. 

Mr. Moulder. I didn't hear your answer. 

Mr. Emspak. I said I suppose the people changed their minds. We 
had a convention. There was a big "hash-over," I suppose, and they 
came to a certain decision, and that is that. 

Mr. Moulder. Any further questions, Mr. Tavenner ? 



COMMUNIST INFILTRATION OF LABOR UNIONS 851 

Mr. Tavenner. I think that is about all. I would like to release 
the witness and call him back. I want to ask him a few questions 
after questioning another witness. 

Mr. Moulder. I do want to make this statement in reply to the 
statements you have made about this committee, Mr. Emspak. It is the 
function of this committee to expose communism and un-American 
activities. An appearance before this committee does not deny you 
any constitutional rights or privileges, nor have you been accused of 
anything. Your action before this committee discloses a flagrant 
attitude toward this committee. 

You made reference to an investigation by this committee of a 
CIO union. I was at that hearing, and it was disclosed that candi- 
dates for delegates to your national convention were, by inferences they 
would not deny — and one, Whisner, admitted he was a delegate to the 
Soviet Union and that other members of the union had been sent as 
delegates to Friends of the Soviet Union. Just what influence did the 
disclosure of those facts by this committee have on the election? 

Mr. Emspak. That hearing was held when a priest by the name of 
Father Rice called a member of this committee and, at the request of 
the priest, who was interested on a low partisan level, this committee 
held the hearing. Wliereas the hearing was intended to have an 
unfavorable reaction on the election to be held, one of the people here 
before this committee got the second highest vote cast. 

Mr. Moulder. It was the members of the union who voted for the 
delegates ? 

Mr. Emspak. Yes. 

Mr. Moulder. How could this committee affect the election ? 

Mr. Emspak. By the smear job this committee attempted to do. 

Mr. Moulder. Do you think it was a smear to expose that candi- 
dates were delegates to the Soviet Union ? 

Mr. Emspak. You have Congress interfering in a local union elec- 
tion. 

Mr. Moulder. It was the members of the union who voted and they 
had a right to exercise their own judgment. 

Mr. Emspak. They did. One of the boys here got the second to 
highest vote. It shows the efforts of the committee were wasted. 

Mr. Moulder. You don't want the average union member to know 
anything about the Communist affiliations officers of the union may 
have, if they do have such affiliations? 

Mr. Emspak. I don't care, and that is not the concern of the mem- 
bership. The concern of the membership is who is doing a job for 
them. 

Mr. IMouLDER. Don't you believe that the rank and file of any union 
should have knowledge of communistic activities within the union, 
and should have an opportunity to be so informed, and that this com- 
mittee is performing a service when it does so expose such communistic 
activities within a union ? 

Mr. Emspak. Of course this committee is not performing any serv- 
ice for organized labor. 

Mr. Moulder. Do you think it is wrong for this committee to expose 
the fact that Communists are trying to take over organized labor? 
Are you in favor of Communist control of organized labor ? 



852 COMMUNIST INFILTRATION OF LABOR UNIONS 

Mr. Emspak. I am not, and I am not in favor of a religious group 
taking control. 

Mr. Moulder. Don't you think if the Communists gained control 
of organized labor, they would lose the privileges they have to bargain 
freely ? 

Mr. Emspak. I don't know. That is a hypothetical question. 

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Emspak, you recently signed a non-Communist 
affidavit which you filed with the National Labor Relations Board? 

Mr. Emspak. That is right. 

Mr. Tavenner. When was this affidavit signed? 

Mr. Emspak. The convention had a session in September and the 
convention made a decision that the organization comply with the 
Taft-Hartley requirements in order to avail itself of whatever facili- 
ties were available, and on che basis of that decision the officers signed 
the non-Communist affidavits. The exact date, I don't recall. We 
had an acknowledgment from the Board, but the affidavit speaks for 
itself. 

Mr. Tavenner. Since that time you have been expelled from mem- 
bership on the executive board, have you not? 

Mr. Emspak. No. 

Mr. Tavenner. You have not ? 

Mr. Emspak. You mean of CIO? 

Mr. Tavenner. Yes. 

Mr. Emspak. No ; we withdrew. 

Mr. Tavenner. You withdrew? 

Mr. Emspak. Yes ; the day before. The day that the original sub- 
pena was dated, by the way, by the purest coincidence. 

Mr. Tavenner. I assure you that must have been a coincidence. 

Mr. Emspak. Yeah. 

Mr. Tavenner. At this time are you a member of the Communist 
Party? 

Mr. Emspak. I answered that when I said the affidavit speaks for 
itself. 

Mr. Tavenner. Is that all the answer you care to give ? 

Mr. Emspak. I should think that is plenty. 

Mr. Tavenner. The affidavit spoke as of the date you gave it some 
months back, but you are not willing to speak now as to what you are ? 

Mr. Emspak. I understand an affidavit to be an affidavit, a document 
that is binding when one undertakes to subscribe to it. I further 
understand what the motives of this committee are, to establish a 
beautiful frame to hang people who try to comply with the law. O. K. 
The affidavit is binding, and that is that. 

Mr. Tavenner. That is all you have to say ? 

Mr. Emspak. I think that answers the question fully and com- 
pletely. 

Mr. Tavenner. Were you a member of the Communist Party at 
any time before you signed the affidavit ? 

Mr. Emspak. That I will answer the same way I did about an 
hour ago. 

Mr. Tavenner. Have you ever paid Communist Party dues ? 

Mr. Emspak. I answered that. 

Mr, Tavenner. Have jou ever signed an application to join the 
Communist Party? 



COMMUNIST INFILTRATION OF LABOR UNIONS 853 

Mr. Emspak. I answered that. 

Mr. Tavenner. Have you ever registered as a member of the Com- 
munist Party? 

Mr. Emspak. I answered that. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did you, as a member of the Communist Party, 
attend the trial of Earl Browder at Communist Party headquarters 
in New York City? 

Mr. Emspak. I answered that. 

Mr. MouLER. You mean you refuse to answer for the same reasons 
you gave at the beginning ? 

Mr. Emspak. That is correct. I answered the best way I know how. 

Mr. Ta\tenner. You know that Mr. Budenz testified you did attend 
the trial of Earl Browder? 

Mr. Emspak. Mr. Budenz testified to a lot of things. I read about 
it. 

Mr. Tavenner. Is it true or not ? 

Mr. Emspak. I answered that. 

Mr. Ta%t:nner. That is all you have to say ? 

Mr. Emspak. Yes. 

Mr. Ta\t:nner. Do you recall the film produced by UE, Deadline 
for Action ? 

Mr. Emspak. I do recall it very well. 

Mr. Tavenner. What was the result of the showing of that film ? 

Mr. Emspak. Apparently a major corporation in this country, in 
conjunction with an agency of the Government, succeeded in framing 
a man named Marzani and sending him to jail because that film 
happened to touch a tender spot with regard to the large corporations, 
because it happened to be an effective film. 

Mr. Tavenner. I have attempted to trace here the line of the UE 
News in comparison with the Communist Partj^ line. I want to give 
you an opportunity to disavow, if you so desire, any of the state- 
ments I referred to from UE News, of which you are editor. 

Mr. Emspak. Anything that is printed is printed. I am not avow- 
ing or disavowing anything. My memory is not that good that I 
can recall everything you read. Whatever position the UE News took 
reflected the views of the UE, and that is that. 

Mr. Tavenner. I would like to ask that the witness be available 
tomorrow morning. 

Mr. Moulder. 1 ou are excused until tomorrow morning, 

I wish to say I have no religious prejudices whatsoever. This 
committee was not influenced by any church to conduct any investi- 
gation into local union affairs. I am strongly in favor of organized 
labor, and most of the members of this committee are, and we are not 
doing anything to hamper organized labor. We feel it is the duty 
of this committee to protect labor unions against Communist in- 
filtration, and that we will try to do. 

You are excused until 10 o'clock tomorrow morning. 

Mr. Scribner. Isn't it possible to conclude today? We have been 
here since 10 o'clock this morning. The fact there were other wit- 
nesses before the committee is not the fault of this witness. He was 
subpenaed for 10:30 this morning, and I think we should conclude 
today instead of adjourning and possibly getting ideas overnight 
to go into the next day. 



854 COMRIUNIST INFILTRATION OF LABOR UNIONS 

Mr. Tavenner. I take exception to counsel's statement that we de- 
sire to adjourn so as to get ideas to go into tomorrow. It was my 
plan to finish examining this witness after I examined Mr. Matles. 
That was the plan and is still the plan. 

Mr. Moulder. Could we go ahead and finish today ? 

Mr. Ta\^nner. Yes. It is now 5 o'clock, but we can go ahead. 

Mr. Moulder. Very well. 

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Matles, please. 

Mr. Moulder. Will you hokl up your right hand and be sworn. 
You solemnly swear the testimony you are about to give will be the 
truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? 

Mr. Matles. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF JAMES J. MATLES, ACCOMPANIED BY HIS COUNSEL, 

DAVID SCRIBNER 

Mr. Tavenner. Will you state your full name ? 

Mr. Matles. James J. Matles. 

Mr. Tavenner. Are you accompanied by counsel ? 

Mr. Matles. I am. 

Mr. Tavenner. Is it the same counsel as accompanied the previous 
witness ? 

Mr. Matles. Yes. 

Mr. Tavenner. You are employed by UE and hold a position with 
the UE? 

Mr. Matles. That is right. 

Mr. Tavenner. How long have you been associated with the UE? 

Mr. Matles. Since 1927. 

Mr. Tavenner. What is your present address ? 

Mr. Matles. 193 Clinton Avenue, Brooklyn, N. Y. 

Mr. Tavenner. Will you state briefly to the committee your pre- 
vious record of employment? 

Mr. Matles. I was working as a mechanic for a number of years 
prior to my position with the union. 

Mr. Tavenner. When and where were you born ? 

Mr. Matles. Rumania, February 1909. 

Mr. Tavenner. What position do you hold in the UE ? 

Mr. Matles. Director of organization. 

Mr. Tavenner. What other positions have you held since as a mem- 
ber of UE? 

Mr. Matles. No other position. 

Mr. Tavenner. Have you held any other position in a labor organi- 
zation ? 

Mr. Matles. I was grand lodge representative of the I. A. of M., 
International Association of Machinists. 

Mr. Chairman, may I be excused from these pictures while I am 
testifying? 

Mr. Moulder. Yes ; if the witness so desires. No further pictures 
will be taken. 

Mr. Tavenner. Are you acquainted with Esther Tice ? 

Mr. Matles. Mr. Chairman, I have listened to Mr. Emspak's testi- 
mony, and I am sure you are trying to save time. I do not propose to 
discuss here my associations or my political affiliations, under the 



COMMUNIST INFILTRATION OF LABOR UNIONS 855 

guaranties given to me by the first and fifth amendments to the Con- 
stitution, and I am going to try to save as much time for you as I can. 

Mr. Tavenner. i ou are rather jumping at conclusions, I think. 

Mr. Matles. I get it from what you have said that you are trying 
to save time, so I am helping you along. 

Mr. Tavenner. I am not asking you about the political affiliations 
of Esther Tice. 

Mr. Matles. I don't want to discuss my associations. 

Mr. Tavenner. No matter what type of business associations th»?y 
may be in the affairs of the union, you will not discuss them? 

Mr. Matles. That is right, because I studied the testimony before 
this committee, and I find you are trying to use witnesses as finger men. 

Mr. Tavenner. Where is Esther Tice employed? 

Mr. Matles. I have answered that question. 

(Witness confers with his consel.) 

Mr. Matles. Mr. Chairman, may I have 1 minute on this question? 

Mr. Tavenner. You mean to consult with counsel ? 

Mr. Matles. No. I have consulted with counsel and desire 1 minute 
to clarify my point of view 

Mr. Moulder. Very well. 

Mr. Matles. The purpose of this hearing was announced by a 
representative of this committee, and that was to investigate the activi- 
ties of officers of the union who have complied with the Taft-Hartley 
law. As we have known this committee for 12 years, the only reason 
you would assign yourself such police functions would be to frame us 
up and smear our organization. I feel Mr. Murray and Mr. Carey 
had something to do with persuading you to hold these hearings. 

Mr. Moulder. I think you are wrong about that. I don't know 
either of them. Do you refuse to answer the question ? 

Mr. Matles. I have given the basis for answering the question the 
way I did. 

Mr. Tavenner. Which, of course, is no answer at all. 

Mr. Moulder. You can give any explanation you wish, but don't 
make a speech. 

Mr. Matles. Do you really think I made a speech, Mr. Congress- 
man? 

Mr. Moulder. Proceed. 

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Matles, have you ever been a member of the 
International Workers Order? 

Mr Matles. I have answered that question. 

Mr. Tavenner. When ? 

Mr. Matles. Just before. 

Mr. Tavenner. Wliat is it ? Were you or were you not ? 

Mr. Matles. I will not discuss my affiliations, my associations, or 
my political beliefs, on the grounds I stated before. 

Mr. Tavenner. Are you acquainted with the fact that that organiza- 
tion is cited as Communist and subversive by the Attorney General 
of the United States ? 

Mr. Matles. I am not interested in that. 

Mr. Tavenner. Are you acquainted with that fact or not ? Regard- 
less of whether you are interested, are you acquainted with the fact? 

Mr. Matles. No ; I am not acquainted with it. I read something in 
the newspapers about organizations being put on a subversive list 
by the Attorney General. I didn't pay any attention to that. 



856 COMMUNIST INFILTRATION OF LABOR UNIONS 

Mr. Tavenner. In 1933 you were an organizer for the Steel and 
Metal Workers Industrial Union, were you not? 

Mr. Matles. My answer is the same. 

Mr. Moulder. You refuse to answer for the reasons stated, that it 
violates your rights provided under the Constitution ? 

Mr. Matles. That is right. 

Mr. Moulder. What are those provisions, do you know ? 

Mr. Matles. I believe the first and fifth amendments. 

Mr. Moulder. In what respect do they justify your refusal to answer 
the question ? 

Mr. Matles. I am so advised by counsel. 

Mr. ScRiBNER. I will be happy to give the basis for that if you wish, 
Mr. Congressman. 

Mr. Ta\'enner. Was James Lustig also employed as an organizer 
for the Steel and Metal Workers Industrial Union at the same time 
you were ? 

Mr. Matles. My answer is the same. 

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Matles, I show you a copy of the Daily Worker 
dated November 6, 1933, and point out to you that on page 2 under 
the heading "Thirty-eight workers' organizations endorse Communist 
Party program" your name appears as Secretary of the Steel and 
Metal Workers Industrial Union, along with that of James Lustig, 
as organizer of the Steel and Metal Workers Industrial Union. This 
article states : 

Only the Communist Party as the party of the working class represents the 
interests of the entire working population, stands squarely on the principle 
that the provision of adequate food, clothing, and shelter and the defense of the 
rights and living standards of the workers are the primary issues in this 
campaign. 

I show you that article and ask if you still subscribe to that statement? 

Mr. Matles. Mr. Chairman, I have on many occasions discussed 
this subject before other congressional committees. I do not care to 
discuss it before this committee. 

Mr. Moulder. You refuse to answer ? 

Mr. Matles. For the reasons I have previously given. I will not 
discuss my views, my affiliations, or my associations. 

Mr. Ta\tenner. Mr. Matles, Louis F. Budenz, a former official of 
the Communist Party of the United States, testified before the House 
Labor Committee that you, in 1936, were an important member of the 
State and National Trade Union Commission of the Communist Party. 
Do you wish to deny or affirm the testimony of Mr. Budenz on that? 

Mr. Matles. I wish to answer in the same manner I answered the 
previous question. 

Mr. Tavenner. On July 25, 1947, Salvatore M. Vottis testified be- 
fore the Committee on Un-American Activities that you were a mem- 
ber of the Communist Party and that he had attended Communist 
Party meetings with you. Do you wish to deny or affirm this state- 
ment made by Mr. Vottis? 

Mr. Matles. I would like to answer in the same manner. I wish 
to state I have discussed this question on previous occasions before 
other congressional committees. 

Mr. Tavenner. On August 11, 1949, Joe Zack, also known as Joseph 
Kornfeder, testified before this committee that you were a member 
of district No. 2 of the Communist Party in New York State in 



COMMUNIST INFILTRATION OF LABOR UNIONS 857 

1931 and 1932. Do you wish to deny or affirm that testimony of 
Mr. Zack ? 

Mr. Matles. I would like to answer in the same manner. I have 
discussed that subject before congressional committees in the past. 

Mr. Moulder. You mean you have answered the question before 
other committees but you won't answer before this committee ? 

Mr. Matles. I fully realize the type of committee I am present be- 
fore, testifying before. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did you previously testify with regard to testimony 
of Joe Zack that you were a member of district No. 2 of the Com- 
munist Party in New York State in 1931 and 1932 ? 

Mr. Matles. I am saying that during the past 12 years this and 
other committees of Congress have been warming up this type of 
question all over again, and the answers I have given before other 
committees are the best I can give, and I do not care to discuss the 
question before this committee. I am trying to save some taxpayers' 
money. 

Mr. Tavenner. What I am asking is whether you answered this 
question before other congressional committees? 

Mr. Matles. This stuff has been warmed up for 12 years and is 
getting tiresome. 

Mr. Tavenner. With regard to Mr. Kornf eder's testimony ? 

Mr. Matles. With regard to that question. 

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Zack also testified that upon his initiative 
you were assigned to be secretary of the New York Committee of 
the Steel and Metal Workers Industrial Union. Is that correct or 
not? 

Mr. Matles. My answer is the same. 

Mr. Ta\tnner. Mr. Zack also testified that in 1931 or 1932 you 
were assigned to represent the district committee of the Communist 
Party, New York District, to a number of Communist Party fractions 
such as the Communist Party fraction in the International Typo- 
graphical Union, Local No. 6; the Communist Party fraction in the 
food workers' union; and a number of other fractions in the Com- 
munist Party within other labor unions. Do you wish to deny or 
affirm that testimony ? 

Mr. Matles. Show me the purpose of all these questions. Is it to 
show on the record a smear that Mr. Murray and Mr. Carey can use 
in the coming elections? Are you cooperating to that extent? 

Mr. Moulder. You have an opportunity to clear yourself, to refute 
or deny the allegation. 

Mr. Matles. I wouldn't attempt to clear myself before this com- 
mittee. I consider that an insult. 

Mr. Moulder. If what he says is not true, why don't you deny it ? 

Mr. Matles. I have discussed this question before other committees, 
and it is tiresome, and I do not care to discuss it before this committee. 
I heard you say you are a strong labor man. Not when you voted 
for the Wood bill, and to keep the Taft-Hartley law. 

Mr. Moulder. I voted for the repeal of the Taft-Hartley law. 

Mr. Matles. You voted for the Wood bill. 

Mr. INIouLDER. You look up the record. 

Mr. Matles. I have looked it up. Six out of the eight members 
of this committee have done so. 



858 COMMUNIST INFILTRATION OF LABOR UNIONS 

Mr. Tavenner. You have not answered the question. 

Mr. Matles. I answer it in the same manner I answered the pre- 
viovis question. 

Mr. Tavenner. You may stand aside for the present. I may want 
to call you back for further questions. 

I now call Mr. Emspak. 

TESTIMONY OF JULIUS EMSPAK— Recalled 

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Emspak, I asked you a number of questions 
about your duties and about the services rendered by you and other 
officers of the UE to the rank and file in the matter of handling griev- 
ances, and how there were occasions when you went to the local com- 
munity and worked on those problems. 

Now I would like to revert again to that subject for a few minutes 
and ask you several other questions. 

In the event of grievances, a business agent, in endeavoring to settle 
a dispute between labor and management, has the right, has he not, 
under certain circumstances, to make an inspection on the job? 

Mr. Emspak. Not necessarily. 

Mr. Tavenner. Not necessarily ? 

Mr. Emspak. No. 

Mr. Tavenner. But he has that right ? 

Mr. Emspak. No. It depends on the type of local collective bar- 
gaining agreement that is in existence. In some cases they do, and 
others they do not. 

Mr. Tavenner. In the instance of the contract with General Elec- 
tric does he have that right ? 

Mr. Emspak. It does not permit inspection by the business agent. 

Mr. Ta\tenner. It does not? 

Mr. Emspak. No. 

Mr. Tavenner. Are not officers of UE permitted to make inspections 
on the job? 

Mr. Emspak. No. What happens on the rare occasions it is used, 
a joint committee of management and local union representatives may 
go look at a specific job. 

Mr. Tavenner. Let me read you paragraph 4 of the contract : 

In those cases where it is mutually agreed by management and local represent- 
atives that an inspection of the job would be helpful in settling the case, a joint 
committee of local and management representatives shall be allowed to make an 
inspection of the job. Local representatives may include the business agent or 
his assistant or ofBcers of the local. 

So both the business agent and officers of the union would have that 
right? 

Mr. Emspak. Possibly, but it is not automatic. Every member of 
the local under that provision, has the right. 

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Emspak, the union officers also have the right, 
do they not, if they are so minded, to precipitate a strike? 

Mr. Emspak. No. 

Mr. Tavenner. They may do it ostensibly for trade-union purposes, 
and it may be done actually even for a foreign power ? 

Mr. Emspak. No. That is a completely misleading, and a calcu- 
latedly misleading, statement. In the first place, so far as this union 
is concerned, no officer has a right to call a strike at any time, nor any 



COMAIUNIST INFILTRATION OF LABOR UNIONS 859 

group of officers. This organization happens to be one where a basic 
decision of that kind is reserved to the members and the members 
alone. 

Mr. Tavenner. But that would depend on the influence the leader- 
ship has on the rank and file ? 

Mr. Emspak. It does not depend on any individual, and it depends 
on what the issue is. 

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Emspak, I will ask you this question: Have 
you, as an officer of UE, or have any of the other officers of UE, to 
your knowledge, been denied the right to participate in the negotia- 
tion of wage disputes, by security officers of the Army, Navy, or Air 
Corps? 

Mr. Emspak. We never have been denied that right. At least, I 
never have. The question has never come up. 

Mr. Tavenner. Have you ever been denied, by such security officers 
of the Army, Navy, or Air Corps, all access to any plants ? 

Mr. Emspak. I haven't had occasion to ask, and haven't been in any. 

Mr. Tavenner. So far as you know, you neither have been cleared 
nor barred ? 

Mr. Emspak. So far as I know I am just an ordinary guy who has 
had no occasion to go in a plant. I haven't been in a plant, I guess, 
for 10 years. 

Mr. Moulder. Did you testify to your previous employment before 
going in the newspaper business? 

Mr. Emspak. I am not a newspaperman. I am an officer of the 
union, and the constitution of the union requires that one of the paid 
officers be designated editor in order to have it hook up to the or- 
ganization. 

Mr. Moulder. Prior to your official position, where were you em- 
ployed ? 

Mr. Emspak. In the General Electric plant at Schenectady until 
the spring of 1936. 

Mr. Tavenner. Have any other officials of UE been barred by secu- 
rity officers, to your knowledge ? 

Mr. Emspak. You mean national officers? 

Mr. Tavenner. Yes. 

Mr. Emspak. Not that I know of. 

Mr. Tavenner. That is all. 

I want to recall Mr. Matles. 

TESTIMONY OF JAMES J. MATLES— Recalled 

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Matles, have you been denied the right, by se- 
curity officers of the Army, Navy, or Air Force, to participate in wage 
negotiations between management and labor at any time ? 

Mr. Matles. To participate in wage negotiations ? 

Mr. Tavenner. Yes. 

Mr. Matles. How could they deny me that right ? 

Mr. Tavenner. I am asking, have they ? 

Mr. Matles. No. 

Mr. Tavenner. Have they denied, for security reasons, your rii>-ht to 
visit plants ? 

Mr. Matles. What do you mean, for security reasons ? 



860 COMMUNIST INFILTRATION OF LABOR UNIONS 

Mr. Tavenner. a security officer usually investigates individuals 
who have access to plants where secret or classified Government work 
is being done ; isn't that right ? I am asking you whether or not the 
security officers have denied you the right of access to plants ? 

Mr. Matles. I don't work at any of these companies. I work for 
the union. 

Mr. Tavenner. You are a national officer ? 

Mr. Matles. Yes. 

Mr. Ta\tenner. And as a national officer you have never been denied 
that right? 

Mr. Matles. I never visit the plants. 

Mr. Tavenner. But you are an organizer and go from place to place ? 

Mr. Matles. We negotiate with General Electric and with West- 
inghouse, but we try to stay in the air-conditioned offices if they let us. 
It is more pleasant. 

Mr. Tavenner. You carry on negotiations? 

Mr. Matles. I have for 14 years. I was interested in the questions 
about strikes prior to Pearl Harbor and prior to 1941. I want to 
assure you that from January 1, 1941, for 6 months, the War Depart- 
ment report covering the first 6 months of 1941 showed this union as 
having the outstanding peaceful record of not a single strike in a 
single defense plant taking place; that is, from January 1, 1941, for 
6 months thereafter. That is an outstanding record. That has been 
the record of this union prior to the war, during the war, and after 
the war. It has an outstanding record of peaceful relations, besides 
an outstanding record as a union. 

Mr. Tavenner. I am not asking about that. 

Mr. Matles. You ought to be interested in that. 

Mr. Tavenner. I am; but I want an answer to my question first. 

Mr. Matles. I did answer it; didn't I? _ 

Mr. Tavenner. Not fully. As an organizer, you have occasion to 
go to the various communities in which the work of the union is 
going on ? 

Mr. Matles. Certainly. 

Mr. Tavenner. You are there constantly ? 

Mr. Matles. I am there constantly at meetings, negotiating with 
the companies, and so on. 

Mr. Tavenner. I am asking you whether the security officers of the 
Army, Navy, or Air Corps have ever denied you clearance to go on 
properties where secret or classified Government work was being done? 

Mr. Matles. I am not going there. They had no occasion to, and 
if they had occasion to I would consider it a dirty trick if they did. 

Mr. Tavenner. So they have neither cleared nor denied you ? 

Mr. Matles. The same as they have not cleared or denied you. You 
have never had occasion to go there. You are in the same position 
I am in. 

Mr. Tavenner. You were speaking about the very peaceful, fine 
record that your union made from January 1, 1941. I am reading 
now from page 106 of the report of this committee. Seventy-eighth 
Congress, Second Session, House Report No. 1311, on the CIO Politi- 
cal Action Committee : 

Members of the American Peace Mobilization joined in supporting two strikes 
of tbe U. E. R. M. W. A. and aided in picketing the Pennsylvania Manufacturing 
Co., and the Emerson Radio Co., of Brooklyn, N. Y. (A. P. M. Volunteer, May 3, 



COMMUNIST INFILTRATION OF LABOR UNIONS 861 

1941, p. 4). Virgil Mason, U. E. R. M. W. A. leader at the Doliler Die Casting 
Co., was a member of the national council of the American Peace Mobilization. 

Mr. jNIatles. What is the point to that? 

Mr. Tavenner. I understood you to say your union was not in- 
volved in any strike from January 11)41 for 6 months thereafter. 

Mr. Matles. The War Depratment's statistics showed our union was 
not engaged in a single strike in a single defense plant from January 1, 
1941, for 6 months. 

Mr. Tavennee. Do a^ou deny what I read to you ? 

Mr. Matles. I refer to a War Department report that relates to de- 
fense plants. We didn't have 1,500 plants working on defense work. 
That is the distinction I am trying to impress on you. 

JSIr. Tavexner. Was the Emerson Radio Co. engaged in defense 
work ? 

Mr. Matles. In 1941? 

Mr. Tavexner. Yes. 

Mr. Matles. I don't know. I assume they weren't, or the War De- 
partment would have said so. 

Mr. Tavexxee. Was the Pennsylvania Manufacturing Co. engaged 
in defense work ? 

Mr. ]\Iatles. I assume it wasn't. It is a very small shop making 
transformers. By the way, I don't know the dates of those strikes. 

Mr. IMouLDER. Is that all of this witness ? 

Mr. Tavexxer. Yes. We will have other testimony relating to this 
general subject tomorrow. I am not asking you to stay over, but I am 
advising you of that fact. 

Mr. Moulder. The subcommittee stands adjourned until 10 o'clock 
tomorrow morning. 

(Thereupon an adjournment was taken until Tuesday • December 6, 
1949.) 



HEAKINGS EEGAKDING COMMUNIST INFILTKATION OF 

LOOK UNIONS— PART II 



TUESDAY, DECEMBER 6, 1949 

United States House of Representatives, 

Subcommittee of the ComiMittee on 

Un-American Activities, 

Washington, D. C. 

The subcommittee of one met, pursuant to adjournment, at 11:05 
a. m., in room 226, Old House Office Building, Hon. Morgan M. 
Moulder presiding. 

Committee member present : Hon. Morgan M. Moulder. 

Staff members present : Frank S. Tavenner, Jr., counsel ; Courtney 
Owens, investigator; Benjamin Mandel, director of research; John W. 
Carrington, clerk ; and A. S. Poore, editor. 

Mr. Moulder. The subcommittee is in session. Wlio is the first wit- 
ness, Mr. Tavenner? 

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Smith. 

Mr. Moulder. What is his full name ? 

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Oscar Smith. 

Mr. Moulder. Do you solemnly swear the testimony you are about to 
give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so 
help you God ? 

Mr. Smith. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF OSCAU SMITH, ACCOMPANIED BY BENNETT BOSKEY, 
DEPUTY GENERAL COUNSEL, ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION 

Mr. Ta\"enner. You are Mr. Oscar Smith ? 

]Mr. Smith. That is right. 

Mr. Tav'enner. Are you accompanied here by the Deputy General 
Counsel for the Atomic Energy Commission, whose name is Mr. 
Bennett Boskey ? 

Mr. Smith. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. Wliat is your official position, Mr. Smith ? 

Mr. Smith. I am at present Deputy Director of Organization and 
Personnel. I think in some of the documents that appear in this 
matter my title appears as Director of Labor Relations. That was 
my position in the past, but my duties have recently been expanded. 

Mr. Tavenner. That is of the Atomic Energy Conmiission ? 

Mr. Smith. That is correct. 

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Smith, we have been engaged here in a hearing 
relating to the leadership in the UE union; that is, the national 
organization. Wliere there is work done at the instance of the Atomic 
Energy Commission in a plant in which the UE has a contract, is it 

863 



864 COMMUNIST INFILTRATION OF LABOR UNIONS 

the practice of your Commission to investigate, or to bring under 
security regulations, the officers of the national union ? 

Mr. Smith. I will have to answer that in this way: The UE has 
appeared as a bargaining agent in only one instance in a major atomic- 
energy installation. 

Mr. Tavenner. Speak a little louder, please. 

Mr, Smith. That was Schenectady. We do buy a good many sup- 
plies from various concerns all over the country. All kinds of unions, 
including possibly UE, may be in those suppliers' plants. They are 
not Government plants, however, and in those instances we have not 
interested ourselves in the labor relations of the suppliers. 

At Schenectady we have interested ourselves and have taken cer- 
tain steps in regard to bargaining with UE at that installation. 

Mr. Tavenner. Wliat position did the Atomic Energy Commis- 
sion take with regard to the bargaining agency in the instance you 
referred to ? 

Mr. Smith. We took several steps. At the outset, as we first got 
into the problem, we issued a directive to the General Electric Co. 
to maintain the status quo and that they were not to recognize UE 
in a new installation that at that time had no employees, pending the 
time we could explore the question. 

We then invited UE to clarify the question that seemed to us to 
exist. When they declined to do this, we felt we had no alternative 
than to direct General Electric to cease dealing with them at the 
existing plant at Schenectady. 

Mr. Tavenner. What was the name of that plant ? 

Mr. Smith. In its entirety it is called the Knolls Atomic Power 
Laboratory. 

I think I should describe our contractual and physical arrangement 
up there. The Manhattan Engineer District, prior to the time the 
Atomic Energy Commission took over, entered into a contract with 
General Electric Co. for certain atomic-energy work. The work 
involved the operation of a plant at Hanford, Wash., for the manu- 
facture of plutonium. Included in the same contract was certain 
work to be performed at Schenectady. The work to be performed at 
Schenectady envisaged that certain new facilities would be built, and 
also authorized General Electric to begin work immediately at 
Schenectady in its own plant within restricted areas marked off 
within the plant. 

The Manhattan District then acquired its own plant at Schenectady, 
the Peek Street laboratory. At the time the Atomic Energy Com- 
mission took over, the Peek Street laboratory had been acquired, 
but there were no operations in it. The small operation within the 
General Electric plant was then moved to the Peek Street laboratory. 

So, at the time of our action, which covered several months in 
1948, with final action on November 1, 1948, we had what was known 
as the Peek Street laboratory, which was a Government-owned build- 
ing, fairly well isolated by itself in Schenectady; a small amount of 
work still going on in restricted areas in the old plant ; and new facili- 
ties under construction, with some parts completed, ready to move 
people from Peek Street to Knolls. 

Mr. Tavenner. The employees it was proposed to use in that plant 
were members of what union ? 



COAEVIUNIST INFILTRATION OF LABOR UNIONS 865 

Mr. Smith. United Electrical Workers. 

Mr. Tavenner. Was the question raised by the Atomic Energy 
Commission as to the loyalty of members of the national organization 
of UE ; that is, its officers ? 

Mr. Smith. AVell, I M'oiildn't say that we raised the question. The 
facts were that, long before that, we had established a firm policy, 
which had been made known in a great many ways. It had been made 
known in a report to the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy which 
we filed January 10, 1948. It was made known publicly in hearings 
conducted in March 1948, in which our report on labor problems was 
the initial exhibit. It was made known in various communications 
to the National Labor Relations Board. The policy was that we con- 
sidered it well settled that we did have to look into the question of 
assuring ourselves that the people who represented employees on 
classified work were people loyal to the United States. 

The question as to the UE came up in this way : This committee, 
the House Committee on Labor and Education, and a great many 
other organizations, had from time to time conducted certain investi- 
gations of the UE, and there was available a large amount of public 
information, matters of public record that concerned the associations 
and affiliations and loyalty of these men who headed this organization, 
both locally and nationally. 

We felt that question had to be looked into and cleared up satisfac- 
torily if they were to represent people at Schenectady and we were to 
discharge our responsibility under the Atomic Energy Act. 

So, when the new plant was ready to go into operation, we directed 
General Electric to remain in statu quo, and said we wanted this ques- 
tion cleared up before there was anj^ recognition of this union as the 
bargaining representative of any persons to be emploj^ed by it at the 
new plant. 

Mr. Tavenner. In other words, it was the policy of the Atomic 
Energy Commission to satisfy itself regarding the loyalty of the 
officei's of the bargaining agency? 

Mr. Smith. That is correct. Maybe, to give you the full picture 
on that, I ought to give a little of the background of the situation that 
existed at that time- 

Our industry is an industry born in secrecy. In the air of secrecy 
under which the industry developed, a great many problems arose. 
There were restrictions on meetings. Work itself was highly com- 
partmentalized. One man was not supposed to know what the man 
next to him was doing. 

The Manhattan Engineer District had an agreement with the Con- 
gress of Industrial Organizations, the American Federation of Labor, 
and the National Labor Relations Board that all questions of union 
recognition would be deferred in this industry until some of the more 
critical problems essential to the prosecution of the war were gone 
into. 

In 1946, immediately before the Atomic Energy Commission took 
over, the Manhattan Engineer District decided that, on a test-tube 
basis, they would try permitting the organization of unions in Oak 
Ridge, and notice was given of that to the Congress of Industrial Or- 
ganizations, the American Federation of Labor, and Mr. Herzog of 
the National Labor Relations Board. 



866 COMMUNIST INFILTRATION OF LABOR UNIONS 

The Atomic Energy Commission took over on this test-tube basis 
at Oak Ridge, with unions excluded at other atomic energy installa- 
tions, but with a fii-m commitment to review the situation as far as 
other installations were concerned, and it was in this review that the 
problem at Schenectady arose. 

The Commission first concluded, based on reasons probably removed 
from the question of UE or security or anything else, that there was a 
need for unions in this industry, and that we did need collective bar- 
gaining, and that if the industry was to become in the future a part 
of the fabric of this country, it would have to be worked out as in other 
industries. That was announced in letters to the Congress of Indus- 
trial Organizations, the American Federation of Labor, and atomic 
energy contractors. 

Tlie action at Schenectady was a dual action. On the one hand the 
Commission said in substance to General Electric Co. : "We are au- 
thorizing you to recognize unions. We have written to Mr. Herzog, 
Chairman of the National Labor Relations Board, releasing him from 
his agreement to postpone NLRB cases." Then we said to General 
Electric : "However, at Schenectady all this public information raises 
this question as to UE. Don't recognize them for the new installation 
at Schenectady until we can probe into it." 

Mr. Tavenner. So that it was and became the policy of the Atomic 
Energy Commission to look into the question of security as to officials 
of national unions having bargaining agency contracts? 
Mr. Smith. That is correct. 

Mr. Tavenner. Will you state why the Atomic Energy Commission 
considered it important to look into the question of security as to the 
officers of national bargaining agencies, such as, for example, the UE, 
as distinguished from those who are physically working in the plants? 
Mr. Smith. Yes. First, to answer that generally, there are a great 
many documents which I suppose might be looked upon as official 
publications of the Communist Party. One of the other congressional 
committees assembled a great many of them — tlie Foreitai Affaii's Com- 
mittee's subcommittee under the chairmanship of Representative Bol- 
ton several years ago — which makes it clear it is an objective on the 
part of the Communist Party to infiltrate trade-unions; to place Com- 
munists in key positions in unions if it is possible for them to accom- 
plish this; and in such positions, according to these official documents, 
to win the confidence of workers. Obviously the reason for winning 
the confidence of workers is so that they can use the trust that is 
bestowed in them, if it becomes necessary', in order to follow the dic- 
tates of the Communist Party and the party line. 

Moving from that premise on, the next thing is the important part 
that is played all the way up the line by the various officers in posi- 
tions of authority above the local. I suppose the thing that brings this 
home more in our own industry is the fact that we have many installa- 
tions where the question of continuity of production is extremely im- 
portant, not only from the standpoint of the need of production, but 
from technical requirements of the process. 

President Truman, about a year and a half ago, appointed a com- 
mittee to study this matter and to make recommendations to him. 
That committee consisted of three verv prominent men in the labor- 
relations field: William H. Davis, of New York; Edwin E. Witte, of 



COMMUNIST INFILTRATION OF LABOR UNIONS 867 

the Uiiiversit}' of Wisconsin; and Aaron Horvitz, an arbitrator, of 
New York. 

They wrote a report to the President which has since become what 
we might call the charter for labor relations in our industry. In their 
report they have this to say on the importance of national officers and 
also high-level representatives of management: 

Another labor-management technique of proven value in private industry is a 
well-planned procedure which brings the experience and the responsibility of the 
very highest levels of management and labor to bear upon the settlement of all 
critical disputes. Procedure to this end needs to be carefully planned, so as 
to leave with local representatives primary responsibility for good relations 
at each particular installation, and yet make available in crises whatever wider 
experience and heightened responsibility may exist at the higher levels of 
management and labor, as well as the relatively detached judgment of individuals 
who have not themselves been directly involved in the earlier stages of the 
dispute. All of these considerations are made especially important in the field 
of atomic energy by the overwhelming responsiljility to maintain continuity 
of production. We therefore recommend 

And this is set out and is the recommendation they have made for the 
industry, and it has been largely accepted : 

That, fully recognizing and safeguarding the primary responsibility of local 
representatives for sound and stable relations at each Government-owned, pri- 
vately operated atomic-energy installation, provision be made for bringing to 
bear upon the settlement of critical disputes all available experience and re- 
sponsibility of individuals at the very highest levels of management and labor. 

In short, I think it boils down to this. It is hard to find the words 
to express how important it is in our industry, and we believe that 
we have to have higher representatives of management and higher 
representatives of labor available to assist in resolving disputes that 
might result in the interruption of that continuity. 

Mr. Tavenner. Then I assume it is princi]:>ally for that reason that 
the Atomic Energy Commission considers it vital to the national de- 
fense that the loyalty of persons occupying positions as officers of a 
bargaining agency be checked upon ? 

Mr. Smith. That is correct. What I have touched on here is the 
affirmative situation. Looking at it from the other standpoint, if we 
actually had in these positions, as the men to whom we might have to 
come to resolve disputes that might result in the interruption of these 
terrifically important activities, representatives of a foreign power, 
you could have verj' serious adverse action instigated by them in the 
opposite direction. 

Mr. TA^^ENNER, Do you recall whether or not, under the contract 
between UE and General Electric, the officers of TTE would inider any 
circumstances have the right of access to restricted working facilities? 

Mr. Smith. The contract covers all the GE plants. It sets up a 
grievance procedure applicable to all those plants, I think I should 
make it clear at this point that we did not feel, and there was not 
involved in our decision, any question of espionage or anything like 
that arising through any rights of inspection, because in fact we had 
not permitted inspection by outside parties at Schenectady. 

As to the arrangement itself, I have here a copy of the contract be- 
tween UE and General Electric, and the particular clause involving 
the investigation of grievances reads as follows : 

In those cases where it is mutually agreed by management and local repre- 
sentatives that an inspection of the job would be helpful in settling the case, a 



868 COMMUNIST INFILTRATION OF LABOR UNIONS 

joint committee of local and management representatives shall be allowed to 
make an insijection of the job. Local representatives may include the business 
agent or his assistant or oflficers of the local. 

At Schenectady the business agent is a national officer of some kind 
of the international, so the local and international officers up there are 
rather closely tied together. 

Mr. Tavenner. As the result of the policy of the Atomic Energy 
Commission, what action was taken at Schenectady ? 

Mr. Smith. We told General Electric they were not to recognize 
IJE at the new plant. We then invited the UE to come in and explore 
the question with us. 

Mr. Tavenner. What do you mean by "explore" the question ? 

Mr. Smith. We said: "There is a lot of public information that 
raises a question in our mind. We invite you to come in, and we want 
certain data from you." 

I think if I read a paragraph from our letter it would answer the 
question. We actually wrote them two letters. The first was not 
answered for a couple weeks, and we wrote another letter. The first 
letter said : 

The assertions in your letter do not even begin to answer the serious question 
that has been raised concerning the absence in various of the UE officers of the 
requisite adherence and loyalty to the interests of the United States. If the 
officers of UE desire, the Commission will afford them every opportunity to 
participate in a fuller exploration of this issue. It should be understood, how- 
ever, that the AEC would expect the UE officers to be prepared to give full and 
candid statements concerning present or past affiliations of any kind with the 
Commimist Party or Communist-dominated organization. In addition, the 
same personnel data will be requested of the UE officers as has been furnished 
by employees and by various officers of other unions who represent employees 
in the atomic energy program. 

That letter is dated October 6, 1948. After a couple weeks, that 
letter not having been answered, we wrote another on October 22, 1948. 

Mr. Tavenner. Let me interrupt you there a moment. It waE 
your purpose merely to subject the officers of the union to the sam( 
type of a check on loyalty as were individual members who mighi 
be working in the plant. Is that a correct statement ? 

Mr. Smith. Not necessarily identical. I think there is this differ- 
ence : Individual members working in the plant have access to re- 
stricted data. As such, there is a standard set up that they must meet, 
and certain procedures which must be followed, including a special 
investigation by the FBI, before they are authorized to have such 
access. In the case of union representatives, it probably adds up 
this way : People very close to the local and handling the day-to-day 
affairs of the local may also, in order to do their job, need some access ; 
and if that were the situation, there would be the requirement that 
the procedure be identical with that in the case of an employee having 
access. 

There is no statutory requirement that we follow the procedure 
of FBI investigation and so forth if access to restricted data is not 
involved, and we would feel we had a right to adapt our procedures 
as warranted in the situation. Actually, we did not set up a pro- 
cedure in detail here. We might have followed the identical pro- 
cedure with specific employees, or we might have followed some other 
procedure. In fact, when they would not explore it at all, we did 
follow a different procedure. We just directed GE to cease bargaining 



COMMUNIST INFILTRATION OF LABOR UNIONS 869 

with them at Peek Street. Before we would actually deny a i)articular 
employee access to restricted data, Ave would probably complete the 
inA'esti<;ation and go through the full procedure. 

Mr. Tavenner. All right. I interrupted you. 

Mr. Smith. On October 22, 1948, we wrote a second letter. I will 
read a couple of paragraphs from it : 

In my letter of October 6, the Coniinission proffered to the officers of UE 
an opportunity to participate in a resolution of this matter. Such participation, 
as indicated in that letter, would necessitate the furnishing by the officers of 
UE of the same personal data as has been furnished by all employees engaged 
in atomic energy work and by various officers of other unions, including full 
and complete statements as to their associations and affiliations. 

As a matter of information there, we have a particular form which 
each employee fills out as the basis for the initiation of any action to 
investigate the loyalty question. A great many union representatives 
have filled that form out for us, many of whom we did not process on 
an FBI background investigation basis because they were not men 
who would have access to restricted data. 
We went on and said : 

The Commission wishes to emphasize that it intends to move promptly on 
this matter. In the event that the serious question that exists is not satis- 
factorily answered in the manner indicated above, the Atomic Energy Commis- 
sion intends to direct the General Electric Company to withdraw and with- 
hold recognition from the United Electrical, Radio, and Machine Workers of 
America as the bargaining representative of any employees engaged on work 
at AEC-owned or AEC-leased installations in the Schenectady area or engaged 
on atomic work which is defined as classified by the AEC and being performed 
by the General Electric Co. 

* * * ^ iti * * 

In order that the employees who will be affected by this action may be fully 
advised of the facts and of the consideration given to this matter by the Com- 
mission, we are directing the General Electric Co. to place a copy of this letter 
in the hands of every employee engaged in classified atomic energy work at 
Schenectady. 

Now, that letter was responded to by Mr. Fitzgerald under date of 
October 26, 1948, at some length. I say it was responded to. I don't 
mean to say by that that we considered the reply responsive. Quite 
the contrary. Mr. Fitzgerald expressed some views he had concern- 
ing the Atomic Energy Commission, but did not offer to explore the 
issue, nor did he offer to answer the questions we had asked as to 
affiliations of officers of this organization. Consequently, we directed 
the General Electric Co. to cease recognition of UE at the existing 
facility. Peek Street. Our directive was broad enough to include 
a few other minor operations at Schenectady where a few people were 
engaged on Commission work. 

Mr. BosKEY. I might add, the letters from which Mr. Smith has 
been reading are part of the public record and have been printed in 
the Fifth Semiannual Report of the United States Atomic Energy 
Commission. 

Mr. Smith. In our final letter to GE, as in our original letter to 
GE, we said this: 

Further, we take this opportunity again to make it clear that the Commission 
does not object to General Electric Co. extending recognition as bargaining agent 
for atomic-energy workers to any labor organization whose officers have met the 
requisite standards in respect to full and unqualified adherence and loyalty to 
interests of the United States. 



S70 COMMUNIST INFILTRATION OF LABOR UNIONS 

And, as a matter of fact, while this proceeding was going on, the Na- 
tional Labor Relations Board did certify a plumbers' union at Knolls. 
Also, the metal-trades department of the American Federation of 
Labor was certified at Hanford and now has a contract with the Gen- 
eral Electric Co. at Hanford. 

Mr. Moulder. Do you mean to say all the unions other than UE 
agreed to follow the rules of the Atomic Energy Commission ? 

Mr. Smith. I can't say all of them. We really only have two 
unions active in our industry. One is the metal-trades department. 
That includes the International Association of Machinists, which is 
not affiliated with the A. F. of L., but which, in the case of our in- 
dustry, has joined with the metal-trades department in our plants. 
The other is the Chemical Workers of CIO. Both the metal-trades 
department and the Chemical Workers have responded to all requests 
we have made for submission of personal data or anything else, and 
liave fully met whatever standards we have felt were necessary in this 
connection. No other union has refused. They just haven't been 
around our installations. 

Mr. Tavenner. That is all I want to ask you, unless you think of 
something else that might have a bearing on our discussion. 

Mr. Smith. I don't think of anything else. 

Mr. BosKEY. As you know, the United Electrical, Radio, and Ma- 
chine Workers filed suit in the United States District Court for the 
District of Columbia, seeking to enjoin the action of the Commission. 
The district court dismissed the suit. The case is now pending in the 
court of appeals, and as a result of several extensions of time to file 
the appellant's brief, granted at the request of the United Electrical, 
Radio, and Machine Workers, the case is still pending and probably 
will be for a few months more. 

Mr. Tavekner. What specific authority is there for your taking 
the position that you have with regard to the requirement that officials 
of a union like the UE should comply with security regulations? 

Mr. Smith. I think that is a legal question. 

Mr. BosKEY. It is elaborated somewhat in the brief the Govern- 
ment filed in the district court. The Commission operates pursuant 
to statute, pursuant to the McMahon Act, the Atomic Energy Act of 
1946. 

Apart from any general considerations which, in the absence of 
statute, might enable the Government to protect itself for security 
reasons where classified work is involved, the Commission also has 
certain provisions in the statute. 

Section 1 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1946 contains a vei*y im- 
portant declaration of policy, which declares that the paramount 
objective at all times is to assure the common defense and security. 
That objective is very much in the Commission's mind in all its activi- 
ties. 

In addition, in defining in section 1 of the act, the major programs 
it was the desire of Congress the Commission should carry out, the 
act provides for — 

A program for Government control of the production, ownership, and use of 
fissionable material to assure the common defense and security and to insure 
the broadest possible exploitation of the fields. 



COMMUNIST INFILTRATION OF LABOR UNIONS 871 

The act also, as you know, has a provision relating to the control 
of information, section 10, which states : 

It shall be the policy of the Commission to control the dissemination of re- 
stricted data in such a manner as to assure the common defense and security. 

In other words, running throughout the entire act is this thread 
of common defense and security. To that the Commission must always 
look. 

In addition, in section 4 of the act, which relates to the operation of 
our main production facilities for the production of fissionable mate- 
rial and research done in connection therewith, there is a specific pro- 
vision authorizing the Commission to carry out those functions by 
contract. The act states that in any such contract the Commission 
shall insert a provision which requires the contractor to comply with 
all security regulations which may be prescribed by the Commission. 

In view of these very pertinent parts of the Atomic Energy Act, 
it was the Commission's view, and the view of the Department of 
Justice and of the District Court of the United States for the District 
of Columbia, that there was ample authority in law for the action 
which the Commission took in this case. 

Mr. Moulder. Thank you very much for coming here. There is 
not the slightest doubt in the minds of the members of this committee 
as to the very effective and efficient manner in which the Atomic En- 
ergy Commission has protected the national security in the functions 
of that Commission. 

As I understand, you wish to emphasize here in particular the pre- 
cautions and careful work that you are doing to protect the defense 
and national security in connection with the officers and representa- 
tives of organized labor? 

Mr. Tavenner. That is one point. You will recall the committee 
"imdertook at the time of the Franey hearing to make a study and 
investigation of security measures in plants where Government classi- 
fied work is beinjr done.^ 

Mr. Moulder. You should be complimented. 

Mr. Ta\t:nxer. Colonel Barlow, please. 

Mr. Moulder. Do you solemnly swear the testimony you will give 
this subcommittee shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but 
the truth, so help you God ? 

Colonel Barlow. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF COL. ERNEST A. BARLOV/ 

Mr. Tavexxer. Will you state your name for the record, Colonel? 

Colonel Barlow. Ernest A. Barlow. 

Mr. Tavenxer. What is your official rank and position? 
^ Colonel Barlow. Colonel, General Staff Corps. I am Chief of the 
Security and Training Corps, Intelligence Division, Headquarters, 
Department of the Army. 

Mr. Tavexxer. In functioning in that capacity, does there come 
under your control the matter of security measures in plants where 
classified or secret Government work is being done? 



1 Soviet Espionage Activities in Connection With Jet Propulsion and Aircraft, June 6, 



872 COMMUNIST INFILTRATION OF LABOR UNIONS 

Colonel Barlow. Policy with regard to the degree of investigation 
and the standards for clearances comes within the purview of my 
office. 

Mr. Tavenner. Will you explain the procedure that is used in your 
security functioning ? 

Colonel Barlow. For any classified contract entered into by any pro- 
curement service of the Department of the Army, prior to entering 
into the contract we have a procedure for the clearance of the facility., 

The key personnel — that is, the directors, officers of the company, 
special consultants, draftsmen, individuals of that nature — make out 
a personnel-security questionnaire, and thereafter these members of 
the company are given what we call a national-agency check. In other 
words, the files of the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Federal Bureau of 
Investigation, and in many instances the files of the Un-American 
Activities Committee, are used to ascertain if there is any derogatory 
information contained in the file about any of the key personnel. If 
none is found, we write a letter to the procurement service and state 
there is no objection, from a security standpoint, to their entering into 
a contract with "A" for whatever purchases they wish to make; and 
after that the company itself enters into an agreement with the pro- 
curement service in which it assumes responsibility for classified infor- 
mation in that plant and agrees not to permit the unauthorized use of 
this classified information. 

That is pertaining to all classified contracts of whatever degree of 
classification entered into by the Department of the Army. 

Then the question of the clearance of individual employees comes 
up. For secret and top secret contracts, each individual must fill out 
a personnel-security questionnaire, and the Army commands then in- 
vestigate the individual's loyalty, integrity, discretion, and the like. 

The minimum amount of investigation consists of a check of the 
local Army files, local Navy files, local FBI files, local police records, 
and the like. However, as a usual procedure, the Army commander 
goes further and makes a personal background investigation. In 70 
percent of the cases they make a personal-background investigation. 
That is for secret and top secret. If they find no derogatory informa- 
tion, a letter of consent is issued for that particular person to be 
employed. 

Mr. Moulder. What do you mean by a personal-background inves- 
tigation ? 

Colonel Barlow. National-agency check, local-agency check, and 
interviews with individuals back in the home community of the indi- 
vidual under consideration. If the Army commander, in his investi- 
gation, discovers any derogatory information, he is not permitted to 
issue a letter of consent, but he refers the complete case to a board set 
up in the office of the Army Provost Marshal General. That board 
reviews the case and makes a decision. 

Mr. Tavenner. You have spoken of investigations conducted by the 
Army. Is there a separate procedure where the Navy and Air Force 
are involved, or does the Army do that work for the armed services? 

Colonel Barlow. At the moment the Army conducts investigations 
for both the Navy and the Army for secret and top-secret contracts. 
The Air Force conduct their own. At present the Navy is attempting 
to secure sufficient funds to set up an investigative organization that 



COMMUNIST INFILTRATION OF LABOR UNIONS 873 

can handle all naval classified contract work; but this was a carry-over 
from a wartime situation where the Secretar}' of the Navy delegated 
to the Secretary of the Army clearance of personnel on Navy contracts. 

Mr. Ta\t:nner. In the situation where you have a bargaining 
agency such as, for example, the UE, in its contractual relationship 
with, say, General Electric, does the Army subject the oflicers or any 
of the personnel of the national union to security regulations? 

Colonel Baklow. Not by reason of the individual's union position. 
We only investigate them if they are going to have access to classified 
information in that plant. 

Mr. Tavenxer. That is, if an officer of UE expects to go into the 
working facilities of a plant, then you would conduct an investigation? 

Colonel Barlow. If he is going to see classified information in that 
plant. 

Mr. Tavenxer. What about the situation where he merely goes into 
the plant for the purpose of inspecting the job, without seeing any 
maps or designs of specifications ? 

Colonel Barlow. He is not investigated. 

Mr. Tavenxer. He is not investigated ? 

Colonel Barlow. He is not investigated. At each plant the pro- 
curement service that entered into a contract with that plant has a 
representative, one of whose jobs is to see that the facility abides by 
that security agreement, and it is up to him to insure that security 
in maintained. We require, insofar as visitors are concerned, that 
the visitors be accompanied at all times on a tour of the plant to see 
to it that they do not see classified information. 

Mr. Tavenxer. I am not speaking of a visitor in a general sense, 
but rather as an officer of the national organization which may be 
engaged in the settlement of some grievance dispute, in which case he 
would have the right to inspect the job under certain circiunstances. 
Have you ever conducted a security investigation of such an officer of 
the national union ? 

Colonel Barlow. I can't authoritatively answer that question. Ac- 
tually, in my own opinion — the Army representative at that plant 
engaged in that contract, plus the plant management — it would seem, 
between the Army plant inspector and the agreement signed by the 
plant, that, if a union official had to see classified material in connec- 
tion with his uni(m activity, he would be investigated. However, I 
have no personal knowledge on that score. 

Mr. Tavexner. Aside from the right of an official of the national 
union to enter a classified working facility, is it the practice of the 
security division of the Army to conduct investigations of officers of 
the national union who have certain administrative duties and con- 
trol over and in regard to the personnel of the union, and who have 
certain duties in regard to the settlement of grievances? 

Colonel Barlow. It is not the practice of the Army. As a matter 
of fact, I don't think the Army has authority to investigate any civilian 
per se imless he is working for the Army. 

Mr. Tavexxer. In other words, officials of a union such as UE 
would not be investigated under your practice and procedure? 

Colonel Barlow. No, sir; not unless he were an employee as well as 
a union official. 

Mr. Tavexxer. Did I understand you to say you consider you have 
no authority to investigate civilians? 



874 COMMUNIST INFILTRATION OF LABOR UNIONS 

Colonel Barlow. It is my opinion the Department of the Army 
has no right to investigate an}^ civilians unless they are employees 
of the Department of the Army. 

Mr. Tavenner. Then you conclude that under the regulations 
governing your Department you do not liave authority to investigate, 
say, officials oi L E who are not employees 'i 

Colonel Barlow. That is correct. 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you know of instances in which the Army, 
the Navy, or tiie Air Force are engaged or have let contracts involving 
secret or classified defense work to plants over which the UE has 
a bargaining agency contract ? 

Colonel Barlow. I don't believe I can authoritatively answer that^ 
but I am certain the Department of the Army has classified contracts 
with the General Electric Co. 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you have available copies of the security reg- 
ulations which you could leave with this committee ? 

Colonel Barlow. I have Department of the Army Memorandum. 
No. 38U-5-10, dated 2 April 1948, with two changes, which sets forth 
the policy with respect to the clearance of employees. I do not have 
the regulations regarding the facility. 

Mr. Tavenner. Could I ask you to make available to us the reg- 
ulations covering the facility as well as the employees ? 

Colonel Barlow. The clearance of employees and facilities at the 
moment is under stud}^ by the Munitions Board of the Department of 
Defense, and they are writing completely new policy regulations for 
the whole thing. I am afraid anything I would give you right now 
would be certainly not the thing that will be in effect 2 weeks from 
now. I have a copj^ of the old security agreement, but it is being 
revised along with everything else. 

Mr. Tavenner. Will you give us a copy of the revised material 
when the revision is completed ? 

Colonel Barlow. I will. 

Mr. Tavenner. And also a copy of the old regulations? 

Colonel Barlow. I will. 

Mr. Moulder. Thank you very much for your attendance. Any 
further witnesses ? 

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Chairman, this concludes the testimony at this 
hearing. You will probably recall that various members of the com- 
mittee indicated, as J suggested a moment ago, at both the open and 
closed session at which the Franeys were heard on June 6, 1949, that 
further investigation should be made of security measures in force 
at plants working on secret or classified Government defense projects. 
Further investigation has ber.n made from time to time. 

It has been developed in this hearing that certain officers of national 
unions which are bargaining agents under contracts with plants where 
secret or classified defense work is being performed are not subjected 
to security regulations in all cases. 

Tlie testimony introduced at this hearing discloses the duties and 
powers of certain officials of UE in negotiating contracts, in the ad- 
justment of grievances, in the administration of the affairs of the 
union, and in the right in certain instances to inspect jobs, though 
located in classified working facilities. 

The Atomic Energy Commission has recognized the risk involved 
to national security in failure to subject such officials to the same 



COMMUNIST INFILTRATION OF LABOR UNIONS 875 

security requirements as those normally dealing with classified 
material. 

Mr. Moulder. I understand they do have such rules and regula- 
tions. 

Mr. Tavenner. They do have cases where those security standards 
have not been met, as was the case with UE. 

Tlie Security Section of the Army rather takes the view, if I under- 
stand the testimony correctly, that it has no authority under the law 
to subject the oflicials of such an organization to any type of security 
standards except in instances where an official in performing his duty 
is I'equired to know or to see classified material. 

Without some type of security standards applying to officers of the 
type and cliaracter of officers in a union which has a bargaining agency 
contract, such officers, if actually disloyal to the United States, appar- 
ently would have opportunity to seriously jeopardize the national 
defense. 

It is suggested, therefore, that you consider reporting this matter 
to the committee as a whole for its opinion as to whether additional 
investigation is desired, and whether it desires to make recommenda- 
tions for legislative enactment. 

Mr. Moulder. As is in effect with the Atomic Energy Commis- 
sion? 

Mr. Tavenner. Or something similar. 

Mr. Moulder. Is that all ? 

Mr. Tavenner. That is all. 

Mr. Moulder. The committee stands adjourned. 

(Thereupon the subcomm'^>'>e adjoiT^ned/) 

X 



BOSTON PUBUC UBRARY 



3 9999 05018 386