(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 "Investigation of improper activities in the labor or management field. Hearings before the Select Committee on Improper Activities in the Labor or Management Field"

J: 







Given By 



U. S. SUT^. OF DOCUMENTS 



t 



3^ 



INVESTIGATION OF IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE 
LABORiOR MANAGEMENT FIELD 



HEARINGS 

BEFORE THE 

SELECT COMMITTEE 

ON IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE 

LABOR OR MANAGEMENT HELD 

EIGHTY-FIFTH CONGRESS 
FIRST SESSION 

PURSUANT TO SENATE RESOLUTION 74, 85TH CONGRESS 



OCTOBER 22, 23, 24, 25, 28, AND 29, 1957 



PART 15 



Printed for the use of the Select Committee on Improper Activities in the 
Labor or Management Field 




INVESTIGATION OF IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE 
LABOR OR MANAGEMENT FIELD 



HEARINGS 

BEFORE THE 

SELECT COMMITTEE 

ON IMPEOPER ACTIVITIES IN THE 

LABOR OR MANAGEMENT FIELD 

EIGHTY-FIFTH CONGKESS 

FIRST SESSION 
PURSUANT TO SENATE RESOLUTION 74, 85TH CONGRESS 



OCTOBER 22, 23, 24, 25, 28, AND 29, 1957 



PART 15 



Printed for the use of the Select Committee on Improper Activities in the 
Labor or Management Field 




UNITED STATES 
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 
89330 WASHINGTON : 1957 



Boston Public T ,-K 
Superint'^n^ Library 

^ ""*-^°n. Of Documents 



^^^29 1958 



'^^ 



SELECT COMMITTEE ON IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR OR 

MANAGEMENT FIELD 

JOHN L. McCLELLAN, Arkansas, Chairman 
IRVING M. IVES, New York, Vice Chairman 
JOHN F. KENNEDY, Massachusetts KARL E. MDNDT, South Dakota 

SAM J. ERVIN, Jr., North Carolina BARRY GOLDWATER, Arizona 

PAT McNAMARA, Michigan CARL T. CURTIS, Nebraska 

Robert F. Kennedy. Chief Coun&el 
Rdth Young Watt, Chief Clerk 
u 



CONTENTS 



Nathan Shefferman and Labor Relations Associates, Inc. 

Page 

Appendix 62 17 

Testimony of — - 

Audritsch, Louis 6014 

Bachman, Mervin M 5978 

Binns, Keith 5800, 5811 

Bromley, Charles 5851 

Compton, Raymond J 6125 

Cross, James G-^--- 5861 

Currie, John Patterson 5990 

Dawson, Thomas S 6768, 5809 

DeGiacomo, Robert 6162 

Dillon, Joseph M 6209 

Donoghue, James R 6118 

Evans, Glen 5947 

Farren, Harry D 6114 

Faunce, George, Jr 5886, 5990 

Giammasi, Angelo 6104 

Hufert, Theodore 5918 

Hession, Thomas A 6065 

Holmes, Raymond E 6168 

Jensen, Iris 5841 

Kuskin, Harry H 6125 

Litell, Charles A 5953, 5989 

Long, Gary 5778, 5790 

Lund, Stewart 5823 

McDermott, Thomas A 6186 

Neilsen, James T 6083 

Patterson, Walter J 6023 

Peterson, Eugene 5770 

Pleister, W. B 5994 

Ring, Phvllis 5792 

Rolirdanz, Paul G 61/4 

Roitman, Harold P 6054 

Salinger, Pierre, E. G 5766,5822,6021,6170,6206 

Saville, Charles C 6193 

Schultz, Carl M 6049 

Smith, Merle 5869 

Speiser, Raymond A i5^ 

Tudor, Wallace 6039,6196,6207 

Webber, Rov W 6074 

Wroblewski, Edmund E 6154 

ni 



IV CONTENTS 

EXHIBITS 

Introduced Appears 
on page on page 

I. Four circulars prepared in the office of Mr. Lund and dis- 

tributed at the Morton frozen-food plant 5788 6217- 

2A-C. Two executed "family information" forms and one executed 6220 

application for employment with Morton Frozen Foods, 
Inc 5794 (*) 

3. Letter dated November 15, 1956, to Merle Smith, Bakery 

and Confectionery Workers' International Union of 
America, from Keith C. Binns, manager, Morton Frozen 
Foods, Inc., 5813 (**) 

4. Memorandum dated January 4, 1957, to all employees from 

Keith C. Binns, general manager, stating clarification of 
the management's recognition of the Bakers and Con- 
fectionery Workers' Union 5814 (**) 

5. Letter dated February 12, 1957, to Keith Binns, manager, 

Mortons Frozen Foods, from Merle C. Smith, regional 
director of Bakery and Confectionery Workers' Union, 
giving list of names who had not signed papers authoriz- 
ing the checkoff of union dues 5815 G221 

6. Agreement of contract between Morton Frozen Foods and 

Webster Citv (Iowa) Bakers Union, Local 449, signed 

November 19, 1956 5850 (*) 

7. Adaptability test forms given by Dr. Checov to employees 

of Whirlpool Corp 5941 (*) 

8. List of employees in Whirlpool plant and weekly personnel 

summary or worksheets 5956 (*) 

9 Card of Richard L. Ramsey, an employee of Whirlpool 

Corp., with notation "No good" 5958 6222 

10. Card of Richard E. Creager, an employee of Whirlpool 

Corp., with notation "Talked to boy's mother and 

father" 5959 6223 

II. Stack of cards of employees of the Whirlpool Corp., used in 

the card system to check on each employee 5960 (*) 

12. Letter dated September 26, 1956, to Charles Litell from Dr. 

Checov 5978 (*) 

13. Decision and order of the NLRB dated May 16, 1956, and its 

notice to all employees 5993 (*) 

14A. Cartoon, Whirlpool employees vote "no" committee 6005 6224 

14B. Cartoon, Whirlpool employees vote "no" committee 6005 6225 

14C. Cartoon, Whirlpool employees vote "no" committee 6005 6226 

14D. Cartoon, Whirlpool employees vote "no" committee 6005 6227 

15. Bills rendered to Clyde Porcelain Steel Co., from Labor 

Relations Associates in connection with a union campaign 
ranging from April 1953 to July 31, 1956, in the amount of 
$71,137.73 '- 6009 (*) 

16. General plan of attack as to how to deal with union 

problems, made up by Mr. Patterson of Labor Relations 

Associates 6010 (**) 

17. Pages Nos. 1 to 74, daily reports of Walter Patterson 6032 (*) 

18. W orksheets showing payments by Sears, Roebuck to Labor 

Relations Associates for special services fees 6053 (*) 

19. Declaration-of-rights card 6071 6228 

20. A handwritten document, unsigned, giving advice to the 

council on the type of letters that should be written to 

Sears, Roebuck & Co 6093 (*) 

21. Letter dated May 23, 1955, to the employees of the Fenway 

Store, signed by Sears, Roebuck Employees, Council, 

Local 1 6114 6229 

22. Check No. 2299 dated May 1, 1954, payable to E. W. Robey 

and signed by Shelton Shefferman of Labor Relations 

Associates 6161 6230 

23. List of employees which were a part of the Sears, Roebuck 

employees' list, indicating their position toward unioniza- 
tion of the plant 6164 (*) 

*May be found in the files of the select committee. 
**May be found in the printed record. 



CONTENTS V 

EXHIBITS— Continued 

Introduced Appears 
on page on pape 

24. Memorandum dated October 7, 1953, addressed to Mr. 

C. B. Caldwell from Reymond E. Holmes, re Boston 6169 6231- 

25. Bill from Labor Relations Associates to Sears, Roebuck & 6234 

Co., dated April 30, 1955, "fees for services rendered during 

the month of April 1955, in the amount of $4,313.96" 6195 (*) 

26. Daily report dated November 16, 1955, charged to Sears, 

Roebuck & Co. in the amount of $78.75 for attending 

Tobin funeral 6201 6235- 

27. Daily report dated November 17, 1955, charged Sears, 6236 

Roebuck & Co. "$17.75, car expenses, meals and tips, 

attending Tobin funeral" 6202 6237- 

28. Bill to Sears, Roebuck & Co., dated September 10, 1953, 6238 

"disbursements for the month of August 1953 in the 

amount of $425.29" 6202 6239- 

29. Bills obtained from the files of the Sears, Roebuck & Co., 6240 

regarding Shefferman account 6207 (*) 

30. Daily reports of Nathan and Shelton Shefferman for the 

years 1953, 1954, 1955, and 1956 6207 (*) 

Proceedings of — 

October 22, 1957 5765 

October 23, 1957 5861 

October 24, 1957 5953 

October 25, 1957 6039 

October 28, 1957 6083 

October 29, 1957 6125 

*May be found in the files of the select committee. 



INVESTIGATION OF IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE 
LABOR OR MANAGEMENT FIELD 



TUESDAY, OCTOBER 22, 1957 

United States Senate, 
Select Committee on Improper Activities 

IN THE Labor or Management Field, 

Washington^ D. G. 

The select committee met at 10 a. m., pursuant to Senate Resolution 
74, agreed to January 30, 1957, in the caucus room. Senate Office Build- 
ing, Senator John L. McClellan (chairman of the select committee) 
presiding. 

Present : Senator John L. McClellan, Democrat, Arkansas ; Senator 
John F. Kennedy, Democrat, Massachusetts; Senator Sam J. Ervin, 
Jr., Democrat, North Carolina; Senator Pat McNamara, Democrat, 
Michigan ; Senator Carl T. Curtis, Republican, Nebraska. 

Also present: Robert F. Kennedy, chief counsel; Pierre E. G. 
Salinger, investigator ; Ruth Young Watt, chief clerk. 

The Chairman. The committee will be in order. 

(Members of the select committee present at the convening of the 
session were Senators McClellan, Ervin, and Kennedy. ) 

The Chairman. We open a new series of hearings today to get 
information on the improper activities of management. These hear- 
ings center on one Nathan W. Shefferman, a Chicago labor-relations 
man who headed a firm apparently dedicated to the proposition that 
no employer need deal with a labor union unfriendly to their interests. 

These hearings have significance in a number of ways: 

1. We shall attempt to ascertain whether the National Labor Rela- 
tions Act, better known as the Taft-Hartley Act, is sufficient to cope 
with the practices of certain antiunion employers. 

2. We shall attempt to learn whether or not new legislation is 
needed to cope with the growing number of middlemen in the labor- 
management field. 

The right of unions to exist and to organize and to engage in collec- 
tive bargaining has long been on this Nation's lawbooks. In hearings 
of this committee, beginning last March, we have found that certain 
labor-union officials through coercion, bribery, and other methods have 
attempted to gain control over unwilling workers. We have also shown 
that unscrupulous labor leaders have in some instances gained control 
over workers and then sold out their interests to equally unscrupulous 
employers. 

We feel that the American worker has as much right to be free from 
management coercion as from labor-union coercion in the determina- 
tion of his decision whether or not to join a union. 

The writers of the Taft-Hartley Act put certain restrictions on the 
activities of labor. They also put' restrictions on management. These 

5765 



5766 nviPROPER activities est the labor field 

hearings will attempt to learn whether or not there has been a delib- 
erate and calculated effort to circumvent and defeat these provisions 
on behalf of management. 

We will also seek information on whether the law dealing with 
imf air labor practices on the part of management needs strengthening. 

The purpose of this hearing is to determine the true story of Mr. 
Shefferman's activities, his relationship to his many clients, and the 
types of services that he performed for them, with a view of ascertain- 
ing whether any of those actions or activities or his work in any way 
constituted illegal or improper practices. 

All right, counsel, call your first witness. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, I would like to call as the first witness 
a member of the staff who will give a little bit of backgi'ound on the 
firm of Nathan Sheflerman, as far as its earnings, and a little bit 
of its history and we will go into that in greater detail at a later date. 

I wanted to at least start off' by giving a little bit of the background 
of Mr. Shefferman's firm, and I will call Mr. Pierre Salinger. 

The Chairman. Mr. Salinger, will you be sworn ? 

You do solemnly swear tliat the evidence you shall give before this 
Senate select committee shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing 
but the truth, so help you God ? , . i / 

Mr. Salinger. I do, 

TESTIMONY OF PIEERE E. G. SALINGER 

Tlie Chairman. State your name and your place of residence and 
your business or occupation. 

Mr. Salinger. M}^ name is Pierre Salinger; I reside at 3611 O 
Street, Washington, D. C, and I am a member of the staff of this 
committee. 

The Chairman, Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Salinger, have you made a study or has an as- 
sociate of yours made a study of the finances of the firm of Mr. 
Shefferman ? 

Mr. Salinger. We have ; yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Xow. he lias a number of different interests; does 
he not? 

Mr. Salinger. He does, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And we are particularly interested or this hearing 
is interested in the Labor Eelations Associates, Inc. 

Mr. Salinger, That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Of Chicago, is that right ? 

Mr. Salinger. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. That has been in existence for how long, what period 
of time ? 

Mr. Salinger. Labor Relations Associates was formed originally in 
1939. It has been in existence since then. 

Mr. Kennedy. Since 1939 ? 

Mr. Salinger. That is right, sir, 

Mr, Ivennedy, At that time Mr. Shefferman was associated with 
Sears, Roebuck & Co. ? 

Mr. Salinger. Mr. Shefferman at that time was a labor relations 
man for Sears, Roebuck and this firm was set up as a kind of sideline 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 5767 

for him to handle other matters and some sj^ecial matters for Sears, 
Roebuck. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, was Mr. Nathan She Herman's son, Mr. Shelton 
Shellerman, also interested in this company ? 

Mr. Salinger, Yes, sir, he is. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, have you made a breakdown as to the finances 
of this company over a period of the past 5 or 6 years ? 

Mr. Salinger. We have. 

Mr. Kennedy. Would you tell the committee what you found ? 

Mr. Salinger. First, in relation to Labor Relations Associates, Inc., 
of Chicago, the period January 1, 1949, through December 31, 1955, 
a period of 6 years. Labor Relations Associates of Chicago earned a 
total amount of $2,481,798.88. 

The Chairman. Over what period of time ? 

Mr. Salinger. That is a period of 6 years. 

The Chairman. Two million? 

Mr. Salinger. $2,481,798.88. That is in retainer and per diem fees. 

Mr. Kennedy. How many clients, approximately, did Mr. Sheffer- 
man have, for instance, in 1956 ? 

Mr. Salinger. He had slightly more than 300 clients in 1956. 

Mr. Kennedy. xVnd these clients would pay a retainer fee, plus per 
diem and expenses ; is that right ? 

Mr. Salinger. They were on a retainer basis and, where Mr. Shef- 
ferman's firm did special services for them, they would pay extra per 
diem fees based on the number of Mr. Shefferman's employees who 
would be assigned to the specific project. 

(At this point, Senator McNamara entered the hearing room.) 

Mr. Kennedy. This $2,400,000 figure encompasses all of these ex- 
penses, of per diem payments that have been made to Labor Relations 
Associates ? 

Mr. Salinger. It does, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, out of that figure, how much had been used in 
expenses by Mr. Shefferman ? 

Mr. Salinger. Out of the $2,481,000, a total of $2,379,566.41 has 
been used as expenses. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, during this hearing, we are going to go into 
how some of this expense money was used ; is that right ? 

Mr. Salinger. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. We are going to develop that. 

Mr. Salinger. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Shefferman had an office not only in Chicago, 
but he also had an office in Detroit ; is that right ? 

Mr. Salinger. He had an office in Detroit and an office in New York. 

Mr. Kennedy. And they serviced clients in all parts of the country ; 
is that right ? 

Mr. Salinger. That is right. The client list practically encom- 
passes every State of the Union. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, do you have it broken down as to what Mr. 
Shefferman himself and his son, Shelton Shefferman, drew from the 
company in salary and expenses and per diem ? 

Mr. Salinger. I do. 

Mr. Kennedy. During this period of time. Could you give us those 
figures ? 



5768 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES LN" THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Salinger. In the period from January 1. 1950, to December 31, 
1956, Nathan Shefferman drew a total of $246,600.45 in salary, ex- 
penses, and bonus payments from Labor Relations Associates of Chi- 
cago. In addition, he received a total of $48,953.50 in special retainer 
fees from Sears, Roebuck & Co.. for a total remuneration of $295,553.95. 

The Chairman. Over what period ? 

Mr. Salinger. A 6-year period, Senator ; Januarv 1. 1950, to Decem- 
ber 31, 1956. 

(At this point, Senator Curtis entered the hearing room.) 

Mr. Salinger. During this same period, his son, Shelton Sheffer- 
man, drew a total of $211,808.41, all of this from LRA. We are not 
going into these figures, into Mr. Nathan Shefferman's or Mr. Shelton 
Shefferman's outside activities or other investments, but just what 
they drew from Labor Relations Associates of Chicago. 

Mr. Kennedy. What is the total, then, for the Sliefferman familv? 

Mr. Salinger. The total is $507,362.36 in that 6-year period. 

The Chairman. Are there any questions? In other words, they 
averaged about $80,000 a j^ear for the 2 of them ? 

Mr. Salinger. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. All right ; j'ou may stand aside. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, the attorney for the Morton Frozen 
Foods Co. has a statement that he wishes to make, prior to our begin- 
ning the hearings on the Morton Frozen Food Co., which is one of the 
clients of Mr. Sheffennan, and which we will develop as one of the 
cases here before the committee. 

STATEMENT OF THOMAS S. DAWSON, ACCOMPANIED BY 
EOY ANDEESON 

The Chairman. You are Mr. Dawson ? 

Mr. Dawson. That is right. 

The Chairman. And Mr. Anderson, is he here ? 

Mr. Dawson. Yes, he is here. 

The Chairman. Gentlemen, you have conferred with the chairman 
this morning briefly regai ding your problem, and you have submitted 
to me a statement. 

Do you wish to have that statement placed in the record ? 

Mr. Dawson. I would like you to do that, please. 

The Chairman. Would you identify youi-self, please, for the rec- 
ord? 

Mr. Dawson. My name is Thomas S. Dawson. I am an attorney 
from Louisville, Ky. 

This is Mr. Roy Anderson, who is assistant general counsel for the 
Continental Baking Co., of New York. 

The Chairman. Do you have extra copies of this ? 

Mr. Dawson. Yes, sir; I have a few, Senator. 

The Chairman. I wish you would let the committee have them, 
please. 

Mr. Dawson. I have only three, sir ; I am sorry. 

The Chairman. I believe the Chair is going to permit you to read 
this statement into the record at this point so that all members of the 
committee may hear it. It is a brief statement and the Chair is going 
to permit you to read it into the record. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 5769 

Mr. Dawson (reading). Mr, chairman and gentlemen of the com- 
mittee, I represent Morton Frozen Foods, a division of Continental 
Baking Co. Several witnesses have been subpenaed to appear before 
the committee, presumably to give testimony concerning certain activ- 
ities of agents or representatives of my client in connection with 
union problems at our Webster City, Iowa, plant. 

I would like to move the committee to postpone or defer the taking 
of any testimony relating to Morton Frozen Foods until after the Na- 
tional Labor Relations Board has reached a decision on two matters 
which are now pending before it. 

On July 25, 1957, the United Packinghouse Workers of America 
iiled a petition with the National Labor Relations Board seeking rec- 
ognition as the bargaining agent for all production and maintenance 
employees at the Webster City, Iowa, plant, notwithstanding the fact 
that there is now in effect a contract between Continental Baking Co. 
and the Bakery and Confectionary Workers International Union of 
America. 

On July 23, 1957, this same union instituted proceedings with the 
National Labor Relations Board claiming unfair labor practices by 
Morton Frozen Foods. As a basis for the charges, it is claimed that 
the contract with the bakers' union was entered into without knowledge 
or participation by the employees affected, and as a result of collu- 
sion between the employer and the union, and, therefore, no bar to 
the organization efforts of the packinghouse workers and an election. 

Obviously, the testimony which this committee proposes to hear at 
this time is the very testimony which the union would like to produce 
for the Labor Board in support of its charges. 

The production of such testimony at a public hearing before this 
committee will seriously prejudice my client's rights in the cases now 
pending before the Labor Board. We have no right to cross-examine 
the witnesses appearing before this committee and the usual rules of 
evidence do not apply. 

Widespread publicity of this testimony— much of it would be in- 
competent under the usual rules of evidence — will clearly prejudice 
the company's rights, with the result that the issue now pending be- 
fore the Labor Board may be prejudiced. 

We, therefore, insist that we are entitled to a postponement of this 
part of the hearing. That is respectfully submitted to the committee. 

The Chairman. Is there any further statement you wish to make 
about it ? 

Mr. Dawson. Not at this time. 

The Chairman. We will have a conference of the committee at this 
tim.e. 

(Whereupon, a short recess was taken.) 

The Chairman. The committee has conferred on the request made 
by counsel for the company. 
"Mr. Dawson. The Continental Bakeries. 

The Chairman. It has been the policy of this committee where one 
is charged with a crime, where he is indicted and a criminal case is 
pending, not to go into the matter at issue, the facts as they relate to the 
criminal offense. Generally we have been able to avoid doing that. 
There may have been an exception or two here and there, but this pre- 
sents a question now of a civil matter pending. That is what it actu- 



5770 EVIPROPER ACTIVITIES ES' THE LABOR FIELD 

ally is, where some evidence taken here may be pertinent to the inquiry, 
to the issue, described before the National Labor Relations Board. 
But I do not see how the committee can stop its work and defer to all 
cases that may be pending and that later may develop during the time 
this committee is carrying out its assignment. 

I do not want to be unfair to anyone. I want to show every defer- 
ence for problems that people have who come before the committee. 
But we have a task here to try to get information to enable the Con- 
gress to legislate, "\^^latever is developed here will be information 
for both sides. They will have the same information. It might en- 
able you better to try your case, actually, when the time comes to be 
heard by the National Labor Eelations Board. It may really be an 
advantage for you. I do not know. 

At any rate the committee, I believe, has unanimously agreed with 
the Chair that the matter cannot be postponed for the reasons 
stated. Your objections are in the record, and your request. We will 
proceed to hear the testimony that this committee is interested in with 
respect to what maj^ or may not have been improper practices on the 
part of the company or its representatives. 

All right, Mr. Counsel, call your first witness. 

Mr. Kennedy. The first witness, Mr. Chairman, is Mr. Eugene 
Peterson, United Packing House Workers Union of America. 

Mr. Dawson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. You will be sworn, please, sir. You do solemnly 
swear that the evidence you shall give before this Senate Select Com- 
mittee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, 
so help you God? 

Mr. Peterson. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF EUGENE PETERSON 

The Chairman. State your name, your place of residence and your 
business or occupation. 

Mr. Peterson. I am Eugene Peterson. I am a field representa- 
tive of the United Packing House Workers of America. I reside at 
Estherville, Iowa, at 920 North 12th Street. 

The Chairman. What organization do you represent? I didn't 
quite understand. 

Mr. Peterson. The United Packing House Workers of America, 
AFL-CIO. 

The Chairman. United Packing House Workers of America? 

Mr. Peterson. Eight. 

The Chairman. All right. 

The Chair might inquire if you waive counsel. Under the rules 
of the committee you have a right to have counsel present when you. 
testify, if you so desire. 

Mr. Peterson. No, I don't want any. 

The Chairman. You waive counsel. 

All right, Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. Kennedy. How long have you been with the union, Mr. Peter- 
son? 

Mr. Peterson. I have worked for the United Packing House 
Workers — I probably should go back. 



I1MPR.0PER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 5771 

I have been with the United Packing House Workers Union for 
approximately 17 years as a local union officer, and at the present 
time I am a field representative of the union. 

Mr. Kennedy. And during this period of time, did you make 
some efforts to organize various plants m the Midwest ? 

Mr. Peterson. Yes. 

Mr. KIennedy. Was one of those plants that you were trying to 
organize the Morton Frozen Food Co. ? 

Mt. Peterson. It was. 

Mr. Kennedy. When was that? 

Mr. Peterson. About June 1955, about the middle of Jmie. I think 
we started then. 

Mr. Kennedy. You Avent in with some fellow organizers and at- 
tempted to get the interest of the workers there? 

Mr. Peterson. I was in there myself. 

Mr. Kennedy. You worked there yourself ? 

Mr. Peterson. Yes. I was under the direction of Director Bull. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you find that there was some opposition from 
the company and from the employees to your organizational drive? 

Mr. Peterson. There was some objection on the part of the company. 

Mr. Kennedy. On the part of the company ? 

The Chairman, Speak a little louder. This microphone is not 
carrying. I am having trouble following you and hearing you. Speak 
a little louder. 

Mr. Kennedy. There was opposition, you felt, from the company 
to your organizational drive ; is that right '? 

Mr. Peterson. Yes ; there was. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was there also an alleged spontaneous committee 
set up against affiliating Avith your union ? 

Mr. Peterson. Yes : there was. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you remember what the name of that committee 
was ? 

Mr. Peterson. ''We, the ]Morton Workers." 

Mr. Kennedy. 'We, the Morton Workers" ? 

]Mr. Peterson. Eight. 

Mr. Kennedy. What was their function? What were they doing? 

Mr. Peterson. They would handbill the plant. 

Mr. Kennedy. What does that mean ? 

Mr. Peterson. Standing out in front and passing out leaflets to the 
workers as they entered the plant. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did they work generally against the union ? 

Mr. Peterson. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you understand that the company had anything 
to do with that committee ? 

]Mr. Peterson. The people in the plant at the time at the union 
meetings would tell us that they were sure that this committee was 
instigated by the company. 

31r. Kennedy. But you had no proof or evidence of it ? 

Mr. Peterson. Xo. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were they very active ? 

Mr, Peterson. Yes ; very active. 

:Mr. Kennedy. They were Avorking to try to keep the employees from 
joining up, affiliating, with your union; is that right? 



5772 IMPROPER ACTivrriE's est the labor field 

Mr. Petersojst. They tried to get them to vote "no" at the election. 

Mr. Kennedy. There was an election subsequently ? 

Mr. Peterson. Yes ; on November 22, 1955. 

Mr. Kennedy. What was the result of that election '? 

Mr. Peterson. I believe it was 196 to 103, and 14 were challenged. 

Mr. Kennedy. That was against your union ? 

Mr. Peterson. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Against affiliating with your union ^ 

Mr. Peterson. Right. 

Mr. Kennedy. During this period of time, did the company take 
any action against any of the employees that were sympathetic toward 
your union ? 

Mr. Peterson. Yes, there was a number of cases where the people 
were discriminated against. They were told at various times that 
they shouldn't visit with the union representative. 

Mr. Kennedy. Would you speak up a little bit, please ? 

Mr. Peterson. They shouldn't visit with the union representative if 
he came, and they didn't want them to attend union meetings. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was there anybody that you knew that was fired 
because of the fact that they had worked with you ? 

Mr. Peterson. Well, there was definitely people fired during the 
campaign. 

Mr. Kennedy. But it was difficult for you to pin it down that that 
was the reason ? 

Mr. Peterson. Right. Never could be established. 

Mr. Kennedy. But a number of these people had been sympathetic 
toward affiliating with your union ; is that right ? 

Mr. Peterson. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. After you lost the election, did you learn that an- 
other union had come in there and was interested in organizing the 
workers ? 

Mr. Peterson. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wliat union was that ? 

Mr. Peterson. The Bakery and Confectionery Workers Union. 

Mr. Kennedy. Can you tell us how you learned about that ? 

Mr. Peterson. I received a telephone call in Chicago some time, I 
believe, during the month of October last year. I was in negotiations 
with John Morrell & Co., in Chicago. I received a call from a former 
employee that there was another union coming into the plant. My 
work in Chicago kept me from going back to Webster City right 
away. I drove back from Chicago and went through Webster City 
and I met a lady on the street and she told me that there was a 
union — her first remark was she says, "Pete," she says, "aren't you 
with the union any more?" 

And I said "Yes." She said "Well, there is a union trying to get 
into the plant." 

I asked her what union it was, and she said the Bakery and Con- 
fectionery Workers Union. 

The Chairman. That is a legitimate union ; is it not ? 

Mr. Peterson. I think so ; yes. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you learn, did you ultimately learn that they 
were successful in getting into the plant ? 

Mr. Peterson. Yes. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 5773 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you learn that they were being opposed by 
management as you had been opposed by management ? 

Mr. Peterson. I heard that there was no opposition. 

Mr. Kennedy. There was no opposition to the bakery workers when 
they tried to organize in there ? 

Mr. Peterson. Right. 

Mr. Kennedy. In your experience, had you ever had as much oppo- 
sition from a company as you had had in this company you wanted to 
organize ? 

Mr. Peterson. I have never had as much opposition in organizing 
a plant as I got in Webster City. 

Mr. Kennedy. But when the bakery workers union came along, you 
understood that there w^as no opposition to tiiem ; is that right ? 

Mr. Peterson. That is right. I have been told that they had their 
organizers right in the plant. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was there literature sent around to the various em- 
ployees when j'OU were trying to organize? For instance, the Mili- 
tant Truth? 

Mr. Peterson. Yes. I recall that. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know of that newspaper ? 

Mr. Peterson. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could you tell us about that ? 

Mr. Peterson. Well, it is a paper — I believe it is printed in Atlanta, 
Ga., I believe it is, and it has a lot of material in it that is very anti- 
union. I don't know too much more about the paper. It is the first 
time I had ever seen it. 

Mr. Kennedy. But all the employees received that ? 

Mr. Peterson. I believe so. At different union meetings, we would 
ask how many got the copy of the Militant Truth, and everyone would 
hold up their hands at the meetings. 

The Chairman. How did it come to them ? Was it just distributed 
among them or was it sent through the mails ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you understand or learn at that time that Mr. 
Shefferman or Mr. Shefferman's office was involved in the opposition 
to you ? 

Mr. Peterson. Are you still back in 1955 ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. 

Mr. Peterson. I didn't know it at that time. 

Mr. Kennedy. You did not know ? 

Mr. Peterson. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. So you have recited all the facts that you know 
about the case up until the last couple months ; is that right ? 

Mr. Peterson. Yes, I think so. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is all, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. What did this amount to ? I am trying to get the 
sigTiificance of your testimony. You went in to organize, for which 
union is that ? 

Mr. Peterson. The United Packing House Workers of America. 

The Chairman. The United Packing House Workers of America ? 

Mr. Peterson. Yes. 

The Chairman. You failed in that effort. A little later along came 
another union, the bakers and confectionery workers union, and or- 
ganized the plant ; is that right ? 

Mr. Peterson. Yes. 



5774 niPROPE'R activitieis i^r the labor field 

The Chairman. While you encountered, as you say, serious oppo- 
sition, effective opposition, when you tried to organize? 

Mr. Peterson. Yes. 

The Chairman. Is it your understanding that when the other union 
came along, there was no opposition. What do you mean by that, that 
the men had changed their minds and decided they wanted to belong 
to the union ? 

Mr. Peterson. That is difficult for me to answer. I mean, I don't 
know for sure 

The Chairjian. Well, what I am trying to find out is, was it a case 
of the men, the workers making the choice as to which union they 
preferred to belong to? Or was there some collusion or some ar- 
rangement with management? 

What is the significance of it, if you know ? 

Mr. Peterson. Well, I am quite sure that if the opposition had been 
against this union that was put against ours, it probably would have 
lost. 

The Chairman. '\ATiat opposition do you mean? Opposition from 
the men or opposition from the management ? 

Mr. Peterson. Opposition from the management, sir. 

The Chairman. From the management? 

Mr. Peterson. Yes. 

The Chairman. I am trying to get this clear. 

Mr. Kennedy. My. Chairman, all Mr. Peterson can recite is what 
occurred as far as he knew it at the present time. Other witnesses 
will fill in the gaps as to what actually was going on. It is very sig- 
nificant, for instance, about the committee being formed. He doesn't 
know the background of that at the present time, but further witnesses 
will establish how the committee was formed, how it was financed, and 
what it did. I wanted him on to testify as to what his experiences 
were with the company at that time. 

The Chairman. I just wanted to get it clear. 

Mr. Peterson. Mr. Chairman, if I might make a statement at this 
time — could I do that ? 

The Chairman. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Peterson. I would like to say that our union is very much in 
support of the committee in this type of — I don't have the word right 
here — we are fully in support of the committee's actions. I also want 
to state that I am fully in support of the AFD-CIO ethical practices 
committee. 

If there is anything further that I could help the committee with, I 
would be happy to do it. 

The Chairman. We thank you on behalf of the committee. I 
would say this to you, that I think every union man in the country, 
every workingman, should certainly support the ethical practices 
code set up by the AFL-CIO. I have read them. There is nothing 
wrong about them. In fact, if they are observed, they would go a 
long way toward cleaning up some things that should be cleaned up. 

Senator Curtis ? 

Senator Curtis. What products are manufactured at Webster City 
in this plant? 

Mr. Peterson. Frozen pies. 

Senator Curtis. Meat pies ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 5775 

Mr. Petersox. Yes, meat pies, fruit pies, TV dinners, and similar 
items. 

Senator Curtis. How many employees do tliey have ? 
Mr. Peterson. Approximately 300,' I think, sir. 
Senator Curtis. You said that there were a number of cases of 
discrimination against individuals who were active in behalf of your 
union. Will you name some of those and tell us what was done ? 

Mr. Peterson. There was a number of people — I will say there 
were people. There is a lady at the present time that I understand is 

doing undesirable work because of her activities during 

Senator Curtis. She is doing Avhat? 

Mr. Peterson. Undesirable work. I mean work that she wasn't 
on at that time. 

Senator Curtis. 'V^liat is that lady's name ? 
Mr. Peterson. Pardon? 
Senator Curtis, What is that lady's name ? 

Mr. Peterson. If it would be possible, Mr. Chairman, I kind of 
hate to name the people. 

The Chairman. Give it to the Senator privately. 
Senator Curtis. I will withdraw the question. 
Mr. Peterson. I sure will. 
Senator Curtis. I will Avithdraw the question. 

Mr. Peterson. I would hate to get anvbody's job on tlie hook over 
this. 

The Chairman. You can submit the name. 
Mr. Peterson. I will, sir. 
Senator Curtis. How many people were fired? 
Mr. Peterson. I suppose that there was 2 or 3 fired. I think the 
record will show during our hearing at the NLRB when they were 
crossing off people that weren't working at the plant, that they had 
either quit or had been discharged during that period. 

Senator Curtis. These handbills that were handed out, what did 
they say ? 

Mr. Peterson. That "We, the Morton Workers" put out? 
Senator Curtis. Yes. Do you have one with you I 
Mr. Peterson. I have sui)plied the committee with handbills that 
were put out, sir. 

Senator Curtis. That is all, Mr. Chairman. 
The Chairman. Senator McNamara ? 

Senator McXamara. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the witness 
a few questions. 

This activity in 1955, was it before the merger of the AFL-CIO? 
Were you representing then only the CIO ? 

Mr. Peterson. I believe that was before the merger, yes. 
Senator McNamara. You don't know ? 
Mr. Peterson. I believe it was before. 
Senator McNamara. You don't know ? 
Mr. Peterson. Not for sure, no. 

Senator McNamara. You don't know anything for sure, do you ? ^ I 
mean, you make statements 'T believe," and "I understand," and 'I 
heard.'' You don't make a positive statement about anything. Don t 
3'ou know that this was before the merger ? 
Mr. Peterson. Yes, it was before, I am sure. 

89330— 57— lit. 15 2 



5776 IMPROPER ACTivrnE's est the labor field 

Senator McNamara. I don't see why you are so reluctant to say it. 
It is a matter of record. Anybody can read it in the newspapers; 
go back and read the old copies. I don't understand why you are so 
reluctant to answer. 

What was your jurisdiction? Was it spelled out in your charter 
from the CIO ? 

Mr. Peterson. Yes. We had jurisdiction in the food industry. 

Senator McNamara. Generally in the food industry ? 

Mr. Peterson. Yes. 

Senator McNamara. No limits at all ? 

Mr. Peterson. Meat, food 

Senator McNamara. The ordinary term of "packinghouse" indi- 
cates slaughtering house and meat processing, doesn't it ? 

Mr. Peterson. Yes. 

Senator McNamara. This is ordinarily a JEield that, it would seem to 
the layman at least, or somebody who was not close to the picture as 
you are, would be questionable as far as packinghouse workers are 
concerned. 

Mr. Peterson. Well, we have other plants that have the same type of 
product, manufactured in Omaha, Nebr. 

Senator McXamara. Then actually the competition between the 
bakery workers and the packinghouse workers in this case was really 
competition between two international unions, wasn't it, the CIO and 
theAFL? 

Mr. Peterson. Yes. Well, during this campaign, it was both AFL- 
CIO. 

Senator McNamara. Do you mean the packinghouse workers were 
AFL, too ? 

Mr. Peterson. This year, yes. 

Senator McISTamara. Now we are talking about 1955 . 

Mr. Peterson. The bakery and confectionery workers were not in 
there at that time. 

Senator McNamara. They were in the AFL ? 

Mr. Peterson. Yes. They weren't in Webster City, Iowa, though. 

Senator McNamara. They came in in an attempt to organize at that 
time, is that right ? 

Mr. Peterson. In 1956, 1 believe. 

Senator McNamara. Then who was the opposition in 1955? No- 
body but the company union ? 

Mr. Peterson. No other union except our union was in there at 
that time. 

Senator McNamara. I see. 

Mr. Peterson. There was an amalgamated meatcutters hearing 
that intervened at the hearing, but they did not go on the ballot. It 
was only no union or our union. 

Senator McNamara. You mentioned that you got considerable 
opposition from the company. Wasn't that the usual practice when 
you went in to organize a plant? Didn't you generally get oppo- 
sition ? 

Mr. Peterson. Yes, you generally get opposition, but I have never 
seen a committee formed like this before. 

Senator McNamara. Do you mean a company union committee? 



HVIPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 5777 

]Mi-. Peterson. I couldn't say it was a company union, because I 
dont' believe there was ever any officers picked. 

Senator McNasiaka. It wouldn't be unusual for the com])any to at- 
tempt to resist organization. What was unusual about this case, the 
picking of a committee ? 

Mr. Peterson. Yes, the picking of a committee. 

Senator McNamara. You said you heard that there was no opposi- 
tion in 1956 when the bakery — what do you call it? — the bakery and 
confectionery workers union came in. You heard there was no oppo- 
sition ? Who did you hear th at from ? 

Mr. Peterson. From emplo3^ees that work in the plant. 

Senator McNamara. Your members ? 

Mr. Peterson. Our friends, yes, and members probably. 

Senator McNamara. That is all, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Senator Kennedy ? 

Senator Kennedy. What is the difference between the salaries paid 
at that time in a plant doing comparable work, such as the one in 
Nebraska, and the wage being paid in this plant at the time you were 
attempting to organize them ? 

In other words, I want to get how much it would cost the company 
in wages to have had you in there if you had been successful. 

Mr. Peterson. In 1955, our union checked the rates of pay be- 
tween the Ocoma Foods Plant — it is in Omaha, Nebr. — we checked 
the rates, and that is under our union contract, we checked the rates 
and came to an average that there would be approximately 26 cents 
per hour difference and approximately 48 cents per hour on men. 

The first figure was female, 26 cents. That would figure about 
$540 a year per employee on the average hours that they were work- 
ing at that time. 

Senator Kennedy. How many employees were there ? 

Mr. Peterson. I would venture there were around 200 women em- 
ployees and approximately 100 men. It seemed like about two-thirds 
of the plant were women. Koughly, I suppose that would probably 
be $100,000 that they would save on women employees. 

Senator Kennedy. It would be $170,000. 

Mr. Peterson. I was figuring this on the female employees only. 
It would be about $100,000. On the men it would probably be another 
$95,000 or something like that. 

Senator Kennedy. So that in short, if you would have been suc- 
cessful in organizing it and put in comparable rates for comparable 
work with another plant in which you did have an organization, it 
would have cost the company around $200,000 a year. 

Now, as I understand it, it is your suggestion, and I imagine other 
witnesses will fill in the story, that the company used extraordinary 
efforts or efforts that you had not experienced before in your or- 
ganizing experience, to prevent your union from coming into the 
company and representing the workers. 

Mr. Peterson. Yes, sir. 

Senator Kennedy. And I assume that later witnesses will detail 
that. Now, the bakery workers at that time were led by Mr. Cross? 

Mr. Peterson. He is their international president. 

Senator Kennedy. And lie was at tliat time in a responsible posi- 
tion in the bakery workers, is that right? At that time he was m 
the International Bakerv Workers? 



5778 IMPROPE'R ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Petersox. I am sure he was. 

Senator Kennedy. Mr. Cross is the same Mr. Cross that has been 
before this committee, is he not ? 

Mr. Peterson. I have read in the paper, yes, that ]Mr. Cross has 
been before the committee. 

Senator Kennedy. Thank yon. 

The Chairman. All right, stand aside. 

]Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Gary Long, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Do you solemnly swear that the evidence you shall 
give before this Senate select committee shall be the truth, the whole 
truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God ? 

Mr. Long. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF GARY LONG 

The Chairman. State your name, your place of residence, and your 
business or occupation. 

Mr. Long. My name is Gary Long and I live at "Whittier, Calif.,. 
14035 Dickey Street, at the present time I am unemployed. 

The Chairman. At the present time you are what ? 

Mr. Long. I am unemployed. 

The Chairman. You are unemployed? 

Mr. Long. Y^es, sir. 

The Chairman. What has been your work in the past ? 

Mr. Long. I have been in the frozen food line for 2i/2 years. 

The Chairman. Where did you formerly work ? 

Mr. Long. Morton Frozen Foods, at Webster City. 

The Chairman. Y'^ou have a right to have counsel present if you 
desire while you testify. Do you waive counsel ? 

Mr. Long. I waive that right. 

The Chairman. Y'ou have talked to members of the committee 
staff, have you, about this matter ? 

Mr. Long. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. All right, Mr. Kennedy, proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Long, you were v>-orking for the Morton Frozen 
Food Co. at the time the packinghouse workers came in and tried 
to organize ? 

Mr. Long. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. In connection with that did you have an interview 
with a man by the name of Jack Nevett ? 

Mr. Long. Y^es, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who was Jack Nevett ? 

Mr. Long. He was a man that was hired b}^ management to come 
in and break up this particular union. 

Mr. Kennedy. Where did you understand he had come from ? 

Mr. Long. I understood at'^first he worked with ^Morton's full time 
and he was a personnel man. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did he tell you that ? 

Mr. Long. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you understand later on that he liad a different 
position ? 

Mr. Long. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. What did he tell you later on ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 5779 

Mr. Long. That he worked for Nathan Sheti'ermaii in Chicago and 
he had been sent out there especially to break up the organization of 
the packinghouse workers. 

Mr. Kennedy. Where did you first come across him and how did 
you first meet him and what was he doing i 

Mr. Long. He w^as interviewing all of the employees of the plant 
and more or less getting a general feeling of what they thought about 
unions. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. Did the employees understand that that is what he 
w'as there for, to find out what they thought of unions ? 

Mr. Long. I don't know. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you have any conversations with him about 
what your position should be in this whole matter ? 

Mr. Long. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. "Wliat did he say to you about that ? First, what was 
your position at that time? 

Mr. Long. I would say that I was — you mean my job ? 

Mr. IvENNEDY. Yes. 

Mr. Long. I took care of the wrapjDing supplies and packaging sup- 
plies, inventory control. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, what conversations did you have with him, 
with Mr. Nevett, about what you should do in connection with the 
packinghouse workers ? 

Mr. Long. Well, he wanted to know how my feelings were about 
unions and I told him that I really didn't know too much about it, 
but I wasn't too interested in having a union in there. 

Mr. Ivennedy. And did you hear about this later on ? 

Mr. Long. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you hear anything further ? 

Mr. Long. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. ^^Hiat occurred ; could you tell us that ? 

Mr. Long. Do you want me to tell about the organization of the 
committee and so on ? 

Mr. Kennedy. You told Mr. Nevett that you were not too fond of 
unions : and then what happened after that ? 

Mr. Long. Well, that was about the last I saw of him for a while 
and he left town, and he came back and then that is about it. 

Mr. Kennedy. And then you had a conversation with Mr. Binns, 
did you ? 

Mr. Long. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. ^^Hiat was Mr. Binns' position ? 

Mr. Long. At that time he was the manager of the plant in Webster 
■City. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Keith Binns ? 

Mr. Long. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. He was manager of the plant ? 

Mr. Long. Eight. 

Mr. Kennedy. Tell us about the formation of the committee. 

Mr. Long. Mr. Binns and I were fairly good friends and we bowled 
together, and he knew my feelings about this union and so he stopped 
me one day and told me to come in the office. So I came in there and he 
said, "We would like to be given another chance here. We have just 



5780 IMPROPER ACTIVITIE'S IN THE LABOR FIELD 

been here a short time and "vve woiiicl like to give the people a chance to 
see what we can do.-' 

So he said, "I AYonld like you to help me on this by forming a com- 
mittee to keep this union out." He then in turn, told me, or myself and 
another fellow— — 

Mr. Kexxedy. What is the other man's name I 

Mr, Long. Clifford Hayes. 

Mr. Kennedy. ^^Tio was also an employee of the Morton Frozen 
Food Co. ? 

Mr, Long. Yes, sir. He told us to go up and see a local attorney in 
Webster City, Stuart Lmid, and that the Morton Co. had acquired his 
services, but we were to go up there and tell Mr. Lund that we went 
up there on our own accord and Vv-e were not to say anything to any- 
body about tlie Morton Co. sponsoring this opposition. 

Mr. Kennedy. But he told you at that time that the Morton Frozen 
Food Co. had retained Stuart Lund to act as an adviser to this so- 
called spontaneous committee ; is that right ? 

Mr. Long. I could not truthfully say that he said he was retained. 

Mr. Kennedy. But they had acquired his services ? 

Mr. Long. Correct. 

Mr, Kennedy. To be an adviser to this committee ? 

Mr. Long, That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. No arrangem.ents had been made for you to pay Mr. 
Stuart Lund ; had there ? 

Mr. Long. Xo, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you ever pay Mr, Stuart Lund for services that 
he did perform ? 

Mr, Long, ISTot actually paid him. We took up a collection and 
bought him a set of steak knives. 

Mr. Kennedy, But no money was given to him ? 

Mr. Long, No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy, Do you know whether the Morton Frozen Food Co. 
ga ve him money ? 

Mr, Long. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. So vou and Clifford Haves went down to see Stuart 
Lund? 

Mr. Long. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you form a committee ? 

Mr. Long. That is right, 

Mr. Kennedy. ^Y[mt was the committee called ? 

Mr, Long, "We, the Morton Workers." 

Mr. Kennedy. Were you told at that time by Mr. Lund or by Mr. 
Binns that the companv sponsoring- this committee was a violation of 
the Taft-Hartley Act ?^ 

Mr. Long. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you know it at the time ? 

Mr. Long. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. But he told you to keep it secret that the company 
had sent you up there ; is that right ? 

Mr. Long. Yes, sir, 

Mr, Kennedy, What did you do then, and what did the committee 
do, and what were its functions ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 5781 

Mr. Long. Well, we picked 3 or 4 more of our friends and brought 
them up to the office one night, and we prepared this antiunion or 
these antiunion leaflets and passed them out in front of the plant after 
work. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, were you also running a check on the em- 
ployees, the other employees in the plant, to find out whether they 
were prounion or antiunion ? 

Mr. Long. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. How were you going about doing that ? 

Mr. Long. Mr. iSTevett had a list of all of the employees of the plant, 
and we would go down that list and check off the ones we thought 
would vote '"Yes" and the ones we thought would vote ''"No." 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Nevett had come back in the meantime, had he, 
and he was going back and forth to Chicago ? 

Mr. Long. Yes ; but he didn't have anything to do with the meetings 
in Mr. Lund's office. As far as the other people were concerned, no 
one knew about Mr. Nevett except Mr. Hayes and myself. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wliere would you meet Mr. Nevett '-. 

Mr. Long. In the plant. 

Mr. Kennedy. Whereabouts ? 

Mr. Long. In Mr. Binn's office. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is the general manager's office ? 

Mr. Long. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you would go over with him, in Mr. Binns' 
office, the list of employees, checking off those who were promiion or 
antiunion ; is that rigiit ? 

Mr. Long. Would you repeat that question ? 

Mr. Kennedy. You would meet with Mr. Nevett in Mr. Bimis' 
office and check over the employees at that time as to whether they 
were prounion or antiunion ? 

Mr. Long. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. And the ones that you found that were antiimion, 
w\as tliere action taken in connection with them by the management? 

Mr. Long. I would say so ; yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know a number of instances where people 
were fired because of the fact that they were in favor of the union? 

Mr. Long. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Speak up, please. 

Mr. Long. Well, I cannot actually say that I know that. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. Did Mr. Binns tell you or did he say anj-thing to 
you about wliat action would be taken against people who were favor- 
ing the union. 

Mr. Long. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Tell us what he said to you. 

Mr. Long. He made the comment that "there are two that won't 
be with us much longer."' 

Mr. Kennedy. They were people in favor of the union ? 

Mr. Long. Eight. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were they there much longer ? 

Mr. Long. No. 

Mr. Ivennedy. Now, you know their names ; do you not ? 

Mr. Long. Yes, sir ; I do. 

Mr. Kennedy. Would you give us those names, please ? 



5782 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The CuAiRMAX. Are tliey working there now ? 

Mr. Long. No, sir. 

The Chairman. They are not Avorking at that plant? 

Mr. Long. Xo, sir. 

The Chairman. You think giving of tlieir names might hurt 
them some way, in their present work, or present employment? 

Mr. Long. I don't know, sir. 

The Chairman. Well, are you pretty certain now that they wei-e 
discharged simply because tliey favored a union ? Let us get that 
straight. 

Mr. Long. In my own mind, I am. 

The Chairman. You are convinced of it in your own mind? 

Mr. Long. I am ; yes, sir. 

The Chairman. What convinced you? Was it what IVlr. Binns 
said to you ? 

Mr, Long. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. What else? 

Mr. Long. Oh, I would say these two people were very good work- 
ers and I could see no other reason for them losing their jobs. 

Senator Curtis. There were 103 that voted for the union? 

Mr. Long. I believe that figure is correct. 

Senator Curtis. How many were fired ? 

Mr. Long. Two I would say, that I know of. 

Senator Curtis. Now, was that because they favored a union, or 
because of something that they did ? 

Mr. Long. Well, I don't know. 

Senator Curtis. Was there an effort made to fire everyone who 
favored the union ? 

Mr. Long. I wouldn't say that because there was actually — they 
probably didn't know all of them who favored the union, but they 
knew the ones who were working very strongly to get the union in 
there. 

Senator Curtis. It was not because of their belief but because of 
their activity ? 

Mr. Long. That is right. 

Senator Curtis. And that activity was in reference to getting the 
union organized ? 

Mr. Long. That is right. 

Senator Curtis. Would you describe them as ringleaders in the 
organization movement ? 

Mr. Long. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. That is all. 

Senator Kennedy. I think while we do not perhaps want their 
names in public, I think that their names ought to be furnished to 
the counsel by this witness, in case this is challenged by management 
witnesses, and I think we ought to have a pinpoint of exactly whom 
we are talking about. 

Mr. Long. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. He has furnished the names already. 

The Chairman. The names have been furnishecl to the staff and 
we have the names and it is a question of whether we need to place 
it in a public record. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 5783 

At this time we will not place them in the record and we will deter- 
mine about it later. They can be inserted in the record at this point, if 
the committee determines to do it. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Binns. who was the general manager, made a 
statement about these people prior to the time that they left the 
company ; did he not ? 

Mr. Long. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. And would you repeat the statement that he made ? 

Mr. Long. "They won't be here much longer." 

Mr. Kennedy. That was in connection with their union activity? 

Mr. Long. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, while doing this work against the union, did 
you receive any extra compensation yourself I First, were you told 
you were to receive any extra compensation ? 

Mr. Long. Yes. 

Mr, Kennedy. What was told you and by whom ? 

Mr. Long. Mr. Binns said, "We will make it right with you." 

Mr. Kennedy. For the work you were doing against the union ? 

Mr. Long. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was it made right with you ? 

Mr. Long. Yes. Several months after the election, I received a sub- 
stantial raise in pay. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you also get other compensations ? 

Mr. Long. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you receive the use of the station wagon ? 

Mr. Long. Not exactly the use of it, but I got the particular job of 
driving it which would add manj^ hours onto my paycheck. 

Mr. Kennedy. So you received the compensation as far as hourly 
increase as well as being allowed to work longer hours and receive 
extra pay that way ; is that right ? 

Mr. Long. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy*. Did your colleague, Mr. Hayes, also receive extra 
compensation ? 

Mr. Long. I don't know. 

Mr, Kennedy. Did he tell you that he did ? 

Mr. Long. He said that he had not. 

Mr. Kennedy. You do not know about that ? 

Mr. Long. I don't know. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, Mr, Nevitt was identified to you at a later time 
or during this period of time, as working for Mr. Shefferman? 

Mr. Long. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you know anything about that firm at that time ? 

Mr. Long. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, after the election in which the packinghouse 
workers were defeated, did another imion come in there ? 

Mr. Long. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. That was the bakery workers ? 

Mr. Long. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, did yon start to form "We the Morton Work- 
ers" committee to deal with the bakery workers ? 

Mr. Long. No. sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did Mr. Binns suggest that you form a We the 
Morton Workers" then ? 

Mr. Long, No. 



5784 iivrpROPER ACTivrriES ix the labor field 

Mr. Kennedy. Did he seem to be in fact, in favor of the bakery 
workers ? 

Mr. Long. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were you surprised a bit ? 

Mr. Long. Yes, sir, 

Mr. Kennedy, Hadn't you been told, and hadn't you been telling 
your fellow employees, how bad unions were, and hadn't he told you 
at that time? 

Mr. Long. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And this was a complete reversal of that; is that 
right? 

Mr. Long. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you speak to Mr. Binns about that ? 

Mr. Long. Yes, sir. 

Mr. KJENNEDY. What did he say ? 

Mr. Long. He didn't have any comments except that his hands 
were tied and he didn't have anything to do with it. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did somebody come to Webster City to attempt to 
assist in the organizational drive of the bakery workers ? 

Mr. Long. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And who was that ? 

Mr. Long. Mr. Bromley ; that is the name. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did he know where he was from ? 

Mr. Long. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. But a Mr. Charles Bromley arrived at the Webster 
City plant? 

Mr. Long. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And did he assist the bakery workers in signing up 
the employees? 

Mr. Long. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And he did not identify who he was ? 

Mr. Long. No, sir, 

Mr. Kennedy. Did the management itself assist in signing up 
employees in favor of the bakery workers? Do you know that? 

Mr. Long. Well, it was just that Bromley — by giving him the right 
to sign people up in the plant. 

Mr. Ivennedy. He actually came into the plant to sign up the 
people ? 

Mr. Long. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Had the packinghouse workers' representative ever 
been allowed into the plant ? 

Mr, Long, No, sir. 

Mr. Ivennedy. So this was a switch on that, also, was that right? 

Mr. Long. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, what about the final contract that was signed, 
was that a good contract for the employees ? 

Mr. Long. It was a poor contract. 

Mr. Kennedy. The increases, were there any substantial increases 
for the employees ? 

Mr. Long. If you would call a nickel an hour substantial, yes, but 
that was the sum and substance of it, 5 cents an hour. 

Mr. Ivennedy. And wasn't it also a 3-year contract ? 

Mr. Long. That is right. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 5785 

Mr. Kennedy. Was there grumbling on the part of the employees 
about this ? 

Mr. Long. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Had there been an election ? 

Mr. Long. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. The contract was merely signed by the management 
with the bakery workers ; is that right ? 

Mr. Long. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you think there was something wrong in the 
whole matter ? 

Mr. Long. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did the employees know who Charles Bromley was 
when he came into the plant to try to sign up the employees ? 

Mr. Long. No, sir, 

Mr. Kennedy. You did not know that he was from Mr. Sheffer- 
man's firm, also ? 

Mr. Long. Not at the time. 

Mr. ICennedy. Have you learned since that time ? 

Mr. Long. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you have any explanation as to why a repre- 
sentative of Mr. Shetferman's firm, Mr. Nevitt. came down in order 
to work against the union, and another representative of Mr. Sheffer- 
man's firm came down to assist the union ? Do you have any explana- 
tion for that ? 

Mr. Long. None. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is all, Mr, Chairman. 

Senator Curtis, Mr, Chairman ? 

The Chairman. Senator Curtis. 

Senator Curtis. When did the sale of the Morton Frozen Foods 
take place with reference to the efforts of the Packinghouse Workers 
Union ? Was the sale after that ? 

Mr. Long. It was after that. 

Senator Curtis. AYlio owned the plant when the Bakers Union 
organized it ? 

Mr. Long, The Continental Baking Co. 

Senator Curtis. Was this Mr. Binns that you mentioned, was he 
the manager all the way through ? 

Mr. Long. At that time, yes. At both times he was manager. 

Senator Curtis. What did you understand from his statement that 
his hands were tied when you asked why the signing up of the Bakers 
Union ? 

Mr. Long. I just figured that he received his orders from someone 
higher up. 

Senator Curtis. Higher up in the company ? 

Mr. Long. That is right. 

Senator Curtis. Was this a new industry when the packinghouse 
workers were carrying on their drive ? 

Mr. Long. It was a new industry in Webster City. 

Senator Curtis. How long had it been there ? 

Mr. Long. I really don't know. 

Senator Curtis. You have described it as a new industry, lou 
would say it was within the first months of operation, the first year or 
two, or what? 



5786 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN" THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Long. The first year or two, or year and a half. 

Senator Curtis. Was it locally owned ? 

Mr. Long. No, sir. 

Senator Curtis. You and Mr. Binns have been personal friends ? 

Mr. Long. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Did he change your mind about the union ? 

Mr. Long. No, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Did you believe the statements in the pamphlets 
that you handed out to the workers ? 

Mr. Long. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. That is all. 

Senator Kennedy. Mr, Chairman ? 

The Chairman. Senator Kennedy. 

Senator Kennedy. Did you write these statements in "We, the Mor- 
ton Workers," in the sheets that were distributed ? 

Mr. Long. We assisted Mr. Lund. 

Senator Kennedy. He is the lawyer ? 

Mr. Long. That is right. 

Senator Kennedy. But you gave him some of your thoughts and he 
wrote it out ? 

Mr. Long. That is right. 

Senator Kennedy. IVliere were they mimeographed, those that were 
mimeographed ? 

Mr. Long. In Mr. Lund's office. 

Senator Kennedy. In Mr. Lund's office. I notice all these attacks 
on Peterson : 

Look what Pete went and did again ? He is thrown out of the P. J. Grey Co. 
He doesn't even wait to brush off his clothes. He starts fighting. It wouldn't 
be so bad if he was bucking his own head against the wall, but he drags a lot 
of innocent people down with him. 

Et. cetera. 

That was written in Mr. Lund's office ; is that correct ? 

Mr. Long. That is right. 

Senator Kennedy. By Mr. Lund, with your assistance ? 

Mr. Long. Yes. 

Senator Kennedy. Mimeographed in his office and turned over to 
you ? 

Mr. Long. Yes, sir. 

Senator Kennedy. You don't know from whom Mr. Lund was 
getting his compensation, but he was not getting it from you ? 

Mr. Long. That is right. 

Senator Kennedy. What about Mr. Nevitt, did he have anything 
to do with this ? Do you know if he was in touch with Mr. Lund ? 

Mr. Long. No, I did not know. 

Senator Kennedy. You do not know if he had any connection with 
this? 

Mr. Long. I do not know. 

Senator Kennedy. Did he discuss it with you ? 

Mr. Long. No, sir. 

Senator Kennedy. That is all. 

The Chairman. Senator McNamara. 

Senator McNamara. I would like to ask the witness a couple of 
questions, Mr. Chairman. 



EVIPROPEK ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 5787 

If there was any expense in connection with producing these hand- 
bills, they were not paid by the organization known as "We, the 
Morton Workers," but were paid by management; is that right? 

Mr. Long. I don't Imow. 

Senator McNamara. Were you an officer of the organization called 
"We, the Morton Workers ?" 

Mr. Long. There were no officers. 

Senator McNamara. Then it wasn't an organization ? 

Mr. Long. That is riglit. 

Senator McNamara. It was a list of names. Did you have a list of 
names of the workers in the plant that were supposed to be members 
or associated, or what ? 

Mr. Long. No, sir. 

Senator McNamara. There was no list of names. Then it was you 
and the other fellow who were "We, the Morton Workers," is that it ? 

Mr. Long. I would say so. 

Senator McNamara. It was strictly a phony setup ? 

Mr. Long. Yes, sir. 

Senator McNamara. It didn't represent the people in any manner ? 

Mr. Long. No, sir. 

Senator McNamara. It had no charter, no membership, paid no 
• dues ? 

Mr. Long. No, sir. 

Senator McNamara. It was about as phony as it could be, wasn't it ? 

Mr. Long. That is right. 

Senator McNamara. You indicated, however, that you got a sub- 
stantial raise because of your cooperation in setting up "We, the 
Morton Workers." How much of a raise did you get ? 

Mr. Long. All told, 26 cents an hour. 

Senator McNamara. Twenty-six cents an hour. You were allowed 
to work more hours than you worked prior to that time ? 

Mr. Long. That is right. 

Senator McNamara. Did you normally work 40 hours a week prior 
to this better treatment ? 

Mr. Long. I would say normally 50. 

Senator McNamara. Fifty. Then you worked how many hours 
after that? 

]Mr. Long. Fifty-five, sixty. 

Senator McNamara. Did you get bonus time for the overtime be- 
yond 40 hours ? 

Mr. Long. Time and a half ; yes, sir. 

Senator McNamara. What was your rate before the union activity? 

Mr. Long. $1.09. 

Senator McNamara. $1.09 ? 

Mr. Long. Right. 

Senator McNamara. Did you become a member of the bakery work- 
ers union when the bakery workers organized the plant ? 

Mr. Long, Yes, sir. 

Senator McNamara. Why? 

Mr. I^NG. They finally made it so rough on me that I just about 
. had to join. 

Senator McNamara. Who ? Management or the union ? 

Mr. I^NG. The union. 



5788 EVIPKOEER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator McXamara. Management didn't care whether vou joined or 
not? 

Mr. Long. No, sir. 

Senator McNamara. Apparently when Continental Bakery came 
in there they had previous contracts with the bakery workers union, I 
suppose, in other parts of the country. 

Mr. Long. Yes, sir. 

Senator McNamara. So it was more or less of a natural develop- 
ment, wasn't it? 

Mr. Long. Yes, sir. 

Senator McNamara. That is all. 

The Chairman. The Chair presents to you four documents. Are 
these the circulars that you spoke of that w^ere prepared in Mr. Lund's 
office, and which you had distributed to the men^ Do you identify 
them? 

( The documents were handed to the witness. ) 

Mr. Long. They are. 

The Chairman. They may be made exhibit No. 1. 

(The documents referred to were marked "Exhibit No. 1" for refer- 
ence and will be found in the appendix on pp. 6217-6220.) 

The Chairman. Is there anything further ? 

Senator Curtis. Just a few questions. 

Did the workers of this plant ever vote the bakers mi ion in? 

Mr. Long. No, sir. 

Senator Curits. "V^Hiat kind of a contract did they have? Did they 
have a compulsory membership contract? 

Mr. Long. No, sir. 

Senator Curtis. You didn't have to join? 

Mr. Long. No, sir. 

Senator Curtis. A'^^iat made you say that they made it so rough on 
you that you had to join ? 

Mr. Long. They kept asking me to join. There were probably only 
5 or 6 left that hadn't joined, so I figured I might just as well give 
up and donate my $3.50 a month. 

Senator Curtis. $3.50 a month ? 

Mr. Long. That is right. 

Senator Curtis. Did your 25 cents an hour make up for that? 

Mr. Long. Barely. 

Senator Curtis. By "they," do you mean other employees or were 
they representatives of the union who were not employees ? 

Mr. Long. Both. 

Senator Curtis. That is all. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is all, Mr. Chaii-man. 

The Chairman. Stand aside. 

Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, we have an affidavit from Mr. Hayes 
that I would like to have read into the record at this time. 

The Chairman. You may read it. 

Mr. Kennedy. It is as follows : 

State of Iowa, 

Cmintp of Hamilton, ss: 

I, Clifford E. Hayes, make the following voluntary statement of my own free 
will. No threats or promises have been made to me. 

I reside at 812 Merritt Street, Webster City. Iowa. I am employed as a 
mechanic at Morton Frozen Food, Inc., Webster City, Iowa. I have been em- 



EVIPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 5789 

ployed by this company since February 11. 1955. Some time during 1955 I 
was interviewed by Jack Nevitt who, I understood, was a personnel man work- 
ing for the company. Nevitt was interviewing each employee in the plant. He 
asked me what I did and whether I was satisfied with my wages. He also 
asked me how I felt about unions. I told him that I did not think that we 
wanted a union at the Morton Frozen Food, Inc., for the reason they financially 
couldn't stand it. 

Sometime thereafter during the summer of 1955, Gary Long, an employee 
of Morton Frozen Food, Inc., told me that Stuart Lund, an attorney in Webster 
City, would be willing to help us if we wanted to form a committee to combat 
the union. The United Packinghouse Workers of America were at that time 
engaged in an organizing drive. I help Gary Long contact several persons in 
the plant who I felt would be against this union. We invited these persons to 
a meeting with Mr. Lund. At the meeting Mr. Lund told the group that he 
and other businessmen in Webster City were concerned about the possibility that 
this tinion might get in and that if we wanted to combat this union, he would 
help us. He said that he had a "ditto" machine which we could use to publish 
antiunion literature. He said that he would furnish the paper. We had several 
meetings at Limd's office and produced anti-UWPA literature which we passed 
out at the plant entrances. Mr. Lund has never performed any legal services for 
me as an individual. 

I never met with Jack Nevitt in relation to the committee. I did not receive 
any money from Nevitt. 

When I first started working for the company I was a dough mixer. In 
August 1955 I became a maintenance man. Just prior to Christmas in 1956 
I received a 5-cent wage increase as did all of the other maintenance men. 

In late 1956 Charles Bromley came to the plant and started signing up 
employees for the Bakery and Confectionery Workers I'nion. He told me that 
he was a personnel man for the Continental Baking Co. He asked me to help him 
sign up employees and I refused. I also refused to sign a union card myself 
until my immediate superior told me that he and I were the only maintenance 
men who had not signed up and suggested that we sign. 

Keith Binns, who was at that time the plant manager, told me that he did 
not want the bakery workers union in the plant but that since the Continental 
Baking Co. had contracts with that union in all of their plants, he had to 
go along. 

Clifford E. Hayes. 

[Certificate of aeknowledginent, individual] 

State of Iowa, 

Covnty of Hamilton, ss: 
On this 28th day of June A. D. 1957. before me. Ruth Eckstein, a notary public 
in and for the county of Hamilton, State of Iowa, personally appeared Clifford 
E. Hayes, to me known to be the identical person named in and who executed 
the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he executed the same as his 
voluntary act and deed. 

In witness whereof. I have hereunto signed my name and affixed my notarial 
seal the day and vear last above written. 

Ruth Eckstein, 
Notary Pvblic in and for Ham^ilton. County, State of Iowa. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Mr. Abraham J. Harris. Mr. Chairman, if you please, sir, I have 
three questions. I would like to submit them by way of cross-exami- 
nation of the last witness, Mr. Long, I believe. 

The Chairman. I^t us have the questions. 

Witness, will you return to the stand, please ? 

Please identify yourself for the record. 

Mr. Harris. I am Abraham J. Harris. I represent Mr. James Or. 
Cross, president of the Bakery and Confectionery Workers Union. 



5790 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 

TESTIMONY OF GARY LONG— Resumed 

The Chairman. These are questions that the Chair is going to pro- 
pound to you at the request of the representative of the union. 

Senator McNamara. Mr. Chairman, at that point, did the gentle- 
man say that he represented the union or represented James Cross? 

Mr. Harris. I represent Mr. Cross. 

The Chairman. Not the union ? 

Mr. Harris. Not the union. 

Senator Kennedy. Mr. Chairman ? 

The Chairman. Just a moment. 

Mr. Harris. If I may make a statement, Mr. Chairman, under rule 
11 of this committee, it says that any person who is the subject of 
an investigation in public hearings may submit to the chairman 
questions, et cetera. Mr. Cross has been the subject of an investiga- 
tion in tliese hearings. His name has been brought into the testimony 
this morning. 

The Chairman. Well, I see nothing wrong with these questions. 
The only thing the Chair is trying to do is to keep the record straight. 
It isn't the privilege of anyone to just send up questions here and 
ask that we propound them to the record. Mr. Cross is president of 
the international union. 

Mr. Harris. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. He has been investigated by this committee, and 
his name was brought into the testimony this morning. I don't know 
that we are particularly investigating him right now. However, he 
may have some responsibility in connection with these contracts. 
There was a union contract. 

Let me ask the witness a question. There was a union contract 
made with the company ? 

Mr. Long. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. And that is the Bakers and Confectionery Workers 
Union ? 

Mr. Long. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Then I will ask these questions 

Senator Ivennedy. Before you do that, I have a question. 

Are you being paid by Mr. Cross or by the union, Mr. Harris ? 

Mr. Harris. I am being paid by the union. 

Senator Kennedy. I don't understand this distinction you made 
between Mr. Cross and the union, stating that you did not represent 
the union but you represented Mr. Cross personally. 

Mr. Harris. The union has its own general counsel. In this investi- 
gation, I have been representing Mr. Cross. 

Senator Kennedy. I don't understand that, Mr. Chairman. 

You are not being paid by Mr. Cross, but you are being paid by the 
union members ; is that correct ? 

Mr. Harris. That is right. 

Senator Kennedy. Are you representing the union ? 

Mr. Harris. The union has authorized the retainer of an attorney 
to represent Mr. Cross. 

Senator Kennedy. Wlien did the union authorize that ? 

Mr. Harris. That was before I was retained. 

Senator Kennedy. Was that done by Mr. Cross himself or by tlie 
executive board ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE Lu\BOR FIELD 5791 

Mr. Harris. It was done by the general executive board. 

Senator Kennedy. In a meeting? We had Mr. Cross up here 
before, and we had some conversations about how the executive board 
operates. Do you know if they did it at a meeting or by telephone? 

Mr. Harris. I do not know. 

Senator Kennedy. You have no idea ? 

Mr. Harris. No. 

Senator Kennedy. You have represented Mr. Cross for some time, 
haven't you ? 

Mr. Harris. I represented him in the hearings here, Senator; yes. 

The Chairman. Well, these questions will be asked because they 
relate to the contract. I don't know any reason why they shouldn't 
be asked, and I don't know what the answers are. I do not think they 
are all important by any means. 

Is it not true that the contract contains provisions for annual in- 
creases and not merely a 5-cent increase ? 

Does the contract have a provision that each year there will be an 
increase ? 

Mr. Long. Yes, sir. Five cents a year. 

The Chairman. Five cents a year. When you say the contract was 
a poor one, was there any indication that the employees would have 
received any raise at all if the bakery workers had not come in ? In 
other words, was there any indication that you might have received a 
raise anyhow, except for the fact that the union came in and organized 
the plant ? 

Mr. Long. Well, we were anticipating a raise at the end of the year, 
but 

The Chairman. Whether you would have gotten it, you do not 
know ? 

Mr. Long. I do not know. 

The Chairman. Had you been promised any ? 

Mr. Long. Yes. 

The Chairman. How much had you been promised? Was it 5 
cents, 3 cents, more, or what ? 

Mr. Long. I don't remember. 

Senator Kennedy. Were the working hours changed subsequently, 
so that the employees are now making less, as I understand it, at 
Morton Frozen Foods, than they made prior to the time the union 
came in, overall ? Is that right ? 

Mr. Long. At the time I left, we were. 

Senator Kennedy. They had you on 2 shifts so you could get extra 
hours, and now they are on 3 shifts; is that right? 

Mr. Long. That is right. 

The Chairman. The next question is : Does not the contract contain 
a wage-reopening provision, so that the contract could be reopened 
and the wages renegotiated ? 

Mr. Long. Yes ; it does. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could I read that into the record, Mr. Chairman, as 
long as that has been brought up? 

The Chairman, Senator McNamara ? 

Senator McNamara. Why did you leave the plant, Mr. Long? 

Mr. Long. I couldn't make enough money to make a living. 

89330—57 — pt. 15 3 



5792 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator ]\IcNamara. But you were making more than before the 
union, or were you ? 

Mr. LoxG. I was making more per hour, but less take-home pay. 

Senator McNamara. Then this business of working longer hours 
was eliminated when the union came in ? 

Mr. Long. Yes, sir. 

Senator McNamara. Whom was it eliminated by — the manage- 
ment ? 

Mr. Long. Yes, sir. 

Senator McNamara. In other words, he didn't need you any more 
now that he had to do business with the union ? 

JSIr. Long. Well, I quit under my own accord. 

Senator McISTamara. Because of the shabby treatment you were 
getting from the management ? 

Mr. Long. Well, I wouldn't say it was — I wasn't the only one that 
was cut down. 

Senator McNamara. You are the one who left, and we are talking 
about your leaving, so others don't enter into it. 

Mr. Long. Yes ; that is why I left. 

Senator McNamara. All right. 

Senator Ervin. After the contract was agreed to, the employees got 
less time for work, and, consequently, less money ? 

JNIr. Long. That is right. 

Senator Ervin. In addition to that, they paid the union dues? 

Mr. Long. That is right. 

Senator ER\'rN. That is all. 

The Chairman. Do you identify this contract ? 

Mr. Kennedy. We are going to have other witnesses on this matter, 
and we can wait, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Thank you. 

Call the next witness. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mrs. Phyllis Eing. 

The Chairman. You do solemnly swear the evidence you shall give 
before this Senate select committee shall be the truth, the whole truth, 
and nothing but the truth, so help you God ? 

Mrs. Eing. I do. 

TESTIMONY OP PHYLLIS RING 

The Chairman. State your name, your place of residence, and your 
business or occupation. 

Mrs. Eing. My name is Phyllis Eing. I live at 208 Bank Street, 
Webster City, Iowa, and I am unemployed. 

The Chairjuan. You are what? 

Mrs. Eing. I am unemployed. 

The Chairman. Have you been employed previously ? 

Mrs. Eing. Yes. I was secretary at the Morton Frozen Foods. 

The Chairman. For how long a time ? 

Mrs. Eing. Two and a half years. 

The Chairman. When did your emplovment terminate ? 

Mrs. Eing. The end of July 1957. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 5793 

The Chairman. You have the right to have counsel present, if you 
desire. Do you waive counsel? 

Mrs. King. Yes; I do. 

Tlie Chairman. Thank you very much. 

All riglit, Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. Kennedy. You were the secretary at the Morton Frozen Foods 
Co., for Mr. Keith Binns ? 

Mrs. EiNG. Yes ; that is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is while he was manager of the plant ; is that 
right ? 

Mrs. Ring. Yes. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. You held that position when the packinghouse work- 
ers' union came in and tried to organize ? 

Mrs. Ring. Yes ; I did. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you Imow the efforts, or were you aware that 
the management was strongly against the packinghouse workers' union 
organizing the employees ? 

Mrs. Ring. Yes, very much so. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were you aware of this committee, "We, the Morton 
Workers," being set up ? 

Mrs. Ring. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could jou tell us the actions or the activities that 
you knew in your position as secretary at that time? About the 
"We, the Morton Workers," and what was done as far as the man- 
agement knowing whether the employees were for or against the 
union ? 

Mrs, Ring. Well, I think, definitely, they were trying to influence 
the other employees to vote against the union, and I know that they 
printed handbills at Mr. Lund's office. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you know who Mr. Lund was at the time? 

Mrs. Ring. Well, I knew that he was the lawyer in town. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you know that he had been retained by the 
Morton Frozen Food Co. to act in that position ^ 

Mrs. Ring. No; only that he had volunteered his services for the 
committee. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is all you knew about it ? 

Mrs. Ring. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were there any efforts made to learn what the senti- 
ments of the employees were, as to whether they were for or against 
the union ? 

Mrs. Ring. Yes ; I think so, because I had prepared a list, by the 
direction of Mr. Binns, and I believe it was designated on the list 
those for and those against the union. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know how that information was obtained? 

Mrs. Ring. Not directly ; no. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were you told how it was obtained ? 

Mrs. Ring. I just imagine that it was from the "We, the Morton 
Workers" committee observances. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was there a form supplied to the attorney for the 
Morton Frozen Food Co. which was for the purposes of obtaining 
from him information regarding the background of these people? 

Mrs. Ring. Yes. This was not Mr. Lund, however, but Lloyd 
Karr. 



5794 IMPROPER ACTivrriE's in the labor field 

Mr. IvENNEDY. He was the attorney for the Morton Frozen Food 
Co.? 

Mrs. Ring. Yes, he was. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wlio had made up this form? Whose idea was 
that? 

Mrs. Ring. I believe Mr. Binns gave me the form and I typed it up 
and mimeographed it. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. Was this after Mr. Nevitt had come to Webster 
City? 

Mrs. Ring. Yes. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. Did you know Mr. Nevitt ? 

Mrs. Ring. Yes, I did. It was afterward. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you know what Mr. Nevitt's position was? 

Mrs. Ring. Definitely to keep the union out, but I wasn't too sure 
just who he was employed for. 

Mr. Ivennedy. You didn't know who he was representing or who 
he worked for ; is that right ? 

Mrs. Ring. He said it was a public-relations firm in Chicago. 

Mr. Ivennedy. But he was working actively against the union up 
there ? 

Mrs. Ring. Yes. Perhaps not openly, but actively. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. Was he having meetings with Mr. Binns ? 

Mrs. Ring. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were there also meetings with Mr. Long and Mr. 
Hayes, with Mr. Binns ? 

Mrs. Ring. Yes. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. And was that in connection with this defeating the 
union? 

Mrs. Ring. Just from snatches of conversations ; yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. I will ask you to identify this form we were just 
discussing. 

The Chairman. The Chair presents to you what appears to be three 
forms, pliotostatic copies of forms. Examine them and state if you 
identify them. 

(The documents were handed to the witness.) 

Mrs. Ring. The first two forms are the family information form, 
and the third is an application for employment. 

The Chairman. They may be made exhibits Nos. 2-A, 2-B, and 2-C. 

(The documents referred to were marked "Exliibits Nos. 2-A 
through 2-C" for reference and may be found in the files of the select 
committee. ) 

Mr. Kennedy. Was this family form a new f onn ? 

Mrs. Ring. Yes. I believe that it was originated in about August 
of 1955. 

Mr. Kennedy. That was shortly after the packinghouse workers 
started their drive ? 

Mrs. Ring. Yes ; that is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. This is the form that was sent to the attorney for 
the company, Mr. Karr ? 

Mrs. Ring. That is riglit. 

Mr. Kennedy. And would he make notations on the form? 

Mrs. Ring. Yes. Either he would say "O. K.," and his initials, "L. 
K," or "No," and sometimes he would have "Get rid of." 

Mr. Kennedy. What would that mean ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 5795 

Mrs. Ring. I presume that it was because the person applyinj^ for 
employment was somehow for a miion. Perhaps they had belonged 
to a union previously. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. Mr. Karr was to check on that and find out whether 
they had any union affiliation prior to that time ? 

Mrs. Ring. Yes. He w\as very familiar with almost everyone in 
the commmiity. 

Mr. Kennedy. And if the person was already an employee, then 
there might be a notation to get rid of them ? 

Mrs. Ring. Yes ; that is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. For instance, on this form that was handed to you 
at this time there is a note on the bottom "Get rid of." 

Mrs. Ring. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you understand there were certain people from 
certain areas that they didn't want to have employed at all, because 
they felt they might be prounion ? 

Mrs. Ring. I believe Fort Dodge, which is about 20 miles from 
Webster City, was considered poor, because it was highly unionized. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you know or understand that there were any 
employees of the compaii}^ who were fired because of the fact that 
they were promiion ? 

Mrs. Ring. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you Iniow some of the employees that that hap- 
pened to ? 

Mrs. Ring. Yes ; one, definitely. 

Mr. Kennedy. That was a lady, was it not ? 

Mrs. Ring. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. And whose name you have already given to us? 

Mrs. Ring. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. She was very active in the union ? 

Mrs. Ring. Yes ; very much so. 

Mr. Kennedy. And she was discharged ? 

Mrs. Ring. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did they transfer any other employees to unde- 
sirable employment because of the fact that they were prounion ? 

Mrs. Ring. Yes, in the hopes that they might quit. 

Mr. Kennedy. In what? 

Mrs. Ring. In the hopes that they might quit. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you knew all of this from your discussion with 
the management, Mr. Binns, and others ? 

Mrs. Ring. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was there a raise given to Mr. Long and Mr. Hayes 
for the work that they did for "We, the Morton Workers" ? 

Mrs. Ring. Yes ; I am quite sure that there was. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you ever hear conversations about that, also? 

Mrs. Ring. Yes. I believe I prepared the authorization. 

Mr. Kennedy. To give them a raise ? 

Mrs. Ring. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you have further conversations with the super- 
visor of Mr. Long ? 

Mrs. Ring. No. 

Mr. I^NNEDY. About the fact that he would receive the raise? 

Mrs. Ring. No. 



5796 IMPROPER ACTIYITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. But you did prepare the voucher giving both raises 
at that time? 

Mrs. Ring. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. After the packinghouse workers were defeated in the 
election, did another union come into Morton Frozen Food Co. ? 

Mrs. Ring. Well, it was about 7 or 8 months later that the bakers 
union came. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was the company management against that union 
also? 

Mrs. Ring. No. Quite the opposite. 

Mr. Kennedy. They were for that union? 

Mrs. Ring. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was there another representative that had come in? 
Mr. Nevett by that time had left. Was there somebody else who had 
come in ? 

]Mrs. Ring. Mr. Bromley. 

Mr. Kennedy. ]Mr. Charles Bromley ? 

Mrs. Ring. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. What was his position ? 

Mrs. Ring. Somewhat indefinite. He stayed in the background. 
He would go into the plant and talk to the employees, and try to 
persuade them to go along with the union. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who did he say he was representing — himself? 

Mrs. Ring. He didn't say. I am quite sure that it was a firm from 
Chicago, because he received telephone calls from there. 

Mr. Kennedy. But you didn't know for certain ? 

Mrs. Ring. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did he have a difficult time trying to sell the em- 
ployees on the union ? 

Mrs. Ring. Yes, rather. I think Mr. Nevitt had done quite a good 
job the year previously. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you understand that Mr. Nevitt and Mr. Brom- 
ley were from the same firm in Chicago ? 

Mrs. Ring. Yes, I definitely did. 

Mr. Kennedy. You understood that? 

Mrs. Ring. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could you understand why one came up for a few 
months and stayed there and tried to sell the employees against the 
union and a couple of months later another employee came up and 
tried to sell them for the union ? 

Mrs. Ring. It was presented to me that the bakers union would be 
the best in the company, since it had organized all of the other Con- 
tinental plants. 

Mr. Kennedy. "\'\'niat about the list of employees ? Was that ever 
turned over to the bakery workers, a list of the employees of the 
Morton Frozen Food Co. ? 

Mrs. Ring. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Would you tell us what happened there ? 
Mrs. Ring. First I was contacted one evening at home by three 
men. Two were representing the bakers' union and a third the team- 
sters' union. They said that they wished a list, a mailing list, of all 
the Morton employees, and they wanted me, since I had access to it, 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 5797 

< o give it to them. I refused to do so because I felt tluit it was some- 
what disloyal at the time. 

Mr. Kennedy. So what happened ? 

Mrs. Ring. It was either the next day or the day after that I pre- 
pared a list for them under Mr. Binns' direction. They informed me 
that evening that all they would have to do is ask that a list be given 
to them from the company and that it would be. 

Mr. Kennedy. So you were instructed the following day to furnish 
a list to the bakery workers ? 

Mrs. Ring. Yes. I typed it up. 

Mr. Kennedy. So you made a list of the names of the employees and 
their addresses and turned it over to the bakery workers' representa- 
tive; is that right? Or turned it over to Mr. Binns? 

Mrs. Ring. I turned it over to Mr. Binns. 

Mr. Kennedy. What about the authorization cards for the bakery 
workers' union ? Did you have anything to do with that ? 

Mrs. Ring. Mr. Binns had some on his desk within shortly around 
that time. 

Mr. Kennedy. What were the authorization cards? Giving the 
bakery workers' authorization to represent the employees ? 

Mrs. Ring. Yes ; that is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. And there were attempts going on to sign up the 
various employees for the bakery workers' union, is that right, with 
these authorization cards? 

Mrs. Ring. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy, What did Mr. Binns say about these cards? 

Mrs. Ring. He asked me to distribute them to the different super- 
visors, and I did so. 

Mr. Kennedy. So that the company was actually taking part in 
the distribution of the cards for the union itself; is that right? 

Mrs. Ring, Yes; that is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. This was an entire reversal over their position as 
far as the packinghouse workers were concerned ? 

Mrs. Ring. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. AVas that an improvement in wages, hours, and con- 
ditions, the contract that was ultimately signed ? Did you feel that 
it was an improvement? Did the employees feel that it was an 
improvement ? 

Mrs. Ring. I think there was some dissatisfaction wdth it. I don't 
believe that the employees were consulted as to what they wanted in 
the contract. 

Mr. Kennedy. You don't think they were consulted ? 

Mrs, Ring, No ; not at all. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was there an election? 

Mrs. Ring. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was there a negotiating committee set up among 
the employees to work it out w-ith the union, do you know ? 

Mrs. Ring. I don't know. 

Mr. Kennedy. You say that you left the employment of the Morton 
Frozen Food Co. at what time — July this year ? 

Mrs. Ring. Yes ; the end of July. 

Mr. Kennedy. This was subsequent to the time that you had been 
interviewed by our investigators; is that right? 

Mrs. Ring. Yes ; about 2 or 3 weeks. 



5798 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. How long; had you worked there ? 

Mrs. King. I started in February of 1955. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you leave voluntarily ? 

Mrs. Ring. No. I was requested to. 

Mr. Kennedy. What reason did they give you for requesting that 
you leave ? 

Mrs. Ring. None. I asked — they called me in one evening and said 
that they were going to have to tire me, and when I requested an 
explanation, they said that none could be given at this time. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who was this ? 

Mrs. Ring. Mr. Owen, the new manager. 

Mr. Kennedy, Did you try to find out in any other way why you 
were fired ? 

Mrs. Ring. No. I discussed it with him. He said that it wasn't 
my work, that he was quite satisfied with it, and that it would not go 
down in the records as having been fired, and that he would help me 
obtain employment elsewhere if I had difficulty. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you understand that some of the officials were 
upset that this family form had been obtained by the committee ? 

Mrs. Ring. I know that Mr. Owen and Mr. Kitchin discussed it over 
the telephone and ]\Ir. Owen asked me about it. 

ISIr. Kennedy. And that you had turned that over to the committee, 
had you ? 

Mrs. Ring. Yes ; I did. 

]Mr. Kennedy. Why had you turned it over to the committee ? 

Mrs. Ring. Mr. Sheridan came to the plant 

Mr. Kennedy. Who is Mr. Sheridan ? 

Mrs. Ring. I believe he is a representative of the committee — came 
to the plant and I was introduced to him by Mr. Chavalier, tlie assist- 
ant manager, and asked to furnish any information from our files that 
was necessary. 

Mr. Kennedy. So you had turned that over on the instructions to 
cooperate with the committee, the instructions of your superior ? 

Mrs. Ring. Yes ; that is right. 

Mr. Kennedy^. But later on there seemed to be some concern 
about it? 

Mrs. Ring. Yes, somewhat. 

Mr. Kennedy, I spoke to Mr. Owen and asked him if he had 
known that you had talked to the committee, and if that had any- 
thing to do with your being discharged, and he said that he never 
even knew that you had been interviewed by the committee at the 
time he discharged you. 

Mrs. Ring. He did know, however, because I talked to him by 
telephone the day that Mr. Sheridan was there in the office, and later 
when he came back to the plant I gave him a list of the items that I 
turned over to Mr. Sheridan. 

Mr. Kennedy. He told me just yesterday that positively he never 
even knew that you had talked with the conimittee. But you say there 
is no question that he knew ? 

Mrs. Ring. There is no question at all. 

Mr. Kennedy-. Did he, in fact, talk to you while Mr. Sheridan was 
in the office ? 

Mrs. Ring. Yes, he did, and then he requested me to give the form 
to Mr, Sheridan. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 5799 

Mr. Kennedy. Was tliere a memorandum prepared regarding the 
material that you had turned over to Mr. Slieridan ? 

Mrs. Ring. Yes. It was sent to Mr, Kitchen, in Louisville. 

Mr. Kennedy. So he was aware of it that way ? 

Mrs. Ring. Yes ; that is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. We appreciate your cooperation. 

The Chairman. You think you lost your job simply because you 
cooperated with this committee ? 

Mrs. Ring. I honestly don't know. 

The Chairman. As I understand, you didn't cooperate with the 
committee except as you told your superiors about what you were 
doing, and I understood you to say that they instructed you to co- 
operate with the committee. Is that correct ? 

Mrs. Ring. Yes ; that is right. In 1955, .when Mr. Nevitt was in 
the plant, there was some concern for my having belonged to a union 
before I came to Morton's, and it was discussed between him and Mr. 
Binns. There was some doubt in their minds as to how loyal I was 
to them. 

The Chairman. Is there anything else ? 

Senator McNamara. Mr. Chairman ? 

I will yield to Senator Ervin. 

Senator Ervin. As I understand it, Mr. Nevitt, representing the 
Shefferman interests, came down to teach that unions were bad ? 

Mrs. Ring. Yes ; that is right. 

Senator Ervin. And then Mr. Bromley, representing the Shefferman 
interests, came down to teach that the unions were good ? 

Mrs. Ring. Yes. 

Senator Ervin. And you say Mr. Bromley had some difficulty be- 
cause Mr. Nevett had been such a good teacher ? 

Mrs. Ring. That is right. 

Senator Ervin. In other words, the Shefferman interests, appar- 
ently, were like the teacher that applied to the school board for a job 
teacliing geography back in the days when half the people believed 
the earth was round and tlie other half believed it was flat. The school 
board chairman asked the teacher whether he taught the earth was 
round or flat, and he said he taught either system or both. 

That is all, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator McNamara. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the witness 
a question. 

Did you belong to any of the unions, either the meat packers, the 
packinghouse workers, or the bakery woi'kers, at any time ? 

Mrs. Ring. No. I was not eligible. 

Senator McNamara. You were not eligible ? 

Mrs. Ring. No. 

Senator McNamara. Because you were an office employee ? 

Mrs. Ring. Yes ; that is right. 

Senator McNamara. You mentioned that you had been a member of 
a union ]5reviously. Was that an office workers' union ? 

Mrs. Ring. Yes. It was with the Northwestern Bell Telephone Co. 

Senator McNamara. I am sure the committee is very much con- 
cerned as to whether or not you w^ere discharged because of your co- 
operation with the committee. You indicate that you suspect that 
that is why you were discharo-ed. You know of no other reason? 
They said your work was satisfactory ? 



5800 IMPROPER ACTIVrriE'S EST THE LABOR FIELD 

Mrs. Ring. That is right. None has been given to me as yet. 

Senator McNamaka. Except the possibility that you did have some 
union affiliation in your backgi'ound. 

Mrs. Ring. Yes. Mr. Owen said that he would explain to me after 
this was all over. 

Senator McNamara. Were you paid by the hour, by the week, or 
what? 

Mrs. Ring. By the hour. 

Senator IMcNamara. How much an hour did you receive ? 

Mrs. Ring. $1.22. 

Senator ]\IcNamara. $1.22. Did you get the 5-cent raise that the 
other employees got when the plant was unionized or did you still 
continue to get the same salary ? 

Mrs. Ring. The office received their raises at different times from the 
plant. 

Senator McNamara. You did not receive a raise when the rest of 
the employees, due to the union contract, received theirs ? 

Mrs. Ring. I believe there was a 5-cent increase. 

Senator McNamara. You did get the same as the rest of the 
employees ? 

Mrs. Ring. Within 2 months or so. 

Senator McNamara. Not at the same time ? 

Mrs. Ring. No. 

Senator McNamara. Thank you. 

Senator Curtis. Was it Mr. Binns who discharged you ? 

Mrs. Ring. No. Mr. Owen. 

Senator Curtis. ^Yho is manager of the plant ? 

Mrs. Ring. Mr. Owen. 

Senator Curtis. "^Mien was the change made ? 

Mrs. Ring. About the 31st of March of this year. 

Senator Curtis. The greater share of your employment was under 
Mr. Binns ? 

Mrs. Ring. Yes ; that is right. 

Senator Curtis. You were personal secretary to the manager ? 

JMrs. Ring. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy, That is all. Thank you. 

The Chairman. Thank you. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Keith Binns. 

The Chairman. You do solemnly swear the evidence you shall give 
before this Senate Select Com.mittee will be the truth, the whole truth, 
and nothing but the truth, so help you God ? 

Mr. Binns. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF KEITH BINNS, ACCOMPANIED BY HIS COUNSEL, 
EOY M. ANDERSON, AND THOMAS S. DAWSON, ATTORNEY 

The Chairman. State your name, your place of residence, and your 
business or occupation. 

Mr. Binns. My present place of residence is at 8706 Nordic Drive, 
Louisville, Ky. I was formerly at Webster City for a little over 2 
years before that. I was born and raised in South Dakota. 

The Chairman. Your name, please ? 

Mr. Binns. Keith Binns. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THEi LABOR FIELD 5801 

The Chairman. Keith ? 
Mr. BiNNS. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Mr. Binns, you have counsel present with you this 
morning ? 

Mr. BiNNS. Yes, I do. 

Tlie Chairman. Gentlemen, identify yourself for the record. 
Mr. Dawson. Thomas S. Dawson. 
Mr. Anderson. And Roy M. Anderson. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Binns, you were general manager of the Mor- 
ton Frozen Food plant at the time the packinghouse workers came to 
attempt to organize it ? 
Mr. Binns. I was. 

Mr. Kennedy. At that time the company was in opposition to the 
union attempt to organize the employees, is that right? 
Mr. Binns. I didn't hear you. 

Mr. Kennedy. The company w^as in opposition, the management of 
the company was in opposition to the union organizing the employees, 
is that right ? 

Mr. Binns. That is true. 

Mr. Kennedy. In that opposition, did you receive or have the ad- 
visory help of any outside individuals ? 
Mr. Binns. Yes, I did. 

Mr. Kennedy. Would you tell us who that was and how he came 
to arrive in Webster City, Iowa ? 

Mr. Binns. It was in approximately June 

Mr. Kennedy. June of 1955 ? 

Mr. Binns. June of 1955 — that the packinghouse workers began to 
organize the union. We had at that time only been in Webster City 
in operation for about 2 months. I immediately called my superior 
and informed him that they were attempting to organize the plant. 
Then at a later date, possibly a week or 10 days, my superior called 
me back and told me that there would be a man out there to help me in 
an attempt to keep the union from the plant. 
Mr. Kennedy, Who was your superior 'i 
Mr. Binns. W. R. Kitchin. 
Mr. Kennedy. K-i-t-c-h-e-n? 
Mr. Binns. "i-n"". 

Mr. Kennedy. And what was his position in the Morton Frozen 
Food Co. ^ 

Mr. Binns. Mr. Kitchin was general manager of the plant in the 
production department. 

Mr. Kennedy. Where was he ? 
Mr. Binns. He was in Louisville, Ky, 

Mr. Kennedy. So you called him down there and he talked to you 
about 10 days after that, and said that he would have a man up there 
to assist you in keeping the union out of the plant, is that right? 
Mr. Binns. That is true. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did a man arrive there shortly afterward ? 
Mr. Binns. Yes, sir. 
Mr. Kennedy. Who was that ? 

Mr. Binns. Jack Nevitt. . , 

Mr. Ivennedy. From where was he? Who was Mr. Jack iNevitt? 



5802 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. BiNNS. At that time I knew that he was from Chicago, and 
that he represented the firm that was doing personnel work. I mean, 
at that time, that was mv understanding. 

Mr. Kenni'^dy. The firm that he was working for, you learned sub- 
sequently, was Nathan W. Shefferman ; is that right ? 

Mr. BiNNS. That is true. 

Mr. Kennedy. Can you tell us — and this might be hearsay — you tell 
us how the company happened to retain the services of Mr. Sheiferman, 
what you understood, what was told to you ? 

Mr.'BiNNs. As I understand it, Mr. Kitchin and someone else in the 
office called the Shefferman organization in Chicago upon advice of 
several business associates there in Louisville that retained his serv- 
ices. That is what I heard. 

Mr. Kennedy. A number of individuals and companies in Louis- 
ville, Ky., had retained the services of Mr. Shefferman in the past and 
were very pleased with him and had recommended his services to 
Mr. Kitchin ; is that right ? 

Mr. BiNNS. As I understand it; yes. 

Mv. Kennedy. So Mv. Kitchin called Mr. Shefferman in Chicago 
and these arrangements were made for Mr. Nevitt, as you understand ? 

Mr. BiNNS. As I understand ; yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Had the Morton Frozen Food Co., to your knowl- 
edge, ever retained the services of Mr. Shefferman prior to that time ? 

Mr. BiNNS. Not to my knowledge. 

Mr. Kennedy. What arrangements were made with Mr. Nevett when 
he finally arrived in Webster City? What did he do first when he 
fmally arrived there ? 

Mr. BiNNS. Well, when Mr. Nevitt first arrived in Webster City, he 
circulated through the plant for several days, possibly 2 weeks, maybe 
longer than that, talking to the employees. As I understood it at that 
time, it was concerning personnel work, because he had no personnel 
department. 

Mr. Kennedy. Subsequently did he work toward attempting to 
learn the background of the various employees in the plant ? 

Mv. BiNNS. Yes, sir ; that is true. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was he at that time working toward finding out 
whether the employees were in favor of the union or against the union ? 

Mr. BiNNS. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. At that time, also, did he speak to you about the set- 
ting up of a committee ? 

Mr. BiNNS. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And what did he say ? Wliat conversation did you 
have with him about that ? 

Mr. BiNNS. Mr. Nevitt came to me and asked me — in fact he told 
me — that he would like to have an employee committee formed, and 
that two people should be picked and sent to a local attorney there in 
Webster City, and that he would direct the committee. 

Mr. Kennedy. That he would direct the committee. 

Mr. BiNNS, That the attorney would direct the committee. 

Mr. Kennedy. But why was the committee going to be formed? 
What was the purpose of the committee ? 

Mr. BiNNS. It was an antiunion committee. 

Mr. Kennedy. An antiunion committee ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 5803 

Mr. BiNNS. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you select tlie two employees that were going 
to go first, to the lawyer ? 

Mr. BiNNS. The names of the two people Mr. Nevitt mentioned to 
me, however, and they would have been my suggestion, also. 

Mr. Kennedy. They would what ? 

Mr. BiNNS. They would have been my suggestion also. I agreed 
with him. 

Mr. Kennedy. That was Mr. Long and Mr. Hayes ; is that right ? 

Mr. BiNNS. That is true. 

Mr. Kennedy. They were selected to head up the committee ? 

Mr. BiNNS. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And the committee received a name ? 

Mr. BiNNs. It did, later on, receive a name. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. That was "We, the Morton Workers" ? 

Mr. BiNNS. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. That was the name of the committee ? 

Mr. BiNNS. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. How was the attorney selected? Who selected the 
attorney that they would go to ? 

Mr. BiNNS. At that time I did not know how the attorney was 
selected. 

Mr. Kennedy. How did you learn subsequently that the attorney 
was selected ? 

Mr. BiNNS. I was told afterward that our local attorney, who was 
Mr. Karr 

Mr. Kennedy. What ? 

Mr. BiNNS. Our local attorney, who was Mr. Karr, had also selected 
Mr. Lund. 

Mr. Kennedy. And these two individuals were then sent down to 
see Mr. Lund ; is that right ? 

Mr. BiNNS. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. One of their functions was to prepare antiunion lit- 
erature ; is that right ? 

Mr. BiNNs. Well, that is what they have done. However, I 

Mr. Kennedy. Who arranged that ? 

Mr. BiNNS. To the best of my knowledge, Mr. Lund did. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Lund arranged that ? 

Mr. BiNNS. Yes ; the actual writing and printing of the handbills. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was there also an effort to find out what were the 
sentiments — to find out the sentiments of the employees, whether they 
were in favor of the union or against the union ? 

Mr. BiNNs. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And subsequently, or at any time, was there action 
taken against the employees wdio were active for the union? 

Mr. BiNNs. Yes, there was. 

Mr. Kennedy. Whose suggestion was that ? 

Mr. BiNNS. All of this, the majority of this was under the instruc- 
tions of Mr. Nevett. , 

Mr. Kennedy. How was it going to be handled ? You just couldn t 
fire somebody for the reason that they were in favor of the union. 
How was it suggested to you as to getting rid of these employees who 
were in favor of the union ? 



5804 IMPROPER ACnVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. BiNNS. Well, one way was, of course, putting them on other 
jobs. 

Mr. Kennedy. Putting them on undesirable work ? 
Mr. BiNNS. Actually, I wouldn't classify it as that. 
Mr. Kennedy. All right. Work that was less favorable than the 
work they were doing ? 
Mr. BiNNS. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And forcing them to quit that way; is that right? 
Mr. BiNNS. Well, yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. How else was it handled to get rid of these j)eople 
who were in favor of the union ? 

Mr. BiNNS. Well, also in this program, absenteeism and if they 
were accident-prone. That was the two main things. We kept a 
close check on them. 

Mr. Kennedy. You were looking for causes which you could use 
against these individuals to get rid of them, is that right? 
Mr. BiNNS. Yes. sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. The committee that was organized, "We, the Morton 
Workers Committee," did they obtain this information for you as to 
what employees were pro- or anti-union ? 
Mr. BiNNs. The two would, yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then was there also a form made up which was 
sent in to Mr. Karr, your local attorney ? 
Mr. BiNNS, Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. What was the purpose of that form ? I believe that 
has been made an exhibit here. That is exhibit No. 2. This is called 
the family form, I believe. 
Mr. Dawson. May I see it ? 

The Chairman. It is the family information form. 
(Document handed to witness, who conferred with his counsel.) 
Mr. BiNNS. Yes. I am familiar with this form. It was made up 
containing the family background of an employee, first, and then 
later on a prospective employee. 

Mr. Kennedy. The family background of the employee; is that 
right ? 

Mr. BiNNS. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. And then you later used it to find out about any 
prospective employees that you intended to hire; is that right? 
Mr. BiNNs. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. That form was made up at the suggestion of wliom ? 
Mr. BiNNS. Of Jack Nevitt. 

Mr. Kennedy. And the purpose of that was so that you could find 
out whether a person from his background was pro- or anti-union; 
is that right? 

Mr. BiNNS. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And that was sent down to your local attorney, Mr. 
Karr,"and then he would check to find out, and give you suggestions 
as to whether the person Avas pro- or anti-union ? 

Mr. BiNNS. Yes. That is right. Of course, Mr. Karr had been in 

the community all of his life, and he was very familiar witli all of the 

people, not only in Webster City but in the surrounding areas, also. 

Mr. Kennedy. If they were against the union, would he make a 

notation on it? 

]Mr. BiNNS. Yes. He would put a "no" on it. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 5S05 

Mr. Kennedy. If they were against the union, what would tliey 
put, if they were against the union ? 

Mr. BiNNS. He would put ''no'' on that, also. I might say at this 
time 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Kennedy. If they were against the union. 

Mr. BiNNs. I am sorry. Well, he would make a notation at the 
bottom of that form. 

Mr. Kennedy. What would be put, "yes" on the bottom of the 
form? I am trying to find out what notation he put on the form. 

Mr, BiNNS. If they were acceptable, "yes" was put on the bottom 
of the form. If they were not acceptable, he would put "no" on the 
form. 

Mr. Kennedy. And the criterion as to what was acceptable was 
whether somebody was for or against the union; is that right? 

Mr. BiNNS. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. And those people that were already employees, there 
was a notation sometimes made to get rid of them ; is that right ? 

Mr. BiNNS. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. And that was a notation on the bottom of it? 

Mr. BiNNS. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. And action was taken to try to find cause to get rid 
of those employees ? 

Mr. BiNNS. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was there compensation given to Mr. Long and Mr. 
Hayes for doing this work, extra compensation for doing the work? 

Mr. Binns. Yes. 

Mr. IvJENNEDY. They were promised raises in salaries ; is that right ? 

Mr. Binns. Yes. As Mr. Long said, they were told they would be 
taken care of. 

Mr. Kennedy. And they were given that ? 

Mr. Binns. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. On the bakery workers union — the packinghouse 
workers union was defeated, is that right, in the election ? 

Mr. Binns. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Dawson. The witness would like to make a statement amout 
these firings that he didn't make. 

The Chairman. Do you have something you want to say ? 

Mr. Binns. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Mr. Binns. Concerning the actual firing of the employees, that 
took place after the election. As I stated heretofore, there were 
certainly other reasons, other than that. There were people that 
were fired that were certainly for us during the next 6 or 8 months 
that these things took place. 

Mr. Kennedy. Approximately how many employees did you at- 
tempt to get information on in order to have cause for firing them ? 

Mr. Binns. Well, actually, concerning this family form, it was 
made up on all of the employees. 

Mr. Kennedy. Well, approximately how many — I understand that 
you wouldn't hire anybody, any new person, who might have pro- 
union background, or their family have a prounion background. J5iit 
on the employees that were already employed, how many of them did 



5806 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIEOLD 

you either transfer or did you attempt to get this derogatory infor- 
mation on so that you had cause to fire them ? 

How many of them were there, approximately ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. BiNNS. Approximately, I would say there was about 40 or 50. 

Mr. Kennedy. About 40 to 50 ? 

Mr, BiNNS. Yes, sir. That is approximately. I do not know the 
exact number. 

Mr. Kennedy. And how many of those 40 to 50 were you actually 
able to get rid of ? Were you able to get rid of all of those ? 

Mr. BiNNS. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. About how many of those were you able to get rid 
of? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. BiNNS. In the following 6-month period, Mr. Kennedy, there 
were 26 discharged. 

The Chairman. Twenty-six ? 

Mr. BiNNS. Yes, sir. However, not all of those necessarily had been 
against us. 

Mr. Kennedy, But there were about 40 or 50 that you attempted 
to get the information on, that you transferred to the more undesirable 
jobs in an attempt to get rid of them, and a proportion of those were 
ultimately or subsequently fired, and you can't tell us exactly how 
many. Is that right ? 

Mr. BiNNS. Yes, sir ; that is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. After the packinghouse workers were defeated in the 
election, the bakery workers came to Webster City, is that right ? 

Mr. BiNNs, Yes, 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you have the same opposition to the bakery 
workers union ? 

Mr, BiNNs. Of course, during this time there was a change in the 
ownership of the company. On December 1, 1955, we became part 
of the Continental Baking Co, That was shortly after the election. 
So, when the B, and C, appeared on the scene, of course they had con- 
tracts in a number of their plants — in fact, all of their plants through- 
out the country, 

Mr, Kennedy. Did you receive instructions from the higher officials 
that you were to cooperate with them ? 

Mr, BiNNS, Well, at first, just to take a hands-off policy. 

Mr. Kennedy. And then what ? 

Mr. BiNNs. Well, as I understand it, Mr. Kennedy, the first organi- 
zational drive by the B. and C. was not successful. To what degree, 
I do not know, but I understand that. So approximately 3 to 4 weeks 
after they had been there, I was called by my superior and told that 
there would be a man from Shefterman's office in Webster City to 
help the B. and C. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who called you on that ? 

Mr. BiNNS. Mr. Kitchin. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Kitchin ? 

Mr. BiNNs. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. He called you and told you that a man from Mr. 
Shetferman's office would be in Webster City to assist the bakery 
workers ; is that right ? 

Mr. BiNNs. Yes. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 5807 

Mr. Kennedy. The bakery workers had tried a drive there and had 
been unsuccessful, or at least according to your information had not 
had a successful time, and he called you to say that Mr, Shefl'erman 
was going to send some representatives down there to assist them; 
is that rig-ht ? 

Mr. BiNNS. That is true. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did it puzzle you at all, since Mr. Shefferman had 
just had somebody in there to beat the union ? 

Mr. BiNNS. Frankly, yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you meet with this representative of Mr. Shef- 
ferman ? 

Mr. BiNNs. I did, yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who was that? 

Mr. BiNNS. Charles Bromley. 

Mr. Kennedy. What did you arrange with him? What did you 
work out ? 

Mr. BiNNS. Well, at our meeting it was my understanding that he 
was to talk to the employees in the plant and try to maybe sway their 
feelings, because it had been just a year previous, and at that time 
that is all of the information I had. 

Mr. Kennedy. So he went into the plant to undo everything that 
John Nevitt had done a year prior to that ? 

Mr. BiNNS. Actually that is true. 

Mr. Kennedy. He was in there to tell them that they actually 
should have a union while Nevett had been there a few months earlier 
to tell them they shouldn't have a union ? 

Mr. BiNNS. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you also allow the representatives from the 
Bakery Workers Union themselves in there? 

Mr. BiNNS. In the plant ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. 

Mr. BiNNs. Not at that time ; no, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Subsequently ? 

Mr. BiNNS. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you assist in the handing out of the authoriza- 
tion cards for the bakery workers ? 

Mr. BiNNS. I assisted in it. They were brought to me; I was in 
structed to distribute those authorizations. 

Mr. Kennedy, ^Vlio instructed you to do that ? 

Mr. BiNNs. There, again, Mr. Kitchin. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Kitchin ? 

Mr. BiNNS. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. He instructed you to distribute the authorization 
cards for the bakery workers ? 

Mr. BiNNS. To the supervisors, and they would distribute them in 
their departments. 

Mr. Kennedy. They, in turn, would distribute them to the people 
in their departments ; is that it ? 

Mr. BiNNS. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. So there was no antiunion committee formed, or any- 
thing like that ? 

Mr, BiNNs. No, sir. 

80330—57 — pt. 15 — —4 



5808 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE: LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. Can you tell us anything else about the activities 
there '^ This was the way it operated, as I understand it. Did Mr. 
Bromley stay up there for a period of time ? 

Mr. BiNNS. Yes. I believe he was there about a month. I don't 
know exactly how long, but as I recall it was about a month. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was there an election held ? 

Mr. BiNNS, There was not. 

Mr. Kennedy. There was not ? 

Mr. BiNNS. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was there a contract negotiating committee to ne- 
gotiate, a committee of the employees, with the Bakery Workers 
Union ? 

Mr. BiNNS. No, sir ; not to my knowledge. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you laiow how the contract was drawn up ? Did 
you have a meeting ? 

Let me ask you this: Did you have a meeting regarding the con- 
tract yourselves ? 

Mr. BiNNS. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Can you tell us what happened in connection with 
that meeting ? 

Mr. BiNNS. That meeting w^as in Mr. Shefferman's office in Chicago. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were you instructed to come to the meeting ? 

Mr. BiNNS. I was. 

Mr. Kennedy. From whom did you receive those instructions? 

Mr. BiNNS. Mr. Kitchin. 

Mr. Kennedy. He told you to come to Chicago, to Mr. Shefferman's 
office? 

Mr. BiNNS. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. And the contract, was that drawn up in Mr. Shef- 
ferman's office ? 

First, who was at the meeting ? 

Mr. BiNNS. Mr. Kitchin, Mr. Dawson. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who is Mr. Dawson ? 

Mr. BiNNS. He is the attorney here. Mr. Shefferman, Mr. Bach- 
man. 

Mr. Kennedy. B-a-c-h-m-a-n ? 

Mr. BiNNS. I am not sure. 

Mr. Dawson. Yes. 

Mr. BiNNS. Both Sheffermans w^ere there. 

Mr. Kennedy. Sheldon Shefferman, the son, and Nathan Sheffer- 
man, the father ; is that right ? 

Mr. BiNNS. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Is that all that were there? Do you know? 

Mr. BiNNs. There were, I believe, 1 or 2 more from the Shefferman 
organizations, but I don't know who they were. They were in and 
out. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you discuss the contract at that time — writing 
the contract ? 

Mr. BiNNS. Yes, sir ; we discussed the contract. 

Mr. Kennedy. Had the contract been drawn up as of that time? 

Mr. BiNNS. Not to my knowledge, no. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you give them advice as to what should be put 
in the contract ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 5809 

Mr. Kennedy. You tell me what happened at the meeting. That 
is all I am trying to find out. 

Mr. BiNNS. Well, they went through difl'erent points tliat Avould 
be in a contract, and they were discussed. As far as I know, there 
were only notes made from that meeting. 

Mr. Kennedy. What part did you take in it ? 

Mr. BiNNS. Well, actually I just 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. BiNNS. I took no part other than just being there. 

The Chairman. Who was representing the men at that meeting? 

Mr. Binns. I didn't understand you, sir. 

The Chairman. Who represented the workers at that meeting? 

Mr. Binns. No one, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. So notes were made on the contract, is that right? 

Mr. Binns. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Subsequently was there a contract written? 

Mr. Binns. Yes, there was. 

Mr. Kennedy. During this visit, is that right ? 

Mr. Binns. Well, the only thing I know of was that notes were 
made. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Dawson will have to take it from there. 

Could he be sworn, Mr. Chairman? He knows what happened as 
far as the contract. 

The Chairman. You do solemnly swear that the evidence you shall 
give before this Senate select committee will be the truth, the whole 
truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God ? 

Mr. Dawson. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF THOMAS S. DAWSON— Resumed 

The Chairman. Mr. Dawson has already been identified for the 
record. 

Mr. Dawson, was the contract already prepared when you had this 
meeting? Had it already been prepared, or was it prepared subse- 
quent to this meeting ? 

Mr. Dawson. No, sir. As I remember, we made a rough draft in 
Mr. Shefferman's office. It had not been prepared before. I think 
the committee has a copy of that rough draft that was prepared at 
that time, 

Mr. Kennedy. Was that the following day after you had this 
meeting, with representatives of the She Herman concern and^ of the 
Morton Frozen Foods Co. ? After you had this meeting in Shetl'er- 
man's office, did you draw up a contract the next day ? 

Mr. Dawson. No, I think the same day, and it was drafted right in 
Mr, Shetferman's office. 

Mr. Ivennedy. The contract was drafted right in Mr. Shefferman s 
office ? 

Mr. Dawson, Yes, 

Mr. Kennedy. Was there any representative of the employees ot 
the Morton Frozen Food Co. ? 

Mr. Dawson. No, there was no negotiation. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was there a representative of the bakers union pres- 
ent? 

Mr. Dawson. No, sir. 



5810 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. What did you do with the contract after it was 
drawn up? 

Mr. Dawson. As I remember. I think I took the rough draft with 
me back to Louisville, smoothed it up, and sent it over to Mr. Kit- 
chin's office in Louisville, and a few days later met with Mr. Kitchin, 
and Mr. Sid Carpenter 

Mr. Kennedy. Who is he ? 

Mr. Dawson. He is in labor matters. I think we made some minor 
changes and I think he took that draft with some notes about sug- 
gested changes, all minor, back to New York with him, and that is the 
last I saw of it until after it was signed. 

Mr. Kennedy. What happened was that you took this contract back 
to Louisville, Ky., that you had some meetings and conversations with 
representatives of the Continental Baking Co. ? 

Mr. Dawson. That is true. 

Mr. Kennedy. That there were some minor changes made in the 
contract, and that it was then brought up to New York ? 

Mr. Dawson. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. Basically, this contract that was drawn up in Mr. 
Shetferman's office was the contract that was subsequently signed be- 
tween the Morton Frozen Food Co. and the Bakery and Confectionery 
Workers Union. Is that right ? 

jNIr. Dawson. I think that is substantially correct. There were some 
changes, but I don't think there were too many. 

Mr. Kennedy. Basically it was the same contract that was drawn 
up at that time in the office of Nathan W. Shetferman, with the repre- 
sentatives of Nathan Shefferman, Sheldon Shefferman, and the rep- 
resentatives of the Morton Frozen Food Co., that contract that was 
drawn up at that time was actually, with a couple of minor excep- 
tions, the contract that was subsequently signed between the bakery 
workers union and the Morton Frozen Food Co. as far as wages, hours, 
and conditions ; is that right ? 

Mr. Dawson. I can't give you a categorical answer to that because 
I am not too familiar with it at this time. It has been some time ago. 
I think that is probably right. The committee staff has a copy of 
this draft and of the executed contract. The committee has that in 
their possession. 

Mr. Kennedy. Well, in 3'^our opinion is that correct ? 

Mr. Dawson. I think that is substantially correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. We will go into that subsequently in detail, Mr. 
Chairman. 

Mr. Dawson. Mr. Chairman, I might say he raised a question there 
as to whether the union was represented in that meeting. It was not 
a negotiation. My understanding was that we would draft a contract 
that would be acceptable to the company which would later be pre- 
sented to the union in an effort to get them to sign the contract that 
was acceptable. 

The Chairman. At that time, you were not negotiating the con- 
tract, you were still preparing one ? 

Mr. Dawson. That is right, hoping that we could get it accepted, 
that is right. 

The Chairman. In other words, that became the company's propo- 
sition to the labor union ? That is what it amounted to ? 

Mr. Dawson. That is right. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 5811 

Senator Kennedy, May I just ask a question ? 

The Chairman. Yes. 

Senator Kennedy. Were you tlie one to sugo:est to Mr. Kitchin the 
hiring of Nathan Sheffernian ? 

Mr. Dawson. No, sir. 

Senator Kennedy. Did he discuss it with you before Nathan Shef- 
fernian was hired ? 

Mr. Dawson. No, sir. 

Senator Kennedy. Did you represent other clients who had Nathan 
Shefferman ? 

Mr. Dawson. I have represented other people who have employed 
him, yes, sir. 

Senator Kennedy. You live in the same town with Mr. Kitchin ? 

Mr, Dawson. That is right. 

Senator Kennedy, The first you heard of this entire case was when 
you went to Mr. Nathan Shefferman's office to work on this contract? 

Mr, Dawson. No. I think I knew that they had employed Mr. 
Nathan Shefferman's organization before that meeting. 

Senator Kennedy. But you were not compensated in any way for 
legal advice on this whole case we are discussing until the day you 
went to Nathan Shefferman's office to work on this contract ? 

Mr. Dawson. We are on a retainer basis, Mr. Senator, and there 
was no charge made for that. 

Senator Kennedy. But you had no connection with the case, in the 
details of the case that we heard, as an attorney, except to work on 
the contract negotiations, is that correct ? 

Mr. Dawson. That is correct. 

Senator Kennedy, All of these things which we are discussing, 
which seem to me to be unfair labor practices, that was not done with 
your advice or that you knew about it ? 

Mr, Dawson. No, Not a bit. I didn't have any familiarity with 
anything that Mr, Shefferman did. In connection with the 1955 elec- 
tion, I was attending a Labor Board hearing when we were resisting 
the efforts to have an election. We fought it through the Labor 
Board, I sat through that hearing, although I was not the main at- 
torney in the case, I just listened. That was about my only connec- 
tion. 

Senator Kennedy, Did you ever have any conversations with Mr. 
Karr, the attorney for the company? 

Mr, Dawson, On the day of the hearing I did ; yes, sir. 

Senator Kennedy. During this period we are talking about? 

Mr. Dawson. No, sir. 

Senator Curtis, I have a question, Mr, Chairman, 

The Chairman, Senator Curtis, 

Senator Curtis, I would like to ask Mr, Binns a question. 

TESTIMONY OF KEITH BINNS— Resumed 

Senator Curtis, How long had this plant been operating when the 
packinghouse workers tried to organize them? 

Mr. BiNNS, The plant went into operation February 21, 1955. 
Senator Curtis, When did the packinghouse workers try to go m? 
Mr, BiNNS, In June of 1955, 



5812 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Curtis. They operated from February to June ? 

Mr. BiNNS. That is true. 

Senator Citrtis. IVlien Mr. Nevitt came down to carry on this 
work, did you give directions to Mr. Nevitt, or did he give directions 
to you ? 

Mr. BiNNs. He gave directions to me, sir. 

Senator Curtis. His ideas ? 

Mr. BiNNS. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. On the return engagement, did you give direc- 
tions to Mr. Bromley or did Mr. Bromley give directions to you ? 

Mr. BiNNS. Mr. Bromley gave directions to me. 

Senator Curtis. In other words, you were in charge of the plant 
there which had been, open for a few months, and when the question 
of unionization arose, you called your boss? 

Mr. BiNNS. That is right. 

Senator Curtis. And then the Shefferman people came down and 
engineered the thing and gave you directions on what to do ? 

Mr. BiNNs. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Binns, were your suggestions requested as to who 
should be the officers of the new bakery workers union ? 

Mr. Binns. I did suggest that, yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. You what? 

Mr. BiNNS. I did suggest that. 

Mr. Kennedy. For what reason did you suggest who would be the 
officers of the union ? 

Mr. Binns. I was so instructed to. 

Mr. Kennedy. By whom ? 

Mr. BiNNs. By Mr. Kitchin. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Kitchin said you should furnish your sugges- 
tions as to who should be the new officers of the local ? 

Mr. BiNNs. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And who should you furnish that information to ? 

Mr. BiNNs. To Merle Smith, who was the organizer. 

Mr. Kennedy. And did you write him a letter telling him ? 

Mr. BiNNs. I did. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you have any discussions with Mr. Shefferman 
concerning that ? 

Mr. BiNNs. With Bromley, yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. What did Mr. Bromley say ? 

Mr. BiNNs. Well, he already prepared the list. 

Mr. Kennedy. He prepared the list he thought should be the 
officers ? 

Mr. Binns. Yes. Prior to my knowing anything about it at all. 

Mr. Kennedy. So you incorporated those names in your letter to 
Mr. Smith? 

Mr. Binns. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is Merle Smith, who was the representative of 
the bakery union in that area. Is that right ? 

Mr. Binns. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. How were these officers to be elected or appointed ? 
(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Binns. I don't know. That was only a suggestive list. They 
weren't all accepted, either. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 5813 

The Chairman. I will present you a copy of tliis letter. See if you 
recognize that as a copy of the letter to which you refer. 

( Document handed to witness, who conferred with this counsel.) 

Mr. BiNNs. Yes, sir ; that is a copy. 

The Chairman. It may be made exhibit No. 3. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 8" for refer- 
ence and may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

The Chairman, Let me ask you if those people didn't become officers 
of the local. 

Mr. BiNNS. Some of them did. However, the top officers were 
changed. 

The Chairman. The top officers were changed ? 

Mr. BiNNs. Yes. 

The Chairman, How did they become officers? Were they elected 
by the members of the union, by the workers, or were they appointed 
by somebody ? 

Mr. BiNNs. I don't know that, Mr. Chairman, 

The Chairman, It is a peculiar thing, setting up a union and man- 
agement telling them who they are going to have as officers, I wonder 
how they got them appointed or elected. 

Mr. BiNNS. This was only a suggestion of the officers. 

The Chair3ian. Apparently, it was a pretty strong suggestion. It 
was effective in some instances, at least, 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you understand, Mr. Binns, that there was 
opposition in your plant and dissatisfaction with the contract by your 
employees ? 

Mr. Binns. Yes, sir. I did. 

Mr. Kennedy. And did you, in fact, put a notice up regarding that 
dissatisfaction? Did you send a notice out? I can refresh your 
recollection. 

The Chairman. The Chair presents to you a document and asks 
you to examine it and see if you identify it. If so, state what it is. 

(Document handed to witness, who conferred with his counsel.) 

The Chairman. Have you examined the document ? 

Mr. Binns. Yes ; I have. 

The Chairman, Do you identify it? 

Mr, Binns. I do. 

The Chairman, What is it ? 

Mr, Binns. It was a notice that was written and sent to the em- 
ployees on January 4, 1957, 

The Chairman. That was sent out to your employees ? 

Mr. Binns. Yes, sir ; it was. 

The Chairman, AVlio directed you to send it ? Where did you get 
your instructions about that? 

Mr. Binns, Mr. Kitchin. 

The Chairman. Mr. Kitchin? 

Mr. Binns. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. He instructed you to send out such a notice? 

Mr. Binns. Pardon ? 

The Chairman. Mr. Kitchin instructed you to send out that notice, 
or something to that effect, to the employees? 

Mr. Binns. Yes, sir. 

The Chaieman. That may be made exhibit No, 4. 



5814 IMPROPER ACTIVrTIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 4" for refer- 
ence, and may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, I would like to read that into the 
record, and also this letter was written regarding the employees. 

The Chairman. It may be printed into the record. Do you want 
to read it ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. 

The Chairman, It may be read. 

Mr, Kennedy. Dated November 15, 1956, on the stationery of the 
Morton Frozen Foods, Inc., letterhead, to Mr. Merle Smith. 

( The letter referred to follows : ) 

Morton Frozen Foods, Inc., 
Louisville, Ky., November 15, 1956. 
Mr. Merle Smith, 

Bakery and Confectionery Workers International Union of America, 
Webster City, Iowa. 
Dear Mr. Smith : We have been asked to submit a list of people for offices 
in the forthcoming union here in the Webster City division. We have given 
this thorough study and consideration, and feel that this list of officers would 
best represent the employees and would be very fair in their dealings with 
management : 

President, Clifford Hayes 
Vice president. Joyce Fortune 
Secretary, Ethel Urich 
Stewards, day shift : 

Processing area, Peter Hanson, Bessie Larson 
Dock and freezers, Richard Jessen 
Night shift, second : 

Processing ai'ea. Iris Jensen 
Dock and freezer, William Dirks 
Night shift, third : All third-shift personnel, Margie Hill 
We do hope that the above list meets with your approval, and feel that 
they would effectively do their work to the satisfaction of the employees and 
to management. 

Very truly yours, 

Kkith C. Binns, Manager. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then, Mr. Chairman, this is the notice that went on 
the board, dated January 4, 1957. 

(The notice referred to follows :) 

January 4, 19.57, 
To All Employees: 

This bulletin is being given to each employee in this plant to once again 
clarify the management's recognition of the bakers and confectionery workers 
union. As the management, we recognized that this union would be most 
beneficial to you as an employee, and to us as management, in distributing our 
product along with the union label. As you are aware. Continental has some 
6,400 salesmen-drivers in their system. From this fact alone, you can realize 
the tremendous sales potential these men can create. The more sales, the 
more assured you are of continuous work. 

There seems to be some concern as to the contract and the 5-cent increase. 
The union, after going through our financial statements, felt that at the present 
time the company, economically, could only bear a 5-cent increase at the present 
time. The remainder of the contract is very economically sound. There are 
some details excluded : however, we have been able to work some of these 
out, and I am sure that as more come up, we here can satisfactorily work 
these out. 

In summarizing the above I hoi)e that I have clarified some of the ques- 
tions that have been in your minds. The company certainly intends to work 
with the union, and in turn, we feel that the union will work with us. It takes 
a mutual feeling of good will. The management wishes and expects you to 
participate in all of your union activities. This will assure us as manage- 
ment that vpe are working with all employees in this plant, and, as stated 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 5815 

above, we as management do intend to work with the bakers and confectionery 
worlvers union, which is a representation of you, as an employee. 

I would like to express to you at this time a wish for a very happy and pros- 
perous new year. 
Thank you. 

Keith C. Binns, 
General Manager. 

Mr. Kennedy. Yon were also assisting, were you not, in making 
sure that all the employees Avere signed up in the union ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Dawson. He does not understand the question. 

Mr. Kennedy. You were also assisting, were you not, the bakery 
workers, to make sure that all of the employees were signed up in 
the union, to insure that all of the employees were members of the 
union, were you not? 

Mr. Binns. Yes, as far as furnishing a list. 

Mr. Kennedy. And also the union would keep you advised as to 
who was not signed up in the union so that you could get in touch 
with them, is that right? 

Mr. Binns. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chainnan, in connection with that, here is a 
letter of February 12, 1957. 

The Chairman. The Chair hands you a photostatic copy of a letter 
dated February 12, 1957, addressed to you from Merle C. Smith. 
Would you examine that and see if you identify it ? 

(A document w^as handed to the witness.) 

Mr. Binns. I recognize it. 

The Chairman. That may be made exhibit No. 5. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 5'' for refer- 
ence and will be found in the appendix on p. 6221.) 

Mr. Kennedy. I just might read, Mr, Chairman, briefly. This is 
dated February 12, 1957, to Mr. Keith Binns. 

Dear Sir : Following is a list of names of the ones who have not at this date 
signed papers authorizing the checkoff of union dues. 

And then it gives a list of employees. At the bottom it says : 

There may be others that we have overlooked, but this is the present list. We 
would appreciate any assistance you can give in cutting down this list as far as 
possible. 

The Chairman. Did all of them finally sign up ? Did all of them 
join ? Did all of your employees join this union ? 

Mr. Binns. I don't think all of them did. However, I do not know 
that, I don't believe all of them ; no, sir. 

Senator Kennedy. I would like to ask one question. You have read 
the Taft-Hartley law; have you not? 

Mr, Binns, Pardon? 

Senator Kennedy. You have read the Taft-Hartley Act? 

Mr. Binns, No, sir ; I have not. 

Senator Kennedy, You never read it ? 

Mr, Binns. No, sir. 4. ^.^ t- 

Senator Kennedy. Did you know that section 8 (a) (1) states tliat 
it will be an unfair labor practice to interfere, restrain, or coerce em- 
ployees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed m section 7 ot tms 
title, and No. 2, is to dominate or interfere with the formation or ad- 
ministration of any labor organization. 



5816 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 

In other words, you have never read that section? 

Mr. BiNNS. No, sir ; I have not. 

Senator Kennedy. Did you get legal advice during this period? 
You had Mr. Karr, as I remember it. He was the attorney for the 
company ? 

Mr. BiNNS. Yes, sir. 

Senator Kennedy. Did you ever discuss with him what your rights 
were and the actions you were taking in regard to giving those who 
were active in union work that would encourage them to resign, No. 1, 
and the letters you have written ? 

All of those acts are covered by the Taft-Hartley Act and are, in 
my opinion, prohibited. Of course, that is a decision the Board will 
have to arrive at. But did you get any legal advice as to wdiat you 
could do legally and what you could do or could not do as far as 
limiting or encouraging organization in your company ? 

Mr. BiNNs. Certainly Mr. Karr was aware of it. 

Senator Kennedy. Did Mr. Karr tell you that some of the actions 
jou had taken were not permitted under the Taft-Hartley Act ? 

Mr. BiNNS. I would like to clear up one thing, if I may, sir. I 
was only following instructions. 

Senator Kennedy, ^^^lose instructions? 

Mr. BiNNs. My superiors. 

Senator Kennedy. Mr. Kitchin? 

Mr. BiNNS. That is right. 

Senator Ivennedy. Was Mr. Kitchin informed as to every action 
that you took ? 

Mr. BiNNS. As far as I know ; yes, sir. 

Senator Kennedy. In other words, when you sent out a letter to 
the bakery union with a list of those people who had not joined a 
union or when you assigned a worker in the company to less satis- 
factory work or undesirable work in the hope that they would re- 
sign, was your superior informed of that ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. BiNNS. Yes ; he knew about that. 

Senator Kennedy. In other words, every action that you took to 
discourage the packers coming into the plant as the union and every 
action you took to encourage the bakers workers was known to your 
superior ? 

Mr. BiNNS. That I took ; yes, sir. 

Senator Kennedy. In other words, you felt that the actions you 
were taking represented company policy ? 

Mr. BiNNs. Yes, sir. 

Senator Kennedy. Let me ask you this: Do you know who was 
advising Mr. Kitchin of the legal rights that you had in the actions 
you took ? In other words, you were taking action which, in my opin- 
ion, was against the Taft-Hartley Act. Did you get legal advice 
which would tell you whether you could do that ? 

Did you know that you were limited in the action you could take 
to prevent a union from coming into a company or to encourage a 
union coming into a company ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. BiNNS. In the first particular case, in 1955, I was told, and 
certainly I understood, that as far as Nathan Shefferman's actions 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 5817 

in the plant, it was strictly np to liim. Everything that he did did 
not come from me, or only a small part of it. 

Senator Kennedy. In other words, you were told by Mr. Kitchin 
that you were to work with Mr. Shetferman's representatives and 
under their direction and, therefore, all of the actions which we have 
heard discussed, this is the statement you are making, came about 
as a result of the advice of Mr. Shefferman's representatives; is that 
correct ? 

Mr. BiNNs. That is correct. 

Senator I\jennedy. And you, yourself, never read the Taft-Hartley 
Act and never knew whether the actions you were taking were in ac- 
cord with it or against it; is that correct? 

Mr. BiNNS. That is correct. 

Senator Kennedy. You never discussed it with Mr. Karr? 

Mr. BiNNS. I don't recall discussing it with him ; no. 

Senator Kennedy. In other words, you just discussed it with Mr. 
Shefferman. Did you ever discuss it with the other attorney, Mr. 
Lund ? 

Mr. BiNNS. No, sir. 

Senator Kennedy. Mr. Karr, as I understand it, was the one that 
filled out this family information form and which at the bottom 
of it had, "No," at the bottom of it, which means he is against the 
union, and then it says, "Get rid." Did Mr. Karr tell you that? 

The Chairman. "No" means he is for the union. 

Mr. Kennedy. "No" means he is for the union and they are to get 
rid of him. 

Senator Kennedy. Well, you tell us, so we can get this straight. 
What does "get rid" mean ? To discourage him so he will resign ? 

Mr. BiNNs. Yes, sir. 

Senator Kennedy. Does that mean he was for the packinghouse or 
for the bakery ? 

Mr. BiNNS. Well, of course, the packinghouse was the first union in 
there. When the B. and C. were in there, to my knowledge, the 
packinghouse workers were not in there. 

Senator Kennedy. I would like to ask counsel. Did Mr. Karr have 
anything to do with this? 

Mr. Kennedy. What happened was that this form was made up at 
the suggestion of JMr. Nevitt— and correct me if I am wrong— who 
was 

Senator Kennedy. Was Mr. Nevitt an attorney ? 

Mr. BiNNS. I can't know that. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Nevitt was a representative of Mr. Shefferman. 
He came up and met with management. Management had an attor- 
ney, Mr. Karr. Mr. Karr was approached. This form was made up 
by Mr. Nevitt. 

Mr Karr knew the people in the area. They would make a form 
like this up for everyone that they had employed or that they expected 
to employ. 

They would send that form in to Mr. Karr. Mr. Karr would check 
the background of the individual and then he would advise die com- 
pany whether, if the man was already employed, to get rid of the man 
or, if he had not been employed, whether he could be hired. 

That was based on whether he was for or against the union, bo, 
in my estimation, it is a clear violation of the Taft-Hartley. But in 



5818 IMPROEER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOiR FIELD 

addition to that, they went further than that and got another attorney, 
through Mr. Karr, another attorney, Mr. Lund, who handled the 
affairs of the employees' committee which, once again, is a clear vio- 
lation of the Taft-Hartley, in my judgment. 

Senator Kennedy. I am hoping that these attorneys come in. It 
seems to me they have a good deal of responsibility as well as Mr. 
Sheft'erman in giving you the advice that they did and Mr. Kitchin 
obviously had responsibility in giving you the advice that he gave you. 

Therefore, having supervision of the actions that you took, which 
were improper, I think they should come forward. I must say that 
I think you have been a very honest witness, which I think is helpful 
to the committee. 

Mr. BiNNs. Thank you. 

Senator Kennedy. It may not be desirable from the point of view 
of your company, but, nevertheless, you have, as I gather it, you have 
told the truth. 

Mr. BiNNS. To the best of my ability, I have. 

The Chairman. Do you still work for the company ? 

Mr. BiNNs. Yes ; I do. 

Senator Ervin. The fact is the Morton Frozen Food Co., the man- 
agement of Morton Frozen Co. that owned the plant was opposed to 
a union and then when the Continental Baking Co. acquired own- 
ership, they favored the union. Is that right? 

Mr. BiNNs. Yes ; that is true. 

Senator Ervin. And Mr. Sheflerman's associates, they furnished 
assistance on both sides of the fence, just depending on which side they 
wanted to work? 

Mr. BiNNS. Yes, sir. 

Senator McNamara. Mr. Chairman ? 

The Chairman. Senator McNamara. 

Senator McNamara. Your immediate superior was the same man 
when it was the Morton Co. before it was associated with Continental 
Bakery as it was after ; is that right ? 

Mr. BiNNS. Yes, sir. 

Senator McNamara. There was no change, as far as you are con- 
cerned, with your relationship with it, but your superior was still the 
same man ? 

Mr. BiNNs. Yes, sir. 

Senator McNamara. Does the name of the company still remain the 
Morton Co. ? 

Mr. Dawson. May I clear that up? It was the Morton Packing 
Co. That was a Kentucky corporation. It is now Morton Frozen 
Foods, a division of Continental Baking Co. 

Senator McNamara. What is this, just a franchise deal, or is it a 
merger ? How do you describe it ? 

Mr. Dawson. No; it is a part of Continental Baking Co., just a 
division of that company. 

Senator McNamara. What does that mean, that they operate under 
a franchise ? 

Mr. Dawson. No, sir; it is just operated as part of the Continental 
Baking Co. 

Senator McNamara. Then it is a merger of the two companies. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 5819 

Mr. Dawson. They bought the assets, dissolved the corporation, and 
they became a part of Continental. 

Senator McNamara. I would like to ask the plant manager this 
question : You are still the plant manager of this same plant? 

Mr. BiNNS. No, sir. I left there March 31st of this year. 

Senator McNamara. You now work for Continental Baking? 

Mr. BiNNS. Yes ; in Louisville, Ky. 

Senator McNamara. You have the same superior ? 

Mr. BiNNS. Yes, sir. 

Senator McNamara. That is, the same as you had prior to this? 

Mr. BiNNS. Yes, sir. 

Senator McNamara. You are in the same capacity in another 
plant? 

Mr. BiNNS. No, sir ; I am administrative assistant. 

Senator McNamara. You are administrative assistant, I see. Then 
from your knowledge of the employees in the Morton plant, when the 
packinghouse workers were attempting to organize it, do you believe 
that they would have voted in favor of the Packinghouse Workers 
Union had there not been this antiunion campaign on the part of the 
company ? 

Mr. BiNN. In my opinion, I do not believe that they would have 
gotten in. 

Senator McNamara. They would have organized the company ? 

Mr. BiNN. No ; I do not think so. 

Senator McNamara. You think they would not have ? 

Mr. BiNNs. No. 

Senator McNamara. In your estimation, the packinghouse workers 
would not have won the majority of the members, the employees of the 
plant ? 

Mr. BiNNS. Yes ; that is my impression. 

Senator McNamara. You do not think they would have been 
successful ? 

Mr. BiNNS. That is right, I do not think they would have been. 

Senator McNamara. Do you know if they had been successful, 
whether the wages would have been considerably higher than they are 
now? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. BiNNs, Yes, sir. 

Senator McNamara. They would have been higher ? 

Mr. BiNNS. Yes. 

Senator McNamara. But despite that, you do not think that the 
employees would have gone along with the packinghouse workers ? 

Mr.BiNNS. In my opinion, again, I do not. Senator, because we had 
just gotten started there. 

Senator McNamara. If it was left to your judgment, you would not 
liave hired Sherfferman because you thought you had no use for him ; 
is that it? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. BiNNS. Let me say this, that we had no personnel department. 

Senator McNamara. You had no personnel problems? 

Mr. BiNNS. No personnel dej^artment. In the plant or as far as the 
company was concerned, we had none. 



5820 IMPROEER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIEOLD 

Senator McNamailv. In other words, you handled everything, you 
were the personnel department as well as the plant manager ? 

Mr. BiNNS. Yes, sir. 

Senator McNamara. You had no personnel problems of any kind ? 

Mr. BixNS. Well, we just had gotten started. 

Senator McNamara. Well, you had been in operation for 3 or 4 
months. 

Mr. BiisrNS. February 21st of that year. 

Senator McNamara. That is, when the packinghouse people came 
along it was only a few months '{ 

Mr. BiNNS. Yes, sir. 

Senator McNamara. Your understanding in the first instance is that 
Shelferman was hired to set up a personnel department in the organi- 
zation ; is that right ^ 

Mr. BiNNS. Yes, sir. 

Senator McNamara. Then it developed that he was hired for an- 
other purpose, to keep the union out ? 

Mr. BixNS. Yes, sir. 

Senator McNamara. Were you there long after the bakery workers 
started to represent the employees ? Were you there for some months ? 

Mr. BiNNs. I left the 31st day of March of this year. 

Senator McNamara. Then you were there for some months ? 

Mr. BiNNS. Three months ; yes, sir. 

Senator McNamara. Do you know whether or not the employees 
held meetings, which were operated as you understand a union would 
function with employees, holding meetings and electing their officers 
and such things, under the bakery workers '( 

Mr. BiNNs. I do not quite understand your question. 

Senator McNamara. You were there for some months after the 
bakery workers signed this contract that was offered to them by the 
management ? 

Mr. BiNNS. Yes, sir. 

Senator McNamara. Do you know whether your employees then 
started to function in a regular trade union, holding periodic meet- 
ings and selecting their own officers and all of those things ? 

Mr. BiNNS. Yes, they have meetings. 

Senator McNamara. Did you recognize their stewards that were 
selected as responsible men for the employees ? 

Mr. BiNNs. Yes, sir. 

Senator McNamara. Did they set uj) grieA^ance procedures and 
such things? 

Mr. BiNNS. Yes, sir. 

Senator McNamara. So in your estimation, they were functioning 
as a proper trade union ? 

Mr. BiNNS. Yes. 

Senator McNamara. That is all, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Kennedy. I have one more question. 

Mr. Binns, you stated that you nevej- read the Taft-Hartley Act. 
I do not have any doubt that Mr. Kitchin, however, is in charge of 
personnel — is that correct — for your whole company ? 

Mr. Binns. In charge of production, Senator. 

Senator Kennedy. And personnel ? 

Mr. Binns. Yes, sir. No, no. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 5821 

Senator Kennedy. Who is in charge of personnel ? 

Mr. BiNNS. There is no personnel department. 

Senator Kennedy. This is controlled by Continental Baking, tliis 
company ? 

Mr. Binns. Yes, sir. 

Senator Kennedy. And is Continental Baking the biggest com- 
pany of its kind in the country ? 

Mr. Binns. Yes, as I understand. 

Senator Kennedy. Do you not assume that Mr. Kitchin had some 
consultation with the governing officials, the responsible officials, of 
Continental Baking about this matter ? 

Mr. Binns. Yes, sir. 

Senator Kennedy. You do assume that? 

Mr. Binns. Yes, sir. 

Senator Kennedy. So you assume that some place in the company 
Mr. Kitchin talked with someone who had read the Taft-Hartley Act, 
who must have been familiar with the fact of w^hether the practices 
you were carrying out were unfair labor practices or not ^ 

Mr. Binns. I would assume that. 

Senator Kennedy. In other words, we must assume that Mr. Kit- 
chin, who supervised your action, was aware and Continental Baking 
Co. was aware that what they were doing were unfair labor practices. 

Mr. Binns. As far as I am concerned, yes. 

Senator Kennedy. I have no doubt that they were unfair labor 
practices. They were supervised by Mr. Kitchin, the top manage- 
ment of one of the largest companies in the Nation. 

It says in section 3 it is an unfair labor practice for any employer by 
discrimination in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term 
or condition of emploj^ment to encourage or discourage membership 
in any labor organization. 

I do not think there is any doubt but that the actions that j^our 
company took in this case were unfair labor practices. You did 
encourage in regard to hiring, tenure of employment, and membership 
in a labor organization, or sought to do so. 

I think that Continental and the Morton Co. have a great responsi- 
bility to bear in their permitting actions of tliis type to take place. 

Senator McNamara. Mr. Chairman, just one more question. 

Did the Morton Co. originate in this instance or did they have other 
plants ? 

Mr. Binns. They originated in Louisville, Ky. They, at that time, 
had plants in Crozet, Va., Louisville, Ky., and iSTashville, Tenn. 

Senator McNamara. iVnd this plant in Iowa was a branch plant of 
the Louisville operation ? 

Mr. Binns. Yes, sir. 

Senator McNamara. Then it was an old company. How old was it ? 

Mr. Daw^son. Probably 20. That is a guess. 

Senator McNamara. It has been in operation for many years ? 

Mr. Dawson. Yes. Not in this particular line of food products, 
but others. 

Senator McNamara. Other food processing ? 

Mr. Dawson. Yes, sir. 

Senator McNamara. Do you know whether or not they are a union 
plant in Kentucky ? 

Mr. Dawson. No. 



5822 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator McNamara, They were nonunion ? 

Mr, Dawson, Yes. 

Senator McNamara. This was the first experience of the Morton Co. 
as far as you understand ? 

Mr. Dawson. Yes, sir. 

Senator McNamara, Have the bakery workers taken over the oper- 
ations of the company in Kentucky ? 

Mr. Dawson. No, sir. 

Senator McNamara. That is all, sir. 

The Chairman. The committee will stand in recess until 2 : 30. 

(Wliereupon, at 1 : 10 p. m., the hearing in the above-entitled matter 
was recessed, to reconvene at 2 : 30 p. m., of the same day.) 

(Members of the select committee present at the taking of the recess 
were Senators McClellan, Ervin, Kennedy, McNamara, and Curtis.) 

AFTER RECESS 

(The select committee reconvened at 2: 30 p. m., Senator John L. 
McClellan (chairman) presiding.) 

The Chairman. The committee will be in order. 

(Members of the select committee present at the convening of the 
session: Senators McClellan and Curtis.) 

The Chairman. All right, Mr. Kennedy, proceed. 

TESTIMONY OF PIERRE E. G. SALINGER— Resumed 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Salinger, you have been sworn before. Mr, 
Chairman, I want to put some more figures in the record at this time. 

You made an examination of the records of the Morton Frozen 
Food Co., as well as the LRA, have you, Mr. Shefferman's firm, and 
these figures were obtained from Mr. ShefFerman's firm. Can you 
tell the committee what expenditures were made by the Morton Frozen 
Food Co., first to defeat the packinghouse workers through the use 
of LRA, and then will you give us the figure of how much was given 
to LRA in order to bring the bakery workers union into the plant? 

Mr. Salinger. During the year 1955, which was the year that the 
packinghouse workers attempted to organize the plant, starting with 
the month of July, which is when they employed the services of Mr. 
Shefferman, the company spent a total of $12,590.29 on the services 
of Mr. Shefferman to defeat the packinghouse workers. 

Mr. Kennedy. How much was spent on the services of Mr. Shef- 
ferman to assist the bakery workers ? 

Mr. Salinger. In the following year, the firm charged the Morton 
Frozen Food Co. a total of $8,306^38 in their effort to bring in the 
bakery workers' union. 

Mr. Kennedy. So it cost $12,000 to defeat the union, and $8,000 
to bring one in. 

Mr. Salinger. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, do you have 

The Chairman. Does that include attorney fees that they may have 
paid ? 

Mr. Salinger. That would include all fees that they would have 
paid ; yes, sir. If I can explain those attorney fees, usually the way 
they are, the way they show up on these bills, the labor relations firm 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 5823 

submits to the client, in this case the Morton Frozen Food, and they 
just say, "Disbursements," so many dollars, or $1,400, and included 
in that amount would be whatever they had spent on behalf of the 
attorney. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you have some other figures there ? 

Mr. Salinger. Well, Mr. Nevitt was not the only employee of La- 
bor Relations Association of Chicago, who was in Webster City dur- 
ing the time the packinghouse workers were attempting to organise 
that plant. In fact, during the month of November, just before the 
election, they had quite a task force out there. This included M.r. 
Louis Jackson, who was the head of the New York office of LR.i; 
Mr. Murton Orr, assistant to Mr. Jackson, in New York; Mr. Walter 
J. Patterson, who works out of the Chicago office ; Mr. John Shore, 
who works out of the Chicago office; and Nathan Shefferman him- 
self. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did they have a task force up there to assist the 
bakery union ? 

Mr. Salinger. The only task force that assisted the bakers union 
was Mr. Charles Bromley, and then for several days Mr. James T. 
Nelson also spent some time out there, another employee of Labor 
Relations Associates. 

Mr. Kennedy. Tliey had approximately six people up there to de- 
feat the packinghouse workers, and a couple up there to help the 
bakers ; is that right ? 

Mr. Salinger. Yes, sir. 

Senator (kmTis. Do 3'Ou establish that by loason of the expense 
accounts ? 

Mr. Salinger. We have in our possession the daily reports of the 
employees of Mr. Sheilerman's tirm, and we have been able to recon- 
struct their activities from these daily reports. 

Mr. Kennedy. I think that is all. 

Mr. Stewart Lund, Mr. Chairman. 

The Cpiair]vl\n. You solemnly swear that the evidence you shall 
give before this Senate select committee shall be the truth, the whole 
truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? 

Mr. Lund. I do, sir. 

TESTIMONY OF STEWAET LUND 

The Chairman. Give your name, your place of residence, and your 
profession or occupation. 

Mr. Lund. My name is Stewart H. M. Lund, I am an attorney and 
practicing law in the firm of Lund & Lund of Webster City, Iowa, and 
my home address is 728 Elm Street. 

The Chairman. Being an attorney, I assume that you waive right 
of counsel. 

Mr. Lund. Some of my clients have waived it, so I don't think I 
even ought to take my own. Senator. I will waive it. 

Mr. Kennedy. You are an attorney in Webster City, Iowa ? 

Mr. Lund. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were you approacJied to do some work for a com- 
mittee, antiunion committee, at the Morton Frozen Foods Co.? 

Mr. Lund. That is right, sir. 

89330 — 37— pt. 15 5 



5824 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. Were you first approached by the members of the 
committee? 

Mr. Lund. No, I was aj^proached first by Mr. Lloyd Karr, a local 
attorney in Webster City. 

Mv. Kennedy. Did JMr. Karr represent these employees? 

Mr. Lund. Xo, Mr. Karr was a retained attorney for Morton's. 

Mr. Kennedy. So you were ajiproached by the attorney for the 
Morton Frozen Foods Co. ? 

Mr. Lund. Tluit is correct, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. What did he say to you at that time ? 

INIr. Lund. He made inquiry of me, if 1 would be interested in rep- 
resenting a committee of people who did not want a union in Morton's, 
and if I would be interested in euiraging in that kind of work. I told 
him at (hat time that if the committee saw fit to employ me, or retain 
me as such, I would consider it, and it was the first meeting I had with 
Mr. Karr. 

Mr. Kennedy. Subsequently, did you meet witli some of the em- 
ployees that he sent to your oflice ? 

Mr. Lund. Yes, sir. I believe the first time Mr. Hayes and Mr, 
Long came to the office, the first time and on that same day or the next 
morning early, there were 7 or 8 or 9, a small group of them came 
togethei-. 

Mr. Kennedy. You started meeting with them; is that right? 

Mr. Lund. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. During the course of these meetings, did you arrange 
to have antiunion literature printed up and distributed? 

Mr. Lund. That is right, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And did you also meet during this period of time 
and obtain advice fi'om a man by the name of John Nevitt ? 

Mv. Lund. I met him but I didn't receive advice. I received sug- 
gestions, and I liacl a definite resei'vation from Mr. Karr with refer- 
ence to my emploj-ment and I would not sa}' I received advice from 
him, but I was at meetings where he was present. 

Mr. Kennedy. Whom did you m.eet with? You met with Mr. 
Nevett and who else was present ? 

Mr. Lund. Well, I believe Mr. Binns sat in. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Binns ? 

JMr. Lund. Yes. sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. He is general manager of the plant ? 

Mr. Lund. Yes, sir; he is general manager at Morton's. I was 
acquainted with him. of course, not socially or businesswise, but I knew 
who he was. My office happens to be very close to the plant. 
(At this point Senator Kennedy entered the hearing room.) 

Mr. Lund. I used to see him and greet him, but ]Mr. Binns on these 
meetings at Mr. Karr's office was present although he took no activity 
in the meetings, and Mr. Kevett was tliere on 8 or 4 occasions and T am 
not definite as to the number of occasions. I have tried to reconstruct 
notes to tell us just exactly liow many, but I cannot. There were ?>, or 
4, or mnvb° 5 meeti]i,«ys that I had at'Mr. Karr's office, and I believe at 
substantially all of these ]\Ir. Nevitt was present. 

Now, there were some otiier people present, but T don't recall their 
names, or exactlv who tliev were, or what the connection was. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 5825 

Mr. Kennedy. At those meetings, were you discussing the activities 
of this employees' committee ? 

Mr. Lund. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. And were you also discussing the kind of literature 
that would be put out ? 

Mr. Lund. There was a discussion of that ; yes, sir. 

Mr. Ivennedy. And did Mr. Nevitt make certain suggestions to you, 
as far as the literature was concerned ? 

Mr. Lund. There were suggestions made by both Mr. Karr and 
Mr. Nevitt. 

Mr. Kennedy. And Mr. Nevitt told you about the kind of literature 
that he had used or had been used by his firm in other areas and other 
companies ? 

Mr. Lund. I didn't understand the word "firm," Mr. Kennedy. I 
did understand that this literature had been used successfully in other 
communities, but not until after this committee started investigating 
did I know the connection of Mr. Nevitt. I understood that ue was 
an employee of Morton's. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you work your literature up from what was 
suggested by Mr. Nevitt, that had been used successfully in other 
places ? 

j\Ir. Lund. I had used some of that as a format, but not verbatim. 
I used some of it ; yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, were you also working to find out the back- 
ground of the employees 'i 

Mr. Lund. No; I had nothing to do with that at all. All I did 
was to more or less know who the people were that came to my 
office. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you make any kind of investigation of Mr. Peter- 
son, of the packinghouse workers ? 

i\lr. Lund. I made an investigation of that by telephone, and it 
amounted to two telephone calls to Estherville, to people whom 1 
knew, witli reference to the activities that had taken place in Esther- 
ville ; yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. And then some literature was put out on Mr. 
Peterson ? 

Mr. Lund. That is correct, and it was put out at my office. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was that approved by Mr. Bimis first ? 

Mr. Lund. No ; he had nothing to do with it. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was that planned with Mr. Nevitt ? Did Mr. Nevitt 
first suggest tliat you check on Mr. Peterson ? 

Mr. Lund. I don't know who would have suggested it first. I do 
know that my policy in handling this particular committee was that I 
made my own personal investigation of any of the literature that was 
\)\\t out hist before I put it out. 

Now, who suggested it, I am not certain. It would probably have 
been suggested at those meetings and it could have been, and whether 
it was Mr. Nevitt or not I don't knovv'. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you review generally who was for the union 
and wlio was against the union, so that the company would be kept 
informed? 

Mr. Lund. I didn't get into that too dee])ly. 

]Mr. Kennedy. But you did do a little of that ? 

]Mr. Li ND. Yes, sir. 



5826 IMPROPEB ACTIVITIES IN THE LApOiR PIEOLD 

Mr. Kennedy. You did do a little of that ? 

Mr. Lund. I got a little of that from the committee as they met 
with me from time to time, more or less to check the progress where 
they felt there were any specific departments in the plant that were 
tending to go for the union, or tending to go against the committee, 
or vice versa. 

It was just what the reaction was. It was not just by numbers and 
not by names, because I didn't recognize all of the names. 

Mr. Kennedy. You received some compensation, did you, for this 
work ? 

Mr. Lund. I did eventually ; yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. You received that compensation from the Morton 
Frozen Foods Co.? 

Mr. Lund. No, sir ; I did not. 

Mr. Kennedy. You received it from the attorney of the Morton 
Frozen Foods? 

Mr. Lund. Mr. Karr paid me that directly; that is correct, sir. 

Mr. Kj;nnedy. They paid you $400 ? 

Mr. Lund. I would like to verify that — $458.10 and that was paid 
to me roughly about December 20, that is when my deposit record 
indicates that I received it. At least that is the day I deposited it. 

Mr. Kennedy. You received that money from the attorney of the 
Morton Frozen Foods Co. ? 

Mr. Lund. Yes, sir; that was received from Lloyd Karr and he 
paid me that himself. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you understand that everything that you were 
doing, first being given this position through the company, meeting 
with representatives of the company, it was all clearly in violation of 
tlie Taft-Hartley Act? 

Mr. Lund. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. You don't understand that? 

Mr. Lund. No, sir ; that is not the situation. 

Mr. Kennedy. Have you ever read the Taft-Hartley Act ? 

Mr. Lund. I have, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. "Wlien we went out and interviewed you first, Mr. 
Lund, our investigator asked you whether you had received any 
money from the attorney, or from the Morton Frozen Foods Co.; 
what did you say at that time ? 

Mr. Lund. I told him at that time that I had not received any 
money from Morton's Frozen Foods, because I had not. Mr. Salinger 
is the one that saw me first, with reference to that. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you tell him that you hadn't been paid any way 
directly or indirectly by the Morton Frozen Foods ? 

Mr. Lund. I didn't say indirectly. I said the committee had not 
paid me, nor had Morton's ; that the committee had paid me only as a 
token gift, by the steak knives. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you tell them anything about the money you 
received from the attorney of the Morton's Frozen Foods Co. ? 

Mr. Lund. No, sir. 

INIr. Kennedy. Did you think the attorney for the Morton's Frozen 
Foods Co. was paying this money out of his own personal pocket, and 
you didn't know that the money was coming from the company ? 

Mr. Lund. At the time, I didn't know specifically how it was paid. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 5827 

Mr. IsJENNEDY. Mr. Lund, you knew lie wasn't paying you out of his 
own money, and you knew the money was coming from the Morton 
Frozen Foods Co. 

Mr. Lund. I assumed that; yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. You were put in your position by a representative 
of the Morton Frozen Foods Co., and you met with them, and they 
gave you advice on the literature, and they gave you advice on the 
operation of this supposedly spontaneous employees' committee, and 
ultimately you received some $450 and you say you didn't know that 
that was a violation of the Taft-Hartley Act ? 

Mr. Lund. Your statements, I don't believe, are entirely correct, 
and not as I understand them. 

Mr. Kennedy. Let me ask you, weren't you originally approached 
by the attorney of the Morton Frozen Foods Co.? 

Mr. Lund. Yes, sir ; and I made a reservation at that first meeting, 
sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Didn't he tell you that you would be compensated 
by the Morton Frozen Foods Co. ? 

Mr. Lund. No, sir ; he did not. 

Mr. Kennedy, Was there any discussion of fee at all ? 

Mr. Lund. There was, but that was not the discussion, Mr. 
Kennedy. 

]Mr. Kennedy. Now, he has told us in the form of an affidavit that 
he told you right at the beginning that your compensation was coming 
from the Morton Frozen Foods Co. 

Mr. Lund. I didn't understand it as such, that it was coming di- 
rectly from them. 

Mr. Kennedy. Go ahead. 

Mr. Lund. My understanding was this: When I first met with Mr. 
Karr, Mr. Karr told me at the first meeting, "I do not know if you 
will be paid a fee or not, and it depends upon how this works out." 
I told him that I would take on the job if I could have my reservation, 
as an attorney to represent the committee, as an attorney client with- 
out any direction from them. They did not give me advice, and they 
gave suggestions to me as to what they wanted done, but, on many 
occasions, that was not carried out. 

Mr. Kennedy. In the first place, Mr. Karr says, "I told Stewart 
Lund," and I will put this in later on, "he would be compensated for 
his services bv the Morton Frozen Foods Co." 

Mr. LuND."^That was later; yes, sir. , .j 

Mr. Kennedy. He said that, when he first talked to you, he said 
that you were going to be compensated. Did he tell you later you 
were going to be compensated by Morton's ? ■, n -. ^ 

Mr. Lund. That was after I had made the reservation, definitely, 
and I was not to have two employers. I want this reservation m 
there, Mr. Kennedy, because that is exactly what happened. I was 
acquainted with the Taft-Hartley Act, and, now, I am not an expert 
on it. This is the only time that I have had an occasion to deal 

Mr. Kennedy. Didn't you tell our investigator when he went back 
to you and we had then established the fact that you received this 
money through the Morton Frozen Foods Co.— didn t you tell him at 
that time that the reason you hadn't told him the truth originally was 



5828 iMTROEEB AcnvrriES in the labor field 

because there was a lawyer-client confidential relationship between 
3^ou and Mr. Karr ? 

Mr. Lund. There was a confidence between Mr. Karr and me 

as to the payments of money, yes, but the attorney-client relationship 

, was with — this was after the payment of this, and the money was after 

the election was over with, and my attorney-client relationship was 

with the committee, and I maintained that strictly. 

Senator Kennedy. You say it is with the conunittee. You know, 
and we have heard a witness this morning, that was a two-man com- 
mittee, wasn't it ? 

Mr. Lund. No, sir. 

Senator Kennedy. You are talking about what committee; the 
"we'' committee? We heard a witness say this morning that it was 
a fake committee and, really, he and his partner were the only two 
real officers of the committee. Are you aware of that? 

Mr. Lund. There were no officers ; and yes, sir, I heard Mr. Long. 
' Senator Kennedy. He said it was a fake committee, and it was in 
answer to Senator McNamara's question. 

Mr. Lund. Then I have been certainly duped in that respect, be- 
cause my first meeting with them 

Senator Kennedy. How many were there ? 

Mr. Lund. There wei-e 10 or 11 at the second meeting. The first 
meeting was with Mr. Hayes and Mr. Long, when they came to my 
office, I told them that if they wanted to get a committee together, 
I would be glad to talk with them and detei-mine then if they 
wanted to do something about it. I recognized the difficulties under 
the Taft-Hartley Act, and I very carefully wanted to be sure that 
I, myself, was not doing something to the workers that was in 
violation of the act. 

Senator Kennedy. ISTow, let me ask you this: You talked about the 
fact that you didn't want to have two employers. The committee 
never did pay you, did they ? 

Mr. Lund. The committee? 

Senator Kennedy. The "we" commxittee. 

Mr. Lund. They gave me rather an expensive set of Swedish steak 
knives. 

Senator Kennedy. They didn't compensate you, and Mr. Karr com- 
pensated 3'Ou for the company ? 

Mr. Lund. Mr. Karr compensated me. 

Senator Kennedy. Why were you so concerned not to accept pay- 
ment from Mr. Karr in the first meeting if he finally compensated 
you, and who did you think was going to compensate you? 

Mr. Lund. I absolutely wasn't certain. Senator. 

Senator I&:nnedy. You said that would depend on how things 
worked out. What did you mean by that ? Whether there would 
be a union there or not ? 

Mr. Lund. No; I reserved the right to talk to this committee and 
to deterrnine if I wanted to work with them on the basis of gathering 
information for them, and presenting it to them and seeing what the 
committee wanted to do. I reserved my attorney-client relationship 
for this committee. I was not sure that a committee would want to 
work with me under the terms I wanted to work, and I was not sure 
there would be a committee. That was the first meeting that I had. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 5829 

Senator Kennedy. Then did you send tliem a bill ? 

Mr. Lund. No, sir; I didn't. 

Senator Kennedy. Whom did yon send the bill to ( 

Mr. Lund. I did not send a bill to anybody. 

Senator Kennedy. Mr. Karr oli'ered'you the $400 ? 

Mr. Lund. He came down and told me he could pay me. 

Senator Kennedy. What you are saying to us, just so that we will 
get it straight, is that Mr. Karr approached you, and you stated you 
first wanted to talk to this committee, to decide whether you would 
take the assignment, and the reason you did that was because of your 
ethical sense that you didn't want to have two employers. 

Then, when the committee came down — and the head of the com- 
mittee himself said this morning under oath it was a fake, and it had 
no real membership, and so on — when that committee came down they 
never did compensate you, and you were compensated by Mr. Karr, 
and so, in fact, you were representing one group and you were com- 
pensated by the management. You were supposed to be representing 
the workers. How do you justify that, ethically ? 

Mr. Lund. I don't agree with Mr. Long at all that this was a fake 
committee, because these meetings 

Senator Kennedy. Even aside from whether that is a fake com- 
mittee or not, that doesn't seem to me to be significant. Why didn't 
they compensate you, if you were working for them, and why did Mr. 
Karr compensate you ? 

Mr. Lund. They were going to compensate me by taking up a 
collection among the committee, and I am sure, if Mr. Long were 
called back, that he will verify some of these statements that I am 
making. There were many, many meetings in my office, early in 
the morning and late in the afternoon, because I was not assured 
originally that I would be compensated for my time. Meetings took 
place before 8 o'clock in the morning and after 4 o'clock in the after- 
noon, and I met with them very often in that manner, and there 
were times when there were 2 meetings, or maybe 3. I have held 
meetings in the morning, afternoon, and in the evening. 

Senator Kennedy. Did you ever discuss with them the question of 
the compensation ? 

Mr. Lund. No ; except that I was to be paid, and it would have to 
come from them, and that is what it was. 

Senator Kennedy. This isn't what happened. 

Mr. Lund. That isn't actually what happened. 

Senator Kennedy. Mr. Karr, the man who originally contacted 
you, presumably you say, on their behalf, he was the one who ulti- 
mately paid you. 

Mr.' Lund. Yes, sir; after the election was over; that is correct. 

I didn't even keep an account sheet on it, an actual account sheet 
on it. 

Senator Kennedy. I can't believe that you are as casual about your 
personal affairs as you would suggest, that Mr. Karr could come to see 
you, and vou would then take on this assignment and work on it for 
employees, and never get paid by them, and then get paid by the 
employers who were using all of their energy to keep the union out of 
the plant. 

Mr. Lund. Well, the company wasn't the only one that was con- 
cerned. This is a small town, Senator, and it is a very small town. 



5830 IMPROPER ACTIVmES DC THE LABOR FIEOLD 

Senator Kennedy. Did anybody in the small town pay you ? 

Mr. Lund. We were very much interested in Morton's, the town was, 
many of us were that were on an industrial go-ahead committee. 

Senator Kennedy. Did the industrial go-ahead committee talk to 
you about this? 

Mr. Lund. I talked to some of them ; yes, sir. 

Senator Kennedy. What would you talk to them about ? 

Mr. Lund. I don't recall specifically. 

Senator Kennedy. Now wait a minute. 

Mr. Lund. I don't remember the details. 

Senator Kennedy. Did they suggest to you it would be wise to 
keep the union out ? 

Mr. Lund. There were some meetings, and not meetings, but over 
cotl'ee, where some of them were concerned about unions coming into 
Webster City. 

Senator Kennedy. You did this as a public service as much as for 
compensation ? 

Mr. Lund. That is correct. 

Senator Kennedy. To keep the union out of the town ? 

Mr. Lund. No ; that isn't true. 

Senator Kennedy. What is it? 

Mr. Lund. I don't believe in keeping the union out. 

Senator Kennedy. What is it you do as a public service ? 

Mr. Lund. I did it as a public service, so tliat the workers also would 
have their opportunity of having a say. 

You see, before I got into this, this had been going on. 

Senator Kennedy. You thought it was the business of the employ- 
ers, and you thought it was his business, of Mr. Karr representing the 
company, and you thought it was proper for him under the Taft- 
Hartley Act to take a hand to say which union should come in ? 

Mr. Lund. Well, I don't know if Mr. Karr knew anything about 
that, and I didn't discuss that with him, as to wliat union would come 
in, or if any union, and I didn't discuss that with him, and so I don't 
know what his ideas were on that. 

Senator Kennedy. You took this on as a public service? Did you 
act for any employees in preventing the bakery union from coming 
in ? Did any of the townspeople that you talked to, or this committee, 
this group that you worked for as a public service, did they ever speak 
to you against the bakery workers? Did you ever talk to them over 
coffee ? 

Mr. Lund. Yes, sir. 

Senator Kennedy. "Wliat did they say about that? 

Mr. Lund. We were veiy much surprised at what happened. 

Senator Kennedy. You were ? 

Mr. Lund. Yes, sir ; very much surprised. 

Senator Kennedy. T\niat was the cause of your surprise ? 

Mr. Lund. Well, that there was no election; the committee that I 
had were verj'' much disturbed about the union. 

Senator Kennedy. What action did you take? Did you talk to 
Mr. Karr? 

Mr. Lund. No, sir ; I did not talk to Mr. Karr. Mr. Hayes called 
me. 

Senator Kennedy. That is the group you were representing ? 

Mr. Lund. Yes, sir. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 5831 

Senator Kennedy. He was disturbed about it, and what did you do? 

Mr. Lund. He asked me is there was something that couhl be done 
about it, and I said if the committee wants to get back together again, 
I would be glad to help them. 

Senator Kennedy. They did not go back together? 

Mr. Lund. No one contacted me after that; no, sir. 

Senator Kennedy. What about the group of people that you talked 
to over coffee? Did they ever talk to you about it? 

Mr. Lund. No, sir; and other than just over coti'ee, they mentioned 
the fact that aj^parently the bakers union were coming in. I did talk 
to one of my clients wdio was on this committee — that was Mr. Pilcher 
who was on this original committee, and I believe he is what they call 
a baker ; he combines dough — and I asked him about it. 

He said that the bakers union seemed logical to him. Outside of 
that, that is about the only other contact that I had. 

Senator Kennedy. You are familiar now, as an attorney and as 
someone who has read the Taft-Hartley Act, with all of the action the 
employers took to keep the original union out of Morton's, and you 
were informed about ail of that, those actions ? 

Mr. Lund. No, sir. The testimony of Mr. Binns has been very much 
of a shock to me here. 

Senator Kennedy. It comes as a surprise ? 

Mr. Lund. It most certainly does, because I had no part in that and 
I understood no part of that at all. 

Senator Kennedy. You regret your association with this project, 
which now for the first time appears to you as an employer effort to 
prevent a union from coming into a company. 

Mr. Lund. Yes; I can honestly say that now, when I see some of 
the background that is back of it, because I certainly did not know 
until I heard some of this testimony, and I was very much surprised 
if that background is true. 

Senator Kennedy. It is difficult for me to believe — and I will be 
honest with you — that you were as naive as you have stated tliat you 
were today about the whole project. Here you are hired by Mr. 
Karr, the attorney for the employer, to deal with a group of employ- 
ees, the leading member of which admitted it was a fake organiza- 
tion, and you were later compensated by Mr. Karr, who is compen- 
sated by Mortons, and the com_pany itself was flagrantly guilty of 
unfair labor practices as defined by the Taft-Hartley Act, and I think 
that your part as an attorney rind Mr. Karr's is subject to some 
criticism. 

Mr. Lund. Senator, can I reply to you. Senator? I am sorry that 
my attitude seems to be naive to you, because I spent a great deal of 
time on this and many meetings, and there were meetings of evenings 
as high as 25 people in my office. 

We called a public meeting for them, inviting everybody, and of the 
workers there was almost a hundred at that meeting, at which the 
workers themselves conducted a good deal of the meetings, and I sat 
back and advised them, and I advised them under the Taft-Hartley 
Act. They did not know that that is what it was from, but I advised 
them with reference to pamphlets and information that they would 
be bound just as strictly as the union would, or as management would, 
in giving out pamphlets and so forth. 



5832 IMPROPER AcnvrriES in the labor fiexiD 

In fact, all of these pamphlets were compiled in my office. Mrs. 
Lund ran the ditto machine, and a good share of that was all handled 
by the committee itself. It was put out on the table deleted and, in 
fact, a good deal of it — I had a tough time keeping them from making 
it tougher than it was. 

Senator Kennedy. The only point I would say in answer is that 
would be a very logical account of what happened, if that committee 
had paid you or if you had discussed with the committee compensa- 
tion. But what I think throws that completely out the window is the 
fact that Mr. Karr, representing the employers, paid you, and that 
Mr. Shett'erman's representatives were present at some of the meetings. 

Mr. Lund. I did not know, and I did not even recognize the name 
of Shefferman at all until the committee started investigating it, and 
Mr. Karr advised me that Mr. Nevitt was an employee of Mr. Shef- 
ferman, and that is the first time I ever knew anything about Shef- 
ferman. 

I am not certain if he was ever present at any of the meetings where 
I was, but I do know that when there were requests made or sugges- 
tions made by Mr. Nevitt and Mr. Karr with reference to some of this 
literature that it was very carefully taken. 

In fact, if I might give an example, Senator, of one that was abso- 
lutely refused to be given, there was a good deal of conversation among 
the employees along in July, I believe it was, and it was vei-y shortly 
after the union had put out a pamphlet on July 25 with reference — 
they didn't put it in the pamphlet — a discussion through the plant was 
that Mortons were going to bring in a large number of colored people. 

They wanted some statement made by "We, the Morton Workers," 
with reference to that, and we refused. I told tliem I would suggest 
to the committee that they could consider it, but I certainly would 
advise them not to, and that was one example. 

There were other examples, but not of that prominence. I know 
that one struck me real clear. We had, particularly, no colored fam- 
ilies in Webster City, and we had no particular problems of that kind. 

I maintained my position that we would lay these out on the table 
and discuss them and mark them up and work them up, and that is 
the way those were compiled. It is true there were a good many of 
the ideas that did come back from Mr. Karr's office, and I had not 
been dealing in this kind of work before, but I had been doing a great 
deal of organizing of committees and public-service committees. 

Senator Curtis. How large a place is Webster City ? 

Mr. Lund. Between eight and nine thousand. 

Senator Curtis. You had a local committee to attract industry 
there ? 

Mr. Lund. Yes, sir; we have, sir; and we have a bigger one now 
than we had in 1955. 

Senator Curtis. Were the people generally back of that idea ? 

Mr. Lund. Oh, yes ; very definitely, sir. We have bought land out- 
side of town, and we are now in the process of extending the city 
services outside and utilities outside the city to attract industry. 

Senator Curtis. Were working people interested in bringing more 
industry there, too ? 

Mr. Lund. Yes, sir; and, in fact, many of us have $100 certificates 
that we have used to buy this land. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 5833 

Senator Curtis. I mean potential workers, laboring people. Were 
they interested in the success of it ? 

Mr. Ltjnd. I don't know who they would be. I hope so, but I don't 
know of any specifically, Senator. 

Senator Curtis. Now, as to the public's interest in this union con- 
troversy, would that actually be described as antiunion or more their 
eagerness in getting this new plant started and not rocking the boat ? 

Mr. Lund. It was certainly more an idea of getting the plant started. 
It was not a question of antiunion. We have 1 union in town that has 
been there some 12 or 14 years, I believe. It was not antiunion and 
it was a question that Mortons had only been there a few months and 
most of the tenor of my committee, a great deal of the tenor of my 
committee, from my notes, was to the effect of giving the plant an 
opportunity first to see what it could do and they could come back 
within a year. 

The committee also wanted to know about forming their own union. 
Also, they were interested primarily in Mr. Peterson's activities be- 
cause from my investigation and in my opinion, he pulled a boo-boo 
at Easterville and the committee was very much concerned about him 
rej) resenting them. 

Senator Curtis. These bulletins signed, "We, the workers," or 
whatever it was, did they purport to represent everybody working 
thei-e, or was it understood it was a committee ? 

Mr. Lund. No, it was understood it was a committee. But those 
bulletins were usually put out when there was anywhere from 5, 10, 
or maybe as high as 15 who would be present with reference to these 
bulletins. I don't recall how many we put out, I think there were 
5 or C), but those were not done just on the spur of the moment. There 
were 2 or 3 days between and usually they came out after the union 
had come out with some sort of a sheet and very often it was in answer 
to the pamphlets that the union had put out. 

Senator Curtis. Now, as to these employees that came to your office 
or came to meetings, did they appear to be speaking for themselves, 
or did their actions and their words and their demeanor indicate that 
they were there to speak a piece for management ? 

Mr. Lund. No, sir; they were there to speak for themselves. My 
tenor with them, actually, whether the coimnittee wants to believe it 
or not, was the basis of allowing all of them to get a fair election. 

We had heard a great deal and we were disturbed, and we had 
trouble at Easterville and we had a great deal of trouble at Newton, 
and it w^as at the time when Perfect Circle was having their difficulty 
and it was the time when Kohler in Wisconsin was having headlines 
and the workers were very much concerned about that. 

Our papers carried information and so did the Des Moines Kegister 
carry information on that. 

Senator Curtis. At this meeting where about 100 people showed up, 
were there some people who showed up in favor of the packmghouse 
workers ? 

Mr. Lund. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Were thev permitted to speak their piece i 

Mr. Lund. Yes, sir ; everybody was invited to speak. If they didn t 
it was because they held back. I more or less helped to conduct tiiat 
particular meeting and it was held in the upstairs of the city hall. 



5834 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN" THE LABOR FIELD 

We called them and told them that it was for the purpose of trying 
to get information. If they had anything they wanted to give, or 
wanted to ask anything, there was the time where it could be threshed 
out and everybody was invited in. 

I know the union was specifically invited. I didn't do that per- 
sonally, but I was assured that everybody was invited. 

Senator Ctjrtis. Now, it is true this committee was not a union and 
it was not organized as such, but would you classify it as a fake 
committee ? 

Mr. Lund. No, sir, very definitely I would not. I am sure if Mr. 
Long would be called back to the stand, he will verify the statement 
I have made with reference to these large meetings and the number 
of meetings because he was present in substantially all of them. 

Senator Curtis. Now, in your opinion, were the statements carried 
in the bulletin true? 

Mr. Lund. I felt a good deal of them were true; yes; and I tried to 
verify every single one of them myself, personally. I relied some- 
what on the committee about the activities inside of the plant because 
I had no information on that and I never went into the plant. 

Senator Curtis. Did vou feel that some of the statements were not 
true? 

Mr. Lund. I felt some of them were very strong, sir, but the com- 
mittee wanted it that way. 

Senator Curtis. They were statements of fact, or what might be 
termed argument ? 

INIr. Lund. Argum.ents, sir. The fact of it is, I don't even have a 
complete set of those pamphlets and I thought I did have. 

Senator Curtis. Do you have a complete set of the pamphlets the 
union put out? 

Mr. Lund. I have some of them and I don't believe I have a com- 
plete set, no, but I have some of them and I will be glad to turn them 
over to the committee. Mr. Salin,ger saw my complete file and I 
handed it to him and if there is anything in my file they can have my 
entire file if they wish to have it. 

Senator Curtis. That is all. 

Senator McNamara. I would like to ask who called tliis public meet- 
ing in the city hall that you referred to, at which about 100 people 
were present ? 

Mr. Lund. The committee did. I believe that occurred one evening 
and I think it was about the actual only evening meeting that we 
had, after supper, and it was their conclusion that we should have 
a public meeting. 

I think that the union also was having one and it was just shortly 
a few days before the election, but the committee decided on it and 
I believe if you have all of the bulletins — and I don't believe I have 
all of them ; I may have one and I am not sure — but I believe it was 
one where bulletins were handed to all of the workers and they were 
invited to this public meeting, anybody who wanted to come. 

Senator McNamara. "V^Hio called the public meeting? 

Mr. Lund. I did through these pamphlets. 

Senator McNamara. You called it? 

Mr. Lund. Yes, sir, I called the newspapers and stated that there 
would be a public meeting. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 5835 

Senator McNamara. Then wlio were you acting for at that time? 

Mr. Lund. I was acting for the committee. 

Senator McNamara. What committee ? 

Mr. Lund. "We, the Morton Workers." That was the committee 
that was meeting in my office. 

Senator McNamara. Do you believe there was such a committee? 

Mr. Lund. Yes, sir. 

Senator McNamara. Did you ever hear of a conmiittee that did 
not have any chairman or officers of any sort? 

Mr. Lund. Certainly. We do lots of that in our public work. 
Senator. You do not have to name officers to get a connnittee to 
work. I will say this, that I conducted a good deal of the conver- 
sation and to answer the questions, and all of them took part in the 
discussions. 

Senator McNamara. You do know of committees that do not have 
chairmen or do not have anybody to represent them and just every- 
body is on the same basis ? 

Mr. Lund. Not everybody. 

Senator jMcNamar-\. You do know of such committees? 

Mr. Lund. We do. We function and we do a lot of that in small 
•communities. 

Senator McNamara. For what purpose ? 

Mr. Lund. For public functions. 

Senator McNamara. Then you ordinarily have a chairman of such 
a committee, if it is a committee to raise funds for charitable pur- 
poses. You first of all have a small group and then get together 
and elect a chairman, generally. 

Mr. Lund. That is right. That was usual so far as that was con- 
cerned. Mr. Long and Mr. Hayes when they would come to my 
office, very often as soon as the union would put out a pamphlet, 
they would come u\) to my office with it, and we would discuss it 
and say, "Well, get your committee together." And what they would 
do is tell a few of them in the plant and that usually was supposed 
to l)e one from each department. 

Senator McNamara. But you now know that Mr. Long was acting 
for the management, do you not ? 

Mr. Lund. Yes, sir. 

Senator McNamara. You did not know at that time ? 

Mr. LiTND. I suspicioned that the management had told him to 
come to my office, but I told them of my reservation, that it would be 
for tlie purposes of getting tlie facts before the committee if they 
wanted such a committee. 

Senator McNamara. And you did know at the time he was acting 
for the management ? 

Mr. Lund. Tliey did not tell me wlio it was. Mr. Karr said that 
there would probably be a couple of them call on me that were inter- 
ested in getting tliis type of connnittee working and just how far — 
I did not know until today, what I have heard here, just the extent 
of that relationship. 

I was prettv much taken back at the depth of it. 

Senator McNamara. You heard Mr. I^ong testifj^ that the commit- 
tee consisted of him and one other man, did you not f 

Mr. Lund. Well, then I am very nmch fooled as to the number of 
people that were in my office on many occasions. I am sure if you 



5836 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES m THE LABOR FIELD 

will call Mr. Long back he will verify these statements if you ques- 
tion that. 

Senator McNamara. The record shows that he said that there were 
just two, he and this other gentleman here. 

Mr. Lund. I do not knoAv what his definition of a committee is, but 
my definition of a committee is the group that more or less showed 
up each time and that was at least eight of them that always showed 
up. 

Senator McNamailv. And you have the list ? 

Mr. Lund. Yes, sir. 

Senator McNamara. But the committee had no list, or Mr. Long 
and his associates had no list. 

Mr. Lund. Yes ; they are the ones. 

Senator McNamara. They said they had no list and there was no 
list. That was his testimony and it is already in the record. 

Mr. Lund. lie probably meant a typewritten list. It was the 
names that were written down and they were written down at the 
time of the meetings as to who was there. 

Senator McNamara. I did not ask him about a typewritten list. 
I asked him about a list. 

Mr. Lund. I don't know what his definition was, but there was a 
group and I think we are toying with the word "list." 

Senator McNamar.\. You were accepting this as a legitimate com- 
mittee, representing the employees of the plant and it now develops 
they were representing management and not the employees. Is that 
about the way you are testifying at this point? 

Mr. Lund. I don't believe I would say that they represented all of 
the employees. I felt that they were a group who were seeking in- 
formation and I helped them to get information. 

Senator McNamara. In opposition to the union. 

Mr. Lund. Yes, it was in opposition to this particular union because 
the major tenor of these committee meetings was, "Well, they have 
only been here a few months. They have done certain things. There 
were certain improvements they had made and this was a new industry 
to Webster City and they had increased the employment some 100 
more than what Fairmonts had had." 

And they said, "Well, they are doing better things for us." I just 
recall there were locker room showers and a cafeteria, funds out of the 
coke machine that were turned over to the employees, and such items 
as that, which the old Fairmont workers had not been used to. 

The general tenor was not the question of union, but the question of 
if they were going to have a union, which union was it. They were 
concerned about Mr. Peterson's activities at Easterville, because tliere 
was a very sad situation there which Mr. Peterson was the head of. 

The committee also talked about if they had a right — tliey were told 
by somebody, and I don't know by whom, and they came to my office 
with the idea that they did not have a right to make up their own 
union, of their own locally, and they had to belong to some national 
organization and they did not have a riglit to make their own. 

Also, there was the question of whether this is the proper union 
that they wanted. 

Senator McNamara. This plant was in Webster City and the plant 
had been in existence for sometime before the Morton Co. took it 
over. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 5837 

Mr. Lund. Well, the refrigeration system and setup was there l)y 
Fairmont, but they were dealing in a ditl'erent type of product. This 
was a new, complete layout that they were buil'ding.what they called 
pie lines and packaging lines which the other company did not have. 

Fairmonts were processing eggs, large packaged turkeys and such 
things as that, wdiereas when Morton came in, they grlidually did 
aw^ay with that type of business over a period of months and went 
into the packaging of small frozen pies and TV dinners and such as 
that. 

Senator McNamara. Did your public committee enter into the 
bringing of Morton to Webster City ? 

Mr. Lund. I don't know what direct activities they had with it, no, 
because I was not active on that particular connnittee. 

Senator McNamara. You had a civic connnittee of some sort for 
the purpose of trying to induce industry into the area and you do not 
think that that committee was responsible for Morton coming in i! 

Mr. Lund. I think it had something to do with it, because at the 
time, Ben Iverson, who was manager of Fairmonts, was very active 
in that committee, and he was still manager for some short time after 
Mortons came in. 

I sort of felt at least that that committee had a lot to do with encour- 
aging them to come to Webster Cit}' . 

Senator jMcNa3iara. That is all. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, I have a couple of things I think that we 
should clear up. You said that you met with John Nevitt. 

Mr. Lund. I did not meet with him. I was called to Mr. Karr's 
office and he was j^resent, and I don't know the number of occasions. 

Mr. Kennedy. That was 4 or 5 occasions ? 

Mr. Lund. It could be that many. 

Mr. Kennedy. And Mr. Nevitt made the suggestions to you regard- 
ing literature, did lie not ^ 

Mr. Lund. Tliat is true and not only that, but Mr. Karr very often 
sat there and typed out some of this and would hand me a copy of it. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wlien our investigators first went in to visit you, 
could you tell the committee why you denied knowing Mr. Nevitt? 

Mr. Lund. I did not recall what his name was, to be frank about it. 
He did not malce that nuich of an impression on me. At the first 
meeting most of my conversations were with Mr. Kai-r and these meet- 
ings were very sliort, 1 or 5 of these meetings, and tliey were very 
shoi't. 

Mr. Kennedy. You just did not remember Mr. Nevitt's name, is 
that your answer, as to why you denied knowing Mr. Nevitt ? 

Mr. Lund. I did not recognize his name when they asked me. When 
Mr. Salinger came and asked me, 1 tried to call Mr. Karr and I believe 
while Mr. Salinger was in my office because the name "Nevitt** after 
2 years did not leave an impression on me. 

Now, tliat I see him and they cnlled my attention to it, I know who 
tliev weie talkint;: about. What thev were trying to do was to <jet me 
to recall Mr. Shefferman, and that is where most of the conversyion 
came from with Mr. Salinger. It was about knowing Mr. Shef- 
ferrnan. 

Loolving at pictures, I still don't believe tliat I ever Avas present 
when Mr. SheflTerman was present. 



5838 IMPROPER ACTTIVmES m THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kj:nnedy. I am talking about Nevitt, and then you furnished 
an affidavit to the committee in which you state here : 

There was one general meeting that I helped to conduct and that was held 
at city hall and there was a meeting held at the same time that the union held 
a meeting at the Legion Hall. It was more or less of my doing and it would be 
to see who would draw the most to the meeting. 

I believe that I have met a John Nevitt, although I am not certain, but as 
I recall when Mrs. Lund and myself ate at noon here in Webster City at the 
hotel where we often did, while she was working in the office, that Mr. Karr 
introduced me to this gentleman and I did not know who he was, or what his 
connection was. 

1 assumed he was wuth Mortons, however, and this was just a general greeting 
and conversation and nothing to do with the union, Mortons, or me. 

That was not accurate at alL You are an attorney and I would 
like to point out that when we talked to you the first time you denied 
that you had received any comi)ensation from Morton's Frozen Foods 
and 3'ou denied tliat you Ivuew John Nevitt, 

When we pressed the matter further, and went out and found out 
the true facts, you started to agree that you had met Nevitt. You 
furnished an affidavit which was completely misleading and accord- 
ing to the information that we have from Mr. Karr, the other at- 
torney, he stated that he had told you right from the beginning 
originally that you were going to receive your compensation from the 
Morton Frozen Food (^o. 

The facts are that you did receive it and you met with John Nevitt 
and that you met with the people from management and they were 
giving 3^ou ideas and suggestions on hovr this committee was going 
to be conducted. 

If you do not understand that that is in. A'iolation of the law of the 
United States, it is just incredible to me. Particularly it is incredible 
that you should be lying to a representative from this committee. 

Mr. Luxi). Your representative was not very forward and exact in 
his approach to me. I hate to say anything about this but you must 
remember 

Mr. Kennedy. He asked you some questions to Avhich you did not 
tell the truth, that is No. 1, and you furnished an affidavit which is 
completely misleading as far as your relationship with Mr. Nevitt, 
and your activities in this whole matter are highly questionable as 
an attorney, or as a citizen of this country, highly questionable. 

Mr. Lund. I can't agree with you at all, Mr. Kennedy. That is not 
the true situation. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Mr. Kennedy. We have some affidavits from Mr. Karr. 

Mr. Lund. Mr. Kennedy, can I return to Iowa now ^ 

The Chairman. Yes, sir. 

Before the Chair receives these affidavits, the Chair has received a 
letter from a Mr. George D. Ager, or rather it is in the form of a 
statement wliich he asked to be placed in the record of the hearings. 

The statement is not sworn to and it is not in affidavit form, and 
the Chair feels that the statement in its present form should not be 
admitted to the record. I think that this statement which has been 
passed out to the press — and that is the reason I am making this 
observation at this time. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN TTTE LABOR FIELD 5839 

If Mr. Ager wants to make this in the form of an affidavit and send 
it to the committee, then we will consider it. It might be very well 
for him to decide to come and testify, 

Mr. Dawson. It is most important, 1 think, to the connnittee and 
to tiie people who are here and to the public in particidar and to my 
client. 

He was president of tlie Morton Baking Co. and he heads Morton 
P'rozen Foods division of the Continental Baking Co. and 1 represent 
him. I represent his company. You subpenaed Mr. Faunce liere to 
testify and he will testify and now it is highly important in connec- 
tion with his testimony that his statement be read, and to make that 
statement coincide and to clear it up. 

Tlie two statements must be read together and when Mr. Faunce 
testilies, or when you call him to the witness stand, I am going to re- 
new my request that we be permitted to read Mr. Ager's statement. 

The CiiAiRMAX. Mr. Dawson, the Chair is not objecting to your 
getting this in the record, but we are trying to get all of this record 
under sworn testimony. Now, when we get affidavits, sometimes in- 
stead of putting the Government to tlie cost of bringing all of the wit- 
nesses, we use some affidavits. 

If Mr. Ager wish.es to submit this in affidavit form, that is all riglit. 
"We liave no objection to putting it in the record. It is just the fact 
th.at if we ever start the practice of letting people put in unsworn 
statements we will have a record unsworn to when we get through. 

I want to keep tliis record under oath. 

Mr. Dawson. I will submit it as an affidavit. 

The CIhairman. You can handle that any way you want it. But 
if we get it in affidavit form, it will be considered the same as the 
others. 

Mr. Dawson. All right. 

The Chairman. The Chair will now read two affidavits from 
Mr. Lloyd Karr. [Reading:] 

I, Lloyd Karr. beiuK first duly sworn on oath deposetb and swears as follows : 

That i am retained as the local attorney for the Morton Frozen Foods divi- 
sion of the Continental Baking Corp. and have been so retained since the Morton 
Frozen Foods Co. came to Webster City. Iowa, in 19.o5. In approximately 
June 105.5. the United Packinghouse Workers of America commenced an organ- 
ization drive at the Morton Frozen Foods Co. A hearing was held by the Na- 
tional Labor Relations Board, at which time the company contested the right 
of the union to organize at that time. Mr. Mervin Bachman, an attorney 
from Chicago, and I represented the company during this hearing. Approxi- 
mately H weeks prior to the election held in November 105.5. to determine the 
United Packinghouse Workers would represent the company, I was approached 
and asked whether I knew a local attorney who would be interested in repre- 
senting the employees of the company who did not want the union. I was 
told tiiat there were several employees at the company who did not want any 
union at the company, but did not know any effective way to combat the union. 
I cannot recall who it was who approached me in this regard. 

In respf)nse to this, I contacted Stewart Lund, a local attorney, and asked 
him if he would represent these employees. 

At that point, w-e had a subsequent affidavit from Mr. Karr that 
clears up that point, so I will read this latter affidavit in the rec; 
ord at this point, and later straighten it out in the record.. I.waiit to 
get the connection. [Reading:] .!^. . -, ;; ; , 

I, Llovd Ku-r, being first duly sworn, on oath deposeth and say that on or 
about tlie 28th day of .June 1057, I made an affidavit for representatives ot the 

SfL-^-SO— ,57— pt. 15 6 



5840 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

McClellan Senate Investigating Committee with relation to certain activities 
connected with United Packinghouse Worlvers of America to organize the em- 
ployees of Morton Frozen Foods, a division of Continental Baking Corp. 

At that time when this affidavit was made, my ledger records of the services 
performed by me for the Morton Frozen Foods Co. had been transferred and 
were not available. 

On this date, I talked with Mr. Salinger by telephone relative to this matter 
and have before me at the time of making this affidavit my ledger sheets. Ac- 
cording to this ledger sheet, the first time that I contacted Stewart H. M. Lund 
in regard to representing some of the employees of the company who did not 
want a union, was on October 28, 1955. On the same date, my ledger sheet 
shows a conference with Mr. Jack Nevett, and Mr. Keith Binns. While I 
cannot remember which one of these two gentlemen requested that I contact 
a local attorney relative to this matter, I am certain that it was one or the 
other of the two and probably Mr. Nevett. 

That affidavit was sworn to on the 28th day of June 1957. 
Now I will continue to read the other affidavit. [Reading:] 

He agreed to talk to tliem, and would subsequently represent them as an 
employees committee engaged in combating the union. 

I told Stewart Lund that he would be compensated for his service by the Mor- 
ton Frozen Foods Co. The amount of this compensation was approximately 
$400. I billed the Morton Frozen Foods Co. for this amount and they paid me 
as a part of my regular retainer fee. I in turn paid this money to Stewart Lund. 

Stewart Lund did state, as a condition of accepting the representation of the 
employees committee, that he was representing the employees and not the com- 
pany. 

My first contact with Nathan Shefferman was approximately 4 days prior to 
the election, when he came to my office with Keith Binns and William Kitchin, 
officials of the Morton Frozen Foods Co., to prepare a speech for Mr. Kitchin and 
a letter from Mr. Kitchin to all employees of the company. 

We all contributed in the compilation of the speech and the letter. It was 
my understanding that Mr. Shefferman and his organization were hired by the 
Morton Frozen P^oods Co. to combat the union. 

.John Nevitt, an employee of Mr. Sheffernnm's was assigned to the company 
during the period preceding the electit)n. He occasionally checked with me re- 
garding the character ami family background of some of the employees. Inas- 
much as I l-.ave lived in Webster City all of my life, I was able to furnish him 
this information. He was interested in the family relations, criminal records, 
and whether the emlpoyees had been discharged for dishonesty. He did not 
question me concerning the union sympathies of the employees or their families. 
Louis Jackson, an employee of Shefferman's came to Webster City the day prior 
to the election and stayed until the day after the election. He served as a legal 
counsel to the company during the election. After the election, William Kitchin 
and I discussed whether there was any way of avoiding another election because 
of the disruption it had caused at the ijlant. AVe discussed whether it would be 
possible to check on the union sympathies of applicants for employment follow- 
ing this for a period of 2 or 3 \\eeks. I wiis furnished the names of applicants 
and did provide the company information concerning the applicant's background, 
character, and union sympathies. Most of this information was from my own 
knowledge, and I sometimes contacted acquaintances to < btain this inffirmation. 
I had nothing to do with the contract between tlie bakery aixl confectionery 
workers union and the Morton Frozen Foods Co. I was not consulted concerning 
this contract in any way, and have not been consulted concerning tliis union. 

That is sworn to on the 28th day of June 1957. 

Proceed, Mr. Counsel, witli your next witness. 

Mr. Kenxedy. ]Mrs. Iris Jensen. 

Tlie Chairmax. Come forward, please. 

Will you be sworn i You do solemnly swear the evidence you shall 
give before this Senate select committee will be tlic tru.di, the whole 
truth, and nodiin.<r bul the truth, so hel]) you (lod { 

Mrs. Jensen. I do. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 5841 

TESTIMONY OF IRIS JENSEN 

The Chairman. State your name, your place of residence, and your 
occupation, 

Mrs. elENSEisr- My name is Iris Jensen. I am the secretary-treasurer 
of Local 4:49, of the Bakery and Confectionery Workers Union, AVeb- 
ster City, Iowa. 

, The Chairman. Mrs. Jensen, have you conferred with members of 
the stati' of the committee, and do you know generally the line of 
interrogation to expect ? 

Mrs. Jensen. Yes. 

The Chairman. You have told them what you know ? 

Mrs. Jensen. Yes. 

(At this point Senator Erwin entered the hearing room.) 

The Chairjvian. You have a right to have counsel present. Do you 
waive the right of an attorney ? 

Mrs. Jensen. Yes. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much. 

Proceed, Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mrs. Jensen, you have been working for how long 
in the Morton Frozen Foods Co. ? 

Mrs. Jensen. Approximately 2i/2 years. 

Mr. Kennedy. When did you take over your position as the financial 
secretary of the bakers union ? 

Mrs. Jensen. December of last year. 

Mr. Kennedy. December of 1957? 

Mrs. Jensen. 1956. 

Mr. Kennedy. Had you been in favor of the packinghouse workers 
union when they were attempting to organize Morton Frozen Foods? 

Mrs. Jensen. Yes, I was. 

Mr. Kennedy. You felt that you wanted a union in there ? 

Mr. Jensen. Yes; I thought there was a definite need for a union 
in there, 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you work for the packinghouse workers ? 

Mrs. Jensen. No, I wasn't employed by them.- I worked in the 
plant during their organization of the plant. 

Mr. Kennedy. AYere you aware of the fact that some of the em- 
ployees who were working for the union were being moved to less 
desirable jobs or released from their employment? 

Mrs. Jensen. Yes ; I knew that. 

Mr. Kennedy. The company was very anxious to keep them out; 
is that right ? 

Mrs. Jensen. Yes; that is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Why were you interested in having them in there? 

Mrs. Jensen. Why was I 'interested in having the packinghouse 
workers in there ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. 

Mrs. Jensen. Well, I didn't feel that the company was doing right 
to some of the employees. The working conditions weren't too good. 

Mr. Kennedy. The working conditions were not too good ? 

Mrs. Jensen. No ; not in my opinion. 

Mr, Kennedy, And you felt that the union could improve that, 
did you ? 

Mrs. Jensen, I thought they could. 



5842 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. And you were aware of the fact that some of the 
employees at least, who were working for some of those employers, 
action was taken by the company against them ; is that right ? 

Mrs. Jensen. Yes. 

]Mr. Kennedy. That election was lost, was it not, the election for 
the packinghouse union ? 

Mrs. Jensen. Yes ; it was lost. 

Mr. Kennedy. Subsequently, did the bakery workers union send 
representatives to the Morton Frozen Food Co. ? 

Mrs. Jensen. Yes ; they did. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you do some work for them ? 

Mrs. Jensen. Yes ; I helped. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you meet with Mr. Merle Smith ? 

Mrs. Jensen. Yes ; I did. 

Mr. Kennedy. He was the representative of the bakery workers 
union in that area ? 

Mrs. Jensen. Yes ; he was. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you meet the same opposition to the union that 
existed when the packinghouse workers were attempting to organize ? 

Mrs. Jensen. Definitely not. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do j^ou have any examples to give in connection with 
that? 

Mrs, Jensen. Well, they didn't set up any committees to work 
against the union, or anytliing like that. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did they allow you to work for the union? Did 
they encourage that ? 

Mrs. Jensen. They didn't encourage it; no. I was signing up 
people for the union, but I wasn't letting the company know about it. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did j^ou meet with a man by the name of Bromley 
at that time? 

Mrs. Jensen. Yes ; I did. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who was he ? 

Mrs. Jensen. He came to the plant and contacted me about getting 
some signatures on authorization cards. 

Mr. Kennedy. Whom did he say he was working for ? 

Mrs. Jensen. Well, I asked was he with the company or the union, 
and he told me that he was a public-relations man for Continental. 

Mr. Kennedy. So that the company, at least through Bromley, was 
actively urging you to go out and sign up employees for the bakery 
worlvers union. Is that right ? 

iMrs. Jensen. That is right. 

Mv. Kennedy. And you did go out and sign up employees ? 

Mrs. Jensen. Yes : I did. 

IMr. Kennedy. Was there ever any election amongst the employees 
as to whether they wanted the bakery union in there ? 

Mi-s. Jensen. No ; there wasn't an election held. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you set up a negotiating committee to negotiate 
witli the company as to wages, hours, and conditions ? 

Mrs. Jensen. No; there was no negotiating committee that I know 
of. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was there a contract signed ? Can you tell us about 
that ; wliat happened ? 

Mrs. Jensen. Yes ; there was a contract signed. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 5843 

Mr. Kennedy. Were you told that there was going to be a negotiat- 
ing committee? 

Mrs. Jensen. Yes. I understood that there would be. 

Mr. Kennedy. What happened that there was no negotiating com- 
mittee ? 

Mrs. Jensen. Well, I asked Mr. Smith and, I believe, Mr. Spurling, 
both, what happened, and they seemed to be as much in the dark as I 
was. They didn't know what had happened. 

Mr. Kennedy. Had the contract been signed by then ? 

Mrs. Jensen. This was after the contract was signed ; yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Tell us how you found out that the contract had 
already been signed. 

Mrs. Jensen. Mr. Smith told me that he had this contract signed and 
delivered to him. 

Mr. Kennedy. Had he participated in the negotiation of the con- 
tract? 

Mrs. Jensen. Not that I know of. 

Mr. Kennedy. He just said that the contract had been signed and 
delivered to him ? 

Mrs. Jensen. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was he pleased with the terms of the contract ? 

Mrs. Jensen, No ; he was not. 

Mr, Kennedy. Were you ? 

Mrs. Jensen. No ; I wasn't. 

Mr. Kennedy. What did you feel about the contract ? 

Mrs. Jensen. Well, I was very disappointed and let down, and I 
felt that I had let a lot of the other people down, too. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you mean that you had worked so hard ? 

Mrs. Jensen. Yes. I had worked very hard getting the people 
interested in it. 

Mr. Kennedy. "Wliat was your feeling about the contract ? Would 
you express yourself on that? 

Mrs. Jensen. Well, I hadn't had too much experience, but, after I 
read the contract, I couldn't see that we had gained too much by it, 
by having this contract. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you meet George Stuart up there at this time? 

Mrs. Jensen. Yes ; I met Mr. Stuart. 

Mr. Kennedy. He was representing the bakers union ? 

Mrs. Jensen. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did anyone tell you what Mr. Bromley's connection 
was, and what he had been doing up there ? 

Mrs. Jensen. Not until after the whole thing was over ; about the 
time that all of the investigations started I found out about Sheffer- 
man. I had no knowledge of him before that. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who told you about it ? 

Mrs. Jensen. I think Mr. Spurling. 

Mr. I^nnedy. Who is Mr. Spurling ? 

Mrs. Jensen. He is with the teamsters union. 

Mr. Kennedy. And he told you about Nathan Shefferman ? 

Mrs. Jensen. Yes ; he told me. 

Mr. Kennedy. What did he tell you about Nathan Shefferman ^ 

Mrs. Jensen. That they were an organization workmg out ol 
Chicago, and that they were hired by business to either brmg unions 
in or push them out, I guess. 



5844 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. That they were known for their union-busting ac- 
tivities ? 

Mrs. Jensen. Yes. That is what he told me. He said they were 
union busters. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was it a difficult situation in tlie plant at first ? 

Mrs. Jensen. Yes; it was very difficult. It was very hard to face 
those people with that contract. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you go in ultimately with the contract? 

Mrs. Jensen. It was read to tlie membership at a meeting held in 
Webster City, There was a good turnout at the meeting. People 
were expecting something better than they got. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were the people unhappy '( 

JNIrs. Jensen. They were let down, I guess, but they didn't say too 
much at first. They were kind of seared. 

Mr. Kennedy. They were scared ( 

Mrs. .Iensen. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Why were they scared ( 

Mrs. Jensen. Well, people that had worked in the plant long 
enough knew what had happened over the first union that tried 
to get in there, and after the second one went in, and after they got 
their contract, they said very little about it. 

J\Ir. Kennedy. They knew that those who had opposed the com- 
pany in the first difficulty with the packinghouse workers had either 
been released from their jobs or had been moved to less desirable 
jobs; is that right? 

Mrs. Jensen. Yes, that is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. And they knew that the company was in favor of 
this union, and, therefore, if they opposed, they might be in difficulty ? 

Mrs. Jensen. That was the general opinion, I take it. 

Mr. Kennedy. They were scared for that reason; is that right? 

Mrs. Jensen. I think so. 

Mr. Kennedy. But the contract was accepted ? 

Mrs. Jensen. Yes, it was accepted, and then we set up our local. 
We elected officers and went on from there. 

Mr. Isj:nnedy^. Thank you very much. 

The Chairman. Senator McNamara? 

Senator McNamara. You say that they did vote on the approval 
of the contract at this rank and file meeting ? 

Mrs. Jensen. A number of people did sign a paper accepting the 
contract. I believe that is what it was. 

Senator McNamara. "Wlio signed the contract in the original in- 
stance for the employees ? Do you know ? 

Mrs. Jensen. For the employees? 

Senator McNamara. Did Mr. Smith sign it ? 

Well, I understand that the staff has the information, so we will 
get tliat from them. I will go on. 

It is signed by International Vice President George Stuart. 

Mrs. Jensen. That is right. 

Senator McNamara. But he did this without taking it up with 
you people who were the employees of the plant, apparently. This 
was all done before you held this union meeting you are talking 
about? 

Mrs. Jensen. That is right, sir. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 5845 

Senator McNamara. And this contract was presented to you and 
yon were told that the international vice president, Mr. Stuart, had 
agreed to this contract? 

Mrs. Jensen. Yes, that is right. 

Senator McNamara. And at that time you set up a union, you in- 
dicated. Does that mean that you elected officers ? 

Mrs. Jensen. Yes, sir; we did. 

Senator McNamara. Who was elected president ? 

Mrs. Jensen. Fred Kirschnek was our first president. 

Senator McNamara. Were you elected to the job of recording sec- 
retary at that meeting? 

Mrs. Jensen. No. I was appointed as financial secretary-treasurer. 

Senator McNamara. The notes I have before me says that you 
are recording secretary of the Bakery and Confectionery Workers 
Local No. 499. That is not correct ? 

Mrs. Jensen. No. I am the financial secretary-treasurer. 

Senator McNamara. You are secretary -treasurer ? 

Mrs. Jensen. Yes, sir. 

Senator McNamara. You got your job by appointment. Who ap- 
pointed you? 

Mrs. Jensen. Merle Smith appointed me for 1 year. 

Senator McNamara. He appointed you for 1 year ? 

Mrs. Jensen. Yes, sir. 

Senator McNamara. That year is not yet up? 

Mrs. Jensen. No, sir. It will be up in December. 

Senator McNamara. Were all the other officers appointed or 
elected ? 

Mrs. Jensen. They w^ere elected. I believe — I think there were a 
few stewards or stewardesses who were appointed, but most of them 
were elected, I believe. 

Senator McNamara. T\^io do you think they elected ? A vice presi- 
dent and a president ? 

Mrs. Jensen. Yes, sir. 

Senator McNamara. And a recording secretary? 

Mrs. Jensen. Yes, sir. 

Senator McNamara. What others ? 

Mrs. Jensen. We had an executive board and the trustees. 

Senator McNamara. They were all elected, in your estimation, in 
the legitimate way ? 

Mrs. Jensen. Yes, sir ; they were. 

Senator McNamara. And you were appointed by Mr. Smith, and 
Mr. Smith was not an employee of the plant. Was he ? 

Mrs. Jensen. No. He was a representative of our international 
union. 

Senator McNamara. We have two representatives, the man who 
signed the contract, the international vice president, and Mr. Smith. 
Do you understand that the regional organizer, Mr. Smith, was ap- 
pointed by Mr. Stuart ? Was that how he got his job ? 

Mrs. Jensen. That I don't know. 

Senator McNamara. Mr. Smith was there before Mr. Stuart, appar- 
ently. 

Mrs. Jensen. Yes; he was. jj j 

Senator McNamara. Then the employees of the plant didn t enter 
into the selection of Mr. Smith or any of the other people i 



5846 IMPROPER AcnvrTiES in the labor field 

Mrs. Jexsen. No. No; they didn't. 

Senator jSIcNamara. So the employees had no representation in the 
negotiations of the contract, nor the signing of it, except to endorse 
it after this was all done by others ? 

INIrs. Jensen. As far as I know, that is correct. 

Senator McNamara. You were apparently one of the employees of 
the plant who wanted the other union, the packinghouse union, to win 
the election and represent the mployees. Did the company take any 
steps to downgrade you or put you in a less desirable position, or try 
to get rid of you or anything because of your activities with the pack- 
inghouse workers ? 

Mrs. Jensen. Not exactly. I was allowed to keep my job. But 
then I was never given any promotions. I stayed right on the job 
that I was on. 

Senator ]McNamara. Were promotions quite prevalent? Did a 
lot of people get promoted during that periocl ? 

Mrs. Jensen. Well, people that started working there after I did 
were promoted ahead of me ; yes. 

Senator McNamara. You mean they got jobs of assistant foremen 
or similar jobs? 

Mrs. Jensen. Similar job; yes. 

Senator McNamara. What did you do ? 

Mrs. Jensen. I was a machine operator. 

Senator McNamara. On a packaging machine ? 

Mrs. Jensen. In the packaging department. 

Senator McNamara. How much did that pay ? 

Mrs. Jensen. I was getting 95 cents an hour before the minimum- 
wage law went into effect, and then it went up to a dollar an hour. 

Senator McNaimara. You just got the minimum wage ? 

Mrs. Jensen. Yes, sir. 

Senator McNamara. That was before the union ? After the Bakery 
Workers Union came in, did you get 5 cents an hour increase? 

Mrs. Jensen. Yes, sir ; I did. 

Senator McNamara. That is for a period of 1 year ? 

Mrs. Jensen. Yes. 

Senator McNasiara. At the end of that year, you will get another 
nickel ? 

Mrs. Jensen. Yes, sir. 

Senator McNamara. And the third year another one ? 

Mrs. Jensen. That is right. 

Senator McNamara. Were your hours reduced by the contract or 
by the action of management ? 

Mrs. Jensen. No. My work hours were not reduced. 

Senator McNamara. We had some testimony 

Mrs. Jensen. I understood that among some of the men workers, 
the maintenance workers and the engineers, and so forth, that they 
did cut their hours after a while, but they didn't cut any of the 
women's hours as far as I know. 

Senator McNamara. The production workers' hours were not 
changed ; is that it ? 

Mrs. Jensen. That is right. 

Senator McNamara. But the nonproduction workers, such as main- 
tenance and others, were changed, apparently ? 

Mrs. Jensen. Yes. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 5847 

Senator MoNamara, How many hours do you work a week now ? 
Is it a 40-]iour week ? 

Mrs. Jensen. Well, I am no longer in the plant. I w^as in the 
plant until around the 1st of July of this year, and then I went to 
work in the local union office full time. Before that I was working 
a 40-hour week. 

Senator McNamara, A 40-hour week ? 

Mrs. Jensen. Yes. 

Senator McNamara. And this is because of the fact that the mini- 
mum-wage laws apply ? Is that your interpretation ? Or is it because 
of the contract ? 

Mrs. Jensen. No ; it isn't because of the contract. The way I un- 
derstand, that is the way it was before. 

Senator McNamara. So as far as you know^, the production workers' 
hours were not cut due to the union coming in, but continued to be 
on the same basis ? 

Mrs. Jensen. Roughly abotit that. 

Senator McNamara. I thmk that is all, Mr. Chairman, thank you. 

The Chairman. Senator Curtis ? 

Senator Curtis. How^ many members did the packinghouse workers 
union have in the plant at any one time ? 

Mrs. Jensen. Do you mean in 1955 when they were tiying to or- 
ganize the plant ? 

Senator Curtis. Yes. 

Mrs. J ENSEN. That I don't know. 

Senator Curtis. Did they liave some ? 

Mrs. Jensen. They must have had some ; yes. 

Senator Curtis. You knew of a few ; did you ? 

Mrs. Jensen. Do you mean actual employees of the packinghouse 
workers ? 

Senator Curtis. Yes. 

Mrs. Jensen. I just knew of one. 

Senator Curtis. You knew of one ? 

Mrs. Jensen. Mr. Peterson. 

Senator Curtis. He wasn't an employee of the plant ? 

Mrs. Jensen. No. 

Senator Curtis. No; I mean of the employees. Did any of them 
belong to the packinghouse workers union ? 

Mrs. Jensen. Well, some of them signed cards. There were quite a 
number of them that did. 

Senator Curtis. About how many of them did that ? 

Mrs. Jensen. I don't know. 

Senator Curtis. Do you think it was a majority of them ? 

Mrs. Jensen. I have no idea. ^ 

Senator Curtis. There were over 300 people working there ; wasn t 
there ? 

Mrs. Jensen. Yes; I believe there was. 

Senator Curtis. Do you believe that a majority of them had signed 
the cards and joined the union ? 

Mrs. Jensen. Well, I don't know just how many did. At that time 
we didn't talk too much about it. 

Senator Curtis. I understand you don't know exactly how niany, 
but is it your opinion that a majority of them were members ot the 
union ? 



5848 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 

Mrs. Jexsex, I wouldn't say a majority. I would say that tliere 
were quite a number tiiat did. 

Senator Curtis. That had joined the union even though they hadn't 
gotten it yet ? 

Mrs. Jensen. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. How many members did the bakers and confec- 
tionery workers have when the contract was signed ? 

Mrs. Jensex. I don't know the number. It must have been about 
250, 1 guess. 

Senator Curtis. But none of them had anytliing to do with the ne- 
gotiations for the contract ? 

Mrs. Jensen. Not that I know of, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Have j^ou, or any other oflicer of the local union, 
protested to the union international or any of its representatives about 
this contract { 

Mrs. Jensen. Not officially. 

Senator CuiiTis. The local union has taken no action with regard 
to that? 

Mrs, Jensen. No ; no official action. 

Senator Curtis. What have they done unofficially ? 

Mrs. Jensen. Well, we have talked with some of the international 
representatives. 

Senator Curtis. To whom did you talk ? 

Mrs. Jensen. To ]Merle Smith and Morris Gleason. 

Senator Curtis. Who talked to them 'i Did you talk to them ^ 

Mrs. Jensen. Yes. 

Senator Curtis. Who else talked to them ? 

Mrs. Jensen. Well, I don't know. I guess a number of our officers 
did talk to them after meetings were over. 

Senator CtmTis. What reply did they make ? 

Mrs. Jensen. Well, the opinion I got was that it Avas a signed 
legal document, and right at the present time there just v\'asn't much 
we could do about it. 

Senator Curtis, Did the local imion ratify the contract at a later 
time, after it was signed ? 

Mrs. Jensen. Not that I know of. 

Senator Curtis. In other words, the workers never have had any- 
thing to say about that contract, is that right? 

Mrs. Jensen. No ; they have not. 

Senator Curtis, That is all, Mr, Chairman. 

The CiiAiR:vrAN. I thought you said a while ago they did liand out 
cards to people to sign, saying that you accepted the contract. 

Mrs. Jensen. This was at a meeting after the contract was read. 
There was one paper which several people signed. While I don't 
remember too clearly, I believe it was some kind of acceptance of the 
contract. 

The Chairman. Do you know whether a majority of the members 
ever signed that document accepting the contract ? 

Mrs. Jensen. Well, I don't think a majority of them did. I am 
not quite sure, but I think they required 15 signatures on this paper. 

The Chairman. How many ? 

Mrs. Jensen. Fifteen, I think. I am not sure of the number. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FI&LD 5849 

, Senator McNamara. Did you imderstancl, hoAvevor, that the con- 
tract was presented to this meeting of the rank and file of the em- 
ployees, and they did approve it ? 

Mrs. Jensen. Yes ; it was read ; and this paper that X just told you 
about was signed by a number of people. 

Senator McNamara. The paper is something else. You had a 
meeting and somebody read the contract and indicated that the inter- 
national officers had accepted this deal and they were recommending 
it to the rank and file. Did the rank and file take a vote on accept*^ 
ing the contract ? 

Mrs. Jensen. I do not remember offhand whether an .actual vote was 
taken. If it was, it would be recorded in our minutes of tlie meetuig. 
> Senator McNamara. You didn't set up your organization until after 
this contract had been accepted, as I understood i'rom your previous 
testimony ; is that right '^ 

Mrs. Jensen. That is right. 

Senator McNamara. Tlien it would not be recorded, unless it was 
done by the international representative. Who was chairman of the 
meeting ; do you remember ? 

Mrs. Jensen, I think Merle Smith was tlie chairman of that meet- 

Senator McNamara. And he was not one of the employees? He 
was the organizer ? 

Mrs. ^Jensen. Yes, sir. 

Senator McNamara. After tliat, an employee of the plant became 
the chairman and you did set up a regular union ? 

Mrs. Jensen. Yes. We elected a president. 

Senator McNamara. So you don't know whether the employees at 
this rank and file meeting or any other time, except for the 15 that you 
mentioned, ever approved the contract ? 

Mrs. Jensen. That is right. 

Senator McNamara. But you don't know tliat they didn't, either? 
You just do not know ? 

Mrs. Jensen. I just do not know. 

Senator McNamara. Was there, at this public meeting wliere the 
terms of the contract were read to you, dissension on the part of some 
.people? Did they express dissatisfaction with the terms? 

Mrs, Jensen. No, sir ; not at that time. 

Senator McNamara. Nobody at all ? 

Mrs. Jensen. Not that I know of . 

Senator McNamara. Not even you that were so interested in getting 
a better contract, as indicated by your previous activities ; you didn't 
protest ? 

Mrs. Jensen. No ; I didn't, sir. 

Senator McNamara. You were afraid? 

Mrs. Jensen. I didn't have enough experience. I didn't feel I was 
qualified to question. 

Senator McNamara. You are saying that, as far as you are con- 
cerned, it was sort of railroaded through ? 

Mrs. Jensen. Yes. 

Senator McNamara. That is all. 

Senator Curtis. These 15 people that did sign the paper, wJiicli was 
some approval of this contract, did they do so on their own or was 



5850 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 

there a motion passed instructing them to sign, representing the 
workers present ? 

Mrs. Jensen. If I remember correctly, sir, they did it on their own, 
because I remember they came up to the table after the meeting was 
over, and a few were standing back and talking, and that is when the 
paper was signed. 

Senator Curtis. Is there any witness here today that does have 
possession of the minutes so we could find out whether or not any 
of these local workers ever approved this contract? 

Mrs. Jensen. I don't believe so. Those minutes are in Webster City. 
We have a recording secretary, and she has charge of the minutes. 

Senator Curtis. That is all, Mr. Chairman. 

I would like to have the staff obtain that information so we could 
have it in our record. 

The Chairman. The staff will follow up and procure the minutes 
of the meeting. 

Mr. Kennedy. I understand Mr. Merle Smith was also quite shocked 
at the contract ; was he not ? 

Mrs. Jensen. Yes ; he was. He seemed quite surprised. 

Mr. Kennedy. And when he presented it to the meeting, did he 
almost apologize, and say, "This is about the best we can get"? 

Mrs. Jensen. Yes ; he did. 

Mr. Kennedy. I have the contract here, Mr. Chairman. You saw 
it at that time, as I understand it ? 

Mrs. Jensen. Yes, sir. 

]Mr. Kennedy. Can we have that made an exhibit ? 

The Chairman. Will you examine this document and see if you 
recognize it ? 

( Document handed to witness. ) 

The Chairman. Do you identify that document ? 

Do you recognize it? 

Mrs. Jensen. Yes. sir. It looks like a copy of the contract. 

The Chairman. That may be made exhibit No. 6. 

(The document refered to was marked "Exhibit No. 6" for refer- 
ence, and may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, the contract provides in substance 
a 5-cent wage increase per year, and the contract is in existence for 
3 years. It is a 3-year contract, which is surprising on its face, and 
the increase in wages is just 5 cents per year. On the question that 
the attorney for Mr. Cross brought up this morning, that there is 
a provision in the contract that it can be reopened, it states in section 2 : 

The company and the union agree that on or about December 1, 1958, they 
will meet and discuss whether conditions at that time warrant payment by the 
company of an additional amount over the aforesaid 5 cents an hour herein 
agreed to for the year December 1, 1958, to December 1, 1959, and if they should 
agree on any additional amount, such amount may be applied by the union to 
the wage rate or as a contribution to a health and welfare fund or a pension fund. 

There was nothing in here on health and welfare funds except that 
reference ? 

Mrs. Jensen. As far as I know. 

Mr. Kennedy. And there is nothing on pension. 

The holiday pay amounts to about a week after you have worked 
there a year. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 5851 

On the seniority, this provision is of particuhir interest: 

In the event it becomes necessai-y for the company to reduce its work force 
in any department, employees in such department shall be laid off in accordance 
with their seniority — 

which of course sounds very good. 

In the event of subsequent hiring in such a department former employees will 
be recalled in reverse order of their layoff — 

and then it goes on to say : 

Providing, however, that the skills and abilities of such employees are equal. 

Once again, the company can make the decision on that. 

Mrs. Jensen. They do, too. 

Mr. Kennedy. You have had great difficuhy in connection with 
seniority ; have you not ? 

Mrs. Jensen. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Trying to get a response on seniority in view of 
that seniority clause? 

Mrs. Jensen. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. We have an affidavit here from George Stuart, who 
signed that contract, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much, Mrs. Jensen. You may 
stand aside. 

The affidavit reads as follows : 

George Stuart, of lawful age, being first duly sworn upon his oath, deposes 
and says that he formerly appeared before the McClellan Labor Management 
Committee in Washington, D C. ; that since that time the counsel for said com- 
mittee has been investigating other phases of the bakery and confectionery 
workers, and particularly Morton Foods. Inc. Affiant further states that he 
has been asked to testify before the McClellan Labor Management Committee 
and affiant states that if he is called by the Select Labor Management Commit- 
tee of the United States Senate and interrogated as to any matters growing 
out of any of these transactions, he will respectfully decline to answer on the 
ground that he truthfully believes that his answers to any of said questions 
might tend to incriminate him, and affiant further states that he will claim his 
constitutional rights and refuse to testify. 

So if he is not here being interrogated, you now know the reason 
why. 

All right. Call the next witness. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Charles Bromley, Mr, Chairman. 

The Chairman. Come forward, Mr. Bromley, please. 

You do solemnly swear that the evidence you shall give before this 
Senate select committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing 
but the truth, so help you God ? 

Mr. Bromley. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF CHARLES BROMLEY 

The Chairman. State your name, your place of residence, and your 
business or occupation. 

Mr. Bromley. Charles Bromley. I work for Labor Relations As- 
sociates. I reside in Detroit, 16860 Edmore Street, Detroit. 

The Chairman. How long have you been employed with Labor 
Relations Associates ? 

Mr. Bromley. Since January 15, 1956. 



5852 BVrPRbP&R ACTR'ITIES m THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. 1956? 
. Mr. Bbomley. Eight. 

The Chairmaost. Do you waive the right of counsel, Mr. Bromley?; 

Mr, Bromley. Yes, I do. 

Mr. Kennedy. You huve been with Labor Eelations Associates for 
liowlong? 

Mr. Bromley. Since January 15, 1956. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you have worked out of the Detroit office, is 
that right? 

Mr. BroMley. Eight. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who is in charge of the Detroit office ? 

Mr. Bromley. Mr. George Kamenow is in charge. 

Mv. Kennedy. Is that an independent operation now ? 

Mr. Bromley. I understand it is at the present time, yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. He has broken away from Mr. Shefferman? 

Mr. Bromley. That is what we have been told. 

Mr. Kennedy. How long ago was that? 

Mr. Bromley. I couldn't sa}- exactly, but I think June 1. 

Mr. Kennedy. Jinie 1 ? 

Mr. Bromley. 1 believe it is June 1, yes, sir. 

The Chairman. AVas it subsequent to Mr. Shefferman testifying 
before the committee? 

Mr. Bromley. Would you give me that again, please? 

The Chairman. Did this happen after Mr. Shefferman testified 
before this committee ? Do you recall ? 

Mv. Bromley. Yes, it was after. 

Tlie Chairman. It was subsequent. 

Mr. Kennedy. How long have you known Mr. Kamenow? 

Mr. Bromley. I knew Mr. Kamenow — I previously came from 
AVaterloo, Iowa. I knew Mr. Kamenow out there at the Chamberlain 
Corp. Chamberlain Corp. is one of his clients, and I previously 
worked at the Chamberlain Corp. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you have a position in the union at the Cham- 
berlain Corp.? 

Mr. Bromley. In 1952 I was chief steward of local 1318 out there.. 

Mr. Kennedy. Chief steward ? 

Mr. Bromley. Chief steward. 

Mr. Kennedy. Of what union ? 

Mr. Bromley. Machinists union. 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes ? 

Mr. Bromley. In 1953 I was president of the local, 1951 1 was presi-i 
dent of the local and in 1955 I was again chief steward of the local. 

Mr. Kennedy. It was while you were chief steward of the local that 
Mr. Kamenow came as a representative of the company, doing some 
work for the company ; is that right ? 

Mr. Bromley. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you met him at that time? You met him at 
that time ? 

Mr. Bromley. Yes ; I met him at that time. 

Mr. Kennedy. And subsequently went to work for him; is that 
right ? 

Mr. P)RoMLEY. In 1955, around December, he asked Piie to come and 
go to work for him in labor relations. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 5853 

]Mr. Kkxxedy. He was down tliere durino: 195?>, 1054, iiiul 1955 ; Avas 
he not ? 

Mr. Bromley. Riolit. 

Mr. Kennedy, In «oino- over his work papers, Ave find a ^reat deal 
of money chai-oed to expenses of entertainino- union officials. Do you 
know anythino- about that ? 

Mr. l^KOMLEY. I would like to iii^'e an explanation. It wouldn't he 
fair to answer "Yes"' or "'No.'" 

I would rather give an explanation in tliis way : Mr. Kanienow used 
to come to "Waterloo to handle jirievance meetings for the Chamber- 
lain Corp. How often 1 couldn't say, but we will say approximately 
once a month, throuoh the 4 years that I served on the union commit- 
tee out there. 

When he would come, we would have our arievance meetiiifr in the 
plant, and we had a cafeteria in the plant, and Avhen we took a break 
for lunch, he always picked up the tab for tlie lunch. There was nen- 
erally five on the committee, plus our business ajient, and, of course, 
the officials in the union. So there was g-enerally 10 or 11 in the aroup. 

As far as any dinners or entertainment that might appear on his 
daily expense sheets, the fio-ures that have been quoted to me by Mr. 
Salinger and Mr. Sheridan, I believe his name was, in Detroit, Avhen 
they (juestioned me, were news to me. I did not see his expense slieets, 
and I cannot answer on the expense sheets. The only thing 1 can say 
is this: We never did receive any gifts at Christmas time or any otlier 
time. I understand he had it wrote on his expense sheets in that way. 

Also, as far as lunches, dinners, or any entertainment, he alwa.ys 
picked up the tab in the cafeteria, as I said, for our lunches. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is at the cafeteria ? 

Mr. Bromley. That is right, in the plant. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wouldn't you have difficulty spending more than a 
dollar for lunch in that cafeteria? 

Mr. Bromley. I would say 50 cents to a dollar. 

Mr. Kennedy. With a dollar you would really be going over- 
board, w'ouldn't you? 

Mr. Bromley. I wouldn't put it that strong. But a dollar would 
buy you a pretty good meal. I will iiut i*^ that way. As far as 
dinners, I can't give you the exact year, but there was one dinner and 
refreshments, or drinks, that he did buy for the committee. I don't 
know whether it was 195?> or 1954. I think it was 1054. There was 
approximately 10 in the group, including companv officials, and the 
union committee. We finished negotiations and it was a union 
contract negotiation, we finished about 6 o'clock in the union and we 
went out to the Chesterfield and had dinner and had a few drinks and 
spent the evening. 

Mr. Kennedy. But that was the only time? 

Mr. Bromley. That was the only time that we ever had dinner and 
entertainment. 

Mr. Kennedy. His expense sheet is replete with the entertainment 
of union officials in Waterloo, Iowa, at the Chamberlain Corp. He 
was continuously having lunch and dinner with union officinls. _ Thev 
Avere amounting to quite — well, when you go through the list, it o-ets 
to quite a lar^e amount of monev. It starts back in '^^""'^ij l^'"*"- 
$71.37; February 11, 1943, $149:' February 15, $83.80; and $130 on 
February IG. 



5854 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

This is all entertainment, lunch and dinner for union officials; 
$72.88 in September of 1953. It goes through October 1953, $108, for 
union officials. 

Entertainment of union officials in December, $459 for a Christmas 
gift to a union official, $87.10 for entertaining them, and a couple of 
days later $63.50. It goes through 1954, $104, $89, $C3, $110.46, 
$105. 

Down there it was entertaining union officials and some company 
officials and big gifts and it amounts to over $21,000. 

Mr. Bromley. That is the figure that Mr. Salinger quoted me 
yesterday. 

Mr. Kennedy. Can you tell us any explanation about that cafeteria 
where a good lunch is 50 cents to a dollar? 

Mr. Bromley. I can give you no explanation except what I told 
you. As I said, the figures were news to me. When your investigators 
quoted them to me in Detroit — I might add this : I don't see how you 
expect me to answer on his expense. I am not there to hand out his 
money to pay the bill. 

Mr. Kennedy. The i-eason I am asking you the question is because 
so much of it says union and union officials. 

Mr. Bromley. I understand. 

Mr. Kennedy. You were tlie union official at that time. 

Mr. Bromley. I was a union official at that time. I will say this, 
speaking for myself, and speaking for the committee, the boys out 
there that I worked with in the 5 years that I was at the plant there 
was never anything further than what I told you here bought as far 
as lunches in the cafeteria and the one dinner. I think I can speak 
very clearly in speaking for the rest of tlie boys that served on the 
committee out there. 

Mr. Kennedy. I am sure that Mr. Kamenow will have some explana- 
tion. 

Mr. Bromley. Maybe he can clear it up for you. I can't. 

Mr. Kennedy. He hasn't yet, I might add. 

Mr. Bromley. That I don't know. 

Mr. Kennedy. You were sent out by Mr. Kamenow to the Morton 
Frozen Foods Co. after you went to work for him and left Cham- 
berlain ? 

Mr. Bromley. I was sent to Detroit — to Chicago. 

Mr. Kennedy. How did that come about ? 

Mr. Bromley. I received a call from Mr. Kamenow on a Saturday — 
the date I don't recall ; you probably have the date on it — to report 

Mr. Kennedy. October 14, 1956. 

Mr. Bromley. If that is Saturday, yes — to report to Shelton Shef- 
ferman in the Chicago office. He said he had an assignment for me. 
He wanted to borrow a man from Detroit, and I happened to be that 
man. So I reported to Shelton Sliefferman on a Monday, wliich, I 
think, was tlie IGth. He gave me my^ instructions to go out to Webster 
City, to the Morton Frozen Foods plant. 

He explained it in this way: Continental Baking had bought Mor- 
ton Frozen Foods and they were now a part of the Continental Baking. 
CoD-tinentnl Baking was organized at present in all their other plants 
by the Itakers and confectionery workers. Morton Foods was not or- 
ganized. Continental Bakino's reason for wanting the bakers in was 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 5855 

because they did not want to see two conflicting iniions in one indus- 
try, which causes a lot of friction between plants, I should say. 

Also, he said that Continental Baking did advertise union-label 
products. Therefore, they wanted Morton Frozen Foods organized. 
I was supposed to go out to Morton Frozen Foods, get authorization 
cards signed for the bakers' union so that they could represent the 
people. I arrived— do you want me to go on ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. 

Mr. Bromley. I arrived in Webster City, I think, on a Tuesday 
morning very early, and I met Keith Binns. We discussed it, and 
he took me through the plant, and he introduced me to the foremen. 

That evening Merle Smith came to my hotel room, and I would 
say approximately 11 o'clock, and he was leaving for the bakers' 
convention on the west coast. He had come up to the hotel room and 
told me he would be leaving the next morning very early and that 
he probably would not be back before I left. 

He said to contact a man by the name of Spurling, whom he had 
working very closely with him, and Spurling was an organizer for 
the teamsters, and they had been organizing Morton's Frozen F'oods 
together. 

He said to contact Spurling and he would furnish me with au- 
thorization cards and also furnish me with contacts in the plant. 
That I did, and I contacted Spurling the next afternoon or evening, 
and I believe I had dinner with him. 

He furnished me with the cards and he also told me how many 
approximately members he had signed at the present, and they were 
not doing too good. Then is when I found out that there had been 
quite a drive against the United Packinghouse Workers about a year 
before that. 

That was before my time with labor relations council, and nobody 
filled me in on it. Whether it was intentional or overlooked, I don't 
know. But that is when I found out about the drive in 1955. 

Because of that drive he was having considerable trouble getting 
anybody to sign cards within the plant. We discussed it, and he gave 
me the leads that he had been working with in the plant, and I took 
it from there and went right into the plant and explanied to the 
people exactly what the company's position was, that they were not 
going to object to the union coming in, and they felt that eventually, 
I imagine, they would be organized and that they wanted the bakers' 
union in because all of the rest of their plants were that way. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you tell them at that time you were a company 
representative? . -r tj 

Mr. Bromley. To the best of my recollection, I did. 

Mr. Kennedy. So you were in there as a company representative 
signing up people for the bakery workers. „ t ^i • i -jj 

Mr. Bromley. When you say "company representative, I think it 
anybody asked me, and very few did, that I explained it in this way, 
that my company. Labor Kelations Associates, was hired by Morton 
Foods, or Continental Baking, whichever firm you wanted to use, 
and that I was a representative sent out to do the ]ob. 

Mr. Kennedy. Whether you told them that or not, you were m 
there as a company representative ; were you not ? 

Mr. Bromley. That is right. 

89330 — 57— pt. 15 7 



5856 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE> LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. To sign up the employees in the bakers union? 

Mr. Bromley. To get the authorization cards signed for repre- 
sentation. 

Mr. Kennedy. With the bakers union ? 

Mr. Bromley. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. All right. So you continued to work at that for 
a period of time. 

Mr. Bromley. I continued to work at that for approximately 3 
weeks and I think that I was there, I believe, 3 weeks. 

Mr. Ej:nnedy. Do you know Mr. Nevitt ? 

Mr. Bromley. Yes ; I know him. 

Mr. Kennedy. He is also working for Labor Relations Associates? 

Mr. Bromley. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you learned he had been up there the year 
before ? 

Mr. Bromley. I did not find that out until I went out to Mortons 
Frozen Foods. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you find it difficult overcoming what Mr. 
Nevitt had done ? 

Mr. Bromley'. Let me say that I found the people were not too 
anxious to sign any cards. They were afraid of retaliation by the 
company, I believe. 

Wliether there had been retaliation, none of them did quote any- 
thing to me. But Spurling, and Merle Smith were not making much 
headway at the time that I arrived out there. 

Mr. Kennedy. But you were able to get a good number of cards 
signed ? 

Mr. Bromley'. During the time I was there, I would say approxi- 
mately—and this is an approximate figure — I would say approxi- 
mately 85 or 90 percent. 

Mr. Kennedy. So the union representatives themselves were not 
able to get the cards signed but when the company sent a labor repre- 
sentative in there they were able to get 85 percent of the cards signed. 

Mr. Bromley". That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy'. Have you had much experience in your connection 
with Labor Relations Associates of going into a company and signing 
up the employees for the union ? 

Mr. Bromley. You mean like happened in Mortons Frozen Foods ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. 

Mr. Bromley. To the best of my knowledge, I can't very well 
speak for the rest of the boys in the organization, but to the best of 
my knowledge this is the only case of where it has ever been done. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were you surprised at your job up there? 

Mr. Bromley'. No, I can't say that I was really surprised. Maybe 
some people would have been, and maybe I am not the type to be 
surprised. 

Mr. Kennedy. You were not ? 

Mr. Bromley. I was not surprised. 

Mr. Kennedy'. Were you told before you went up there that you 
would use your own name ? 

Mr. Bromley. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. They told you you could use your own name on 
this job? 

Mr. Bromley. Yes, sir. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 5857 

Mr. Kennedy. You did not play any part in the signing of the 
contract ? 

Mr. Bromley. I knew nothing about the contract. I have never 
seen a copy of the contract. The first that I knew of the contract was 
when Mr. Salinger and Mr. Sheridan asked me the question in Detroit, 
did I know that there was a contract signed before I ever went out to 
Mortons Frozen Foods. 

I did not know that, and I don't believe that there was. The only 
thing that I ever heard about a contract in the 3 weeks I spent in 
Mortons Frozen Foods was Mr. Binns left, I believe it was the second 
week, he was gone a couple of days and I didn't even know where he 
went. When he came back he stated to me that he had been in 
Chicago with management working on a contract. 

Now, what he meant by "working on a contract," I assumed, and I 
did not ask him to explain further and he did not go on to explain 
further, but I assumed which is done every day by companies when 
they are going to have a contract negotiation, whether it is continuance 
of a contract or the first contract they have ever had, that a com- 
pany will sit down and draw up a proposal to present to the union. 

Now, I assumed that is what they were doing in there, when he 
said they had been working on a contract. 

Mr. Kennedy. How much longer after he told you that, did you 
stay up in Webster City ? 

Mr. Bromley. I think I left about 10 days after that. 

Mr. Kennedy. About 10 days ? 

Mr. Bromley. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is all. 

Mr. Bromley. Ten days or a week, but it was right in that neighbor- 
hood. 

Senator McNamara. What is your current assignment for this labor 
relations company you are now employed by ? 

Mr. Bromley. I don't quite follow you. 

Senator McNamara. Are you working out of the Detroit office? 

Mr. Bromley. Out of the Detroit office. 

Senator McNamara. What is your assignment in Detroit? Are 
you working with some particular contract ? 

Mr. Bromley. Well, I don't see how you iay, "some particular 
contract." 

Senator McNamara. You were assigned for instance, by your em- 
ployer to go to the Morton Co. 

Mr. Bromley. I received that assignment from Shelton Shefferman 
in Chicago, and that was the only client that I ever handled for the 
Chicago office. Otherwise, I have worked out of Detroit on plants m 
our own area, and for Mr. George Kamenow. 

Senator McNamara. Do you have a certain list of clients that you 
are restricted to working with or do you have an amount of time or 
how do you get these ? 

Mr. Bromley. The client that we have in Detroit, as a rule, the ones 
that I can speak for, are clients that have been with us a number of 
years. They are still with us, and generally we have one person m 
that office, and I can't say how the Chicago office runs theirs, and it 
might be different. 

If I have a client that I serve, I am the one that continuously serves 

that client. 



5858 IMPROPER ACTIVmES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator McNamara. Do yoii have such clients that you continually 
serve in the Detroit area now ? 

Mr. Bromley. Me being the youngest person in labor relations, I 
haven't been with them quite 2 years, I have traveled with the other 
fellow in the Detroit office, Mr. Robert Fox, and I have traveled with 
him considerably in the State of Michigan, more or less as a training 
program. I would like to make this remark, which might sound a 
little odd to you, and it was a surprise to me, that it is not easy to 
switch from the union side to management and be able to change your 
way of thinking automatically. 

It is something that you have to live with day after day, and you 
have to study management problems. When you represent unions 
and unions only you do not always see management's side of the 
argument. 

It is not easy to change from one side to the other like I did with 
110 experience in the labor-relations field. 

Senator McNamara. Well, let us leave that question for a moment 
and maybe we will get back to it. You previously were employed by 
51 company that was operated by Mr. Shefferman, Labor Relations 
Associates, is that the name ? 

Mr. Bromley. Labor Relations Associates. 

Senator McNamara. Were you paid by check ? 

Mr. Bromley. Yes. You mean our paycheck, our salary check? 

Senator McNamara. Yes. 

Mr. Bromley. Yes, that is right. 

Senator McNamara. Wliat was the name of the outfit that was indi- 
cated on the check? Was that it? Were you paid by the Labor 
Relations Associates ? 

Mr. Bromley. Yes, of Chicago. 

Senator McNamara. Now, you are not with them any longer. 

Mr. Bromley. Our checks at the present time are personnel relations 
advisers. 

Senator McNamara. Wliat is the name ? 

Mr. Bromley. Personnel relations advisers. 

Senator McNamara. This is the new company that you understand 
or you are giving the committee to understand, is operated by Mr. 
George Kamenow ? 

Mr Rromt.ey. Yes, sir. 

Senator McNamara. You indicated this change was made some 
months ago, in June? 

Mr. Bromley. On June 1. 

Senator McNamara. You no longer are employed by Mr. Sheffer- 
ma,n a'^d this is one of the indications, you have a different type of 
paycheck now. 

Mr Bromley. Yes. 

Senator McNamara. Was the stationery changed, the stationery 
that vou do your correspondence with your clients on ? 

Mr. Bromley. To the best of my knowledge, everything was changed 
to personnel relations advisers, everything in that area went with Mr. 
Kamenow. 

Senator McNamara. Wliat do you do for this new company ? What 
is your job ? 

Mr. Bromley. I could put it this way, that we are advisers for man- 
agement in the fields of labor, personnel work, and we handle griev- 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 5859 

ance meetings where there are contracts written and we also handle 
negotiations for companies, and we take care of their contract nego- 
tiations where they are organized. 

Senator McNamara. Now you are telling me about the overall com- 
pany activities. Are you an officer of the new company ? 

Mr. Bromley. No. 

Senator McNamara. You are just an employee? 

Mr. Bromley. Yes, sir. 

Senator JNIcNamara. "Wliat do you personally do? Wliat did you 
do last week, for instance ? What was your assignment last week ? 

Mr. Bromley. It is pretty hard to answer that. As far as last week, 
I spent 1 day at a company by the name of DeVlieg Machine Co. I 
spent the better part of 1 day out there and the other 4 days I was 
in the office. 

We never know from week to week. It is pretty hard to look a week 
ahead and know where a grievance might come up in a particular 
union or where we might have to go to settle a grievance. 

Senator McNamar^v. I think that is pretty generally understand- 
able. Now tell me this : Did this new company take over some of the 
accounts of the old company in Detroit? 

Mr. Bromley. Wlien you say "the old company in Detroit," you 
are referring to Labor Relations Associates, I assume, of the whole 
organization. 

Senator McNamara. Yes. 

Mr. Bromley. That is a kind of a hard question for me to answer 
when you are getting into questions on a new company. That is true 
for this reason: I don't feel myself qualified because I do not see 
th.& records of the company, being just an employee, and naturally 
everything isn't told me. 

Senator McNamara. Then your answer is you do not know as far 
as all of them are concerned. 

Mr. Bromley. I can say this : The clients that I have been serving 
there, and also I would say we kept all of the clients in Michigan that 
we had previously served, to the best of my knowledge. 

Senator McNamara. Do you still have J. L. Hudson as one of your 
clients ? 

Mr. Bromley. As far as I know, yes, sir. 

Senator McNamara. Then in general all that changed was the 
name, is that right? 

What else changed besides the name ; perhaps that would be easier 
for you. 

Mr. Bromley. Well, I would say the name, the stationery, the pay- 
checks and everything was changed to the new company. 

Senator McNamara. The name was changed and there is no ques- 
tion. 

Mr. Bromley. Well, do it your way. The name is changed. That 
is the best I can answer. 

Senator McNamara. Other than that, everything is about the same, 
from your knowledge? 

Mr.' Bromley. As far as the way we service clients, yes, in Detroit. 

Senator McNamara. As far as clients are concerned, the same 
personnel ? 

Mr. Bromley. Yes. 



5860 IMPROEE'R ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator McNamara. You honestly think is it a change, it is a new 
company now, and it is not just a phony setup because of the McClel- 
lan investigating committee ? 

Mr. Bromley. To the best of my knowledge. 

Senator McNamara. As a labor relations representative in Detroit, 
were you active in keeping unions out of any companies in that area, 
as this company was in the Morton situation ? 

Mr. Bromley. No, although I do service a client or two, or I have 
serviced I should say, clients that are not organized. 

Senator McNamara. What is that? 

Mr. Bromley. That are not organized. 

Senator McNamara. "VVliat is your assignment then in servicing 
these clients, to keep the miions out ? 

Mr. Bromley. No. I will use DeVlieg Machine Co. as a pretty 
good example. 

Senator McNamara. Tell us where they are located. 

Mr. Bromley. They are located in Detroit. 

Senator McNamara. What street ? 

Mr. Bromley. You have got me there. 

Senator McNamara. East side or west side ? 

Mr. Bromley. It is on the east side. 

Senator McNamara. Down toward the river ? 

Mr. Bromley. No, it is over closer to Woodward Avenue. 

Senator McNamara. Then it is northeast. 

Mr. Bromley. Yes. 

Senator McNamara. All right. 

Mr. Bromley. We advised the company in this respect, and we 
give them advice as to what the wages are in their type of work 
throughout the whole United States, which we have access to, as to 
those figures, and we are also well informed on labor problems and 
problems that people have in the plant as far as complaints and 
fringe benefits and things that they should have for their employees 
and we advise them in that respect. 

That is the way that particular client there has worked. 

Senator McNamara. What are the wages in the plant ? 

Mr. Bromley. They are very high. It is a highly skilled plant and 
I would say it this way: They are above average industry in their 
field. 

Senator McNamara. Does that mean that they are $2.50 or higher 
an hour? 

Mr. Bromley. That would mean that I would say that there is a 
minimum wage in there on the machines of not less than $2.75 or 
$2.85 up to $3.50, plus all of their fringe benefits and insurance pro- 
gram and pensions and holidays and right on down the line. 

Senator McNamara. Wliat is the type of their operation and what 
do they produce ? 

Mr. Bromley. They make milking machines, automatic jig millers, 
what they call them. 

Senator McNamara. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That is all. 

The Chairman. Are there any other questions? All right, thank 
you very much and you may stand aside. 

The committee will stand in recess until 10 : 30 in the morning. 
(Whereupon, at 4:40 p. m., the hearing in the above-entitled 
matter was recessed to reconvene at 10 : 30 a. m. of the following 
day.) 



INVESTIGATION OF IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE 
LABOR OR MANAGEMENT FIELD 



WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 23, 1957 

United States Senate, 
Select Committee on Improper Activities 

IN THE Labor or Management Field, 

Washington, D. C. 

The select committee met at 10 : 30 a. m., pursuant to Senate Reso- 
lution 74, agreed to January 30, 1957, in the caucus room, Senate Office 
Building, Senator John L. McClellan (chairman of the select com- 
mittee) presiding. 

Present : Senator John L. McClellan, Democrat, Arkansas ; Senator 
Irving M. Ives, Republican, New York ; Senator John F. Kennedy, 
Democrat, Massachusetts; Senator Sam J, Ervin, Democrat, North 
Carolina; Senator Pat McNamara, Democrat, Michigan; Senator 
Carl T. Curtis, Republican, Nebraska. 

Also present: Robert F. Kennedy, chief counsel; Pierre E. G. 
Salinger, investigator ; Ruth Young Watt, chief clerk. 

The Chairman. The committee will be in order. 

(Present at the convening of the session were Senators McClellan, 
Ives, and Kennedy.) 

The Chairman. Call your first witness. 

Mr. ICJENNEDY. Mr. James Cross. 

The Chairman. Will Mr. James Cross come around, please ? 

Mr. Harris. I am very sorry. I did not realize Mr. Cross would 
be called first, and he is out making a phone call. We will send for 
him right away, and we will get him in. 

The Chairman. We can wait for him for a minute. 

(The witness entered the hearing room.) 

The Chairman. Will you be sworn ? Do you solemnly swear that 
the evidence that you shall give before this Senate select committee 
shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help 
you God ? 

Mr. Cross. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF JAMES G. CEOSS, ACCOMPANIED BY HIS COUNSEL, 

A. J. HARRIS 

The Chairman. Mr. Cross, state your name, your place of resi- 
dence, and your business or occupation, please. 

Mr. Cross. James G. Cross, president of the Bakery and Confec- 
tionery Workers International Union of America, and I reside at 
7420 Hampton Lane, Bethesda, Md. 

The Chairman. Did you state your business or profession ? 

5861 



5862 IMPROPER ACTIVmES EST THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Cross. President of the Bakery and Confectionery Workers 
International Union of America. 

The Chairman. Will you identifj^ yourself for the record, Mr. 
Counsel ? 

Mr. Harris. My name is Abraham J. Harris, an attorney of Wash- 
ington, D. C. 

The Chairman. Thank you. 

Mr. IvEXNEDY. Mr. Cross, I wanted to ask you about this contract 
and about the events that preceded the contract that was signed be- 
tween the bakers union and the Mortons Frozen Food Co. up in Web- 
ster Cit}^, Iowa. What information did you have about that? Did 
you conduct any of the negotiations yourself ? 

Mr. Cross. Xo, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. You never did ? 

Mr. Cross. No, sir. 

Mr. KJENNEDT. Did you know anything about it ? 

Mr. Cross. I knew that there was an organization campaign going 
on, because there had been an exchange of letters between the Conti- 
nental Baking Co. and myself, on the question of overall recognition 
of this union in their plants. 

Mr. IvENNEDT. Had you discussed the contract with any officials of 
the Morton Frozen Food Co. ? 

Mr. Cross. I have never met any officials of Morton's Frozen Food. 

Mr. IvENNEDT. "\Yliat about the Continental Baking Co. ? 

Mr. Cross. The only gentleman that I have ever discussed anything 
with in regard to Morton Frozen Food liad been Mr. George Faunce. 

Mr. KJENNEDY. What conversations did you have with liim about 
that? 

Mr. Cross. The question of recognition of our union, as to whether 
or not their company would agree that we are the proper union for 
the jurisdiction of the products manufactured by them and, in one 
subsequent meeting, discussed with him and Stewart, on a general 
basis, the results of negotiations of a contract which was to be sub- 
mitted to the workers in Webster City, Iowa. 

Mr. Kennedy. '\^niat do you mean ; the results of the negotiations 
of the contract ? 

Mr. Cross. As I understand it, they had reached a tentative under- 
standing, ]\Ir. Stewart and ]Mr. Faunce, on terms of an agreement that 
was to be submitted to the workers at Morton Frozen Food. 

Mr. Kennedy. You approved of the results of that? 

Mr, Cross. I neither approved nor disapproved, because I don't 
handle the negotiations, and I merely stated that, if it was satisfactory 
with them and it was satisfactory with the workers in Webster City, 
it would be all right with me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you try to take any steps to insure that the 
workers in Webster City had an opportunity to approve the contract? 

Mr. Cross. I took it for granted that those on the scene would do 
that ; that is our normal procedure. 

Mr. Kennedy. Well, that they would partake in the negotiations 
of the contract ? 

Mr. Cross. That, again, I would have no knowledge of. 

IMr. Kennedy. You did not find that out ? 

Mr. Cross. No, sir. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 5863 

Mr. Kennedy. You did not check that at all ? 

Mr. Cross. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did yoii know that the contract had been drawn up, 
in substance, in Mr. Shelf erman's office ? 

Mr. Cross. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. You did not know at that time ? 

Mr. Cross. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you discuss this at all with Mr. Shefferman ? 

Mr. Cross. I never discussed anything with Mr. Shefferman in my 
life. 

Mr. Kennedy. You have not ? 

Mr. Cross. No ; I don't know him except that I have met him at a 
couple of AFL conventions. 

Mr, Kennedy. But you never discussed this matter with him ? 

Mr. Cross. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you discuss it with any of his people ? 

Mr. Cross. I have never met any of his people with the exception 
of his son, Mr. Shefferman, and in the same circumstances, at an 
AFL convention. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you know his people were in Webster City, Iowa, 
assisting the representatives of the bakers union to organize the plant ? 

Mr. Cross. In the last few months, of course, I have had so much, 
that I cannot now recall whether I knew before or after that the 
Shefferman people w^ere even retained by the Morton Frozen Foods. 
I do know, to the best of my knowledge, I can say that at some period 
during this 1956 or 1957 period I learned that the Shefferman firm 
had been retained by Morton Frozen Foods. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, would you answer the question : Did you know 
that the representatives of the Shefferman outfit were in Webster City, 
Iowa, assisting the bakers union to sign up employees in the bakers 
union ? 

Mr. Cross. Well, you would have to, Mr. Kennedy, if you would, 
let me know approximately what time. I was not aware of any of 
this for months after it took place. Just what period do you mean? 

Mr. Kennedy. While it was going on did you know that? 

Mr. Cross. When was it going on ? 

Mr. Kennedy. In 1956. 

Mr. Cross. The whole year ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Well, October and November of 1956. 

Mr. Cross. Well, there I may have become aware if it was reported 
to me, and again, from any direct knowledge I would not know. 

Mr. Kennedy. Didn't you have enough organizers in the bakers 
union that you could send your own people up that you did not have 
to call on the assistance of Mr. Shefferman to assist you in that ? 

Mr. Cross. Now just a minute, Mr. Kennedy. I am going to at- 
tempt to give as truthfully as I can to this committee my activities in 
this affair. I have already stated categorically that I never had any 
dealings with the Shefferman concern and I never had any dealings 
with the Mortons Frozen Food concern, and my sole and only contact 
in this wliole affair was with the top company officials of the Con- 
tinental Baking Co. 

I did assign organizers to the Webster City organizational cam- 
paign. What the company did, or what the Shefferman concern did 



5864 IMPROPER AcnvrriES nsr the labor field 

in assisting, if they did, that is their business. I think we could have 
organized it ourselves without any help if we did receive it. 

The Chairman. Mr. Cross, the question here is. Did you know that 
you were receiving the help of the Shefferman people ? 

Mr. Cross. To the best of my knowledge at the time that it was 
stated that they were there, I do not recall knowing about it. 

The Chairman. Well, now, we are looking into practices here that 
some have already possibly judged and if they have not judged, it is 
certainly raising a question as to whether the law was being complied 
with, whether there was a violation on the part of the Taft-Hartley 
law by business and management, or whether there was collusion be- 
tween your union and business in this organization of this plant. 

Now, what we want to do is just get the facts and it is perfectly 
relevant to ascertain what you, as president of the bakers union, knew 
about the presence of Shefferman's men there and what they were 
doing there and what knowledge you had of it and to what extent 
you agreed to it and cooperated in that practice. 

Proceed, Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. Kennedy. Well, maybe you could answer that question the 
Chair has put to you about whether you were aware of the fact, and 
made use of the employees of the Shefferman office to assist the bakers 
union in organizing the plant at Webster City, Iowa. 

Mr. Cross. As to being aware at any time, it is possible that it was 
called to my attention that the Shefferman people were on the scene. 
As to using them, I never requested their assistance nor did I have 
any direct contact with them in directing their activities in Webster 
City. 

The Chairman. Would that be an unusual arrangement? Have 
you had that exeperience before ? 

Mr. Cross. As far as this international union is concerned, it is the 
first time that we have ever had a situation like this. 

The Chairman. Then if it is so unusual, I think that you would 
remember better the details of it. 

Mr. Cross. Senator, I am sure you will understand that you are 
talking about October and November of 1956, at which time I was deep 
into an international union convention. This is a detail of a shop 
employing about 250 people, when we have contracts involving 160,000 
people. 

The Chairman. That is true and I am not raising any question about 
that. We are trying to get into what actually went on here between 
business, or between management and the union, and whether there 
was collusion and what tactics were used to bring these people into 
your union. 

Now, it is perfectly apparent from the testimony yesterday, that 
management knew, and management condoned at least, if it did not 
absolutely arrange — and I think it arranged to have this Shefferman 
firm, their people down there helping to organize this plant to be sure 
they got in your union, whereas they had the same Shefferman repre- 
sentatives there before or representatives of Shefferman there just a 
few months before to try to keep them from joining another union. 

That is, I think, certainly giving some evidence of an improper prac- 
tice and collusion between the union and the management of that 
company. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 5865 

(At this point, Senators McNamara and Curtis entered the hearing 
room.) 

The Chairman. We want all of the information you can give us 
to clear it up. 

Mr. Cross. I am happy to give everything that I can to clear up 
this situation. However, Senator McClellan, I think it is important 
to know that since checking into this, I have a great deal of respect 
for the United Packinghouse Workers activity in organizing the Mor- 
ton Frozen Food, whether or not I agree it is their jurisdiction is some- 
thing else again. 

However, it is my understanding that they were not engaged in any 
organizing activity at the time that our organizers went to Webster 
City. 

The Chairman. I said it was a few monthe before. 

Mr. Cross. I am sure it was at least a year before. 

The Chairman. All right, we will make it a year before. That is 
immaterial and it was a short time before, the same firm, the Sheffer- 
man people had been employed— or they were employed because they 
were paid — they were used to come down there to try to keep the 
employees of that plant from joining another union. 

Now, a few months later we find the same firm, Shefferman firm, 
back down there with its men trying to get the men to join your 
union. That is Avhat we are inquiring into and we want to know what- 
ever you know about it. 

Mr. Cross. I would like to tell you then, it is an entirely different 
employer concerned in this when we went in to organize the plant. 
We do not know the people of Morton Frozen Food and we had no 
knowledge of, actually, their existence. 

But when it was purchased by the Continental Baking Co., we 
have a contract, 79 out of their 80 plants organized, and it was only 
after the purchase by the Continental Baking Co., and I hope a 
change in labor attitude as far as the company was concerned, that 
we proceeded to attempt to organize them. 

We found no union on the scene in competition with us and we did 
organized the people and we did sign a contract. 

The Chairman. That we know. 

Mr. Cross. And I did not do it with any direct knowledge of the 
aid of the Shefferman firm. I have no connections with Shefferman. 

The Chairman. Now, you had no knowledge of the Shefferman 
firm being employed and their people were down there, and their 
representatives were there to help persuade the employees of that 
plant to join your union. You had no knowledge of it ; is that correct ? 

Mr. Cross. I had no knowledge at the time we entered into the 
attempt to organize. But during the organization period it could 
have been brought to my attention by the men on the scene. 

The Chairman. Now you say it could have been. 

Mr. Cross. I don't recall. 

The Chairman. It could have been or it could not have been; 
what is it ? 

Mr. Cross. I don't know. 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Cross, who is Merle Smith ? 

Mr. Cross. Merle Smith is the regional director of the southern 
area for organization. 



5866 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Curtis. Of your union ? 

Mr. Cross. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. And he represents your union in his organizational 
efforts? 

Mr. Cross. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. And he represents the international union? 

Mr. Cross. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. He was present at the convention in October of 
1956, was he not? 

Mr. Cross. I would presume he was. He would have to be elected 
from a local union and I do not know whether he was or not. 

Senator Curtis. Did he report to you when he saw you about their 
activities at Webster City ? 

Mr. Cross. I would not recall, sir. If he did, it would be such a 
minor incident to me in the middle of a convention. 

Senator Curtis. He represents the bakers union, and he has author- 
ity to speak for them in organizational matters, is that correct? 

Mr. Cross. In areas Vv'here he is assigned. 

Senator Curtis. jN'ow, it is true that Merle Smith went to the hotel, 
or at least it was testified yesterday, he went to tlie hotel at 11 o'clock 
a night and sought out Mr. Shefferman's man, Mr. Bromley, in- 
structed him on how to proceed as to going about to sign up these 
cards and advised him to see a Mr. Spurling of the teamsters to assist 
liim. 

Do you know Mr. Spurling ? 

Mr. Cross. I don't think so, sir. If he was in this room today I 
would not be able to pick him out. I may have met him, and you 
know how that is. 

Senator Curtis. Regardless of your ability to remember what you 
knew about it, the fact seems fairly well established tliat Merle Smith 
represented the Bakers and Confectionery Workers Union and he not 
onl}' knew about it but he was a principal actor. 

Mr. Cross. Yes. 

Senator Curtis. That is all. 

Mr. I^NNEDY. Mr. Cross, the testimony before this committee has 
been that your bakers union representatives at the Webster City plant 
were unsuccessful in their drive until the ShefFerman group came m. 

Now, do you know anything about that ? 

Mr. Cross. No, sir; if they were, we should have had help and 
gotten different organizers in there. 

Mr.KENXEDY. That is when the Shefferman people sent a repre- 
sentative up there to help the bakers union organize tlie plant. You 
say that that was never discussed with you ? 

Mr. Cross. I don't say it was never discussed because vice presi- 
dent Stewart, who was in charge of organization, may have men- 
tioned the fact that they were having difficulty getting the people in 
Webster City. If so, I would tell him to go ahead and get it 
organized. 

Mr. Kennedy. The Shefferman group or firm has a general reputa- 
tion of being a union-busting firm. If you heard the information 
that they were going to assist you in organizing the plant, I would 
have thought it would have been something that would have struck in 
vour mind. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 5867 

Mr. Cross. Well, Mr. Kennedy, if the Shefi'erman firm lias the repu- 
tation for union-busing, I wouldn't go on that because I have had no 
dealings whatsoever with the Shetferman tirm and know nothing 
about their reputation. 

Mr. Kennedy. You didn't know on October 14 that Mr. Bromley 
from the ShetTerman firm was being sent up to Webster City, Iowa, 
to assist your organizational drive ? 

Mr. Cross. I don't think anybody ever discussed Mr. Bromley with 
me. 

Mr. Kennedy. What did Mr. ShefFerman discuss with you when he 
called you on October 13 ? 

Mr. Cross. Mr. Shefferman called ? I don't know. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. Yes. He called you at your office and then at your 
home in Bethesda ? 

Mr. Cross. When? 

Mr. Kennedy. October 13, the day before representatives of his 
firm were dispatched to Webster City, Iowa ? 

Mr. Cross. I haven't the slightest idea. 

Mr. Kennedy. What did he call you about ? 

Mr. Cross. I dont' even recall his calling me. 

]\Ir. Kennedy. You can't give any better answer tlian that ? 

Mr. Cross. I don't know any other answer. I don't know what he 
called me about. When did I leave for the convention ? 

Mr. Kennedy. That is not the point. 

Mr. Cross. The point is I can't remember. 

Mr. Kennedy. He called you on October 13, and representatives 
were sent up from the Shefferman firm to Webster City, Iowa, on 
October 14. 

Mr. Cross. Did he talk to me ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes ; he did. 

Mr. Cross. I am sure about it, because I never recall the conver- 
sation with Mr. Shefferman. Because he called my home doesn't 
necessarily mean he talks to me. 

Mr. Kennedy. It was person to person to Mr. Cross. He called 
you at the office and then he called you in Bethesda. 

Mr. Cross. On Saturday ? 

Mr. Kennedy. I don't know w^hether October 13 is Saturday or 
not. 

Mr. Cross. You said tlie day before I left for the convention. Tliat 
was on Sunday. 

Mr. Kennedy. No ; I said October 1 3. 

Mr. Cross. I don't know anything about it. 

Mr. Kennedy. The day before he sent men to the Webster City plant. 
You haven't got any explanation for that ? 

Mr. Cross. No, sir. I have had no dealings with the Shefferman 
firm. I wouldn't even recall a telephone call from him. 

The Chairman. Have you had other telephone calls from him ? 

Mr. Cross. Yes, sir. I testified, I think, to this committee, that I 
had a telephoiie call from him in 1953, which, I think, is the only 
other one, in regard to liealth and welfare, and I talked to him about 
that. 

The Chairman. This is much later. You remember the one in 
1953. Here is one in October 1956. 



5868 IMPROPER ACTTvrriES JDsr the labor field 

Mr. Ckoss. That is because I reviewed the actions with the Sheffer- 
man firm in regard to the health and welfare when it was being dis- 
cussed by this committee. I cannot recall any telephone call. I don't 
deny it. I just say I don't know anything about it. 

Mr. Kennedt. Did anybody from his firm call you, Mr. Cross ? 

Mr. Harris. Would you excuse me a moment, Mr. Kennedy? I 
would like to ask Mr. Cross a question. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

The Chairman. All right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you talk to anybody from Mr. Shefferman's 
firm on October 13 ? 

Mr. Cross. Mr. Kennedy, I know by name, and have met on about 
three occasions, two people in the Shefferman firm ; Mr. Shefferman 
and jNIr. Shefferman, Jr. That is all 1 know. 

Now, if they called, I am not denying it, but I just don't remember. 
And, if so, and if they discussed the Webster City thing, I would 
refer them to the people in charge. 

Mr. Kennedy. They called you at 12 : 24 p. m., October 13, and 
talked to you for 2 minutes. 

Mr. Cross. I wouldn't recall. A 2-minute conversation is worse. 
I wouldn't even remember. Mr. Kennedy, I receive at least 10 to 12 
calls a day on my phone. 

Mr. Kennedy. It is of some significance, Mr. Cross, that, in view 
of the time element, in view of the fact that Mr. Shefferman then dis- 
patched these people to Webster City, Iowa, and that was the day 
after; in view of the fact that the bakers were not successful in their 
drive until those people were dispatched from Mr. Shefferman's office, 
that they worked there for a period of a month or so, assisting your 
people signing employees up m the bakers union. I would think, as 
president of the bakers union, you would have more information and 
more knowledge about all of this. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Cross. Mr. Kennedy, there are two things 

Mr. Kjsnnedy. That is particularly true, in view of your very 
strong statements earlier that you had no connection with this man. 

Mr. Cross. I do not have. If you have any evidence. General Coun- 
sel of this committee, as to any improper activities on the part of 
myself in regard to the organization of Webster City in this contract, 
I would be more than happy, and think it would be fair of this com- 
mittee, rather than by implication or innuendo that something is 
wrong, to let me know about it. 

The Chairman. We are letting you know. We are letting you 
know about a telephone call. You say you can't remember. 

Mr. Cross. They keep harassing me. A 2-minute telephone call, I 
don't remember. Wliy keep asking me? 

The Chairman. How are we going to inform you if we don't keep 
asking you ? 

Mr. Cross. "V^Hio was the telephone call from ? 

Mr. Kennedy. From Mr. Shefferman's ofiice. 

Mr. Cross. Wliat does that mean ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Wliat do you mean, "Wliat does that mean ?" 

Mr. Cross. Who was in Mr. Shefferman's office? Maybe Mr, Beck 
was there and called me. How do I know ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES m THE LABOR FIELD 5869 

Mr. E^ENNEDY. It was from Mr. Shefferman's office to you, first at 
the headquarters and then at your home, Mr. James Cross. He was 
looking for your particularly. 

Mr. Cross. Who was looking? 

Mr. Kennedy. I think we will bring out more information and evi- 
dence on this with another witness, Mr. Cross, but we are giving you 
an opportunity to give any explanation you can on this telephone call, 
on the operation of Mr. Shefferman's group in Webster City, Iowa, 
and then your final review of the contract yourself, as you testified 
here. 

(At this point Senator Curtis withdrew from the hearing room.) 

Mr. Cross. Mr. Kennedy, I will say again if there is any evidence 
of my working with the Shefferman firm on Webster City, or on any 
other company, I would certainly appreciate knowing about it. 

The Chairman. Let me ask you something: Wouldn't you think 
that a telephone call from Shefferman's office the day before he dis- 
patched his representatives down to this Webster City plant has some 
significance and needs some explanation? You say if we have any- 
thing. 

Mr. Cross. Well, all I can say is I don't even remember him calling 
my home. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is all, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. All right. Thank you very much. 

Call the next witness. 

Mr. Harris. Mr. Chairman, is Mr. Cross excused now ? 

The Chairman. No, sir. Mr. Cross will be recalled. Thank you. 

Mr. Kennedy. Merle Smith. 

The Chairman. Will you be sworn ? You do solemnly swear that 
the evidence you shall give before this Senate select committee will be 
the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God ? 

Mr. Smith. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF MERLE SMITH 

The Chairman. State your name, your place of residence, and your 
business or occupation. 

Mr. Smith. My name is Merle Smith. I live in Chattanooga, Tenn., 
8414 Shadow Lane Drive. I am a southern regional director for the 
Bakery and Confectionery Workers International Union. 

The Chairman. How long have you been in the union, Mr. Smith? 

Mr. Smith. I have been a member of the union for 22 years, ap- 
proximately. 

The Chairman. How long have you occupied the position you now 
have ? 

Mr. Smith. Four years. 

The Chairman. Do you waive the right of counsel ? 

Mr. Smith. I waive the right of counsel. 

The Chairman. Proceed, Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Smith, you had something to do with the or- 
ganization of the Morton Frozen Food Co. in Iowa ? 

Mr. Smith. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. In Webster City, Iowa ? 

Mr. Smith. Yes, sir. 



5870 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. When did you begin your operation up there ? 

Mr. Smith. I went, actually went into Webster City the first time- 
in January of 1956, as a survey, just a couple of days there to kind of 
contact and see how many people there was in the plant. That was 
the first time I was in there. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then did you return at a later time ? 

Mr. Smith. I returned up there on October — I arrived there the 
evening of October 2, 1956. 

Mr. Kennedy. What had preceded your going up there the second 
time? 

Mr. Smith. Well, in September, the latter part of September, Mr. 
George Stuart, under whom I worked, who was director of organiza- 
tion at that time, called me to Chicago to have a meeting with him, 
Mr. George Faunce, of Continental Baking Co., and Jimmy Hoffa of 
the Teamsters Union. Mr. Hoffa didn't show up. There was just a 
little meeting. There was no discussion except for the fact that Mr. 
Faunce asked me which plant I thought would be the most easy to 
organize, and I told him I figured since the packinghouse w^orkers 
had 100 members up there already, that maybe it would be easier. 

Mr. Kennedy. There were 2 or 8 plants that were in question ? 

Mr. SiviiTH. There were three plants. 

Mr, Kennedy. Three plants. One in Crozet, Va., and one in Web- 
ster City, Iowa 

Mr. Smith. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. And a third one ? 

Mr. Smith. Nashville, Tenn., had a small one. 

Mr. Kennedy. It was a question of wliich of the three you would 
start with first ? 

Mr. Smith. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. And he asked you which you thought would be the 
easiest, and you said Webster City, Iowa ? 

Mr. Smith. Yes, 

Mr. Kennedy. Would you continue? 

Mr. Smith, Well, the only thing that Mr. Faunce said at that time 
was that he would see that management didn't put on a hard fight 
against us, or he would keep them neutral, rather, in the fight to or- 
ganize the people there. 

Mr. Kenntedy. What was Mr. Faunce 's position at that time ? 

Mr. Smith. I believe he was a vice president of the Continental 
Baking Co, That is as far as I know. I don't know whether he is 
labor relations man or not. But he was vice president of the Conti- 
nental, as I understood it. 

Mr. Kennedy. So did you go up there? 

Mr. Smith, Yes, sir ; I went up the following week. That was the 
latter part of September that I met with him. I went up the following 
week, and on October 3 I contacted a couple of the boys there. We 
made pretty good progress, I thought, contrary to what you hear. I 
thought we were doing pretty well. I don't like to hear my work run 
down like that. 

In fact, we had a hundred or a little better cards signed in the 2 
weeks I was there, and that isn't bad, considering there had been anti- 
union propaganda before. Then the convention was coming up, and. 
naturally we were concerned as to whether or not we were going to 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 5871 

get to go to the convention. But just a few days before time for me 
to leave for the convention, I had a call from a Shelton Shetl'erman, 
and wanted to know how I was getting along out there, and how 1 was 
coming along. I refused to talk to him, because in my organizing 
campaigns I like to know who I talk to, and I don't talk to them over 
the phone. I am from the South, and we run into opposition strong 
down there. 

The CuAiEMAX. That is a good recommendation for you. Go ahead. 

Mr. Smith. Senator McClellan, I agree with you. But I am par- 
ticular who I talk to over the phone. I didn't tell him anytliing, and 
I w^ouldn't tell him anything. I said "I am not talking to you." 

He said, "Well, hasn't Cross or Stuart gotten in touch with you?" 
and I said "No, not about you." 

He said, "Well, you are going to the convention?" 

I said, "I hope to." 

He said, "Well, during the time you are in the convention, we are 
going to have a couple of men out there to help take care of things." 

I have this, not verbatim here, but I have a book that keeps me in 
memory of things that went on each time. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you have that book in front of you now ? 

Mr. Smith. It is in this case, yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you want to bring it out ? 

The Chairman. I understand the notes in that book were made at 
the time ? 

Mr. Smith. Made at the time, yes, sir. It is a daily record. 

The Chairman. And that enables you to refresh j^our memory ? 

Mr. Smith. Yes, sir. Were it not for that, I could not possibly 
remember. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you have some notes on the conversation that you 
had with Mr. Shefferman ? 

Mr. Smith. Well, on that particular one I don't have to make notes 
on that, but I do have that I did talk to him, and I know what it was 
about at that time, because he told me that Mr. Bromley and Mr. Neil- 
sen would be in next day, and they would contact me. I said "Well, 
I will get in touch with Director Stuart and verify this.'' 

The next morning I got in touch with Stuart and he said that there 
would be a fellow in there to contact me that day at my motel room. 
I waited until around 11 o'clock that night. No one had contacted 
me. I found Mr. Bromley at the hotel in town. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who is Mr. Bromley ? 

Mr. Smith. He is a representative, as I understand, of the Sheffer- 
man — well, he is a representative of the Shefferman Labor Relations 
Agency. That was the man's name that was given me by Mr. Shef- 
ferman. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Shefferman had told you in this first conversa- 
tion that this matter had been cleared through Cross and Stuart? 

Mr. Smith. He didn't say that it had been cleared. He just said 
"Hadn't they contacted you ?" And he said that they were supposed 
to. Hedidn'tsay they had been cleared, no, sir. 

The Chairman. Iii other words, apparently he had clear it witJi 
them before ? 

Mr. Smith. Well, I was led to believe that ; yes, sir. 



89.330— 57— pt. 15- 



5872 IMPROPER AcnvnTES m the labor field 

The Chairman. And subsequent events proved that to be true ? 

Mr. Smith. I suppose so, 

(At this point Senator Curtis returned to the hearing room.) 

Mr. Kennedy. So you talked to Bromley that evening, did you ? 

Mr. Smith. I talked to Bromley around 11 o'clock that night in his 
hotel room, 11 or 11 : 30. I left early the next morning. I made 
arrangements for him and Mr. Neilsen, who wasn't in town that day 
but who was coming the next day, to have dinner with Mr. Spurling of 
the teamsters union. I left early the next day for the convention. 
During the convention, I called Mr. Bromley one time and asked how 
things were going and he said, "Well, they are going pretty good." He 
asked me at that time what did I know about what was going on in 
the international union. I didn't know what he meant by it, but I said 
just what I knew. I said, "I don't know a darn thing about it. What 
do you know about it?" He said, "Nothing. I just thought maybe 
you did." 

I asked him to get reservations for me. I went back in to Webster 
City the following week after I got back from the convention. At 
that time they had about 280 cards signed. I, as instructed by my 
superiors, as soon as we had plenty of cards, contacted at this time — 
I made a telephone call to Mr. Cross, the president of the interna- 
tional union, and told him that we had sufficient cards signed for 
recognition or to petition for an election. He said, well, he understood 
that Mr. George Faunce was out of town, and that he would get hold 
of him and give it to George Stuart, who was handling the case. 

Mr. Kennedy. Ordinarily wouldn't this be handled by you people 
there in the area ? 

Mr. Smith. We did advise on whether or not to petition an elec- 
tion, but ordinarily I feel that in the rest of my campaigns it has been 
handled by the men in the field. But we may ask permission and say 
"Well, do you think we should ?" 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Cross said this would be handled by Mr. Faunce 
himself, with George Stuart ? 

Mr. Smith. That is right. I understood it was to be a consent or 
card check election. I was told that when I went in there, that it 
would not be necessary to go through an NLRB election, because of 
the fact that they had an agreement with the Continental Baking. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who had reached the agreement with Continental? 

Mr. Smith. Well, I understood it was a general agreement with the 
Continental Baking Co. that because we had the balance of all their 
other plants, except one, that any new plant or bought plant would be 
given to us on a card-check or consent-election basis. 

Mr. Kennedy. During this period of time, had Mr. Bromley been 
assisting in obtaining these cards, these authorization cards? 

Mr. Smith. Well, he had been assisting, yes; as I understand it 
from people that were working in the plant at that time. 

Mr. Kennedy. Is tliis unusual for you to have assistance like this ? 

My. Smith. From an outsider I have never had assistance before. 
It has been the other way around. 

Mr. Kennedy. This is the first experience that you have had of this 
kind? 

Mr. Smith. Yes, sir. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 5873 

Mr. Kennedy. Had you known anything about Mr. Shefferman's 
firm? 

Mr. Smith. I never heard of him until he called me that day and 
told me who he was. I had never heard of him. 

Mr. Kennedy. What happened then ? You got in touch with Mr. 
Cross and he told you about Mr. Faunce. Then wliat happened? 

Mr. Smith. Well, Mr. Stuart called me back a day or two later and 
told me that we had been recognized, and that the negotiations would 
be started in a week or so, or something like that, and wanted to know 
some of the rates of what they were making there. I told him as best 

1 could. Their rates were so messed up you couldn't give him a good 
answer. But shortly after that I had a meeting in which I intended 
to elect officers and a negotiating committee for the local union. 

By coincidence, or something — I don't know whether I am learning 
a lot here, but by coincidence or something, Mr. Shefferman, Shelton 
Shefferman called me around the middle of the week and wanted to 
know if we were going to set up a local union there, or whether we 
were going to put it in Des Moines or Fort Dodge, or some of the 
others. I told him we were planning on establishing a local union 
there. 

To go back to an incident that happened the day before that is con- 
nected with this, I had talked to some of the girls at the plant and told 
them to get to thinking about who they would like to have for their 
president and officers. She said, "Well. Chuck and I have already 
picked out the president." I said, "Chuck ? Chuck who ?" She said, 
"Chuck Bromley. We have already picked out who we want for 
president." I said, "What has he got to do with it ?" She said, "Well, 
we just decided who we wanted." I said, "Well, I don't know." 

The next morning, then, Mr. Shefferman called me, as I said before, 
and I asked him, "Has Chuck made any commitments while he was 
in the shop as to who would be officers?" And he said, "Yes; you are 
supposed to get a list. Haven't you got it?" I said, "No." He said, 
"Well, you are supposed to have one of the people who are supposed 
to be acceptable." I said, "Well, I don't think I will go along with 
it, because I don't know. I am not saying I will go along with it." 

Mr. Kennedy. Who was the list supposed to come from? 

Mr. Smith. He said it was supposed to come from the Morton 
Frozen Foods Co. 

Mr. Kennedy. As to who were supposed to be the officers of your 
local union ? 

Mr. Smith. Yes, sir. I got into a pretty stiff argument with him 
there and told him that I might not even want to go along with any 
of them, but he could send it over and I will look at it if he wanted 
me to. He said to wait there and he would send it over. It was about 

2 hours later and I called him back and said I didn't have it. He 
called Morton, evidently, and it was sent over to me. I believe you 
have a copy of the list. 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes ; we put it into the record yesterday. 
(At this point Senator Ervin entered the hearing room.) 
Senator Curtis. Who was this woman that you talked Avith on the 
phone, that said she and Chuck already picked out the officers? 
Mr. Smith. It wasn't on the phone. It was in contact. 
Senator Curtis. Wlio was it? 



5874 IMPROPER ACnVITTES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Smith. She is still working there. Her name is Bessie Lar- 
son. 

Senator Ctjrtis. Bessie Larson? 

Mr. Smith. Yes, sir ; she lives at Fort Dodge. 

Senator Cuktis. She doesn't live in Webster City ? 

Mr. Smith. No ; she works in Webster City. 

The Chairman. Senator Ives ? 

Senator Ives. I would like to ask Mr. Smith a few questions about 
the cards that he refers to. 

These cards are cards indicating their desire to join your union; 
is that right ? 

Mr. Smith. It is giving us the bargaining rights for them, and the 
right to petition the NLRB for an election. 

Senator Ives. How many employees were there in that particular 
plant? 

Mr. Smith. There was around 250 or 300. It kept growing, because 
that was their busy season. 

Senator I\tes. How many cards were signed ? 

Mr. Smith. 280. 

Senator I\'t:s. 280? 

Mr. Smith. That is right. 

Senator Ives. And there were only 250 employees ? How do you ex- 
plain that? 

Mr. Smith. That is when I went in, Mr. Ives. As I said, it was 
their busy season. By the time we got through, by December, they 
had approximately 500 people working there. 

Senator Ives. I see. What I am driving at or coming to is this : 
You got these cards signed and turned them over to the National Labor - 
Relations Board representative? 

Mr. Smith. No, sir. 

Senator I\t:s. T\^iat happened? Did you have an election there? 

Mr. Smith. No, sir. 

Senator Ives. Why didn't you have an election ? 

Mr. Smith. Well, as I said before, I called the international union 
and they said that they would get a card check or consent recognition 
without having an election. So that is why we didn't petition. 

Senator Ives. They must have based that on the cards ; did they - 
not? 

Mr. Smith. Well, of course they did 

Senator Ives. They would have to base it on something. 

Mr. Smith. On the cards, that is right. 

Senator Ives. They had to have some proof that the employees 
wanted to belong to the union. 

Mr. Smith. That is right. 

Senator L^s. The question I am driving at is this : If you hadn't 
had a consent of that type, and you had had an election, would your - 
union have been chosen ? 

Mr. Smith. Well, of course you can't tell about that. That is just 
like any other election. 

Senator I\t:s. But you have pretty good judgment ? 

Mr. Smith. I think we would have. 

Senator I\tds, You think you would ? 

Mr. Smith. I think we would have ; yes. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 5875 

Senator Ives. By an overwhelming vote or by a close vote ? 

Mr. Smith. Well, I think it would have been a clear majority. It 
might not have been 80 percent, but I think it would have been 65. 

Senator Ives. What I am driving at, Mr. Chairman, is this : This 
card business or consent business opens the door wide for a lot of shen- 
nanigans. That is what I am driving at. 

The Chairman. Senator McNamara. 

Senator McNamara. Was this the only contract that you ever 
entered into that was handled by other than the emplovees of the 
plant? 

Mr. Smith. It is, it was the only one. 

Senator McNamara. Was it an unusual procedure ? 

Mr. Smith. It is with me. In the South it is unusual. 

Senator McNamara. Is this plant what you consider in the South ? 
Is this in your territory ? 

Mr. Smith. No ; except he told me he was extending my territory 
and it is an open shop State, and since I am familiar with open-shop 
laws, I think that was the reason I was sent there. 

Senator McNamara. The fact that something happens in the South 
lias no bearing on this particular thing, that is rather extraneous ; is 
it not? This contract, however, was negotiated by other than you, 
•despite the fact that you were the organizer assigned to that area. 

Mr. Smith. That is right. 

Senator McNamara. Who assigned you to the area ? 

Mr. Smith. Mr. George Stuart. 

Senator McNamara. He was your immediate superior because he 
was the vice president in charge of that district. 

Mr. Smith. Director of organization. 

Senator McNamara. Nationally ? 

Mr. Smith. Nationally ; yes. 

Senator McNamara. Were you satisfied with the contract when 
you saw the terms of it ? 

Mr. Smith. No, sir. 

Senator McNamara. You still think it is a lousy contract ? 

Mr. Smith. I still think it could be improved; yes, sir. It could 
have been improved. 

Senator McNamara. I think that is an understatement. As we 
understand it from the testimony we have had, the employees now 
receive about $1.14 an hour. Is that your understanding ? 

Mr. Smith. I think that would be about right. The women are 
the lowest. 

Senator McNamara. The minimum wage is $1 an hour and it does 
prevail in this industry ; does it not ? 

Mr. Smith. Yes, sir. 

Senator McNamara. Because they sell this food over the country. 

Mr. Smith. Yes, sir. 

Senator McNamara. We have seen in the Washington paper today 
an ad for some of the Mortons food products and apparently they are 
a nationwide firm. Under those circumstances, it seems to me tliat 
there is every reason for this committee to be suspicious that this really 
was a "sweetheart" contract, and from what you say you apparently 
agree with that. It was negotiated without the employees' consent, 



5876 IMPROPER AcnvirrEs in the labor field 

or without them being represented and it was handed even to the 
organizer in the district, all signed, and deliA'ered. 

Mr. Smith. That is right. 

Senator McNamara. This is what is generally termed a "sweetheart" 
contract ; is it not ? 

Mr. Smith. That is right. 

Senator McNamara. Is it not a fact that these employees that you 
represented there certainly seemed to get a rough deal out of it ? 

Mr, Smith. Yes, sir. 

Senator McNamara. The other union, if it had been successful and 
by your statement they had already 100 members out of 250, obviously 
would have gotten them a better condition than this. That is why the 
boss was soft on your organization ; is it not ? 

Mr. Smith. I don't know, sir, and I can't answer that one. 

Senator McNamara. There is every indication that that is the way 
it was, even from what you say there is an appearance that you agree 
with that, although I am not going to press you to say "Yes" to it. 

These are the things that this committee is very much interested 
in. This is a situation where an organization is dealing with the 
employer in such a manner as to be a detriment to the employees that 
are jDaying for this service. They are paying dues and they are pay- 
ing for the service, and they are really being cheated by this kind of a 
procedure. 

Certainly, this committee is very much concerned with it, and they 
have every right to be investigating it and perhaps out of this some 
sort of legislation should be born that would insist on the employees 
in the plant passing on these contracts rather than giving authority 
to somebody to negotiate for them when they come up with such a 
stinking deal as this one is. 

Thank you. 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Chairman, I understood that the witness 
stated it had been agreed that because the Bakery and Confectionery 
Union International had all of the contracts with Continental Baking 
Co. elsewhere, that they were to have this contract. 

Mr. Smith. I was told that by Director of Organization Stuart. 

Senator Curtis. Now, what I want to know is whose agreement 
was that ? 

Mr. Smith. I was only told that they had an agreement, the inter- 
national union and the Continental Baking Co., to the effect that the 
bakery and confectionery workers' union would be recognized as bar- 
gaining agent in any plant that they would subsequently build, buy, 
or acquire in any manner. 

Senator Curtis. Now, what right would the international union 
and the Continental Baking Co. have to make such a decision for the 
people that work there ? I thought these laws were to protect workers 
in their right to organize, but the parade of evidence that we have had 
here for the last 6 months reveals to me something more shocking 
than corruption, and that is very bad, that is terrible. 

But that is, that workers have no rights and they are pawns and 
they are captives and they are chessmen, and they are moved about. 
Wiiat union they might select, whether it should be their own or an 
independent or the right to join or not join, has not seemed to enter 
into the cases that we have heard here in the last 6 months. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 5877 

Now, also, I want to ask you about something else. Wlien you were 
told that Morton's was going to send a list of acceptable officers or 
suggested officers over to you, your reply was that you did not know 
that you could go along with that. Is that correct ? 

Mr. Smith. That's right. 

Senator Curtis. But now, you are not a member of that local union, 
are you ? 

Mr. Smith. No, sir. 

Senator Curtis. You had no voting power ? 

Mr. Smith. No, sir. 

Senator Curtis. I do not mean this critically of you as an in- 
dividual, but the point is that you were not the proper person to 
decide whether or not they were the proper officers. It was something 
that the workers themselves should have decided, is that right ? 

Mr. Smith. That is right, but if an organizer is doing his job, 
he will have quite a bit of influence on the people. 

Senator Curtis. I understand that, but the point is, a practice was 
followed that would give someone in the position you held a chance 
to sell those workers down the river, had they chosen. I understand 
you did not so choose. 

Mr. Smith. I don't follow you there. 

Senator Curtis. That is all. 

The Chairman. Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was the list of officers furnished to you? 

Mr. Smith. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. That was after you had other conversations with 
Mr. Shefferman regarding that. Did you have those conversations? 

Mr. Smith, We had had 2 or 3 previous and then I did call him 
back and tell him I could not go along with at least a couple of them. 
Others were acceptable to me because they had been my key workers 
and I don't know how they got in that list, but they had been key 
workers and very good union people and I think they worked for the 
UPW the year before, too. 

Mr. Kennedy. One of them that they suggested as president was 
who? 

Mr. Smith. Cliff Hayes. 

Mr. Kennedy. He is the gentleman that led the antiunion com- 
mittee against the packinghouse workers? 

Mr. Smith. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. You refused to go along with Hayes ? 

Mr. Smith. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you set up a negotiating committee to nego- 
tiate the contract ? 

Mr. Smith. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were you planning to set up a negotiating com- 
mittee ? 

Mr. Smith. I was planning to, but I had a call from Stuart tell- 
ing me the negotiations were going to begin and I was awaiting in- 
struction and I still thought they would come out to negotiate. 

Mr. Kennedy. Isn't that the usual procedure ? 

Mr. Smith. It is the usual procedure and since it seemed to be 
completely— or it had been taken completely out of my hands, I 
didn't know what to do or where to go. That was the whole thing 
in a nutshell. I didn't know which way to move. 



5878 IMPRlOPEH ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOiR FIEIiD 

Mr. Kennedy. So what happened then ? 

Mr. Smith. I didn't know whether the Sheffermans were handling 
it or whether the international union was handling it. Shefferman 
called me xit home on November 23 or 24, and right before Thanks- 
giving and he was trying to give me heck because I hadn't elected all 
of his officers on the list, and I had elected anticompany officers. 

I said there are some of them that I would not go along with and 
I had not elected officers, but I was not going to allow Cliff Hayes to 
be elected if I could possibly help it. I was going to complain against 
him. But we got word then later. 

I asked Mr. Stuart about it and he said to go along as far as 
possible with the list, but tliat he didn't think that Shefferman was 
supposed to pick the officers. But the next day he called me back 
and told me that he and Cross had talked it over and they had de- 
cided it wasn't the proper time to elect officers for that local and we 
didn't have a charter at that time. 

So in December, around the 1st of December or the 2d or 3d or 
something like that, I got a call from Cross — I beg your pardon, from 
Mr. Stuart — saying that he and Mr. Faunce would be out there and 
present the contract the following Sunday at a meeting. 

Just before the meeting though, he called up and said that he 
couldn't get transportation out there, so Jim Neilson came in and 
he contacted me and wanted to set up negotiations. 

Mr. KJENNEDY. What did he mean by "present the contract" ? 

Mr. Smith. I reckon he meant that they would present it to the 
people. 

Mr. Kennedy. Had the contract already been signed ? 

Mr. Smith. I understand it had, yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were you surprised to hear that ? 

Mr. Smith. Yes, sir, I was surprised because I had been in con- 
versation with Mr. Stuart and asked him the direct question, and 
he said, "No, we can't sign yet. The teamsters haven't signed and 
we can't take less than they do." 

Mr. Kennedy. So you had been ready there to start negotiating in 
the contract and arranging to set up a negotiating committee and 
suddenly you heard the contract had already been signed. 

Mr. Smith. We had been talking over in our meetings things that 
we thought we needed in the plant, yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And so then Mr. Stuart called and said that he 
"was going to appear on the scene with Mr. Faunce of the Continental 
Baking Co. and he was going to appear on the scene with the contract, 
is that right? 

Mr. Smith. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. And then he called and he said they could not get 
transportation and Mr. Nielson from Mr. Shefferman's office arrived, 
is that right? 

Mr. Smith. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. He brought the contract, did he ? 

Mr. Smith. No, sir ; he did not bring it and he had not seen it. 

Mr. Kennedy. Had you seen it then ? 

Mr. Smith. No, sir. 

Mr, Kennedy. What did he suggest ? 

Mr. SMmi. He suggested that we call the committee together and 
he told me that it was already signed. Since I had known from 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 5879 

Stuart it was already signed, lie wanted me to get a committee to- 
gether and negotiate, and I said, "These people are not that stupid. 
We can't do it." 

Mr. Kennedy. Just a sham negotiating committee ? 

Mr. Smith. That is the way I understood it. 

Mr. Kennedy. Just in order to fool the workers, the employees up 
there, that the contract had not been signed and they were legitimately 
going to negotiate a contract, and he suggested that you set up a 
committee and act as if you were negotiating a contract, even though 
it had already been signed ? 

Mr. Smith. That is right, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Who made that suggestion ? 

Mr. Smith. Mr. Nielson. 

Senator Curtis. "Who was he representing ? 

Mr. Smith. The Shelf erman agency. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. He was sent up there because Mr. Stuart and Mr. 
Faunce, of the Continental Baking Co., said they could not get trans- 
portation up ; is that right ? 

Mr. Smith. That is the way I remember it, although there was a 
representative of the company came in the following Sunday. I 
thought Nielson would be there and the next day we did — or I told 
Nielson I would. 

Mr. Kennedy. What did you say to him about the suggestion of 
setting up this sham committee ? 

Mr. Smith. I told him that it wouldn't work, that I thought you 
couldn't put that over on these people up here. 

Mr. Kennedy. You refused to go along ? 

Mr. Smith. I refused to go along and I told them I would get the 
people together and let him talk to them tomorrow, or what T con- 
sidered the key people, the ones that I could trust and who had been 
working with me and let him talk to them and explain what was in 
the contract. 

He said he hadn't read it, but he knew it would be basically the same 
as the others. So we did that the next afternoon and the report did 
not sound too bad as he gave it. 

Then, the following day, Mr. Nielson left town that same day, got 
the charter and supplies, and three copies of the signed agreement. 

The Chairman. Mr. Smith, did Mr. Cross know that the Sheffer- 
mans were in this deal ? 

Mr. Smith. I don't know whether ;?,Ir. Cross knew or not, as I 
testified before. Mr. Shefferman asked me when I would not talk 
to him over the phone, hadn't Mr. Cross or Stuart gotten in touch 
with me. 

The Chairman. Well, you had another conversation later with Mr. 
Cross, or got a message from him that it was not the propitious time 
to BiGct onicGi*s 

Mr. Smith." Well, still I got that through Mr. Stuart and I don't 
know whether Mr. Stewart had even talked to Mr. Cross or not. 

The Chairman. Do you have any doubt that Mr. Cross knew what 
was going on ? 

Mr. Smith. I think that as president, he should have known what 
was going on. 

The Chairman. I think so, too. 



5880 IMPBOEER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator MoNamara. Mr. Smith, you made some reference to a 
teamsters contract and you indicated that Mr. Stuart said to you 
that you could not take less than the teamsters did in their contract, 
is that right ? 

Mr. Smith. That is right, sir. 

Senator McNamara. Does this imply then, that the teamsters had 
a, similar contract for about the same wages ? 

Mr. Smith. No, sir. I understand now, and this is hearsay because 
I am not with the teamsters and I don't know and I haven't been to 
Webster City since Easter, except for one time, and I heard that they 
got a pretty good contract, about the usual over-the-road Midwest 
teamster contract. 

Senator McNamar.\.. ^Yhs^t would that indicate, $1.50 or $1.60? 

Mr. Smith. I don't know, sir. 

Senator McNamara. You brought the teamsters into the thing by 
your remark, and so I was wondering if their employees were sold 
down the river to the extent that, apparently, the bakery workers were 
in this case. You don't have the answer ? 

Mr. Smith. I don't have the answer. 

Senator McNamara. All right. 

Senator Ervin. Mr. Smith, it was not very difficult for you to arrive 
at the conclusion that the Shefferman agency was trying to serve 
two masters ; was it ? 

Mr. SiiiTH. I didn't know. I knew that there was a committee set 
up the year before to fight the packinghouse workers, but I didn't 
know the Shefferman agency had anything to do with that. 

Senator Ervin. You could tell though, that the Shefferman agency 
was professing to represent, or assist the union and also to assist 
the employer ? 

Mr. Smith. I was told by Mr. Bromley that they were usually on 
the other side of the fence. 

Senator Ervin. They were on both sides here, were they not? Was 
there any difficulty in you seeing that the Shefferman agency was oc- 
cupying what we call, a conflict of interest or a situation where their 
interests conflicted ? 

Mr. Smith. Well, I didn't know the details of the business of Shef- 
ferman, as I said before, except what Mr. Bromley said, that they 
were usually on the other side of the fence. 

That was the extent of my knowledge of it. I didn't know whether 
they were a legitimate labor-relations organization or what they did. 
I would assume from him saying that they were usually on the other 
side of the fence, that he felt like he was in a little conflict of interest. 

Senator Ervin. Thank you. 

Mr. EJENNEDY. The contract arrived, and the contract was sent up 
to you, three copies of it ? 

Mr. Smith. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. What was your reaction when you read the con- 
tract? 

Mr. Smith. It was one of disgust, disappointment, and just — I 
was almost ready to blow my top. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was it a terrible contract ? 

Mr. Smith. Well, it is bad in several ways. Now, then, the money 
part wasn't enough, although I am not fighting with that too much 
as the other clauses that doesn't give the people any rights. They 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 5881 

have a right, but no backing and nothing to stand on when they ctq 
up there. There are clauses like the seniority clause. "^ 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you want a copy of the contract ? 

Mr. Smith. I have one here. It is unusual that a contract has the 
clause in there, or any that I have ever had anything to do with, sec- 
tion 4, on page 2 : 

Nothing in this agreement shall prohibit the company from granting wage 
Increases for merit or other raises satisfactory to the company. 

That takes away our bargaining rights. There was article 7, on 
seniority, which you read yesterday, which was discussed by one of 
the Senators, and very ably discussed, but he didn't mention any 
article on promotion by seniority. 

Mr. Kennedy. Would you read that, your problem with that one ? 

Mr. Smith. It is article 4. 

Mr. Kennedy. Is that the one you are talking about ? 

Mr. Smith. Yes, sir. No; it is article 7. That is on seniority. 
It is on page 4. It has no facilities in it for promotion, and still it is 
an "I like you" contract. 

The Chahiman. The first one you read took care of promotion. 

Mr. Smith. That is true, sir. I guess it did. The next one that 
was a blooper in my estimation was the one that was added and 
signed by Sid Carpenter for some reason on the back page, and, 
incidentally, I didn't read this one to the people at the meeting, and 
I wouldn't read it. 

Mr. Kennedy. Why wouldn't you read it ? 

Mr. Smith. Just a few weeks previously I had some complaints 
that the people had heard rumors that their wage incentive was go- 
ing to be taken away from them and that would hurt them if they 
got a raise. 

I said, "Well, we will take care of that and we will see that isn't 
done." And so I called Mr. Stuart, and he said he would see to it, 
and that is all I heard of it until I got the contract. 

The Chairman. "\Yliat is that provision, I am not familiar with it ? 

Mr. Smith (reading:) 

In reference to the company's wage-incentive program, it is agreed that the 
administration, modification or discontinuance thereof shall be left to the dis- 
cretion of the company. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, as I understand it, the employees of the com- 
pany had spoken to you and said that they were particularly anxious 
that a provision regarding wage incentive would remain in; is that 
right? 

Mr. Smith. Unless there was some other way of taking care of the 
difference in pay. 

Mr. Kennedy. So you spoke to George Stuart and you said, "Are 
you going to make sure that is taken care of ?" 

Mr. Smith. And he said he would. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then this provision appeared in the contract so 
that the company could abolish that at will ; is that right ? 

Mr. Smith. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. So you had been sold down the river on that one, 
also? 

Mr. Smith. Yes. 



5882 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES LNT THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Curtis. You say you did not read that to the employees? 

Mr. Smith. No, sir ; I did not. 

Senator Curtis. Who did read it to them ? 

Mr. Smith. That part of it, I don't guess anyone did, that last 
clause. 

Senator Curtis. So the contract in its entirety never was even sub- 
mitted to representatives of the workers ? 

Mr. Smith. Not that part, not that addendum there, the other part 
was. 

Senator Curtis. Of course, you have to see all of a contract to see a 
contract, that is rather elemental. 

Mr. Smith. Yes, sir. 

Senator McNamara. Going back to that section 4, I did not quite 
get your point. Would you read it again ? 

Mr. Smith. Section 4 is as follows : 

Nothing in this agreement shall prohibit the company from granting wage in- 
creases for merit or other reasons satisfactory to the company. 

Senator McNamara. Wliat do you find wrong with that ? 

Mr. Smith. Well, in a collective bargaining agreement, usually you 
at least discuss any raises to be given, and they are given with the 
consent of the union and not strictly on a merit or "pick out who they 
like" basis. 

Senator McNamara. Are you saying now that in your union con- 
tracts you generally assume that you are not setting a minimum, but 
you are also setting a maximum pay. I understand generally the 
contracts set a minimum pay, and that the employer would be free 
at any time without that section of the contract to pay more than the 
minimum. 

Mr. Smith. Well, that is true. But it is understood and not written 
in there. 

Senator McNamara. It is an unusual thing to put in a contract be- 
cause it is generally assumed that this is a minimum condition of 
employment and the minimum wage, rather than the maximum. The 
way you state it, you are implj'ing that you also establish the maxi- 
mum and the company would not be allowed to pay an individual 
more. I do not think that that is generally the practice. 

Mr. Smith. I believe through, that it is generally the practice that 
any raises are the basis of negotiations, even though they are merit 
raises. If they have an agreement they are supposed to notify the 
union. 

Senator McNamara, You think that there should be in the contract 
a prohibition against the employer paying more than the negotiated 
wage '^ 

Mr. Smith. No, sir; but I think the union should be notified of 
such. 

Senator McNamara. Well, why ? 

Mr. Smith. Because we should know what each person is getting. 
It just doesn't make for good relationship when you have one fellow 
working as a dough mixer over here getting $1.50 and the boss likes 
this other guy because he is going fishing with him, and he gives him 
$1.75. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 5883 

Senator McNamara, I don't know why you should have any objec- 
tion. I thought the job of the union was to see that everybody 
got 

Mr. Smith. That isn't collective bargaining, sir. 

Senator McNamara. Well, this clause that you read doesn't refer 
to the collective bargaining period. It refers to a continuation for 
the life of the contract. I don't quite get the point that you would 
object to somebody getting more money than had been negotiated. 

Mr. Smith. I wouldn't, but if we know about it then next year we 
ti-y to get the other people up to where they are. 

Senator McNamara. That is what I say. This would be to your 
advantage and I don't see why you would have any objection. I 
don't quite get the point. 

The Chairmax. I think I see one defect in it. You have two men 
mixing dough, or operating the same machine, doing the same iden- 
tical work, and what you would object to from the standpoint of 
the union is just because the boss likes one of them he raises his wages 
25 cents an hour and keeps the other one down at $1.50 an liour. 

Mr. Smith. It is partiality. 

The Chairman. That is the objection. Of course, it is part of the 
union function to see that they are all treated alike. Is that correct ? 

Mr. Smith. That is right. 

The Chairman". I see that objection to it. But I see no objection 
if the company can afford to pay more, to pay more, and I can't see 
that you would oppose that. 

Senator Kennedy. Mr. Chairman? 

Senator Ervin. It would cause dissatisfaction with the union 
among the employees if people were paid different amounts for iden- 
tical work, wouldn't it ? 

Mr. Smith. Yes, sir. 

Senator Ervin. Just like if the United States Senate paid some 
Senators more than they did others. 

Mr. Smith. I think we could probably organize them, then. 

The Chairman. Senator Kennedy ? 

Senator Kennedy. The reason that you were disgusted, is that 
because during the organization you were giving the people the im- 
pression that they would get more in the contract, or was it because 
this contract was not comparable with other contracts for similar 
work that you had negotiated and were familiar with? Was it 
both of those reasons or one of them ? 

Mr. Smith. The first reason was in the way that it was handled, 
and then not having a chance to argue it out. I believe tliat the 
people out there would have probably been pretty well satisfied with 
this had they had an opportunity to sit in on collective barginmg 
and argue back and forth and have the company present their side 
and we present ours. 

That is what I had told them would be done. 

Senator Kennedy. IVhat about the details of the contract? How 
did it compare with other contracts for similar work and similar 
wage areas that you are familiar with ? 

Mr. Smith. Senator Kennedy, this is the first frozen foods— it is 
not the first, but it is the first that I have had anything to do with, 
and as far as I know, there is only one other frozen pie plant that 
is affiliated with our international union, and that is in Alabama. 



5884 IMPROPER ACTIVmES IN THE LABOR FIESLD 

Senator Kennedy. Is it customary in most of the contracts the 
bakers union has with the Continental Baking Co. to give them only 
1 week's vacation after a year ? 

Mr. Smith. Yes, sir ; I believe that is right. One week. 

Senator Kennedy. And six paid holidays ; is that right ? 

Mr. Smith. That is right. Incidentally, they were getting those 
already at Webster City. 

Senator Kennedy. In other words, then, your chief objection to 
the contract are these specific provisions that you have named deal- 
ing with seniority and so on? Those are not usually in contracts 
that you are familiar with. You had 2 objections (1) that it was 
not negotiated by the workers with the management, and (2) that it 
had these provisions in it that, in your opinion, were not necessary, 
that were undesirable from the point of view of the workers, and 
would not have been in a contract if the workers and you had nego- 
tiated the contract. Is that correct ? 

Mr. Smith. I would liave objected very strenuously. Whether 
they would have gotten in or not, I don't know. But I would have 
objected to them. 

Senator Kennedy. You have charge of the southern region? 

Mr. Smith. I was the organizer. 

Senator Kennedy. Do any other contracts that have been under 
your supervision as organizer or that you are familiar with have 
language about like section 4, like wage increases for merit or other 
reasons satisfactory to the company, or providing that the skills and 
abilities of the employees are equal? Is there that sort of language 
anywhere ? 

Mr. Smith. Well, Senator, section 4 is the first I had ever seen of 
that. The one on seniority usually has something about skills, but it 
also says skills and abilities being equal, seniority shall prevail, and 
usually there is some machinery setup to determine who shall deter- 
mine the skills. It can be made a grievance. 

Senator Kennedy. That is all. 

Mr. Kennedy. You had a meeting on this contract; did you? 

Mr. Smith. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And had you expressed your dissatisfaction with 
the terms of the contract to others of the employees ? 

Mr. Smith. We had the meeting on Sunday after I received the 
contract on Friday. 

Mr. Kennedy. Had you expressed, prior to the meeting, your dis- 
satisfaction with the contract to a number of individuals ? 

Mr. Smith. Not to any great number, because I hadn't contacted 
any great number. At the meeting, I only read the contract. I said 
"There it is. It is signed by George Stuart and George Faunce. It 
isn't what I think we should have." 

There was no discussion, as I remember it. I said "I would like 
a motion to accept it," and the motion was made and it was accepted. 

The Chairman. Part of it was never accepted ? 

Mr. Smith. The last part was never accepted. 

The Chairman. They never knew of it ? 

Mr. Smith. Not at that meeting, no, sir. 

The Chairman. They never knew of it before the}' ratified it? 

Mr. Smith. No, sir, not the last one. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 5885 

The Chaikman. Do you know when they learned about it ? 

Mr. Smith. No, sir. 

The Chaikman. Do you know whether they learned about it until 
now? 

Mr. Smith. Well, they have changed, I understand, that section in 
there. Kather, they haven't changed it but they have changed their 
method of handling incentive, and it was agreeable. They did — the 
company did — allow the people to discuss the way it was set up, and I 
think it was acceptable to the people. 

The Chairman. You felt like you couldn't read that last provision 
to them ? 

Mr. Smith. That is absolutely right. 

The Chaieman. You would have been embarrassed to have done so ? 

Mr. Smith. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Because you had assured them that that kind of a 
provision w^ouldn't be in the contract? 

Mr. Smith. Yes, sir. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. In addition, on top of all this, the employees had to 
pay their union dues, did they not ? 

Mr. Smith. We didn't start withholding, or getting checkoffs 
signed until — I believe the first one came out in March. I am not sure. 
February or March. 

Mr. Kennedy. Starting in February or March, the members had to 
pay what; $3.50? 

Mr. Smith. $3.50. 

Mr. KJENNEDY. $3.50 per month? 

Mr. Smith. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was there any initiation ? 

Mr. Smith. Part of the first $3.50 was the initiation fee. It was 
divided into a per capita tax to the international union, and the 
initiation fee. 

Mr. I^nnedy. So they paid the $3.50, and all they really got out of 
it was the 5 cents an hour increase for the first year? It was a 3-year 
contract. Did that surprise you that it was a 3-year contract? 

Mr. Smith. Yes, sir. 

Mr. I^nnedy. When you say you were disgusted and discouraged 
and almost blew your top, it was almost because of the terms of the 
contract, was it not ? 

Mr. Smith. The length of it. 

Mr. I^NNEDY. The terms of the contract and these 3 or 4 provi- 
sions that you have mentioned here today ? 

Mr. Smith. That is right. And the length of it. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. And the length of the contract. 

W^ould you describe this as a sweetheart contract? 

Mr. Smith. I don't know, I mean, it is not 

Mr. IvENNEDY. I think it puts you in a difficult spot as an employee 
of the bakers' union. But, nevertheless, according to your testimony, 
and adding your testimony up 

The Chairman. Do you want to use another word? Subnormal? 
Will that help you any ? 

Mr. Smith. I think it is not a good contract. Let's put it that way. 

The Chairman. Is there anything further ? 

Mr. Kennedy. That is all. 



5886 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. Smith. 

Call your next witness. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr, George Faunce. 

The Chairman. Will you be sworn, please? You do solemnly 
swear that the evidence you shall give before this Senate select com- 
mittee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so 
help you God ? 

Mr. Faunce. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF GEORGE FAUNCE, JK., ACCOMPANIED BY HIS 
COUNSEL, EOY M. ANDEESON AND THOMAS S. DAWSON 

Mr. Dawson. Mr. Chairman, yesterday I offered to file a statement 
from Mr. George Egger, the president of the old Morton Packing Co., 
and the man who is now in charge of the Morton Frozen Foods divi- 
sion of the Continental Baking Co. I was advised that it had to be in 
the form of an affidavit. 

The Chairman. That is correct. 

Mr. Dawson. I now have that same statement verified by Mr. 
Egger. I would like to offer it and put it into the record. 

The Chairman. You may submit it and we will examine it. By the 
time this witness concludes, we will pass upon it. 

Mr. Dawson. Also, Mr. Chairman, at this time I would like to 
request permission for Mr. Faunce to read that statement and a state- 
ment of his own at tliis time. 

The Chairman. First, state your name, place of business and resi- 
dence, and your occupation. 

Mr. Faunce. George Faunce, Jr. I reside at Rye, N. Y. I am vice 
president, general counsel, and a director of Continental Baking Co. 

The Chairman. You are a lawyer by profession ? 

Mr. Faunce. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. And you have counsel with you to represent you ? 

Mr. Faunce. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Counsel, I believe, identified themselves for the 
record yesterday. 

Mr. Faunce, They are representing the company. 

The Chairman. All right. Let the record show the same counsel 
appearing today. Tlie reporter has your names. 

I understand you submitted a statement yesterday and this morning 
you made some changes in it. 

Mr. Faunce. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. We would like to check it for just a moment. 

I see nothing in the first 2 pages of the statement. The staff has 
checked the others. You will be permitted to read the statement. 

This affidavit, is this identical with what you submitted yesterday 
in the form of a statement ? 

Mr, Dawson. It is. 

The Chairman. I see no objection to it being read. You may pro- 
ceed and read your statement first and then you may read the affidavit 
of Mr. Egger, 

Mr. Faunce. Senator McClellan, may I read Mr, Egger's first and 
then mine? 

The Chairman. If it makes any difference to you, you may. It 
doesn't make any difference to me. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 5887 

Mr. Faunce. This is a statement by George Eggers. 

I was president of Morton Packing Co. when the United Packinghouse Workers, 
CIO, attempted to organize the company's Webster City, Iowa, plant in 1955. 
I opposed this effort by the packinghouse workers union. My experience in 
the packing industry had convinced me that a contract with this union would 
endanger Morton Packing Co. and the jobs of some 300 persons employed by it. 

Our company was small and not too strong financially, and was in the rapidly 
growing and somewhat chaotic frozen-foods industry. Were our employees to 
join the United Packinghouse Workers, I feared the effect, at least, would 
be to hamper our continued expansion which depended on efficient production. 
I had heard that Labor Relations Associates had done very effective work in 
similar situations, and, consequently, contacted the head of that organization, 
Nathan Shefferman. 

It was arranged between us for representation by Labor Relations Associates 
on our behalf at Webster City to dissuade the workers in our plant there from 
joining the United Packinghouse Workers. When Morton Packing Co. acquired 
the Webster City plant in January 1955, it assumed all the obligations of the 
contract between the previous owners and the Amalgamated Meat Cutters Union, 
AFL, and, in fact, voluntarily improved its benefits. 

The NLRB later determined that this union no longer represented the Webster 
City plant's workers and permitted the United Packinghouse Workers Union 
to proceed with their attempt to organize the plant. An election was held in 
November 1955, and our employees voted against accepting the United Packing- 
house Workers as their representatives. 

Subsequent to the organizing attempt of the United Packinghouse Workers 
and the election, the assets of Morton Packing Co. were transferred to Conti- 
nental Baking Co. Recent newspaper reports erred in naming Morton Frozen 
Foods, Inc., which did not exist at the time Labor Relations Associates were 
retained. Morton Frozen Foods, Inc., was later created as a subsidiary of 
Continental Baking Co. and is now the Morton Frozen Foods division of that 
company. 

Our Webster City plant manager at the time of the United Packinghouse 
Workers organization was Keith Binns, who has been subpenaed by the com- 
mittee and who can supply details with which I am not familiar. 

That is signed by George E. Egger. 

(At this point Senator McClellan and Senator Curtis withdrew 
from the hearing room. ) 

Senator McNamara (presiding). Was this signed by Mr. Egger in 
the presence of this notary ? It doesn't have the usual notary form. 

Mr. Dawson. Yes. I know that it was. I was not present when it 
was signed. I called Mr. Egger in Philadelphia and told him that 
the statement had to be verified and to go before a notary public 
and verify it. He said that he did. It was sent back here. I am 
certain that that is true. 

Senator McNamara. Mr. Kennedy, do you have any objection to it? 

Mr. Kennedy. No . 

Senator McNamara. There is no objection to it being entered into 
the record. Without objection, it is so ordered. 

You may proceed with your statement. 

Mr. Faunce. Thank you. 

At the very outset I want to make it clear, beyond any possibility 
of doubt or misunderstanding, that Continental Baking Co. had 
nothing to do in any respect with the Morton Packing Co. in its oper- 
ations at Webster City, Iowa, or anywhere else, before December 1, 
1955. This was after the United Packinghouse Workers of America 
had been rejected by the Morton Packing Co. employees. 

This fact is of vital importance. Any testimony that connects Con- 
tinental with any part of the period during which the former Morton 

89330 — 57— pt. 15 9 



5888 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE: LABOR FIELD 

Packing Co. was opposing organization of its Webster City plant is 
erroneous. 

On December 1, 1955, Continental Baking Co. purchased all the as- 
sets of Morton Packing Co. These assets were immediately trans- 
ferred to a newly created subsidiary, Morton Frozen Foods, Inc. On 
October 1, 1956, Morton Frozen Foods, Inc., became the Morton Frozen 
Foods division of Continental Baking Co. 

This is the first chance afforded an officer of the Continental Bak- 
ing Co. to testify before this committee. I must refer to the fact that 
Senator John F. Kennedy, of this committee, yesterday made the as- 
sertion : 

I do not think there is any doubt but that the actions your company took in 
this case were unfair labor practices. 

Senator Kennedy. Mr. Faunce, at that point, I may have to leave 
before you finish. On page 135, Mr. Binns, your employee, manager 
of that company, stated yesterday in answer to a question I askd Mr. 
Binns, who works for Morton and, therefore, works for Continental : 

Do you not assume that Mr. Kitchin had some consultation with the governing 
officials, the responsible officials of Continental Baking about this matter? 

Mr. Binns. Yes, sir. 

Senator Kennedy. You do assume that? 

Mr. Binns. Yes, sir. 

Senator Kennedy. So you assume that, some place in the company, Mr. Kitchin 
talked with someone who had read the Taft-Hartley Act, who must have been 
familiar with the fact of whether the practices you were carrying out were un- 
fair labor practices or not? 

Mr. Binns. I would assume that. 

Senator Kennedy. In other words, we must assume that Mr. Kitchin, who 
supervised your action, was aware, and Continental Baking Co. was aware, that 
what they were doing were unfair labor practices? 

Mr. Binns. As far as I am concerned, yes. 

Senator Kennedy. I have no doubt that they were unfair labor practices. 

Your own employee, Mr. Binns, agreed with the same position. 

Mr. Faunce. Well, I disagree with him, and I disagree with you, if 
I may. 

(At this point Senator McClellan entered the hearing room.) 

Senator Kennedy. I agree that your company has no responsibility, 
as far as the efforts to keep out the United Packing. There is also 
the section of the Taft-Hartley which also prohibits any company 
from interfering in favor of any union. I don't think that there is 
any doubt that the Continental Baking Co. and its subsidiary, the 
Morton Co., did just that, and that that is an unfair labor practice. 
I also stated here at tliat time that this was a decision, however, that 
the National Labor Eelations Board had to meet, but there was noth- 
ing to prevent me from reaching my own conclusion, that you were 
guilty of an unfair labor practice. 

Mr. Faunce. The only point I want to make I will make with finish- 
ing this paragrapli. Whether this prejudgment is true can be prop- 
erly left to the National Labor Relations Board's regional office in 
Minneapolis, wdiere the matter is pending. 

Senator Kennedy. If you will remember, on that same page that I 
just read, I stated that the final decision must be reached by them. I 
stated my own. 

Mr. Faunce. I should like to make two basic points, if I may. 

The Chairman. All right. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 



5889 



Mr. Faunce. Wliether this prejudgment is true can be properly left 
to the National Labor Relations Board's regional office in Minneapo- 
lis, where the matter is pending. 

I should like to make two basic points regarding the labor relations 
of the Morton Frozen Foods division : 

Point 1 : Wlien Continental acquired the assets of Morton Packing 
Co. — and only then — the long-time policy of Continental, of recog- 
nizing and dealing with all unions representing its employees, became 
the policy of Morton Frozen Foods. 

Point 2 : Wages were raised. Rates paid compare favorably with 
wages in the industry generally and with wages paid persons doing 
similar work in the area. I submit a table with this statement which 
illustrates this fact, as a supplement to this statement. 

In the press as well as in public questioning, your committee counsel 
has implied improper motives for a sudden change in the Morton man- 
agement's attitude toward unions. He has neglected to make it clear 
that the management of the company itself had changed, that Morton 
Packing had one attitude and Continental Baking had another. Is it 
really so amazing that a company with 80 plants organized by a union 
should accept organization by that union in an 81st ? 

I would like to proceed to a chronology of the events on which I 
assume your committee would like to be informed. I shall be as brief 
as possible. 

Memorandum Supplementary to Statement of George Faunce, Jr., of 
Continental Baking Co. 



Comparison of wage rates paid ty Morton and other employers in the industry 

MORTON 




Notes 



Dec. 1, 1956: 

Female starting rate 
Male starting rate,. 

Aug. 17, 1957: 

Female 

Male 



After 30 days (incentive). 

After 90 days $1.09 plus incentive. 

This is for all production workers. 
Boning is stOl on incentive. Some 
nonproduction workers got an ad- 
justment of 5 cents an hour in lieu 
of incentive. 



BIRDSEYE (GENERAL FOODS)? 





Start 


Recent 

contract 

(1957) 


Notes 


Pocomoke, Md., Feb. 26, 1956: 

Female 

Male 


$1. 05 
1.08 


$1.14 
1.14 


AFL, Butcher Workers. 







SWANSON (CAMPBELL SOUP CO.) 



Fremont, Nebr.: 

Female 

Male 

Fayette vUle, Ark.: 

Female 

Male 



Start 



$1.05 
1.15 



1.02 
1.08 



60 days 



$1.15 
1.25 



1.12 
1.18 



Notes 



Nov. 5, 1956: AFL, Butcher Workers. 
Do. 



5890 



IMPRiOEEK ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 



Comparison of wage rates paid ty Morton and other employers in the industry — 

Continued 



PRODUCE DIVISION 





Start 


45 days 


90 days 


Notes 


Worthington, Mirm.: 

Female 


.$1.00 
1.125 


$1.03 
1. 175 


$1.12 
1.285 


Nov. 5, 1956: Teamsters. 


Male 









BANQUET CANNING 





Start 


Notes 


Bt. Jo.seph, Mo.: 

P'emale . 


$1.10 
1.15 


Nonunion 


Male 









SWANSON 





Start 


60 days 


Notes 


Omaha: 


$1.09 
1.29 

1.05 
1.15 

1.14 

1.14 


$1.19 
1.39 

1.15 
1.25 

1.14 
1.14 


Oct. 29, 1956: AFL-CIO, 

Nov. 5, 1956. 
AFL-CIO, Butchers. 

March 18, 1957. 


Butchers. 






Tecumseh, Nebr.: 

Female 




Male 




Salisbury, Md.: 

Female 




Male -- 









WAGES PAID AT POULTRY EVISCERATING PLANTS IN IOWA 





Start 


Notes 


Storm Lake 


VILAS, INC. 


$1.00 
1.10 

1.00 
1.10 

1.03 
1.05 

1.00 
1.00 

1.04 
1. 04-1. 10 


United Packing House Workers of 




America, CIO. 


Ellsworth: 
Female - 


ELLSWOETH TUBKEY CORP 


Nonunion. 


Male 




Carroll: 
Female. 


OCOMA FOODS 


W- 


Male 




Waverly: 
Female 


BREMER PACKING CO. 


('). 


Male. 




Esterville: 
Female 


PAUL GREY 


Nonunion. 


Male 











These plants have unions, but the name of the union was not stated. 

WAGES PAID BY COMPANIES OF COMPARABLE SIZE IN WEBSTER CITY 





Start 


60 days 


Notes 


NISSEN PACKING 


$1.00 
1.00 

1.10 












NORDEN INDUSTRIES 

Male . - 


$1.35 


Nonunion. 







IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 5891 

(At this point Senator Kennedy left the hearing room.) 
Mr. Faunce (reading) : 

Morton Frozen Foods division, at its plants in Webster City, Iowa, and 
Crozet, Va., produces frozen meat pies, cliicken and turkey pies and fruit pies. 
The division continues the business of the former Morton Packing Co. 

In June of 1955 the United Packinghouse Workers, CIO, had attempted to 
unionize the employees of Morton Packing Co. at Webster City. 

The president of Morton Packing Co. at that time was George E. Egger of 
Louisville. Mr. Egger, who was also Morton's largest stockholder, came to 
Continental with Morton. He continues to head the activities of that division. 

Mr. Egger has sent this committee a statement of his reasons for retaining 
Nathan Sheflfermau ; this occurred long before we entered the picture. 

The packinghouse workers' campaign was unsuccessful. Employees at the 
Webster City plant voted for no union in preference to the packinghouse 
workers. Continental was not involved in this election, as it had not then 
acquired Morton. 

When Coutiueutal did acquire the assets of Morton Packing Co., Mr. Sheffer- 
man was still on a $200-a-month retainer from Morton Packing Co. In addition 
to being vice president and general coun.sel of Continental Baking Co., I also 
supervise the company's labor relations. Without reference to Mr. Shefferman"s 
qualifications. I told Mr. Egger that I had my own staff. Mr. Egger proposed 
that Mr. Shefterman contiiuie as consultant to the Morton division for another 
year. 

Since Mr. Egger remained in general charge of the Morton division, and 
Morton was such a distinct unit of Continental's operations, I deferred to the 
request. Mr. Shefferman's retainer continued until last April, when he was 
finally notified that the arrangement was ended. 

To get back into chronological order, Mr. Shefferman, or members of his or- 
ganization, did perform one more task for the Morton Frozen Foods division — 
specifically, to undo some of his previous work. This was in the summer of 
1D56 when the Bakery and Confectionery Workers International Union was try- 
ing to organize the Webster City i)lant. 

The organization campaign of the bakery and confectionery workers — here- 
after I shall call it the B. and C, as it is known in the industry — began about 
May 14, 1956, when our company received a letter from James Cross, president 
of B. and C, claiming jurisdiction for his union over employees of the Webster 
City plant, and saying that they intended to try to organize. 

It should be pointed out that B. and C. had long since organized all but 1 
of the 80 bakeries of Continental outside the Morton Frozen Foods division. 
That one exception is a bakery in Indianapolis, organized by a CIO union. Al- 
though the first contract between Continental and the B. and C. union goes 
back half a century, the major organizing effort of B. and C. began about 1936. 
Relations have existed ever since between the company and the union under the 
leadership successively of Andrevs' Myrup, Herman Winter, William Schnitzler, 
and James Cross, as each became president of B. and C. 

As the National Labor Relations Board observed in a decision and order 
handed down on June 17, 1952 : 

"Continental's policy is to bargain collectively through local employer asso- 
ciations wherever possible, and to abide by the terms of agreements reached 
by such groups. * * * Employer associations of which Continental is a member 
have bargained on a multiemployer basis with various labor organizations for 
from 4 to 50 years." 

Furthermore, the contracts finally negotiated must be the same for all com- 
panies in the bargaining group. No one can obtain any preference over an- 
other. 

Continental has long recognized the right of its workers to organize. We 
have shunned any maneuvers to stall, obstruct, or prevent organization where 
it has been desired by our employees. AVe have not resorted to unnecessary 
labor board elections or other devices to delay recognition where we know the 
majority of our employees desired union representation. 

Ours has been a deliberately constructive policy, and we believe a successful 
one. This does not mean that the union and our company have not been in 
conflict on many issues. As an example, the quotation I have just read from 
the National Labor Relations Board's decision grew out of a very vigorous tight 
by the B. and C. union to compel Continental to bargain with it on a national, 
companywide, single-contract basis. In 1951 Continental defied a threat by tne 
B. and C. to strike 37 of its plants to force nationwide bargaining. t, , .-„ „ 

In 1952 the company obtained a decision from the National Labor Relations 
Board which rejected the union's demand for national, companywide Dargaming 



5892 IMPBOEEIR ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

and which sustained Continental's position that collective bargaining in the 
baking industry should continue along the historical and logical lines of local 
multiemployer bargaining. 

As a result of the Labor Board's decision, Continental continues with all 
other baking companies which, over the years, have bargained with the B. and C. 
and other craft unions on a locality or area group basis. Continental is only 
1 member of these groups which vary in size from 2 baking companies to 15 
baking companies in difterent marketing areas of the country. 

Under the rules which control this multiemployer bargaining, Continental 
is always bound by the decisions of the majority of the companies constituting 
any particular group. Continental, therefore, cannot and does not control the 
contract negotiations with the B. and C. or any other unions. 

Furthermore, the contract finally negotiated is the same for all of the com- 
panies in the group. In addition, while Continental is a large baking company, 
its volume represents less than 8 percent of the product of the entire baking 
industry, and the union's contracts with the rest of the industry most frequently 
sets the patterns Continental is required to follow. 

When the B. and C. began organizing the Morton employees in Webster City 
in 1956, they found the employees who had supported the company in its previous 
campaign opposing the packinghouse workers still resisting any union organi- 
zation. The packinghouse workers were no longer in the picture. As a matter 
of fact, there were no organizing activities by that union at Webster City from 
their defeat 1955 until sometime in 1957, after your committee began its current 
series of hearings. 

Local plant officials in Webster City knew, of course, that the new top man- 
agement would not resist unionization^ — -was, in fact, accustomed to collective 
bargaining. So the assistance of Mr. Shefferman, who was still on retainer to the 
Morton division, was enlisted to help correct the impression that jMorton was 
still antiunion. 

I have no direct knowledge or information regarding the Shefferman organ- 
ization's activities in Webster City. My only request to Mr. Shefferman was 
to indicate to employees that the new management was not going to resist 
unionization in a small plant in Webster City by a union which represented 
its production workers throughout the country. 

Thereafter, in late October or early November of 19.16, George Stuart, vice 
president of the B. and C, called and told me that a majority of the workers 
had signed B. and C. membership cards. I was satisfied to rely on this state- 
ment. A contract was signed on November 19, 1956. 

The contract benefits included : 

A 15-cents-an-hour average package increase for each worker : 
Plus the protection of a guaranteed wage rate in place of an uncertain 
incentive plan ; 

Plus a conti'actually guaranteed vacation of 2 weeks after 1 year, which 
is more than many contracts in the baking industry; 

Plus the translation into writing of many other benefits the workers 
earned over the years, but never before had in the security of an ironclad 
contract ; 

Plus the right to reopen negotiations for wage increases after 2 years, 
which could be iised for pension or health and welfare benefits. 

Of more concern to me and to the company right now are the absurd asser- 
tions going around that the arrangement v/ith B. and C. at Webster City is 
a so-called sweetheart contract. This term, which this committee has used 
in connection with these hearings seems, as far as I can ascertain, to mean a 
contract with these characteristics : 

1. The contract is signed with a "phony" union in order to keep bona fide 
unions out 

2. The conti'act carries substandard provisions, as compared with those 
granted other plants in the area or the industry. 

3. In return for granting such an advantageous contract, union officials are 
paid off. 

Let us match the Webster City contract with the B. and C. against these 
standards : 

1. There was no need for the Morton division to sign such a contract, since 
the packinghouse workers had been defeated in an NLRB election in 1955 and, 
in fact, did not reappear on the .scene until after this committee began its in- 
vestigations in 1957. Nor was there any other union on the scene at the time. 

2. Wage and other benefits of the Webster City contract, as set forth above, 
are by no means substandard. The site of the plant is a Midwest town of 8,000 
population and the wages paid at the Morton Frozen Foods division factory 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 5S93 

*S 

are going wages or a little better. They attract a good class of laljor in suffi- 
cient numbers to operate the plant efficiently. 

The hard fact is that on purely economic grounds a strong case could have 
been made for no wage increase. At the time this contract was signed, the 
industry had for many months been engaged in a bitter price war and the Morton 
division was operating deeply in the red. Indeed, the Webster City employees 
would not have received any increase at all if the B. and C. had not succeeded 
in organizing them. 

3. The insinuation that Continental has bought union favors is slanderous and 
unwarranted to the point of being ridiculous. Only total ignorance of the true 
bargaining situation of such a baking company as Continental, willful disregard 
for the truth, or both, could even nerve anyone to make such a statement. This 
is neither the fact in this nor any other instance. It is completely untrue. 

Webster City is 1 plant, employing only about 300 persons. Continental as 
a whole employs some 20,000 persons of which roughly 6,000 are represented by 
the B. and C. No company with 15,000 union employees would depart from a 
successful labor-relations policy to obtain an insignificant advantage in a con- 
tract with 2 percent of them. In the same NLRB decision and order that I 
previously quoted, the Board says : 

"Wages, hours, and working conditions for Continental employees have been 
fixed primarily not by Continental, but by the local area bargaining associations 
to which Continental belongs. Most of these associations make their decision 
by majority vote. Continental has always accepted the decision of the majority, 
even when outvoted." 

Our settlements and our strikes have been similar to all the bakers in the 
industry. In the past 6 years, the B. and C. has conducted 24 strikes against 
associations which include Continental. 

The company's relationships today with the B. and C. are exactly what they 
have been for at least the last 20 years. As an outgrowth of this relationship 
we have succeeded in establishing industrywide national pension and welfare 
funds into which the employers are now paying some $10 million a year. The 
administration of these funds, which your committee has scrutinized, is above 
reproach. By election of the industry members, I am a trustee and secretary of 
the boards of both these funds. James Cross, as union president, is chairman 
of both boards. 

Between meetings of the boards, the bylaws repose management and adminis- 
trative decisions in Mr. Cross and me. 

Gentlemen, I am here to answer your questions and help to the best of my 
ability and knowledge to develop all the facts. 

I thank you very mucli for your courtesy in permitting me to read 
this statement. 

The Chairman, I just noticed one thing here on the last page I 
would like to ask you about, and then I will let counsel proceed. 

As I recall, there was no mention of a welfare fund provision in 
this contract. 

Mr. Faunce. In this contract there is a provision that at the end 
of 2 years, wages shall be opened and discussed, and if conditions 
warrant, the increase can be put in wage rates, pension funds, or health 
and welfare fund as the union chooses. 

The Chairman. Mr. Faunce, there is no provision in here now. 
They are paying no pension or welfare fund. They are getting no 
benefit. They are not a part of such a contract. There is no pro- 
vision paid for it. You say in 2 years from now you will talk about 
it again, but that, of course, doesn't assure that it will be provided. 
Is that correct ? 

Mr. Faunce. That is correct. The company couldn't afford it. 

The Chairman. This company, the workers here, do not get the 
same benefits that the others are provided in any other contract, ap- 
parently. That is what appears to be the situation. 



5894 IMPROPER AcnvrTiES est the labor field 

Senator McNamara. I would like to ask for an interpretation of 
the phrase you use of "if conditions warrant." Is that in the judg- 
ment of the company ? 

Mr. Faunce. That is sitting down and discussing whether that com- 
pany is able then to afford financially a wage increase. 

In November 1956 it was in very bad shape from the point of view 
of profits. It is still in trouble. It may be in trouble in 1958 or may 
not. That is one of the circumstances which would be considered. 

Senator McNamara. Now you raise another question. Sitting down 
with whom ? 

Mr. Faunce. Sitting down with this union, this local union. 

Senator McNamara. The local union ? 

Mr. Faunce. The one wdth whom we have a contract. 

Senator McNa^iara. That will be a new day, because you have never 
sat down with them yet, even though you have a 3-year contract. 

Mr. Faunce. We didn't sit down with them in 1956. There was 
no local union. 

Senator McNamara. There was no local union because they had the 
signatures of the majority of the employees ? 

Mr. Faunce. That is right. 

Senator McNamara. There was or there wasn't? Which? You 
can't have it both ways. 

Mr. Faunce. I was informed that no local had actually been organ- 
ized. 

Senator McNamara. That suited your position at that time. That 
is for sure. 

]Mr. Kennedy. If there was no local, why did you sign a contract 
with the bakers' union ? 

Mr. Faunce. I signed a contract with the bakers' union because a 
demand had been made on us hj the B. and C. for jurisdiction in that 
plant. 

Mr. Kennedy. If you had no people out there, or no local that was 
in existence out there, why did you sign a contract ? 

Mr. Faunce. I was informecl that they had a majority. 

Mr. Kennedy. Don't you think that the people should make the 
choice, Mr. Faunce, and not you and Mr. Cross or you and Mr. Stuart? 

Mr. Faunce. I think that normally you make a contract with a 
miion leader. You don't make a contract with a mob of people. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is not a mob of people, Mr. Faunce. It is a 
group of people. It is no mob of people. It is people that were work- 
ing in one of your plants. 

Mr. Faunce. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. What do you mean it is a mob of people ? 

Mr. Faunce. They can only function through their leaders. 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes, and they had some leaders. They could have 
elected leaders out there, could they not ? 

Mr. Faunce. They could have. 
^ Mr. Kennedy. But you chose to do it with Mr. Cross. Is he a 
little bit above them ? Is that it ? Is that why you wanted to work 
with him ? 

Mr. Faunce. I don't know whether he is above them or not. 

Mr. Kennedy. Above the mob ? 

Mr. Faunce. He is above them officially. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 5895 

The Chairman. Mr. Faunce, the first paragraph of the contract 
itself says : 

This agreement is made and entered into between the Morton Frozen Foods, a 
division of the Continental Baking Co., Webster City, Iowa, hereinafter referred 
to as the company, and Webster City, Iowa, Baliers Local No. 449. 

Mr. Faunce. That apparently was the number of the local that was 
to be proposed to be created. 

The Chairman. Then they had a local ? 

Mr. Faunce. I don't know whether it was in existence at the time. 
They had a number. 

The Chairman. You always know whether something is in exist- 
ence before you make a contract. 

_ Mr. Faunce. I, as you know, signed the contract, and Mr. Stuart 
signed the contract on behalf of the local. 

The Chairman. Apparently it was just an arrangement between 
you and Mr. Stuart. The men down there, the working people, had 
nothing to do with it. They were not consulted. The contract was 
prepared and shipped down there to them, and they had to either take 
it or leave it. Apparently that was the situation they were in. This 
doesn't appear to me to be a negotiated contract between the local or 
the local's leaders and your company. 

Mr. Faunce. It was not. It was negotiated in another way. 

The Chairman. That is correct. 

Mr. Faunce, If you would like me to explain it, I will explain how 
it was negotiated. 

Senator Ervin. Let me see if I understand it. At the time that 
Morton Frozen Foods became a subsidiary of your company, Mr. 
Shefferman's agency was on retainer by the Morton Frozen Foods? 

Mr. Faunce. By the Morton Packing Co. 

Senator Ervin, And he was kept on retainer by the Morton Frozen 
Foods division after it became a subsidiary of your company ? _ 

Mr. Faunce. After I had suggested that his services be discon- 
tinued, and Mr. Egger asked me to keep him. I agreed. 

Senator Erven. He was employed specifically to make it very clear 
to the employees in Webster City that your company desired them 
to organize a local falling under the jurisdiction of the union headed 
by James Cross? 

Mr. Faunce. He was hired, as far as I am concerned, or sent there — 
I never hired him. He went to Webster City, as far as I am concerned, 
and the only conversation I ever had with him was to make sure that 
we didn't have a group of peoj)le in our company, now Continental 
Baking Co., as violently antiunion as I was led to believe they ^yere, 
from the top down. In that company, they were opposed to unions. 

In the interest of our long-term labor relations with the B. & C, I 
could see only trouble if we had a group of people where we were 
likely to get into fits with this union, which is a tough union and has 
struck us many times. I wished to avoid that. 

Senator Ervin. So in order to avoid that, Mr, Shefferman, acting 
on behalf of the subsidiary, undertook to persuade the employees m 
the Webster City plant to form a local which was to become a part of 
the international union headed bv James Cross ? ttt u i. 

Mr. Faunce, I only knew what Mr, Shefferman did in Webster 
City, or his agents, pursuant to my instructions, I have heard testi- 



5896 IMPROPER ACTIVrTIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 

mony that he signed up people. That was never contemplated for one 
instant in my instructions to him. 

Senator Ervin. Mr. Faunce, you did desire, as the labor-relations 
official of your company, you did desire that this subsidiary should be 
organized by the union headed by James Cross? 

Mr. Faunce. Let me put it this way. 

Senator Ervix. "Wait a minute. That question is clear. 

Mr. Fauxce. I did not desire that. I did not desire or want that our 
company should become involved in any struggles with the B. & C. in 
other localities in our bakeries because they found an antiunion atti- 
tude in that one plant. 

Senator Erm:x. Eead the question to Mr. Faunce. I believe that is 
a very simple question and can be answered very simply. 

(Question read.) 

Mr. Fauxce. I did not desire it. I felt that it was to the advantage 
of our labor-relations policy, nationwide over a long period of time, 
not to be involved in a fight with them. I wanted the minds of our 
people to be clear of antiunion prejudice. 

Senator ER^^x. Do you mean to tell this committee that you didn't 
desire to bring about something which you thought would be for the 
benefit of your company ? 

Mr. Faux'CE. It would have been for the benefit in the merchandis- 
ing sense because we were on scab lists. 

Senator Era^x. I am asking you the question if you, as the labor- 
relations official of 3^our company, in charge of labor relations, didn't 
desire that this subsidiary should be organized by the union with 
which you had been on other contracts. 

Mr. Faunce. I did not want to oppose it. 

Senator ER^^:x. Were you neutral? Were you tiying to tell this 
committee that you were neutral, that you neither desired it nor op- 
posed it ? You didn't want to oppose it ? 

Mr. Fauxce. I felt it was to the best interests of the company that 
we not get into any fights with this union because of antiunion atti- 
tude of our employees at Webster City. 

Senator EE\^x. This union had notified you, Mr. Cross notified you, 
that he wanted to organize the subsidiary, had he not ? 

Mr. Fauxce. That is right. 

Senator Ervix. Do you mean to tell me that you didn't desire that 
he do so ? 

Mr. Faun'ce. I did in the sense that I wanted to avoid future trou- 
bles in other plants. If you want me to use the word "desire," yes, in 
that sense. 

Senator Ervix. I am wondering why you are so reluctant to admit 
a self-evident proposition. 

Mr. Fauxce. Well 

Senator Ervix. Let's understand each other now, if we can. You, 
as the official of your company in charge of labor relations, did desire 
for this subsidiary to be organized by the international union headed 
by Mr. James Cross ? 

Mr. Fauxce. In order to avoid troubles in other places. 

Senator Er\t:x. Well, you desired it. 

Mr. Faux^ce. I would like to state my purposes for desiring it. I 
think I am entitled to that. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 5897 

Senator Ervin. You did desire it, though. 

Mr, Faunce. For that purpose. 

Senator Ervin, Yes. 

Mr. Faunce. All right. 

Senator Ervin. So Mr. Shefferman, or his agency, not only received 
a retainer of $200 from Morton Frozen Foods division of your com- 
pany, but they received other remuneration to send men down there 
to aid in bringing about this unionization, didn't they, by Mr. Cross' 
union ? 

Mr. Faunce. They were not, as far as I have any knowledge, sent 
down there for any such purpose. They w^ere sent, as far as I am 
concerned, to cure the minds of those people who the year before had 
become antiunion, to make them understand that our company is not 
antiunion. 

Senator Ervhst. Let me understand it. Are you telling the commit- 
tee that it was wholly immaterial to you, that you wanted Mr. Sheffer- 
man's agency just to make it clear to these people that your company 
wasn't opposed to unionization, and that it was immaterial to your 
company whether the United Packinghouse Workers Union or Mr. 
Cross' union or some other union organized them ? 

Mr. Faunce. My instructions to him and the purpose for which he 
went there, as far as I was concerned, was to let the employees know 
that the new boss w'as completely different in its treatment of labor 
unions than the old one. We did not want that frame of mind in any 
of our employees. 

Senator Ervin. And that you were perfectly neutral in your atti- 
tude toward all labor unions, and that the employees could join what- 
ever union they desired ? 

Mr. Faunce. That is right. 

Senator Ervin. And that you were not interested in Mr. Cross' 
union organizing them as distinguished from any other union? 

Mr. Faunce. Are you talking about my relations with Shefferman 
on this subject ? 

Senator Ervin. I am talking about what Shefferman w\as em- 
ployed for. He was employed, you say, to make it clear that there 
was no longer any opposition to unionization on the part of your 
company ? 

Mr. Faunce. That is right. 

Senator Erven. And you w^ish to tell the committee that your com- 
pany was entirely neutral in the matter and didn't care what miion 
organized them ? 

Mr. Faunce. Well, all other things being equal, obviously this com- 
pany is better off in dealing with all of its inside workers with a 
union with whom it has had these relations. Our theory of labor 
relations is not a cat and dog fight constantly. We think if we can 
know what other people think, and they know what we think, we can 
do better in our labor relations. We don't think we could do as well 
with a split all through our plants. 

Senator Er\t:n. I thought that was very obvious. That is tlie rea- 
son why it is rather unclear to me why you were reluctant to admit 
what is obvious, 

Mr. Faunce. I didn't know the basis of your asking. That is the 
fact. We may be wrong about our policy, but that is it. 



5898 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Ervin. The thing that was obvious to me, or the inference 
that I have drawn, is that your company was desirous of having this 
plant unionized by the international union headed by James Cross 
to the exclusion of any other union. 

Mr. Faunce. That union, regardless of who heads it. 

Senator Ervin. Well, it was this particular union. 

Mr. Faunce. It wouldn't make any difference who was the head 
of it, whether we desired to have it. 

Senator Er\t:n. I was using Mr. Cross' name rather than the letters 
B. and C. 

Mr. Faunce. O.K. 

Senator ER\^N. Your company was desirous of having the B. and C. 
organize this plant to the exchision of other unions, and to facilitate 
that, the Morton Frozen Foods division employed the Shefferman 
agents to come down there and assist in that undertaking; isn't that so? 

Mr. Faunce. I did not have any knowledge of any assistance being 
given in any way to the organizing effort by Sheff'erman. 

Senator Er\t:n. Your idea was that all that Mr. Shefferman was to 
do was to go down there and make it plain to these people that your 
company was not opposed to unionization and that they could do just 
exactly wliat they pleased and he was not to try to work for the benefit 
of one union over another? 

Mr. Faunce. That is exactly correct. "\Anien any group of people 
or employees, nonunion, believe that the boss doesn't want a union, 
they are very likely to go against you. We don't want that in our 
plants. We would like them to be neutral, but we don't want them 
to be the way they were when we bought this. 

Senator Ervin. That is all. 

Senator INIcNamara. Continuing that same line, on page 2 of your 
statement, the bottom part, the next to the last paragraph, there you 
raise a question. 

Is it really so amazing that a company with SO plants organized by a union 
should accept organization by that union in an 81st? 

I think the amazing part of this is that the same management of 
this Morton plant had hired the Shefferman Co., whatever their official 
title is, up to December 1, when you took it over, to prevent organiza- 
tion of the plant, and then when you took it over the job was to en- 
courage organization of the plant. I think that is the most amazing 
situation. 

Mr. Faunce. That was the job that Continental wanted done. The 
job that Morton Packing wanted done 

Senator McNamara. This is the job that your manager wanted 
done. You took over the management of this plant and you left the 
same man in charge who had hired this agency to see that the plant 
was nonunion ; you took him over with his labor relations policy, his 
labor relations agency, and you continued the same man as manager 
and you continued the same agency to do exactly the reverse. 

Before December 1 he was supposed to keep the plant unorganized. 
That was his job. That was what he was hired for. But the same 
manager who hired him to do that, after December 1, his job was then 
to sell organization of the union. 

Mr. Faunce. Because the company's policy had changed, and we 
wanted everybody in it from Egger on down to change. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 5899 

Senator McNamara. You raised the question of "Is it amazing?" 
To me it is really amazing, in answer to your question. 

The Chairman. Mr. Faunce, there is one other thing about the 
contract that I have observed. So as to make the record clear, we 
have now established definitely, I think, by your testimony, that there 
was a local union. No. 449, at the time this contract was made. I note 
it is signed Morton Frozen Foods, a division of Continental Baking 
Co., by Sidney G. Carpenter. 

Mr. Faunce. AVliat contract are you referring to, Senator ? 

The Chairman. I am sorry. 

Senator McNamara. Who did sign for the company, Mr. Chairman? 

The Chairman. There are two different signatures. The contract 
was first signed by George Stuart, international vice president, and 
then by Mr. Faunce. By you ; is that correct ? 

Mr. Faunce. That is correct. 

The Chairman. I was looking at this rider that was attached to it. 
That was signed on the 8th of March 1957. I notice it is signed by 
Mr. Carpenter, representing the Frozen Foods Co., and signed by 
Henry S. Alvino, vice president of Webster City, Iowa, Bakery Union, 
Local No. 449. He is not the vice president of that union, is he? 

Mr. Faunce. I don't know what his office is. 

The Chairiman. Isn't it true that he is vice president of the inter- 
national, and George Stuart's assistant ? 

Mr. Faunce. I don't know whether he is George Stuart's assistant 
or not. 

The Chairman. The point I am making is that apparently this local 
union was never really dealt with, but all of the dealings were with 
the international. That is one of the practices here 

Mr. Faunce. If you will permit me. Senator 

The Chairman. I am raising a question here for the record. You 
make a contract with a local union, but actually, in fact, you are mak- 
ing a contract with the representatives of the international. The 
local people in this instance, apparently, had nothing 

Mr. Faunce. Will you permit me to explain that ? 

The Chairman. Go right ahead. 

Mr. Faunce. You have Just mentioned a rider in March of 1957. 
Subsequent to that, there were two things done directly with the local 
union. A series of interpretations of this contract were made and 
agreed upon between the local management and the local union people 
about questions which had arisen in the administration of the contract 
which were bothering the people. 

They were adjusted, and I think there were 8 or 9 points that were 
cleared up on various interpretations. Also, subsequently, in August 
of 1957, there were direct discussions and negotiations at the local 
level, at which time the incentive plan was eliminated, and the benefits 
of the incentive plan were translated into the wage rate. That is 
necessary to complete the picture of the local as against top-level bar- 
gaining. 

The Chairman. You signed the original contract ? 

Mr. Faunce. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Did you ever negotiate with any officer or member 
of local 449 ? 

Mr. Faunce. No, sir, unless the people that I did were officers, and 
I don't know whether they were or not. 



5900 IMPROPER ACTIVmES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. So, actually, the contract was negotiated with the 
international. 

Mr. Faunce. That is correct. 

The Chairman. The local did not participate in the negotiations? 

Mr. Faunce. No, sir. 

The Chairman. And other than international officers, no member 
of that local participated in the negotiation of the contract with the 
company ? 

Mr. Faunce. But I understand they approved it. 

The Chairman. I understand that. I think we developed how they 
approved it. They approved only part of it. I believe part of the 
contract wasn't read to them. 

Mr. Faunce. Well, that was not the company's business. If Merle 
Smith didn't read the rest of it, that is his business. 

The Chairman. I understand. 

Senator McNamara. I have further questions, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. I thought we would recess at this point. 

T]ie committee will stand in recess until 2 o'clock. 

(Those present at time of recess: Senators McClellan, McNamara, 
andErvin.) 

(Whereupon, at 12:40 p. m., the select committee recessed, to 
reconvene at 2 p. m. the same day.) 

AFTERNOON SESSION 

The Chairman. The committee will be in order. 

(Members of the select committee present at the convening of the 
session were Senators McClellan and Ives. ) 

]Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Faunce, I wanted to ask you a few questions 
about this statement, prior to moving on to other things. 

TESTIMONY OF GEORGE FAUNCE, JE., ACCOMPANIED BY HIS COUN- 
SEL, ROY M. ANDERSON AND THOMAS S. DAWSON— Resumed 

I notice here on page 7 you state, giving a list of the benefits enumer- 
ated in the contract, "A 15-cent-an-hour average package increase for 
each worker." That is 15 cents an hour for the first year? 

Mr. Faunce. That comes from the 5-cent-an-hour increase which 
was given immediately, plus an average 10 cents translating the incen- 
tive plan. 

Mr. Kennedy. What do you mean by that ? 

Mr. Faunce. There is five for each year. Let me correct that. 
There is 5 cents for each year. 

Mr. Kennedy. Is that what you have in mind with this 15 cents? 

Mr. Faunce. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. So it is 15 cents an hour over a period of 3 years ? 

Mr. Faunce. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. I think that would have been rather an important 
addendum to place in here, in your summarizing what the benefits of 
the contract are. I think 15 cents for 3 years is different from 15 
cents for 1 year. 

Mr. Faunce. This is an average package increase. 

Mr. Kennedy. An average package increase for 3 years? I think 
it is pretty important. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 5901 

Mr. Faunce. Over the terms of the contract it was 15 cents an hour. 

Mr. Kennedy. You have here, "plus a contractually guaranteed 
vacation of 2 weeks after 1 year." 

Mr. Faunce. Well, in the vacation clause, there is a provision where 
you get 2 weeks. 

Mr. Kennedy. Would you read that to me, where it says that ? 

Mr. Faunce. They closed the plant, apparently, out there 2 weeks 
each year, 2 separate weeks, that is July and Christmas. A person who 
is qualified and has worked during the last 52-week period gets 40 
hours pay for each of those periods and that is 2 weeks. If you read 
at the top of page 4 of the contract, that is there. 

Mr. Kennedy. It says what ? 

Mr. Faunce. It is difficult to dig out, I agree with you, but there 
are 2 weeks that they close down their plant and that is the way they 
give their vacations. 

]\Ir. Kennedy. It does not say that. 

Mr. Faunce. Well, they do that. 

Mr. Kennedy. Well, it says : 

If at the end of the workweek immediately prior to the week of July 4, or 
Christmas week, the employee has received 40 pay checks during the last 52- 
week period, the employee will receive 40 hours of pay at his base rate, provided 
he has been on active duty for the last 52 weeks. 

It says he is to receive 40 hours or a week's vacation ? 

Mr. Faunce. He gets the equivalent of a week for each of those 2 
weeks that they close down, if he had been there for 1 year prior to 
those periods. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then it is admittedly confusing, but you say all em- 
ployees at Morton do get 2 weeks' vacation ? 

Mr. Faunce. I am informed they get 2 weeks' vacation after this 
period of 1 year's service. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, did you have a number of conversations with 
Mr. Cross regarding this contract ? 

Mr. Faunce. Some conversation, yes. 

Mr. Kennedy'. Where were those conversations held ? 

Mr. Faunce. My best recollection is that I saw him on this particu- 
lar contract in Washington. 

Mr. Kennedy. When was that ? 

Mr. Faunce. That was sometime in the fall of 1956. 

Mr. Kennedy. Have you known Mr. Cross for quite a long time ? 

Mr. Faunce. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Is he a friend of yours ? 

Mr. Faunce. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were you out at the convention that the bakers had i 

Mr. Faunce. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you discuss that matter out there ? 

Mr. Faunce. No. • , i • 

Mr. Kennedy. You did not discuss this contract with him ^ 

Mr. Faunce. No. . „ 

Mr. Kennedy. You were invited to speak to the bakers convention i 

Mr. Faunce. Yes, sir. , 

Mr. Kennedy. When they got into the difficulty out there or when 
this dispute came up between him and certain other officials ot tne 
bakers union, did you go down to the grand jury room i 



5902 IMPROPER ACTIYmES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Faunce. I went down to the anteroom of the grand jury. 

Mr. Kennedy. You were down there ? 

Mr. Faunce. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Cross requested you to come down ? 

Mr. Faunce. No ; I went of my own free will. 

Mr. Kennedy. You just wanted to see how Mr. Cross was making 
out? 

Mr. Faunce. I wanted to go down there and see him as a friend and 
I went down there and I spend about 20 minutes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did anybody else go there with you? Was there 
anybody else there with you ? 

iVIr. Faunce. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who else went with you ? 

Mr. Faunce. Theodore Kheel. 

Mr. Kennedy. What is his position ? 

Mr. Faunce. He advises our company on labor matters. 

Mr. Kennedy. He advises your company on labor matters and he 
also acts in the position of an arbitrator ? 

Mr. Faunce. Not for us, except for these two welfare funds, pension 
and welfare fund. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you have some difficulty on the west coast, in the 
so-called Thanksgiving Day strike that took place out on the west coast 
in 1956? 

Mr. Faunce. With the drivers union ; yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was Mr. Kheel out on that and did he go out on that ? 

Mr. Faunce. No ; he was out there because of the convention. He 
was attending the B. and C. convention. 

Mr. Kennedy. He did not have anything to do with that? 

Mr. Faunce. He had something to do with it ultimately, with the 
settlement of that strike. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were you able to settle that strike ? 

Mr. Faunce. We got injunctions in court and stopped the strike. 
It was settled ; it was stopped. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was there any discussion of Mr. Martin Segal at 
that time ? 

Mr. Faunce. On what subject ? 

Mr. Kennedy. In connection with that strike ? 

Mr. Faunce. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. There was not ? 

Mr. Faunce. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you withdraw Martin Segal or take action so 
that Martin Segal would no longer have the pension and welfare fund 
out there ? 

Mr. Faunce. You are about a year and a half behind. Martin Segal 
withdrew voluntarily from representing the San Francisco driver 
group, both employers and drivers and salesmen, in connection with 
their health ancl welfare fund to which he had been adviser, but that 
was about 3 months ago. 

Mr. Kennedy. Three months ago ? 

Mr. Faunce. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you suggest to him that he withdraw ? 

Mr. Faunce. I had nothing to do with it. 

Mr. Kennedy. Nothing to do with it ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 5903 

Mr. Faunce. Nothing whatsoever. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was he preparing to bring some charges against some 
individuals out there ; did you know ? 

Mr. Faunce. He had prepared a report which was submitted to 
the State insurance commissioner. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you suggest to him ever that he not make these 
charges ? 

Mr. Fatjnce. Never. 

Mr. Kennedy. You never did ? 

Mr. Faunce. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. You never discussed them with him ? 

Mr. Faunce. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. But you never suggested to him that he not do it ? 

Mr. Faunce. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Are those charges still in existence ? 

Mr. Faunce. I don't know what disposition has been made of them. 

Mr. Kennedy. But you never had any discussion about that? 

Mr. Faunce. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. That never played a part in the settling of the strike 
out there in California ? 

Mr. Faunce. Oh, no ; the strike was closed off last January. 

Mr. Kennedy. Have you been contacted by Mr. Herman Cooper 
within the last week or so ? 

Mr. Faunce. I had a conversation on the telephone with him last 
night and I said "Hello" to him and he said "Hello" to me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Prior to that ? 

Mr. Faunce. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Last week you were not contacted ? 

Mr. Faunce. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did he ever speak to you about the charges against 
Mr. Friedman ? 

Mr. Faunce. I don't know anything about charges against Mr. 
Friedman. 

Mr. Kennedy. You know nothing about the charges against Mr. 
Friedman ? 

Mr. Faunce. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. About the embezzlement of any fund or misuse of 
any fund ? 

Mr. Faunce. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. You never did ? 

Mr. Faunce. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. You do not know anj^thing about that ? 

Mr. Faunce. I don't know about any charges except what the em- 
ployers have made in Cleveland. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know anything about that ? 

Mr. Faunce. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did Mr. Cooper speak to you about that, the charges 
made by the employers ? 

Mr. Faunce. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did anybody from Mr. Cooper's office speak to you 
about those charges ? 

Mr. Faunce. No. 

89330 — 57 — pt. 15 10 



5904 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. No one talked to you about them ? 

Mr. Faunce. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did Mr. Cross speak to you about it ? 

Mr. Faunce. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were you ever requested and did you ever state to 
the employers group that they should wait until after Mr. Friedman 
had brought the group together for Mr. Cross; that is, wait after 
Thursday, or wait over the weekend before they brought those 
charges ? 

Mr. Faunce. That was considered, that the bringing of the charges 
was on Monday, and the local lawyer in Cleveland was to proceed the 
following Monday ; and whether he did or not I don't know. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was there a discussion about a delay in proceeding 
on that ? 

Mr. Faunce. There was a discussion among our own group. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wliat suggestion did you make at that time ? 

Mr. Faunce. I made the suggestion that they go ahead as con- 
templated and that the matter, if it went any further should proceed 
on the following Monday. 

Mr. Kennedy, Rather than what time? 

Mr. Faunce. The following Monday was the schedule as I remem- 
ber it. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wasn't there also discussion about proceeding im- 
mediately and didn't you say that it might be embarrassing to Mr. 
Cross if the host for this group out there, Mr. Friedman, was charged 
by the employers with this embezzlement of funds? 

Mr. Faunce. There was a discussion along that line. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wliy had you brought that subject up ? 

Mr. Faunce. What? 

Mr. Kennedy. Why did you discuss that and who approached you 
from the bakers union on that matter ? 

Mr. Faunce. Nobody approached me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Why did you think, or why were you in favor of 
putting it off until after Mr. Cross had his meeting ? 

Mr. Faunce. The whole group, the employers group was interested. 

Mr. Kennedy. ^Vho had talked to you about it ? 

Mr. Faunce. I talked to our lawyers and our employers group. 

Mr. Kennedy. And what lawyers did j^ou talk to about it ? 

Mr. Faunce. The firm name I haven't got here, the man's name is 
Hensil, I think, the lawyer in the firm. 

Mr. Kennedy. Whose lawyer is he ? 

Mr. Faunce. He represents the group of employers. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did anybody or any representative of the bakers 
union speak to you about that? 

Mr. Faunce. No, I don't remember any. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wliat is that ? 

Mr. Faunce, I don't remember any bakers union representatives 
speaking to me. 

Mr. Kennedy. It was just a week or two. 

Mr. Faunce. I would if they did. 

Mr. Kennedy. Nobody spoke to you? 

Mr. Faunce. No. 

Mr, Kennedy. No representative of the bakers union? 

Mr. Faunce. No. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 5905 

Mr. Kennedy. But there was discussion among the employers about 
putting this o& for a few days so it would not embarrass Mr. Cross? 

Mr. Faunce. There was. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you decided to do that? 

Mr. Faunce. That is right. 

Mr. Ivennedy. Tell me, is this a complete account, this statement 
that you have made ? 

Let me just see if I understand this other. There were charges by 
the employers against Mr. Friedman ; is that right ? 

Mr. Faunce. That is right. 

Mr. Ivennedy. And Mr. Friedman held what position ? 

Mr. Faunce. I understand he is an international vice president and 
also the business agent of the Bakery and Confectionery Workers local 
in Cleveland. 

Mr. Ivennedy. Now, Mr. Friedman is the one that called the con- 
ference of various bakers for Mr. Cross in Cleveland, Ohio ; isn't that 
right? 

Mr. Faunce. That is right. 

Mr. Ivennedy. And the meeting was to be held and the employers 
had these charges that they wanted to make against Mr. Friedman 
for the embezzlement of the welfare and pension funds ; is tliat right ? 

Mr. Faunce. That is correct. 

Mr. Ivennedy. And at that time it was discussed whether if this 
charge was brought and made public prior to the time of Mr. Fried- 
man's meeting of Cross supporters that it might be embarrassing to 
Mr. Cross ; isn't that right ? 

Mr. Faunce. There was a question of the effect of the proceedings ; 
that is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. It was decided at that time that you would put off 
bringing the charges until after this meeting and bring the charges 
after the meeting had been finished where Mr. Friedman was the 
host? 

Mr. Faunce. By our group and not by me. 

Mr. Ivennedy. What other employees were involved in that ? 

Mr. Faunce. There was the Ward Baking Co., General Baking Co. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wlio was representing the Ward Baking Co. there? 

Mr. Faunce. Locally, you mean ? 

Mr. Kennedy. At this meeting at which this decision was made. 

Mr, Faunce. There was no meeting, there were discussions over the 
telephone. 

Mr. Kennedy. And did you have discussions with people ? 

Mr. Faunce. Yes ; I did. 

Mr, Kennedy, Who did you discuss the matter with ? 

Mr. Faunce. Mr. Grean, Ward Baking Co. 

Mr. Kennedy. What is his position ? 

Mr. Faunce. He is in charge of labor relations, vice president. 

Mr. Kennedy. What did you say to him ? 

Mr. Faunce. We discussed the advisability of timing of this report. 

Mr. Kennedy, What did you suggest ? 

Mr, Faunce. I suggested "it would be filed on Monday. 

Mr. Kennedy. Rather than prior to the meeting? 

Mr, Faunce. That is right. 



5906 IMPROPER AcnvrriES est the labor field 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Grean agreed to go along? 

Mr. Faunce. He did. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who else did you telephone ? 

Mr. Faunce. I telephoned nobody else on that. 

Mr. Kennedy. Just Mr. Grean ? 

Mr. Faunce. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And then who was it that made the decision, Mr. 
Grean handled it from there ? 

Mr. Faunce. I don't know. 

Mr. Kennedy. How did you say, you said a decision was made. 

Mr. Faunce. It must have been made by others afterwards be- 
cause there were other people. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who would make it ? 

Mr. Faunce. National Biscuit Co. is in it, General Baking Co. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who represents the National Biscuit Co. ? 

Mr. Faunce. Their labor relations, the man, the head of it is a man 
named Harry Haggert. 

Mr. Kennedy. Is he the one who would make that decision? 

Mr. Faunce. He would be the normal one. 

Mr. Kennedy. "VYliat did you tell Mr. Grean to do? Was he to 
contact these other people ? 

Mr. Faunce. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. You told him to contact them ? 

Mr. Faunce. I suggested that. 

Mr. Kennedy. That he contact these other people? 

Mr. Faunce. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. And suggest that these charges be put off ? 

Mr. Faunce. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wlio else was in this group ? 

Mr. Faunce. Did I state General Baking Co. ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Who represents them ? 

Mr. Faunce. A man named Emile Libresco, L-i-b-r-e-s-c-o. 

Mr. Kennedy. ^^Hio else was contacted ? 

Mr. Faunce. I talked to Mr. Grean. 

Mr. Kennedy. And he was to contact all of these other employers. 
How many employers were there ? 

Mr. Faunce. Continental, Ward, General, National, and I think 
American Bakeries has a cake plant there. 

Mr. Kennedy. So those employers were contacted ? 

Mr. Faunce. I don't know whether they were or not. 

Mr. Kennedy. You told the lawyer to contact them. 

Mr. Faunce. I did not talk to the lawyer. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Grean, you suggested it to him? 

Mr. Faunce. What he did later, I don't know. 

Mr. Kennedy. You suggested to him that he contact these people. 

Mr, Faunce. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, is this statement that you read here, is that a 
complete chronology and account of your relationship with Mr. Nathan 
Shefferman? 

Mr. Faunce. It does not state each time that I saw him but it is 
a complete account of the nature of our relationship with him. 

Mr. Kennedy. But it does not get down to particulars. 

Mr. Faunce. It does not get down to meetings ; no. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 5907 

Mr. Kennedy. When did you first meet Mr. Nathan Shellernian? 

Mr. Faunce. I met him at a dinner, a hirge dinner given in New 
York City some 4 or 5 years ago for Dave Beck. 

Mr. Kennedy. For whom? 

Mr. Faunce. Dave Beck. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you see him much after that? 

Mr. Faunce. I did not see him again after that until November of 
1955. 

Mr. Kennedy. You saw him in November of 1955 ? 

Mr. Faunce. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. In what connection did you see him at that time? 

Mr. Faunce. The representatives of the Morton Packing Co. whom 
we had not yet acquired, phoned me and asked me if I would see them 
the next morning in my office in New York to discuss a situation on 
their labor matters that had arisen, inasmuch as we were under con- 
tract to purchase their assets on December 1. 

The representatives that came to my office the following morning, 
Mr. Dawson, I believe, and Mr. Kitchin, and Mr. Shefferman, and a 
Mr. Bachman, who I understand was from Mr. Shefferman's office. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Bachman? 

Mr. Faunce. I think that was the name, or Bauckman. 

Mr. Kennedy. You all met there ? 

Mr. Faunce. They came to my office. 

Mr. Kennedy. That was on November 7 ? 

Mr. Faunce. It may have been. 

Mr. Kennedy. Of 1955 ? 

Mr. Faunce. It could have been. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you discussed then what had been occurring 
at the plant ? 

Mr. Faunce. No, I was asked one question and they outlined to 
me that they had a department in their Webster City plant which had 
approximately 85 people in it and that department was pretty well 
filled up with antiunion sentiment. 

They proposed and said to me, "We propose to discharge those 
people the next Monday," and they wanted to know my opinion. I 
said that if I was asked that on behalf of any Continental plant who 
was going to do that, I would not have the slightest bit of hesitation 
in saying that was illegal and it was unfair and we would never think 
of doing it. It was my opinion and they accepted it. 

Mr. I^nnedy. Who was it that suggested that they might take that 
step? 

Mr. Faunce. They were considering it seriously. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who was it? 

Mr. Faunce. The management of that Morton Packing Co. 

Mr. I^NNEDY. Did you understand that Mr. Shefferman was their 
consultant ? 

Mr. Faunce. They explained that. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Shefferman was the one advising them? 

Mr. Faunce. Mr. Shefferman agreed with me 100 percent. 

Mr. Kennedy. He agreed with you? 

Mr. Faunce. He agreed with me. 

Mr Kennedy. I thought he was up there advismg them. 



5908 IMPROPER ACTIVITTES EST THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Faunce. They brought him along and this was a problem they 
were considering and they wanted to let us know what they were going 
to do and they wanted to get my judgment and I gave it to them. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. Then you say that this activity on the part of 
Morton Co. to discharge people was a company policy rather than 
a policy of Mr. Shefferman, as the other witnesses have testified? 

Mr. Faunce. Of the Morton Packing Co. and not Continental. 

Mr. Kennedy. But it was not Mr. Shefferman, it was the Morton 
Packing Co.? 

Mr. Faunce. He agreed with me. 

Mr. Kennedy. That they should not be discharged? 

Mr. Faunce. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you discuss the bringing of the bakers union 
in at that time? 

Mr. Faunce. No. 

Mr. Ivennedy. There was no discussion of the bakers union ? 

Mr. Faunce. None whatsoever. 

Mr. Kennedy. You are sure of that ? 

Mr. Faunce. Very. 

Mr. Kennedy. There was no discussion that bringing the bakers 
union in, you would be able to defeat the packinghouse workers and 
this report came to you at this time that you would be able to defeat 
the packinghouse workers but it might be advisable to bring the bakers 
in at a later time. 

Mr. Faunce. Mr. Kennedy, at that point I had no idea whatso- 
ever that the bakers union had any interest in or anything to do with 
the workers of the Morton Packing Co. 

Mr. Kennedy. Didn't Mr. Bachman at that meeting say to you 
if you took this action of bringing the bakers in, as you proposed to 
do, it would be an unfair labor practice ? 

Mr. Faunce. He did not and there was no discussion of the bakers 
union. 

Mr. Kennedy. He never said that at all ? 

Mr. Faunce. He did not. 

Mr. Kennedy. There was no discussion at all of the bakers union ? 

Mr. Faunce. Not in my presence and I did not know anything about 
their proposed activity, even, until along in the spring of the next year. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did j^ou know at that time what had been taking 
place at the Morton Co. regarding the efforts to keep the packinghouse 
workers out? 

Mr. Faunce. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. You did not ? 

Mr. Faunce. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. You just knew that they had planned to discharge 
85 people? 

Mr. Faunce. I learned for the first time that they were going to 
have a labor board election the following week, or 10 days, that is all 
I knew at that time. We knew nothing about the labor situation 
when we agreed to purchase their assets. 

Mr. Kennedy. And then when did you next meet with Mr. Sheffer- 
man? 

Mr. Faunce. I next met with him, to my best recollection, I had 
lunch in Chicago, sometime in the next year and later in the next year 
with his son, Mr. Shefferman. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 5909 

Mr. Kennedy. When was that approximately? 

Mr. Faunce. Somewhere in the fall of 1956. ' 

Mr. Kennedy. Did yon discuss the situation at the Morton Co. at 
that time ? 

Mr. Faunce. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. What did you decide ? 

Mr. Faunce. We did not decide anything. I told him wliat Con- 
tinental Baking Co. wished to accomplish in Webster Citv and that 
was to get the minds of the people in that plant in such shape that 
they would not be opposed to a union. 

The Chairman. Does that not mean that you were actually seeking 
to get them in the union ? 

Mr. Faunce. I don't think it does. 

The Chairman. You put it in a negative sense, but actually was it 
not a positive purpose ? 

Mr. Faunce. We did not want any possibility in the future of 
getting involved in a scrap with the Bakery and Confectionery Work- 
ers Union, which as you realize has a pretty large hold on us, by any 
opposition. 

We wanted to have that plant, the people in the plant know what 
their employer thought because the former employer had gotten them 
to the point where they wouldn't even, as I realize it, look at a union. 

The Chairman. I can appreciate that, but what it actually amounts 
to, after you acquired the plant you desired to get those people in the 
same union your other plants were in. That was the objective, was it 
not? 

Mr. Faunce. You can reach that as your conclusion and I am simply 
telling you what I told Mr. Shefferman. 

The Chairman. I know, but I am asking you. 

Mr. Faunce. I was not organizing. 

The Chairman. You did not want any other union to come in and 
organize that plant because all of your other plants were under the 
baker union ; is that not right ? 

Mr. Faunce. That is right. 

The Chairman. Is that not a fact ? 

Mr. Faunce. That is right. It is better for our company if the 
majority of the people want to join the B. and C. Union, all other 
things being equal, it is better for us, for us to have them than an- 
other union, clearly. 

The Chairman. So in order to make sure that you got the jump on 
the other unions, you simply used Mr. Shefferman to go down there, 
the same source that had opposed the organization of the plant 
some fcAV months before, or a year before, to go back and straighten 
it out so you could get them into this union. 

Mr. Faunce. Senator McClellan, the other union did not appear, 
or was not on the scene until this year. 

The Chairman. I understand "they did not appear. 

Mr. Faunce. They were not active and they were not organizing. 

The Chairman. They failed in their efforts. 

Mr. Faunce. Under the Labor Board rules, as I understand it, after 
losing an election they had a right to come back within 2 months before 
the anniversary date from their failure and again organize the plant. 

They were not around there until the summer of 1957. 



5910 IMPROPER ACTIVmEiS IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. I understand that. 

Mr. Faunce. We were not fighting another union. 

The Chaieman. You knew after that 10 months' time they did have 
a right to come back. 

Mr. Faunce. They did not come back. 

The Chairman. You say they did not because you stepped in there 
and organized them. 

Mr. Faunce. They were not organizing, and they never were 
around there. 

The Chairman. Well, I think we use a little different terms, but I 
think definitely you were wanting to get this group in, the same or- 
ganization. I am not saying I blame you for it, but I think we ought 
to just face the facts of it. 

Senator Ives. Before you leave that subject, did you finally have an 
election ? 

Mr. Faunce. No. 

Senator I^•ES. How do you know they wanted to get in ? 

Mr. Faunce. I was told that there had been an organizing effort 
and I knew the Bakery and Confectionery Workers Avere trying to 
organize them and I was ultimately told that there was a large majority 
who had signed cards. 

Senator Ives, ^^^lo told you that? 

Mr. Faunce. George Stuart. 

Senator Ives. "VYlio was he ? 

Mr. Faunce. He is their international officer, or was. 

Senator Ives. Of the bakers ? 

Mr. Faunce. Yes, sir. 

Senator Ives. Of the bakery union? 

]Mr. Faunce. Yes. 

Senator I\t:s. You were operating directly with the miion itself, 
were you not, in what you were trying to do ? 

Mr. Faunce. Yes, sir. 

Senator I\t:s. Thank you. 

Senator Ervin. May I ask a question along the same line. I am 
seeking a little light on the law now. 

I received the impression, and I was practicing law at the time the 
Taft-Hartley law was passed and I was under the impression from 
reading the decisions under the Wagner Act, that the employer was 
virtually deprived of the right to freedom of speech in matters of 
this kind. 

Then, the Taft-Hartley law undertook to give him some right of 
freedom of speech. Now, in other words, the Taft-Hartley law cer- 
tainly gives the employer the right to oppose the unionization of his 
plant as long as he bases his opposition upon reasons and does not 
resort to what can be construed to be threats. 

Mr. Faunce. Yes, sir. 

Senator Ervin. To what extent, if any, can an employer under the 
Taft-Hartley law in your judgment as a lawyer, go to bring about a 
favorable result of unionization effort ? 

In other words, he can oppose them by reason, we know, in unioni- 
zation of a plant. To what extent under the Taft-Hartley law do 
you think that he can go to encourage unionization of a plant? 

Mr. Faunce. As in this case, he could go to the employees and say 
that your present employer is organized completely, inside workers 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 59H 

and salesmen all over the United States, and that company has bouglit 
this company and we think it would be to your best interests, if you 
are interested in any unions, to join the union that is associated with 
this company, which is now the owner of your operation and your em- 
ployer. We were complete strangers, as employers, to those people, 
as thev were strangers to us from the time we bought tliem in Decem- 
ber of 1955. 

Senator Ervin. Is there any provision in tlie Taft-Hartley law, or 
any construction that has been placed on it, that would deny the em- 
ployer the same right to freedom of speech in advocating the unioni- 
zation of the plant as distinguished from opposing the unionization of 
the plant ? 

Does he have the same right of freedom of speech in your judg- 
ment? 

Mr. Faunce. In my judgment he would. I haven't followed any 
decisions, but in my judgment he has. He cannot discourage union- 
ization by threats. That is what I understand. 

Senator Ervin. That is all. Thank you. 

Senator Ives. Before you leave that subject, Mr. Faunce, I would 
like to ask a question. Don't you think a sounder and fairer way 
wouM have been to have held an election to find out how your em- 
ployees in that plant did feel on the subject? I wouldn't argue about 
your trying to persuade them to come in your direction. I will not 
argue about that at all. As far as I know, the Taft-Hartley Act is 
perfectly clear on that. You have a right to do that, just as much as 
you have a right to oppose a labor organization. But on the other 
hand, it seems to me that there ought to be some means by which the 
feelings of the employees themselves can be expressed, and the only 
way they can express them is through an election. You don't know if 
those employees, the majority of them, were in favor of that labor or- 
ganization or not, do you? All you have to guide by is what the 
union leaders told you. 

Mr. Faunce. The law, of course, does not require an election. 

Senator Ives. I understand that. I am not asking you that question. 

Mr. Faunce. I will answer your question in this way, if I may: 
Continental Baking Co., rightly or wrongly, in its long history of 
having been organized by unions, both teamsters and the bakery and 
confectionery workers union, has rarely asked for an election. I would 
say that not 10 percent of our labor unions that we deal with have 
be'en certified to by the Board. We have relied on cards. We have at 
times relied on statements, as I did in this case, of international 
organizers and officers, that they had the members. We have gone 
ahead to bargain with them. 

Senator Ives. I am not questioning any of your procedures along 
that line at all. I am asking you what you think about the idea of the 
workers themselves expressing themselves. You had no cards, did 
you, in this instance ? 

Mr. Faunce. They had cards there. 

Senator Ives. From how many? 

Mr. Faunce. From, I understand, 85 percent. It was testified to 
here this morning, by the man on the grounds. _ i • i *. 

Senator Ives. I am sorry, I wasn't here. I missed it. All right. 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Chairman ? 



5912 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. Senator Curtis. 

Senator Curtis. Who were the parties to this contract ? 

Mr. Faunce. The parties to the contract, as the contract reads, were 
local 449 and the Morton division of Continental Baking Co. Conti- 
nental Baking Co. was the corporate party. 

Senator Curtis. And the local union was the other party ? 

Mr. Faunce. Yes. 

Senator Curtis. How could you have a contract when one con- 
tracting party never is in on the negotiation, never ratijEies the con- 
tract, and has never even heard tlie contract read in its entirety? 

Mr. Faunce. The contract, as I understand this testimony, and it 
was not read in its entirety because Mr. Smith, who represented them, 
didn't read it to them. The company had nothing to do with that. 

Senator Curtis. How can principals to a contract be bound by a 
contract that is never presented to them ? 

Mr. Faunce. It was presented and it was ratified by them. 

Senator Curtis. No ; the testimony that we have here is that no one 
read the contract to them. I asked Mr. Smith. He told of the one 
part that he didn't read. I asked who read it, and he said "No one." 

Mr. Faunce. As I said, again, that was his business. It wasn't the 
company's business. 

Senator Curtis. If it is your contention that your contract is with 
the local union, it seems to me that the local union sJiould have some 
participation in the contract, in arriving at the agreement of the 
minds on what is in the contract. 

Mr. Faunce. They were offered the contract, all except that one 
short clause, and they agreed to accept it. Tliey ratified it. 

Senator Curtis. Yes; but if you pull out one clause out of a con- 
tract, that is no contract. 

Mr. Faunce. We did not do that. 

Senator Curtis. You have to read the contract in its entirety ; don't 
you ? 

]\Ir. Faunce. Mr. Smith did that. He represented the B. and C. 
If he did not read it, I do not know what the reason was. 

Senator Curtis. I am not singling out you in criticism. I am criti- 
cizing the system here where a local union, it is contended, is bound 
by a contract that they never entered into, never ratified, and never 
even heard it all read. That is all. 

Mr, Faunce. Maybe a lot could be said against the system, and 
there are legal questions as to whether there is really a contract. 

Mr. Faunce. That is the purpose of these hearings, to see if there 
are some legislative remedies that can be applied. 

Mr. Faunce. Surely. 

The Chairman. All right, Mr. Counsel. 

Mr. Kennedy. You took an active part in participation, Mr. 
Faunce. You made a contract with a man you knew was not repre- 
senting or was not a member of the local union. You knew George 
Stuart was a vice president of the bakers' union. You signed a con- 
tract with him. Certainly you are as much responsible as anyone else 
for the facts that the membership did not know what was going on in 
the signing of the contracts. 

Mr. Faunce. We are signing contracts currently in the baking in- 
dustry, with the B. and C, with international officials of that organi- 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 5913 

zation, and there is no local union member or business agent wlio signs 
them. 

Mr. Kennedy. Maybe that is the reason we should go into some of 
your other contracts. This happens to be the one that we are in now, 
and we find this has happened. 

Mr. Faunce. That might be a good idea. 

Mr. Kennedy. This may be an invitation to go into all of your other 
contracts. The fact that you did it this w^ay this time does not make it 
right. 

Mr. Faunce. If you come up with legislation that prohibits us with 
dealing with unions except on a local union basis, we would be very 
happy. ^ 

Mr. Kennedy. This was all done on a top level. I would like to 
ask you why it was that you selected Mr. Shefferman to go back in 
and talk to your employees. 

Mr. Faunce. Mr. Shefferman was on the payroll. He had not 
been discharged, as I wanted to have him discharged. 

Mr. Kennedy. You wanted him discharged ? 

Mr. Faunce. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Why didn't you discharge him ? 

Mr. Faunce. Because Mr. Egger asked me not to. 

Mr. Kennedy. You were the head of the company. 

Mr. Faunce. I was not head of the company. I am an adviser to 
the company in the department of labor relations. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was there a contract with Mr. Shefferman? 

Mr. Faunce. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. There was no contract? 

Mr. Faunce. It was month to month, as I understand it. 

Mr. Kennedy. So his services could have been dispensed with? 

Mr. Faunce. They could have been, yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. How much were yoa paying him? 

Mr. Faunce. $200 a month, I understand. 

Mr. Kennedy. The question still remains of why did you use Mr. 
Shefferman or his operatives to go back up there and talk to your 
employees. 

Mr. 'Faunce. The little I know about Mr. Shefferman and his labor 
relations service company was that they were competent, able, and 
apparently highly successful in explaining labor situations to em- 
ployees who didn't know too much about the thing. That is my 
understanding. 

Mr. Kennedy. He is a notorious union buster. 

Mr. Faunce. I didn't know that. 

Mr. Kennedy. You said you wanted to discharge him. "\A^iy did 
you want to discharge him ? 

Mr. Faunce. Because we had our own staff to handle labor rela- 
tions, and $200 a month is $200 a month. 

Mr. Kennedy. Why didn't you send one of your own staff up 

there ? j r i <■ 

Mr. Faunce. Because we were busy in other places and did not 

have the time to do it. i • i -p 

Mr. Kennedy. How much money do you think for the period ol 

time when he was up there and this was going on, how mucli money 

did the Continental Baking Co. pay in addition to the $200 a montn. 

Mr. Faunce. I don't know. 



5914 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES HvT THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. T^t me help you on that. 

IMr. Faunce. The local Louisville management knows that. 

Mr. Kennedy. Starting back in September 1956, there was $436.96. 
Then in October 1956, $3;037.86. For November, it was $1,100. So 
you "were paying well above the $200. If the only reason that you 
were keeping him on w^as because you were paying him $200, you could 
have sent somebody else up there and saved all this other money. 
You had to pay all of these additional sums, Mr. Faunce. 

Mr. Faunce. We kept him on. The decision to keep him on was 
made in January of 1956, shortly after we bought the company. 

Mr. Kennedy. But no contract except on a month-to-month basis? 

Mr. Faunce. Mr. Egger asked me to do it. Mr. Egger was manag- 
ing the day-to-day operations of that outfit. I was advising him on 
whatever labor relations he had. He preferred, for reasons of his 
own, and I don't know them, he apparently preferred to keep him on 
for another year, and T said all right, I would go along with it. 

Mr. Kennedy. You knew of his activities in connection with the 
Morton Co. prior to that time, didn't you ? 

Mr. Faunce. I knew only of his visit to me. I knew nothing about 
what he was doing for IMorton Packing Co., for them, in Webster City. 

Mr. Kennedy. You say, then, it was the Morton Co. that wanted him 
sent back up there, rather than you ? 

INfr. Faunce. No. Jointly. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who made the decision, who made the recommenda- 
tion, to Mr. Kitchin, wlio made the recommendation that Mr. Sheffer- 
man or his office employees be sent back up to the Morton Co. ? 

Mr. Faunce. Mr. Egger and I, after a conversation. I didn't sug- 
gest it. It was discussed in a phone conversation and that was the 
decision. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then you participated, certainly, in the decision of 
sending him back up there ? 

Mr. Faunce. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. If the only thing you wanted to accomplish was that 
these people would know that the company wasn't against the union, 
why wouldn't vou just make a speech to them or send out a bulletin to 
them? 

]Mr. Faunce. That has not proven very effective in labor relations, 
in my experience, just writing a bulletin or someone making a speech. 

IMr. Kennedy. You could get the local management to say : "We are 
against the union before, gentlemen, but now we are for a union. 
A-ud if you want to have a union, you can have it." 

Mr. Faunce. My only comment on that is that it is a little difficult 
for the boss himself to turn around that quick. They wouldn't have 
believed^him, that the new company was not antiunion. 

Mr. Kennedy. The new company could say the same thing, that 
the company had been sold, and that this was a prounion company, 
instead of getting Mr. Sherfferman's group to come back up there. 
Why didn't you just do that? 

Mr. Faunce. Do you quarrel with the fact that we, in our own judg- 
ment, used a man that we thought would be effective? That is his 
work. 

Mr. Kennedy. Senator McNamara said this morning "I think it is 
amazing, incredible." 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 5915 

Mr. Faunce. That is the work of Labor Rehitions Associates, the 
little I understand about it, to work with employees. Sometimes they 
keep them out of unions, and in some cases, not many, they tell them 
that they think they would be better off if they were in a union. Those 
are the simple facts in this case. 

Senator Ives. Mr. Chairman, may I butt in there ? 

Do you think as a matter of principle that that is good policy, 
Mr. Faunce ? 

Mr. Faunce. Good policy for Mr. Shefferman ? 

Senator Ives. For aiiybody, for Mr. Shefferman or anybody else, 
to advocate people going in to unions or staying out of unions, or 
something else, who purport to be an expert in the labor-relations field, 
going around the country and saying to this group "You can go into 
a union, it is all right for you to join a union," and saying to the 
next group, "You can't go into a union, you ought to stay out." 

What kind of labor relations are those? You come from Eye, do 
you? 

Mr. Faunce. Yes. 

Senator Ives. You and I are from the same State, and I dare say 
you know of my reputation on this point. 

Mr. Faunce. Surely. 

Senator Ives. I daresay more or less you agree with me. 

Mr. Faunce. I want to comment on the question that you asked. I 
don't think there is any question, really, of policy involved. 

Senator Ives. It is a matter of principle, I think. 

Mr. Faunce. Of principle, then. Here is a man who renders a 
service. He has people who are competent in talking to employees. 
One principal engages him — and after all, he is only the agent — who 
has a definite antiunion policy. Shefferman carries it out for him. 
In another company, the principal, the employer, has a totally dif- 
ferent policy. As I understand Shefferman's organization, they were 
equipped to talk to people either way. 

Senator Ives. It sounds to me like trying to carry water on both 
shoulders. 

Mr. Faunce. On whose part ? 

Senator Ives. On the part of the labor consultants. 

Mr. Faunce. Continental Baking Co. ;- 

Senator Ives. I am not talking about Continental. I am leaving you 
out of this principle. I am talking about the whole principle of 
Shefferman. I can't countenance anything like that, and I have had 
a lot to do with labor relations and matters of that type. I just can't 
conceive of any person being in the position that Shefferman has 
occupied. 

Mr. Faunce. I agree with you, but I know it happened. 

Mr. Kennedy. You did it. 

Mr. Faunce. I am not going to quarrel with it. He did it and 
there it is. 

Senator Ervin. The situation of the Shefferman agents reminds 
me of the story of the schoolteacher who applied to the school board 
for a job teaching geography back in the old days when half of the 
people believed that the world was flat and the other half believed it 
was round. There was a areat deal of controversy about it. Tlie 
chairman of the board asked this applicant for the teacher's job which 



5916 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

system he taught, whether he thought that the earth was round or 
that the earth was flat. He said that he used both systems, and he 
would just leave that up to the board. 

That is the way it is with Shefferman. He has arguments to prove 
that you ought to join a union and arguments to prove that you ought 
not to join a union. 

Mr. Faunce. That apparently was his business. 

The Chairman. All right, let's proceed. 

Senator Ervin. He blows hot if you want the hot breath blown 
and blows cold if you want the cold breath blown. He can approve 
or disapprove from either side of the conversation. 

The Chairman. Proceed, Mr. Counsel. 

Mr. Kennedy. What is Mr. Friedman's first name ? 

Mr. Faunce. Harvey. 

Mr. Kennedy. How much money was involved in the embezzle- 
ment ? 

Mr. Faunce. You use the term "embezzlement." I don't remem- 
ber any question of embezzlement. The question is there were, first, 
inordinately high payments of salaries to administrative officials of 
a local health and welfare fund. 

Mr. Kennedy. How much money was involved ? 

Mr. Faunce. In salaries ? 

Mr. Kennedy. How much money was involved that the employer* 
group was upset about ? 

Mr. Faunce. I have to finish. There also was a loan, I believe, of 
$15,000 that the welfare fund had made to Friedman's union, the 
union of which he was business agent. 

Mr. Ivennedy. Do 3^ou know how much money was involved alto- 
gether, which the employer group was upset about ? 

Mr. Faunce. Some $26,000 a year and high salary. About 19 
percent of income, when normally about 4 percent of income to a 
fund is for administrative amounts. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wliere were the charges to be brought ? 

Mr. Faunce. In Cleveland. 

Mr. Kennedy. In Cleveland ? In court ? 

Mr. Faunce. I don't know. It was left entirely to the lawyer. 
They have not been brought. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. ^Vliere did you understand they were going to be 
brought ? 

Mr. Faunce. In the court in Cleveland. 

Mr. Kennedy. In the court in Cleveland ? 

Mr. Faunce. Unless it was to be straightened out. The last I 
heard was that the letter was given to him with time to make repara- 
tions, and that is all I know. 

Mr. Kennedy. Restitution ? 

Mr. Faunce. Wliatever would satisfy the employers. 

The Chairman. Senator McNamara ? 

Senator McNamara. I would like to ask the witness just a couple 
of questions. 

On page 4 of your statement you refer to one exception, being in 
Indianapolis, a CIO union. How do you make a distinction now 
between the CIO and the AFL? We understand they are all the 
same. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 5917 

Mr. Faunce. We will not, as I understand, that particular local. 
It is in the united retail clerks or something foreign to the baking 
industry. But I don't believe they are part of the AFL locally. 

Senator McNamaka. Do you know what wages they pay ? 

Mr. Faunce. The same wages that are paid by the B. and C. organ- 
ized companies in Indianapolis. All the rest of the companies*^ are 
organized there by the bakery and confectionery. 

Senator McNamara. You have a plant in Detroit of the Con- 
tinental Baking Co. ? 

Mr. Faunce. Yes ; two plants. 

Senator McNamara. You furnished a list of wages paid at some 
of your plants. I don't see the Detroit plant here. Do you know the 
wages paid in Detroit ? 

Mr. Faunce. This schedule, sir, shows wages for people comparable 
to the Morton division at Webster City. These aren't bakery wages. 

Senator McNamara. But your plant in Iowa is a bakery workers 
plant? 

Mr. Faunce. We have 3 or 4 plants in Iowa, bakery plants. But 
nothing like this. 

Senator McNamara. So the bakery workers have your plant in 
Detroit, too ? 

Mr. Faunce. Yes. 

Senator McNamara. To that end they are the same. Do you know 
what the wages are in Detroit ? 

Mr. Faunce. I don't know, but they are on the high side, compared 
to the rest of the country. 

Senator McNamara. Considerably higher than this $1.14. 

Mr. Faunce. For a bakery, yes. We have no bakeries with rates 
of this type. This is another business. 

Senator McNamara. You do have in Iowa ? 

Mr. Faunce. Yes, but the rates for the bakeries in Iowa are higher 
than these. We can't compare these rates with the bakery rates. 
This is another business. 

Senator McNamara. But these are bakery workers, nevertheless. 
They do make the dough that goes around the pies and bake it and 
all that? 

Mr. Faunce. But they do a lot of other things more closely re- 
lated to the packing business. As a matter of fact, this Morton Pack- 
ing Co. was qualified under the Packers Act. It was more of a pack- 
ing company than a baking company. It is not a packing cornpany. 

Senator McNamara. In other words, what you are saying is that 
the proper union was the one you didn't want to have anything to do 
with, the packinghouse workers. 

Mr. Faunce. No. The bakery workers claim, that since there is 
a pie produced, they have the jurisdiction. 

Senator McNamara. I was trying to reason with you in that line, 
but you refute that. You say these people should have more reason- 
ably been compared with packinghouse workers. 

Mr. Faunce. I can't decide where they are going to end up in 
jurisdiction. 

Senator McNamara. No, but I was trying to get your position, so 
we could reason from there. Up to now in your testimony you said 
these people should be in the bakery workers. You wanted them in 



5918 IMPROPER ACTIVmES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

there because the present dominance of your employees are in that 
category. 

Mr. Fatjnce. That is right. 

Senator McNamara. Now in answer to my question you say, "But 
these people don't belong in that category." I want to get the proper 
basis. 

Mr. Faunce. I don't say that they belong in any category. I know 
that the attempt was going to be made, and seriously, to organize 
them. 

Senator McNamara. I don't know how we got into this difference 
if you didn't say it. Surely I didn't say it. 

Mr. Faunce. That is right. 

Senator McNamara. You have bakery workers in this plant and 
you have bakery workers in the plant in Indianapolis and in Michi- 
gan as well, in the Detroit area. 

Mr. Faunce. That is right. 

Senator McNamara. There is considerable difference in the wages. 
Incidentally, I think you did a good job on this compilation of wages 
in the industry. I don't know why you didn't put it into the record. 
I think it is interesting. 

Mr. Faunce. I think the most interesting part is the comparison 
with the viscerating employees in Ohio who do the same kind of work. 

Senator McNamara. The same kind of work, did you say ? 

Mr. Faunce. The viscerating plant, some of these chicken plants. 

Senator McNamara. I wouldn't disagree with you more. One 
makes pies, they use dough, and they make it and put this filling in, 
whether it is fruit or meat, and this is so different than pulling the 
innards out of chickens that I don't know how you could find them 
comparable, really. 

That is all. 

The Chairman. This statement will be ordered printed in the record 
at the point where the witness referred to it this morning. I thought 
you placed it in the record. 

Mr. Faunce. I did, by reference. 

The Chairman. It may be printed in the record. 

Is there anything further ? 

Call the next witness. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Theodore Hufert. 

The Chairman. You do solemnly swear that the evidence you shall 
give before this Senate Select Committee will be the truth, the whole 
truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God ? 

Mr. Hufert. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF THEODORE HUFERT, ACCOMPANIED BY HIS 
COUNSEL, PETER R. NEHEMKIS, JR. 

The Chairman. Mr. Hufert, state your name, your place of resi- 
dence, and business or occupation. 

Mr. Hufert. Theodore Hufert, 601 King Avenue, Marion, Ohio. 
I am the director of industrial relations for the Marion division of 
Whirlpool Corp. 

Mr. Chairman, this is Mr. Peter Nehemkis of this city, counsel for 
Whirlpool. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 5919 

Mr. Nehemkis. Mr. Chairman, may it please the committee : Before 
the witness is interrogated, I would ask leave to make a brief request. 

The Chairman. You may state it. 

Mr. Nehemkis. Mr. Glen Evans, the former general manager of the 
Marion division, whose activities you have under study here tliis after- 
noon, is here pursuant to the subpena of this committee. I have been 
informed by Mr, Salinger that his appearance is not desired. I Avould 
respectfully ask that he be permitted to appear before the committee, 
that he be sworn, and that he join us here at this table and present such 
facts as are within his knowledge to assist the committee in its study 
of this particular problem. 

The Chairman. What is his name ? Mr. Evans ? 

Mr. Nehemkis. Mr. Glen Evans. 

The Chairman. He can come and sit there for the present right 
behind you. If we find we need him in connection with this testimony, 
he will be sworn. If not, at the conclusion of this witness, if he 
desires to make a statement, if he is involved in the matter in any way, 
we will hear him. 

Mr. Nehemkis. Thank you, sir. 

The Chairman. Mr. Hufert, I believe you stated your address and 
identified yourself. 

Mr. Hufert. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. You have no prepared statement? 

Mr. Hufert. I do not, sir. 

The Chairman. Mr. Counsel, you may proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. What is your present position, Mr. Hufert? 

Mr. Hufert. I am the director of industrial relations at the Marion 
division of Whirlpool. 

Mr. Kennedy. How long have you held that position ? 

Mr. Hufert. I have held that position since May of 1955. 

Mr. Kjinnedy. How long has Whirlpool had that plant? 

Mr. Hufert, Since May of 1955. 

Mr. Kennedy. So you came in there at that time ? 

Mr. Hufert. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. What does the Wliirlpool plant at Marion manu- 
facture ? 

Mr. Hufert. We produce electric and gas domestic driers. 

Mr. Kennedy. Driers? 

Mr. Hufert. Driers. 

(At this point Senator McClellan withdrew from the hearing 
room. ) 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you supply Sears, Koebuck Co. ? 

Mr. Hufert. We do. We build both the KCA AA^nrlpool and the 
Kenmore driers at that plant. 

Mr. Kennedy. And do they go exclusively to Sears ? . 

Mr. Hufert. The Kenmore driers go to Sears. The EGA \\ liirl- 
pool, of course, are marketed through our own distributors. 

Mr. Kennedy. Would you repeat that, please, the second ^ 

Mr. Hufert. The RCA TV^iirlpool driers are distributed througli 
the RCA Wliirlpool distributors, not a function of Sears, 

Mr. Kennedy. But the other drier goes through bears, does it ? 

Mr. Hufert. The Kenmore drier, yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Is that exclusively through Sears? 

89330 — 57— pt. 15 11 



5920 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Htxfert. The Kenmore ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. 

Mr, HuFERT. Yes, it is. 

Mr. Kennedy. In 1955 was there an organizational drive started 
in your plant, in Marion ? Was there a union organizational drive ? 

Mr. HuFERT. No, not an organizational drive as such at that time. 

Mr. Kennedy. What was going on there as far as the union ? 

Mr. HuFERT. At the time we took over the plant in 1955, there was 
a letter from the UAW-CIO, suggesting representation on the basis 
of a successor clause through our predecessor plant. 

Mr. Kennedy. And what did you feel about that? What did the 
company decide to do about it ? 

Mr. iluFERT. Tlie company felt that tlie successor clause was not 
applicable; that we were buying the building and the property, the 
equipment, the business, and all other items were not purchased by 
Whirlpool. 

Mr. Kennedy. So did you decide to oppose the joining up with the 
TJAW, or sign a contract with the UAW? 

Mr. HuFERT. I don't believe, Mr. Kennedy, that I would word it 
in just that language. To the best of my knowledge and memory, we 
had the one letter suggesting the continuance of the UAW repre- 
sentation. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did the UAW-CIO then begin a more active role 
at Marion ? 

Mr. HuFERT. In some time in July of 1955 they sent us a letter 
requesting a meeting to bargain a contract. 

Mr. Kennedy. And did you meet with them at that time ? 

Mr, HuFERT. We did not. 

Mr, Kennedy. You did not. Did you take any other steps? 

Mr. HuFERT. 'No. We took no other steps. There was shortly after 
that, I believe some time in August of 1955, an NLRB charge of 
refusal to bargain issued by the UAW-CIO. 

Mr, Kennedy, Had you retained the services of ]\Ir, Shefferman by 
that time ? 

Mr. Hufert, We had retained — the services of IMr, Shefferman in 
our plant were on a per diem basis. The first representative from the 
Shefferman organization was in our plant, to the best of my memory, 
in the early part of August of 1955, perhaps the 10th, 12th, perhaps 
even the 15th. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was that shortly after you received the letter from 
the UAW-CIO? 

Mr. HtjFert. I think it was prior to. 

Mr. Kennedy. I thought you said vou received a letter in July of 
1955. 

Mr. Hufert. I am sorry, Mr. Kennedy. We did have the letter in 
July. The petition to the NLRB was in August. 

(At this point Senator IMcClellan returned to the hearing room.) 

Mr. Kennedy. After you received the letter, then you retained the 
services of Mr, Shefferman ? 

Mr, Hufert, Sincerely, Mr, Kennedy, the two are unrelated, I 
mean that, 

Mr, Kennedy. All right. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 5921 

In July of 1955 you received a letter from the UAW-CIO ; in early 
August of 1955 the services of Mr. Shefferman were retained. Is that 
right ? 

Mr. HuFERT. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Our records show that the representatives of Mr. 
Shefferman arrived in Marion, Ohio, on xlugust 8, 1955. Would that 
be approximately correct ? 

Mr. HuFERT. I couldn't argue the date. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who had the discussions with Mr. Shefferman re- 
garding the sending down of a representative ? 

Mr. Hufert. I believe on or about the 15th of July of 1955, Mr. 
Glen Evans, the general manager of the division, received a teleplione 
call from a Mr. William Fowler, who was the administrator of indus- 
trial relations of the corporation located at the St. Joseph office, 
Michigan. He suggested that we might come to St. Joe to discuss 
some personnel procedures. 

I might point out, Mr. Kennedy, that we were at this moment, as 
I am sure you know, starting up a brandnew division. We had a 
mere handful of people, a basic task force, as such. In the personnel 
department, in addition to myself, there was one man and a stenog- 
rapher. We were quite anxious to get some assistance in the field 
primarily of interviewing and selection of new employees. We we.re 
just going into some volume hiring, or at least on a relative basis. 

Mr. Kennedy. At whose suggestion was it that Mr. Shefferman 
came down to assist you ? 

Mr. Hufert. Mr. William Fowler of the corporate office was the 
one that called us. 

Mr. Kennedy. Had Whirlpool used Mr. Shefferman before this? 

Mr. Hufert. They had. They had used him, to the best of my 
knowledge, as far back as 1946. 

Mr. Kennedy. So, they had been using the services of Mr. Sheffer- 
man for some period of time ? 

Mr. Hufert. I believe so. They used him both at St. Joseph and 
La Porte, Ind., plants, v/ithin my memory. 

Mr. Kennedy. So, some representatives from his office came down to 
Marion ? 

Mr. Hufert. That is true. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who came down ? 

Mr. Hufert. A Harry Miller and a Dr. Checov. 

Mr. Kennedy. Dr. Checov ? 

Mr. Hufert. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. How do you spell his name ? 

Mr. Hufert. I think it is C-h-e-c-k-o-v. 

Mr. Kennedy. He came down in early August of 1955. "WTiat 
was he doing ? What were his functions there ? 

Mr. Hufert. Dr. Checov 's ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. 

Mr. Hufert. Dr. Checov was introduced to us as an industrial 
psychologist. I believe he had his doctorate in industrial psychology. 
Dr. Checov had devised and copyrighted, I believe, a test form— not 
an unusual test form, really, though I think it is one of the more com- 
mon tools in industry — which w^asa word form, a brief form. I think 
it was called the adaptability scale. 



5922 IMPROPER ACnVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. The adaptability scale. 

Mr. HuFERT. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was it also called the human-equation test? 

Mr. HuFERT. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. It had both names ? 

Mr. HuFERT. I think the name of his copyrighting organization 
was Human Equation, Inc. 

Mr. Kennedy. And he came down to introduce the liuman-equation 
test at the Whirlpool Co. in Marion ? 

Mr. HuFERT. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. So, did he start interviewing your employees? 

Mr. HuFERT. Yes. In addition, let me explain this, Mr. Kennedy : 
Mr. Miller was to assist us in a group-interview program in which 
we could interview prospective applicants, 8, 10, 12 at a time. Mr. 
Miller was only with us, I would believe, about 2 or 3 or, possibly, 4 
weeks. 

Mr. Kennedy. During this period of time when he was applying his 
human-equation test, was he also trying to learn whether the em- 
ployees were going to be for or against the union ? 

Mr. HuFERT. I do not believe so. 

Mr. Ejennedy. You do not believe so ? 

Mr. HuFERT. I do not believe so. 

Mr. Kennedy. He wasn't making any report to you of that ? 

Mr. HuFERT. No, sir ; definitely not. 

Mr. Kennedy. What were the results of the test going to show? 

Mr. HuFERT. This test had several results, primarily in the person- 
ality factors, as I remember them, and I am sure there are more, of 
emotional flexibility, adaptability, promotional potentials, ability to 
accept direction. I think these are some, perhaps half, of the items 
that might be indicated. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wliat was Mr. Miller ? Did he have a test, too ? 

Mr. Hufert. No; Mr. Miller was the proponent — and this, again, 
is not a new function in industry — of the group interview. He con- 
ducted a few of the first group interviews for us. Our own staff, in 
the very near future, then developed and conducted those interviews 
themselves. 

Mr. KJENNEDY. Did they make reports to you, Mr. Checov, regard- 
ing his human-equation test, and Mr. Miller regarding his group 
interviews ? 

Mr. HtJFERT. A generalization, surely. 

Mr. KJENNEDY. Do you have some written reports that they made ? 

Mr. Hufert. Written reports ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Written reports. 

Mr. Hufert. No, sir ; nothing other than the test results themselves. 

Mr. Kennedy. Have you got those ? 

Mr. Hufert. I do not. I think I gave your investigator, Mr. 
Sheridan, a copy of one. 

Mr. Kennedy. A copy of the results of the test ? 

Mr. Hufert. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. What would they show, foi- instance, tlie tests? 

Mr. Hufert. The points tliat I had mentioned there, and others, 
and would show a gradation witliin those areas. For example, flexi- 
bility ; as a neAY organization, we were, I think, a forerunner in tliat 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 5923 

area of mass production, as such. We were quite interested in haviiif,' 
on our assembly lines young men who were very flexible and adapt- 
able to the speed of the units going by. They must be particularly 
flexible. That was a basic that we needed. We needed the emotional 
stability. So, it had a range, as I remember it, from poor to good in 
each of these areas. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you were just trying to find out whether they 
were flexible. There was no interest to find out whether they were 
proorganized or antiorganized labor ? 

Mr. HuFERT. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. How many employees did you have at that time? 

Mr. HuFERT. Well, at that time, we had just the basic salaried 
groups, the administrative groups. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was he also interviewing prospective employees? 

Mr. HuEERT. Not as yet. We started when they came on the scene. 
At that time, Mr. Kennedy, we started hiring our maintenance labor 
and maintenance mechanics. I think in that first gi'oup, the first 2 or 
3 w^eeks in the latter part of August, we possibly hired only 30 or 35, 
certainly not over 40 employees. 

Mr. Kennedy. And there was no attempt at that time, for the new 
employees, to find out whether they were for or against the union? 

Mr. HuFERT. Mr. Kenned}^, it would have been very easy, and is 
very easy, in a town the size of Marion, with the industries that are 
in that town, to have quickly determined whether or not a man has 
been a member of a union. The other firms — the application in itself 
would indicate where he had worked. We would know, of course, 
what union was in those plants. 

Mr. Kennedy. How long did Mr. Checov stay there, or remain 
there ? 

Mr. HuFERT. We dismissed Mr. Checov, I believe, the latter part of 
February or early March 1956. 

Mr. Kennedy. He came down in August, and he was making this 
study. Did it take all this period of time to make the study? 

Mr. HuFERT. Well, he couldn't — apparently I haven't made myself 
clear. Perhaps if I do it in this fashion, it would be better. 

As an applicant came into our personnel office, he was given an 
application form, normally, and also a copy of the adaptability scale. 
He completed both. He would then, in these present — in these preli- 
minary days, we used the group interview technique. We took the 
group of 8, 10, or 12 into the conference room, and discussed the 
job operations and some of the functions. The test forms that had 
been given to us by Dr. Checov we then referred back to him for grad- 
ing. That continued until the time we dismissed Dr. Checov. 

•Mr. Kennedy. So he remained performing this kind of function, 
having nothing to do with whether the employees were for or against 
the union ? He remained in that position with this human equation 
test, and making these reports to you, for about 7 or 8 months ? 

Mr. HuFERT. I think it was about 5 to 6 months. 

Mr. Kennedy. Five to six months ? 

Mr. HuFERT. And, too, Mr. Kennedy, after Mr. Miller left— this 
was perhaps 2, 3, or 4 weeks from that early August date— he also 
assisted in this group interviewing program. 

Mr. Kennedy. He did do that ? 

Mr. HuFERT. Yes. 



5924 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. Did he have to entertain them ? 

Mr. HuFERT. The employees ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. 

Mr. HuFERT. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. That wouldn't be necessary ? 

Mr. HuFERT. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. While he was having the group interview, he 
wouldn't have to entertain them ? 

Mr. HuFERT. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was there a spontaneous emploj^ees' committee, and 
did that spring up there while Mr. Checov was in town ? 

Mr. Hufert. At some later time, Mr. Kennedy, we heard that 1 
employee formed such a committee, and to the best of my knowledge 
that committee consisted of 3 or possibly 4 other persons. 

I might point out to you that the three other persons were weekly 
salaried employees that would not have been subject to a bargaining 
unit. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did Mr. Checov have anything to do with the 
formation of this committee? 

Mr. Hufert. To the extent that he had become friendly with this 
one employee. 

Mr. Kennedy. What was this one employee's name '? 

Mr. Hufert. Mr. Charles Litell. 

Mr. Ivennedy. And he had assisted Mr. Litell, had he '? 

Mr. Hufert. No, I don't believe I could say that. If I may answer 
your question in this way, I did not become aware that he knew Mr. 
Litell until sometime in the late fall or winter of 1955. I think my 
first real knowledge that he was seeing Mr. Litell was the fact that 
around Christmastime I received a call from Dr. Checov at my home, 
and the call was from Chicago, and it was at 5 a. m. in the morning 
and I remember that distinctly and it was around Christmastime, 
suggesting that I place Mr. Litell in a position as personnel inter- 
viewer in my department. 

Mr. KJENNEDY. Wliat did you decide to do about that ? 

Mr. Hufert. I said that I strongly felt that Mr. Litell did not 
have the experience, the ability, or the personality to perform that 
kind of a job. 

Mr. Kennedy. So, you turned him down for that job ? 

Mr. Hufert. I turned him down. 

Mr. Ivennedy. He didn't receive that job ? 

Mr. Hufert. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. But he did form a committee. Now, Mr. Litell 
formed a committee, and did you understand Mr. Checov had any- 
thing to do with the committee ? 

Mr. Hufert. I can only give you what Mr. Checov told me or 
told us. He told me that he had not had contact with employees other 
than Charlie Litell ; that is, direct contacts. 

Mr. Ivennedy. Did he have contacts through Mr. Litell with other 
employees? Did he suggest, for instance, the establishment of this 
committee ? 

Mr. Hufert. I do not believe so, but 

Mr. Kennedy. What was the name of the committee ? 

Mr. Hufert. There was no name. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 5925 

Mr. Kennedy. It just existed and was it an antiunion committee? 

Mr. HuFERT. I don't believe I know that. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. You dou't know anj^tliing about tlie connnittee? 

Mr. HuFERT. Yes, I do, just from tlie standpoint of what I have 
told you — that it had been formed. This, Mr. Kennedy, is purely a 
personal opinion. I personally believe that Mr. Litell came to him 
and suggested that he had such a committee available. 

Mr. Kennedy. Well, now, during this period in December of 1955, 
and January 1956, was the UAW-CIO active in the plant? 

Mr. HuiERT. It was. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were they trying to organize ? 

Mr. Htjfert. They and others. 

Mr. Kennedy. AVas Mr. Checov doing any work against the union 
or just continuing his human equation test? 

Mr. HuTERT. I am sure he was not doing any work against the 
union. 

Mr. Kennedy. Hadn't he about tested everyone by that time ? 

Mr. HuTERT. No, Mr. Kennedy ; we were continuing to hire during 
this whole period. We are a very rapidly, believe me, and at least 
comparatively speaking, growing organization. We had gone into 
production only on November 1 of 1955, and we were still in an accel- 
erating program, and we were expanding quite rapidly. 

Mr. Kennedy. Just on the bills that he sent in or that were fur- 
nished to Whirlpool at Marion, there is a large sum of money for 
entertainment. Who was he entertaining, Mr. Huf ert ? 

Mr. HuFERT. I questioned him at a later time, but if I may digress 
for just a moment, I think that your records will indicate that we 
did not obtain itemized or detailed statements from Labor Kelations 
Associates until sometime in January of 1956. I had earlier, shortly 
after Dr. Checov came with the organization, requested detailed and 
itemized statements. 

At one point in the fall of 1955 I called the office of Labor Kela- 
tions Associates, and I believe talked with Mr. Shelton Shefferman, 
asking for a detailed statement. Early in January of 1956, and over 
the signature of our comptroller, we again asked for an itemized 
and detailed statement. 

We received that and I cannot give you a date, but it had to be 
sometime in January, and at that time I called Dr. Checov into my 
office and discussed the matter with him. 

(At this point Senator Ives left the hearing room.) 

Mr. Kennedy. You did what ? 

Mr. HuTERT. I discussed the matter with him. 

Mr. Kennedy. What did he say at that time ? 

Mr. HuTERT. He gave me very evasive answers, and frankly I had 
a little bit of the feeling that this was the old swindle-sheet technique. 

Mr. Kennedy. Had you paid for insurance in December— it says 
fees for services rendered during the month of December 1955, $1,275, 
and disbursements for the month of December 1955, $851.06, and 
total for December of 1955, $2,126.06. Didn't you question how that 
money was spent ? • i • i 

Mr. Hutert. Yes, we did, and as I explained, we questioned it and 
it was in January of 1956 that we questioned those items. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you refuse to pay that ? 

Mr. HuFERT. We did not refuse to ; no, sir. 



5926 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. JSTow here according to liis breakdown of the dis- 
bursements and which you say you didn't have until January, he was 
meeting with a committee, he says, and he had to entertain the com- 
mittee, $17.50, and $25, and $34, and $38, $38, $45, $40, $36, and these 
are all to attend these committee meetings and to entertain. 

Mr. Htjfert. I think, however, Mr. Kennedy, that these may be 
November or December billings, but we did not receive the itemized 
statements for that information until January. 

Mr, Kennedy. I would tliink if all he was doing was running a 
human equation test, lie didn't have any reason to entertain anyone. 
Even when you found out in January you would have refused to pay 
this bill. 

Mr. HuFERT. We did not refuse to, but tliis was about the last 
straw, and in early March or perhaps late February, we dismissed 
Mr. Checov. 

Mr. Kennedy, Let me just get this. In January of 1956, and this 
is the next month, for the services during the month of January 1956, 
$1,900; disbursements for the month of January 1956, $1,433.09; 
making a total for January 1956 of $3,333.09. Now, this is all for a 
man who is sitting in a room giving human equation tests to find out 
whether people are flexible. 

Mr. HuFERT. Or adaptable. 

Mr. Kennedy. Would you need all of that money to find out if 
people are flexible ? 

(The witness consulted with his counsel.) 

Mr. Kennedy. $45 for meetings, and $26.50 for committee, and $35, 
committee ; $45, committee ; $30, committee ; $55, committee ; $60 ; and 
it is all for these committee meetings that he was having. 

Senator Ctjrtis. What is the date that was paid ? 

Mr. HuFERT. I would give you a figure 

Mr. Kennedy. March 5. 

Mr, HuFERT, March 5 ; yes. 

Senator Curtis. Wlien does that relate to the discharge of the 
doctor ? 

Mr, HuFERT. Almost exactly the same time. 

Senator Ctjrtis. Were these expense bills a factor in the decision 
to dismiss him ? 

Mr. HtJFERT. They were, very definitely. 

Senator Curtis. The principal factor ? 

Mr. Hufert. No; I cannot say that. There had been a series of 
unsatisfactory events. 

Senator Curtis. If "principal" isn't the proper word, would you 
say it was an important factor ? 

Mr. Hufert. Definitely. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you refuse to pay any of these bills? I see they 
go on for March, $2,300 for fees for services rendered during March 
of 1956, and disbursements for the month of March 1956, $1,237.29, 
making a total of $3,527.29. Now, this is well after you say that you 
had the conversation with him in January. 

Mr. Hufert. That is right. However, we also had the services as 
legal counsel at that time of a Mr. Bachman of Labor Relations 
Associates. 



mPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 5927 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, again, did you find out what Mr. Bacliman 
was doing, and what percentage of this was for Mr. Bachman 'i 

Mr. HuEERT. As a percentage, I do not know. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. These again are for entertainment— $70, $50, $35, 
$33, $50, $50, and so on. 

Mr. HuEERT. May I point out, Mr. Kennedy, and I think that I 
gave Mr. Sheridan copies of these, here is the March billing of Labor 
Kelations Associates for the month of March and our paid date 
stamp at the top is April 30, 1956. 

Senator Curtis. Plow much of a lag was there in billing you? 

Mr. HuFERT. The billings came in always by the 10th of the follow- 
ing month. The billings were very prompt. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you understand that he was keeping cards and 
making up cards on the employees and listing them as to whether they 
Avere for the union or against the union ^ 

Mr. HuEERT. I never knew that he was keeping cards. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you understand he was compiling that infor- 
mation ? 

Mr. HuFERT. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. You mean all of this was going on, and you were 
paying these bills for this individual and you never knew anything 
about it ? 

Mr. HuEERT. In my own opinion, Mr. Kennedy, I do not believe yet 
that he compiled a card system, and he never told me that he did. 

Mr. Kennedy. We have some cards here for you. 

Mr. HuFERT. I understand that you have. 

Mr. Kennedy. You say he never told you that ? 

Mr. HuFERT. He did not, and I never saw those. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did anybody else in the company tell you it was 
being done ? 

Mr. HuFERT. I heard from your Mr. Sheridan that Dr. Cliecov and 
Mr. Litell had prepared such a card file. 

The Chairman. Have you ever seen the file ? 

Mr. HuFERT. Excuse me, sir ? 

The Chairman. Have you ever seen the card file ? 

Mr. HuFERT. I have not, sir. 

The Chairman. Who in your office would have seen it, or in your 
company ? 

Mr. HuFERT. Excuse me; I didn't understand your question. 

The Chairman. I say, who in the office would have seen this card 
file and had custody of it ; who in your company ? 

Mr. HuFERT. I don't think anyone in the company did. sir. 

The Chairman. You mean these cards were not part of the com- 
pany's records ? 

Mr. HuFERT. No ; they are not, sir. 

The Chairman. Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. You never saw these cards at all ? Did you have an 
employee by the name or were you thinking of employing a man by 
the name of Joseph L. Dawson ? 

Mr. Hufert. He is still an employee now. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you never saw the comment that was made about 
him? 

Mr. Hufert. I did not. 



5928 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. I liate to get Mr. Dawson in trouble. Here is a 
comment on another gentleman, and it says : 

Comment : Very sincere, knows union, should be considered a very good con\- 
pany man, won't rote for union. 

You never saAv that ? 

Mr. HuTERT. I did not. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then here is one : 

No, but can be convinced ; not a leader. 
Here is a third one : 

O. K., but he also said he didn't see why they couldn't get $20 more so they 
would be on the same basis with other shops. Agreed bonus makes the dif- 
ference. 

Mr. HuFERT. These were definitely not company cards. 
Mr. Kennedy (reading) : 

Talked to boy's mother and father, will talk to Dick later. Parents will talk 
to Dick. 

Did you know Mr. Checov was getting in touch with the parents 
and the wives of your employees, to urge them to be against the union ? 

Mr. Hueert. I don't think that he did. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is not what he tells us. 

Mr. Htjtert. Perhaps not, and I am of the opinion, my personal 
opinion, that these cards were filled out by this Mr. Litell. 

Mr. Kennedy. Here is somebody, as to whether he is flexible or not, 
"JSTo leader, will not fill the needs." 

Is that what you wanted ? You didn't want any leaders in the com- 
pany, or what ? 

Mr. HijFERT. I think that we have some, Mr. Kennedy, I submit that 
in my personal opinion, these cards were not filled out, I don't believe, 
even by Mr. Checov. I think they were filled out by Mr. Litell. 

The Chairman. Mr. Who ? 

Mr. Hufert. Mr. Charles Litell. 

Mr. Kennedy. Have you ever seen these lists before ? 

The Chairman. The Chair presents to you a photostatic copy of a 
list of names and possibly other memorandums, and asks that you ex- 
amine it and see if you identify it. 

(The documents were handed to the witness.) 

Mr. Hufert. This is definitely not company property, nor have I 
seen it before. 

Mr. Kennedy. May I see it, please ? 

Did you ever furnish a list of the employees to Mr. Checov ? 

Mr. Hufert. No, sir, other than what he would receive through his 
normal routine. 

Mr. Kennedy. This has a list of your employees, and beside each 
name is either a plus or a minus, except where there are a number of 
"DK" which is supposed to stand for "Don't know." This is a list of 
enij^loyees as we understand it, and according to the information that 
we have received, that Mr, Checov received from your company. 

Mr. Hufert. That is not true. 

Mr. Kennedy. You say JNIr. Checov was down there doing these 
things and you people weren't aware of it, if he was doing it. 

Mr. Hufert. I certainly was not. 

Mr. Kennedy. This is all a surprise to you ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIEiS IN THE LABOR FIELD 5929 

Mr. HuFERT. No. As I said earlier, in an answer to a question from 
Senator Curtis, there were a series of items that caused us to dismiss 
him. One of these was the factor that at a date early in March of 1956, 
^Te had a lengthy discussion with Dr. Checov, and during that discus- 
sion he told us that he had paid money to an employee. When ques- 
tioned further, he said small amounts of money. Wlien we questioned 
him further, he said that he had not given money to any other em- 
ployee. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who was the employee that he had given money to ? 

Mr. HuFERT. He named Charles Litell. 

Mr. Kennedy. "Wlien was that conversation? 

Mr. HuFERT. As I recall, Mr. Kennedy, early in March of 1956. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you call up Mr. Shefferman then and tell him ? 

Mr. HuFERT. Mr. Glen Evans, the general manager of the division, 
called him almost immediately. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you refuse to have anything to do with Mr. 
Shefferman or his oiRce after that? 

Mr. HuFERT. We said that we were sending Dr. Checov home imme- 
diateW, and asking him to report to his own offices that his services 
had been dismissed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you ask for a replacement for Mr. Checov ? 

Mr. HuFERT. We did not. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you get a replacement? 

Mr. HuFERT. A man came in, a Mr. Fred Wheeler, and he also was 
there, I would judge, 2 to 3 weeks. He was there not more than 2 
days per week, and I think during that period there was 1 week in 
which he was not present at the plant. He was recommended to us as 
a supervisory or management training expert. 

Mr. Kennedy. There was never any discussion, as I understand 
your testimony, with Mr. Shefferman or any of his people about keep- 
ing this union out. 

Mr. Hufert. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. That wasn't their function at all ? 

Mr. Hufert. I submit again, Mr. Kennedy, in a town the size of 
Marion, we very readily can determine whether a man has been a 
union member just as to where he worked before. 

Senator Curtis. How big is that town ? 

Mr. Hufert. 40,000 or 45,000. 

Mr. Kennedy. You say that you never had any discussions with Mr. 
Shefferman or any of his emplioyees about taking steps to keep the 
union out of your plant ? 

Mr. Hufert. No, sir. If I may point out, too, Mr. Kennedy, Dr. 
Checov left our plant 4 to 5 months before the NLKB election. 

Mr. Kennedy. What about Mr. Walter Patterson ? Did he come 
down there? 

Mr. Hufert. Mr. Patterson came down one day in April or at least 
the spring of 1956, shortly after we had dismissed Dr. Checov. 

Mr. Kennedy. What was he down there for? 

Mr. Hufert. To join Mr. Evans and myself at dinner one evening, 
and he apoligized for the unsatisfactory services his organization had 
given us. We discussed in general the whole program that we had 
ahead of us. We were in a heavy organizing campaign. 

Mr. Kennedy. You did discuss the union with him or this study 
that was going on ? 



5930 IMPROPER AcnvrriES nsr the labor field 

Mr. HuFERT. There was no study, and there was never a study as 
such. 

Mr. Kennedy. The human equation test, did you discuss that with 
Mr. Patterson ? 

Mr. HuFERT^ No, sir; those were individual evaluations. 

Mr. Kennedy. "V^Hiat did you discuss with Mr. Patterson ? 

Mr. HuEERT. Primarily our individual plant operation there, and 
we were at that time 

Mr. Kennedy, Why did you brino; Mr. Patterson down from Chi- 
cago, 111., to discuss your plant? Why did you have to go way up 
there, after you found out that Mr. Checov was doing all of these das- 
tardly deeds, and get Mr. Walter Patterson to come down ? 

Mr. HuFERT. We didn't get him to come down. He was working at 
the Clyde plant, and I believe he came down entirely A^oluntarily and 
primarily to apologize for the lack of good performance of his other 
staff members. I believe he left for Chicago that same evening. 

Mr. Kennedy. He came on March 28, and he was there March 28 
and 29, and he charged $50 for entertainment for both times. 

Mr. HuFERT. So the statement indicated. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, then, did you have anybody else from Mr. 
Shefferman's office down there ? 

Mr. HuFERT. Mr. Shefferman himself was in Marion to the best of 
my memory tliree times. 

Mr. Kennedy. What was he discussing, just the expansion of the 
plant? 

Mr. Hufert. No ; he was discussing his services, and if I may say, 
the first time he was down I think Mr. Evans and I had breakfast 
with him, and he was actually visiting another plant in the area. He 
then came down, again from memory, sometime in the early part of 
November of 1955, because I had complained about the $5 charge for 
the human equation form. At that time we eliminated any further 
charges for the human equation form. 

Mr. Kennedy. When were you charged $5 for that ? 

Mr. Hufert, At that time. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you have Mr. Bachman down there ? 

Mr, Hufert, Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, there were fairly large sums of money paid 
to Mr. Shefferman, as you continued through the year of 1956, were 
there not ? 

Mr. Hufert. Yes; and Mr. Bachman acted as our counsel before 
the NLKB on matters before the NLEB. 

Mr. Kennedy. Altogether, according to our records, you paid Mr. 
Shefferman in connection with these matters that you have described, 
$28,521.54. Is that right? 

Mr. Hufert. I believe that is the correct figure. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Bachman was down there, and he charged one 
flat sura, in addition to other entertainment, one other sum of $500. 
What did he need $500 for in one lump sum while he was in Marion? 

Mr. Hufert. We never had an explanation of that, Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you pay it ? 

Mr. Hufert. I think that you will note that the payment for this 
item was on August 6, 1955, and I pointed out that we had discon- 
tinued all services of LEA in the early part of June of 1956. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 5931 

Mr. Kennedy. It is May 5, according to our books. 

Mr. HuFERT. That is the billing, but the payment of that, as I recall, 
was August 6. 

Mr. Kennedy. I thought you were finding out about all of this back 
in January, and it seems to me that you prolonged this unhappy ex- 
perience for many months after that. Here is $500 that suddenly 
comes out of Mr, Bachman's expense account on which there is no 
explanation. 

Mr. Hufert. There was no explanation. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you ask him about the $500 ? 

Mr. Hufert. We did. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you pay the $500 ? 

Mr. Hufert. We did, when we concluded all business arrangements 
with them. 

Mr. Kennedy. I can't understand, if all of these things were going 
on in December and January and February, and you felt you were 
getting robbed then, and you went and paid those, and why you con- 
tinued the unhappy experience through March, April, May, June, 
July, and during all of this period of time. 

You still continued to pay even though according to your testimony, 
nobody would ever give you any account of how they were using the 
mone}', and where the money was going, $28,000. 

Mr. Hufert. I would like to try to answer that. Mr. Bachman 
was acting as our counsel in matters before the NLRB. We did not 
feel that we could discontinue the services of counsel before these 
matters were settled. 

The Chairman. Who is Mr. Bachman with ? 

Mr. Hufert. With Labor Relations Associates. 

The Chairman. He is another one of Shefferman's men ? 

Mr. Hufert. Yes. 

The Chairman. I can understand a small item, and maybe $500 is 
a small item to you, I don't know, but I can hardly conceive of a 
business firm getting a bill for $500 and paying it. 

Mr. Hufert. We were very unhappy with it. 

The Chairman. And paying it without inquiring what it is about. 

Mr. Hufert. May I also submit, I don't know that I have a copy 
here, but after that billing we again wrote the Shefferman people and 
asked for an explanation. 

The Chairman. Why didn't you do that before? It is good busi- 
ness practice to write for an explanation before you issue the check. 

Mr. Hufert. This was before we issued the check. 

The Chairman. Did you get an explanation ? 

Mr. Hufert. Not a good one. 

The Chairman. I wouldn't have paid $500 if I couldn't get a little 
explanation. 

Mr. Hufert. We at that time, Mr. Chairman, felt that we should 
discontinue this service entirely, and we were happy to be out of it. 

The Chairman. You didn't pay $500 just to get out of the services. 

Mr. Hufert. Well, possibly so. At that time we were happy to be 
out of it. . _ 

Senator Curtis. I want something cleared up in my mmd. Mr. 
Bachman's services were legal services ? 

Mr. Hufert. Yes, sir ; he was an attorney. 



5932 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Curtis. He didn't move about in your plant and inter- 
view people ? 

Mr. HuFERT. Not at all. 

Senator Curtis. Well, now, after you dismissed the doctor, what 
was his name ? 

Mr. HuFERT. Dr. Checov. 

Senator Curtis. To what extent were there any of Sheli'erman's 
men doing any work in your plant of any kind ? 

]\Ir. Hufert. None at all. 

Senator Curtis. These people that did come back there, you men- 
tioned 1 that came back for a couple of days a week for 2 or 3 weeks. 

Mr. Hufert. He did, that was directly after the dismissal of 
Checov, and to the best of my knowledge his services were completed 
in April of 1956. 

Senator Curtis. But after you let Dr. Checov go, the most of the 
services that you purchased from Shefferman then were legal 
services ? 

Mr. Hufert. They were entirely so, sir. 

Senator Curtis. And this $500 that they are talking about was an 
item of expenditure made or charged to you by the lawyer fur- 
nished by Shefferman ? 

Mr. Hufert. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, Mr. Bachman was down there in Kentucky 
with what ? 

Mr. Hufert. Mr. Bachman was there in connection with several 
NLKB cases. 

Mr. KJENNEDY. Was there an NLRB case in Kentucky with Mr. 
Litell? 

Mr. Hufert. There was, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. You had fired Mr. Litell ? 

Mr. Hufert. Excuse me ? 

Mr. Kennedy. You fired Mr. Litell, didn't you ? 

Mr. Hufert. We had, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And Mr. Bachman came down to handle that be- 
fore the Board there ? 

Mr. Hufert. Yes, sir. 

Mr. KJENNEDY. And so you went back to Mr. Shefferman's firm in 
order to get advice on the handling of that matter ? 

Mr. Hufert. Mr. Bachman was already acting as our counsel on 
other matters before the NLEB when this NRLB matter on Charles 
Litell w^as filed. 

Mr. Kennedy. It was while he was doing that, in addition to his 
other expenses, and he had other entertainment and other daily ex- 
penses amount to quite a considerable amount of money, this item of 
$500 appears. You just don't know what that was? What explana- 
tion did Mr. Shefferman give you? 

Mr. Hufert. He did not give us any. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you have a copy of the letter that you wrote Mr. 
Shefferman ? 

Mr. Hffert. We will supply it, Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you have a copy of those tests, the human equa- 
tion tests? 

]Mr. Hufert. A copy was furnished to Mr. Sheridan. 



EVIPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE- LABOR FIELD 5933 

Mr. Kennedy. As I understand it, evidently we luive 1 wliicli con- 
sists of 1 page. Do you have anytliino- else? 

Mr. HuFERT. This actually consists of 8 or 4 ])aaes. 

(Present at this point were Senators McClellan, Ervin, :McXaniara 
and Curtis.) 

Mr. Kennedy. Three or four pages? Is that all that ^ou have, 
just 3 or 4 pages? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. HuFERT. No, each individual test consists of about 3 or 4 pages. 

Mr. Kennedy. For each individual ? 

Mr. Hufert. True. 

Mr, Kennedy. Do you have those ? 

Mr. Hufert. No, we will furnish, however, a copy. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you have a copy of those tests for everv indi- 
vidual in your plant ? 

Mr. Hufert. No. We discontinued the test. 

Mr. Kennedy. But do you have them for that time, while Dr. 
Checov was there? 

Mr. HuTERT. We do. 

Mr. Kennedy. And they were continued through January and Feb- 
ruary of 1956? 

Mr. Hufert. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. And there are 3 or 4 pages for every individual ? 

Mr. Hufert. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you have all of those, do you ? 

Mr. Hufert. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Following the National Labor Eelations Board, 
which Mr. Bachman was handling for you, did you have to post a 
notice saying that you would not continue certain practices, or would 
not indulge in certain practices ? 

Mr. Hufert. We did. 

Mr. I^NNEDY. Was one of them — 

We will not organize any employee committee for the purpose of interfering with 
our employees' rights to organize or campaign on behalf of any labor organization 
or sponsor or give financial assistance to such committee. 

Mr. Hufert. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Why did you have to agree to do that if you had not 
been doing that in the past ? 

Mr. Hufert. Mr. Kennedy, I think you will note that the cease-and- 
desist stipulation is not signed by an executive of the division or of the 
company. It is signed by Mr. Bachman. 

When Mr. Evans and I first heard of the cease and desist stipula- 
tion in all of its particulars, we were quite shocked. However, we 
were given advice to the effect that we had only one other alternative 
and that was to take this matter through the courts. It might take as 
high as up to 2 years. 

We had, in good faith, told our people that we would agree to a 
quick election. In fact, we had agreed to a consent election, both m 
January and later in March and April. We still felt that the best 
we would want to do, and the best we could do, the thmg we owed our 
employees, was to hold an election as quickly as possible. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you also agree — 
We will not employ persons, firms, or organizations to interfere with the rights 
of our employees to organize or campaign in behalf of any hibor organization. 



5934 IMPROPER ACnVITIE'S IN THE LABO'R FIELD 

Mr. HuFERT. Those apply, I believe, to the same effect. 

Mr. Kennedy. There are about 10 things that you agreed not to 
do ; is that right ? 

Mr. HuFERT. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Where was Mr. Checov during this period of time ? 

Mr. HuFERT. I do not know. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did he just disappear? 

Mr. HuFERT. As far as I know. I never saw him again. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you understand that Mr. Shefferman had sent 
him to Canada? 

Mr. HuFERT. I believe Mr. Sheridan was the first to advise me that 
he was in Canada. I did not know. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Shefferman told you that ? 

Mr. HuFERT. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. You were not finding out anything from Mr. Slief- 
ferman, were you, what Mr. Shefferman's employees were doing or 
what you were paying $28,000 for? You were not able to keep up 
at all with it? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Kennedy. Excuse me ? 

Mr. Hufert. I am sorry. I was conferring with my counsel. 

Mr. Kennedy. What is your answer ? 

Mr. Hufert. May I refer to counsel ? 

Mr. Kennedy. No ; you answer it yourself. 

Mr. Hufert. "Wliat was the question, sir ? 

Mr. Kennedy. You were not able to keep up at all on what the 
Shefferman firm was doing, either in connection with Mr. Checov or, 
later, in connection with what Mr. Bachman was doing, all of wliich 
you paid some $28,000 for ; is that right ? 

Mr. Hufert. Yes, sir; I think we kept up very well, Mr. Ken- 
nedy. I think that there were some items there that are unusual and 
are exc?ssive. We felt that at the time. I would like to submit to 
you that our experience with them at Marion was very brief. 

Mr. Kennedy. It lasted about a year. From what I understand, 
from your testimony, and maybe I misunderstood it, I understood 
that you were not able to keep up or did not know about the em- 
ployees' committees. 

Mr. Hufert. I do not believe there were any. 

Mr. Kennedy. He was saying that in his expense account. He 
was saying he was meeting with employees' committees. I will show 
you that. 

Mr. Hufert. I challenged him on those committees. 

Mr. Kennedy. But I am telling you that lie said that. He said 
he was meeting with employees' committees. There were employees' 
committees functioning and antiunion committees. Here they are. 
You paid the expenses on tliese things. I am trying to find out if 
either you knew about it or you diet not know about it. Did you 
know about it? 

Mr. Hufert. To this day, I don't think there was a committee. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then we go back to the fact that you did not know 
what Mr. Checov was doing down there, Mr. Shefferman's employee, 
what he was doing down there, for which you were paying these 
sums of money. 



IMPROPER ACrnVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 5935 

Mr. HuFERT. I cloivt believe he had the meetings with the com- 
mittee. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then he was doing something with the money. He 
was getting the money. He was receiving the money and the money 
was coming from you. 

Mr. HuFERT. I gave you a personal observation a Avhile ago. I 
think it was the swindle-sheet technique, personally. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then you did not know about that. Whatever liap- 
pened, you did not know what was going on as far as Mr. Checov's 
activities there, whether he w-as sticking the money in his own pocket 
or using it in connection with these committees. 

Mr. HuFERT. Other than we did terminate him, after these 5 montlis. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then you terminated him and got 2 or 3 other em- 
ployees of Mr. Shefferman ? 

Mr. HuFERT. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. You got Mr. Bachman and Mr. Walter Patterson. 

Mr. HuFERT. Mr. Bachman had been doing legal work for us and 
acting as counsel for some time. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Wheeler came down. 

Mr. HuFERT. Briefly. 

Mr. Kennedy. He said he was working with employees, too. Here, 
for instance, is $20.25, drinks for the committee. 

Mr, HuFERT. I don't believe Mr, Wheeler ever talked to our em- 
ployees. 

The Chairman. Here is the thing about this, Mr. Hufert. You 
have been getting bills here all along for entertaining the committees. 
You say you do not even believe one existed. 

Mr. Hufert. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. I cannot understand how you keep paying repeated 
bills for entertaining a committee, a committee that you did not believe 
existed. You are a businessman running a plant. That just does not 
quite add up. 

Mr. Hufert. Mr. Chairman, we did ask repeatedly for these de- 
tailed billings. 

The Chairman. You got it in detail and paid it. 

Mr. Hufert. We got it in January. I called the man in and I did 
not get a satisfactory answer. We terminated his services within a 
matter of weeks. 

The Chairman. Did you ever make any check to see whether any 
committee existed? 

Mr. Hufert. Yes, sir. I do not believe any committee ever existed 
there, other than one that Mr. Litell may have had. 

Senator Eratn. And yet you paid out $1,000 or $1,100 or $1,200 a 
month for entertainment of a nonexistent committee, after the bills 
were presented to you? 

Mr. Hufert. No,' sir; I did not believe the bills were that higli for 
the entertainment factor. The entertainment was high enougli, but 
the primary ex):»ense in the billing was the $100 per diem charged for 
the representative. 

Senator Er\tn. You got a bill in January, did you not, that set out 
entertainment of committee ? 

Mr. Hufert. Yes, sir. 



89330— 57— pt. 15 12 



5936 IMPROPER ACTIVmE'S IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Ervin. And you continued to do business with these people 
until May ? 

Mr. HuFERT, We discontinued this man at the plant in March, early 
March. 

Senator Ervin. You continued him for 6 weeks after you say you 
thought they were presenting you a swindle sheet ? 

Mr. HuFERT. Possibly so. I had not thought it was that long. 

Senator Ervin. Did you not feel like it was your duty to protect 
your company against swindle ? 

Mr. HuFERT. Yes, sir. 

Senator Ervin. But you did not do it, did you, according to j'^our 
own statements? 

Mr. HuFERT. Yes, sir ; we called Dr. Checov in. 

Senator Ervin. But you say he did not tell you anything about it, 
that you never got any information from him. 

Mr. HuTERT. No, sir. 

Senator Ervin. And you got a $500 bill from your counsel and your 
counsel would not even tell you what the bill was about. The com- 
pany must not have been very much concerned about it, just to pay out 
$28,000 and not find out what you paid it out for. 

Mr. HuFERT. That is why we did get rid of him. 

Senator Ervin. It took you a long time to get rid of him. You 
kept having transactions of one kind or another until August, did you 
not? 

Mr. HuFERT. Well, we were shocked. Senator. This firm had done 
an outstanding job at two of our divisions, the St. Joseph division and 
LaPorte. One is a UAW plant and the other is an lAM plant. 

Senator ER\^N. That would shock me if somebody presented me 
with a bill for $500 and would not tell me what it was for. You must 
have been shocked into insensibility. 

You kept dealing with these people and your last payment was in 
August, was it not ? 

Mr. HuFERT. Well, the last work they did for us was early in June 
of 1956. We sent a letter that I have not been able to produce here, in 
July of 1956, requesting itemization, including this $500 amount. 

Senator Ervin. They did itemize the other things. They itemized 
the other things and showed they were buying food and drinks for a 
committee which you say was nonexistent. Is that your testimony ? 

Mr. HuFERT. That is, sir. So in August, August 6, after we had 
terminated their services, we did pay the bill, but we did not pay the 
bill until August 6 of 1956. 

Senator Ervin. But you got the bill in January showing itemiza- 
tion, which included the purchase of food and drinks for the use of a 
committee which did not exist. You paid that bill back in March, did 
you not ? 

Mr. HuFERT. Sometime in the latter part of March. 

Senator Ervin. And you did not take the pains to find out why you 
were being billed for entertainment of a committee which had no exist- 
ence, you say ? 

Mr. HuFERT. We did check that. 

Senator Ervin. You checked it and did you find out that the com- 
mittee did not exist ? 

Mr. HuFERT. To the best of my beliefs, yes. 



IRIPROPEiR ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 5937 

Senator Ervtn. Well, nevertheless, after you found out that the com- 
mittee for which these expenses had been incurred had no existence 
on the face of the earth, you went ahead and paid them, did you not? 

Mr. HuFERT. We did, finally, yes. 

Senator Ervin. You paid them regularly. You paid them in 
March, you paid them in the next month and you paid them up until 
May. 

Mr. HuFERT. That is not quite true. The billings show that we held 
off 2 monthly billings. 

Senator Ervin. Will you please tell me why you paid a bill for carry- 
ing a lot of items for the entertainment of a committee when you say 
you investigated the fact and found out the fact that the committee 
did not even exist ? Why did you pay that bill ? 

Mr. HuFERT. We were getting very dissatisfied, Senator, with the 
man's services. 

Senator Ervix. I think I would have fired him the first month if I 
saw he was putting a swindle sheet over on me and if I had been an 
official of your company, I would have felt it was my duty to do it. 

Why did you not fire him as soon as you found out that he was claim- 
ing reimbursements from you for the entertainment of a committee 
which did not even have existence on the face of the earth ? 

Mr. Htjfert. I wish we had. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wasn't this the same type of procedure and pattern 
that had been used by Mr. Shefferman in other Whirlpool branches? 

Mr. HuFERT. Do you mean — I don't think I follow your question. 

Mr. Kennedy. Didn't you know that Mr. Shefferman had gone into 
other Wliirlpool branches, or his representatives, and had formed a 
committee to function there, an antiunion committee ? 

Mr. HuFERT. No, sir, they had not. 

Mr. Kennedy. They had not ? 

Mr. HuFERT. They had not. In St. Joseph ■ 

Mr. Kennedy. What about Clyde, Ohio ? 

Mr. HuFERT. I don't think they formed a committee there. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you say unequivocally that no committee was 
formed in Clyde, Ohio, that Mr. Shefferman had anything to do 
with? 

Mr. Hufert. I cannot. I was not there. 

Mr. Kennedy. We have an affidavit, Mr. Chairman, from another 
individual who was active in the committee. We are getting the 
original. This is a copy of it. We are getting the original from 
downstairs. It is in connection with this committee's activites. 

Senator Ervin. Did the Labor Kelations Associates furnish legal 
services, too ? 

Mr. Hufert. Yes, sir. They have a Mr. Bachman, or had a Mr. 
Bachman on the staff that was an attorney or is an attorney. 

Senator Er\-[n. And you could apply to Mr. Shefferman and Mr. 
Shefferman would furnish you a lawyer? 

Mr. Hufert. Yes, sir. 

Senator Ervin. You are not a lawyer yourself? 

Mr. Hufert. I am not, sir. Our attorney in the beginnmg ot the 
operations at the Marion division was on vacation at a time when an 
unfair labor practice charge — no, I am sorry. It was not. It was a 
petition for recognition which was filed with the NLRB. U e needed 



5938 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

an attorney to counsel us and we were able to have the services of Mr. 
Bachman. 

Senator Ervin. Why did Mr. Shefferman furnish lawyers along 
with other services? 

Mr. HuFERT. I do not know. I did know that Mr. Bachman was 
an attorney. 

Senator* Ervtn. In other words, you contacted him through the 
Shefferman organization? 

Mr. HuFERT. True. In answer to this other question, the work at 
the St. Joseph plant had been primarily one in whicli the representa- 
tive from Labor Relsitious Associates had liandled the arbitration and 
the negotiations for that plant. I believe his function there was a full- 
time function and a xery successful function. 

Senator Ervin. Did you not ever talk to your attorney in Marion 
about contacting a lawyer in that kind of a fashion? 

Mr. HuFERT. Yes, sir. 

Senator Ervin, Wliat did he say about the legal ethics of the sit- 
uation ? 

Mr. IIuFERT. He, like me, was quite unhappy. 

Senator Ervin. I would think so. 

Senator McNamara. Mr. Chairman^ 

The Chairman. Senator McNamara. 

Senator McNamara. You mentioned that the operation in St. 
Joseph, Mich., was quite successful. What do you mean ? Successful 
to what end? 

Mr. HuFERT. I meant the representative from LRA, who was as- 
signed to the St. Joseph division. His operation was very successful 
from the standpoint of everyone at St. Joseph respected and liked 
the man and trusted him, and I believe that he assisted the personnel 
department and the officers very effectively. 

Senator McNamara. What union were you dealing with there ? 

Mr. HuFERT. Originally, the independent UE, and then later the 
JAM. Currently, it is the lAM. 

Senator McNamara. The machinists? 

Mr. HuFERT. The machinists. We have 12 unions in the Whirlpool 
organization. 

Senator McNamara. Do you have a union now, and which one is it, 
if you have, in the Whirlpool Corp. at Marion ? 

Mr. HuFERT. No, we do not, sir. 

Senator McNamara. It is a nonunion operation ? 

Mr. HuFERT. There vras an election in August of 1956. Four unions 
had petitioned for representation. The vote was decidedly "no union." 

Senator McNamail\. So now you have a nonunion plant? 

Mr. HiTFERT. Yes. 

Senator McNamara. You previously had a union plant organized 
by the UAW-CIO ; is that right ? 

Mr. HuFERT. Our predecessor in that building and in that plant 
was organized by the UAW-CIO. 

Senator McNamara. Who was your predecessor? 

Mr. Htjfert. Motor Products, of Detroit. 

Senator McNamara. Murray Products ? 

Mr. HuFERT. Motor Products. 

Senator McNamara. You brought up the name of Mr. Litell as one 
of your employees. He was employed by you in this plant ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 5939 

Mr. HuFERT. Yes, sir, at the Marion plant. 

Senator McNamara. Did you hire him ? 

Mr. HuFERT. Individually ? The company ? Yes, sir. 

Senator McNamara, He was hired under your administration? 

Mr. HuFERT. Yes, sir. 

Senator McNamara. Was he one of the people who passed the 
liuman equation test? 

Mr. HuFERT. He did, sir. 

Senator McNamara. Why did you fire him ? 

Mr. IIuFERT. For several acts of insubordination. 

Senator McNamara. For instance what ? 

Mr. Hufert. We had given him a suspension prior to that time. 
Well, the first act of insubordination that I knew about was leaving 
the plant early one day without notifying his supervisor. On another 
occasion very soon after that, he became abusive and argumentative 
with the guards. We had given him a suspension for insubordina- 
tion, refusal to follow the directions of his superiors and gave him 
at that time, as I remember it, a 214 -day suspension. 

Approximately 2 or 3 weeks later he was placing balloons on com- 
pany property in the plant, including parts of the dryer. 

Senator McNamara. Balloons? 

Mr. Hufert. Yes, yellow balloons. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did the balloons have something on them ? 

Mr. Hufert. They had "Join UAW-CIO" on them. 

Mr. Kennedy. On the figures you were talking about. Senator 
Ervin, according to our breakdown of the $28,000 amount the fees were 
$15,675 and the expenses amounted to $12,847.56, making a total of 
$28,522.56. That started on August 31 of 1955, and continued through 
June 30, 1956. 

The major expenses were starting in December of 1955, January 
of 1956, February 1956, and March of 1956 and then they started to 
get less, and April of 1956. 

The Chairman. Do you know Eldon Phillips, who works for you ? 

Mr. Hufert. I do, sir . 

The Chairman. Have you ever talked to him about this committee ? 

Mr. Hufert. Have I talked with him about it ? 

The Chairman. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Hufert. Only at the time of a visit by an NLRB field examiner 
prior to the election. He stated to me that the field examiner had 
visited him at his home and inquired in some detail as to the function- 
ing of the committee that was headed by this Charles Litell. 

The Chairman. Charles Litell ? 

Mr. Hufert. Yes. 

The Chairman. Did he tell you that he worked with Charles Litell 
on that committee ? 

Mr. Hufert. Yes, sir. . . 

The Chairman. Did he tell you he was one of those who partici- 
pated in the entertainment provided by Dr. Checov ? 

Mr. Hufert. He did not. 

The Chairman. Do you know where Mr. Checov lives now, Dr. 
Checov ? 

Mr. Hufert. 1 do not, sir. 



5940 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. He has been interviewed by Mr. Henson, working 
for the committee. I think now he may be a fugitive from justice. 

Mr. Kennedy. Not Mr. Hensil. 

The Chairman. No, Dr. Checov. He knows he is wanted and is 
across the border somewhere. Here is the statement he gave, a report 
on the statement. If he were here testifying according to what he 
has previously said, there would be quite a conflict between his testi- 
mony and you. Checov stated — and I will read some to you and 
allow you to deny it — 

Checov stated his first and only assignment of any significance was the Whirl- 
pool Co. account at Marion, Ohio. He said he started this job about September 
1955, and that his prime objective at this plant was to intervievp prospective 
employees and to screen out union organizers and other persons with prounion 
sentiment. In this job he said he worked closely VFith a Ted Hufert 

Is that you ? 

Mr. Hufert. That is me. 

The Chairman (reading) : 

Who was director of industrial relations at the Whirlpool plant at Marion. 

Did he work closely with you ? 

Mr. Hufert. No; I don't believe I could use the word "closely," 
I think his closest contact was with our personnel manager, my as- 
sistant, Mr. Baver. 

The Chairman. All right. 

He said he used but one method of screening prospective employees at the 
Marion plant. In this instance, the plant had just been completed and the job 
was to completely staff the plant. He said his general procedure was to inter- 
view applicants in groups of 10 to 12. 

Is that according to your statement of awhile ago, that they started 
this group interviewing ? 
Mr, Hufert, Yes, sir. 
The Chairman. That is correct. 

The applicants would be given a written placement test in addition to indi- 
vidual and group interrogation. 

That is this 3- or 4-sheet test. 

He said LRA written tests were designed to develop the individual applicant's 
general feeling and sentiments pertaining to unions and collective bargaining in 
general. 

Checov said that applicants with prounion sentiments were rejected on the 
basis of the test. In this regard, the test served another purpose. In the event 
a rejected applicant filed a complaint charging unfair or discriminatory practices, 
the company could produce the test as evidence that the applicant had failed to 
pass the test. 

Have you any comments ? 

Mr. Hufert. Yes, I would like to comment on it, Mr, Chairman. I 
wish you could see the test form. I think^you would agree with me 
that it is very difficult to determine from the test form any union 
sympathy or otherwise, 

I might point out, too 

Mr. Kennedy. Is this it ? 

Mr, Hufert. That is it, 

I might point out, too, that more normally than not the grading 
and graded forms were received by us after the man was already on 
the payroll, 

The^CHAiRMAN. Wliat? 



IMPROPER ACTIVrTTBS IN THE LABOR FIELD 5941 

Mr. HuFERT. As we went along, at Rome future time usiiallv, the 
graded information became a part of the man's record after he was 
already on the payroll. 

The Chairman. Will you examine this and see if it is the form of 
the adaptability test that Dr. Checov was giving? 

(A document was handed to the witness.) 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Senator Ervin. I understood you to say that, on that test, you could 
not tell very much from it, that it was very difficult to draw anv con- 
clusions as to what it meant. Is that right ? 

Mr. Hufert. As to an individual's union sympathies or otherwise. 

Senator Ervin. Is it not pretty difficult to tell anything about the 
individual anyway from a test ? 

Mr. Hufert. That might be a matter of opinion. It is not an 
unusual test. Senator. We use tests now, but they are the "Wunder- 
lich and related tests. 

Senator Er-st:n. Do you not know that that test was purposely 
designed so that you could not tell anything about whether it was 
graded accurately or not ? 

Mr. Hufert. I don't think so. 

Senator ER\^]sr. Can you analyze one of them? Can you grade 
one of them and tell whether a man passed it or failed it ? 

Mr. Hufert. No, sir. 

The Chairman. That may be made exhibit No. 7 for reference 
only. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 7" for ref- 
erence and may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

Senator Ervin. The only person that could tell when a man took 
it, that he passed it, or failed it, was Dr. Checov ? 

Mr. Hufert. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. I would like to quote some other statements that 
he purportedly made. 

Senator Ervin. I have one other question, Mr. Chairman. 

In other words, Dr. Checov could give a man any kind of a grade 
on that test, so far as you could tell, and there would be no way for 
anybody in the universe to tell whether he had graded it correctly, 
except Dr. Checov ? 

Mr. Hufert. Well, I would like to answer that in this way : that we 
considered the test a part of, or a tool within, a whole interviewing 
technique. We are just as interested — or more so — in the application, 
in any reference letters that we might have, and, in particular, in any 
interviews we might have with the man. This only substantiates 
what we otherwise determine as to a man's experience and ability. 

Senator Ervin. You said you could not tell at all. You said you 
could not tell what the test meant. You said the only man that 
could tell what the test signified was Dr. Checov. 

Mr. Hufert. If we were to use the test strictly, that would be 
true. 

Senator Ervin. So you have a test to test the men in your plant as 
to their adaptability to work— which you required them to pass— 
which was so complicated that the management of the plant did not 

understand it ? • i t-u 

Mr. Hufert. The test itself, may I submit, is rather simple, ine 
grading of the test is not. 



5942 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Ervin. Well, anyway, Dr. Cliecov could give any kind of a 
grade on it. He could grade the thing any way and nobody could tell 
"whether the grade was correct or not. 

Mr. HuFERT. True. 

Senator Ervix. So he could very well have used it in connection 
with other information he had so as to enable the company to get rid 
of a man who was prounion and keep a man who was antiunion ? 

Mr. Hufert. May I say again, Senator Ervin, that we probably 
knew a great deal more about a man's former affiliations with the 
union than Dr. Checov. 

Senator Ervin. There would not be any wa}'' that the National La- 
bor Relations Board or a court, a circuit court of appeals, could tell 
whether or not Dr. Checov had graded a fellow accurately or not, in 
case anyone claimed that he had been fired on account of union sym- 
pathies rather than on account of the grade that Dr. Checov gave him ; 
was there? 

Mr. Hufert. That probably is true. 

Senator Ervin. In other words, it was susceptible of use as a sub- 
terfuge ; was it not ? 

Mr. Hufert. No, it was not ; no, sir. That was not the intent what- 
soever. Counsel has asked me to point out in answer to that question 
that in our memory of the first hiring of the employees into the plant, 
at least 80 to 85 of them were former union members. 

I can honestly say to you that I do not know of an individual who 
was discharged because of his inability to pass this test. 

Tests, Senator, I think you will agree, are quite frequently used as 
a supplement in the hiring program. We used them primarily 

Senator Ervin. You gave them to the men you already had hired, 
too? 

Mr. Hufert. Excuse me? 

Senator Ervin. Dr. Checov gave the te.st to men that you already 
had hired ? 

Mr. Hufert. No ; we gave the test at the time of interviews. We 
did not have the grades in every instance until after they were hired. 

Senator Ervin. But you never did use the test to fire anybody ? 

Mr. Hufert. No, sir. 

Senator Ervin. That is all. 

The Chairman. May I read you a little more of this report of his 
statements ? It says : 

Checov stated that about the first part of Apiil 1956, a man he now believes 
to be a private investigator called at his home during his absence. The man rep- 
resented himself as being an insurance investigator, inquiring into an accident 
in which Mr. Checov had been involved. 

Checov said his wife inadvertently informed the man that Checov was em- 
ployed by LRA and had been on the Whirlpool job at Marion, Ohio. Checov 
said that, after the man left, his wife realized that, since her husband had not 
been involved in an accident, the man may have had other motives. 

She then called Nathan Shefferman and related the incident. Checov said 
Nathan Shefferman was quite distressed about the incident and its possible 
relationship to the pending NLRB hearing. Evidently there had been a staff 
meeting to discuss the situation, as Checov was informed by Nathan Shefferman, 
Shelton Shefferman, and Bachman, as well as several others, that he should 
leave the country for a few months. 

Checov said he cannot recall specifically who first suggested that he take a 
trip. However, he said nothing is done around LRA without Nathan Sheffer- 
man's approval. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 5943 

He said lie agreed to go to Mexico. Nathan Shefferinau, liowever, told him it 
would be better for him to go to Vancouver, British Columbia. Checov said 
he is sure that records will reflect that he was removed from the payroll of 
LRA at that time as an arrangement was made for him to bill the company 
periodically "for services rendered." 

He said the period particular invoices were to be of isufficient amount to 
cover all expenses of the trip, as well as his regular salary, $7,500 per annum. 
He said he was given an initial advance of $750 at that time. He said he has 
no record of specific amounts received during the trip, but that, to the best of 
his recollection, he received about $2,500 from LRA during April and Mav 
1956. 

In response to a question, Checov stated it was essential for Shefferman that 
he not be available at the NLRB hearing. He said he had been in full charge 
of activities at the Marion plant and had also, in this capacity, been the only 
contact with Charles Litell. 

He said, too, that his activities in Marion probably resulted in breaking every 
unfair labor law on the book. Checov said he returned to Chicago about the 
latter part of May 1956, after receiving word from Shefferman that the "coast 
was clear." 

He said it was at that time that the Litell case before the NLRB had been 
quashed. He said that, even without his own testimony, he could not under- 
stand how this could have happened. 

In his opinion, there was ample evidence supporting the unfair labor charges. 
He said he could only conclude that Barringer, a UAW representative and/or 
persons representing NLRB had been pressured into dropping the case. 

I do not know whether you know anything about what he stated 
here. 

Mr. HuFERT. I don't. I don't understand much of what is said 
there. 

The Chairman. It goes on here. Maybe this will get down to cases. 
He was talking there about his work there and about them sending 
him out of the country. You do not know anything about them send- 
ing him out of the country and paying his expenses to keep him from 
testifying at the NLRB ? 

Mr. HuFERT. No, sir. 

The Chairman. That is a case of yours ? 

Mr. HuFERT. No, sir. We did not have anything to do with that. 
I am not aware of that. 

Mr. Kennedy. Didn't you have an unfair labor practice charge 
brought against you ? 

Mr. Hufert. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. That is what he is talking about. 

Mr. Hufert. I thought you were referrmg to sending him out of 
the country. 

Mr. Kennedy. It was in connection with that hearing. 

The Chairman. He says that — 

Charles Litell was one of these men. He said these men then became his 
watchdogs within the plant. In connection with their employment, they were 
to circulate among plant employees and listen for prounion talk, organization 
attempts, and other related activities. Such information was then reported to 
him, Checov, and, through him, to the Whirlpool personnel department. 

Do you know anything about that ? x -i-u 

Mr. Hufert. No, sir. May I have just a moment to confer with 
counsel ? 

The Chairman. Yes ; you may. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Senator Curtis. May I inquire ? 

The Chairman. Yes. 



5944 IIVIPROPER ACTriVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Curtis. This material being read into the record; is that 
Checov's affidavit? 

The Chairman. No ; it is not an affidavit. The reason I am read- 
ing it to this witness is because we are going to have some further 
testimony, and I am reading it to him while he is on the witness stand. 
I stated this was a report of a conversation had with Mr. Checov. It 
is not sworn to. 

So that you might have the opportunity, if any of this is testified 
to, I am reading it to you. In other words, we are trying to get 
Checov. He is up there in Vancouver. We have wired him. He is 
staying over there to keep from being subpenaed. 

Mr. HuFERT. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Nehemkis asked me to mention 
that Dr. Checov never had anything to do with the NLRB matters. 

The Chairman. He could have very well been a witness, if he was 
available. That is what he apparently was referring to. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

The Chairman. These would be, in effect, charges against your 
company, if true. He says that the charges about union activity were 
then submitted to close scrutiny, and the men were then hounded until 
a basis was found for their dismissal. 

Mr. HuTERT. That is not at all true. 

The Chairman (reading) : 

Checov stated another technique used to get rid of a troublemaker was to 
have the man promoted so as to elevate him above union activities. 

Did that practice take place ? 

Mr. HuFERT. No, sir. 

The Chairman. There is a great deal more here, but I am not going 
to read it all, because it may be unfair to read it. I just want to give 
you a general idea, for your information, about the statements made 
to a representative of this committee by Checov before he left the 
country. You can appreciate the committee's keen interest now in 
interrogating about these things. 

Mr. HuFERT. I fail to understand why he has made some of those 
statements. They are completely false. 

The Chairman. Those statements are not sworn to at the moment. 
I didn't want to put it in as evidence, but I was stating it to you as 
information that the committee had that certainly justifies or war- 
rants the committee interrogating you closely about these matters. 

Mr. Nehemkis. In that respect, sir, if you will permit me to inter- 
ject, I am still very hopeful that you will give Mr. Glen Evans an 
opportunity to enlighten you on various aspects of the matter. 

The Chairman. We have not ruled him out at all. But I cannot 
hear but one at a time very well. We will get this record first. 

Mr. Nehemkis. Very well, sir. 

The Chairman. Do you have the original of this affidavit ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes, we do. Mr. Sheridan obtained the original. 

The Chairman. Do we have it in our files ? 

Mr. Sheridan. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Are you sending for it ? 

Mr. Sheridan. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Go ahead, if you have any other questions. 

Mr. Kennedy. I think that would be all for now. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 5945 

The Chairman. Here is an affidavit that I am going to place in 
the record. I only have before me now a copy, not the original. If 
the original is not produced, then this will be stricken from the record, 
and all interrogation about it. I don't want something in the record 
that is not sworn to. But I understand we have the original in the 
files. 

You have sent for it 2 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. 

The Chairman. To conserve time, I am going ahead with the copy. 

This is an affidavit taken at the county of Marion, State of Ohio. 

I, Elclon Phillips, make the following voluntary statement of my own free 
will. No threats or promises have been made to me. 

I am presently unemployed having been layed off from my job at the Whirl- 
pool Co. in Marion, Ohio, on May 28, 1957. I expect to be reemployed by this 
company by July 1, 1957. 

Is he still working for you now ? 
Mr. Hup^ERT. He is working for us. 
The Chairman (reading) : 

I went to work at the Whirlpool Co. on November 14, 1955, as a timekeeper. 

After I had been at Whirlpool a short time, Charles A. Litell asked me if 
I would be interested in helping him form a committee for the purpose of keei>- 
ing unions out of the Whirlpool Co. at Marion. I agreed to do this. I delib- 
erated a long time before I agreed to help him. He told me that a man named 
Louis Checov was helping to get the movement started. Some time after this I 
met Checov through Charles Litell. Checov said that the reason he was at 
the Whirlpool plant was to organize a movement against the unions to keep 
the unions out of the plant. I did not know who Checov worked for. 

After that, we would meet with Checov after working hours and discuss how 
individual employees in the plant felt about the union. We would find this 
out by talking to the employees about the union and by listening to the con- 
versations of employees. Checov provided us with lists of all of the employees 
in the plant. We would use these lists when we got together with Checov to 
make notations as to how each employee stood in relation to the union. Checov 
also provided us with index cards which were used for making house calls. 

I don't know whether those are the same cards we have here or not. 
I guess further testimony will develop that. 

The purpose of the house calls was to try to influence the employees against 
the unions. I did not make any house calls myself because I did not have 
the time to spare. The cards contained the name and address of the employ- 
ees, the initials of the person contacting them and the results of the contacts. 

I never received any money from either Checov or Litell. Sometimes when 
we met with Checov we w^ould have food and drinks and he would pay the bill. 

I assume that refers to the committee entertainment that you were 
charged for. 

After Checov left Marion, a man named Wheeler asked me to attend a meet- 
ing at the Harding Hotel. Two or three other employees and I attended and 
Wheeler said that he was going to reactivate the committee. We had dinner 
and Wheeler paid the bill. 

What was the amount of that bill ? I think you have it there. It 
is $20.50. That is another item, I believe, that you paid Wheeler. 

There were no further meetings and nothing more came of it. 

Sworn to before me and subscribed in my presence this 5th day of June 1957. 

Ralph H. Simpson, Notary PuUic. 
My commission expires October 16, 1958. 

It is signed by Eldon Phillips. 



5946 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IK THE LABOR FIELD 

It is information like this which has brought tlie committee's at- 
tention to this matter and brings our interest in it. 

When you have the original, I want this printed in the record. 
Otherwise, I want all of tliis taken out of the record. 

Mr. HuFERT. Mr. Phillips is a very honorable man. I am sure 
that whatever he has said was spoken in honesty as he knew it. He 
has never told me that he met with Checov or with Miller. I did 
know that he had met with Litell. I think I indicated earlier that 
Litell had established a committee of 3 or 4 weak salaried people. 
This was one of them. 

The Chairman. This was one of them ? 

Mr. HuFERT. That is right. 

The Chairmax. You said at first that you couldn't find the com- 
mittee when you went out to look for it, when you were paying the 
bills. You may have learned about this since. 

Mr. ITuFERT. I did learn about it afterward. But I still to this 
moment did not know that Checov was meeting with the committee, 
other than Litell. 

The CnAiRMAN. I think you ought to bill Mr. Shefferman for 
your money back if you didn't know about it on all of this expense. 
I think you are entitled to have it back, if a fraud was perpetrated 
on you. 

Mr. Kennedy. I have one question. 

You say this other gentleman came down and at least had one 
meeting — Mr. Wheeler had one meeting — with this committee. What 
did you say that Mr. Peterson, the other employee of Mr. Sheffer- 
man, came down for? Did you say he came down there to apologize 
for Mr. Checov ? 

Mr. HuFERT. Mr. Peterson came down of his own volition. He 
called me and we arranged a dinner meeting that evening. I think 
Mr. Evans and I joined him at 6 o'clock. We had a dinner and 
discussed it. That, basically, was what he discussed with me. He 
said "Our organization basically has not given you very good service. 
I am sorry. Our service is not always like this." 

Mr. Kennedy. Did he discuss the labor situation with you? 

Mr. Hufert. Just briefly he inquired how we were coming. I 
don't think the entire dinner and meeting lasted more than 3 or 3i^ 
hours. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did he discuss what the sentiment in the commu- 
nity was toward the union ? 

Mr. Hufert. He may have. I don't recall. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did he also help you in writing a speech in connec- 
tion with the union ? 

Mr. Hufert. No, sir ; I don't recall that he did. 

Mr. Kennedy. He just came down, you say, just to apologize for 
Mr. Checov ? 

Mr. Hufert. I don't recall the speech. 

Mr. Kjjnnedy. Is that what he came down for? I just want to get 
your testimony straight. Is that what he came down for — to apologize 
for Mr. Checov ? 

Mr. Hufert. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. All right. 

The Chairman. You may stand aside. 



EMPROPEiR ACTIVnTES IN THE LABOR FIELD 5947 

(Committee members present: Senators McClellan, McNaniara, 
Ervin, and Curtis.) 

The Chairman. Mr. Evans, come forward, please. 

You do solemnl}' swear that the evidence you shall give before this 
Senate select committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing 
but the truth, so help you God ? 

Mr. Evans. I do, sir. 

TESTIMONY OF GLEN EVANS, ACCOMPANIED BY HIS COUNSEL, 
PETER E. NEHEMKIS, JR. 

The Chairman. Mr. Evans, state your name, your place of residence, 
and your business or occupation. 

Mr. Evans. My name is Glen Evans. I reside at 1105 St. Joseph 
Drive, St. Joseph, Mich. At the present time, I am general manager 
of the St. Joseph division of the Whirlpool Corp., and I was for- 
merly general manager of the Marion division at Marion, Ohio. 

The Chairman. You have the same counsel as appeared for Mr. 
Hufert? 

Mr. Evans. Yes, sir ; I do. 

The Chairman. You have heard some testimony here this after- 
noon, and you are testifying, I believe, by request. You may proceed 
to make any statement you wish, Mr. Evans. 

Mr. Evans. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Gentlemen, I would like to attempt to clarify some of the state- 
ments that have been made here because I believe you will appreciate 
the fact that since I was general manager of that plant, certainly I 
assumed and had all the responsibilities, including labor relations. 
You will also probably recognize the fact that since this was a new 
plant, started in March of 1955, actually we started our activity in 
Marion in setting up this plant in May of 1955, so we are talking about 
a relatively short time. 

I think that is an important factor here. I came to work for Whirl- 
pool in February of 1955, for the purpose of managing this plant. I 
did not know of Labor Relations Associates: I had never heard of 
them before, or any of the members of that organization. 

I think you will agree that in starting up a new plant it is cus- 
tomary, in fact even after it is started up when you have peak loads, 
to employ consultants in plant engineering, in all kinds of specialized 
fields. The labor relations is no exception to this. 

For example, if we were to hire the people employed in the per- 
sonnal department in starting up such an operation, we would find 
ourselves filled with extra people who would then have to be laid off 
after we had passed that peak. We needed some help in the selection 
and establishment of a selection procedure for new employees. 

When we turned to our corporate office and I would like to mention 
here, by the way, that this responsibility was completely that of the 
division manager namely, myself. We did not have to employ any 
people that were recommended by the corporate office. That was my 
responsibility. I could have refused that offer in the very beginning. 
However, it was mentioned that this company, our company, had 
long used Labor Relations Associates, from 1946 until this time, and 
this was a company, bv the wav, LRA, who, it was my understandmg, 



5948 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

was serving several hundreds of top companies in tliis country. They 
came highly recommended. They did have legal counsel that came 
as a part of this service. 

When we set up this plant, Mr. Checov and Mr. Miller, as Mr. Hu- 
fert has already testified, came to our plant to set up this procedure 
of selecting employees. This form that we are talking about, by the 
way, in my understanding, was not any different than one you get 
from the University of Chicago, or any other university, or that is 
used in the civil-service examinations, for example, in determining 
the capability and the particular job that a man should be assigned 
to. That is what we thought we were buying. 

It is my opinion that LEA does attempt, once they have a foot in 
the door in this procedure, to sell other programs, to sell other serv- 
ices once they have gotten in. It is my opinion that this procedure — I 
said opinion; it is not a fact, Mr. Chairman, it is only an opinion — 
that they perhaps used this selling procedure of trying to get you to 
use other programs, such as later were established by Mr. Checov, and 
I am speaking particularly about the program that has been explained 
here, and Mr. Checov explained to us at the time we dismissed him, 
of setting up a committee as antiunion people, an antiunion group. 

First of all, that is not and was not our motive. The best evidence 
I can give you is that better than 100 days prior to the election that 
was held, there was no LRA representative in our plant. So I don't 
understand how they could possibly have influenced our people to vote 
against the union. 

The fact that we employed most people who had already been mem- 
bers of the union and some of those who had held offices in the union, 
would bear evidence that we weren't doing a very good job of keeping 
them out, if that had been our motive. I say it was not our motive. 

In regard to these expenses, first I would like to say. Senator, that 
we certainly are very much interested in every dime in our plant. We 
are in a very competitive industry. I think that those who know 
anything about the appliance industry will agree with me that you 
must match every penny, every mill. 

Therefore, I can assure you that when Mr. Hufert and our comp- 
troller brought to our attention that we were being charged fees higher 
than normally would be expected by a consultant — and you will also. 
I think, agree that consultants normally do not give you an itemized 
brealvdown. They charge a fee, and this is common practice through- 
out the industry. 

However, when this was an exorbitant figure it was brought to my 
attention. I requested the comptroller to write to Mr. Shefferman, 
which he did, and ask for an itemized statement. 

Eemember, again, we did not hire our first employees in produc- 
tion until November of 1955. We did not get this itemized state- 
ment until the first part of 1956. Wlien we received this amount, 
we certainly did ask some questions, and as far as I was concerned, 
I felt that Vve certainly were not getting the proper service, and I cer- 
tainly had many questions about this organization. 

The second point was that we again wrote another letter. The next 
billings that came in again did not have an itemized account. This is 
more evidence to build up the fact that there is something wrong with 
this organization. That, together with the three items that Mr. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 5949 

Hubert outlined contain Mr. Checov's services, which were certainly 
inadequate. By inadequate, I mean the fact, for example, that on one 
occasion, for example, he called Mr. Hubert at home early in the morn- 
ing. That is the one he referred to. I want to be sure I am talking 
about that item specifically. That indicated that we certainly were 
not getting the services for which we were paying. 

Mr. Bachman and some of his practices did not impress me, as I 
believe I have clearly outlined to Mr. Sheridan, the investigator, and in 
fact I gave all of this information that I am giving here to him. 

At that time, we had made up our minds, as far as I am concerned, 
that we would have no more to do with them. When we dismissed 
Mr. Checov from the plant, I called Mr. Shefferman and told him so, 
and told him that this man was leaving the plant that day, the day 
we found out about him dealing with this committee you are talking 
about, and passing out money in small amounts to that group. 

He came back and saw me on the first of the week. In fact, I didn't 
give him any explanation. I said, "If you want to find out, come and 
see me," which he did. 

When he came the first of the next week, I explained to him what 
I have just told to 3'OU, and told him why we dismissed the services of 
Mr. Checov. Remember, again, the amount of time I am talking about. 
Here is an organization that had already established itself among a 
lot of companies in the country. Our company had used it since 
1946. I think it was natural that I would be very careful and cautious 
about throwing out on its ear a company that we had long used. So 
I was careful about that. I told Mr. Shefferman and he went on 
a long tirade, which he can do, about the kind of things that Mr. 
Checov had done, and trying to excuse these items, and so on. 

But I still took my stand that we did not want him back in the 
plant. We did have "a need, a very serious need at that time, because 
all of our supervision were new and young people. 

He mentioned something about leaders. Yes, we were vitally 
hungry for leaders in starting up a new plant. You will find, if you 
looked at the foremen in our plant today, that they came from these 
hourly people who were employed. You will find that the biggest 
percentage of them came from those people, which proves that there 
must have been some leaders among those whom we hired in accord- 
ance with this test procedure which has been outlined here. 

Now, what did I do about this ? 

Well, I dispensed with the services of LRA completely, and on the 
strength of this dismissing of the services of LRA, our corporation 
dismissed them from all of our plants. You will find that from the 
date we dismissed them at Marion they were no longer used anyplace 
in the corporation of Wliirlpool. 

I believe, gentlemen, that that is all that I have, unless there are 
questions. 

The Chairman. Are there any questions ? 

Senator Curtis. I would like to ask a question. 

The Chairman. Senator Curtis. , 

Senator Curtis. Was the dismissal of LRA on the basis of your own 
dealings with them, or had any outside group investigated and com- 
plained against them to vou ? i . j i + 

Mr. Evans. Mr. Curtis, I am not sure I would understand what 
you mean bv an outside group. 



5950 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Curtis. Well, I mean by the Government. 

Mr. Evans. I did not know of that. 

Senator Curtis. I did not kno^Y of it, either. I am asking you 
about your dismissal of them. 

Mr. Evans. My dismissal of LRA, if I understand your question, 
was strictly on the evidence that we had at Marion. 

Senator Curtis. In other words, strictly on the dealings that you 
had with them ? 

Mr. Evans, Yes, sir. If I understand your point correctly, there 
was no publicity given in this country at that time, if you talk about 
what you have read in the newspapers. I didn't know that LRA was 
not a fine, upstanding organization. We had no evidence to the con- 
trary. 

Senator Curtis. So that my question is clear, what I wanted to 
know was your reason for dismissing the whole service. Was that 
because of your own experiences with them ? 

Mr. Evans. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Are there any other questions ? 

Senator McNamara. Yes, Mr. Chairman, but I will be glad to de- 
fer to Senator Ervin. 

Senator Ervin. Thank 3^ou. 

As I understand, you didn't start operations until the end of the 
year of 1955 ? 

Mr. Evans. Yes, sir. 

Senator Er^ten. In other words, your first employees actually started 
to work with your production, being about November 1955 ? 

Mr. Evans. November 1955 ; yes. 

Senator Ervin. Was it in January that you discovered this? In 
other words, was it then that you got bills that you thought were too 
large ? 

Mr. Evans. We did not pay those bills. We held them until we got 
an itemized account. 

Senator Ervin. And when you got an itemized account, you found 
these items there for alleged entertainment ? 

Mr, Evans. Yes, sir. 

Senator Er\t:n, When was it that you finally dismissed Checov ? 

Mr, Evans, In March, I believe, sir. I believe it was in March of 
1956, 

Senator Ervin, Did you discover between the time that your atten- 
tion was first called to the exorbitant size of these bills, up to the 
time of the dismissal of Mr, Checov, that he had been attempting 
to establish in the plant what you might call an antiunion committee 'i 

Mr. Evans. No, sir; I did not know that until we dismissed Mr. 
Checov. 

Senator Ervin, When did you first learn that ? 

Mr, Evans. That was in March that I dismissed him. That was 
the first time I heard of that. He told us that. 

Senator Ervin, After you dismissed Checov, you still retained the 
services of Bachman ? 

Mr, Evans, Yes, sir; we did. Because he had already started to 
handle this NLRB case. Frankly, doing it over again. I would have 
liked to have thrown liim out at that time, too. That is what we should 
liave done. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 5951 

Senator Ervin. You are not a lawyer, but didn't it strike you as 
peculiar for Labor Kelations Associates to be rendering counsel to a 
third person ? 

Mr. Evans. No, sir ; if I understand your question correctly, I would 
say not; because they had long supplied this service not only to our 
company but to many. At St. Joseph, for instance, where we have a 
union — in fact, we have 12 unions in all of our plants, and we have 
7 plants. Most of those are organized by unions. They had used 
this legal counsel service from LRA at that time for a number of 
years. So I think it was logical that when our counsel, who was em- 
ployed on our corporate staff, was on his vacation, as Mr. Hufert out- 
lined, we contacted by letter, and we then referred this matter to 
LRA. I had never heard of Mr. Bachman and didn't know that he 
was in the organization. But he was assigned to this job that we 
requested. 

Senator Ervin. Anyway, the LRA organization was engaged, 
among other things, in the business of furnishing counsel to render 
services to third persons ? 

Mr. Evans. I believe that is right, sir. 

Senator Ervin. And had been in that business for a long time ? 

Mr. Evans. Yes, sir. That is what I understand. Not in my ex- 
perience, but that is what I was told. 

Senator Ervin. You are a layman and not a lawyer, of course, 
and you are not familiar with legal ethics that would prevail in a 
case of that kind. 

Mr. Evans. That is correct, sir. 

Senator Ervin. That is all. 

Senator McNamara. I have a question to ask the witness, Mr. 
Chairman. 

You had used this LRA service in your St. Joe plant up to the time 
that you had this, shall we say, trouble with them, or difference with 
them in the Ohio plant, and then you dispensed with their services 
in St. Joe, as well ? 

Mr. Evans. Yes, sir ; that was done. 

Senator McNamara. Who do you use now ? 

Mr. Evans. We do not use anybody. We use our own legal coun- 
sel. We have a counsel on corporate staff. I might mention that our 
corporation has grown in the last 10 to 12 years. We now can afford 
our own counsel on our corporate staff. Prior to that time we were 
only one division located in St. Joseph, the one I am now general 
manager of. At that time we couldn't afford to maintain such a 
legal staff in that small an operation. 

Senator McNamara. When LRA was employed by you at the St. 
Joe plant, were they represented by Mr. Kamenow from Detroit, or 
was that out of the Chicago office ? 

Mr. Evans. Senator McNamara, I am not sure I understand. 

Mr. Nehemkis. May I confer? 

The Chairman. Yes. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Evans. I was not aware of that. My counsel tells me that the 
answer to your question is yes, that he did come to our organization m 
1946. I was not familiar with that. That was prior to my time. 



89330— 57— pt. 15 13 



5952 IA/[PROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator McNamara. One of Mr. Kamenow's men gave us testimony 
yesterday that they had retained all of the accounts in Michigan. 
I would assume if his statement were true that you would still be one 
of his accounts, even though they changed the name from LEA to 
some other name. 

Mr. Evans. Sir, if you will permit me, I am sure that is not true. 
I am positive it is not true. That is, we definitely do not use the 
services of LEA and have not since the time that we dismissed them. 

Senator McNamara. That is correct. But Mr. Kamenow is now 
in the same business, operating under another name, servicing the 
same accounts, according to the testimony that this committee had 
yesterday. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) . 

Mr. Evans. It is not true in accordance with our account, sir. We 
do not use that service, absolutely not. 

Senator McNamara. You took them out of Michigan as well as 
Marion, Ohio ? 

Mr. Evans. We do not use any consultant in the labor-relations 
field. 

Senator McNamara. That is all. 

The Chairman, The Chair will announce that the original affidavit 
that I read a while ago is here, and will therefore be placed into the 
record. 

Is there anything f urtlier at this time ? 

The only thing about this is that your firm certainly paid out a 
lot of money on an expense account that, it seems, a good business- 
man would have done a little more than hesitate to pay, but would 
have just refused to pay it. 

Anyway, the man was discharged, and you don't use their services 
any more. If they were doing what you say they were doing here, 
they have some kind of a racket which is not wholesome for the 
labor movement nor for management relations. 

Mr. Evans. I agree. 

The Chairman. Is there anything further ? 

Mr, Kennedy. Not at this time. 

The Chairman. We may need you tomorrow. 

Mr, Nehemkis. Is Mr. Hufert's presence required tomorrow? 

Mr. Kennedy. I don't think Mr. Huf ert will be needed. 

The Chairman. Do you want to excuse both of them ? 

Mr. Kennedy. We are going further into this matter. I don't know 
whether they would want to stay or not. 

The Chairman. You will be excused, gentlemen. 

The committee will stand in recess until 10 : 30 in the morning, 

(Committee members present at time of recess : Senators McClellan, 
Curtis, McNamara, and Ervin.) 

(Whereupon, at 4 : 47 p. m., the committee was recessed, to reconvene 
at 10 : 30 a. m. Thursday, October 24, 1957.) 



INVESTIGATION OF IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE 
LABOR OR MANAGEMENT FIELD 



THURSDAY, OCTOBER 24, 1957 

United StxVtes Senate, 
Select Committee on Improper Activities 
IN THE Labor or Management Field, 

Washington^ D. C. 

The select committee met at 10 : 30 a. m., pursuant to Senate Res- 
olution 74, agreed to January 30, 1957, in the caucus room. Senate 
Office Building, Senator John L. McClellan (chairman of the select 
committee) presiding. 

Present: Senator John L. McClellan, Democrat, Arkansas; Sena- 
tor Irving M. Ives, Republican, New York; Senator Sam J. Ei-vin, 
Democrat, North Carolina ; Senator Pat McNamara, Democrat, Mich- 
igan ; Senator Carl T. Curtis, Republican, Nebraska. 

Also present: Robert F. Kennedy, chief counsel; Pierre E. G. 
Salinger, investigator; Walter Sheridan, investigator; Ruth Young 
Watt, chief clerk. 

The Chairman. The committee will be in order. 

(Members of the select committee present at the convening of the 
session w^ere Senators McClellan, Ives, McNamara, and Curtis.) 

The Chairman. We will proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr, Charles Litell, please. 

The Chairman. Mr. Charles Litell, will you come around, please? 

Do you solemnly swear that the evidence you shall give before 
this Senate select committee shall be the truth, the whole truth, and 
nothing but the truth, so help you God? 

Mr. Litell. I do, sir. 

TESTIMONY OF CHAELES A. LITELL 

The Chairman. Mr. Litell, state your name and your place of resi- 
dence and your business or occupation. 

Mr. Litell. Charles A. Litell, 207 East George Street, Marion, 
Ohio. I am presently employed by Technical Services Coi-p. 

The Chairman. Do 3^011 know of your right to have counsel present 
while you testify ? 

Mr. Litell. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Do you waive counsel ? 

Mr. Litell. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. How long have you been in your present employ- 
ment ? 

Mr. Litell. Approximately 6 weeks, sir. 

The Chairman. Wliere did you formerly work ? 

5953 



5954 IMPROPER ACTIVmES EST THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. LiTELL. Whirlpool Corp., sir. 

The Chairman. What j)lant ? 

Mr. LiTELL. Marion division, Marion, Ohio, division. 

The Chairman. How long did you work there ? 

Mr. LiTELL. From August 15 of 1955 to March 22 of 1956. 

Mr. Kennedy. During the period of 1950 to 1954 you were a mem- 
ber of the UAW-CIO, were you ? 

Mr. LiTELL. Yes, sir. 

Mr. I\iNNEDY. What plant was that ? 

Mr. LiTELL. Marion industrial division of Motor Products Corp. 
in Marion. 

Mr. ICJENNEDY. Did that plant close down ? 

Mr. LiTELL. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then you were unemployed and looking for a job. 

Mr. LiTELL. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you go to the Ohio State Employment Agency, 
then ? 

Mr. LiTELL. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did they make arrangements for you to go to visit 
the^VliirlpoolCo.? 

Mr, LiTELL. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did they give you any instructions at that time ? 

Mr. LiTELL. They did. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. What were they ? 

Mr. LiTELL. They told me to be very careful how I talked regarding 
union affiliations because "Wliirlpool was antiunion. 

Mr. Kennedy. So you were interviewed; and did you go to the 
^VliirlpoolCo.? 

Mr. LiTELL. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were you interviewed there ? 

Mr. LiTELL. Yes, sir. 

Mr. KJENNEDY. Were you asked about the unions or were you asked 
about your miion background ? 

Mr. LiTELL. Very much so, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you tell them at that time that you were against 
unions ? 

Mr. LiTELL. That is right, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. You were hired, were you ? 

Mr. LiTELL. By Harry Miller. 

Mr. Kennedy. By Harry Miller ? 

Mr. LiTELL. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. "Who is Harry Miller ? 

Mr. LiTELL. While I did not know w^ho he was then, and I assumed 
he was part of "VYhirlpool manufacturing. 

Mr. Kennedy. But did you learn later on he was associated with 
Dr. Checov? 

Mr. LiTELL. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And he was from Labor Relations Associates? 

Mr. LiTELL. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And he was one of those who interviewed you ? 

Mr. LiTELL. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did he tell you at that time that as a former member 
of the UAW-CIO that you could tell your fellow employees what 
happened when the union got into the plants ? 



IMPROPER ACnVITTES IN THE LABOR FIELD 5955 

Mr. LiTELL. Very definitely so, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. You went to work for the company, and did you 
subsequently meet Dr. Checov ? 

Mr. LiTELL. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. How long after did you meet Dr. Checov? 

Mr. LiTELL. Approximately 3 or 4 weeks. I had seen him in the 
plant, but I did not meet him personally until probably 3 or 4 weeks 
after I actually started working there. 

Mr. Ivennedy. Did he come up and introduce himself to you; or 
what? 

Mr. LiTELL. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. What did he say to you at that time ? 

Mr. LiTELL. He told me he was Louis Checov and he would prob- 
ably be seeing a lot of me in the future. 

Mr. Kennedy. What did he say? Did he say he was associated 
with the management at that time ? 

Mr. LiTELL. He did not say so, no, sir. I assumed he was. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did he ever subsequently tell you what he was doing 
there? 

Mr. LiTELL. Yes, sir. One night after work he was waiting in the 
area where you ring out and he stopped me and asked me if I would 
meet him that evening. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you met him that evening, did you ? 

Mr. LiTELL. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wliat did he say to you at that time ? 

Mr. LiTELL. I met him at the Ritz Bar and Grille in Marion, Ohio, 
and he went into great detail about what his job was and what he 
intended to accomplish and that they had a great deal of money to 
accomplish it. 

Mr. Kennedy. ^Yliat did he say his job was ? 

Mr. LiTELL. To keep any union out of Whirlpool Corp., sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. To keep unions out of Wliirlpool ? 

Mr. LiTELL. Any unions. 

Mr. Kennedy, And he said that that is what he was working at and 
they had a great deal of money to accomplish it ? 

Mr. LiTELL. Positively. 

Mr. Kennedy. "What did he want you to do ? 

Mr. LiTELL. He wanted me to organize a committee that he would 
instruct to accomplish this. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you agree to do so ? 

Mr. LiTELL. Yes, sir. 

Mr. I^NNEDY. Did you get a group of people together? 

Mr. LiTELL. That is right, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could you tell us the names of some of the people ? 

Mr. LiTELL. Malcolm Grounds and Eldon Phillips. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is the Mr. Phillips who furnished the affidavit 
yesterday ? 

Mr. LiTELL. Henry Boles. 

Mr. Kennedy. They became chief members of the committee? 

Mr. LiTELL. Yes, sir, and Leroy Ambrose. 

Mr. Kennedy. There were about five people on the committee ? 

Mr. LiTELL. That was the ones in mine, as well as personal contacts 
that Mr. Checov had himself. 



5956 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. He had other personal contacts ? 

Mr. LiTELL. Yes, sir, 

Mr. Kennedy. How would the committee function ? What were 
you supposed to do ? 

Mr. LiTELL. They Avere supplied every week with a list of every 
employee in the Marion division, tliat is management, hourly rated, 
everybody in the plant. This list was broken down into a code 
system. There were a series of lines to make columns and at the top 
of every column there was an initial, my initials, Grounds' initials, 
and each one of the persons. 

Every week Louis Checov woidd ao over this list and if one of us 
knew this particular person he would put, or I would, a plus or a 
minus indicating whether they were pro or antiunion. 

The Chairman. What did the plus stand for and what did the 
minus stand for ? 

Mr. LiTELL. The plus stood for against the imion and the minus 
stood for with the union. 

The Chairman. I did not quite get it, and it is not quite clear. 

Mr. LiTELL. The plus meant they were company people. 

The Chairman. They would stay v.ith the company ? 

Mr. LiTELL. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. They were antiunion ? 

Mr. LiTELL. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. And the minus meant wliat ? 

Mr. LiTELL. The vice versa. 

The Chairman. All riglit. I think it is clear now. Proceed. 

I hand you a photostatic copy of a document here and will you 
examine it and state if you identify it. 

Mr. LiTELL. Well, I don't have to look at it very well, sir. 

The Chairman. What is that? 

Mr. LiTELL. That is a photostat of those lists and all having 
addresses of all of the employees. 

The Chairman. Did you have the original of that in your possession 
at any time ? 

Mr. LiTELL. Many times, sir. 

The Chair]Man. That is more or less your work sheet, was it ? 

Mr. LiTELL. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. All right, that document may be made exhibit No. 
8 for reference only. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 8" for reference 
and may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

Mr. Kennedy. Where was this document obtained that you were 
able to get the names of all of the employees and their addresses ? 

Mr. LiTELL. From Louis Checov, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Checov was able to get it ? 

Mr. LiTELL. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know where he obtained it from? If you 
don't know, don't say. 

Mr. LiTELL. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did he ever say to you where he received it from 
and if you don't know, I don't want you to answer. 

Mr. LiTELL. He said where he got it. 

Mr. Kennedy. He told you where he got it? 

Mr. LiTELL. Yes, sir. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 5957 

Mr. Kennedy. Where was that ? 

Mr. LiTELL. From the girls in the office, meaning Ted Hufert's office. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, while you were operating and functioning, 
did Mv. Checov give you any extra money ? 

Mr. Litell. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. How often would he give you money ? 

Mr. Litell. He would come to Marion every week and I would 
pick him up at the depot in Marion and take him to his liotel and he 
would usually give me $20. 

jMr. Kennedy. That was because you were assisting in this anti- 
union committee ? 

Mr. Litell. Well, and I was supposed to foot the bills for the rest 
of the committee with it. 

Mr. Kennedy. You would give some of the money to the rest of the 
committee ? 

Mr. Litell. Yes, sir, occasionally. 

INIr. Kennedy. And he would also entertain you and take you out 
to dinners? 

Mr. Litell. Yes, sir, 

Tlie Chairman. You kept most of the $20, did you ? 

Mr. Litell. Sometimes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did he tell you whether he was keeping anybody in 
the plant advised as to the activities of what he was finding out about 
these employees ? 

Mr. Litell. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who did he say he was keeping advised? 

Mr. Litell. Mr. Hufert and Mr. Evans, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. He was keeping them advised ? 

Mr. Litell. Definitely so. 

Mr. Kennedy. As to what you were doing and how you were op- 
erating ? 

Mr. Litell. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, did you also make arrangements to visit homes 
of some of the employees ? 

Mr. Litell. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. And talk to them about the union? 

Mr. Litell. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. And find out again whether they were for the union 
or against the union ? 

Mr. Litell. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you contact relatives of the employees ? 

Mr. Litell. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. For what purpose was that ? 

Mr. Litell. Mr. Checov instructed us to do that. If any employee 
became troublesome, and if you knew any of his relatives, to call them 
up and threaten him or pressure the employee to cease his union activi- 
ties or he would lose his job. 

Mr. Kennedy. "\^niat about those employees 

Senator Curtis. I did not get who it was that called up employees 
or their families and threatened them to be against the union or they 
would lose the job. 

Mr. Litell. One of the committee, sir. 

Senator Curtis. One of the committee? 

Mr. Litell. Yes, sir. 



5958 IMPROPER AcnvrriE's in the labor field 

Senator Cuetis. Would you name them ? 

Mr. LiTELL. Who made an actual call, you mean ? 

Senator Curtis, Yes. 

Mr, LiTELL. Well 

Senator Curtis. Did you make any ? 

Mr. LiTELL. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Whom did you call ? 

Mr. LiTELL. A Mrs. Kamsey, sir. 

Senator Curtis, What did you tell her ? 

Mr. LiTELL, I talked to her, and I think we called her from Malcolm 
Grounds' home, and I think that Henry Boles talked to her. 

Senator Curtis, What did you tell her ? 

Mr. LiTELL, We told her that her son, Dick Eamsey, an employee in 
the plant, was in danger of losing his job as he was engaging in union 
activities. 

Senator Curtis, Was he engaging in union activities ? 

Mr, LiTELL. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Did he lose his job ? 

Mr. LiTELL. No, sir. 

Senator Curtis. That is all for now. 

The Chairman, Did he cease those activities afterward ? 

Mr, LiTELL, Yes ; he did, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Is that why he did not lose his job ? 

Mr. LiTELL, Well, I can only guess. I think it is, sir. 

The Chairman. How many others ? How many others did you call ? 

Mr. LiTELL. That is the only one that I called, sir. 

The Chairman. Do you know of others being called ? 

Mr. LiTELL. Well, I don't know if the calls were actually made. I 
know they were discussed, and I know that people were told to call 
them. Whether they did or not, I don't know. 

The Chairman. I have a card here on Richard L, Ramsey, Box 30, 
Green Camp, and it has some notation on it. I will ask you to exam- 
ine this card and see if you can identify it. 

(A document was handed to the witness.) 

Mr. LiTELL. Yes, sir ; that is Mr. Ramsey's card. 

The Chairman. Who made the notation on it ? 

Mr. LiTELL. Jake Ambrose. 

The Chairman. Jake Ambrose made that ? 

Mr. LiTELL. Jacob Leroy Ambrose made the notations. 

The Chairman. Is that one of many cards that you had on em- 
ployees ? 

Mr. LiTELL. That is right, sir. 

The Chairman. That card may be made exhibit No. 9, 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No, 9" for refer- 
ence and will be found in the appendix on p, 6222.) 

The Chairman. Now, I hand you another card on Richard Creager 
and it has some comment on it. He is of 240 Lincoln Avenue, Marion. 
Will you examine that card and state if you identify that card? 

(A document was handed to the witness.) 

Mr. LiTELL. Yes, sir ; I know that card. 

The Chairman. You know that card ? 

Mr. LiTELL. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Whose handwriting is on that, that made the nota- 
tions ; do you know ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 5959 

Mr. LiTELL. That is myself and Henry Boles, sir. 

The Chairman. You two made the notation on that card ? 

Mr. LiTELL. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. That card may be made exhibit No. 10. 
(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 10" for refer- 
ence and will be found in the appendix on p. 6223.) 

The Chairman. For the record, if you will let me have the card, I 
will comment upon what it shows. I will take the first one firstj the 
card on Eamsey. I see here it shows after his name the word "panit." 
What does that mean ? 

Mr. LiTELL. The paint department. 

The Chairman. He is in the paint department ? 

Mr. LiTELL. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. It is dated January 28, 1956, and it has under the 
notations here "by J. A." 

Mr. LiTELL. By Jacob Ambrose, that is, sir. 

The Chairman. It has under comment out here, after his name, it 
says, "No good," underscored. What does that mean? 

Mr. LiTELL. It means he was a prounion, sir. 

The Chairman. Then down below, it says, "He won't vote for 
union. I think he will." Who wrote that, do you know ? 

Mr. LiTELL. I don't know exactly. Either I or Jake Ambrose wrote 
it, sir. 

The Chairman. Look at it again, and can you identify your own 
handwriting ? 

Mr. LiTELL. I think so. 

The Chairman. All right, take a look at it. 

(A document was handed to the witness.) 

Mr. LiTELL. That is mine, sir. 

The Chairman. That is your handwriting ? 

Mr. LiTELL. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. You made that notation where it says he wouldn't 
vote for a union but "I think he will" ? 

Mr. LiTELL. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. That is your handwriting ? 

Mr. LiTELL. Yes, sir. The reason I didn't recognize it instantly 
is some of these cards were wrote laying them on the car seat after 
people came out of the house. 

The Chairman. Laying on the car seat ? 

Mr. LiTELL. I mean they were using the seat for a desk, sort of. 

The Chairman. Is that the Ramsey you testified about, the person 
whose mother you called and talked to her ? 

Mr. LiTELL. Yes, sir. 

The Cpiairman. This Creager card, exhibit No. 10, examine that 
and state whose handwriting is on there, and read the notation on it. 

Mr. LiTELL. I think that is Henry Boles' handwriting. 

The Chairman. What does the notation say on there after his name? 

Mr. LiTELL. "Talked to boy's mother and father. Will talk to 
Dick later. Parents will talk to Dick." 

The Chairman. Who initialed it ? 

Mr. LiTELL. Henry Boles, and he put my initials. 

The Chairman. Did you know about the call ? 

Mr. LiTELL. I was with him, sir. 



5960 IIVIPROPER ACTIVITIES IK THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. You were with him when he called ? 

Mr. LiTELL. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Now I hand you a stack of cards, from which stack 
those two cards were drawn. I ask you now to examine this stack and 
see if those are some of, all of, or the cards that you used in that 
card system. 

You need not take time to identify each card, but satisfy yourself 
whether those appear to be the original card that you used in this 
check you made. 

Mr. LiTELL. Those are the cards, sir. 

The Chairman. Those are the cards. That bundle of cards may be 
made exhibit No. 11 for reference. 

(The cai'ds referred to were marked "Exhibit No. 11'" for reference 
and may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

The Chairman. Do you know how many people that you checked 
on and reported on to Checov ? 

Mr. LiTELL. I have no idea, sir. 

The Chairman. All right, Mr. Counsel, proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was any action taken against those who continued 
to be in favor of the union ? 

Mr. LiTELL. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. How was this described to you, as to what would be 
done ? 

Mr. LiTELL. They were assigned heavier workloads, and other em- 
ployees were told by their foremen to complain about them, saying they 
weren't doing their work. At times they were even called in. In fact, 
Jake Ambrose was called in and told he would lose his job if he didn't 
cease his union activities. 

Mr. Kennedy. He had formerly been for the union ? 

Mr. LiTELL. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And he was called in and told he better cease that ? 

Mr. LiTELL. Yes, sir. That is when he became a ball of fire for the 
company. 

The Cltairman. Became what? 

Mr. LiTELL. A hard worker, sir. 

The Chairman. After he decided he wasn't going to get into the 
union, he became a hard worker, is that what you mean ? 

Mr. LiTELL. Yes, sir. 

The Chairjian. I don't know all the angles to this, but go ahead. 

Mr. Kennedy. You mean that he became violently in favor of the 
company ? Is that right ? 

Mr. LiTELL. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you ever speak to Mr. Checov regarding Mr. 
Beck, Mr. Dave Beck ? 

Mr. LiTELL. Mr. Checov discussed Dave Beck and Jimmy Hoffa 
both with me, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. l\liat did he say about Mr. Beck ? 

Mr. LiTELL. After he had — after Checov had been around Marion a 
considerable time, I accused — I approached him about I thought the 
company was trying to get an independent union in. Mr. Checov 
became very excited and denied this. In fact, he told me that his boss 
was very friendly with Jimmy Hoffa and Dave Beck, He said if there 
was going to be any union in the Marion division of Wliirlpool, it 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 5961 

would be the teamsters, because they could — meaning his company — 
could put that union in practically overnight. 

Mr. Kennedy. Just for the record, Mr. Chairman, although we do 
have the information regarding the friendly relationship between Mr. 
Shefferman and Mr. Beck, we don't have any independent informa- 
tion that Mr. Shefferman was friendly with Mr. Hoffa. I don't ques- 
tion that he said that, but this is just as far as our records go. 

The Chairman. The records already shows the very fine relation- 
ship and profitable relationship, I think, between Mr. Beck and Mr. 
Shefferman. That record will stand as to what the relationship was 
with Mr. Hoft'a. 

Mr. Kennedy. You say Dr. Checov said he was keeping the com- 
pany informed as to j^our activities ? 

Mr. Litell. Positively, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you, on your part, ever have any conferences 
with anybody from the company, from the Whirlpool Co., regarding 
your operations and what you were finding out ? 

Mr. Litell. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Ivennedy. Who did you have your conferences with ? 

Mr. Litell. Ted Hufert, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. You met and talked with ]\Ir. Hufert ? 

Mr. Litell. Many times, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you make reports to Hufert on these individuals 
that you were checking on ? 

Mr. Litell. Yes sir. In fact, Mr. Hufert was very receptive 
to this information. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you always visit him individually and alone? 

Mr. Litell. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were you ever there with anyone else? 

Mr. Litell. Yes, sir ; Mack Grounds. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mack Grounds ? 

Mr. Litell. Yes, sir. 

Mr. KJENNEDY. He was present when you made one of these reports 
to Mr. Hufert? 

Mr. Litell. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Subsequently you turned against your antiunion 
activities ; isn't that right ? 

Mr. Litell. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could you tell us why that happened ? ^ 

Mr. Litell. They just were too vicious for me, sir. I didn't realize 
what I was getting into, I guess. But the measures that they would 
take to pressure people and' to put them in a position to where they 
had to do what they wanted them to do. 

Mr. Kennedy. You Avere doing it yourself, were you not ? 

Mr. Litell. Yes, sir; and I am very much ashamed of myself, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. So what did you do about this, then ? 

Mr. Litell. I told Mr. Checov that I was going to have nothmg to 
do with it, and that he better stay away from me, because there was 
going to be a lot of trouble. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you go to the UAW then ? 

Mr. Litell. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Ivennedy. Who did you go see ? 

Mr. Litell. Emerson Barringer. 



5962 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you tell him what you had been doing? 

Mr. LiTELL. Everything, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And Barringer was a representative of the UAW- 
CIO? 

Mr. LiTELL. That is right, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you turn over these cards? 

Mr. LiTELL. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you continue to work at Whirlpool ? 

Mr. LiTELL. Until March 22 ; yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then what happened ? 

Mr. LiTELL. They fired me, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. What had you done that made them fire you ? 

Mr. Litell. Well, on this particular day I had brought some bal- 
loons into the plant and they had "Join UAW-CIO" on them. I had 
inflated them and had 2 tied to my lunch pail and also 2 to the desk 
that was used by the foreman and I. The foreman told me to remove 
them from the desk. He said that was company property. Which 
I did. I turned around and stuck them with my penknife. He then 
told me to remove them from my lunch pail, and I refused. So then 
he told me to put my lunch pail in my locker. I said I would do 
that if he made everybody else in the plant put theirs in their locker. 
He said he didn't care what everybody else did, I was going to put 
mine in or else he was going to remove the balloons. 

I told him he better not remove them and that I would not take 
them off. So it ended up they locked me in an office and put a guard 
at the door. 

Mr. Kennedy. With the balloons ? 

Mr. LiTELL. Yes, sir. I still didn't take them off. They w^ere 
still on there, sir. In fact, when I left the plant they were still on 
there. They locked me in this office and put a guard on the door 
and left me in there for some time, and then when they came back 
they told me I was fired for insubordination. 

(At this point Senator Ervin entered the hearing room.) 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you bring a charge then before the NLRB ? 

Mr. Litell. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And at that time did Mr. Checov leave town, Dr. 
Checov ? 

Mr. LiTELL. Checov left, as far as I know, the day that I was fired. 
He came to my station where I was working and started a conversa- 
tion as to my activities against him, and said he thought I was his 
friend, and I told him that I still was his friend. Then he asked 
me how I would like to be in a job like his. I said "I don't know 
what you mean." 

He said "I am prepared right now to set you up in business where 
you will make considerable money, in fact, more than you will ever 
think about making in Marion. But you will have to go to Chicago." 

So I just laughed and I said, "That is a nice way of getting me out 
of Marion. No thanks." 

He said "Is that the way it is, Charley ?" 

And I said "That is the way it is, Lou." 

He left and that is the last I ever seen of him. 

Mr. Kennedy. After you were fired, the charges were brought be- 
fore the National Labor Relations Board by the UAW-CIO and, as 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 5963 

I understand it, subsequently the company posted a notice that tliey 
would cease and desist certain activities, the formation of an anti- 
union activity, and they gave you your back pay plus $2,000 ; is that 
right? 

Mr. LiTELL. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. The Labor Relations Associates, Dr. Checov, or the 
Sheif erman firm, were not brought in on that charge ; is that right ? 

Mr. LiTELL. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. The original charge. 

Mr. LiTELL. No, sir ; they were not. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you subsequently try to bring an unfair labor 
practice charge against them? 

Mr. LiTELL. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Had you been initially told by the examiner out 
there that it couldn't be brought against the third party ? 

Mr. LiTELL. Against them or NLRB, both. I tried to file against 
both of them. 

Mr. Kennedy. Because you didn't feel you had gotten the right 
treatment about it? 

Mr. LiTELL. There was no question in my mind, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. But it ultimately ended up so that at the present 
time you are unemployed, is that right ? 

Mr. LiTELL. I am working now. 

Mr. Kennedy. Where are you working now ? 

Mr. LiTELL. For Technical Services Corp., sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is all at this time. 

Senator McNamara. Mr. Chairman? 

The Chairman. Senator McNamara. 

Senator McNamara. I would like to ask the witness a question. 
Wliy did you agree to form a committee to help keep unions out of 
the plant ? 

Mr. LiTELL. Sir, when you have a family and you are out of work 
for some time, as I was, sometimes you don't analyze things as you 
should. I had been out of work for pretty near a year, partly due 
to my association being a union officer, I think. Marion isn't a large 
town. Being right doesn't pay the bills. I took the job. Like I 
say, I didn't fully realize the extent that they were going to go or they 
were going to expect me to go. 

Senator McNamara. You took it for money for your family to help 
support your family, is that your answer ? 

Mr. LiTELL. I took the job, yes, sir. 

Senator McNamara. For money? 

Mr. LiTELL. Yes, sir. 

Senator McNamara. You had been with the UAW-CIO for 4 years 
before that as a steward, part of the time ? 

Mr. LiTELL. That is right, sir. 

Senator McNamara. During that 4-year period, you probably had 
a name for people who did what you were doing. Did you think 
about them as labor spies or stoolpigeons ? Which term did you 
use? 

Mr. LiTELL. Spies, I guess, sir. 

Senator McNamara. Labor spies? 

Mr. LiTELL. Yes, sir. 



5964 IMPROPER ACTivrriES in the labor field 

Senator McNamara. You considered yourself a labor spy for the 
company ? 

Mr. LiTELL. I guess if I had to face it I would, yes, sir. 

Senator McNamara. Well, I guess you have to face it now. 

Mr. LiTELL. Yes, sir. 

Senator McNamara. And they paid you part of this $20 a week 
that was handed to you for being a labor spy for the company ? 

Mr. LiTELL. Yes, sir. 

Senator McNamara. You w^ere working pretty cheap, were you 
not? 

Mr. LiTELL. Very, sir. 

Senator McNamara. Who set U]:) the card system that we have 
here ? That is, these cards that you identified ? 

Mr. LiTELL. Well, the entire committee and Louis Checov collec- 
tively, sir. Do you want to know whose idea it was ? 

Senator McNajiara. Yes. 

Mr. LiTELL. Well, Mr. Checov and I discussed various means. As 
he put it, he said, "From your record, you used to be pretty successful 
organizing, so Avouldn't the opposite work, of disorganizing ?" Which 
I agreed to. He said, "I know that house calls play an important 
part in organizing any union." 

And then he said, "So whv don't we make liouse calls to disorganize 
them?" 

I had to agree that that made sense. Pie asked, "How do you do it?" 
and I said, "Well, you give people cards to go call on people."' 

He said, "All right ; we will give people cards and call on people." 

Senator McNamara. T\^io made up the cards ? 

Mr. LiTELL. Louis Checov. 

Senator ^McNamara. He made up the cards and gave them to you ? 

Mr. LiTELL. Yes, sir. He made those up from the company employ- 
ment records. I observed him doing that. 

Senator McNamara. Apparently he had complete cooperation from 
the management to have access to the files. 

Mr. LiTELL. Very definitely, sir. 

Senator McNamara. This is his handwriting on the cards where the 
names appear, and the addresses of tlie people ? 

Mr. LiTELL. Yes, sir. 

Senator McNamara. He turned the cards over to your committee? 
How big was your committee ? How large, how many people ? 

Mr. LiTELL. Four people besides myself, sir. That will require 
some explanation. These people themselves had people working for 
them. 

Senator McNamara. Did they pay these other people ? 

Mr. LiTELL. Who do you mean by "they," sir ? 

Senator McNamara. Well, you said they had people working for 
themselves. I assume that you mean by "they," these four that were 
associated with you in forming the committee. Is that who you meant 
when you say "they" ? 

Mr. LiTELL. Yes, sir. 

Senator McNamara. That is vrho I mean, too. 

Mr. LiTELL. Not that I know of. 

Senator McNamara. You assume that they, these other four people, 
i^ot paid part of the $20 every time the man came to town ? 



IMPROPER ACl^IVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 5965 

Mr. LiTELL. Well, I don't know for sure, sir, but I think two of them 
did. 

Senator McNamara. Are they still acting as what you call labor 
spies for the company, as far as you know ? 

Mr. LiTELL. I don't know, sir. 

Senator McNamara. They are all working there? 

Mr. LrrELL. Yes, sir. 

Senator McNamara. This business of attem])ting to form an inde- 
pendent union that you heard about, wasn't that more or less what you 
were doing, trying to form a company union ? Just what was your 
role? 

Mr. LiTELL. No, sir ; we weren't trying to form no union. At least 
I wasn't. 

Senator McNamara. You just wanted to keep all unions, including 
independent unions, out ? Is that it ? 

Mr. LiTELL. Yes, sir. 

Senator McNamara. Mr. Checov, Dr. Checov, told you that ratlier 
than have an independent union he would rather have the teamsters, 
is that it ? 

Mr. LiTELL. He didn't say he would rather, sir. He said they 
would have the teamsters. 

Senator McNamara. Rather than an independent union ? 

]\Ir. LiTELL. Yes, sir. Rather than any union. 

Senator McNamara. Including an independent union ? 

Mr. LiTELL. Yes, sir. 

Senator McNamara. That is what I understood you to say. 

Do you know anything about the teamsters union ? 

IVIr. LiTELL. All I know is they are a pretty rough outfit. I know 
that. 

Senator McNamara, What do you mean by rough ? 

Mr. LiTELL. Just that, sir. They are nasty. 

Senator McNamara. Well, you must have something in mind when 
you say rough. I don't know what you mean by that. 

Mr. LiTELL. I mean that they do as they are told, the members, I 
understand. 

Senator McNamara. Well, didn't you find when you were a member 
of the UAW-CIO that they pretty much did as they were told, too ? 
Isn't that pretty true of all unions ? 

Mr. LiTELL. Yes, sir. 

Senator McNajhara. Then you make no distinction, then, in your 
mind between the teamsters and other unions in that regard, members 
doinff what they are told ? 

Mr. LiTELL. Well, I understand the teamsters are a little more force- 
ful in outlining the rules to the members. 

Senator McNamara. You don't think that the members make their 
own rules, but somebody else makes them. Is that it ? 

]Mr. LiTELL. Definitely, sir. 

Senator McNamara. You didn't find that to be true in the UAW- 
CIO? Is that the distinction that vou make? 

Mr. LiTELL. No, I can't say that, either, sir. I can't say that you 
always had a hand in making the rules in the UAW, eitlier. 

Senator McNamara. Then you say there is no difference between 
the unions, in fact ? 



5966 IMPROPER ACTIVITIEIS IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. LiTELL. I guess just — I guess not, sir. I think the teamsters are 
still a little more forceful. 

Senator McNamara. Now that you apparently have gotten religion 
again, and you are sort of working for the union rather than against 
it, as you were, it is strange to me that you seem to go out of your 
way to blacken some unions, for instance, the teamsters. Maybe you 
haven't got religion all the way yet. Maybe you are halfway home. 

Mr. LiTELL. I don't think I have gotten religion, sir. 

Senator McNamara. You are still antiunion ? 

Mr. LiTELL. I am not antinothing, sir. I am not in nothing no 
more. 

Senator McNamara.. You must be in something. While you are 
alive you are in something, you know. 

Mr. LiTELL. No, sir. No, sir. I am not in nothing. 

Senator McNamara. Who paid you the $2,000? You said it was 
paid by the company. Who paid it to you ? Actually, who handed it 
to you ? 

Mr. LiTELL. It was mailed to me, sir, a check. 

Senator McNamara. Who was the check signed by ? 

Mr. LiTELL. Mr. Schroeder, I believe is the way he pronounces his 
name, of Whirlpool Corp. 

Senator McNamara. It was a Whirlpool Co. check ? 

Mr. LiTELL. Yes, sir. 

Senator McNamara. Signed by one of their officers ? 

Mr. LiTELL. That is right. 

Senator McNamara. And that $2,000 was paid to you so that you 
would drop the case that was started in your behalf with the National 
Labor Relations Board ? 

Mr. LiTELL. No, sir. 

Senator McNamara. What was it paid to you for ? 

Mr. LiTELL. I don't know, sir. I have never been able to find out 
exactly what it was for. I never agreed to drop the case. 

Senator McNajiara. Well, prior to receiving the $2,000, you were 
insisting that you had a right to be hired at Whirlpool, is that not 
right ? That was your case before the NLRB ? 

Mr. LiTELL. The case before the NLRB was that I was unjustly dis- 
charged, sir. Yes, sir. 

Senator McNamara. And that you were entitled to go back to 
work ? 

Mr. LiTELL. Yes, sir. 

Senator McNamara. After you had gotten the $2,000 you had ceased 
activities in trying to get back on the job ? 

Mr. LiTELL. No, sir. 

Senator McNamara. You still tried to get back despite the $2,000 ? 

Mr. LiTELL. Yes, sir. 

Senator McNamara. Then the $2,000 was for absolutely nothing? 

Mr. LiTELL. I don't know what it was for, sir. 

Senator McNamara. Perhaps it was a bonus for acting as a labor 
spy, is that your idea ? 

Mr. LiTELL. I can't say, sir. I don't know what the check was for. 

Senator McNamara. Since you were doing it for so little money 
before, it seems logical to me that they should give you a bonus for 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 5967 

the good work you did in helping to keep the union out. Maybe that 
is what it was for. You didn't ask them for the $2,000 ? 

Mr. LiTELL. No, sir. 

Senator McNamara. This wasn't a shakedown on your part? 

Mr. LiTELL. No, sir. I had no part in it. 

Senator McNamara. They vohmtarily sent you $2,000 and you were 
surprised to receive it ? 

Mr. LiTELL. I knew that some sort of an arrangement like that was 
happening, sir. 

Senator McNamara. Well, now, an arrangement takes at least two 
people. Were you 1 of the 2 people that entered into the arrangement, 
or did somebody else do it for you ? 

Mr. LiTELL. Somebody else. 

Senator McNamara. IyIio ? 

Mr. LiTELL. Emerson Barringer. 

Senator McNamaily. You mean that the UAW insisted that the 
company pay this labor spy $2,000? 

Mr. LiTELL. Evidently that is the way it was settled, sir. 

Senator McNamara. That doesn't make any sense. 

Mr. Kennedy. Maybe I can clear it up. 

Senator McNamara. I hope you can. It is confusing. 

Mr. Kennedy. He was fired and there was this charge put before 
the National Labor Relations Board that was handled by the union. 
A representative of the company agreed with the union that the com- 
pany would post this notice that they would not participate in these 
activities any longer, that they would pay Mr. Litell his back pay plus 
$2,000. I believe there was another person involved, and they agreed 
to take the second party back on, who they had fired, according to the 
Board's feeling or according to this arrangement, unjustly or unfairly. 
The $2,000 was in addition to the back pay. It was to insure that Mr. 
Litell wouldn't come back to work for the Wliirlpool Co. 

That was an arrangement that was made, and Mr. Litell signed an 
agreement to that effect. 

Mr. Litell, without getting into all of those details, Mr. Litell has 
been unhappy about that ever since. Mr. Litell feels that he should 
have gotten his job back, and that he shouldn't have agreed to that. 
But he did, in fact, agree to it, and he has to face up to it. That is 
all. He is unhappy about it. 

The Chairman. In other words, the company, rather than take him 
back, which maybe he was entitled to under the fair labor practices, 
and according to the way the Board ruled, the company compromised 
with him by him signing a release not to come back to work and accept- 
ing the $2,000 and his back pay. 

Is that right ? 

Mr. Litell. Substantially, yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Where is it unsubstantially ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Litell has a long story all about his complaints, 
and which are not really relevant to the committee. 

Senator Curtis. Senator McNamara, are you through ? 

Senator McNamara. No. I will be glad to yield to you at this 
point, if you wish. I would like to pursue this same point. 

Senator Curtis. You go ahead. 

89330— 57— pt. 15 14 



5968 IMPROPER ACTIVITIEIS IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator McNamara. Who suggested to you that you sign this paper ? 

Mr. LiTELL. Mr. Barringer, sir. 

Senator McNamara. Were you then a member of the UAW-CIO ? 

Mr. LiTELL. Yes, sir. 

Senator McNamara. Are you now a member of the UAW-CIO ? 

Mr. LiTELL. No, sir. 

Senator McNamara. You just quit paying dues ? Is that how come 
you are not a member ? 

Mr. LiTELL. Yes, sir ; I guess that is right. 

Senator McNamara. Why did you take the $2,000 if you didn't want 
to settle the case in that manner ? I mean, why didn't you send it back ? 

Mr. LiTELL. Because it had $500 of mine m it, sir. It Avas $2,565, 
I guess. 

Senator McNamara. Well, there was no question in your mind but 
what you were entitled to the $650, or whatever the figure was, because 
that was back pay, and you were entitled to that ? 

Mr. LiTELL. Yes ; that is right, sir. 

Senator McNamara. Then you could have cashed the check and sent 
the $2,000 back, couldn't you, if you didn't want to settle ? 

Mr. LiTELL. I suppose. 

Senator McNamara. How come you signed it ? "Who put pressure 
on you to sign it if you didn't want to sign it ? 

Mr. LiTELL. The paper I signed, sir, said, if I can remember it cor- 
rectly, "I decline your offer of employment.'' I don't see how I could 
decline something I was never offered. Mr. Barringer told me that 
unless I signed this paper he was going to wash his hands of the whole 
deal. He explained to me that in exchange for this paper he would 
get a signed agreement from Whirlpool that they would obtain me a 
similar job in the Marion area. He said, "The case is already settled; 
there is nothing you can do about it. You might as well forget it." 

He said, ''If you don't sigTi this paper, you are not even going to get 
the agreement from Whirlpool that they are going to get you another 
job.''^ 

Senator McNamara. Were you a member of the UAW-CIO all the 
time you were acting as what you term a labor spy ? 

Mr. LiTELL. Not all the time, sir. 

Senator McNamailv. Part of the time you were a member of the 
union ? 

Mr. LiTELL. Yes, sir. 

Senator McNainiara. And acting as a spy for the company ? 

Mr. JLdTELL. Yes, sir. 

Senator McNamara. And you spied in union meetings and such 
places for the company, too ? 

Mr. LiTELL. No, sir. 

Senator McNamara. How did you separate yourself? AYlien you 
went to the meetings you were not a union spy ? 

Mr. LiTELL. I never went to the meetings ; no, sir. 

Senator McNamara. You just paid your dues and didn't go to a 
union meethig ? 

]Mr. LiTELL. I never went to a union meeting during this time. 

Senator McNamara. Even though you were paying dues ? 

Mr. LiTELL. No, sir ; I wasn't paying dues " 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 5969 

Senator McNamara. You were a member of the UAW part of the 
time, but during the time you were a member of tlie UAW you didn't 
go to any meetings ? 

Mr. LriELL. No, sir. 

Senator McNamara. That is the situation ? 

Mr. LiTELL. Yes, sir. 

Senator McNamara. You are not a member of any local union 
now ; are you ? 

Mr. LiTELL. No, sir ; I am not. 

Senator McNamara. Are you available for labor-spy work now if 
somebody comes along and offers you $20 a week or less ? 

Mr. LiTELL. No, sir. 

Senator McNamara. That is all. 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Chairman ? 

The Chairman. Senator Curtis. 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Litell, when you went to the employment 
agency, who did you talk to there ? 

Mr. Litell. Do you want that I should name the person, sir ? 

Senator Curtis. Yes. Yes, I want to know who. 

Mr. Litell. Irene Cunningham, sir. 

Senator Curtis. And what did she say about employment at Whirl- 
pool? 

Mr. Litell. She told me I should keep my nose clean, in her words, 
and watch how I conducted myself as '\\liirlpool was very antiunion. 
Miss Cunningham is acquainted with me and knows of my past 
affiliations witli unions prior to this time. 

Senator Curtis. Were you antiunion at the time that you applied 
for a job? 

Mr. Litell. Not particularly, sir. 

Senator Curtis. I^Hiat did you say about unions when you applied 
for your job? 

Mr. Litell. When I talked with Mr. Miller, it wasn't too difficult 
to see what he was getting at. I mean, I understood what he meant 
and he would say one thing and I knew he meant something else. It 
is hard to explain. 

Senator Curtis. What was said ? 

Mr. Litell. He talked about the union at Marion Industries and 
the difficulty that they had there and about Marion Industries going 
out of business, and he talked about some difficulty that I had with 
Mr. Barringer cluring this Marion Industries drive. 

Senator Curtis. Now, Mr. Barringer, he is the UAW man ? 

Mr. Litell. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. And you had some difficulties with him ? 

Mr. Litell. Yes. sir. 

Senator Curtis. What were those difficulties ? 

Mr. Litell. Well, I and several other employees were working on 
the drive of Marion Industries, which INIr. Barringer was directnig. 
We did not feel Mr. Barringer was devoting the time that he should 
to the drive. We wrote a letter to the international union complain- 
ing about Mr. Barringer's activities and the way he was cojuluctmg 

himself. ■ • -uo 

Senator Cltrtis. You were a shop steward in that previous job . 
Mr. Litell. Yes, sir, and committeeman, yes. 



5970 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN" THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Curtis. Were many of those employees from the plant, from 
your former plant, were any of them hired by Whirlpool? 

Mr. LiTELL. Some were ; yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Were they union members ? 

Mr. LiTELL. Sir, when a plant is organized, they are all union mem- 
bers. 

Senator Curtis. Yes ; but what I mean is these employees from your 
previous plant who went over to Whirlpool, they were union members, 
were they ? 

Mr. LiTELL. Oh, yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Did they all say they were antiunion when they 
applied ? 

Mr. LiTELL. Well, I don't know what they said, sir, and I wasn't 
present when they were interviewed and so I wouldn't know. 

Senator Curtis. Now, what persons to your knowledge knew of 
your association with Dr. Checov ? 

Mr. LiTELL. My wife, Ted Huf ert, Mr. Evans. 

Senator Curtis. How did your wife know about it ? 

Mr. LiTELL. Mr. Checov had been to our house, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Who was the next person you named? 

Mr. LiTELL. Mr. Ted Hufert. 

Senator Curtis. How did he know about it ? 

Mr. LiTELL. He talked to me about Mr. Checov and about our work 
and about our activities. 

Senator Curtis. Where did he talk to you about that ? 

Mr. LiTELL. In his office, sir, and on the phone. 

Senator Curtis. Can you remember any specific instance ? 

Mr. LiTELL. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Tell me about it. 

Mr. LiTELL. One night Mr. Checov called me at my home and he 
was quite concerned about an employee named Hurrutf. Mr. Checov 
called me and discussed Hurruff's activities. He was particularly 
pro-L'VM. 

Senator Curtis. What is that ? 

Mr. LiTELL. International Association of Machinists, sir. 

Senator Curtis. All right. 

Mr. LiTELL. He asked me what I thought of him and about his ac- 
tivities and whatnot. Anyhow, Checov had learned somewhere that 
the company was planning to promote this Hurruff. So he called 
Ted Hufert and talked to him about it. 

Senator Curtis. Were you present when he called ? 

Mr. LiTELL. No, sir ; but I am getting to that. 

Senator Curtis. All right. 

Mr. LiTELL. He called Ted Hufert and talked to him and he called 
be back and told me to talk to Mr. Hufert, which I did. And Mr. 
Hufert assured me that Hurruff would be promoted — and his exact 
words were — "over my dead body," meaning Mr. Huf ert's. 

Senator Curtis. Who said that ? 

Mr. LiTELL. Mr. Hufert did, sir. 

Senator Curtis. You initiated the telephone call ? 

Mr. LiTELL. No ; Checov called me, sir. 

Senator Curtis. But I mean the conversation between you and Mr. 
Hufert? 

Mr. LiTELL. Yes, sir. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN" THE LABOR FIELD 5971 

Senator Curtis. And what did you tell him when you called? 

Mr. LiTELL. I didn't have to tell him very much. He and Cliecov 
had already talked. 

Senator Curtis. What did you tell him ? 

Mr. LiTELL. I called him and told him that I had talked to Lou 
Checov about Hurruff and he said, "Yes, I got a call from him too." 
Those might not be his exact words but 

Senator Curtis. Then what was said? 

Mr. LiTELL. He told me that I needn't worry about Hurruff being 
promoted, that if he Avas promoted it would be over his dead body. 

Senator Curtis. Did you favor Hurruff's promotion ? 

Mr. LiTELL. Not particularly, I didn't care, sir. 

Senator Curtis. You did not care ? 

Mr. LiTELL. No. 

Senator Curtis. Now, in what other instances did Mr. Huf ert know 
of your association with Checov ? 

Mr. LiTELL. Well, he talked to me about Checov's and my activities 
and what a wonderful job they were doing. 

Senator Curtis. What a wonderful job you were doing ? 

Mr. LiTELL. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. What did he say ? 

Mr. LiTELL. I don't know exactly what we talked about. I think 
at the time we were talking about an employee named Napper, Her- 
man Napper, who was a former Marion Industries employee and 
that was the time Mack Grounds and I talked to Mr. Hufert about 
Napper. 

Senator Curtis. Did you go in to see him or did he send for you, 
which ? 

Mr. Litell. Mack Grounds and I both went in. 

Senator Curtis. On your own idea ? 

Mr. Litell. Yes, sir. Checov had instructed us to tell Mr. Hufert 
anytime that a prospective employee came through the plant, that 
we did not feel was a safe risk and we should report to Mr. Hufert 
if he, Checov, was not in town. 

Senator Curtis. Well, now, over how long a period of time did Mr. 
Checov give you money ? 

Mr. Litell. I woulcl say 5 or 6 months, sir, at the most. 

Senator Curtis. How often a month would he do it ? 

Mr. Litell. He would usually come into town every week. 

Senator Curtis. But how often would he give you money ? 

Mr. Litell. I can't say exactly how often, sir, and I really didn't 
keep track of it myself. But I would say usually, I believe I would 
be safe in saying every week, although it was not exactly every 
week. 

Senator Cutrtis. Now, you gave some of that money to others? 

Mr. Litell. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Whom did you give it to ? 

Mr. Litell. On two instances I remember, Henry Boles. 

Senator Curtis. Henry Boles, B-o-l-e-s ? 

Mr. Litell. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. And who else ? 

Mr. Litell. That is all directly that I gave it to. 

Senator Curtis. Whom did you give money to indirectly ? 



5972 EMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. LiTELL. Well, when we were together I would pay the bills, 
usually. 

Senator Curtis. Now, what persons knew about these cards, this 
stack of cards bef oi-e us here ? 

Mr. LiTELL. Myself, Henry Boles, Mack Grounds, and Jake Am- 
brose, and Eldon Phillips and various other people. 

Senator Curtis. Who were those other people ? 

Mr. LiTELL. All employees at Whirlpool, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Are all those you have named, are they employees? 

Mr. LiTELL. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Who, other than employees, knew about these cards 
to your knowledge, and by other people, I mean saw them or had 
something to do with them? 

Mr. LiTELL. Well, Emerson Barringer saw them when I turned them 
over to him. 

Senator Curtis. That was afterward ? 

Mr. LiTELL. Yes, sir. You mean while they were in use who knew 
about it ? 

Senator Curtis. Yes. 

Mr. LiTELi.. I don't know, sir, who would be, and I don't see how 
anybody outside of the employees would ever have any opportunity 
to see them because Checov had instructed the committee to be very 
careful when talking to the employees not to let them see the cards. 

Senator Curtis. To your knowledge, Checov was the only person 
other than an employee who saw these ? 

Mr. LiTELL. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. To your knowledge, did anyone from manage- 
ment ever see them ? 

Mr. LiTELL. Well, I don't know exactly, sir. 

Senator Curtis. I mean to your knowledge. 

Mr. LiTELL. No, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Now, when did you turn them over to Mr. Bar- 
ringer ? 

Mr. LiTELL. In March of 1956, sir. 

Senator Curtis. In March of 1956? 

Mr. LiTELL. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. AVas that before or after you were fired? 

Mr. LiTELL. After I was fired, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Were any of these cards that are marked "pro- 
union," do they represent people who were employed, who were hired? 

]Mr. LiTELL. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Do you know quite a number of the employees who 
were working at Whirlpool when you were there? 

Mr. LiTELL. I knew very many of them, sir, yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Were most of them former union members ? 

Mr. LiTELL. No, they were not, not most of them. 

Senator Curtis. What portion of them ? 

Mr. LiTELL. Well, do you mean when I first started ? You see they 
were hiring right along. 

Senator Curtis. All through the period. 

Mr. LiTELL. I would say the biggest share of them had never been 
union members, and they were young people that had never worked 
in plants. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 5973 

Senator Curtis. Now, of the older people who had had a previous 
job, what percent Avoiild you say had been union members? 

Mr. LiTELL. Well, I would say the biggest share of them had been 
union members somewhere. 

Senator Curtis. Those who had not you classify as the younger 
people who were coming to a job for the first time? 

Mr. LiTELL. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Now, who called Jake Ambrose and told him to 
cease his union activities? 

Mr. LiTELL. As I understand, Jake Ambrose told me that his fore- 
man, Max Hyler, called him in. 

Senator Curtis. You were not present? 

Mr. LiTELL. No, sir. 

Senator Cutitis. But he said his foreman called him in ? 

Mr. LiTELL. Yes, sir ; and Mr. Checov had told me, before it hap- 
pened, that he was going to be called in. 

Senator Curtis. Well, now, how often do you say that you reported 
to Mr. Huf ert about your activities ? 

Mr. LiTELL. It was no regular thing, sir. 

Senator Curtis. How many times did you ? 

Mr. LiTELL. I would say that I talked to Mr. Hufert at least a half 
dozen times, sir. 

Senator Curtis. And you would go in on your own, or would you 
go in at his request ? 

Mr. LiTELL. I would go in, sir. 

Senator Curtis. You would go in on your own ? 

Mr. LiTELL. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Did you volunteer the information to Mr. Hufert ? 

Mr. LiTELL. Well, I was told to do it. 

Senator Cltrtis. Did you, I say ? 

Mr. LiTELL. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. That was true every time ? 

Mr. LiTELL. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Have you applied for w^ork at Whirlpool since 
your discharge and your case before the NLRB and its settlement? 

Mr. LiTELL. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. How did you apply ? 

Mr. LiTELL. I talked to Mr. Hufert on the phone and I also wrote 
him letters. 

Senator Curtis. What did you tell him in the letter ? 

Mr. LiTELL. They had advertisements in the paper for workers, and 
they were looking for people with the trade that I was working at 
when I was discharged, and I wrote him that I w^as still unemployed 
and I was still looking forward to the so-called agreement that they 
were supposed to have, for Mr. Barringer to find me a job, which they 
had never done. 

Senator Curtis. Who said they would find you a job ? 

Mr. LiTELL. The thing was signed by a Mr. Bachman, sir. 

Senator Curtis. "V^liat else did you say in the letter ? 

Mr. LiTELL. That is about all, sir. 

Senator Curtis. I am talking about the letter that you wrote. What 
else did you say in your letter ? 

Mr. LiTELL. To Mr. Hufert, you mean ? 

Senator Curtis. Yes. 



5974 IMPROPER ACTivrriEis in the labor field 

Mr. LiTELL. That is all I can recall, sir. It was about this particu- 
lar job. 

Senator Curtis. That you were unemployed, and called their atten- 
tion to an agreement they were to find you a job someplace else? 

Mr. LiTELL. And this ad that they had in the Marion Star, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Did you make any reference to any previous 
trouble ? 

Mr. LiTELL. I don't believe so, sir; no, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Did you write anybody else in the company any 
letters? 

Mr. LiTELL. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Whom did you write to ? 

Mr. LiTELL. Mr. Bachman and — his name escapes me — whoever was 
president of Whirlpool, sir ; Mr. Gray. 

Senator Curtis. Did you write anybody else ? 

Mr. LiTELL. Not that I recall, sir. 

Senator Curtis. About when did you write Mr. Huf ert ? 

Mr. Litell. I couldn't say. I don't even remember. 

Senator Curtis. Did you ever write Mr. Evans a letter ? 

Mr. Litell. Not Mr. Glen Evans. I think that I wrote his brother, 
who had a different job, a higher job than Mr. Glen Evans did. 

Senator Curtis. I am talking about the man that was here and 
testified yesterday. 

Mr. Litell. I don't recall it, sir, but I could have. I wrote to so 
many people. 

Senator Curtis. That was after your case had gone to the NLRB 
that you were writing these letters ? 

Mr. Litell. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Did you make any expression of your attitude at 
that time concerning the previous difficulty ? 

Mr. Litell. Yes, sir ; I am sure I did. 

Senator Curtis. Wliat was it ? 

Mr, Litell. Well, to whom, or just all of them ? 

Senator Curtis. To anybody ? 

Mr. Litell. Well, I think, when I wrote to Mr. Bachman, I talked 
about the fact that I did no more wrong than they did. 

Senator Curtis. I am interested primarily in any letters to any of 
the management of Whirlpool. 

Mr. Litell. I don't recall, sir, what the exact words were, what I 
said exactly. 

Senator Curtis. Did you ever express regret about the incident ? 

Mr. Litell. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Did you place the blame on anybody ? 
^ Mr. Litell. No ; I don't think so. If I did, I didn't do it inten- 
tionally. I mean I was as much to blame as anybody. 

Senator Curtis. Did you say so in the letters ? 

Mr. Litell. I think so, sir. 

Senator Curtis. So, when you were seeking to get a job again, you 
told them that you were to blame for this previous trouble? 

Mr. Litell. Wliat do you mean by "trouble" ? 

Senator Curtis. I mean the trouble that led to your discharge. 

Mr. Litell. Well, I never admitted that I had done anything to be 
discharged for, sir, and I still don't feel that I did, and so I couldn't 
very well admit blame for it. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 5975 

Senator Curtis. You do not feel that you have made a mistake in 
any of this ? 

Mr. LiTELL. I made a mistake in getting involved with them in the 
first place. 

Senator Curtis. Involved with whom ? 

Mr. LiTELL. With Louis Checov, and there is no question about 
that. 

Senator Curtis. Well, now, who represented you before the NLRB ? 
Did the UAW take your case ? 

Mr. LiTELL. I guess they did, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Well, did they ? 

Mr. LiTELL. Yes, sir ; I suppose and I never 

Senator Curtis. Did you have any discussions with the UAW about 
your case and the presentation of it ? 

Mr. LiTELL. There was no discussion with me until it was over with, 
sir. 

Senator Curtis. If the UAW represented you it was without your 
permission ? 

Mr. LiTELL. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. You never had discussed with the UAW or any 
official of that organization the circumstances of your being fired ? 

Mr. LiTELL. Oh, yes ; we went over the incidents that led up to it. 

Senator Cuhtts. Who advised you to file a case before the NLRB ? 

Mr. LiTELL. Emerson Barringer. 

Senator Curtis. He is with the UAW ; is he not ? 

Mr. LiTELL. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. He advised you to file it ? 

Mr. LiTELL. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Who prepared the papers ? 

Mr. LiTELL. In Cleveland, John Vinsick and Emerson Barringer, 
I assume. 

Senator Curtis. Then you knew that the UAW were representing 
you in the NLRB case ; did you not ? 

Mr. LiTELL. Well, I didn't understand that they could follow the 
thing through and settle it without me. 

Senator Curtis. I do not mean that ; but I mean somebody to look 
after it and file the papers and present your side of the story. You 
knew the UAW were doing that ; did you not ? 

Mr. LiTELL. I guess so, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Well, did they file an NLRB case without your 
consent ? 

Mr. LiTELL. No, sir ; not without my consent ; no, sir. I was there 
when the charges were filed, but I wasn't there when the thing was 
dropped. 

Senator Curtis. I am not talking about the dropping of it. I 
am talking about the preparation and presenting of your case to the 
NLRB. Now, you knew all of the time that UAW was doing that 
for you ; did you not ? 

Mr. LiTELL. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Did you discuss with anyone from the L^AW the 
settlement that you received ? 

Mr. LiTELL. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Whom did you discuss it with ? 



5976 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. LiTELD. Emerson Barrino;er and Frank Donnelly, who is 
another UAW representative, and Bill Bowman, another one. 

Senator Curtis. Was this before you accepted the settlement? 

Mr. LiTELL. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Did they recommend that you take the settlement ? 

Mr. LiTELL. No ; they did not, sir. 

Senator Curtis. They recommended that you not take it? 

Mr. LiTELL. They recommended that I was being taken, sir. 

Senator Curtis. In what way ? 

Mr. LiiTELL. That it was a stinking settlement. 

Senator Curtis. Who agreed to the settlement for you ? 

Mr. LiTELL. I don't know, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Do you have the NLRB papers here ? That is all 
for now, Mr. Chairman. 

Tlie Chairman. I want to ask you 2 or 3 questions. 

Mr. Checov made cliarges against the company for entertaining 
the committee and he submitted it on bills rendered for expenses. Be- 
ginning on December 1, 1955, and continuing until February 15, 1956, 
I believe he has submitted some 36 items for expenses of uieetings and 
meeting with the committee and so forth. I believe they total — and do 
we have that total ? 

Mr. Kennedy. I think we have it here. 

The Chairman. For the month of December, just for your informa- 
tion, one is $17.50, $25, $34, $28, $38.50, $45, $36.50. And then in the 
month of January there are several some 15 or 20 and they run $45, $20, 
$45, $30, $55, $30.42, $60, $55, and $65, and $60 for each one of those 
meetings and it continues that way up until the 15th of February. 

Did you attend those meetings, if you know, for whicli these expenses 
were charged against the company ? 

Mr. LiTELL. He couldn't have spent that kind of money with us, sir. 

The Chairman. He spent the money when you attended the meet- 
ings, he paid the bill ? 

Mr. LiTELL. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. But there was never that much spent, I mean those 
high amounts ? 

Mr. LiTELL. Never, sir. 

The Chairman. So he may have been padding the payroll a little, 
too? 

Mr. LiTELL. That is possible. As I said, he had other contacts. 

The Chairman. He had other contacts and may have been turning it 
in as the expense of meetings. For instance, the $20 a week he gave you 
may have been included in some of these items ? 

Mr. LiTELL. That is possible, sir. 

The Chairman. Who else attended these committee meetings with 
you at which time he paid the bill ? 

Mr. LiTELL. Max Grounds, Eldon Phillips, Henry Boles. 

The Chairman. Were they always present? Were you all present 
at each meeting ? 

Mr. LiTELL. Usually, sir, one would be absent or the other one, but 
one of them was always there. 

The Chairman. Do you know whether Mr. Hufert or Mr. Evans 
knew that you were holding these committee meetings ? Do you know 
that to your personal knowledge ? Did you ever talk with them about 
it, either of them ? 



IMPROPEiR ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 5977 

Mr. LiTELL. I talked to JSIr. Hnfert, yes. 

The Chairman. You talked with Mr. Hiifert. He has testified, so 
there will be no misunderstanding-, that he didn't even know thei-e was 
a committee. 

Mr. LiTELL. Sir, he either has an awful short memory or he is not 
tellino- the truth. 

The Chairman. It continued here, apparently, accordiiiir to the 
bills, for about 2i/> months. During* that time, I will ask you the 
direct question : Did you talk to Mr. Hufert about the committee and 
about the meetings you were holding, and the work you were doing ? 

Mr. LiTELL. I talked to Mr. Hufert several times, sir, about the 
work we were doing. Yes. 

The Chairman. Could there have been any misunderstanding on 
his part with respect to the fact that a committee did actually exist, 
and that it was working for the purpose of preventing the plant from 
being organized by any union ? 

Mr. LiTELL. I don't see how he could misunderstand it, sir. 

The Chairman. Can you recall anything that was specifically said 
from which you would say there could be no misunderstanding ? 

Mr. LiTELL. I talked to him in his office about various employees. 

The Chairman. Did he know about these cards ? 

Mr. LiTELL. I can't say for sure that he knew about the cards. 

The Chairman. But he did know that you were reporting to Dr. 
Checov ? 

Mr. LiTELL. Yes, sir. He talked about Mr. Checov with me. 

The Chairman. He could have talked about Mr. Checov with you, 
but I am talking about if he could have done that without referring 
to the particular work that you and Checov were doing, or the work 
that Checov engaged you to do, or you and your committee. 

Mr. LiTELL. \Yell, lie talked about how nicely things were shaping 
up. 

The Chairman. They could be shaping up nicely about something 
else. Let's get down to the facts. You know what I am talking 
about. Did he know that this committee was operating for the pur- 
pose of checking on employees so as to get information that would 
enable the company to prevent the plant from being unionized, and 
so as to get rid of^hose who may have been favorable to unions? 

Mr. LiTELL. I think he did, sir. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. You think he did ? Can you be positive ? 

This is pretty serious. One of you is not telling the truth. 

Mr. LiTELL. I know that, sir. For instance, our conversation about 
this Hurruff. How could there be any misunderstanding about what 
Ave were talking about there ? . 

The Chairman. All right. I present to you a photostatic copy of 
a letter. All I want you to do is state whether you identify it, state 
who it is from, who it is to, and the date of it. 

(Document handed witness.) , . . „ t • 

Mr. LiTELL. It is dated September 26, 1956, and it is from Louis 
Checov to me. . j. , , 

The Chairman. Do you recognize that as a photostatic copy ot tne 

letter? 

Mr. LiTELL. Yes, sir. 



5978 IMPROPER ACTIVmE'S E^T THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman, That letter will be made exhibit No. 12, for ref- 
erence only. It will not be read into the record at this time. 

(The letter referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 12" for reference, 
and may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

The Chairman. Is there anything further ? 

Is there anything further from the members of the committee? 

If not, you may stand aside for the present. Thank you very much. 

Call your next witness. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Bachman. 

The Chairman. You do solemnly swear that the evidence you shall 
give before this Senate select committee will be the truth, the whole 
truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God ? 

Mr. Bachman. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF MERVIN M. BACHMAN 

The Chairman. State your name, please, and your place of resi- 
dence, and business or occupation. 

Mr. Bachman. Mervin M. Bachman, Chicago, 111. I am a practic- 
ing attorney at the present time. 

The Chairman. What was your previous occupation? 

Mr. Bachman. I worked for Mr. Shefferman in Labor Relations 
Associates for a few years. 

The Chairman. For a few years? "Wlien did your employment 
with Shefferman and Associates terminate ? 

Mr. Bachman. This July. 

The Chairman. July of 1957? 

Mr. Bachman. Right. 

The Chairman. How many years did you work for them ? 

Mr. Bachman. I came to Chicago in October of 1953. 

The Chairman. You went to work for him in October 1953 ? 

Mr. Bachman. That is right, sir. 

The Chairman. Being an attorney yourself, I assume you waive 
counsel ? 

Mr. Bachman. I have no need for counsel ; no, sir. 

The Chairman. Thank you. 

Mr. Kennedy, you may proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Bachman, for a period of time you were with 
the National Labor Relations Board ; were you ? 

Mr. Bachman. I was. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wliat period of time were you with them ? 

Mr. Bachman. I joined the staff of the National Labor Relations 
Board in 1942. I became legal assistant to one of the Board members. 
I left for a short time after his termination expired. I then rejoined 
the staff in October of 1945 and became chief legal assistant at the 
National Labor Relations Board for one of the Board members. 

(At this point Senator McClellan withdrew from the hearing 
room.) 

Mr. Kennedy. You held that position until what time ? 

Mr. Bachman. Until September 1953. 

Mr. Kennedy. You were chief legal adviser to one of the Board 
members ? 

Mr. Bachman. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. Until 1953? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 5979 

Mr. Bachman. Right. 

Mr. Kennedy. What Board member was that ? 

Mr. Bachman. John M. Houston. 

Mr. Kennedy. How many assistants did you have under you ? 

Mr. Bachman. It varied. Well, we started when the Taft-Hartley 
Act was enacted with 10 or 11, 1 believe, and then the number increased 
to between 18 and 20. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who were working directly under you ? 

Mr. Bachman. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. You left after the Board member retired: is that 
right? 

Mr. Bachman. After the change of administration, his term ran 
out and he was not reappointed, and I was asked to leave. 

Mr. I^nnedy. So you went to find other employment ? 

Mr. Bachman. I did. 

Mr. Kennedy. While you were looking for other employment, did 
you contact the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, or try to 
contact them ? 

Mr. Bachman. Yes. They had been erecting a new building and I 
thought that they were going to have a large staff, and I thought I 
might find a place on their legal staff. However, I was not able to 
talk to Mr. Beck. I never got to talk to him. 

Mr. Kennedy. You never got through to him. During that period 
of time, did you meet Mr. Shefferman? 

Mr. Bachman. T did. 

Mr. Kennedy. Under what circumstances did you meet him ? 

Mr. Bachman. I recall that I was looking for a job, and had asked 
my friends, among whom was Lou Becker. 

Mr. Kennedy. How did you know Lou Becker ? 

Mr. Bachman. Well, I have known him for years. He was a prac- 
ticing attorney in Washington at the time. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. Had he been with the National Labor Eelations 
Board? 

Mr. Bachman. He had. 

Mr. I^NNEDY. What was his position with the National Labor Eela- 
tions Board ? 

Mr. Bachman. Executive secretary. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. And what position did he hold in 1954 ? 

Mr. Bachman. He was practicing law in Washington. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was he associated with Mr. Shefferman ? 

Mr. Bachman. I don't know, actually. I knew him, that is all. 

Mr. Ivennedy. Did you know that he handled some of the work for 
Mr. Shefferman ? 

Mr. Bachman. I think he wrote a brief or handled a brief for Sears, 
Roebuck in one case. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was that in the Boston case? 

Mr. Bachman. I believe so ; that is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. And the problem that Sears, Roebuck had up m 
Boston, he handled that matter ? i t t- ii. • i 

Mr. Bachman. I don't think he handled the matter solely. 1 thmt 
he merely wrote a brief after the case had been heard. 

Mr. Kennedy. And that was in 1953 ? 1954 ? You don't know i 

Mr. Bachman. I really don't know the dates. 



5980 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOiR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. So you met Mr. Becker and Mr. Becker was with 
Mr. Shelt'erinan at the time ? 

Mr. Bach MAN. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. And did you explain to Mr. Becker in Mr. Sheffer- 
man's presence about the difficulty of contacting the teamsters ?_ 

Mr. Bachman. Mr. Becker had been trying to get me a job and 
had been looking around town to see if I could get placed somewhere. 
I mentioned that to Mr. Shetl'erman and he said he could call Mr. 
Beck after 1 mentioned that I had been unsuccessful in seeing him. 

Mr. Kennedy. That he would call Mr. Beck ? 

Mr. Bachman. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did he call Mr. Beck ? 

Mr. Bachman. He did. 

Mr. Kennedy. In your presence ? 

Mr. Bachman. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was he able to get through to him ? 
; Mr. Bachman. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did he ever tell you that he had talked to Mr. Beck 
about it ? 

Mr. Bachman. He called him in my presence and I heard him ask 
Mr. Beck to intervicAv me, but Mr. Beck would not do so. 

Mr. Kennedy. Subsequently did you hear from Mr. Shefferman 
again ? 

Mr. Bachman. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. How long after ? 

Mr. Bachman. I can't recall exactly, but it was within a reasonably 
short time. He called me from Philadelphia and he asked me to come 
up to visit with him at the Sears, Eoebuck store up there. He wanted 
to talk with me about possible employment. I had no job at the time, 
and that was the first offer that I had gotten. I went up and talked 
with him and a Mr. Caldwell. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who was Mr. Caldwell ? 

Mr. Bachman. He was introduced to me as an executive of the 
Sears, Roebuck Co. 

(At this point Senator McClellan returned to the hearing room.) 

Mr. Kennedy. What did he say to you at that time? TVHiat did 
Mr. Shefferman want to talk to you about ? 

Mr. Bachman. Mr. Shefterman was trying to prepare a brochure or 
an article about tlie Taft-Hartley Act. The subject of it was that he 
though that management people were not getting a fair administra- 
tion under the Taft-Hartley Act. 

Mr. Kennedy. He wanted you to write an article that the Taft- 
Hartley Act was unfair to management ? 

Mr. Bachman. That is right. 

(At this point Senator Ives withdrew from the hearing room.) 

Mr. Kennedy. So you discussed that. Did you return to Wash- 
ington to make a determinatioji as to whether you would work for 
him ? 

Mr. Bachman. I left Philadelpliia and I went back and talked to 
my wife. She Avas opposed to my going to Chicago, but I had no 
other job, so we went. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you started to work tlien for Mr. Sheff'erman ? 

Mr. Bachman. I did. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 5981 

Mr. Kennedy. When you arrived at tlie headquarters in C'liic-aj^o, 
what work did you do then ? 

Mr. Bachman. 1 didn't do anything but stay around in the office 
for about a week or 10 days, because Mr. Sheft'erman was out of town. 

Mr. Kennedy. A^^iat was your general impression of the office when 
you first came in ? 

Mr. Bachman. Well, it was strange to me. I understood that they 
had a staff of people, but nobody was there. I later learned that they 
had been out traveling, that they traveled a good deal. My impres- 
sion at the time was that no one talked very much about anytliing in 
the office; that their own aft'airs were their own and tliey kept them 
that way. 

Mr. Kennedy. So, finally, after 10 days did Mr. Shefferman talk to 
you ? 

Mr. Bachman. Yes; I had been utilizing the time, as I recall, in 
reading back decisions in which I had participated when I was on the 
Board, some of the dissenting opinions I wrote, and generally refresh- 
ing my recollection as to what the cases were that I had participated in. 

Mr. Kennedy. What was Mr. Shefferman doing during this period 
of time ? Was he in the office ? 

Mr. Bachman. I think he was out of town. I am not sure. 

Mr. Kennedy. So, ultimately, he came back to the office and he took 
you on a trip, did he ? 

Mr. Bachman. He did. He told me that the only way that he 
could work was to get away from the office and get on a train or a car 
and then write a speech or whatever he had to do. We had gone on a 
trip to Beaumont, Tex., I believe, and during the time that we were 
on the train — I had already submitted a draft of the article that I 
thought was appropriate but he disagreed with me. He said it wasn't 
in his language and no one could understand it. So he discarded it. 

Mr. Kennedy. And rewrote it in his own language ? What was the 
article supposed to be on ? 

Mr. Bachman. Showing instances where management had not re- 
ceived a decision from the Labor Board, a favorable decision, or a 
correct decision. 

Mr. Kennedy. This was a new article that he wanted ? 

Mr. Bachman. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. To show that management wasn't receivmg the 
proper treatment before the Board itself I 

Mr. Bachman. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then you returned to Chicago ; did you ? 

Mr. Bachman. I did. 

Mr. Kennedy. In general terms, you worked there for approxi- 
mately 3 years ; did you ? 

Mr. BACH3IAN. From October 1953 until July of this year. 

Mr. Kennedy. In general terms, could you tell the committee what 
the purpose of Mr. Shefferman's outfit, organization, was, and how, 
from conversations that you had with those that went out into the 
field, this operation worked 'I 

Mr. Bachman. The operation was one which aided employers in 
opposing unionism. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was that its purpose ? 

Mr. Bachman. As I understood it. 



5982 IMPROPER ACTIVmES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. And. what methods did you understand were used ? 
Tell us first the basis of your information, and then what methods you 
learned were used. 

Mr. Bachman. I infrequently talked with Mr. Shefferman because 
he was always on the telephone or out of town. I did talk with him on 
1 or 2 occasions and with his son, Shelton Sheiferman, in connection 
with a type of committee that they had told me that they had used. 
They designated it as a rotating committee. I asked what it was and 
how it operated. They explained it to me and they asked me what I 
thought about it. I told them that I thought it was an unfair labor 
practice. 

Mr. Kennedy. What was the rotating committee? Can you tell us 
that? 

Mr. Bachman. As I recall it, the rotating committee was composed 
of rank and file employees, one of whom would leave the committee at 
a particular time, to be replaced by another, and that management had 
a representative seated or regularly meeting with the committee. The 
purpose of the committee was to determine what complaints, what 
disaffections, what sentiments, prounion or antiunion, there w^ere. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was the rotating committee for the purpose of deal- 
ing with any union organizational drive that might come or might be 
in existence ? 

Mr. Bachman. As I understood it, they existed independently of the 
presence of a union in a particular plant. It may have also existed 
while there was a union in the plant. 

Mr. I^NNEDY. Was it sort of a preventive method ? 

Mr. Bachman. I took it as such. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was there a second step then ? 

Mr. Bachman. There was another committee that I talked to Mr. 
Shefferman, or Shelton Shefferman committee, namely, vote "no" 
committee. 

Mr. Kennedy. What was a vote "no" committee ? 

Mr. Buchanan. They explained to me that a vote "no" committee 
was used to crystallize the sentiment of the antiunion employees in the 
plant, and to use it as an instrument for propaganda and solicitation 
for procompany votes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Would that be w^hile the union was making an or- 
ganizational drive ? 

Mr. Bachman. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Under the Taft-Hartley Act, was that an unfair 
labor practice, or operation ? 

Mr. Bachman. In my opinion it was. 

Mr.KENNEDY. Did you tell them that at that time? 

Mr. Bachman. I did. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you also have members of the staff speak to you 
about the firing of people who were for the union ? 

Mr. Bachman. On occasions they would, and I told them they 
should not do anything of that kind because it was an unfair labor 
practice. 

Mr. Kennedy. During this period of time you were giving legal 
advice as to the Taft-Hartley Act ? 

Mr. Bachman. I was advising — can I preface that by saying I was 
advising the clients' attorneys, mostly, on what issues were involved in 
Labor Board representation cases and in complaint cases. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 5983 

Mr. Kennedy. But you understood that their general operation, 
apart from what you were doing-, the general operation was to prevent 
unionization of the plant and these two methods that you described, 
the rotating committee and the vote "no" connnittee were the means 
that were generally used ? 

Mr. Bachman. That was my impression. 

Mr. Kennedy. And they would set those committees up by Mr. 
Shefferman sending down a representative of his office into the plant 
to do so ? 

Mr. Bachman. I understood that to be the fact. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you know anything about the morale survej'-s 
that were in existence i 

Mr. Bachman. There were other terms mentioned, more surveys, 
supervisory training. I can't think of others. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was this all for the same purpose? 

Mr. Bachman. The morale survey I never saw and never heard 
explained. I just heard the term. Supervisory training was to train 
supervisors to handle people, as I understood it, in the plant. 

Mr. Kennedy. I want to just ask you about one particular meeting 
that you had, and that would be with Mr. Faunce. Do you know 
^Ir. Faunce of the General Baking Co. ? 

Mr. Bachman. I met him once. 

Mr. Kennedy. The Continental Baking Co. 

Mr. Bachman. I met him once. 

Mr. Kennedy. Where did you meet him ? 

Mr. Bachman. I received a telephone call on a Saturday morning 
from Mr. Shefferman to come to New York on the following Monday. 
I asked him why he wanted me there. He said he had a meeting 
scheduled with the Continental Baking Co. and Mr. Faunce, and that 
he wished me to be there to answer any questions that might arise 
under the Taf t- Hartley A ct. 

Mr. Kennedy. So did you go to that meeting? 

Mr. Bachman. I did. 

Mr. Kennedy. At that time was it discussed that the Shefferman 
group was active in the Morton Co. ? 

Mr. Bachman. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Where was the meeting ? 

Mr. Bachman. On Fifth Avenue. 

Mr. Kennedy. In Mr. Faunce's office? 

Mr. Bachman. In Mr. Faunce's office. 

Mr. Kennedy. And it was explained at that time, and discussed, 
that Mr. Shefl'erman's operators were in the Morton Co. and active 
against the packinghouse workers ? 

Well, you tell me what happened in your own words. 

Mr. Bachman. To the best of my recollection, this was the sub- 
stance of the meeting. 

Mr. Kennedy. This was on November 7 ; is that right ? 

Mr. Bachman. I can't remember the date, ^^liatever it was. 

Mr. Kennedy. I think your records show it was Monday, Novem- 
ber 7 1955. 

Mr. Bachman. I recall talking about the effect of the 12-montli rule 
under the Taft-Hartley Act, namely, that no 2 elections could be 
held by the Board within a 12-month period. 

89330— 57— pt. 15 15 



5984 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES LN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. What led up to that ? Exphiin that, about the pack- 
inghouse workers. 

Mr. Bachman. Mr. Faunce asked me, or Mr. Shefterman did, 
whether or not it was possible to organize after an election had been 
held. I said that nothing in the Taft-Hartley xlct prevented organ- 
ization during that period. The only prohibition was another elec- 
tion. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you understand that the packinghouse workers 
were about to have their election ? 

Mr. Bachman. I did. 

Mr. Kennedy. So the question was whether any other union coultl 
come in and hold an election? 

Mr. Bachman. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. You have to explain what the problem was, Mr. 
Bachman. 

Mr. Bachman. Mr. Faunce indicated and said that if he had to 
have a union in, he would want to have the bakers union in, which 
had been in his other plants throughout the country. 

INIr. Kennedy, Did he want to find out how soon you could get the 
bakers union in ^ 

Mr. Bachman. I believe that was ]5art of tlie discussion. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was that why the discussion of the 12-month period ? 

Mr. Bachman. I think so. 

Mr. Kenni<:dy. That he would have to wait until the 12-montli 
period was up before the bakers union could come in ? Is that right ^ 

Mr. ilACHMAN. I believe that is correct. 

Mr, Kennedy. The election, Mr. Chairman, for tlie packingliouse 
workers, in which the packinghouse workers were defeated, was held 
on November 22, 1955. 

The Chairman. And this was November 7, about 2 weeks before? 

Mr. Bachman. If the records show that, Mr. Chairman, that is so. 

The Chairman. That election, I assume, had already been ordered ? 

Mr. Bachman. It had been. 

The Chairman. It was pending ? 

Mr. Bachman. That is right. 

The Chairman. And, therefore, the discussion arose if it was de- 
feated, if the union effort to organize at that time was defeated^ 
how soon you could have another election, how soon you could get the 
bakers union in the plant. 

Mr. Bachman. That is correct. 

The Chairman. Was that tlie burden of the discussion? Was that 
the problem ? 

Mr, Bachman, That appeared to me to be the basis of the discus- 
sion and the focal point of the discussion. 

The Chairman, I see. 

Mr. Kennedy. You explained to them that they would have to wait 
a period of a year before the bakers union could be brought in, is 
that riglit ? 

Mr, Bach^ian, Yes. I also explained to them the meaning and 
the signihcance of a Labor Board certification. Someone asked me 
the question, and I don't remember who, whether or not an em])loyer 
could recognize a union on the basis of the submission of a majority 
of signed cards. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 5985 

Mr. Kexnedy, What did you explain about that ? 

Mr. Bachman. I said if the cards were signed authentically by the 
majority of the employees in the appropriate unit, that the act per- 
mitted voluntary recognition in that regard. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were you also asked whether it would be necessary 
to have an election ? 

Mr. Bachman. I don't recall that. 

Mr. Kennedy. You don't remember whether there was a discussion 
on that ? 

Mr. Bachman. I know we talked about Board certifications fol- 
lowing elections, but I don't recall whether that specific question was 
asked. 

Mr. Kennedy. But there isn't any question that the bakers union 
was discussed as the union that might be brought in there ? 

Mr. Bachman. None in my mind at all. 

Mr. Kennedy. I would like to point out, Mr. Chairman, that yes- 
terday Mr. Faunce was asked about this meeting, and he stated that 
the purpose of tlie meeting was that these gentlemen came to find out 
if it was all right with the Continental Baking Co. if they fired some 
85 people in one of their departments, and he said that that was the 
only discussion, and that there liadn't been any discussion about the 
election or about the Bakery and Confectionery Workers Union being 
brought into the plant. 

Were you there to discuss about 85 employees being fired? 

Mr. Bachman. I have no recollection of it. 

Mr. Kennedy. While you were there, at least, it was not discussed ? 

Mr. Bachman. Not while I was there. 

Mr. Kennedy. The purpose of your being brought in was on the 
question of the bakers union and how soon they could be brought in 
to the plant ? 

Mr. Bachman. As far as the Taft-Hartley Act was concerned, yes, 
sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Under your interpretation of the law, is it a viola- 
tion of the Taft-Hartley Act for management, either through them- 
selves or through a representative, to pass out these authorization 
cards, to assist the union in that manner ? 

Mr. Bachman. It is. 

Mr. Kennedy. And, if a company participates in that kind of 
action, they are violating the Taft-Hartley Act ? 

Mr. Bachman. It is an unfair labor practice. 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Chairman ? 

The Chairman. Senator Curtis. 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Bachman, you are the witness I have been 
looking for, someone who qualifies as an expert on the labor law. For 
my information, what can management do or say to their employees 
in regard to union organization in unionizing a place and activities of 
a union ? What are they permitted to do and sa^ that does not con- 
stitute an unfair labor practice or otherwise a violation of the law? 

Mr. Bachman. There is a section in the Taft-Hartley Act desig- 
nated as section 8 (c) which is colloquially called the free-speech sec- 
tion. That section sets up language which permits a company or an 
employer to argue, to persuade, to by any means, either grapliic or 
orally* as violently and as hard as he wishes, persuade liis employees 
that unionism is not for them. 



5986 IMPROPER AcnvrriES in the labor field 

Senator Curtis. That is permissible ? 

Mr. Bachman. That is. 

Senator Curtis. And it is specifically set out in the law ? 

Mr. Bachman. Specifically. 

Senator Curtis. What interpretations have been made in refer- 
ence to that ? Would you illustrate a few things that have been held 
to be proper ? 

Mr. Bachmax. There are many cases, and I can't offhand give you 
the names 

Senator Curtis. That doesn't matter. 

Mr. Bachman. There are many cases in which unions have filed 
objections, after they have lost an election, on the ground that the 
employer has made a speech or written a letter which contained an 
implied threat or a promise of benefit if the employees would refrain 
from joining the union. Those are matters of interpretation as to 
the language used, either in the speech or in the letter. 

Senator Curtis. Is it an unfair labor practice for management to 
call in an employee and tell the employee that he thinks it would be 
a bad idea to form a union ? 

Mr. Bachman. If the employer — there are cases that hold that 
private interviews between employees in small groups or singly with 
employers create an atmosphere of coercion, irrespective of what is 
said. I have always thought that employers had the right to ex- 
press their opinions as forcibly as they wislied, without threats or 
promises, to their employees, in putting their point of view across 
that a union was not necessary for them to join. 

Senator Curtis. The witness that just left the stand decribed one 
rather large union in some very uncomplimentary terms. If there 
are no threats, implied or otherwise, retaliation, and no rewards of- 
fered, can management say anything they want to? 

Mr. Bachman. If there are no threats or no promises, either direct 
or implied, management can present its point of view in any way it 
sees fit, in my opinion. 

Senator Curtis. There has been a term here used for weeks that 
somebody is antiunion. I want to know, for my information, if it is 
an unfair labor practice for someone to have attitudes in his own mind 
which are antiunion if he does not otherwise abuse his position as em- 
ployer or fail to live up to his contract. 

Mr. Bachman. It is not an unfair labor practice to express an 
"anti" point of view. 

Senator Citrtis. Is it an unfair practice for labor to be anti- 
management? 

Mr. Bachman. It is not. 

Senator Curtis. If he performs his work, performs his contract, he 
can still believe that the boss is nuts, can't he ? 

]\Ir. Bachman. That is correct. 

Senator Curtis. All right. I want to ask you a little bit about this 
Litell case. That was before the NLEB. You were one of the at- 
torneys, in that case, were you not? 

Mr. Bachman. I represented Whirlpool ; yes. 

Senator Curtis. Wlio represented Mr. Litell ? 

Mr. Bachman. The UAW. Mr. Lowell Goerlich, who was, I think, 
at the time an assistant general counsel of the UAW, and Mr. Emer- 
son Barringer, who was a business agent of the UAW. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EN" THE LABOR FIELD 5987 

Senator Curtis. In the course of the conduct of this case, did they 
specifically take actions and make remarks that indicated they were 
familiar with the details regarding this case ? 

Mr. Bachman. They had filed a charge, alleging that Mr. Litell 
had been discriminatorily discharged. 

Senator Curtis. As usual practice, it can be assumed that they pre- 
pared the charge ? 

Mr. Bachman. A business agent many times files the charge for the 
aggrieved party ; yes. 

Senator Curtis. Did these attorneys of record agree to the settle- 
ment in behalf of Mr. Litell ? 

Mr, Bachman. They did. 

Senator Curtis. And they were the attorneys for the UAW ? 

Mr. Bachman. They were. One was an attorney, and one was the 
business agent for that particular area. 

The Chairman. I would like to ask you 1 or 2 questions along those 
lines. 

Can management employ a firm or counsel to persuade or encourage 
its employees not to join a union without committing an unfair labor 
practice ? 

Mr. Bachman. It can. 

The Chairman, In other words, anything management can do it- 
self it can employ others to do for it ? 

Mr. Bachman. That is correct, sir. 

The Chairman, But they would operate under the same restrictions 
with respect to intimidation, threats, or promises of reward ? 

Mr. Bachman. That is correct. 

The Chairman. You heard some testimony here this morning — I 
assmne you were in the room — about the use of a card system, and what 
some man termed "a spy system" on employees to determine their 
sentiment with respect to unionism, their being favorable to the 
company and opposed to unionism. Would that constitute an unfair 
labor practice, in your opinion ? 

Mr, Bachman. It would ; yes. 

The Chairman. Why would it, if you just want to know ? You talk 
to somebody and get their sentiments, their views; why would it be 
an unfair labor practice to make a card on them to refresh your 
memory ? 

Mr. Bachman. I was going to amplify my statement. 

In 1954, a case was decided by the National Labor Relations 
Board, I believe the name of it is the Blue Flash Co. case. That 
case held that emplovers might question employees as to the union 
if the questioning was not in the context of threats or other mtimi- 
datory conduct. 

The Chahwian. The danger of it is that it is hard to avoid an 
implication that the company is not going to look favorably upon 
its employee or give him equitable treatment if he does favor a union. 

In other words, he may be discriminated against. 1 mean, that 
threat of implication is always present under those cii-cnmstances. 

Mr. Bachman, It may be that it is inherent m tlie employer- 
employee relation. 

The Chairman. Senator Ervin ? 



5988 IMPROPER ACTIVrTIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Ervin. The primary object of the Taft-Hartley Act and 
other hibor legislation is to enable the employees to deal on an eqnal 
basis with management, is it not, as far as humanly possible^ 

Mr. Bachman. It is so stated. Senator, in the preamble. 

Senator Ervin. And the provision of the Taft-Hartley Act which 
preserves the right of freedom of speech, gives the employer com- 
plete freedom of speech short of intimidation or offers of reward, 
in stating his position against the desirability of his employees 
joining a miion. He has freedom of speech in opposition to unions. 

Mr. Baciiman. Exactly. 

Senator ERVi>r. But as I understand it, and I wish you would 
correct me if I am wrong, he does not have the right, however, to 
advocate the favoring of one union over another on the part of his 
em])loyees, does he? 

Mr, Bachman. There is some question about that in my mind, 
and I think in those of many other people who have dealt with the 
labor law. The expression of a preference in some instances may be 
permissible, and in others it may not be. 

It depends, Senator, upon the circumstances in which the pref- 
erence is expressed. That is, again, whether it is in the context of 
threats or implied threats, or implied force or reprisal or things 
of that sort. 

Senator Ervix. In other Avords, you are in a very difficult field 
there in determining that. You are in what we lawyers call a legal 
twilight zone. In other words, any kind of activity which will tend 
to place a union under obligation of mfinagement would be an unfair 
labor practice, wouldn't it ? 

Mr. Bachman. Well, it is a difficult thing to generalize about. 
Senator. If I follow jouv meaning, the expression of a preference 
for one union as against another may be permissible under the free 
speech provision of the Taft-Hartley Act. 

If the preference, however, is accompanied by some atmosphere 
of threat or reprisal, if the employer's wishes are not carried out, 
then that, in my opinion, would be an unfair labor practice. 

Senator Era^x. In other words, the object of the law was to make 
certain that the union, whatever union organized a plant, is in a 
position where it can deal at arm's length in behalf of the employees 
with respect to their transactions with the employers. 

Mr. Bachman. The purpose of the law, as I understand it, is to 
equalize the relationship between labor on one side and management 
on the other. 

Senator Ervin. I would like to have you clarify a little your rela- 
tionships with Mr. Shefferman. You were counsel for Shefi'erman in 
the labor relations field? 

Mr. Bachman. Well, I considered myself a member of the staff with 
specialized knowledge. Mr. Shefferman had told me that it would 
be my function to advise company counsel and clients as to the Taft- 
Hartley matters. That is what my relationship was. 

Senator Ervin. Primarily your obligation was to Shefferman ? In 
other words, you were comisel for Shefferman? 

Mr. Bachman. I never considered myself as his attorney, if that is 
what you mean. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 59<S9 

Senator Ervin. When you a])peured for Whirlpool, under wluit 
circumstances were your obligations to appear for Whirlpool made ^ 

Mr. Bacpiman. I was there to do the best job I could for AVhirlpooi 
and for my employer, INIr. Shefferman. 

Senator P]rvin. What I was trying to get at was when you were 
acting for Mr. Shetferman, was Mr. Sheiferman furnishing counsel 
to his clients as well as these other services? 

Mr. Baciiman. He told me to do the best job I could to get a settle- 
ment which was equitable for Whirlpool. 

The Chairman. Mr. Kennedy, have you further questioning? 

Mr. Kennedy. On the formation of a committee, which is supposed 
to be spontaneous, but which is supported and operated by manage- 
ment, that is, in your estimation, an unfair labor practice ? 

Mr. Bachman. The element that makes it an unfair labor practice, 
in my opinion, is the employer participation in it. 

Mr. Kennedy. iVnd the employer's participation either can be direct 
or indirect ; is that right ? 

Mr. Bachman. There is a provision in the Taft-Hartley Act which 
says that an employer is defined as an employer or anyone acting for 
his benefit, either directly or indirectly. 

Mr. Kennedy. So these vote "no" committees established by Mr. 
Shefferman's people were clearly violations of the Taft-Hartley Act ? 

Mr. Bachman. In my opinion, they constituted an interference 
under section 8 (a) (1). 

Mr. Kennedy, The second thing is this : We have had some evidence 
where management participates in handing out authorization cards for 
the union, either directly or indirectly. Is that, in your estimation, 
an unfair labor practice? 

Mr. Bachman. That is what is known in the labor law as assistance 
or support — let me put it this way : It is another form of interference 
hy management in the freedom of choice that the employees have 
under section 7. 

Mr. Kennedy. Would that, in your estimation, be a violation of the 
Taft-Hartley law? 

Mr. Bachman. It is. 

Mr. Kennedy. Thank you. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Litell, come forward, please. 

TESTIMONY OF CHARLES A. LITELL— Hesumed 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Litell, I want you to look at this document and 
see if you can identify it. 

(The document was handed to the witness.) 

Senator Curtis. Is that a photostatic copy of a document you have 
seen before ? 

Mr. Litell. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. ^Vliat is it ? 

Mr. Litell. It is a copy of the agreement that we talked about 
previously. 

Senator Curtis. Eeadit. It is very brief . 

Mr. Litell (reading) : 

Gentlemen : Reference is made 



5990 IMPROPER AcnvrriES in the labor field 

Senator Curtis. Put the whole thing in there, the date and every- 
thing. 
Mr. LiTELL (reading) : 

May 4, 1956. 

Whirlpool-Seeger Corp., 

Marion Division, Marion, Ohio. 
Gentlemen : Reference is made to your offer of reinstatement for employment 
and after due consideration I decline your offer for employment. 
Yours truly, 

Charles A. Litell. 

Senator Curtis. You signed it, did you ? 

Mr. Litell. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Where were you wlien you signed it ? 

Mr. Litell. At the UAW-CIO union hall in Marion, Ohio. 

Senator Curtis. ^Ylio else was present ? 

Mr. Litell. Emerson Barringer, Lowell Goerlich, Frank Donnelly, 
Bill Bowman, Joe Tamosi. 

Senator Curtis. Were they all connected with the IT AW? 

Mr. Litell. UAW officials ; yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Was everyone that was present connected with 
the UAW? 

Mr. Litell. Was everybody present ? 

Senator Curtis. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Litell. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Who handed it to you to sign ? 

Mr. Litell. Emerson Barringer. 

Senator Curtis. That is all, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much. You may stand aside. 

Mr. Currie? 

You do solemnly swear that the evidence you shall give before this 
Senate select committee shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing 
but the truth, so help you God ? 

Mr. Currie. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF JOHN PATTERSON CURRIE 

The Chairman. State your name, your place of residence, and your 
business or occupation. 

Mr. Currie. John Patterson Currie, residing at 35 Park Avenue, 
New York City, a management consultant in labor industrial relations 
and executive development. 

The Chairman. Do you waive the right of counsel ? 

Mr. Currie. I do. 

Mr. Jvennedy. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Currie is being brought here 
out of order, but it is the only time we could schedule him. lie has 
a plane to catch this afternoon and we want to accommodate him. 
This is with relation to the origin of Labor Relations Associates and 
Mr. Shefferman's operations. 

Can you tell us when you met Mr. Sheffemian and what con- 
versations you had with him about the establishment of Labor Rela- 
tions Associates ? 

Mr. Currie. I believe my first meeting was at a meeting in Chicago, 
where we both participated as speakers on the program. I had known 
the organization of Sears, Roebuck, of course, and manj^ of its per- 



IxVlPKOPER ACTIVITIES KN THE LABOR FIELD 5991 

sonnel for a lon<!: time, because I was director of personnel for another 
fairly sizable retail chain group in Chicago. But 1 hadn't known 
him personally until then. 

That gave us a good start. We found a good deal in the expression 
of philosophy at this particular conference in connnon, and in sub- 
sequent discussions that same evening during dinner and on several 
odd moments later he told me of the growing work in connection 
with his employment by Sears as a labor relations specialist, par- 
ticularly concerned wath working wdth suppliers who were either 
major sources, some of which were wholly owned or, I believe, par- 
tially owned, and wdiere they had a substantial interest, and that the 
load was getting impossible to carry; that he had but one assistant 
and that in some instances the amount of assistance that had been 
rendered in order to secure the continuing flow of merchandise to 
Sears was such a serious problem and was a problem, as a matter of 
fact, that the suppliers themselves should undertake a part. 

He, therefore, had been considering setting up a clinic type of oper- 
ation in which there would be a staff of people of related specialty 
occupations, personnel administration. National Labor Relations 
Board experience, actual labor relations, negotiations, and so forth; 
that for the time being it would operate relatively on a shoestring 
until it would get underway; that he would not be personally a part 
of it or on its payroll, wdiicli proved to be the case during the period 
of my association. 

He suggested that the reputation wdiich had been achieved, essen- 
tially, by himself in labor circles and in management circles because 
of the caliber of work in behalf of Sears rather assured, he was confi- 
dent, acceptance on an increasing scale basis, but that it would by no 
means be limited to Sears, Roebuck activities or related activities, 
such as suppliers in wdiich they had an interest beyond the security of 
the flow of merchandise. 

Mr. Kennedy. The initial reason for setting up this organiza- 
tion, as I understand, which was later to be knoAvn as Labor Rela- 
tions xlssociates, was as Mr. Shefferman described to you, the prob- 
lem of the suppliers of Seare, Roebuck and those Sears, Roebuck had 
some interest in ? 

Mr. CtmRiE. That was bis job at Sears. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. It was getting to be too big a job and he thought 
to set up a separate organization to deal with those firms in any 
labor problems that they might have ? 

Mr. CuRKiE. Permit me, please, Mr. Kennedy, to restate that with 
some amendment. The objective was not to serve Sears' suppliers or 
the Sears organization, per se. The objective was to meet a rapidly 
expanding need in business and industry generally because of the in- 
creasing business activities and the problems attendant thereto, and 
it was felt with the reputation and contacts that had been established 
as Sears' representatives there would be some initial business that 
would quickly gravitate to Labor Relations Associates. 

That would provide the nucleus for some acceptance, based on 
which there were high hopes, and which I shared equally. 

Mr. Kennedy. I understand the Labor Relations Associates ex- 
panded, but was the nucleus going to be the suppliers of bears, Roe- 
buck plus those in which Sears, Roebuck had an interest i 



5992 IMPROPER ACTR'ITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. CuREiE. Probably' the immediate business would be forthcoming 
from that source, things which he wasn't able to handle because of 
the limitations of time. 

Mr. IvEXNEDY. Who was going to be involved in it ? 

Mr. CuRRiE. Well, originally, and after considerable discussion on 
this, it was determined that Gen. William I. Westervelt, former Chief 
of Ordnance, United States Army, and military attache in Paris, I 
believe a classmate at West Point of General Woods, who was then 
chairman of the board, of course, at Sears, and following General 
Westervelt's retirement from the Ami}- he went with Sears in some 
administrative capacity, particularly concerned with liaison with 
these suppliers with whom they were primarily concerned, sometimes 
officially acting as a member of the board, and sometimes simply as 
a friendly and helpful liaison person. 

Mr. Kennedy. General AVestervelt had this contact with Sears and 
was then acting as liaison between Sears and the suppliers of Sears ? 

Mr. CuRRiE. I think he had just a matter of months previously re- 
tired from Sears again, having reached the required age limit, so he 
had no official connection. But there had been that association before. 

Mr. Kenxedy. VN'^as he going to have a position ? 

Mr. CuRRiE. He was to be president. Then one Xathaniel S. Clark, 
a 1-time member of the National Labor Relations Board who, for rea- 
sons of health, as I understood it, had semiretired, though not com- 
pletely, accepted the vice presidency. I was to be secretary. 

The three of us would constitute the board of directors of the or- 
ganization. I believe that I was also treasurer, although on further 
thinking, I am not sure whether General Westervelt was president 
and treasurer and I was secretary, or whether I was treasurer and 
secretary, but it is relatively unimportant. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who did the legal work to set the firm up? 

Mr. CuRRiE. The firm of Lederer, Livingston, Kahn & Adsit, I 
think is the official title, a Chicago law firm of some consequence who 
are, I believe, primary counsel to Sears, Roebuck. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was any fee paid to them for setting the company 
up ? 

Mr. CrRRiE. To the best of my recollection, during the time that I 
continued, which was relatively short after the actual incorporation, 
there was no bill rendered and no fee paid, nor did I hear a discussion 
of any, nor any supplementary arrangements. 

Mr. Kennedy. Where did you get the money to start your 
operation ? 

Mr. Currie. Well, the initial expense of locating space and all that 
sort of thing was primarity a matter of personal contribution by my- 
self, and some moneys I assmne were contributed by Mr. Shefferman 
personally. 

Mr. Kennedy. After you were established, where did the money 
come from ? 

Mr. Currie. The first client fee, as I recall it, was in the amount 
of $10,000 from Sears, Roebuck, to make available the services of Labor 
Relations Associates to companies in which they had an interest be- 
cause of being major merchandise sources. 

(At this point, Senator McNamara left the hearing room.) 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 5993 

Mr. Kennedy. Did Mr. Shefferman at that time have some very 
close contacts in various labor unions ? 

Mr. CuRRiE. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who were they ? 

Mr. CuRRiE. Well, of course, his very apparent close friendship with 
Mr. Beck was a matter which was at no time ever concealed and, in 
fact, was apparently mutually enjoyed. I never met Mr. Beck with 
him. I have been with Mr. Shefferman when there were numerous 
telephone conversations and usually he was able to get thi-ough, if it 
was possible to reach him at all. 

Mr. Padway, who was at that time general counsel of the AFL 
and also general counsel of a number of their significant unions, 
principally, I think, the building trades and some others, was also 
a personal friend of Mr. Shefterman's, as evidenced by friendly con- 
versations when he was passing through New York, and some exchange 
of entertainment in their respective homes. 

I was present on one of those occasions. I found it a very stimu- 
lating afternoon, as a matter of fact. 

Mr. Kennedy. How long did you stay with them ? 

Mr. CuRRiE. My services official!}- terminated on or about the 1st 
of January 1941. It could have been a matter of weeks prior to that, 
but not much. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is all, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Er\t:n. I have a question. 

Did you not find Mr. Shefferman to be a very alert man mentally ? 

Mr. Currie. Exceedingly so. 

Senator Ervin. That is all. 

Tlie ( ^iiAiR^iAN. Thank you very much. 

The committee stands in recess until 2:15. 

(Present at time of recess : Senators McClellan, Ervin, and Curtis.) 

(Whereupon, at 12: 35 p. m. the select committee recessed, to recon- 
vene at 2 : 15 p. m. the same day. ) 

afternoon SESSION 

(Members of the select committee present at the convening of the 
session were Senators McClellan, Ives, and Curtis.) 

The Chairman. The committee will be in order. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, the attorney for the Whirlpool Co. 
at Marion has asked that we read the last paragraph of this stipula- 
tion into the record, which I would like to do. -, • .^ 

The Chairman. Has the whole stipulation been placed m the 

record? . , 

Mr. Kennedy. I do not believe it has. Could we have it made an 
exhibit, and read that last paragraph ? 

The Chairman. This is what ? 

Mr. Kennedy. A decision and order of the NLEB aiul its notice 
to all employees pursuant to the decision and order. . t u t? 

The Chairman. This decision and order of the National Labor de- 
lations Board may be made exhibit No. 13, together with tlie appendix 
to it, which is a notice to all employees pursuant to this decison ana 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 13" for refer- 
ence and may be found in the files of the select committee.) 



5994 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. Counsel, you may read into the record at this point 
the paragraph you referred to. 

Mr. Kennedy. This is the appendix A : Notice to All Employees, 
Pursuant to a Decision and Order. 

The last one on page 4 is as follows : 

We will make whole Charles Litell and Joseph A. Beard for any loss of pay 
they may have suffered by reason of their discharge. The said Charles Litell 
has been offered reinstatement to his former position without prejudice of senior- 
ity and other rights and privileges, but he has declined such offer. Said Joseph 
A. Beax'd does not desire reinstatement. 

The Chairman. Wlio is our witness ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, we have been going into activities 
of Whirlpool in Marion, Ohio, and this afternoon we will start and 
hope to finish this afternoon in the activities of Whirlpool in Clyde, 
Ohio. 

The first witness is Warren Pleister. 

The Chairman. You do solemnly swear that the evidence you shall 
give before this Senate select committee shall be the truth, the whole 
truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God ? 

Mr. Pleister. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF W. B. PLEISTER, ACCOMPANIED BY HIS COUNSEL, 
PETER R. NEHEMKIS, JR. 

The Chairman. Will you please state your name, your place of 
residence, and your business or occupation. 

Mr. Pleister. My name is Warren B. Pleister, P-1-e-i-s-t-e-r; I live 
at 210 Mulberry Street, Clyde, Ohio. My position, sir, is director of 
employee relations, of the Clyde division of the AVliirlpool Corp. I 
am here today with counsel, Mr. Peter Nehemkis, of this city, sir. 

Mr. Nehemeles. Mr. Chairman, may it please the committee, my 
client asks leave of the committee to read a statement. 

The Chairman. We just now received the statement, I believe. 
When was this statement submitted to the committee ? 

Mr. Nehemkis. Upon your having just received it, sir. 

The Chairman. Well, is counsel familiar with the rules of the 
committee? 

Mr. Nehemkis. Not with respect to any particular rule governing 
submission of statements ; no, sir. 

The Chairman. Let me see. 

Rule 7. Any witness desiring to read a prepared or written statement in 
executive or public hearing shall file a copy of such statement with the counsel 
or chairman of the committee 24 hours in advance of the hearing, at which the 
statement is to be presented. The committee shall determine whether such 
statement may be read or placed in the record of the hearings. 

Mr. Nehemkis. I regret to inform you that I must take full re- 
sponsibility for my ignorance of that rule, and tell you by way of 
extenuating circumstances that this statement was not ready within 
24 hours. 

The Chairman. Let the Chair glance at it. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. I would like to say that I believe, and I can't be 
sure of this, that I told you when you visited my office that if you 
needed a statement or if you wanted to put a statement in that it 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIE& IN THE LABOR FIELD 5995 

should be submitted 24 hours in advance. Mr. Salinger said that 
there is no question he told you on the telephone that if you wanted 
a statement in it should be in 24 hours in advance. 

Mr. Nehemkis. Are you challenging my veracity, Mr. Kennedy ? 

Mr. Kennedy. I am stating some facts, and you can accept it any 
way you want, 

Mr. Nehemkis. Your conception of fact and my conception of fact 
are quite different. I had addressed myself to the chairman. 

(At this point, Senator Ervin entered the hearing room.) 

The Chairman. Now, gentlemen, the Chair has been inclined to 
be very lenient with respect to this rule, but here is the reason for the 
rule. One comes up and asks permission to read a statement. We 
know not what is in it. He can have anything in there, something 
irrelevant, something to take up the time of this committee and some- 
thing wholly improper, and there is justification for tlie rule. Unless 
I think someone is simply trying to take some advantage of us, I am 
inclined to waive the rule, if there is some good excuse for it. 

Now, I have not had time to read this statement and neither has 
any member of the staff. So it simply means we have to slow down 
here. Even after reading it, it is in the discretion of the attorney 
to proceed. You are an attorney, and it seems to me as a matter oi 
diligence and duty, I may say, in representing your clients, you 
should acquaint yourself with the rules of the committee. I want 
to inquire, do we have plenty of these printed rules available upon 
request ? 

Mr. Kennedy. I would like to have Mr. Salinger say vt^hat he 
told the attorney, if there is a question about it, Mr. Chairman. I 
have not read the statement and I am sure there is nothing objection- 
able in it, but it does seem to me he was down in the office and he 
could have gotten a copy of the rules of the committee. 

The Chairman. Have you inquired for a copy of the rules of the 
committee and have been denied them ? 

Mr. Nehemkis. I have not inquired for any such rules, no; and 
I regret to say I am not aware of them, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. We have this come up, and most people comply 
with this rule. Attorneys usually familiarize themselves Avith the 
procedures that are to be followed in a hearing insofar as they can 
do so. We are going to be lenient with you and let you read this 
statement, but this is not setting any precedent. We intend to en- 
force this rule and compel its observance insofar as it is necessary 
at least to do so, to protect this committee from any imposition. I 
do not say that any such is implied, or I am not implying that any 
imposition is attempted here, but this rule has full justification, and 
it is absolutely necessary for this committee to function properly. 

All right, sir, we are going to let you read your statement. Pro- 
ceed. 

Mr. Pleister. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I miglit say that my 
only reason for wanting to read this statement was one of cooper- 
ation with the committee, sir. 

The Chairman. One of what ? 

Mr. Pleister. Cooperation with the committee, sir. 

The Chairman. We are glad to have your cooperation, but you 
put us in an awkward situation here, and someone else will come 



5996 IMPROFEK ACTIVmES EST THE LABOR FIELD 

along and want to read a statement and it becomes questionable 
about the propriety of it. Then one might say, "Well, you let some- 
one else read one, and you are setting a precedent." I am not set- 
ting a precedent and I want that definitely understood. Proceed. 

Mr. Pleister. Thank you, sir. As I have sat here for the past 
day or so since I have been in Washington and listened to these 
hearings and read about them, I have the impression that the reason 
a company desires to keep a union from representing the employees 
is to depress the wage scale. I also have an impression, perhaps I 
am mistaken, that there is something wrong in opposing a union — 
in just the same way the union opposes the management with all the 
legal resources at its command. 

I would like to discuss a case history which, in my opinion, proves 
that these propositions can be utterly false. At the outset I would 
like to point out that my company operates in eight different com- 
munities. They are referred to as divisions. Each division is au- 
tonomous. Each division decides its own labor policies among other 
things. 

First, a brief background. 

I would like to tell you about Clyde, Ohio, where the Clyde division 
of Whirlpool is located, (^lyde is a small country town of about 4,000 
people. It is located some 80 miles from Cleveland. The town is 
situated in the heart of a farming district. Many of the Clyde divi- 
sion employees own their own farms, which they Avork in their off 
hours. 

Before Whirlpool Corp. came to Clyde in 1952, the employees of 
the former company — the Clyde Porcelain Steel Corp. — held an 
NLRB election to determine whether or not they would affiliate with 
a union. The employees rejected the union by a vote of about 7 to 1. 

The management of Clyde Porcelain Steel set a pattern for us. 
They opposed the union with every resource at their command. As a 
matter of fact, when the election was over, the former president of 
the Clyde Porcelain Steel Corp. received a citation from the American 
Public Relations Association for his outstanding and imaginative 
handling of this campaign. Out of that election in 1950 there emerged 
a pattern — a pattern for the management, a pattern for the employees, 
a pattern for the communitv. This pattern kept the unions out of 
Clyde. 

Senator Ives. I would like to raise a question there. You mean this 
gentleman received a citation for trying to prevent a plant from being 
organized ? 

Mr. Pleister. That is correct, sir. 

Senator Ives. From the American Public Relations xVssociation ; 
they gave a citation for antilabor activity? 

Mr. Pleister. I think it was in the relations of handling the material 
for the campaign, sir. 

Senator Ives. That isn't what you say, and what you have here. 
You have a citation, apparently, for the results. In other words, they 
voted it down 7 to 1, did they not ? 

Mr. Pleister. That is correct. 

Senator I\t.s. That is why he got the citation, was it not ? 

Mr. Pleister. I believe so, sir. 

Senator Ives. I did not realize we had an outfit in the Ignited States 
that was as antilabor as all of that, running around the country giving 



IMPBOPFR ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 5997 

citations to people that are tryin^^ to prevent labor organizations from 
having unions in plants. I ^Yould like to get that cleared up and find 
out the rest of this thing. 

Mr. Pleister. I do not have the citation of Colonel Stokes with nie, 
but it was widely publicized in the newspapers. 

The Chairman. At any rate, he got a citation from this agency, or 
this association. 

Mr. Pleister. That is correct, sir. 

Senator Ives. For preventing them from organizing. 

The Chairman. We can all draw on our imaginations. 

Do you have anything to say, Senator Curtis ? 

Senator Curtis. I think not. 

The Chairman. We will proceed. 

Mr, Pleister. In 1956, the employees of the Clyde division, in an 
election conducted by the National Labor Relations Board, voted .') to 1 
against union affiliation. We consented to this election because we 
were confident that we would win it. 

The Chairman. Is that the only reason ? 

Mr. Pleister. That is the reason, sir. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Mr. Pleister. I think it is reasonable to assume that, if there had 
been any improprieties during the campaign prior to this election, 
those circumstances would have come under the scrutiny of the NLRB. 
It seems to me that, had there been the slightest impropriety in this 
election, the unions would have protested. No objections were made 
to this election by either the NLRB or the International Association of 
Machinists. 

At the Clyde division we manufacture wringer washers, automatic 
washers, and liouseliold ironers. The employees of this division enjoy 
average straight-time earnings of $2.39 per hour — a rate which is one 
of tlie highest in oin- area, as well as in the entire appliance industry. 
The benefit programs provided by our company, as, for example, life 
insurance, medical care, and pensions, rank with the best programs 
in the most highly organized industries in this country today. 

In addition, the Clyde division offers its employees benefits which are 
not common in industry. This division furnishes the employees with 
recreational facilities through the medium of a 32-acre park which 
features one of the finest swimming pools in northwestern Ohio. We 
have organized atldetic programs for those employees desiring to par- 
ticipate in this kind of activity. We provide educational oppor- 
tunities to employees in the way of scholarships to colleges and uni- 
versities. We have night classes at our plant and, in conjunction with 
the educational system in our communities, we provide opportunities 
for improvement in such fields as blueprint reading, mathematics, 
speech courses, and shop practices. There are courses in the art of 
tool and die work, electronics, and metallurgy. These courses extend 
for oC) months of expert instruction and job training. 

We believe that life also consists of the ability to appreciate. We 
provide an opportunity for our employees and their families to ^tudy 
painting under professional art instructors. Many of our employees 
have exliibited their works not oidy in our plant but throughout the 
country. 



5998 IMPROPER ACTTIVmES EST THE LABO'R FIELD 

I mention these things to indicate that it is possible in our industrial 
system to provide an abundance of the good things of this life without 
necessarily having a union take credit for them. 

Senator Ives. May I break in again ? I want to point out several 
situations with which I am acquainted where there are no labor organ- 
izations, and I do not know about your setup there. From what you 
have already indicated, it reads well and it sounds good. One of the 
industries about wliich I am speaking is Endicott -Johnson. They 
take great care of their employees, and efforts haA'e been made to 
organize Endicott-Johnson, but they have never been successful. 

Another one is Eastman Kodak, for almost exactly the same rea- 
sons. Those happen to be two with which I am familiar. So, those 
things do exist. But I know of no concerted effort in eltlier Endicott- 
Johnson or Eastman Kodak to prevent a union from organizing their 
plants. They do not try to stop it. I live not too far from there, and 
I never heard of it. I don't know whether you tried to stop it or not, 
and you do not indicate in j'our statement, except in your reference 
to that other company there, where efforts were made, and the fellow 
received a medal of some kind for preventing it. But go ahead. 

The Chairman. The Chair would make this observation. I think 
it is commendable of any company, yours or any other, that will take 
into account the relation between the employer and the employee, and 
have a feeling for the employees: also undertake to provide them 
benefits that they really earn b}^ devoted service, as they contribute 
to the success and profit of the business. I think any company or 
management that does that is to be complimented. I am not passing 
any judgment on this at the moment, but if more did that I think 
that they would have less problems with unions which they oppose. 
But go ahead. 

(At this point Senator McNamara entered the hearing room.) 

Mr. Pleister. I agree with you 100 percent. Thank you, sir. 

Now, I would like to say something about Labor Relations Asso- 
ciates, and what we think of them. 

Let us look at some of the specific things LRA did for us at our 
Clyde division : 

1. Job evaluation. 

2. Wage surveys. 

3. Wage and salary administration. 

4. Supervisory training. 

5. Opinion surveys. 

6. Incentive pay procedures. 

7. Employee working conditions. 

8. Employee complaints. 

9. Personnel records. 

10. Employee application forms. 

11. Legal services. 

Now, who rendered these services from LRA? Here are the people 
who worked for us : Messrs. Nevitt, Wroblinski, Scott, Bachman, and 
Patterson. This work was done from April 1953 to June 1956. 

Now, there was still another type of work which LRA did for us : 
They counseled with us on the strategy and tactics of union organiza- 
tion. 

They helped us to present our case to our employees and to the 
community during the union election campaign of 1956. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 5999 

^Y[\\ did we need tliis particular type of assistance ? To put it in 
plain English most of us in management at Clyde lacked this kind of 
experience. 

A union election campaign is very similar to a political campaign — 
it is no place for amateurs. 

Rumiing a union election campaign is like running a political cam- 
paign — it takes organization and lots of money. 

The unions spend lots of money. 

Management also spends money. 

For weeks and months preceding the 1956 union-management elec- 
tion, the unions bombarded our employees daily with handouts, letters, 
leaflets, cartoons, pamphlets, and newspaper ads. 

Because of this stead}^ bombardment, our employees wanted to know 
just where we stood on the issues raised by the union. 

So we answered each and every issue with leaflets, handouts, car- 
toons, letters, pamphlets, and newspaper ads. 

There was one thing we could not match. We could not match the 
18 topflight union organizers brought in by the lAM — organizers who 
established committees to persuade our employees to vote for the 
union. 

Tliese highly skilled organizers with their committees canvassed 
virtually every emploj^ee's home at all times of the day and night. 

Neither could we match the money which these organizers spent in 
Clyde to influence votes. 

Now I would like to tell you specifically what Messrs. Patterson and 
Nevitt — assigned to Clyde by LRA — did for us during the 1056 cam- 
paign. 

1. They evaluated the changing, day-to-day union tactics ; and coun- 
seled with us on how to meet these shifting tactics. 

2. They reviewed daily the union's bombardment of literature ; and 
advised us how to answer it. 

3. They reviewed with us continuously, employee complaints and 
reconmiended corrective action in some cases. 

4. They held meetings with our supervisors to advise on what they 
could and could not say under the Taft-Hartley Act. 

5. They helped me to prepare newspaper ads, pamphlets, handouts, 
etc., which we were using to present the facts to our employees so that 
they could decide how they wanted to vote. 

6. After we learned of the existence of an employee vote "no" com- 
mittee, Mr. Walter Patterson worked with this group in the prepara- 
tion of their literature. 

7. To offset the union card-signing activity (which determmes 
union strength) Mr. Patterson established what we commonly re- 
ferred to as the Gallup poll, to give us some indication of our own 
strength. That is why we were able to consent to an election with 
confidence as to its outcome. 

And, finally, Mr. Patterson assisted in checking community reac- 
tions as to how successfully our campaign was progressing. 

For over 3 years of professional consulting service by LEA we 
averaged less than $25,000 of expenditures per year. 

We think this money was spent wisely. So do our employees and 
so does our community. 



gnaso — 57— pt. 15 16 



6000 IMPROPER ACTIVrTIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. All right, sir. Is there anything you wish to add 
to your statement '? 

Mr. Pleister. I just would like to add that I would like to thank 
the committee for allowing me to read it, sir. 

The Chairman. We did that, and it is all right, but again this is 
not a precedent, and I do not want anybody to get that impression. 

Senator I^^s. Before he leaves the statement, I would like to ask 
him something about it. At the bottom of page 6, under No. 6, you 
say "After we learned of the existence of an employee vote "no" com- 
mittee. Did you organize that committee? You say after you 
learned of the existence of the committee. Who organized that vote 
"no" committee ? 

Mr. Pleister. I would not know who organized it. 

Senator I\'es. You did not know anything about it at all, and it 
just showed up on the horizon? 

Mr. Pleister. Well, sir, I might say this, that during the course 
of the campaign, we had many employees, or I had many employees 
that came to my office, and actually asked me for counsel as to what 
they could do to answer the many leaflets that were being handed out 
at the gate. And in each instance, I counseled with these employees 
that as a representative of Whirlpool Corp., I could not give them 
any counsel, other than the fact that they had the perfect right to 
organize a committee if they so desired. 

Senator Ives. Tell me about these employees. You are a resident 
of Clyde, yourself ? 

Mr. Pleister. I am, sir. 

Senator Iv^es. Have you been there a good many years ? 

Mr. Pleister. I have lived in Clyde approximately 8 years, sir. 

Senator I\^s. Eight years ? 

Mr. Pleister. That is correct, sir. 

Senator I^T.s. These employees of yours, were they all residents of 
Clyde, did they all originally reside in Clyde, or did they come from 
outside ? 

Mr. Pleister. Sir, I would say that we draw from an area around 
Clyde, which is a small community. 

Senator I^^ES. It is in that vicinity ? 

Mr. Pleister. That vicinity, yes, sir. 

Senator I\t,s. Probably a 15- or 20-mile radius? 

Mr. Pleister. That is correct, sir. 

Senator I\t:s. You knew all of these boys personally ? 

Mr. Pleister. I knew a lot of them. 

Senator Ives. Every one personally ? 

Mr. Pleister, A speaking acquaintance ; yes, sir. 

Senator Ives. You have a snuill community there where you natu- 
rally would know these people. You are a little ditl'erent from a large 
concern where management doesn't know the employees, or just a 
small number of them. But you do. 

Mr. Pleister. Yes, sh". I would like to point out to you, sir, that 
we do have some 2,500 employees in our plant, and it is rather difficult 
for me to know everybody. 

Senator Ives. Well, it would be in a 25-mile radius, besides. I 
understand that. 

Mr. Pleister. That is correct. 



IMPBOPE'R ACTIVITIES IN THEi LABOR FIELD GOOl 

Senator Ives. But you were on speaking terms with a lot of them ? 

Mr. Pleister. I know a lot of the employees in the plant. 

Senator Ives. And you say you had nothing to do with the vote 
"No" committee ? 

Mr. Pleister. No, sir. 

Senator Ives. You didn't advise them one way or the other, or they 
didn't ask you for your advice ? 

Mr. Pleister. As a matter of fact, sir, the vote "No" committee, or 
whatever you term it 

Senator Ives. You termed it. 

Mr. Pleister. Yes. Had been at Clyde in the other election in 1950, 
and on many different occasions, the employees themselves had formed 
groups to express their opinions. The fact of the matter is, sir, on 
one occasion I found it necessary to stop this action. This was when 
the UE was organizing our plant. I found that the employees had 
brought in several bushels of tomatoes, and when these people were 
showing up at the gates to give their speeches, the tomatoes were 
being used all over the place. I had to personally go out and stop that, 
sir. 

Senator Ivi:s. \Miy did you think you had to employ LRA to stop 
this organizing ? Apparently that is why you employed them ; wasn't 
it'^ To stop it? 

Mr. Pleister. Sir, the Clyde Porcelain Steel Corp. was merged 
with the Whirlpool Corp. in 1952. I don't recall exactly, but at this 
particular time I think the employment was some four to five hun- 
dred people. We were suddenly faced with the problem of increasing 
our employment considerably, reorganizing our plant, of upgrading 
many, many employees, of bringing in new supervision from otlier 
divisions of the Whirlpool Corp., from the Bendix plant, which we 
also purchased shortly after this, and other areas. 

Sir, blending this group into a hard-hitting production team was a 
real problem, going from 400 employees to 2,500 employees required 
a great deal of effort on our part. 

Senator Ives. Just a minute there. I can understand that. That is 
a managerial problem. 

Mr. Pleister. That is correct. 

Senator Ives. I don't understand where a labor relations setup enters 
that, particularly. 

Mr. Pleister! Sir, at this particular time we brought in several 
outside consulting organizations. 

Senator Ives. Then LRA was only one that you had there ? 

Mr. Pleister. That is correct. 

Senator Ives. And this is what LRA was doing ? 

Mr. Pleister. That is correct. 

Senator I\T!:s. And what they were doing to some extent was man- 
agerial? 

Mr. Pleister. That is correct. 

Senator Ives. Who were these other outfits you had Avorking with 
you? 

Mr. Pleister. We had Ernst & Ernst. 

Senator Ives. They are accountants ? 

Mr. Pleister. That is correct. But they also offer services m the 
area of establishing costs, accounting procedures, payroll j)rocedures. 



6002 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 

and we went through the whole gamut of reestablisliing these par- 
ticular accounts in our accounting department. 

Senator Ives. Who else did you have besides Ernst & Ernst ? 

Mr. Pleister. We also hired an engineering outfit. 

Senator Ives. Who were they ? 

Mr. Pleister. Childers, I believe it was. It was a local organiza- 
tion. 

Senator Ives. A local outfit ? 

Mr. Pleister. Yes. They were brought in to help us rearrange the 
actual, physical facilities of the plant. Using outside consultants 
is not an unusual procedure for our organization at all. We have 
used others. 

Senator Ives. I can understand that when it comes to the actual oper- 
ation of your plant in a combination of mergers such as you had there, 
but I cannot understand why you would get a labor relations outfit in 
there. 

Mr. Pleister. Sir, in my own particular instance, we at this par- 
ticular time had many problems in my own particular department. 
I had the responsibility of training some 100 new foremen that were 
being made. At this particular time I didn't even have a training di- 
rector. I got one in later on. We had to set up a new job-evaluation 
program. We were bringing in new products which called for the 
establishment of new rates. At this particular time, when I took over 
this department their records were very incomplete. For instance, 
one very minor thing that I can recall is tliat we didn't even have 
proper application forms, and we had to redesign those and have those 
made up. 

Senator Ives. I know, but that hasn't anything to do with labor re- 
lations, to speak of. 

Mr. Pleister. Sir, these were areas where they helped me. 

Senator Ives. Well, they seemed to have helped a lot of people in 
quite a lot of diti'erent ways, so far as I can find out. 

Mr. Pleister. I would like to point out, if I may, sir, that this 
organization has been used by the Whirlpool Corp. for a number of 
years on various problems. It is my belief and my understanding that 
this organization enjoyed a very, very high reputation in the labor 
field. They represented some 300 very outstanding companies in this 
country, sir. And they offered a wide field of services. 

Senator Ives. Npbod}^ can dispute your statement there. I think 
they have been working with certain companies that have a good 
reputation as far as I know. But on the other hand, I want to get 
this very clear before I drop this whole thing. 

You, yourself, were opposed to your plant being organized, weren't 
you? 

Mr. Pleister. I would like to say this, I would like to answer it this 
way, if I may : As an individual, I am not antiunion. I did feel 
this, and I felt it very strongly, sir, that the unions had nothing to 
offer the employees at the Clyde division. 

Senator Ives. That may be. I mean, you may have taken that posi- 
tion. The recitation that you had to oiler here, and I assume you still 
hiive it, is very attractive. Nobody is arguing about that. JBut you 
wei'e o})posed;to having your plant organized. 

Mr. Pleister. I opposed it, yes, sir. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EN THE LABOR FIELD 6003 

Senator Ives. You could see no point in its being organized ? 

Mr. Pleister. That is correct, sir. 

Senator I^^s. And you got this LRA in there and presumably they 
helped you in opposing it. 

Mr. Pleister. Sir, I would like to point out that we used these serv- 
ices from 1953 until 1956, and we only had an election in 1956, sir. 

Senator Ives. What were vou using their services for in 1953 to 
1956? 

Mr. Pleister. Sir, that was what my testimony was, that we were 
using them for various things. 

On page 4, sir 

Senator Ives. Job evaluation, wage surveys, and all of that? 

Mr. Pleister. That is correct, sir. 

Senator I^^ES. And nobody was attempting to organize, you during 
that period ? 

Mr. Pleister. We had spasmodic organizational drives. The fact 
of the matter is I guess in our village we have seen most of the unions 
there at one time or another. 

Senator Ives. In other words, attempts were being made to organize 
your plant during all this period of time, is that right, from 1953 on, 
or before ? 

Mr. Pleister. I don't believe all during that period, sir. 

Senator Ives. Well, not, perhaps every second of it, but I mean off 
and on during that period of time. 

Mr. Pleister. Off and on, that is correct, sir. 

Senator I\-es. And you employed these people, this LRA, for these 
purposes that you have enumerated here ? 

Mr. Pleister. Yes. 

Senator I\tes. But actually weren't they helping you in your oppo- 
sition to being organized ? 

Mr. Pleister. Well, I would say this. Senator 

Senator Ives. I am not cirticizing you for opposing being organ- 
ized. You have a perfect right to do that. That is your privilege. 
But I am trying to tind out about the role these birds were playmg. 

Mr. Pleister. Sir, they helped us on these matters that I listed and 
also 

Senator Ives. I know they helped you on those, but did they not do 
some of these other things that I enumerated ? 

Mr. Pleister. I also said in this statement that I did use them m 
this union election. I stated that. 

Senator Ives. I know you stated that. 

Mr. Pleister. That is correct. 

Senator Ives. But what I am driving at is that they also helped you 
oppose other outfits from organizing you, too, didn't they, dnrnig tliat 
period of time? You say that periodically efforts were being made 
to organize you. 

Mr. Pleister. That is right. . . 

Senator I^tss. Wasn't LRA trying to help you m opposition to 
them? 

Mr. Pleister. That is right. 

Senator Ives. That is what I am trying to establish. In other 
words, preliminarily they were with you for the purpose of preventing 
you from being organized ; were they not ? 



6004 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Pleister. I take exception to the word "preliminarily." But 
we used them ; yes. 

Senator I\'es. Thank you. 

The Chairman. Senator Curtis ? 

Senator Curtis. These 18 union organizers; is tliat the number that 
were active in this 1956 campaign? 

Mr. Pleister. That is correct, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Did they live in Clyde ? 

Mr. Pleister. No, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Did they live in the vicinity of Clyde, in the area 
from which you recruited your employees ? 

Mr. Pleister. I Imew none of these men, but to my knowledge, none 
of them lived in the area where we draw our employees from. 

Senator Curtis. There is one statement that I would like to express 
myself on for the record. I do not believe that I can subscribe to the 
doctrine that efforts to oppose the unionization of a plan is antilabor, 
per se. There may be many, many instances where to oppose the 
uionizing of a shop is an antilabor move. But likewise, there may be 
situations where it is to the credit, and it is a prolabor attitude to 
oppose unionization. We had information here in past hearings at 
great length about situations where shops were unionized to the disad- 
vantage of the workers. So I just wish to disassociate myself with tho 
statement made by the senior Senator from New York wlien lie used 
the term "antilabor." It might have been antiunion. 

Senator Ives. Mr. Chairman, as long as I am being dragged into 
this, I would like to have the Senator yield a minute and get this 
thing straightened out. I am not criticizing the opposition to or- 
ganizing plants by racketeers, gangsters, or anybody of that type 
who has come before us at all. I am talking about opposition to 
legitimate labor organizations who are trying legitimately to or- 
ganize plants and companies. That is what I was talking about and 
referring to. 

Senator Curtis. I understand that. I do not wish to take the 
time of the committee, but the point is that even if everybody is 
honest and legitimate, there can still be a difference of opinion as to 
what situations will best serve the workers. 

When the workers vote 7 to 1 and 3 to 1, I certainly do not believe 
that the workers themselves can be charged with being antilabor. 

The Chairman. Let's proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. As we develop this, Mr. Chairman, from this wit- 
ness I do not expect to develop whether he or the company is pro- 
union or antiunion. Whichever way they are is legitimate. The 
question is about so-called spontaneous committees set up by the 
company, financed by the company, whose literature is supplied by 
the company, and it looks like all of this material comes from the 
company, that is what we are inquiring into. It is not that the 
company's sentiments are against the union. But that constitutes 
an unfair labor practice when the company takes those actions against 
the union. That is what we are inquiring into. 

The Chairman. The question arises here, what we want to develop 
is exactly what this company did in connection with its opposition 
to attempts to organize its plant. Let's get all of the facts about it, 
and each one can draw their own conclusions as to whether any acts 
or any part of them, were unfair practices. Proceed. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 6005 

Mr. Kennedy. Was there literature put out by this so-called vote 
"no*' committee? I am not asking you about any literature put out 
by yourself. Was there literature put out by the vote "no" com- 
mittee ? 

Mr. Pleistek. I am sure there was. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did the company finance any of that literature? 

Mr. Pleister. Mr. Kennedy, I was never given any bills directly 
for this. 

Mr. Kennedy. Just answer the question. I am not asking whether 
you were given the bills directly for it. We have been through with 
Whirlpool in Marion. You people must know what was going on. 
Can you answer the question: Did you finance the literature that 
was put out by this committee '^ 

Mr. Pleister. I am sure that in one way or another it was financed 
by our organization, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. It was financed through the representative from 
LEA, was it not ? Mr. Patterson ? 

Mr. Pleister. I cannot answer that specifically, but I believe that 
it was, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Don't you know that it was, and that is what he 
was doing down there? 

Mr. Pleister. Yes, I know what Mr. Patterson was doing down 
there. 

]Mr. Kennedy. Don't you know that is what he was doing, that he 
was working and getting literature out ? 

For instance, this literature. 

Mr. Pleister. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Have you seen this before? 

Mr. Pleister. I have seen some of it, I am sure. 

Mr. Kennedy. Will you identify this? 

The Chairman. The Chair presents to you 4 cartoons, 3 of them on 
white sheets and 1 on a yellow sheet. Please examine these and see if 
you recognize them and identify them. 

(Documents handed to witness, who conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Pleister. I have seen these before ; yes, sir. 

The Chairman. You have seen them before? 

Mr. Pleister. I have, sir. 

The Chairman. Do you know the origin of them ? 

Mr. Pleister. I am sorry, sir. 

The Chairman. Do you know the origin of them? Where did they 
originate? 

Mr. Pleister. I think each one of these is identified with a state- 
ment on the bottom "Whirlpool Employees Vote 'No' Committee," sir. 

The Chairman. They may be made exhibits Nos. 1-4-A, B, C, 
andD. 

(The cartoons referred to were marked "Exhibits 14-A, 14-B, 
14-C, and 14-D" for reference, and will be found in the appendix on 
pp. 6224-6227.) 

The Chairman. I think the pertinent question is this : 

Was the supplying and distributing of that material paid for by 
the Whirlpool Co., either directly or indirectly. 

Mr. Pleister. I think that it was ; yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Also, in addition 



6006 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Pleister. Mr. Chairman, my counsel has asked to confer witli 
me. May I have permission to talk to him ? 

The Chairman. You maj^ confer with your counsel. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Pleister. Mr. Chairman, my comisel has called to my attention 
a case which I am quite familiar with, commonly referred to as the 
Cleveland Trust case, in which Judge Allen of the Sixth Circuit Court 
made a ruling on a matter of this particular kind. This was the case 
that we based our judgment on for the payment of these literatures. 
Could I read this ? 

The Chairman. The Chair is not saying, and I do not presume the 
committee is saying, except as they have individual opinions — the 
Chair is not saying at this time that what you have done violated the 
Taft-Hartley law, or was an unfair labor practice. What the connnit- 
tee wants to do is sim])ly get the facts of this case so that it may weigh 
them, and ascertain whether it does constitute an unfair labor practice 
under existing law. And, if it does not, whether it should, and 
whether a law should be enacted to prohibit it. That is what we are 
weighing, the question of what legislation sliovdd be had to get this 
thing straightened out, so that management and labor organizations 
will be on a comparative level or equal basis and prevent improper 
practices on either side. Let's get the facts. That is all we want to do. 

Mr. Pleister.' At the same time, sir, I sure would like to give any 
testimony that I could to make you believe that I did this thing based 
upon some laws and we were not trying to violate any of the laws 
as we underetand them. 

The Chairman. MVe can ]:)roceed with that assumption, that you 
thought you were within the law. I am not saying you were not. 

All right, Mr. Counsel. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were you paying for some of this literature directly ? 

Mr. Pleister. That literature that was prepared by me and by my 
staff was paid for directly. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who did you pay for it? Where did you get it 
printed up '? 

Mr. PLEisTER.Well, sir, we ran full-page newspaper ads 

Mr. KJENNEDY. No; I mean the literature for the vote "no" com- 
mittee. 

Mr. Pleister. The literature for the vote "no" committee, I believe, 
was printed by the Green Springs Echo newspaper. 

Mr. Kennedy. Is that where Mr. Patterson was also getting his 
literature printed up ? 

Mr. Pleister. I really couldn't answer that, Mr. Kennedy, where 
Mr. Patterson was getting his. 

Mr. Ivennedy. Did you understand that Mr. Patterson was setting 
up this committee when he was down there ? 

Mr. Pi^ister. Did I understand Mr. Patterson was setting up the 
committee? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. 

Mr. Pleister. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. You did not? 

Mr. Pleister. I did not. 

Mr. Kennedy. You didn't know anything about that ? 

Mr. Pleister. Mr. Kennedy, again I would like to say that we had 
had this type of thing on several different occasions in the past his- 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THEi LABOR FIELD 6()07 

tory of the company, whereby the employees themselves expressed 
their beliefs by such committees as these. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Patterson had been there in prior years also; 
had he not ? 

Mr. Pleister. He had not been there in 1948 and 1950. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was there a committee called the vote "no" com- 
mittee at that time ? 

Mr. Pleister.. There was, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. With the same name ? 

Mr. Pleister. There was, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. In 1948 and 1950 ? 

JNIr. Pleister. In the 1950 elections. 

Mr. Kennedy. And LEA had nothing to do with it ? 

Mr. Pleister. Yes, sir. The NLEA 



Mr. Kennedy. No ; the LEA. 

Mr. Pleister. They were not there at that time. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you people have anything to do with the estab- 
lishment or support of that committee ? 

Mr. Pleister. No, sir. It was the same type of thing that we had 
here. 

Mr. Kennedy. Why would you decide that you would support 
this committee, as you were doing ? 

Mr. Pleister. Mr. Kennedy, maybe this sounds a little corny, but 
in my job at the Clyde division the employees come to me for many, 
many problems. We don't have many lawyers in town. We are a 
small community. We are rather close. I am brought all kinds 
of problems, divorce cases, financial cases 

Mr. Kennedy. Let me tell you what puzzles me. You say the 
employees came to you about the union and asked you to counsel 
them. You told them that you could not counsel with them ? 

Mr. Pleister. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. That you coidd not advise them. But at the same 
time, you were making up and financing their operation. 

Mr. Pleister. After the committee was composed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you mean after the committee was composed, 
you felt you could advise them, could finance their operations? 

Mr. Pleister. If I could, I would like to read this. 

Mr. Kennedy. I would like to see it. 

Mr. Pleister. May I read it ? 

Mr. Nehemkis. Wliy don't you permit the witness 

Mr. Kennedy. I would like to examii:ke the document. 

Mr. Nehemkis. Will you take this to Mr. Kennedy and *sk Mm 
to read that paragraph that is marked, please. 

Mr. Ivennedy. Has this anything to do with an employees' coni- 
mittee? This says "initiated by the employees themselves." If this 
committee is initiated, and that is the point of this, if this committee 
is initiated by you or by your agent, it certanly doesn't fall within 
this case. I can understand if the committee is set up by the em- 
ployees themselves. But that is not true in this case. 

Mr. Pleister. Mr. Kennedy, I take exception to that. This is true 
in this case. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know what Mr. Patterson had to do with 
the setting up of this committee ? 



6008 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Pleister. Do I know what he had to do ? 

Mr. IvENNEDY. Yes. 

Mr. Pleister. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. He never discussed that with you ? 

Mr. Pleister. We discussed it, yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did he tell you that he had gotten the employees to 
set up this committee ? 

Mr. Pleister. No, sir ; he did not. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did he deny it ? 

Mr. Pleister. Nor did he deny it. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did he say he brought these employees to Mr. 
Audritsch ? 

Mr. Pleister. He told me Mr, Audritsch had a group of employees 
who wanted to form a vote "no" committee. 

Mr. Kennedy. And he did not say that he made a suggestion to 
Mr. Audritsch as to who should be on that committee ? 

Mr. Pleister. He did not. 

Mr. Kennedy. We will have further testimony on that. 

Mr. Pleister. Very well. 

Mr, Kennedy. I would like to go through the Labor Relations 
Associates bills. When did this drive start down there — in 1955? 

Mr, Pleister, I really couldn't answer that specifically, sir. It 
was some time in 1955, I don't know exactly, 

Mr. Kennedy. Wasn't it about April or May 1955 ? 

Mr. Pleister. I really can't recall the exact dates, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. I see, for instance, the bills in April of 1955 Labor 
Relations Associates are $1,500. That is for April. Then for June 
it is $2,500, when the campaign was going. July was $3,500. August 
was $4,200. September was $3,800. October was $3,900. Novem- 
ber it was $3,100. December was $3,600. January was $3,700. Feb- 
ruary was $4,800. Then in the month of the election it was $8,500. 

What was going on that all of this money needed to be spent down 
there in Clyde ? 

Mr. Pleister. Well, I made the statement we were having a union 
campaign. 

Mr. Kennedy. What sort of things were they doing there, this Mr. 
Patterson ? 

Mr. Pleister. What sort of things was Mr. Patterson doing? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. 

Mr. Pleister. Mr. Patterson was advising me. 

Mr. Kennedy. What were these extra expenses for ? 

The advice might cost half that much. But these were extra dis- 
bursements. What was all of that for ? 

Mr. Pleister. I really couldn't answer, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. You couldn't answer that ? 

Mr. Pleister. I would think that part of this money was being 
spent for the preparation 

Mr. Kennedy. That what ? 

Mr. Pleister. I would believe, and I couldn't answer specifically, 
but I would believe that part of these moneys was being spent for lit- 
erature such as you had here. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you understand he was out entertaining your 
employees to try to convince them not to join the union ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THEi LABOR FIELD 0009 

Mr. Pleister. I would think this would be a very logical thing to 
suppose. Actually, the taking out of employees at our plant is not a 
union occurrence at all. 

The Cm\iRMAN. At this point the Chair would like to present to you 
these invoices, bills rendered. There are quite a number of them in 
this group which are all attached. 

Please identify the photostatic copies of them so that they may be 
made an exhibit. Some of them the counsel has referred to in inter- 
rogating you already. Do you recognize those as photostatic copies of 
the bills that you received '^ 

(Documents handed to witness.) 

Mr. Pleister. Sir, I think that we furnished these to the committee. 

The Chairman. I think so. I just want to get them identified for 
the record. 

Mr. Pleister. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. That group of documents may be made exhibit Xo. 
15 for reference only. 

{The documents referred to were marked "Exhibit No. 15" for refer- 
ence and may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know if Mr. Patterson made up a general 
plan of attack as to how to deal with the union problem ? Did he ever 
tell you about that ? 

Mr. Pleister. A general plan of attack ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Against the union ; how to deal with them. 

Mr. Pleister. Yes. We talked about the tactics of the union on 
many occasions. 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. The tactics that you were to use against them, 
did you ever talk about that? 

Mr. Pleistp:r, I am sure we must have ; yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did he ever show you this plan ? 

Mr. Pleisticr. What plan is this? 

Mr. Kennedy. You will see it in a second. 

The Chairman. The Chair hands you three pages of notations, 
pencil notations, which counsel has referred to as a plan. I ask you 
to examine these three sheets of paper, pages 1, 2, and 3, and see if you 
identify them. 

(At this point Senator Ervin withdrew from the hearing room.) 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Pleister. I have never seen this before, sir. 

The Chairman. You have never seen that before? 

Mr. Pleister. No, sir, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Do you know that that came out of the files of your 
company ? 

Mr. Pleister. That came out of the files of my company ? 

Mr. Kennedy. It came out of the files of the Shefferman Co., the 
Whirlpool-Clyde file, at the Shefferman Co., Chicago, 111. 

The Chairman. Do you know whose handwriting it is ? 

Mr. Pleister. I couldn't identify the handwriting. My counsel 
asked me if I could, and I said I couldn't. 

Mr. Nehemkis. I wish the Chair would rule on whether the char- 
acterization by your distinguished counsel correctly stated the tacts. 
Where did the document which was shown to the witness come trom ': 
The statement was made, from our files. 



6010 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. I made that statement erroneously. That has been 
corrected by counsel. 

Mr. Nehemkis. I am glad to have that on the record. 

The Chairman. That is on the record. I made the statement 
erroneously. I thought it came from your files, but I understand it 
came from the Shefferman files. May I ask you, Do you recognize 
the handwriting? 

Mr. Pleister. I do not, sir. 

The Chairman. All right, proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you recognize the plan that you used down there ? 
Did you read it ? 

Mr. Pleister. We followed some of those things ; yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. You did follow it ? 

Mr. Pleister. Not the plan as such. We followed some of the pro- 
cedures, yes. 

The Chairman. This document that has been exhibited to the wit- 
ness for his inspection may be made exhibit Xo. IG. 

(The documents referred to were marked "Exhibit No. 16" for 
reference and may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

The Chairman. You may read it and ask him questions about it as 
to what part he followed. 

Mr. Kennedy. It says — 

No. 1. Find lawyer and guy who will set up the vote "no"' committee. 

The Chairman. That is the No. 1 item on what counsel has referred 
to as a plaiL I assume it means instructions to your company from 
the Shefferman folks as to hoM^ to conduct this opposition to the union's 
attempt to organize. 

As he reads them, you will be asked if you followed that instruction. 

Mr. Kennedy (reading) : 

Find lawyer and guy who will set up vote "no" committee. 

The Chairman. Is that part of the instructions and counsel that 
you received from Shefferman's representative that you followed? 

Mr. Pleister. Sir, if I recall correctly in this particular matter, 
this was suggested to us and we turned it down. 

The Chairman. That suggestion you turned down ? 

Mr. Pleister. We did, sir. 

The Chairman. You did not follow it. You recall the suggestion 
having been made ? 

Mr. Pleister. I think it was talked about. That is correct. 

The Chairman. All right, proceed. 

]Mr. Kennedy (reading) : 

No. 2. Little later, who are your leaders on inside and outside. Neilsen, find 
leaders and sway them. 

Mr. Pleister. Who is Mr. Neilsen, may I ask? 
Mr. Kennedy. I don't know. 

The Chairman. Was he an employee of your company ? 
Mr. Pleister. I don't recall having any Neilsen in our employment 
lists. In fact, I am quite certain. 
Mr. Kennedy (reading) : 

Going to local Legion post. Get material from them. They are willing to 
let us use and we will turn it over to the vote "no" committee. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THEi LABOR FIELD GO 11 

Did he speak to you about going to the local American Legion post 
and getting material from them to turn over to the vote "no" com- 
mittee ? 

Mr. Pleister. I believe, Mr. Kennedy, that in 1954, when the UE 
was conducting a campaign of organization, the American Legion 
was also conducting a campaign on un-American activities. I would 
think that that is what that notation refers to. 

(At this point Senator Ives withdrew^ from the hearing room.) 

Mr. Kennedy. This might cast more liglit. It is m parentheses 
and says : 

Give American Legion material we have and let vote "no" committee get it 
from American Legion. 

The Chairman. In other words, that would imply, maybe, that you 
had gotten that material in 1954, and you had the material in your 
possession. The suggestion is tliat you give it back to the Legion so 
that the vote "no'' committee can say that they got it from the Legion. 
Is that correct ? 

Mr. Pleister. I don't know what the notation is referring to in 
regards to getting information from us, unless it was some materials 
that had been left wdth me by the State attorney general's office on 
un-American activities. 

Mr. Kennedy. Why would you handle it by this, again, subterfuge, 
of giving it to the American Legion and then getting the vote "no" 
committee to go to the American Legion and get it from them ? 

Mr. Pleister. Mr. Kennedy, I did not give the American Legion 
any materials. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was this suggested to you, the idea given to you ? 

Mr. Pleister. Not about the American Legion ; no, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is what it says. 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Kennedy, what is the date of that paper? 

Mr. Kennedy. There is no date on the paper. 

Senator Curtis. Has that been established as instructions delivered 
to Whirlpool, or is it a memorandum from the Sheffermans? 

Mr. Kennedy. It is a memorandum taken from tlie Sheffermans* 
files. It was in the folder dealing with Whirlpool at Clyde, Ohio. 
I am asking this witness questions as to whether these instructions, 
this memorandum of instructions, were followed by the operators at 
Clyde, Ohio, in dealing with the union there. It says here — 

material to use: Communism, un-Americanism, destroying our country. Gen- 
eral : Attack and then pin them down when get closer to an issue. Hit leaders 
toward last. Save merchants toward last 'til gets hot. 

4. Rotating committee actively going. May consider in few weeks to intro- 
duce them job analysis. Build up supervisors. 

Then it says about the UE : 

Don't dignifv them. Call them bums and hoodlums, "cheap, common buiris " 
Don't argue' wage differential. Don't answer it. Stay away from it. Ridi- 
cule leader.s. 

5. Keep your foremen meeting and we'll stay in with job analysis. We'll 
tell foremen what to say and do. 

6. Same merchants, also clergy. When time comes, will take everybody and 
give it final drive. - 

7. Build up case against union first then throw them out. Let owner oi 
building find out about being Communist from American Legion. • •,. ^h 

8. Might be wise to get a few boys pay them for time lost, to visit rne 
homes, from vote "no" committee. , ._^^^^ 

9- Don't look for any help from the FBI. Only chance is your own einplojees. 



6012 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 

Did you follow that plan ? 

Have you any of the job analyses? Have you any reports that Mr. 
Patterson made on the job analyses ? 
The Chairman. Senator Curtis? 
Senator Curtis. I wanted to be clear about one thing. 
This UE union — is that the labor union that has been referred to 
in various congressional couiniittee hearings questioning some of their 
personnel as bein"; Communists? 
Mr. Kenxedy. That is correct. 

Senator (Curtis. Was there any finding by the Department of 
Justice? 

Mr. Kennedy. I think it is generally accepted as being Communist 
dominated. 

Senator Curtis. Was that one of the unions involved in this plant? 
Mr. Kennedy. It was in 1953, 1 believe. 
INIr. Pleister. 1954 and 1955. 

jNIr. Kennedy. The UE and lUE were then making a drive? 
Mr. Pleister. The UE was the one that was conducting the major 
drive at that particular time. I believe also that the lUE was also 
there on occasions. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you have any of these reports that Mr. Patterson 
prepared? Do you have any written reports that lie prepared? 
Mr. Pleister. On what subjects? 
]\rr. Kennedy. For instance, job evaluation. 
Mr. Pleister. We have a complete job evaluation setup, sir. 
]\Ir. Kennedy. Yes, but have you any reports that he prepared for 
you ? 

Mr. Pleister. There were no reports. It was put into a complete 
operating procedure, with quite a substantial manual that went with it. 
Mr. Kennedy. Do you have any reports that he prepared for you ? 
Mr. Pleister. Not separate reports. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you have any reports that he prepared for you 
on wage surveys ? Have you written reports by Mr. Patterson of wage 
surveys ? 

Mr. Pleister. I am sure that many of his suggestions are in the 
manual today. 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes : but do you have any written repoits from Mr. 
Patterson on the wage surveys ? 
Mr. Pleister. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Have you any written reports from Mr. Patterson 
on wage and salary administration ? 
Mr. Pleister. On wage and salary ? 
Mr. Kennedy. Have you got written re]3orts from him ? 
Mr. Pleister. If you consider the manuals as part of the report that 
was finally completed from this, I have. 

Mr. Kennedy. I want to find out whether you have any written 
reports from him on any of these 11 matters. I want to find out if 
he ever gave you a written report on any of them. 

Mr. Pleister. It is possible that he could have. I don't recall. 
Mr. Kennedy. Do you know of any written repoj't that he gave you 
on anj^ of these matters ? 
Mr. Pleister. No, sii-. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 6013 

Senator INIcNamara. Are you ready to proceed ? 

Mr. Pleister. I am, Senator, and thank you very much. 

Mr. Kennedy, counsel has advised me that I slioukl apiin stress the 
point that we do have complete and full administrative majiuals on 
these things that have been listed here, and that Mr. Patterson did 
"work with me on many occasions in preparing these things. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you ever write a draft of any section of tliat ? 

Mr. Pleister. I am sure that was the case. 

Mr. Kennedy. I want to find out whether you have any written 
material that he i)re]3ared at all on these matters. 

Mr. Nehemkis. May I address Senator McNamara ? I respectfully 
take exception. When a witness states that he has no knowledge and 
siqjplies to the committee the state of the facts, the state of facts with 
wliich he is familiar, then I do not think that counsel is within his 
proper rights in pursuing a preconceived theory of what he seeks to 
obtain. The witness has stated that he has no f amil iarity with written 
reports, and he has testified that the work done and the objects with 
which he was assisted represent manuals. 

Senator McNamara. Why does he not answer the question? He 
can say he does not have the information. I do not know what the 
protest is for, and I don't understand what you are objecting to. He 
can just repeat; he does not know. Do you have any written reports 
by Mr. Patterson at all ? 

Mr. Pleister. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy, That is all. Now, did you ever find a breakdown or 
get a breakdown from Mr. Patterson, or from the LEA, as to how lie 
was spending these amounts of money ? 

Mr. Pleister. I did not, sir. I had the invoices, as you presenteu 
them here to me, to examine, and that was all, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. For instance, in August of 1955, company fees weio 
$2,300, but, above that, he disbursed $1,975.25. Could you tell Ub 
where that went ? 

Mr. Pleister. I cannot. 

Mr. Kennedy. And, in September of 1955, the fee was $2,100, but 
he disbursed down in Clyde, Ohio, $1,742.09. Where did that money 
go? 

Mr. Pleister. As I have testified, I do not know, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. We ao on, $2,000 in October disbursements, and in 
November $1,800, and $2,200 in December, $5,300 in MarclL Wherw 
would he spend all of that money ? You don't know that ? 

Mr. Pleister. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is all for that. 

The Chairman. All right, sir. Thank you very uuicIl 

Call the next witness. 

Senator Curtis. Pardon me. I have a question. 

Did the vote "no'' committee of 1950 and prior years have some of 
the same members that continued throughout the later years ? 

Mr. Pleister. Senator Curtis, I woiild not be able to ansAver that. 
I really don't know. 

Senator Curtis. When did your company take over that ])1ant ? 

Mr. Pleister., The Wliirlpool Corp, took over the ])lant after April 
1, 1952. However, I was a former employee of the Clyde Porcelain 
Steel Corp. 



6014 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Curtis. Not in the capacity you are now. 

Mr. Pleister. No, not at that particular time. JSIy job was material 
handling, sir. 

Senator Curtis. It was your understanding that they had such a 
committee ? 

Mr. Pleister. Yes; there was literature distributed at that time, 
too, sir. 

The Chairman. All right. 

The Chairman. Mr. Audritsch, will you come around, please? 

You do solemnly swear that the evidence you shall give before this 
Senate select committee shall be the truth, the whole truth, and noth- 
ing but the truth, so help you God ? 

Mr. Audritsch. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF LOUIS AUDRITSCH 

The Chairman. State your name and your place of residence, and 
your business or occupation. 

Mr. Audritsch. My name is Louis Audritsch, Green Springs, Ohio, 
and I edit and publish a weekly newspaper in that town, which is 
near Clyde, Ohio. 

The Chairman. Do you waive counsel ? 

Mr. Audritsch. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Audritsch, you have a printing company as well 
as operating a newspaper ? 

Mr. Audritsch. I publish a newspaper and also a job printer. 

jMr. Kennedy. Are you familiar with the so-called vote "no'' com- 
mittee ^ 

Mr. Audritsch. Definitely. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could you tell us how that committee came into 
operation ? 

Mr. Audritsch. Yes. I talked to the man sitting at your left yes- 
terday in that regard, Mr. Salinger, and I told him at that time that 
I could figure only one answer, but the names used in the vote "no"' 
committee must have been, and I did not state it as a fact, and I think 
that you will recall that, must have been given to me by personnel. 
I could figure no other way for it. 

Mr. Kennedy. What personnel ? 

Mr. Audritsch. Personnel at the Whirlpool. 

At that moment I assumed that, you understand, and I was trying 
to recall it. However, after I talked to the man to your left I was 
then talking to the boy that was with me from Clyde, Ohio, who you 
probably call the chairman of the vote "no" committee, and lie told 
me that he came up with the names. You understand, I coidd not 
recall it definitely. So he tells me that he came up with the names, 
and he knew that three boys on the committee, and he knew how they 
felt about unionizing Clyde. 

Mr. Kennedy. And he says that he gave you the names ? 

Mr. Audritsch. That is what he told me. 

Mr. Kennedy. So that you were in error yesterday when you talked 
to us ? 

Mr. Audritsch. Well, I put it out as an answer I was not sure of. 

Mr. Kennedy. Well, did you work with the vote "no" committee 
after that? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN" THE Lx^BOR FIELD 6015 

Mr. AuDRiTscH. Definitely. 

Mr. Kennedy. You did ? 

Mr. AuDRiTSCH. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you print some of the literature used ? 

Mr. AuDKiTscH. I presume I printed all of it. 

Mr. Kennedy. How was that ordered, that literature ? 

Mr. Audritsch. Wliat do you mean ? 

Mr. Kennedy. How did you come to print it, and what occurred, 
and what happened ? 

Mr. Audritsch. You mean who wrote it or ordered it ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. 

Mr. Audritsch. Mr. Patterson. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could you tell us about that ; how did you meet Mr. 
Patterson ? 

Mr. Audritsch. I don't know whether I could place that or not. It 
could be he just came into my shop as any other customer would, and 
I can't recall that. 

Mr. Kennedy. And he said he wanted some printing done ? 

Mr. Audritsch. Now wait a minute. After the vote "no" commit- 
tee was into effect is when he ordered this printing and when he and I, 
in fact, cooperated in it. 

Mr. Kennedy. He came in and said he was doing the ordering for 
the vote "no" committee ? 

Mr. Audritsch. Now, wait a minute. 

Mr. Kennedy. You explain it in your own words. 

Mr. Audritsch. The committee was then in existence, and then he 
had to depend on somebody and Patterson and I were made for each 
other. He was looking for somebody or he could use somebody, and I 
was looking for someone, let us say, to take up the union side of this 
picture, or the company side, I should say. 

Mr. Kennedy. So what did he say to you, and what arrangements 
were made between Mr. Patterson and yourself ? 

Mr. Audritsch. In what regard ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Kegarding the literature and the operation of the 
committee. 

Mr. Audritsch. Well, I might put it this way, that literature w.as 
planned and was printed, and delivered to the members of the vote 
*'no" committee, and they passed it out. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wlio paid for that? 

Mr. Audritsch. The Whirlpool Corp. 

Mr. Kennedy. They paid for all of it ? 

Mr. Audritsch. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did Mr. Patterson pay for it directly ? 

Mr. Audritsch. Oh, no. 

Mr. Kennedy. The bills were all sent to the Whirlpool Corp. ? 

Mr. Audritsch. That is right. I think I exhibited that to Mr. 
Salinger. 

Mr. Kennedy. But Mr. Patterson never paid for any of this litera- 
ture himself ? 

Mr. Audritsch. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know what he was using these large sums 
of money for, then ? 



89330—57 — pt. 15 17 



6016 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. AuDRiTSCH. I would not have any knowledge of that whatso- 
ever, because I consulted and worked with Mr. Patterson strictly on 
the printing, and producing it, and delivering it. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who would make up the drawings and the cartoons ? 

Mr. AuDKiTscH. I don't know who did that. 

Mr. Kennedy. Would he arrive at the printing establishment with 
those things ? 

Mr. AuDRiTSCH. It runs in my mind that the actual artwork was 
done b}' some nearby artist but I don't know the man at all. I think 
I could say he comes from Fostoria, but I could not identify him. 

Mr. Kennedy. How did you arrange to have the bills sent to the 
Whirlpool Co. ? A^Hio told you to do that ? 

Mr. Audritsch. "V\nio told me to do that ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. 

Mr. Audritsch. I don't believe I can answer that either. 

Mr. I^nnedy. What about this? What function did the "no" 
committee have ? 

Mr. Audritsch. Primarily the distribution of literature. 

]Mr. Kennedy. They would come by and pick it up ? 

Mr. Audritsch. Or I would deliver it to them. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. Did they ever meet and discuss matters with you? 

Mr. Audritsch. Yes; they met down in my house some evenings. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. Other than that ? 

Mr. Audritsch. Yes ; one meeting after the election. 

Mr. Kennedy. During the election were there any meetings? 

Mr. Audritsch. Xot as such, not as a meeting. 

Mr. Kjennedy. They would just come down and pick up the litera- 
ture that had been ordered ? 

Mr. Audritsch. Or I delivered it. 

Mr. Kennedy. Bv Mr. Patterson and paid for by the Wliirlpool 
Corp.? 

Mr. Audritsch. That is right. 

The Chairman. Do 3^011 loiow whether they were paid for deliver- 
ing the literature ? 

Mr. Audritsch. To my knowledge, sir, they did not receive 1 
cent. 

The Chairman. I was trying to determine, it seemed that Mr. Pat- 
terson had some large expense accounts, and the witness preceding 
you 

Mr. Audritsch. I gathered that much. 

The Chairman. Said he could not account for them or say what it 
was for, and I am trying to determine what it was for. 

Mr. Audritsch. That is just, a little bit out of my line. 

The Chairman. I can appreciate that, unless you may have some 
information. I am wondering whether not only the company paid 
for the developing and printing and preparing of the literature that 
was sent out, but whether the company paid the vote "no" committee 
members for their time and labor in distributing it. That is what I 
would like to know. 

Mr. Audritsch. I believe I can put this out as a fact, to my knowl- 
edge, sir, that no one got 1 dime out of it. 

The Chairman. We are still trying to find out what all of this ex- 
pense money was for. 



IMPROPEIR ACTTVITIES IN THEi LABOR FIELD 6017 

Mr. AuDRiTSCH. I see your point. I see what you are after. 

The Chairjian. It is not clear. 

Mr. AuDRnscH. I see what you are talking about, the large sums 
of money. 

The Cpiairman. There is a lot of expense there that since you were 
paid directly from the company, he was spending a lot of money, or 
at least charging a lot to the company for some items of expense that 
we are not able to account for. I thought it might be that these vote 
"no" committee members were being paid for distributing it. 

Mr. AuDRiTSCH. Oh, no ; at least to my knowledge they were not. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Mr. Kennedy. How did you happen to have the conversation with 
the head of the vote "no" committee, that he gave you the names ? 

Mr. AuDRiTSCH. You are talking about a young man by the name of 
Ivan Sieger, and I have known Ivan Sieger since he was 4 or 5 years 
old, all of my life I have known him, and'he is the type of guy I meet 
on the street and talk to, and maybe the next week I see him again. 

Mr. Kennedy. What conversation did you have ? 

Mr. AuDRiTSCH. That is hard to figue out, and hard to remember, 
but I do recall this much, that we must have been talking about tlie 
union activity at Clyde. Now, you must remember I am very much 
interested in Clyde, Ohio. 

Mr. Kennedy. How did the vote "no"committee get established, 
then ? Did you suggest it to him or did he suggest it ? 

Mr. AuDRiTSCH. I told you about that a minute ago, that I was 
wrong yesterday when I said I thought I got it from personnel. 

Mr. Kennedy. You got the names from him, is that right ? 

Mr. Atjdritsch. Mr. Sieger, yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was it your idea to form a vote "no" committee ? 

Mr. AuDRiTSCH. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. Whose idea was it ? 

Mr. AuDRiTSCH. That could have been any number of people. 

Now wait a minute, it might have come from Mr. Patterson, and it 
might have come from anybody at Whirlpool, or might have come from 
somebody on the street, and I can't say, because I don't know. 

Mr. Kennedy. Didn't you suggest yesterday, or tell Mr. Salinger 
yesterday, that the idea came from Mi-. Patterson ? 

Mr. AuDRiTSCH. I think that I could have said it could have, much 
as I said the members of the vote "no" committee also came from there. 
I said maybe they did, and I didn't know. 

Mr. Kennedy. But your mind is a blank as to how the vote "no" 
committee was formed or how they happened to have the idea ? 

Mr. Audritsch. The original idea, it could have come from Mr. 
Patterson, and I don't know. 

Mr. Kennedy. What is your 

Mr. Audritsoh. You must remember this, sir, that I seem to be a 
natural in Green Springs for that activity, because I have been pub- 
lishing a newspaper there for many, many years, and through those 
years I have opposed unionizing Clyde definitely. 

Mr. Ivennedy. I am not questioning that at all. 

Mr. Audritsch. I am telling you why I am a natural. 

Mr. Kennedy. I am not questioning you weren't a natural pei-soii 
to come to, and I am trying to find out who came to you. 



6018 IRIPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. AuDRiTSCH. I can assume 'Sir. Patterson did, and wouldn't that 
be natural for him to come to me ? 

Senator Curtis. What year are we talking about ? 

Mr. Kennedy. 1955 ; is that right ? 

Mr. AuDRiTSCH. 1955 or 1956, whenever this activity took place, sir. 

The Chairman. We are talking about the activities preceding the 
last election. 

Mr. AuDRiTSCH. Yes ; when it was voted down 3 to 1. 

Mr. Kennedy. The organization started in August of 1955 and went 
through March of 1956, 1 believe the election was held. 

Mr. AuDRiTSCH. There is apt to be some confusion there because of 
that other activity some 6 or 7 years ago. 

Senator Curtis. How long have you published a newspaper around 
there? 

Mr. AuDRiTSCH. I became owner in 1934, sir, and I started my 
apprenticeship in 1926. 

Senator Curtis. What community do you live in ? 

Mr. Audritsch. Green Springs, Ohio, 5 miles from Clyde. 

Senator Curtis. How big a place is Green Springs? 

Mr. Audritsch. Approximately 1,000 people. 

Senator Curtis. It is 5 miles from Clyde ? 

Mr. Audritsch. Five or six miles ; yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. How long have you lived in that area ? 

Mr. Audritsch. I have lived there 46 years. 

Senator Curtis. Now, this employees' committee that came to you 
there, did you know those men ? 

Mr. Audritsch. I will keep it down to one now, because you remem- 
ber I corrected myself on the one ; that is Mr. Sieger. He happens to 
be here with me, by the way, and I presume will appear shortly. I 
have known him for many years, and he lived 2 miles north of my 
little town of Green Springs, and he is simply one of our hometown 
boys. 

Senator Curtis. Did you know any of the rest of them ? 

Mr. Audritsch. No; I didn't, sir. 

Senator Curtis. But you did know Mr. Sieger? 

Mr. Audritsch. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Now, your background as a newspaperman, I 
think, makes you able to judge people and their actions a little better 
than average. In your opinion were these employees who were re- 
sisting the union genuinely speaking their own mind and conviction, 
or did you get the impression that they were prompted or caused 
to do that by reason of reward or threatened retaliation ? Do you have 
an opinion on it ? 

Mr. Audritsch. You are talking about the people in favor of the 
union over there ? 

Senator Curtis. I am talking about the members, the workers, who 
were resisting the union, the workers who were taking a position 
against union organization. 

Mr. Audritsch. Against the union ? 

Senator Curtis. Yes, and now in your opinion were they expressing 
their own genuine thoughts and convictions, or in your opinion were 
they voicing someone else's position by reason of possible rewards or 
threats ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 6019 

Mr. AuDRiTSCH. I can state that positively it was their oAvn opinion. 
I mean the company didn't hold a club over anybody or didn't offer 
anybody anything, and it wasn't that sort of a picture at all. 

Senator Curtis. Your contact with them convinced you that they 
believed in what they were doing ? 

Mr. Atjdritsch. Absolutely, every one of them. 

Senator Curtis. And were motivated because of their feelinsr about 
it. 

Mr. AuDRiTSCH. Because of their feelings as workers at Whirlpool. 

Senator Curtis. That is all. 

The Chairman. Mr. Audritsch, was that primarily, or let me ask 
you first, had there been general public sentiment in your cities there 
or in the community at large against unionization ? 

Mr. Audritsch. I would say there is no question about that, sir. 

The Chairman. And your paper has supported that policy, I as- 
sume, throughout the 3^ears ? 

Mr. Audritsch. For many, many years. 

The Chairman. And other public-spirited citizens had the same 
feeling about it ? 

Mr. Audritsch. And I can also say other papers in the area. 

The Chairman. What is that ? 

Mr. Audritsch. Other papers in the area ; I think I can safely say 
that. 

The Chairman. So that you think that the opposition, when you 
say they were speaking their own mind and exercising their own best 
judgment, it was a mind and judgment that had been subjected to 
very great extent to general public sentiment in the community as 
expressed by 3/our paper and other citizens ? 

Mr. Audritsch. And all factors in any community. 

The Chairman. I am sure of that, and there was another factor in 
this, I assume, that caused them to oppose unions or the plant being 
organized, and that was the number of benefits or generally the treat- 
ment that the company gave them. 

Mr. Audritsch. That they already had ; yes. 

The Chairman. That they already had ? 

Mr. Audritsch. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. And there was a feeling, whether it was wholly 
justified or not, there was a feeling among the employees — most of them 
at least — that the organization of the plant would not be to their 
interest ? 

Mr. Audritsch. That is exactlj^ true, sir. 

The Chairman. I am not saying that they were wrong, or riglit, 
but you feel that that was their general and honest feeling because 
of the two principal factors I have mentioned, the general public senti- 
ment in the commmiity and the treatment and policy of the company 
toward them ? 

Mr. Audritsch. All of those things entered into that, yes. That is 
right. 

The Chairman. All right. Is there anything further ? 

Mr. Kennedy. If I could go just back a second on where the idea 
for the committee came from, you are not able to cast any light on 
that? 

Mr. Audritsch. I can't put it out in such a way that would definitely 
pin it down. 



6020 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. Wliat is your best judgment as to where it came 
from? 

Mr. AuDRiTSCH. My best judgment is that Mr. Patterson and I must 
have been talking, and I can see there is no use for me to spin up an 
answer for it. I will put it out as I think it happened, and I can't 
put it out as a fact. 

Mr. Kennedy. You believe it was from Mr. Patterson ? 

]\Ir. AuDRiTscH. I believe, but I can't say it as a fact. 

Mr. Kennedy. I just wanted to get your best judgment. 

Senator McNamara. I would like to ask the witness just a couple 
of questions. 

You indicated that you thought it was better for your community 
if you didn't have a union in this plant. 

Mr. Audritsch. Yes. 

Senator McNamara. What is your reason for that? You were 
afraid they would be making too much money in the plant and it would 
be bad for the community ? 

JMr. Audritsch. My basic reasons are this : I have read and seen 
enough examples of communities upset, maybe for a week, or a month, 
or months at a time, over trouble, layoffs, all sorts of rough things, 
broken windows and anything you want, that I wanted no part of that 
out in the country M'here I am at, and I am sure that is a feeling of a 
great many people down there. 

Senator McNamara. You were motivated by your civic interest? 

Mr. Audritsch. Definitely. 

Senator McNamapa. Because you had no interest in the plant. 

Mr. Audritsch. No; T have an interest; sure. I do business there, 
and that is no secret, either. 

Senator McNamara. But you are actually motivated, and you 
wanted no disturbance in the conununity, and you were activated by 
your civic interest. 

Mr. Audritsch. It is the way I honestly feel about it. 

Senator McNamara. Do you know about how much an hour they 
paid these employees ? 

Mr. Audritscpi. I can't give you that, but I have seen tables, com- 
parative tables between the Clyde plant and other industries within 
the area, and it is at the head of the list, always. 

Senator McNamara. You thought, then, the wages were about what 
they should be ? 

Mr. Audritsch. I thought they were very good. 

Senator McNamara. You think there they were $1.50 ? 

Mr. Audritsch. The average is much greater than that ; I am sure 
of that. 

Senator McNamara. Much higher than that ? 

JMr. Audritsch. Yes, sir ; and I wish I had those figures to give you ; 
somebody should give it to you. 

Senator McNamara. As a newspaperman, you generally have an 
idea? 

Mr. Audritsch. I can't carry that around. 
^ Senator McNamara. But you had in mind that they were rather 
high wages for that type of industry ? 

Mr. Audritsch. It is the best paying plant in that whole area. 

Senator McNamara. You didn't think that they needed a union 
because they were getting pretty good wages and working conditions ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 6021 

Mr. AuDRiTSCH. Better than any plant in that area, for comparable 
jobs. 

The Chairman. Is there anything further ? 

All right ; thank you very much. 

Call the next witness. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Patterson. 

Before Mr. Patterson takes the stand, could we get Mr. Salinger 
to testify as to how much money actually went in during this pertod 
of time ? 

The Chairman. All right. Will you testify, Mr. Salinger? Have 
you been sworn in this particular series of hearings ? 

Mr. Salinger. I have, sir. 

The Chairman. Proceed, Mr. Kennedy. 

TESTIMONY OF PIEREE SALINGER— Resumed 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Salinger, have you made a study of the pay- 
ments that were made by Whirlpool -Clyde to Labor Eelations As- 
sociates ? 

Mr. Salinger. I have. 

Mr. Kennedy. For what period of time ? 

Mr. Salinger. For the period April 30, 1953, to July 31, 1956. 

Mr. Kennedy. Can you tell us what the total is? Give us a 
breakdo^m per year. 

Mr. Salinger. In 1953, the total paid was $6,627.60. 

The Chairman. Wliat was that paid for, now ? 

Mr. Salinger. That is paid for what they call fees, which are the 
actual service fees for the time spent by the employees, and disburse- 
ments, which is the amount of money spent by the LRA em- 
ployee 

The Chairman. "V^Hiom is this referring to — the LRA ? 

Mr. Salinger. This is the amount of money paid by the Whirl- 
pool Corp. at Clyde to LRA. 

The Chairman. xlU right. 

Mr. Salinger. I could break this down as to fees and expenses 
each year, if you want to do that. 

Mr. Kennedy. Why don't you do that, too. 

Mr. Salinger. In the year 1953, the fees were $4,800 ; the expendi- 
tures, $1,827.60. 

The Chairman. For the whole year ? 

Mr. Salinger. For the entire year, a total of $6,627.60. 

Senator Curtis. Let me ask something there. By expenditures, 
is that expenditures within the plant or at Clyde, or is it expendi- 
tures made, perhaps, to another point ? 

Mr. Salinger. The expenditures break down to a number of cate- 
gories. I can give them to you. Senator. Tliev include hotel bills 
for the employees of LRA when they are in Clyde or working down 
there. They include their actual meals. They include cost of tele- 
phone calls. They include cost of entertainment. In this particu- 
lar case, we have an additional category which is labeled simply 
"Materials and Supplies." 

Senator Curtis. What does that mean ? 

Mr. Salinger. I might say that is the largest item of all. 

Senator Curtis. In 1953? 



6022 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN" THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Salinger. Over this 4:-year period that I am going to go into. 

Senator Curtis. But these figures are for 1953 ? 

Mr. Salinger. In 1953, we have them broken down as disburse- 
ments and fees. I can give you a breakdown for the entire 4-year 
period for each of these items, but not 3'ear by year on each of the 
items that I just talked about. 

Senator Curtis. I thought there wasn't a breakdown for 1953. 

Mr. Salinger. The company never asked for and never received 
a breakdown, but we have made our own breakdown. 

Senator Curtis. All right. 

The Chairman. In other words, the fees were the regular per 
diem; they paid them for their services, whether by the hour, week, 
or month. 

Senator Curtis. That is right. 

The Chairman. The other that you refer to are the expenses that 
the LEA incurred or their representatives incurred that was charged 
TO the company ? 

Mr. Salinger. That is correct, sir. 

The Chairman. All right. Those two categories. 

Mr. Salinger. In the year 1954, the fees amounted to $7,050. The 
disbursements amounted to $3,733.45, a total for the jenv of $10,783.45. 
In the year 1955, the fees amounted to $17,500, and the disbursements 
amounted to $16,642.34, a total for that year of $36,313.04. 

In the year 1956, the services of LRA were terminated after July 
31, so for the j^eriod January 1 through Julv 31 of that vear, the fees 
were $6,900, the expenses $10,513.64, a total for that year of $17,413.64, 
and a combined total for the 3-year period of $71,137.73. 

The Chairman. "What part of that is fees and what part disburse- 
ments ? 

Mr. Salinger. Fees and disbursements? It will take just a second, 
Senator. 

The Chairman. I thought you had it. You gave the overall total. 
Break it down in disbursements. 

Mr. Salinger. The amount of fees was $36,250, and the amount of 
disbursements was $24,887.73. 

The Chairman. That gives vou a grand total of what ? 

Mr. Salinger. $71,137.73. 

The Chairman. Xow we have it. In this period the item "ma- 
terials and supplies," which was charged by Mr. Patterson to the 
Whirlpool Co. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you want to make sure that figure is right? 

Mr. Salinger. Excuse me. The disbursements should be $34,000 
instead of $24,000: $34,887.73. This item of materials and supplies, 
which begins cropping up in Mr. Patterson's expense accounts in 1955, 
in the period of 1955 and 1956 Mr. Patterson spent a total of $11,950.55 
on materials and supplies. 

The Chairman. Is there aiw indication of what materials and 
supplies consisted of ? 

Mr. Salinger. Xone whatever. Senator. 

The Chair]sl4N. You don't know whether it was raw material, fin- 
ished material, or something in between ? 

Mr. Salinger. His daily reports just indicate "materials and sup- 
plies." 

The Chairman. All right. Thank you very much. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES rtsf THE LABOR FIELD 6023 

Mr. Kennedy. May I just ask you this : Is there a direct relationship 
between the amount of money spent on expenses, these disbursements, 
and the organizational drive by unions ? 

Mr. Salinger. There definitely is. For example, the 1956 organi- 
zational drive ended in ]March of 1956. That month the disbursements 
were $5,344.50. The next month the disbursements were $92.85. 

Mr. Kennedy. So it went from over $5,000 to $92; is that correct? 

Mr. Salinger. That is right. 

The Chairman. That clearly indicates that the bulk of this expendi- 
ture, at least for the years 1955 and 1956, was spent in connection 
with the opposition to the effort to organize. 

Mr. Salinger. Ninety-five percent of the money was spent in the 
period June 30, 1955 to March 1, 1956. 

The Chairman. I am not passing on the validity of it as to whether 
it is proper or improper. But obviously, from those figures it indi- 
cates that the principal expenditure for the service they were getting 
in fees and disbursements were expenditures in opposition to unioni- 
zation of the plant. 

Mr. Salinger. That is right, sir. 

The Chairman. Thank you. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Patterson ? 

The Chairman. You do solemnly swear that the evidence you shall 
give before this select committee shall be the truth, the whole truth, 
and nothing but the truth, so help you God ? 

Mr. Patterson. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF WALTER J. PATTERSON, ACCOMPANIED BY HIS 
COUNSEL, RAOUL BERGER 

The Chairman. State your name, place of residence and business 
or occupation. 

Mr. Patterson. My name is Walter J. Patterson. I live in Chicago, 
111. 

What was the other question, Senator ? 

The Chairman. Your business or occupation. 

Mr. Patterson. I am a consultant with Labor Eelations Associates 
of Chicago, Inc. 

The Chairman. Do you have counsel present ? 

Mr. Patterson. Yes. 

The Chairman. Please identify yourself for the record. 

Mr. Berger. My name is Kaoul Berger. I am an attorney practicing 
here in Washington. 

The Chairman. Thank you. 

How long have you been with LEA ? Is that the correct initials ? 

Mr. Patterson. That is what it is called, sir ; yes. 

The Chairman. Labor Eelations Associates ? 

Mr. Patterson. Yes. 

The Chairman. How long have you been an employee of it? 

Mr. Patterson. The last time steadily with them since the fall of 
1950. That would make approximately 5 years, sir. 

The Chairman. Around 6 years ? 

Mr. Patterson. Well, then I left them a year and then came back 
6 months later. 



6024 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. You worked for them 5 years out of the last 6 ? 

Mr. Patterson. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. And you are still in their employ ? 

Mr. Patterson. I am, sir. 

The Chairman. What is your title or capacity ? 

Mr. Patterson. Consultant, 

The Chairman. As a consultant. In what branch of their en- 
deavors ? 

Mr. Patterson. The Chicago office, sir. 

The Chairman. That is your location, but they have different 
services they perform, as I understand it. Wliat particular service 
are you a consultant to ? 

Mr. Patterson. Matters pertaining to personnel relations ; setting 
up of records. 

The Chairman. Setting up what ? 

Mr. Patterson. Setting up of personnel records, recommendations 
for the same, recommendations on procedures under the heading of 
personnel practices. Anything that would come under the heading 
of employer-employee relations. 

The Chairman. In other Vvords, you would be a consultant if a 
company was undertaking to resist unionization of its plant ? Would 
you be a consultant in that particular field ? 

Mr. Patterson, I have acted in that capacity, sir. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much. 

All right, Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. Kennedy. "^^Hiile acting in that capacity, have you used names 
other than the name of Walter J. Patterson ? 

Mr. Patterson. I was reminded of that by Mr. Salinger. Yes, sir ; 
I have. 

Mr. KJENNEDY. ^\niat other names have you used ? 

Mr. Patterson. Perhaps Patton. 

Mr. Kennedy. T\1iat is the name ? 

Mr. Patterson. P-a-t-t-o-n. 

Mr. Kennedy. Where did you use the name of Patton ? 

Mr. Patterson. I can't definitely recall. Perhaps Mr. Salinger 
can refresh my mind. 

Mr. KJENNEDY. In Minneapolis, Minn. ? 

Mr. Patterson. I wouldn't recall what the name was that I used 
there. 

Mr. KJENNEDY. You stayed at the Dyckman Hotel, W. J. Patton? 

Mr. Patterson. That may be very true. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wliat case were you on at that time ? 

Mr. Patterson. I believe it was on the case involving the Three 
Sisters store. 

Mr. Ivennedy. A department store up there ? 

Mr. Patterson. It is a women's apparel shop. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you stayed at the Hotel Dyckman ? 

Mr. Patterson. I believe I stayed other places besides the Dyck- 
man. I can't recall which they were, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was there a union attempting to organize the 
Three Sisters at that time ? 

Mr. Patterson. There was, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you were up there working on that ? 

Mr. Patterson. I was. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITTES IN THEi LABOR FIELD G025 

Mr. Kennedt. Then down in Little Rock, Ark. Did you use 
another name in Little Rock, Ark. ? 

Mr. Patterson. I did. However, I cannot recall what name that 
was at the time. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. Mr. P. K. Ridgway ? 
Mr. Patterson. I believe that was it. 

Mr. KJENNEDT. What were you doing down there in Little Rock in 
1953? 

Mr. Patterson. I had come down there to check with one of our 
staff members. I don't recall the name of the store because I never 
got there. I was taken off the job before I began any operations or 
work there. 

Mr. Kj:nnedy. ^'VHiy did you use the name Patton up in Minneapo- 
lis ? Why did you use a different name ? 

Mr. Patterson. Well, let's say it is not unusual in this business, 
where you wouldn't want to identify yourself completely in the event 
that some unusual organizer might recognize you by name, and they 
make capital of it by saying they have gotten professional advice 
from outside. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wliat union was attempting to organize up there? 

Mr. Patterson. As I recall, it was the retail clerks. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did Mr. Shefferman suggest that you use different 
names in these places ? 

Mr. Patterson. That I couldn't say, sir. I am sure some of it 
was on my own accord. 

Mr. Kennedy. Is it the same explanation for using the name of 
Mr. P. K. Ridgway down in Little Rock ? 

Mr. Patterson. It would have been, I am sure. 

The Chairman. If Little Rock is going to get into this picture, I 
want to know what you were doing down there. 

Mr. Patterson. Sir, I will do my best to remember, but I do not 
remember the name of the store that I was originally going down to. 

The Chairman. Was it a store ? 

Mr. Patterson. Yes, but I don't remember the name of it, sir. 

The Chairman. Was it in Little Rock ? 

Mr. Patterson. As far as I know, it was in Little Rock; yes, sir. 

The Chairman. You never made contact ? 

Mr. Patterson. jSTo, sir. 

The Chairman. But you used a different name? 

Mr. Patterson. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Why did you say you failed to make contact? 

Mr. Patterson. Because, as I recall, Mr. Shefl'ennan asked me to 
go to another job from there. 

The Chairman. How long were you there? I can't understand you 
didn't make contact. By the time you got there you had orders to 
go somewhere else ; is that what you are saying ? 

Mr. Patterson. No. It was later. I don't recall the exact dates. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. You Said at that time, according to your registration, 
that you were from Minneapolis, Minn. You are not from Minneap- 
olis, are you ? 

Mr. Patterson. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. You are from Chicago ? 

Mr. Patterson. Chicago is my residence; yes. 



6026 IJMPBOPER ACTIVITIES IK THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. IsjExxEDY. Did you use any other name other than Patton and 
Ridgway ? 

JNIr. Pattersox. I may have. I do not recall at this time what they 
were. Perhaps Mr, Salinger can refresh my mind. 

Mr. I^NKEDY. How about the Aldrich Hotel in McAllister, Okla. ? 

Mr, Pattersox. We discussed that, Mr. Salinger and myself, and 
that was evidently a typographical error of the recording room clerk. 

My. Kexxedt. It was Patton Waffers. 

Mr. Pattersox. It was intended to be Walters. 

Mr, I\JEXXEDY, You intended to use your right name there ? 

Mr, Pattersox. If I registered Walters, it was a different name; 
yes, sir. 

Mr. ICexxedy. You were going to use Patton Walters. What case 
were you working on out there ? 

Mr, Pattersox. That was McAllister, Okla., was it not? 

Mr, KJEXXEDY. Yas, 

Mr. Pattersox, That would have been Seampruf . 

Mr, Kexxedy, Seampruf? 

Mr. Pattersox. Yes. 

Mr. Kexxt:dy, Was there an attempt to organize them at that time ? 

Mr. Pattersox. There had been, and I imagine it is still going on. 

Mr. Kexxedy. What miion was trying to organize them ? 

Mr. Pattersox. I believe — don't hold me to this, but I think it was 
the International Ladies' Garment Workers. 

Mr. Ivexxedy. The what ? 

Mr. Pattersox. I think it was the International Ladies' Garment 
Workers. I am not certain of that. 

Mr. Kexxedy. Do you know Judge Jones down there ? 

Mr. Pattersox^. The name is not at all familiar. 

Mr. Ivexnedy. "V^Hiat about Walter Justin ? Did you use that name ? 

Mr. Patterson. I may have. 

Mr. Kexxedy, The Hotel Douglas, in Xewark, X. J., in 1954? 

Mr. Pattersox, I believe I did ; yes, sir. 

Mr, Kexxedy, In 1954? AAliat were you doing in Xewark, X. J., 
in September of 1954? 

Mr. Pattersox. I believe that can be substantiated by my daily 
reports accounting form there. I think it was the Kresge's Xewark 
department store. 

Mr. Kexxedy. Was there an attempt to organize them going on at 
the time ? 

Mr. Pattersox. A certain section of the store ; yes, sir. 

Mr. Kenx'edy. By whom ? 

Mr. Pattersox. I believe it was the hotel, restaurant, and bartenders 
union. 

Mr. Kenn-edy. Did you get any help from Mr. Lou in that connec- 
tion ? 

Mr. Pattersox. I have heard of ]Mr. Lou. I don't know 

Mr. Kexxedy. Mr. Abe Lou? 

Mr. Patterson. Yes; I have heard of him, but I don't know him 
personally. 

Mr. Kexxedy. He didn't help you when you were there ? 

Mr. Pattersox-. By "help," what do you mean ? 

Mr. Kenxedy. In the broadest context. Did he give you any assist- 
ance, help, aid of any kind ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITrES IN THE LABOR FIELD 6027 

Mr. Patterson. Not to my knowledge. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could he have done it without your direct knowl- 
edge? Did you learn from your headquarters that he had helped 
you? 

Mr. Patterson. I hardly believe so because it came to a vote, a 
secret ballot election 

Mr. Kennedy. A what ? 

Mr. Patterson. It came to a secret ballot election, and as I recall 
it, I think the union won that election. 

Mr. Kennedy. What position did Mr. Lou have at the time ? 'What 
position did you understand he had ? 

Mr. Patterson. I don't recall discussing Mr. Lou whatsoever. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you ever discuss him with Mr. Shefferman, ^Ir. 
Abe Lou ? 

Mr. Patterson. No ; never. 

Mr. Kennedy. So you have used the names Walter Justin, Pat 
Waffers, P. K. Ridgway, W. J. Patton, and Pat Walters ; is that right? 
Are there any others that you can think of ? 

Mr. Patterson. I don't believe so. Can Mr. Salinger help me ? 

Mr. Ivennedy. You can't think of any others yourself I 

Mr. Patterson. No, sir. 

The Chairman. I didn't understand your explanation of wh}' you 
used aliases when you went to these places. There may be a good 
reason for it. Ordinarily those things are not associated with legiti- 
mate businesses. But I do not know the reason wliy you used it. Why 
did you ? 

Mr. Patterson. Mj^ explanation, as I recall, was that when going 
into a town there may be the same union organizer involved that may 
have been involved in some other case. 

The Chairman. If lie should happen to see you, the fact that you 
had changed your name wouldn't matter much, would it ? 

Mr. Patterson. Not so much, but let's say it is a precaution that 
I no longer used- 



The Chairman. I beg your pardon ? 

Mr. Patterson. It is a precaution that I haven't used for some 
time. 

The Chairman. You haven't f omid that it was of any great value ? 

Mr. Patterson. Frankly, I found it of no value whatsoever. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you loiow if the employees of Mr. Shefferinan 
generally used or often used aliases ? 

Mr. Patterson. That I couldn't be too well acquainted with, sir. 
I happen to know that one of our associates is known by his nick- 
name or sliortened name rather than his full last name. That is the 
only one I am really acquainted with. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know, for instance, if Shelton Sheffennan 
used aliases when he went on trips? 

Mr. Patterson. I would have no knowledge. 

Mr. Kennedy. How about Nathan Sheffennan? Would you have 
any knowledge about that ? 

Mr. Patterson. No, sir : I wouldn't. 

Mv. Kennedy. What about Jimmy Neilsen ? Do you knoM- whether 
he did ? 



6028 IMPROPER ACTivrriEiS m the labor field 

Mr. Patterson. I read about Mr. Neilsen in a few publications. 
That is where it came to my attention. Otherwise I didn't know 
about that before. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. You Were down in Clyde, Ohio, were you, working 
with Whirlpool ? 

Mr. Patterson. Yes, sir. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. And you went down there at what time — 1953 ? 

Mr. Patterson. According to my best recollection, it would be, I 
think it was, in December, late December 1953. I am not absolutely 
certain on that. This is trying to recollect. 

Mr. Kennedy. In 1954 you came back again ? 

Mr. Patterson. In 1954; yes. There were intermittent periods 
that I was in Clyde, I thmk, in 1954. I don't know whether that bears 
it out or not. 

Mr, Ivennedy. And you were there in 1954 and 1955 ? 

Mr. Patterson. And part of 1956. 

Mr. Kennedy. And part of 1956 ? 

Mr. PAT-rERSON. That is right, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were you there during the organizational drive 
of the UE and the lUE down there at Whirlpool ? 

Mr. Pati^erson. At least I was there for part of the UE drive, 
and up until the election involving the lAM. I don't recall the lUE, 
though. They may have been there. 

Mr. KJENNEDY. And the lAM was there? When were they there? 

Mr. Patterson. They came in very soon after the UE left. 

Mr. Kennedy. When was the UE attempting to organize? 

Mr. Patterson. I didn't hear you. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wlien was the UE attempting to organize? 

Mr. Patterson. I believe it had been going on for some time, and 
nobody was paying too much attention to it. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you have any dealings with them? Were you 
trying to handle it at all ? 

Mr. Patterson. Frankly, when I went down there first I was more 
concerned in inspecting the personnel practices of the company, the 
foremen training sessions, establishment of policy, along with the 
top policymaking conmiittee of the company, and making recom- 
mendations for procedures under the broad policy of the company. 

We finally did establish a supervisors' manual as a result of all of 
these things and operations, which I believe Mr. Pleister mentioned. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you deal with the union at all, the attempts 
by the union, the UE, to organize the Wliirlpool Co. ? 

Mr. Patterson. Toward the latter part of their stay there, as I 
recall, I did ; yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. What did you do for that ? 

Mr. Patterson. I advised with management all the way from fore- 
men to superintendents as to what would be the proper attitudes, or 
replies, or statements that the foremen should be guided by in reply- 
ing verbally to the propaganda being put out by the UE. 

Mr. Kennedy. You were giving them advice as to liow they could 
handle it ? 

Mr. Patterson. That is right, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you also make some recommendations about 
setting up a vote "no" committee ? 



IMPROPER ACnvrnES IN THE LABOR FIELD 6029 

Mr. Pa'iterson. If I may interject a moment, that thing which 
is presumed to be in my handwriting, I am very puzzled about it 
and I am trymg to recall as to what the situation was there. If 
the handwriting has been identified by the FBI, I certainly would 
want to question it. 

The Chairjman. Let me present it to you and you pass your own 
judgment. 

Mr. Patterson-. I would like to see it very much. I may be able 
to recall. 

The Chairman. I will present to you exhibit No. 16 and ask if you 
identify it. 

(The document was handed to the witness.) 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Patterson. I will agree at the outset this is my writing. 

The Chairman. You agree that it is your writing. All right. 

Mr, Patterson. Nobody writes as badly or prints in this manner as 
I do. 

The Chairman. All right. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Kennedy. What about it ? 

Mr. Patterson. What was your question regarding it? 

The Chairman. Do you identify that ? 

Mr. Patterson. I brought this up because I was interested in see- 
ing it. 

The Chairman. I beg your pardon. 

Mr, Patterson. I brought this up myself because I was quite inter- 
ested in seeing it. I don't recall at this time, and I don't know. But 
it is certainly in my writing. 

The Chairman, Since you read it, does that refresh your memory, 
that you did make such recommendations? 

Mr. Patterson. Some of them I w^ould have made. 

The Chairman. How about No. 1 ? The first recommendation you 
made or notation you made was to set up a vote "no" committee. 

Mr. Patterson. If I can identify the time period, this would have 
been at the time the UE was attempting organization of the plant. 
At that time, I believe I would recall somethnig along that line ; yes, 
sir. But as to w^hat use I intended to make of these notes, I don't 
know. 

The Chairman. Well, they were not necessarily for your informa- 
tion. Apparently they are instructions or guides for the company. 
Is that not correct ? 

You wouldn't have any personal interest in setting up a vote "no" 
committee, would you ? 

Mr. Patterson. Not a personal interest, but perhaps in behalf of 
the employees who didn't want a union I might; yes, sir. 

The Chairman. You were not employed by the employees. You 
were employed by the employer. 

Mr. Patterson. That is right, sir. 

The Chairman. Is that correct ? 

Mr. Patterson. That is correct. 

The Chairman. You were giviaig your advice to the employer, of 
course. 

Mr. Patterson. Right, sir. 



6030 lAIPROPER ACTWITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairmax. Aiid advice to his employees as you felt it was in 
relation to j'^our employment to the employer. 

Mr. Patterson. I would say that was true ; yes, sir. 

The Chairman. All right. Proceed. 

Mr. Kexxedt. "S'Vniat about in 1955 ? Did 3'ou also arrange to have 
a "vote no" committee set up at that time ? 

Mr. Patterson. In arranging to have a "vote no" committee set up, 
sir, any activities on my part in encouraging any sort of an employees' 
committee would have been, I believe, in the forepart of 1956. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did that happen in 1956 ? 

Mr. Patterson. "When sufficient employees wondered when they 
could do something in their own behalf and why the company wasn't 
really doing something, such as coming out with letters and retaliatory 
propaganda, printed stuff- — I don't know the exact dates, though it 
may have been the latter part of 1955 — I certainly encouraged forma- 
tion of an employees* committee. 

Mr. Kennedy. Didn't you set up a "vote no" committee ? Couldn't 
you answer that simplv ? Didn't vou set up a "vote no" committee at 
the end of 1955 or 1956^? 

Mr. Patterson. I helped, sir ; yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. "Whom did you help ? 

You went and arranged through Mr. Audritsch to get the names and 
get these people established as a "vote no" committee, did you not ? 

Mr. Patterson. That was the eventual outcome of it ; yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. I mean that is what you did, is it not ? 

Mr. Patterson. I supplied Mr. Audritsch with suggested names 
of people who might serve on a committee of the employees. The 
"vote no" title was my suggestion ; yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. That was your suggestion ? 

Mr. Patterson. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. So you were in right from the incorporation of the 
"vote no" committee or the beginning of the "vote no" committee ? 

Mr. Patterson. As I recall 



Mr. Kennedy. You supplied the names, and 

Mr. Berger. "Why don't you give him a chance to answer "Yes, sir" ? 
May we have the question read back, Mr. Chairman ? 

The Chairman. Yes. Kead the question. 

May I suggest that if you did these things, go on and say "Yes." 
Don't fool around about it. I don't know that you did anything 
wrong. "We are trying to get the facts as to what happened. If you 
suggested or set up a "vote no" committee and they set it up, just 
say so, and let's move along. 

I don't know that there is anything so awfully bad about it. "We 
are trying to get the pattern as to what goes on in^hese things. "\^niat 
management does to oppose unions and what unions do to organize 
plants, that is what we want. Let's move along. I don't know if 
there is anything wrong in it or not. "We will pass judgment on that 
later. 

Mr. Kennedy. Let's start over again. 

Mr. Patterson. All right. W^hat was the question ? 

Mr. Kennedy. It was through your efforts, therefore, that the vote 
"no" committee was set up ? 

Mr. Patterson. I believe so. 



EMPROPE'R ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 6031 

Mr. Kennedy. And, after it ^Yas set up and started to operate, did 
Tou furnish it with material ? 

Mr. Patterson. I did, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And the function of the committee was to distribute 
this material ? 

Mr. Patterson. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. And did you work this material out with the ofticials 
of the company I How was that arranged, as far as the company was 
concerned ? 

Mr. Patterson. Some of it I worked out myself, and some, as I 
recall, with Mr. Lou Audritsch. 

yir. IvENNEDY. How Were the arrangements made for the company 
to pay for the material that you and Mr. Audritsch v.orked out? 

yir. Patterson. Well, I believe Mr. Audritsch testified that the 
company paid for all the materials he printed and got out. I paid 
for the cartooning and the mimeographing of the other material 
m^'self. 

The Chairman. "Who paid the artist ? 

Mr. Patterson. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Who paid the artist ? 

Mr. Patterson. I did. 

The Chairman. Do you recognize this ? 

(The document was handed to the witness.) 

Mr. Patterson. I believe I do. 

The Chair3Ian. I have presented to you exhibits Xos. 14-A, B, C, 
and D. Is that some of the literature that you originated or assisted 
in originating, some cartoons that you provided to the vote "no" 
committee ? 

Mr. Patterson. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Thank you. 

Mr. Kennedy. So, the literature which has on it the vote "no" com- 
mittee, that was the vote "no"' committee that was established by you, 
as a representative of the company, and the literature was financed 
by the compaii}^ during this period of time ; is that right ? 

Mr. Patterson. One slight question on the committee being estab- 
lished by me. I assisted Mr. Audritsch in setting the committee up. 

Mr. Kennedy. All right. This committee that was set up by you 
and Mr. Audritsch distributed literature which said that it came from 
a vote "no" committee, while the fact was that it was financed by the 
company : is that right ? 

Mr. Patterson. The literature was distributed by the vote "no" 
committee but paid for by the company, ultimately, yes, as far as my 
knowledge of these things goes, these cartoons, because I billed the 
company for them. 

Mr. Kennedy. Whatever you did, whatever expenditures you made, 
you billed the company ; is that right ? 

Mr. Patterson. Yes. As to how Mr. Audritsch was paid, I don't 
know. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Audritsch has testified that he was paid by the 
company. I would like to ask you about some of these other expendi- 
tures that you were making. These are your daily reports. Do you 
recognize these ? 

89330— 57— pt. 15 18 



6032 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 

Tlie Chairman. I hand you here photostatic copies of a large 
number, I believe, numbered from 1 to 74, of pages titled "Daily Re- 
ports." Will you glance at those and see if those are photostatic 
copies of your daily reports? 

(The documents were handed to the witness.) 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Patterson. If they are all in the same writing, I recognize 
them, sir. 

The Chairman. You think those are correct ? 

Mr. Patterson. Without checking each one individually. 

The Chairman. If any one is referred to individually, you may 
examine it specifically. Those daily reports may be made exhibit No. 
17 for reference. 

(The documents referred to were marked "Exhibit No. 17" for 
reference, and may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

Mr. KJENNEDY. Going to September of 1955, even before this com- 
mittee was formed, I see on your reports, for instance, starting Sep- 
tember 1, $16 for entertainment, $36 for materials and supplies. 

Mr. Patterson. I am sorry, Mr. Kennedy. I picked up something 
that struck my eye here. Do you mind starting again, sir? I am 
sorry. 

Mr. Kennedy. Going back to September of 1955, regarding your 
expenditures — and I would like to ask you some questions about them, 
and this was, as I understand, even before the vote "No" committee 
was established — you have considerable amounts of money for enter- 
tainment, one column for entertainment and the other column for 
materials and supplies. 

Looking down the figures here, I would think that the average enter- 
tainment, starting in September, is about $20 a day, and the materials 
and supplies is about $25 a day. That is in addition to your hotel, 
meals, telephones, transportation, and so forth. 

Mr. Patterson. Would that be on a monthly-average basis, or 
just for the days I spent there ? 

Mr. Kennedy. It says here September 1, you spent $14 for enter- 
tainment, $26.20 for materials and supplies. As I say, it goes down 
day to day. Could you give us any explanation? It seems to get 
higher as we move along. 

Mr. Patterson. As I recall, it did, too. May I say, sir, this form 
entitled "Daily Report," I had been given to undei^tand, is an ac- 
counting form for the purposes of billing the client. It does not 
reflect a sworn statement of the absoluteness of w^hat each item car- 
ries here. 

For instance, meals I generally approximate, and entertainment ex- 
penses, especially in the case of Wliirlpool-Clyde, I may have more 
properly put in other columns, such as "Other expenses." Materials 
and supplies might have been a reflection of loans, reimbursement 
to people for personal expense. It may have been for printing. 

Mr. Kennedy. Whom were you making loans to ? 

Mr. Patterson. Let me say that I was trying to make a good fellow 
of myself. 

The Chairman. You were what? 

Mr. Patterson. I was trying to make, you might say, a good fellow 
of myself in order to win friends and influence people in the Clyde 
area. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 6033 

Tlie Chairman. You had a generous allowance for that purpose. 

Mr. Patterson. I did, sir. My point is, crentlemen, that tlie items 
of supplies, materials, services might well be a reflection of the items 
I just stated, among, possibly, others. That is why I can't recall at 
the moment. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were you giving money out or loaning money? 
Was that part of the operation ? 

Mr. Patterson. Not loaning money. But certain people I did sup- 
ply with money in order to compensate them or other people for ex- 
penses they claimed they had incurred. 

The Chairman. In doing what ? 

Mr. Patterson. As a result of talking for the company, pointing 
out facts concerning unionization, what the company had to offer. 
In other words, propagandizing. 

The Chairman. Actually, you were paying them for their services 
rather than for any expense they incurred ; were you not ? 

Mr. Patterson. The intention was to reimburse them for expenses, 
sir. 

The Chairman. It doesn't cost anything to talk. 

Mr. Patterson. Thank you. 

The Chairman. It might cost to get a large audience to hear you, 
to get on radio, television, or something. But it doesn't have any 
expense in connection with talking with people. 

My thought is, and I am just trying to get any explanation you have, 
my thought is you paid them for propagandizing in favor of the 
company by talking and by contacting other employees, and so forth. 
Is that about right ? 

Mr. Patterson. Well, if that be the interpretation. I would much 
rather say that it was reimbursing them for personal expenses in- 
curred while doing this in behalf of their own job and for the company. 

The Chairman. I am a little at a loss to find out where any personal 
expense would come in. I don't understand. What did they do? 
"Wliat did they spend for ? 

Surely, if you reimbursed them you would have some idea. 

Mr. Patterson. I know in my own personal expenses there werei 
items of picking up the tab for dinners, buying drinks. 

The Chairman. In fact, you got no statement from them of their 
expenses, did you ? 

Mr, Patterson. No, I didn't, sir. 

The Chairman. You just paid them whatever they said they wanted 
or whatever you felt would help you make friends and influence 
people ? 

Mr. Patterson. On behalf of the company. 

(At this point Senator Ervin returned to the hearing room.) 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Chairman ? 

The Chairman. Senator Curtis. 

Senator Curtis. Did you give any employees money either as pay 
or as gifts ? 

Mr. Patterson. By employee, sir rru *. 

Senator Curtis. I mean employees of Whirlpool at Clyde. That 
is what we are talking about. 

Mr. Patterson. I have ; yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. You gave some of them money ? 



6034 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Pattersox. I gave moneys to people at Clyde, yes, who were 
employees of Whirlpool Corp. 

Senator Curtis. By a gift, you mean 

Mr. Patterson. I don't mean as a gift, sir, no. 

Senator Curtis. That is what I am asking you. I didn't ask you 
about reimbursement of expenses. 

Mr. Patterson. Not as a gift ; no, sir. 

Senator Curtis. I am asking you, did j^ou give money to any em- 
ployee, or did you pay them anything ? 

My. Patterson. It was for reimbursement of expenses, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Then your answer is no ? 

Mr. Patterson. My answer would be "no," then, under that situa- 
tion, yes. 

Senator Curtis. That is the only situation I asked about, whether 
or not you had given anybody any money or paid them anything,^ 
speaking of the employees at Clyde. Your answer is no ? 

Mr. Patterson. The answer would be no, in that specific instance. 

Mr. Kennedy. What were you giving them the money for ? 

Mr. Patterson. For speaking in behalf of the company. 

Senator Curtis. You just told me that you didn't give them any 
money. 

Mr. Patterson. As a gift or as payment for doing it ? 

Senator Curtis. Either one. Now I understand that you did reim- 
burse people for expenses. 

Mr. Patterson. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Leaving that out, did you or did you not give them 
money or pay them ? 

Mr. Patterson. Not to my recollection, sir. I don't remember any- 
thing of that. 

The Chairman. Let's go a little further now and see what you 
actually mean. 

You say you gave it out as reimbursement. Do you mean that is 
the way you charged it ? That is the way you treated it ? 

Mr. Patterson. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. But you don't know whether they spent a nickel of 
it or not ? 

Mr. Patterson. I would have no way of knowing ; no. sir. I was 
hopeful that they were employed in that manner, though. 

The Chairman. You were hopeful they would use it. anyway, in 
promoting the company's interest and in fighting against the union ? 

Mr. Patterson. Yes, sir. 

The Chahiman. That was the purpose of the expenditure ? 

Mr. Patterson. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Thank you. 

Mr. Kennedy. What expenses would these people have ? 

Mr. Patterson. Do you mean generally ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Well, for instance, the materials and supplies for this 
period of time is just under $12,000, and entertainment is something 
over $3,000. "V^^iat was that money given to these people for, to reim- 
burse them for doing what ? 

Mr. Patterson. I wish I could remember my statement to Senator 
McClellan. It would be for influencing opinions in favor of the 
company. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD f)03.5 

Mr. Kennedy. You were paying them, then, for doing this work for 
the company, or influencing opinions for the company; is that right? 

Mr. Patterson. Is that your interpretation of it '^ 

The Chairman, That is what it amounted to. We could get through 
with this in a minute. That is what it amounted to, but you charged 
it on the books as materials and supplies. 

Mr. Patterson. I get your impression. I would be inclined to 
agree with you there ; yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Thank you. 

Mr. Kennedy. You would send these bills in. The bills would be 
sent in to the Whirlpool-Clyde Co. and they would pay them every 
month ; is that right ? 

Mr. Patterson. I have no knowledge of the billing or the receipt of 
payment. 

Mr. Kennedy. The record shows, Mr. Chairman, that these bills 
were furnished to the "N'STiirlpool-Clyde Co. and were paid every month 
by the Whirlpool-Clyde Co. for the work of Mr. Patterson in Clyde, 
Ohio. 

The Chairman. I don't think the company denies they ever paid 
these bills. You never had any complaint, did you, about getting 
reimbursed or not getting your fees ? 

Mr. Patterson. Nobody ever complained to me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Nobody complained about these disbursements ? 

Mr. Patterson. Not to my knowledge. 

The Chairman. Were they made with the knowledge of the com- 
pany? 

Mr. Patterson. They certainly must have if they paid their bills. 

The Chairman. They knew at the time, did they not, that you were 
making such disbursements? You were in consultation with them. 
You had to have some idea of what expense you could make and be 
reimbursed for. 

Mr. Patterson. They never told me of any amounts I might spend, 
sir. 

The Chair:man. You were unlimited? 

Mr. Patterson. I might assume that : yes, sir. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Senator Curtis. 

Senator Curtis. Did you inform the company, the management, 
that vou were pavino- then- employees, and that you were makmg gifts 
to their employees, when it was not a case of reimbursing them for 
expenditures made? 

Mr. Patterson. To the best of my knowledge, I don't believe I ever 
informed the companv of what I ^^■as spending the money f or, sii\ ^ 

Senator Curtis. I have tried to follow your answers. I still don t 
know whether or not you admit to having given moneys, making gifts 
and pavments to empl'ovees of Whirlpool. 

You answered to me"'tliat vou did not. Later on I had some doubt 
about it. Did you ever inform the management that you were paying 
their employees ? 

Mr. Patterson. I do not believe so. sir : no. 

Senator McNamara. Mr. Chairman ? 

The Chairman. Senator McNamara. 



6036 IMPROPER ACrn'ITIES IX THE LABOR FIE1.D 

Senator McNamara. I would like to ask this question: You were 
acting as an agent for the company in these activities, were you not ? 

Mr. Pattekson. Yes, sir. 

Senator McNamara. You were acting for the "Whirlpool Co. ? 

Mr. Patterson. I believe so ; yes. 

Senator McNamara. That is all. 

Mr. Kennedy. And the Wliirlpool Co. never complained to you 
about the amount of money that vou were spending every month, did 
they ? 

Mr. Patterson. Never, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did they seem satisfied with the results that you. 
were achieving during this period of time ? 

Mr. Patterson. I believe they did. 

Mr. Kennedy. They never complained about it ? 

Mr. Patterson. No; they didn't, sir. 

Mr. KJENNEDY'. We have gone through Whirlpool-Marion and 
Wliirlpool-Clyde, Ohio. Do you know what other divisions of Whirl- 
pool retained Mr. Nathan Sheiferman and his LRA to perform these 
duties for them ? 

Mr. Patterson. The only one I knoAv of where any of our staff was 
is the St. Joseph plant. 

Mr. Kennedy'. Where ? 

Mr. Patterson. St. Joseph, Mich. ; that plant. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, we have figured out from the 3 
plants of Whirlpool, St. Joseph, Clyde, and Marion, for the 3-year 
period, IVliirlpool Co. paid to LRA $136,899.33. 

The Chairman. Are those figures accurate? Do you have any 
information about them ? 

Mr. Patterson. I don't have any information whatsoever about the 
figures. 

Mr. Kennedy. These were obtained from the records. 

The Chairman. It is proper to ask you if you have any informa- 
tion. That is our information, that that money was spent in those 
three plants hiring LRA. You haA^e no knowledge of it ? 

Mr. Patterson. No, sir. 

The Chairman. Except that you know a lot was spent for your 
work? 

Mr. Patterson. Yes, and I never computed the amounts until Mr. 
Salinger asked me the questions when he first talked with me, some 
time this past year. 

The Chairman. We can substantiate this later, but it is perfectly 
proper, since we have this information, to ask you what you know 
about it. But all you know is what you got out of it and what you 
disbursed ? 

Mr. Patterson. I am here to help. 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Patterson, who was your employer during the 
time that you were rendering services to Whirlpool ? 

Mr. Patterson. The head of our firm is Mr. Nathan W. Shefferman. 

Senator Curtis. From whom did you get your directions and 
instructions ? 

Mr. Patterson. TVTiile at Clyde, sir? 

Senator Curtis. Yes, 



IMPROPEIR ACTIVITIES INT THE LABOR FIELD 6037 

Mr. Patterson. As I recall the situation there, and this is quite 
indefinite, I was told, I don't remember exactly vrhen, by the Whirl- 
pool management at Clyde that they did not care for some of the 
suggestions of Mr. Shefferman, and that they would appreciate it 
if I could work with them more or less on my own. Mr. Sheft'erman 
has given me instructions on the other cases, though not always. I 
check with him. But on this one matter of Clyde he gave me very 
few suggestions or recommendations, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Are you saying that Mr. Shefferman gave you a 
free rein to do what you thought ought to be done ? 

Mr. Patterson. He told me as much ; yes. 

Senator Curtis. But who were you responsible to ? Who was your 
boss? 

Mr. Patterson. My boss ? Mr. Nathan W^. Shefferman. 

Senator Curtis, And you were responsible to him ? 

Mr. Patterson. Yes. 

Senator McNamara. Mr. Chairman ? 

The Chairman. Senator McNamara. I have one question, if I may. 

Senator McNamara. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. W^hile Mr. Shefferman was your employer, your 
boss, insofar as this work at Whirlpool- Clyde, your boss was really 
the company officials of W^hirlpool, were they not? In other words, 
you were not going to do anything without their permission or their 
authority, were you ? 

Mr. Patterson. Possibly there were some things that I thought 
would be in their interest that maybe they didn't agree on, and maybe 
I did them anyway. 

The Chairman. They told you not to do it, you wouldn't do it even 
though Mr. Shefferman told you to, would you ? 

You wouldn't last long in my employ and I doubt if you would in 
that company. In other words, it is tfue that Mr. Sheffeniian was 
your employer, but when you were assigned to a job, while you may 
be initiating many suggestions, changes in policy and so forth, that 
is what vou were employed to do, actually you worked under their 
direction. If they said "Now, we don't want you to go that far. We 
don't want you to go out here and pay money for employees, to get 
them to propagandize," you wouldn't have done it, would you ? 

Mr. Patterson. I doubt very much if I would have done it. 

The Chairman. Even if Mr. Sheffennan had told you to do so, 
because you wouldn't have been reimbursed. 

Mr. Patterson. Correct. 

The Chairman. All right. . ,«- /-n • 

Senator McNamara. That takes care of my question, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. Were you aware of the fact that what you were 
doing up there was a violation of the Taft-Hartley Act? 

Mr. Patterson. I was not, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. You were not ? 

IVIr Patterson. ^ o. 

Mr. Kennedy. You are not familiar with the Taft-Hartley Act? 

Mr. Patterson. I am to a fair extent. 

Mr. I^nnedy, But you hadn^t read it, or for what reason 

Mr. Patterson. I have read it. _ ,. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. Looking back at your activities now, do yon realize 
you were in violation of the Taft-Hartley Act? 



6038 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. PATTERSOJi. From I\Ir. Bachmaii's statements this morning, I 
was not aware that he had so informed our firm, that such activities 
as rotating suggestion groups or vote "no" committees were, in his 
mind, illegal. 

Mr. Kennedy. The establishment of vote "no*' committees, you 
never knew that that was illegal when established by a company? 

Mr. Patterson. I don't believe so. 

Mr. KJENNEDY. You do not ? 

Mr. Patterson. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were you on the mediation board in Michigan prior 
to going with Mr. Shefferman ? 

Mr. Patterson. Yes, I was. 

Mr. Kennedy. What year ? 

Mr. Patterson. Beginning with January 1, 1951, I believe, until I 
came with Mr. Shefferman. 

Mr. Kennedy. 19 what ? 

Mr. Patterson. January 1, 1951. Approximately 9 years or so. 

Mr. Berger. May I say I think the witness meant 1941. 

Mr. Patterson. I beg your pardon. 1941, yes. Thank you. 

Mr. Kennedy. And up until the time you came with Mr. Sheffer- 
man? 

Mr. Patterson. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. I think you were executive secretary to the labor 
mediation board, from January 1, 1942, to November 1942, and then a 
mediator up to 1952 ? 

Mr. Patterson. That would appear to be correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is all. 

The Chairman. That is all. Thank you very much. 

The Chair will announce that we will recess until 10 : 30 tomorrow 
morning. We hope to conclude tomorrow, not conclude this series of 
hearings, but conclude tomorrow's work by 12 : 30 and not later than 
1 o'clock. Then we will recess for the weekend. 

The committee stands adjourned. 

(Whereupon, at 4 : 45 p. m., the committee was recessed, to re- 
convene at 10 : 30 a. m., Friday, October 25, 1957.) 

( Committee members present at time of recess : Senators McClellan, 
McNamara, Ervin, and Curtis.) 



INVESTIGATION OF IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE 
LABOR OR MANAGEMENT FIELD 



FRIDAY, OCTOBER 25, 1957 

United States Senate. 
Select Committee on Improper Activities 

IN THE Labor or Management Field, 

Washington, D. G. 

The select committee met at 10 : 30 a. m., pursuant to Senate Resolu- 
tion 74, agreed to January SO, 1957, in the caucus room. Senate Office 
Building, Senator John L. McClellan (chairman of the select com- 
mittee) presiding. 

Present : Senator John L. McClellan, Democrat, Arkansas ; Senator 
Irving M. Ives, Kepublican, New York ; Senator Sam J. Ervin, Dem- 
ocrat, North Carolina ; Senator Pat McNamara, Democrat, Michigan; 
Senator Carl T. Curtis, Republican, Nebraska. 

Also present : Robert F, Kemiecly, chief counsel ; Pierre E. G. Sa- 
linger, investigator; Walter Sheridan, investigator; Ruth Yomig 
Watt, chief clerk. 

The Chairman. The committee will be in order. 

(Members of the select committee present at the convening of the 
session were Senators McClellan, Ives, and Curtis.) 

The Chairman. We will proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. The first witness is Mr. Tudor, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Mr. Tudor, will you come around, please. 

You do solemnly swear that the evidence you shall give before this 
Senate select committee shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing 
but the truth, so help you God ? 

Mr. Tudor. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF WALLACE TUDOR, ACCOMPANIED BY HIS COUNSEL, 

ARTHUR M. WOOD 

The Chairman. Will you please state your name, your place of resi- 
dence, and vour business or occupation. 

Mr. Tudor. My name is Wallace Tudor. I reside at 238 Forest, Oak 
Park. 111., and I am vice president in charge of personnel and employee 
relations with Sears, Roebuck & Co. 

The Chairman. Do you have counsel with you ? 

Mr. Tudor. I do have. 

The Chairsian. Will you identify yourself for the record, Mr. 
Counsel ? 

Mr. Wood. I am Arthur M. Wood, general attorney and vice presi- 
dent and secretary of Sears, Roebuck & Co. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much. 

^ ^ 6039 



6040 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Tudor, yon have a prepared statement, I believe ? 

Mr. Tudor. I do, sir. 

The Chairman. Counsel, this statement was submitted to the com- 
mittee within the provisions of the rules of the committee. 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes, it was, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. You wish to read your prepared statement in full ? 

Mr. Tudor. I do, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. All right, sir, you may proceed. 

Mr. Tudor. My name is Wallace Tudor. I have been employed by 
Sears, Roebuck & Co. since 1936 and have been a member of our per- 
sonnel staff of that company since 1941. 

In May 1954, I was appointed director of personnel and in May 
1956, 1 was elected vice president for personnel and employee relations. 

I want to thank the committee for the opportunity to make this 
statement relative to Sears, Roebuck. 

I will comment concerning its policies, its programs, and the im- 
portance to the welfare of our employees and their families. In addi- 
tion, I will review our past relationship with Mr. Nathan Shefferman 
and Labor Relations Associates, our policy and attitude in dealing 
with union activities, and I will also comment on the handling of an 
organizing campaign in Boston, which we understand is one of the 
specific interests of your inquiry. 

The Chairman. May I interrupt you to say that I believe you re- 
quested to appear before the committee in the very beginning, or at 
the outset of our inquiry into this particular aspect of our investiga- 
tion. 

Mr. Tudor. That is correct, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. As I remember it, I think counsel just told me you 
asked to appear as the first witness. 

Mr. Tudor. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. I might say that we might not be aljle to have all of 
the questions until the evidence is in, so that Mr. Tudor might be re- 
quested to appear again at a later time, but he wanted to appear now. 

The Chairman. I thought this was a little out of order of our regu- 
lar arrangement, but we are very glad to defer to your wishes. 

Mr. Tudor. As this committee doubtless is aware, Sears, Roebuck 
is one of the Nation's largest employers. We have nearly 2,000 
operating units located in every State of the Union, and we employ a 
total of 205,000 men and women. 

We are very proud of our employee relations program. Sears has 
been a pioneer in this field and our program is in many ways unique in 
American business. Since the early days of this century, the welfare 
of our employees has been a major concern of Sears management. 
Sears employees have long received wages, benefits, working condi- 
tions and opportunities for advancement which are substantially above 
average in the retail field. Under this program both Sears employees 
and the company have fared exceedingly well. 

Nationally, Sears employees are paicl well above the average for the 
retail industry. The United States Bureau of Labor Statistics reports 
the 1956 national average rate of pay of retail employees as $1.57 an 
hour. 

In the same year, the average Sears hourly rated employee was paid 
$1.93 an hour, or 23 percent above the national figure. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD G(J4i 

Sears rates are not only substantially higher than the retail in- 
dustry generally, but compare favorably with manufacturing, as is 
evident from a table that will be found at the end of my statement. 
It will also be noted that since 1939, average hourly earnings of Sears 
employees have increased substantially faster than the cost of living. 

These are general averages. Let us look at a specific case — Boston, 
Mass. The Prince School of Retailing conducts a continuing, detailed 
study comparing rates of pay, job by job, for the largest retail estab- 
lishments in Boston. This material is available should the committee 
wisli to examine it in detail. Some of the highlights, however, are 
interesting. 

In practically every job category, according to the Prince School 
study. Sears minimum and maxunum rates are substantially above 
those of competing stores. In many cases, the minimum of the Sears 
range is higher than the midpoint of the competitor's scale. 

Comparisons in other cities would show similar results. This is no 
accident, but a result of our long-established policy of keeping our 
wage rates well in line with local competitive conditions. 

As this committee Iniows, the Federal wage-hour law does not apply 
to the retail industry. For many years, however. Sears has voluntarily 
adopted the 5-day, 40-hour week with time and one-half for overtime. 
The company also voluntarily observes the minimum wage require- 
ments of that act. 

This is not done as a result of pressure. Neither is it done in any 
spirit of philanthropy. We compete for workers not only with other 
retailers but with many industries subject to the Fair Labor Standards 
Act and we simply consider it good business to keep our rates competi- 
tive. We do not want substandard employees, so we take care not 
to pay substandard wages. 

In "addition to our basic high- wage policy, our company has been 
a pioneer in the development of employee benefit programs. We are 
proud that Sears took the initiative in employee benefit plans, not as a 
result of union pressure or legal requirements, but long before such 
plans were seriously advanced by either organized labor or Govern- 
ment. 

If I may, our profit sharing was established, as a matter of fact, 20 
years before our Government gave serious consideration to the estab- 
lishm.ent of our current social security program. 

These benefits provide many protections and advantages designed 
to strengthen the security and well-being of employees and their 
families both in the present and the future. Most of these benefits 
have been in effect for many years, with constant improvements as 
times have changed. Something of the growth of this program is 
indicated by the following : 

'' * First 

established in — 

Illness allowance -^j^^^ 

Employee discounts }x2I 



Paid vacations 



1907 



Profit sharing ^q]^ 

Military service benefits j^^' 

Group life insurance ^q^o 

Paid holidays . iq^^ 

Severance pay__; i^X' o 

Group hospitalization • ^ ^^ 

Supplemental retirement benefits j^rZ^ 

Catastrophic medical insurance ^ ^^ 



6042 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IK THE LABOR FIELD 

The cost of these benefits exceeded $90 million in 1956. This com- 
pares with $74 million paid out to stockholders of the company in 
the form of dividends. About $19 million of this $74 million divi- 
dend disbursement went to employees who, through the company's 
profit sharing plan, own about 26 percent of all outstanding company 
stock. 

Our employees earned about an additional 7 percent of the stock 
through private ownership. In other words, our employees own one- 
third of our company. 

All employees are eligible to participate in the Sears profit sharing 
plan after 1 year of service. While participation is strictly volmi- 
tary, over 99 percent of all eligible employees belong to the plan. 
Members deposit 5 percent of their earnings up to a maximum indi- 
vidual deposit of $500 per year. 

The purpose of this limitation is to insure that the plan primarily 
benefits our employees, not our executives. In addition to the de- 
posits of members, the company contributes up to 10 percent, accord- 
ing to an established sliding scale, of its net profits before dividends 
and Federal taxes. 

The company's contribution is credited to the accounts of members 
in accordance with the amount of their own deposits and their length 
of service. 

Over the years, the fund has grown substantially. In round num- 
bers, between 1916 and 1956, the company contributed $393 million 
from its profits and employees deposited $242 million from their 
earnings. Although employees withdrew nearly a half-billion dur- 
ing these years, the fund currently has assets of almost three-quar- 
ters of a billion dollars. In the net, this represents about a billion 
dollar "profit" for our employees. 

The significance of the plan to employees is best shown, not by 
overall figures such as these, but by actual examples of typical em- 
ployee experiences. One yomig woman, for instance, left to be mar- 
ried after 9 years in the fund. During these years, she herself had 
deposited $1,120 in profit sharing, but she withdrew $4,025, repre- 
senting her share in company profits and in the earnings of the fund. 

Another employee, this one a man who had deposited $2,402 over a 
16-year period, withdrew $17,300. A woman who had been a mem- 
ber of the fund for 25 years deposited $3,450 and withdrew $47,125. 

A man who had made a lifetime career with Sears and who was a 
member of j^rofit sharing since its inception deposited $4,820. When 
he retired, his share of the fund was valued at $174,980. 

These cases are typical. It has been by no means unusual for em- 
ployees who have retired in recent years and who have been in the 
fund since the beginning to withdraw on leaving more than they have 
earned in wages during their entire working lives. 

As a matter of fact, there is a gentleman with me here in Washing- 
ton today whose secretary has been in the fund for many, many years 
and her account is worth over $100,000. Mine is worth only $50,000. 
I have only been around a few years. I am a junior compared with 
the others. Unquestionably, the profit-sharing plan has had a favor- 
able influence on the attitudes of Sears employees. It is the most 
talked about of all company policies. 



IMPROPER ACTTVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 6043 

The plan is explained to new employees as part of the regular 
induction procedure and its current operations are reviewed once a 
year with all members at the time they receive annual statements as 
to their personal holdings in the fund. 

But the plan does not need to be "sold.'' The employees take care 
of that themselves — much more enthusiastically than would be appro- 
priate for management, and much more effectively than would be 
possible by management. 

These voluntarily established employee benefits, including profit 
sharing, provide advantages which greatly exceed those provided by 
any union agreement of which we have knowledge. In some cases, a 
single benefit provision in a union contract may provide more than 
the comparable Sears benefit, but the total Sears benefit program is 
in a class by itself. 

Most Sears employees apparently believe that unions would bring 
them no advantages above and beyond those already provided by 
longstanding company policy. They observe that Sears employees 
are better off than employees of competitors, whether organized or 
not. They also observe that unorganized Sears employees fare no 
better and no worse than those who are organized, and that this is 
true of wages, hours, employee benefits, and all other conditions of 
employment. 

Experience has shown them that no leader of a union could have 
as great and as personal concern for their well-being and progress as 
the Sears Co. itself. 

However, we at Sears recognize that the final decision on whether 
or not employees are to be represented by a union rests with the em- 
ployees themselves. Wlienever an effort is made to organize any 
group of Sears employees, or whenever a group of our employees may 
spontaneously develop an interest in unionization, our policy is for 
our local management to go directly to the employees and state the 
facts and the pros and cons of unionization, as authorized by the Taft- 
Tfartley Act. 

Management states its belief that employees have nothing to gain 
from a union, but we stress that the ultimate choice rightfully rests 
with the employees. Our only insistence is that there must be a 
National Labor Relations Board election before we will recognize a 
union as representing any of our employees. 

Wliere our employees' have been organized, we make every effort 
to maintain good, business-like relations with designated union offi- 
cials. We have our share of disagreements and I think we are pretty 
tough bargainers. But these officials are pretty tough bargainers 
themselves, and I think there is a high level of mutual respect between 
representatives of the company and the unions involved. 

1 want to establish one important fact at this time : Sears has never 
negotiated any "sweetheart" agreements with any labor leader con- 
trary to the interests of Sears employees. The record should show this 
clearly. 

Now, Mr. Chairman, in our relations with the unions, we have made 
some errors. Certain actions were taken on our behalf which were 
mistakes, which never should have happened and which will never be 
permitted to happen again. We will explain that which is explain- 
able, defend that which is defensible, and freely admit that which is 
neither. 



6044 IMPROPER ACTWITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 

At the same time, without in any way minimizing or glossing over 
any mistakes which have been made, we hope that the committee will 
keep these errors in their proper relationship to our broad employee 
relations program, and achievements. In brief, we hope the com- 
mittee will recognize that these mistakes were exceptions to our usual 
methods of dealing with labor-relations problems — glaring exceptions, 
perhaps, but isolated, infrequent, and nontypical of Sears, neverthe- 
less. 

I turn now to our past relationship with Mr. Nathan Shefferman and 
Labor Relations Associates. 

Mr. Shefferman was employed by Sears on union relations work 
from 1935 to 1948 when he was retired in accordance with the com- 
pany's regular retirement policy. At the time of his initial employ- 
ment and during the early years of his association with the company, 
many unions were engaged in large-scale organizing drives under the 
encouragement of the National Industrial Recovery Act and subse- 
quentlj^ of the Wagner Act. 

These drives presented problems with which our company had no 
previous experience. Legislation on the books at that time was 
heavily weighted in favor of the unions and provided little protection 
for management or, for that matter, rank-and-file employees. Mr. 
Shefferman was experienced in union relations work and had been a 
member of a labor board under NRA. 

It should be made clear that Mr. Shefferman was never an officer 
of the company and that his work at Sears was confined wholly to 
dealings with organized labor. He was in no way connected with 
the company's broad personnel and employee relations program. In 
1939 Mr. Shefferman formed an independent, outside organization, 
known as Labor Relations Associates to enable him to service clients 
other than Sears. Since that time, LRA has performed some work 
for Sears, but it is my impression that most of its work has been on 
behalf of other clients. 

As previously noted, Mr. Shefferman retired from direct employ- 
ment with Sears in 1948. At that time, Mr. C. B. Caldwell was 
director of personnel for the company, later vice president. Union- 
relations activities had only recently been transferred into the per- 
sonnel department, and Mr. Caldwell had no direct experience in 
such matters. He, therefore, decided to retain Mr. Shefferman on 
a consulting basis after his retirement. 

Mr. Caldwell apparently believed it was important that Mr. Sheffer- 
man keep informed of developments in the union field. Therefore, 
both during Mr. Shefferman's direct employment by Sears and while 
he was a consultant, he billed Sears for trips to union conventions and 
for entertainment of union leaders. He often addressed and wrote 
articles for both management and union groups, urging better mutual 
understanding. 

Similarly, over a period of years when Mr. Shefferman was an 
employee and a consultant, he was permitted, like many other em- 
ployees, to obtain merchandise at wholesale prices. Mr. Shefferman 
availed himself of this opportunity to obtain merchandise for his 
friends in the unions. The company discontinued this privilege in. 
1955 because it was considered to be improper. 



IMPROPBR ACTIViriES IN THE LABOR FIELD G045 

At the time of Mr. Sliefferman's retirement in 1948, the company 
was completing an administrative decentralization of its nationwide 
operations. Five major regions were established, and each was phiced 
nnder the direction of a territorial vice president, aided by executives 
in charge of major management functions. Among these was the 
union-relations function which, as each territory was created, was 
incorporated with personnel and employee relations. 

The men handling union matters under this new pattern of organi- 
zation were of varying degrees of skill and experience. Apparently, 
Mr. Caldwell felt it would be desirable to keep Mr. Shefferman avail- 
able in case his services were needed until such time as our own staff 
was fully trained. 

Actually, Mr. Shefferman's services were seldom utilized in con- 
nection with specific union problems. During the next 5 yeai-s, con- 
cluding in 1953, he or members of his LEA staff handled contract 
negotiations for us in only 3 cities. 

These negotiations involved 3 agreements with the teamsters and 
1 agreement with the AFL electrical workers. As against these 4, 
the company during these years had an average of about 200 agree- 
ments in force throughout the organization, all of which, with the 
exceptions noted, were handled exclusively by members of our own 
staff. Since 1953, Sears has not utilized Mr, Shefferman or LE,A 
in connection with any contract negotiations. 

With regard to union organizing efforts, we have complete records 
back only to 1953. During the 5-year period, 1953 to 1957, inclusive, 
a total of 187 separate efforts were made to organize Sears units in 
various parts of the country. Each of these problems required time 
and effort on the part of management. 

However, Labor Relations Associates worked on only 11 of these 
187 problems. Two of these involved a total of only 3 days* con- 
sulting service by an attorney. The last organizing campaign at 
a Sears unit in which LEA rendered services took place in 1955. 

Your committee has shown interest in certain cases where Labor 
Eelations Associates was called in to assist the local Sears manjiger 
in handling a union organizing campaign. One of these situations 
involvecl a campaign by the retail clerks union in Boston in 1953, 
when it was decided to call LEA into the case. In my view, this 
was a wrong decision because it meant that persons with no man- 
agerial responsibility were handling Sears labor operations in this 
area. 

The handling of the Boston situation involved a series of mistakes 
highlighted bv widespread use of pressure and coercion, discrimina- 
tion against 'employees for union activities, favoritism, intrigue, 
and unfair labor practices. 

I want to state, with the utmost candor and conviction, that many 
of the activities engaged in by Labor Eelations Associates and cer- 
tain company personnel acting with them were inexcusable, unneces- 
sary, and disgraceful. A repetition of these mistakes will not be 
tolerated by this company. 

The fact that our employees were at that time and are now re- 
ceiving wages and benefits far in excess of employees m competing 
Boston concerns, whether organized or not, m no way justifies wJiat 
took place. 



6046 IMPROPER ACTTVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 

At the same time, I think it fair to remind this committee that 
Boston and other scattered LKA excesses were isolated episodes, 
contrary in prmciple and practice to the employee-relations pro- 
gram of Sears, of which we are justly proud. 

I replaced Mr. Caldwell as vice president in charge of personnel 
and employee relations on April 30, 1956. Wliile I had worked with 
Mr. Caldwell for 15 years, I had confined my efforts to management 
placement policy and administration, and had taken no part in 
our company relations with labor unions. 

After succeeding Mr. Caldwell, I continued Mr. Shefferman on 
retainer. However, at no time did I consult with him or use his 
services. The fact that I did not make use of his services — coupled 
with his testimony before this committee earlier this year, and my 
subsequent review of his activities — caused me to completely sever 
relationship with Mr. Shefferman and Labor Relations Associates. 

The Chairman. When ? When was that severed ? 

Mr. Tudor. It was severed the day of the all-star game in Chi- 
cago. I can't give you the date 

The Chairman. They have one of those each year. Wliat year? 

Mr. Tudor. This past year, 1956—1957, rather. I think it might 
have been in September, TV^ienever the all-star game was; August. 

The Chairman. Baseball ? 

Mr. Tudor. No, the all-star game is a football game, Senator. 

The Chairman. I thought we had an all-star baseball game, too. 

Mr. Tudor. I would rather not talk about that fiasco. 

The Chairman. All right; I was just trying to establish the time. 

Mr. Kennedy. Is there any connection between the all-star game 
and the severance of his services ? 

Mr. Tudor. Only that I remember that I talked with Mr. Sheffer- 
man and then went to the all-star game. All right ? I am sorry ; I 
don't have that date in my mind, really. I am not a follower of 
football. 

The Chairman. All right ; proceed. 

Mr. Tudor. Our concern for our employees is real. It does not stop 
with high wages and substantial supplemental benefits. The com- 
pany goes to great lengths to insure the maintenance of cordial, 
mutually friendly relations between management and employees. 
Executives are evaluated not on\j in terms of their technical per- 
formance but in terms of their employee-relations performance as 
well. 

To this end. Sears for many years has regularly conducted organi- 
zation surveys to assess the employee-relations performance of the 
company. The purpose of these surveys is not to check up on em- 
ployees but, rather, on our own performance in each company unit. 
Survey results are used for the further training and guidance of 
executives, to enable them to do a better job in dealing with people. 

The survey program not only provides higher management with 
current information on this important phase of company perform- 
ance, but the very existence of the program is a constant reminder 
to the entire organization that the company places great value on 
good employee relations. 

Another illustration of our genuine interest in employees is our 
policy of promotion from within. A substantial majority of our 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 6047 

executive personnel entered the company not as college trainees but 
as stockmen, clerical workers, salesmen, and other ground-floor jobs. 

Advancement in our company is made possible by planned expan- 
sion programs which open up thousands of new jobs annually, at all 
levels. About 2,500 executive jobs, in addition to 20,000 nonexecutive 
jobs, have been created since 1951 by our expansion program. 

Our mandatory retirement policy also assures the upward flow 
of young and able people to keep our company healthy and to provide 
opportunity for rank-and-file employees who demonstrate their execu- 
tive ability. 

I might say that I am a product of that policy of promotion from 
within. I started with Sears as a salesman at $16 a week in 1936. 
I am very grateful to have entered a company that made such oppor- 
tunity possible. 

Some may wonder why Sears gives so much attention to employee 
earnings, benefits, security, and advancement. As I have indicated, it 
is not because of legal requirements or union pressure. Nor is it pri- 
marily because our policies are the fair and decent thing to do — 
although they are fair and decent. Our employee-relations policies 
are based squarely on the belief that good employee relations are good 
business for Sears. 

High wages and liberal employee benefits help attract and hold the 
capable people we need to carry on our work. Fair treatment and 
sound leadership help build the kind of morale that contributes to 
high company performance. You don't get and keep good employees 
by accident. Competence and high morale are not a matter of chance. 
They have to be worked for. 

This is the objective of the employee-relations program at Sears. 
On the whole, we believe that we have achieved this objective to an 
unusual degree, although we readily acknowledge that serious mis- 
takes have sometimes occurred. 

We hope that these isolated errors will not prevent this committee 
from recognizing the significant achievements that have taken place 
at Sears in building and maintaining one of the outstanding employee 
teams in the country. 

The Chairman. I notice you have an attachment to your statement. 
You have an appendix attached. Do you wish that to be made a part 
of your statement? 

Mr. Tudor. Yes, sir ; I would like that to be done, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. The appendix may be printed in the record at this 
point. 

(At this point Senator Ervin entered the hearing room.) 



80330— 57— ].t. 15 lf> 



6048 



IMPROPER ACTIVrTIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 



(The appendix is as follows :) 

Average hourly earnings in Scars, Roebuck d Co. retail estahlishments, comprised 
to national retail average, national manufacturing average, and co.st-ol -living 
index 



Year 


Sears 
retail 


National 
retail 


National 
manufacturing 


Cost of living 
(1947-49=100) 


1939 


$0. 52 
.59 
.70 
(■) 
(') 
(') 

.94 
1.14 
1.21 
1.27 
1.26 
2 1.40 
1.52 
l.fil 
1.67 
1.71 
1.81 
1.93 

219.2 
55. 
6.6 


$0.54 

.55 

.58 

.63 

.68 

.73 

.78 

89 

1.01 

1.09 

1.14 

1.18 

1.26 

1.32 

1.40 

1.45 

1.50 

1.57 

180.4 
45.4 
4.7 


$0.63 

.66 

.73 

.85 

.96 

1.02 

1.02 

1.09 

1.24 

1..35 

1.40 

1.47 

1.59 

1.67 

1.77 

1.81 

1.88 

1.98 

195. 5 

48.9 

5.3 


69 4 


1940 


59.9 


1941 


62.9 


1942 .- 


69.7 


1943 


74.0 


1944 - 


75.2 


1945 


76.9 


1946 


83.4 


1947 .,. 


95.5 


1948 --- 


102 8 


1949 .. 


101.8 


1950 


102.8 


1951 . 


111.0 


1952 


113.5 


1953 


114.4 


1954 


114.8 


1955 


114.5 


1956 


116.2 


Percent increase since—. 

1939-41 


91.4 


1947-49 


16.2 


1955 


1.5 







> Not available. 
2 Estimate. 

Source- Retail compensation report, Bureau of Labor Statistics employment and earnincs series, and 
Consumer Price Inde.x published in Montlily Lahoi- Review. 

The Chairman. I notice that yon have some 2,000 operating nnits, 
employing some 205,000 people. How many of those units are now 
unionized ? 

Mr. Tudor. Senator, as I said in my statement, we liave some 200 
agreements. However, that does not mean that we have 200 operating 
units tliat are organized, because in some stores or warehouses we might 
have as many as 2 or 3 or 4. 

The Chairman. Do you mean contracts ? 

Mr. Tudor. Yes. 

The Chairman. In one unit ? 

Mr. Tudor. That is correct. 

Tlie Chairman. You have 200 labor contracts in existence, in round 
numbers ? 

Mr. Tudor. Two hundred ; that is correct. 

The Chair:man. But that does not mean that 200 of the 2,000 units 
are organized ? 

Mr, Tudor. It does not. 

The Chairman. Can you tell us how many units are organized? 
How many of the units which you have here ? 

Mr. Tudor. May I confer with my counsel for that information? 
I think it is available. 

The Chairman. Just approximately. It does not have to be exact. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Tudor. One liundred and three units to be exact, according to 
the information that has been handed to me. 

The Chairman. One hundred and three units out of the 2,000 units 
are organized ? 

Mr. Tudor. That is correct. 



IMPROPEIR ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 6049 

Tlie Chairman. Can you give us some approximate number of 
employees that are in those units, the organized units ? 

Mr. Tudor, I think I can give you almost accurately. 

The Chairman. All right, let us have that. 

Mr. Tudor. The number of employees involved is approximately 
14,000. 

Tlie Chairman. How many ? 

Mr. Tudor. Fourteen thousand or approximately 7 percent of our 
total employment which, according to the figures, is about the national 
average for retailing. 

The Chairman. Just a little over 5 percent of the units ? 

Mr. Tudor. That is correct, Senator. 

The Chairman. I thought we needed that on the record to get a 
clearer picture of it. 

Mr. Tudor. Yes. 

The Chairman. Are there any questions by Senators? If not, 
proceed, Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, I think it would probably be better 
after we put some other facts into the record at a later time that the 
committee would like to talk to Mr. Tudor again. I would rather save 
the questions until the facts are developed. 

Mr. Tudor. Thank you, Mr. Kennedy. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much. You will be available. I 
do not think we can hear yoii further today but at some later date,, 
possibly next Aveek, sometime. 

Counsel, indicate as soon as you can when you would like to have 
him back. 

Mr. Kennedy, You do not have the figures, I expect, Mr. Tudor, 
of how much money you have paid to Mr. Shefferman or to Labor 
Relations Associates? Do you have those figures? 

]Mr. Tudor. No. I do not have that. It is my understanding that 
those records were turned over to your investigators. 

Mr. Kennedy. If you had them, we Avould put them in through you. 
Otherwise, we have some of the things. Thank you. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much. 

Call the next witness. 

Mr. Kennedy. On that particular question, I would like to call a 
member of the staff, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Carl Schultz. 

(Present at this point were Senators McClellan, Ervin, and Curtis.) 

The Chairman. Will 3'ou be sworn, please? 

You do solemnly swear the evidence j^ou shall give before this Sen- 
ate Select Committee shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing 
but the truth, so help you God ? 

]Mr. Schultz. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF CARL M. SCHULTZ 

The Chairman. State your name, your place of residence and your 
business or occupation, please. 

Mr. Schultz. My name is Carl M. Schultz. I reside in Chicago, 
111. I am employed by the United States General Accounting Office. 
Since the first of the year, approximately, I have been on loan to the 
committee. 



6050 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. Are you a certified public accountant ? 

Mr. ScHULTz. I am not, sir. 

The Chairman. How long have you been with the General Account- 
ing Office ? 

Mr. ScHULTz. I have been with the General Accounting Office for 
a period of 12 years. 

The Chairman. In what capacity ? 

Mr. ScHULTZ. I have been employed in the capacity of an investi- 
gator. 

The Chairman. Do you have accounting experience ? 

Mr. ScHULTz. Yes, sir; I do have. 

The Chairman. I understand you have been very helpful to the 
committee. You have been on loan, 1 believe, from tlie General 
Account hig Office to the committee. 

Mr. Schultz. It has been a pleasure to be with you. 

The Chairman. I understand your work has been very fine and 
helpful. "We wish to thank you. 

You may proceed, Mr. Counsel. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Schultz, have you made a study of the records 
off Labor Relations Associates to determine how much money they re- 
ceived, and Mr. Shefferman received, from Sears, Eoebuck Co. ? 

Mr. Schultz. I did, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And what stores of the Sears, Roebuck chain are 
involved ? 

Mr. Schultz. I did. 

Mr. Kennedy, (^ould you tell us what you have found? I under- 
stand the only records vou have been able to study are the records 
from 1953 through 1956 ; 'is that right ? 

Mr. Schultz. It is, and for this purpose we obtained photostatic 
copies of the original invoices from the Sears, Roebuck Co. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you made a study of all of those invoices? 

Mr. Schultz. We have ; yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Would you tell the committee what you have found, 
first, what stores are involved, and then break it down as to how the 
payments were made ? 

Mr. Schultz. I will, sir. The stores involved were Atlanta, Ga. ; 
Boston, Mass. ; Buffalo, N. Y. ; Casper, Wyo. ; Dallas, Tex. ; Indianapo- 
lis, Ind.; New York, N. Y.; Oklahoma City, Okla.; Clarksburg, W. 
Va. Philadelphia, Pa. ; Saginaw, Mich. ; Trenton, N. J. ; Wilmington, 
Del. ; Chicago, 111. ; St. Louis, Mo. 

Those represent the stores, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. In addition to that, however, there were services 
performed for the overall Sears organization which LRA terms "the 
parent." 

The Chairman. Do I understand from that, that at all of these 
stores, the Shefferman firm or Labor Relations Associates, were em- 
ployed and were paid from those units for services rendered ? 

Mr. Schultz. I would have to say this : The manner in which they 
were paid was on the basis of fees and disbursements which they 
charged against that particular store. 

The Chairman. You mean the parent company made these charges 
against these units ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 6051 

Mr. ScHULTz. Labor Relations submitted invoices to Sears, Roebuck 
for either services or disbursements that they made in connection with 
the stores. 

"Wliat might take place in some instances is that they might have 
had a fee only. Again, in other instances, if expenditures were made 
in connection with some activity at that store, they then would charge 
those disbursements, and they would take the form of telephone calls, 
or other incidental items as such. 

The Chairman. Now, are those services associated with labor rela- 
tions in each instance ? 

Mr. ScHULTZ. Yes; they are, and together, of course, with Mr. 
Shefferman himself, who had a separate contract in addition to the 
activities of the Labor Relations Associates. 

The Chairman. I was just trying to get the picture of it. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, do you have the total figure for each year, 
from 1953 through 1956 ? 

Mr. ScHULTZ. Yes ; we do, sir. That total 

Mr. Kennedy. Just give us first, 1953. 

Mr. ScHULTz. 1953, the figure there was $38,441.73 in fees. 

The Chairman. Wliat is that figure ? 

Mr. ScHULTz. $38,441.73 for fees, and $59,319.90 in disbursements. 

Mr. Kennedy. Making a total for 1953 of what ? 

Mr. ScHULTz. That just happens to be one figure that we have not 
completed, I am afraid. 

Mr, Kennedy. Give me 1954 then, and we can add it up. 

Mr. ScHULTz. In 1954 the fees were $30,960.50, and the disburse- 
ments were $30,883.39. 

Mr. Kennedy. And then 1955 ? 

Mr. ScHULTz. In 1955 the fees were $31,943.32 and the disburse- 
ments were $28,843.44. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you have them for the next year ? 

The Chairman. What is that figure again ? 

Mr. ScHTTLTz. $28,843.44. 

Yes ; we have it for 1956. The fees in 1966 were $13,083. The dis- 
bursements were $6,174.14. 

Mr. Kennedy. What were the total fees then, and disbursements 
for the 4-year period ? 

Mr. ScHULTz. $239,651.42. 

Mr. Kennedy. With the highest year being 1953, is that right ? 

Mr. ScHuLTz. Yes. 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Kennedy, I am not quite clear. Are these 
figures for LRA or for Mr. Shefferman as an individual or both ? 

Mr. SciiuLTz. They are both, sir. 

Senator Curtis. They are both? 

Mr. ScHuLTz, Yes. 

Senator Curtis. And they were both handled in a similar manner ; 
that is, the fees plus expenditures ? 

Mr. ScHULTz. In the case of Mr. Shefferman, his was a straight fee. 
However, periodically, he would then also make billings for special 
services sucli as trips that he would take on behalf of the company. 

Senator Curtis. That is all. 

The Chairman. And also for his expenses on those trips ? 

Mr. ScHULTz. That is true. 



6052 IMPROPER AcnvrriES in the labor field 

The Chairman. So this is an overall picture 

Mr. ScHULTz. This is an overall picture. 

The Chairman. Of the total amount paid by Sears, Roebuck for 
Mr. Shefferman and for Labor Relations Associates? 

Mr. ScHULTz. That is right, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, how was that broken down as far as Mr. 
Shefferman is concerned and as far as LRA is concerned? 

Mr. ScHULTZ. Of the total sums, sir, Mr. Shefferman personally 
obtained $48,953.50. 

The Chairman. Does that include fees and disbursements? 

Mr. Schultz. That is only his fees, sir. 

The Chairman. Just the fees ? 

Mr. Schultz. That is right. IVliat he did there was this : The ex- 
penses that he would claim for himself individually, went into LRA 
and not as a personal expense. 

The Chairman. These were fees and wherever he claimed expenses, 
he billed that as expenses for LRA ? 

Mr. Schultz. It went into the LRA books. 

The Chairman. Obviously, he received his expense from LRA 
and then reimbursed LRA. 

Mr. Schultz. That is right. Now, LRA's figure would be $190,- 
697.92. 

Mr. Kennedy. What is that again, what was the last figure that 
you gave ? 

Mr. Schultz. $190,697.92. 

Mr. Kennedy. What is that figure? 

Mr. Schultz. That figure is the total LRA minus Shefferman; 
Your $239,651.42 was the total. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did Mr. Shefferman have what w^as called special 
expenses for LRA that were charged to Sears, Roebuck ? 

Mr. Schultz. He did, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was there any breakdown as to how that money 
was used ? 

Mr. Schultz. There was, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was there any detailed breakdown as to where that 
money went ? 

Mr. Schultz. Yes, there were detailed breakdowns for a period 
of 2 years only, I believe. Subsequently, they discontinued supply- 
ing a breakdown. 

Mr. Kennedy. How much were those special expenses, do j'ou have 
that? 

Mr. Schultz. Yes. Those special expenses total $52,776.20. 

Mr. Kennedy. Thank you. We will be going into some of these 
matters in greater detail at a later time. 

The Chairman. Is that a worksheet that you have there, of these 
expenses ? 

Mr. Schultz. Yes, it is, sir. 

The Chairman. You verify that as being accurate according to 
your check of the records ? 

Mr. Schultz. Yes, it is. 

The Chairman. That worksheet may be made exhibit No. 18 for 
reference, so that it will be a part of the record and as we interrogate 
about it we will have it as a document in the file. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 6053 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 18" for ref- 
erence and may be found in the file of the select committee.) 
(At this point, Senator McNamara entered the hearing room.) 

Mr. Kennedy. I would like to have one last figure as we are going 
into the Boston situation at this time. Could you tell us how much 
Sears, Roebuck paid to LRA, or to Mr. Shefferman, in connection 
with the Boston situation ? 

Mr. ScHULTz. That figure, sir, is $78,602.16. 

Mr. Kennedy. What period of time ? 

Mr. ScHULTz. That is for the period of 1953 through 1956 and 
the activity was during the years of 1953 and 1955. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is when most of the money was spent ? 

Mr. ScHULTz. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. In 1953 and 1955 ? 

Mr. ScHULTz. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. What was that figure again for Boston ? 

Mr.ScHULTz. $78,602.16. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is the highest of any of the stores by far; 
is it not ? 

Mr. ScHULTZ. Yes, sir ; it is by far. 

Mr. Kennedy. We are also expecting to go into, to some extent, 
the store at Indianapolis, and could you tell us how much that fig- 
ure is ? 

Mr. ScHULTz. That figure there is $6,362.24. 

Mr. Kennedy. What about Pittsburgh ? 

Mr. ScHULTz. Pittsburgh is $14,977.32. 

Mr. Kennedy. What is the next highest after Boston ? 

Mr. ScHULTz. Well, the next highest after Boston, of course, w^ould 
be the charges made to the parent. 

Mr. Kennedy. Those are charges made to the parent ? 

Mr. ScHULTz. Rather than on a specific store. 

Mr. Kennedy. How much were the charges made to the parent ? 

Mr. SciiuLTz. $76,102.83. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could you explain how that was handled, about the 
parent organization, and what part that played ? 

Mr. ScHULTZ. Well, some of that, I presume, would have to be a 
supposition because of the fact that it was verv difficult to distinguish 
from the Labor Relations records how they would handle their bill- 
ing. There are so many instances in their records where there were 
strikeovers, where they were going to chai'ge Sears Boston, or Sears 
somewhere, and obviously then just thought it easier to get it from 
the parent and it was stricken and charged to the parent. 

Mr. Kennedy. And so the parent just paid some of the charges of 
the stores, is that right? 

Mr, ScHuLTz. Yes, it seems as though it was an overall picture, 
administratively. 

Mr. Kennedy. So some of this $76,000 that was charged to the 
parent was actually used up in Boston and Indianapolis, Pittsburgh, 
or any of these other stores. 

Mr. ScHULTZ. In my opinion it was ; sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. What is the next individual store after Boston, what 
is tlie next highest item? 

Mr. ScHULTz. The next highest item was Pittsburgh. 



6054 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kknnedy. So Boston was bj^ far the largest, was it not ? 

Mr. ScHULTZ. By far, yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is all for now. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much. 

Senator Curtis. Were there expenditures of this size in all of these 
cities that you read ? 

Mr. ScHULTz. I beg your pardon ? 

Senator Curtis. In this list of cities that your read, were there 
sizable expenditures of this type in all of them ? 

Mr. ScHULTz. Oh, no. 

Senator Curtis. Do not take time for more than one on the other 
end, but take one of the lower ones. 

Mr. ScHULTz. As an example, sir, $1,400, $250, $700, and $900, and 
$1,300, and $2,500, and about that size figures, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Thank you. 

Mr. Kennedy. The first witness is :Mr. Harold Roitman. 

The Chairman. Mr. Roitman, will you come forward, please ? 

You do solemnly swear that the evidence you shall give before this 
Senate select committee shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothinfr 
but the truth, so help you God ? 

Mr. Roitman. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF HAEOLD P. EOITMAN 

The Chairman. State your name and your place of residence and 
your business or occupation. 

Mr. Roitman. My name is Harold P. Roitman, R-o-i-t-m-a-n, and 
I live at 66 Watson Road, Belmont, Mass., and I am an attorney, and 
I am also assistant district attorney for the northern district of Massa- 
chusetts. 

The Chairman You are an attorney and assistant district attorney 
lor the northern district of Massachusetts ? 

Mr. Roitman. Yes, Middlesex County. 

The Chairman. That is Federal ? 

Mr. Roitman. No, that is State. 

The Chairman Being an attorney, I assume that you waive the 
right to additional counsel ? 

Mr. Roitman. I do. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Roitman, you were associated with the Sears, 
Roebuck store m Boston m the 1930's ? 

Mr. RoTTMAN. I was employed by Sears in 1938. 

Mr. Kennedy. In 1938? 

Mr. Roitman. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. You were just finished with school at that time? 

Mr. Roitman. I had finished college and had several other jobs. 

Mr. Kennedy. And then you came with Sears ? 

Mr. RoiTiNiAN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. What position did you hold at that time ? 

Mr Roitman I think the title of it was "Trainee," but actually I was 
a clerk and stockboy m the store. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did the store have any union at that time ? 

Mr. Roitman. Ko, there was no union. 

Mr. Ivennedy. Was there a union set up subsequently « 

Mr. Roitman. There was. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 6055 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you participate in any of that ? 

Mr. RoiTMAN. Yes, I did. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could you tell us about that, please ? 

Mr. RoiTMAN. Well, perhaps I ought to state that the Boston store 
is also physically located in the same building as the mail-order ware- 
house, where it operates from, and the two units are kept quite sepa- 
rate, the mail-order operation and the retail store are kept separate, 
but they are physically located in the same building and there is a 
certain amount of interchange. 

Sometime in the fall of 1938, the mail-order warehouse became or- 
ganized or there was a movement for organization in the teamsters 
union warehouse division. That stimulated a certain amount of 
union talk and activity in the retail store and as a result of that 
stimulus, myself and several other employees contacted the AFL and 
we were ultimately referred to the retail clerks union and we obtained 
some membership cards from them and we began a membership organ- 
ization campaign among the employees of the retail stores. 

That continued for perhaps a month, I would say, with a modest 
degree of success in signing up some of the employees. At some 
time after we had signed up a group of employees, other members of 
the committee or other members of the group working with myself, 
were forced to withdraw from the union activity. 

That occurred roughly in this way, that 2 or 3 of the members of 
the group, 2 I believe, had brothers that also worked for Sears, Roe- 
buck in some other capacity. At some time in the course of our work 
in trying to sign up the members of the store, these members of the 
group received calls from their brothers to the effect that Sears, Roe- 
buck Co. was aware of their union activity and if they did not cease 
and desist from it immediately, that not only would they be discharged, 
but their brothers would be discharged. 

The Chairman. May I ask you this question : Was that before the 
Wagner Labor Relations Act was passed ? 

Mr. RoiTMAN. That was after the Wagner Labor Relations Act was 
passed, but at that time the National Labor Relations Board did not 
assert jurisdiction over retail stores. 

The Chairman. That was before there was any jurisdiction over 
retail stores? 

Mr. RoiTMAN. Before the National Labor Relations Board asserted 
jurisdiction over them ; yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Going back beyond that time, it seems that the only 
purpose this would have would be to show the conditions that pre- 
vailed before Congress started legislating in this field, those condi- 
tions that developed in such a way as to cause legislation such as the 
Wagner Labor Relations Act and the Taft-Hartley Act to be enacted. 
It might give us some information on that. 

Mr. RoiTMAN. I am not positive of my dates, but my recollection 
is that the Wagner Act was adopted in 1936. This was 1938. 

The Chairman. I believe it was the wage and hour law that was 
passed in 1938. I was in Congress and I sometimes get the years con- 
fused. One was 1936 and the other was 1938. I think I am correct. 

Mr. RoiTMAN. I think that is right, but I might point out that the 
Wage and Hour Act did not apply to retail stores, either. 



6056 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. I understand, but I am trying to get the relation- 
ship here of what may have occurred then to existing law at the time. 
Prior to enacting the Wagner Act, there was little law governing ac- 
tivities of either unions or management and, therefore, management 
may have engaged in something at that time that was not then an 
improper labor practice or unfair labor practice, and yet subsequently 
it became so after the enactment of the statute. 

All right, proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Just so that we understand, you started to form this 
group, sort of a union group. You formed it with 3 or 4 other men. 
Then two of them dropped out whose brothers were working for the 
store because they were told by management that their brothers would 
be fired, in addition to themselves, if they participated in this activity? 

Mr. RoiTMAN. The two employees that I referred to that were work- 
ing with me in the formation of the A. F. of L. union group were ad- 
vised that by their brothers. So far as I know, they did not receive 
it direct from Sears, Roebuck. 

Mr. Kennedy. But they heard from their brothers that their 
brothers had been told that they would be fired ? 

Mr. RoiTMAN. That is correct. In both cases, as I recall it, they 
received long-distance calls from their brother. 

Mr. Kennedy. Along about that time and prior thereto, before the 
enactment of the Wagner Act, that was the general practice, wasn't it, 
among managements ? 

Mr. RoiTJNtAN. I don't know that that was the general practice at the 
time. But Sears certainly utilized those techniques at that time. 

The Chairman. At least prior to the enactment of the Wagner 
statute that you speak of, I think it was such practices as that which 
inspired labor legislation at that time. This, you are testifying, oc- 
curred shortly after tlie passage of the Wagner Act ? 

Mr. RoiTMAN. Yes, it did. 

Mr. Kennedy. What year was this that tliis occurred ? 

Mr. RoiTMAN. This would be in the fall of 1938. 1 am not sure of 
the exact months. I think somewliere around September or October. 
At about that same time that the other members of the group droj^ped 
out, the company also announced, through people in the store, that a 
meeting would be held for the formation of an independent group. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who annoimced this? Was it somebody in the 
company ? 

Mr. RoiTMAN. Well, it is hard for me to remember exactly who at 
the time. 

Mr. Kennedy. I am not asking you the name. Do you remember 
their position ? 

Mr. RoiTMAN. It was announced throughout the store. As I re- 
call it, some of this came from the personnel department. The prin- 
cipal leader of the group that was organizing the independent was 
the head of one of the departments in the store. I think his name was 
Richards, but I am very hazy about that. In any event, the notice 
went throughout the store so that everybody in the retail store knew 
of it and was aware of the time and place of the meeting. 

I attended that meeting, together with the group of people who had 
signed up in the American Federation of Labor, retail clerks. After 
the meeting got underway, an election of officers was held, and I was 



IMPBOPEIR ACnVrnES EST THE LABOR FIELD 6057 

elected president of that organization. It was a three-way split in 
the vote. That is, there were two candidates who apparently were 
running with, shall I say the blessings of the company, and I ran 
against them and, as I say, my recollection is that I was elected not by 
a majority vote but a vote over the other two. 

Mr. Kennedy. You were elected by plurality. You did not get a 
majority of the total vote. 

Mr. KoiTMAN. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. But at least its initial sponsor came from the store 
itself, this council or this group that was set up ? 

Mr. RoiTMAN. Yes. It did. 

Mr. Kennedy, And this was set up as a rival organization to the 
organization that you were attempting to establish, which was going 
to be the retail clerks affiliated with the A. F. of L. ? 

Mr. RoiTaiAN. Tliat is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. And this was set up by the company to oif set that ; is 
that right? 

Mr. RoiTMAN. Yes, 

Mr. Kennedy. Still, you went to the meeting. There were two 
so-called company candidates, and you were the third candidate, and 
you were able to split the vote and won the presidency ? 

Mr. KoiTMAN. That is right. There was also a council, I think it 
was called, delegates elected from the various geographic and func- 
tioning departments of the store. So, at the end of the meeting, there 
was in existence a committee consisting of myself as chairman or 
president, together with, I think, about 10 other representatives from 
various groups in the store. 

After that original meeting, the council group met several times, 
and we drafted various proposals that we intended to make to man- 
agement. I think there were 1 or 2 other meetings of the entire gi^oup 
because of the resignation of some of the original electees from the 
council, and new people were elected to fill their places. 

Mr. Kennedy. What was this called then ? 

Mr. RoiTMAN. The title of it then was the Sears, Roebuck Employees 
Council. In any event, after we arrived at some series of contract 
proposals that we intended to make to management, I requested a 
meeting with management for the purpose of discussing these contract 
conditions, and at that meeting we were informed by the management 
of the company that they would not deal with us as a group, but would 
only recognize us as individual employees of the store. 

With that context of the meeting, the next thing I did was to go 
down to the Massachusetts State Labor Relations Board, which had 
then recently been set up by the State of Massachusetts. That board 
did take jurisdiction in the retail field at the time. I filed with them 
a petition for recognition of this group as the collective-bargaining 
representative for the Sears, Roebuck retail store. Hearings were 
finally held on that some time later, and ultimately an election was held 
by the State board of Massachusetts, at which time the council was 
named the bargaining agency for the store. 

In tlie interim, there were a number of other things tliat happened 
which finally led to the complete collapse of the A, F. of L. organizing 
activities that we had originally engaged in. In part, most of those 
stemmed from what occurred in the mail-order division. The organi- 



6058 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES m THE LABOR FIELD 

zation in the mail-order division, which I referred to as having sparked 
this situation, led, apparently, to the organization of the entire ware- 
house, but, when they attempted to get a contract, they were unsuccess- 
ful, and ultimately a strike of the warehouse group took place. 

Mr. Kennedy. By whom ? Who was the strike by ? 

Mr. KoiTMAN. The strike was by the organized workers of the 
warehouse. They were organized at that time into a local of the 
teamsters, I have forgotten the number, a warehouse local of the 
teamsters, for most of the employees in the warehouse. There was 
also a miit of building-service employees, porters, elevator operators, 
and the like, that was split off from the A. F. of L. group, and I 
think there was a separate unit for the truckdrivers themselves. 

Mr. Kennedy. So, this strike was called with tlie concurrence of 
the local teamsters, or the group that was affiliated with the team- 
sters ? Is that right ? 

Mr. RoiTMAN. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. And the teamsters went out on strike then, this 
local in the warehouse ? 

Mr. RoiTMAN. Yes ; it did. 

Mr. I^nnedy. You say that that strike was not successful ? 

Mr. RoiTMAN. No. That strike was broken in a relatively short 
time, in the neighborhood of 2 or 3 weeks, I think. 

Mr. Kennedy. How did that happen? How did that occur? No 
trucks could get through if the teamsters were out, could thej^? 

Mr. RoiTMAN. That was the theory, apparently, but in practice it 
did not work out that way. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was it actually arranged to have the other teamsters 
bring their trucks in ? 

Mr. RoiTMAN. Several arrangements were made. I can only tell 
you the final result of the arrangements. But the company split off 
the actual teamster trucking operations and formed a sort of straw or 
independent company so that all of the truckdrivers, instead of being 
employees of Sears, Roebuck, the next morning woke up to find that 
they were employees of another teamster company which now had 
the contract to do Sears' trucking. 

At that point, since they were no longer employees of Sears, ap- 
parently they felt able to go through the picket line. In any event, 
they did go through the picket line. In addition, there were various 
deliveries of oil and gas and items of that nature which were ar- 
ranged for in the wee hours of the morning or the late hours of 
the evening by an arrangement whereby somebody from the store 
stayed in and opened up the premises at the appropriate time. 

Mr. Kennedy. Two or three o'clock in the morning ? 

Mr. RoiTMAN. That was my understanding. 

Mr. Kennedy. They would bring the trucks in at that time? 

Mr. RoiTMAN. I wasn't there, but that is my understanding, that it 
occurred at 2 or 3 o'clock in the morning. 

Mr. Kennedy. So, the truckdrivers were union. They were work- 
ing for the Sears, Roebuck store. It that right, initially ? 

Mr. RoiTMAN. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. And then, over a period of 24 hours or so, they were 
suddenly transferred from the employment of Sears, Roebuck to 
another company and, as such, being independents, they were per- 



IMPROPER ACnVITTES IN THEi LABOR FIELD 6059 

mitted to come through or came through the picket line? Is that 
correct ? 

Mr. RoiTMAN. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. Even though the picket line had been established 
originally by Sears, Roebuck teamster employees ? 

Mr. RoiTMAN. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. The drivers that came through the picket line had 
actually been teamster drivers, had they not, initially ? 

Mr. RoiTMAN. I don't know whether they had actually been mem- 
bers of the union or not. All I can say is that the arrangement was 
that they were no longer employees of Sears, and that trucks did go 
through the picket line. We were informed that these were no longer 
Sears employees. 

Mr. Kennedy. What else occurred ? That broke that effort to or- 
ganize that store. Did you have any meetings during this period of 
time with any officials or any representatives of the Sears, Roebuck 
Co.? 

Mr. RoiTMAN. Well, sometime after the company informed us at the 
first meeting that they would not deal with us as a group but would 
only deal with us as individuals, I received a call from some official in 
the store who asked me if I would see a Mr. Nathan Shefferman, who 
had come in from Chicago. I did have one meeting with him. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you go up to his hotel and meet him ? 

Mr. RoiTMAN. Yes. He was at a nearby hotel, and I met him there 
at the hotel. 

Mr. Kennedy. AVhat occurred at that time ? 

Mr. RoiTMAN. Well, he informed me that he was an official of Sears, 
and that he also was active in labor-relations fields. I think he told 
me at the time that he was doing some arbitration work for them. 
Again, I am not really able to recollect the exact details of that. In 
any event, throughout the conversation he made it clear that, if I was 
willing to give up the union activities that I was then engaged in, 
there would be a bright future for me, both in Sears, Roebuck, or, if 
I was interested, in his separate labor-relations activities. 

Mr. Kennedy. That you could get a job separately ? 

Mr. RoiTMAN. I don't remember as he named any specific job, but 
he named the possibility of a good future in that field, and that he 
was especially interested in getting people with an understanding of 
the field to work in this rapidly growing field. 

(At this point Senator McClellan withdrew from the hearing 
room.) 

Mr. Kennedy. If you were willing to give up your efforts for the 
union, to affiliate with the A. F. of L. retail clerks, you would have a 
bright future either in the Sears, Roebuck Co. or, possibly, with him 
in his separate organization ? 

Mr. RoiTMAN. That was the tenor of the conversation ; that is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. What did you tell him ? 

Mr. RoiTMAN. Well, I refused the offer at the time, and I didn't 
hear anything more from it. 

Mr. Kennedy. What period of time is this ? Is this still 1938 ? 

Mr. RoiTMAN. It was either 1938 or perhaps the very beginning 

OI XuOt). 

Mr. Kennedy. Wliat about your job, yourself ? Did you have any 
change of jobs ? 



6060 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. RoiTMAN. Yes. Very shortly after I won this election, I was 
transferred from the main store to a separate little store that they 
had for selling gasoline and automobile accessories, which was physi- 
cally about 50 yards away from the main store and a separate little 
unit of its own. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. This gave you less access to the otlier employees ; is 
that right? 

Mr. RoiTMAN. I had none after that, except at such times as I saw 
them at lunchtime or before and after work, 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you have any explanation as to why you were 
transferred ? 

Mr. KoiTMAN. Well, none from the company, other than that they 
were transferring me. Indirectly, the information was that the boys 
in the service station were going to take care of me, both by keeping 
me under surveillance and, as I recall it, there was a very active rumor 
>that they were supposed to beat me up in the process. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were you told at all by anybody that was supposed 
to participate in it? 

Mr. RoiTMAN. Yes. The men in the sei-^nce station who were in- 
volved in this activity, or in this proposed plan, informed me of it 
later on. 

Mr. Kennedy. That this is wliat tliey were supposed to do with 
you ? 

Mr. KoiTMAN. That is right. It never materialized. 

Mr. Kennedy. There were two things that they were supposed to 
do with you, is that right; keeping you under surveillance and also 
taking care of you physically if it became necessary? 

Mr. RoiTMAN. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you continue to work there? 

Mr. RoiTMAN. Well, I worked there through the spring and sum- 
mer of 1939, and in September I left to go to law school. 

Mr. Kennedy. You went to law school then ? 

Mr. RoiTMAN. Yes. I think sometime in the late spring, after the 
election was held by the State board, we finally did have a series of 
meetings with the company which led to wliat they called a statement 
of policy. That is, they refused to sign any contract with us, but 
they did agree to institute certain slight changes in working condi- 
tions and wage arrangements. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you ever have anything to do with the em- 
ployees council at Sears, Roebuck after that, after you finished law 
school ? 

Mr. RoiTMAN. Sometime after I was through law school and was 
out in practice, the then president or chairman of the council — I liave 
forgotten the title used at the time — came to me and asked me if I 
would represent them in a legal capacity. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was this about 1945 or so ? 

Mr. RoiTMAN. Sometime in that period. 

Mr. Kennedy. So, did you agree to represent them ? 

Mr. RoiTMAN. Yes; I did. Thereafter, there were 1 or 2 proceed- 
ings at the State labor-relations board when the council organized 
vnrious of the smaller groups, the smaller stores, in the Boston group 
of stores. That is, in addition to the main Boston store, there were 
"stores in Cambridge and Quincy and various suburbs around Boston. 
Those are much smaller units. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 6061 

From time to time the Sears Employees Council organized some of 
these smaller units. Petitions were filed at the State labor-relations 
board for the certification of some of those smaller units, I repre- 
sented the council in some of those matters. 

(At this point Senator McClellan returned to the hearing room.) 

Mr. Kennedy. Coming up to 1953, were you still with the em- 
ployees council as their attorney in 1953 ? 

Mr. RoiTMAN. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was there an effort during that time to affiliate with 
the retail clerks in the A. F. of L. ? 

Mr. RoiTMAN, Yes; there was. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you participate in that? 

Mr. EoiTMAN. Yes. I was not only present at the meetings, but I 
also advised them as to some of the steps which might be taken to 
assure the affiliation of the group with the retail clerks, American 
Federation of Labor. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could you just tell us what happened in 1953, as 
far as the employees council ; what occurred ? 

Mr. EoiTMAN. Well, the members of the governing board of the 
council were dissatisfied with the progress that they M^ere able to 
make with the company in arriving at collective bargaining terms 
and conditions. Their technique up to then had been, in effect, to say 
that "If you don't give us some concessions we will join the A. F. of L." 

I felt that they had used that technique just too often. The com- 
pany just didn't respond about 1953 to this stimuli. 

In any event, the group decided tliat they would like to get the 
bargaining strength of an American Federation of Labor affiliated 
organization, or a group with membership in other areas besides the 
Sears Boston store. They conducted some negotiations with repre- 
sentatives of the retail clerks, and the constitution and bylaws of the 
council were amended to provide for affiliation. Ultimately the vote 
was taken by the members of the council to affiliate the entire council 
as a body into the retail clerks, American Federation of Labor. I was 
present at the various meetings which were held to amend the consti- 
tution and to take these votes of affiliation. I also conferred with 
members of the A. F. of L. at the time to arrange for the necessary 
steps, 

Mr, Kennedy, "Wliat steps did the company take then, to counter 
this? 

Mr, RoiTMAN. After the motion to affiliate the council with the 
AFL- 



Mr, Kennedy. Was this in early February or the end of January 
of 1953? 

Mr, RoiTMAN, Yes, as I recall it, the council began amending its 
constitution the year before, and then in the early part of 1953, the 
vote of the entire membership was taken on the issue of affiliating the 
group with the American Federation of Labor. 

As soon as the vote was taken, I notified the company, Mr. Mc- 
Dermott was head of the Boston group at the time, as I recollect, and 
I wrote a letter to him informing him that the council had now 
affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, and in the future 
they would exercise their rights of collective bargaining with the aid 
and assistance of agents and representatives of the retail clerks union. 



6062 IMPROPER ACTIVrriEiS IN THE LABOR FIELD 

I also, I think, opened up the contract. As I recall it, the contract 
was due, or the statement of policy, so called, was due to be reopened 
and up for new collective bargaining in either April or May, so that 
at the same time I notified them of an intention to reopen that agree- 
ment. 

Immediately thereafter, a dissident group within the council set up 
shop claiming to be the true council and refusing to recognize this 
affiliation movement with the American Federation of Labor and as 
I recall it the company informed me that they were continuing to 
recognize the council as now evidenced by this new group rather than 
the duly elected members of the council who had affiliated with the 
American Federation of Labor. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know how this new coimcil, or this second 
council, or other council, came into existence ? Do you know who got 
that council into existence ? 

Mr. KoiTMAN. Well, the ostensible head of it were some employees 
within the store and I think spearheaded by a group from the Cam- 
bridge store, but there was no question but what they had been stimu- 
lated by members of the Sears Co. or the Labor Relations Associates 
who appeared in Boston at the time, and conducted a number of meet- 
ings with selected employees, and prompted them into these steps. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was that the arrival of Mr. Guffy, so-called Mr. 
Gufl'y? 

Mr. RoiTMAX. I recall being informed that Mr. Guffy arrived at 
the scene. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you know who Mr. Guffy was ? 

Mr. RoiTMAN. No ; only insofar as I heard what he said to the em- 
ployees whom he interviewed. 

Mr. Kennedy, l^^iat was reported to you as to what he said ? 

Mr. RoiTMAN. My recollection of the report was that he represented 
Sears from Chicago and he was interested in arranging for this local 
group, so-called, to upset the plans to move the council into the AFL. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were any of this local group that established this 
council, were any of them officials of the other council, the first council 
which had voted to affiliate ? 

Mr. RoiTMAN. I don't recollect if any of them were actually officials 
at the time, and I suppose it would depend on how far you brought 
down the official network, if you spread it right down to departmental 
stewards which they had, I think some of them undoubtedly were. 

As I recall it, Mr. Hession had been a member of the council, as 
secretary-treasurer, and I know he was approached, but whether he 
was at the time he was approached an officer or not, I don't recall. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did he become an officer in the new group, the local 
group ? 

Mr. RoiTMAN. My recollection is that he did not. 

Mr. Kennedy. He turned it down ? 

Mr. RoiTMAN. Yes ; but I am not sure. He did give me a statepient 
of exactly what had occurred. 

Mr. Kennedy. Had you known or you understood Mr. Guffy was 
associated with the store in Chicago? Is that what you understood? 

Mr. RoiTMAN. My recollection is that he was. They had a way of 
talking in terms of departmental numbers, and there was a depart- 
ment 211 which was the security police that Sears employed throughout 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 6063 

the store units, and various other numbers hke that, would be tossed 
around. 

My recollection is that he came on the scene and he said that he 
was either department 211 or something similar to that, which had 
a connotation of either this police association within the Sears store, 
or the labor relations group and he did not speak to me personally, 
and I don't know exactly what it was. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you know that he had any other name, other 
than Guffy ? Did you know at that time ? 

Mr. RoiTMAN. I did not know that he had and I know there was, 
in addition to Mr. Gujffy, there were some other representatives that 
came in from time to time and it may have been Mr. Guffy using 
another name. 

Mr. Kennedy. I see. You gave up your representation of the group 
that had affiliated with the AFL shortly afterward ? 

Mr. RoiTMAN. Well, sometime in the month following the affilia- 
tion and the development of the rival council, and the various other 
steps that took place at the time, there was, I think, a suit brought 
in Massachusetts by some members over a division of the funds of 
the council and there were several other lawsuits of one type or 
another that were in various stages of operation. 

Sometime after these matters started, I was informed by the rep- 
resentative of the retail clerks that the international union was no 
longer going to maintain responsibility for the various expenses that 
were being incurred in behalf of the clerks, but that all of these 
would have to be put on a local basis. 

That is, that the retail clerks group that had now been chartered in 
Sears, Roebuck would have to stand on their own feet and pay for 
their own expenses out of their own groups. In view of the fact that 
they had joined the AFL for exactly opposite situations, I had a 
falling out with the retail clerks, and thereafter we mutually agreed 
that I would not represent them any more. 

Mr. Kennedy. So the AFL retail clerks withdrew their financial 
support of this group and with that you broke with them: Is that 
correct, or you no longer represented the council ? 

Mr. RoiTMAN. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you have any explanation as to why they would 
not support this group any longer ? 

Mr. RoiTMAN. I don't want to say they didn't support them at all, 
but they were not willing to put any more funds into it. I don't know 
why they reached that position. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is all. 

The Chairman. Are there any questions ? 

Senator McNamara. I am particularly interested in that phase 
of the strike activity where the outside trucking company came in and 
took over the trucking operation for Sears. 

Was there such a company that was delivering for other retail stores 
in the Boston area at that time, and did they deliver normally for 
such stores as these other big stores ? 

Mr. RoiTMAN. Most of the Boston stores to my knowledge have their 
own truck-delivery systems. 

Senator McNamara. At that time ? 

89330— 57— pt. 15 20 



6064 IMPROPER ACJTIVrriES EST THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. RoiTMAN. Yes, and Sears had their own up until this time. 
Now, there are some of the smaller stores that have a United Delivery 
Service, but my recollection was that this group was not a part of 
that United Delivery Service, but I am not really familiar with all of 
the details. 

Senator Mc]SrA:MARA. What year was that strike, do you remember ? 

Mr. KoiTMAN. I think it was the late fall of 1938. I remember it 
being cold when we were on the picket line, and it could have been the 
early spring. 

Senator McNamara. It is not unusual in metropolitan areas for a 
delivery outfit to take over tlic function of downtown stores, and I 
think it is quite commn now in many cities. 

Mr. RoiTMAN. Oh, yes ; it is. 

Senator McNamara. But there was no such organization, and I 
thought maybe this was tlie outfit that they took over. You indicated 
that you do not know whether the drivers that came in to take over the 
trucking operations during the strike were members of the teamsters 
union. 

Mr. EoiTMAN. I have no personal knowledge of that at all. 

Senator McNamara. I think it would be very important to this 
committee whether or not they were. That is, if union truckdrivers 
were going through the picket lines of the other truckers who were 
on strike. It would be interesting. 

Mr. RoiTMAN. I will say tliis: My suspicion is that they were not. 

Senator McNaimara. Tliat tiiey were nonunion drivers? 

Mr. RoiTMAx. And tliat the employees wlio went through in the 
wee hours of the morning situation were. Tliat is, that those other 
groups were organized and, tlierefore, they did not pass through the 
picket line, but passed around it in terms of time. 

Senator McNamara. That in itself would not be too unusual and 
they delivered at a time when the picket line was not there, and they 
would not know there was a picket line. That was in those days a 
rather common practice. 

INIr. RoiTMAN. Probably it was, but it was unusual for people to be 
in a store at that hour of the morning. 

Senator McNamara. They made special arrangements. 

Mr. RoiTMAN. Yes, sir. 

Senator McNamara. To the best of your recollection, then, the 
drivers to your knowledge who took over the trucking operation for 
Sears were not members of the trucjj: drivers union. 

Mr. RoiTMAN. I can only offer my conjecture on that and my con- 
jecture is that they were not. 

Senator McNamara. Thank you. 

The Chairman. Are there any other questions ? 

Senator Curtis. How long did you work for Sears ? 

Mr. Roit3ian. A little over a year, as I recall it. I think that I 
came to them in the spring of 1938 and left in the fall of 1939. 

Senator Curtis. This council that you talked about, was that a 
labor organization within the meaning of the statute? 

Mr. RoiTMAN. Certainly not in its inception. I think you have to 
decide what "independent" really means before you can say that it 
w,"R tliroughout its period. 

Senator Curtis. What portion of the Sears employees joined it? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 6065 

Mr. RoiTMAN. A very large percentage joined it. I have forgotten 
what our membership ran, or what the membership ran when I was 
there, but I think it was in the neighborhood of 90 percent of the elig- 
ible employees joined it. 

The Chairman. What percentage ? 

Mr. RoiTMAN. In the neighborhood of 80 or 90 percent. 

Senator Curtis. But it did not operate as a collective bargaining 



agency 



Mr. RoiTMAN. Well, it attempted to. The company never would 
sign an actual conti'act with it, but after the certification by the State 
labor relations board, it did talk with officials of the company over 
terms and conditions of employment and there were some changes 
apparently made as a result of those conversations. 

But the company at that time, in any event, to my knowledge all of 
the way through, up to 1953, consistently refused to sign any contract 
Avith any organization. 

Senator Ci rtis. You have done general legal work in the labor field, 
have you not? 

Mr, RoiTMAN. Yes ; I have. 

Senator CuRiis. What other unions do you represent ? 

jMi-. Ivoitman. Well, I now represent some locals of the automobile 
workers union, ^(Mne of the textile workers union and others on a case- 
by-case basis. 

Senator CiRiis. Have you represented the retail clerks union? 

Mr. RoiTMAN. Not excef)t for that one occasion in 1953 when I was 
there. 

Senator Curtis. That is all. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much. 

Call the next witness. 

Mr. Kknnkdy. j\Ir. Tliomas Hession. 

The Chairman. You do solemnly swear that the evidence you shall 
give before this Senate select conmiittee shall be the truth, the whole 
truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God ? 

Mr. Hession. Ido. 

TESTIMONY OF THOMAS A. HESSION 

The CuAutMAN. State your name, your place of residence, and your 
business or occupation, please. 

Mr. Hession. Thomas A Hession, H-e-s-s-i-o-n, 33 Busswell Street, 
Boston. I am known as a distributor in the receiving room; I dis- 
tribute merchandise to different people. That is the new title. 

The Ch^mrman. For whom do you work ? 

Mr. Hession. Sears, Roebuck. 

The Chairman. How long have you worked for them ? 

Mr, Hession. Twenty-two years. 

The Chairman. Do you waive counsel ? 

Mr. Hession. I do. 

The Chairman. Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Hession, you have been with the Sears, Roebuck 
Co. for how long? 

Mr. Hession. Twenty-two years, or my record shows 22 years next 
April 11, but I have been with them 22 years last October 1. 



6066 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. Since about 1935 ? 

Mr. Hession. 1935, yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And did you become a member of the Sears, Roebuck 
Employee Council ? 

Mr. Hession. I did. 

Mr. Kennedy. In what year was that? 

Mr. Hession. 1938. 

Mr. Kennedy . Did you ever run for office, in 1950 ? 

Mr. Hession. In 1950. 

Mr. Kennedy. For what reason did you run for office ? 

Mr. Hession. I was called to the furniture head's office, and his 
name is Leo Grue, and he asked me if I would run for the treasurer's 
office because the girl in his department who had been treasurer and 
he found out there was too much work for her and she was out of the 
department too much. 

The Chairman. Rumiing for treasurer of what? 

Mr. Hession. Of the council. 

The Chairman. You are talking about this labor council ? 

Mr. Hession. The Sears, Roebuck Employees Council. 

Mr. Kennedy. You were asked, as I understand it, by the head of 
your department, to run for the position of treasurer. 

Mr. Hession. The head of the furniture department. 

Mr. Kennedy. The head of the furniture department ? 

Mr. Hession. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. You were asked by the head of the furniture depart- 
ment to run for office in the employees' council, Sears, Roebuck Em- 
ployees Council. 

Mr. Hession. In 1950. 

Mr. Kennedy. And that was the only so-called union that existed 
at that time? 

Mr. Hession. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is right ? 

Mr. Hession. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. That was supposed to be the union, supposed to be 
the union representing the employees ? 

Mr. Hession. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you were asked by management to run for the 
position of secretary-treasurer ? 

Mr. Hession. No ; treasurer. 

Mr. Kennedy. Is that right ? 

Mr. Hession. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you run for the position ? 

Mr. Hession. I did. ' 

Mr. Kennedy. And you were elected ? 

Mr. Hession. Unopposed, I ran. 

The Chairman. Were you a member of this council at the time you 
were asked to seek office ? 

Mr. Hession. I didn't ask to seek office. I was approached by the 
division head in the furniture department. 

The Chairman. Sir? 

Mr. Hession. I didn't ask to run. I was approached by the division 
head in the furniture department. 



IMPBOPEIR ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 6067 

The Chairman. You didn't get my question. Were you a member 
of the council at the time you were asked by management to seek this 
office? 

Mr. Hession. I was. 

The Chairman. How long had you been a member of it ? 

Mr. Hession. Since 1938. 

Mr. Kennedy. At that same time, or during this period of time, was 
there activity on the part of the retail clerks, AFL, to organize the 
employees of Sears, Roebuck? 

Mr. Hession. At that time I had no knowledge of it, but I under- 
stand there was. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were you asked at that time or at a later time to 
hand out any antiunion literature ? 

Mr. Hession. I was. 

Mr. Kennedy. Antiretail clerks literature ? 

Mr. Hession. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. By whom were you asked to do that ? 

Mr. Hession. Leo Grue, the head of the furniture department. 

Mr. Kennedy. The same person ? 

Mr. Hession. The same person. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you do that ? Did you perform that for him ? 

Mr. Hession. I did. 

Mr. Kennedy. In January, coming up into January of 1953, the 
employees council voted to affiliate with the retail clerks, did they not ? 

Mr. Hession. They did. 

Mr. ICennedy. Did you go along with the retail clerks at that 
time? 

Mr. Hession. I did. 

Mr. Kennedy. You wanted to affiliate with the retail clerks, is that 
right? 

Mr. Hession. I did. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were you approached then by anybody in manage- 
ment in connection with that matter ? 

Mr. Hession. On February 12, I received a telephone call, about 
3 : 30 in the afternoon, to come over to Miss Binder's office. She is 
the personnel manager. So I went over there. I looked into her 
office, and the office was empty. As I looked around outside, Gillispie, 
who is the head of the men's furnishing department, came up to me 
and said, "Tommy, it is me. Come on in the office." 

So we went in, and he closed the door, and he said, "Do you know 
what you are in here for. Tommy ?" 

I said, "No ; unless it is for a party for Mr. Lienberry, who is leaving 
to go to Philadelphia." 

He said, "No; it is about this A. F. of L. trouble. They are not 
going to win out. I want you to go along with me." 

He said, "You have a lot of friends in the store." 

I said, "Yes ; I have a few." 

He said, "I want you to approach them and go along with me." 

I said, "Gil, I can't go along. I signed an A. F. of L. card. I am 
going along with the tide." 

He said, "How long have you been with the company ?" 

I said, "Seventeen years." 

He said, "That is a lot of profit-sharing time." 



6068 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

I said, "Yes. You know, Gil, I have about 80 friends in Roxbury, 
and they belong to the A. F. of L. I could never hold my head up 
with them." 

I said, "Most of this trouble started in the receiving room." 

The Chairman. Started how ? 

Mr. Hession. In the receiving room. 

"There is a lot of dissension there. Everybody seems to be boss." 

I said, "I took a cut in pay." 

He turned around and said to me, "I am not in a position to offer you 
a bribe." 

I said, "I am not looking for a bribe, nor do I intend to accept one." 

So then he said, "There is a fellow here from Chicago. He took care 
of me when I got transferred." 

He said, "He will be your friend for life. I want you to meet him." 

I said, "Gil, I don't need any protection. My record speaks for it- 
self. I won a World's Fair trip for meritorious service, and 1 have 
Sears' highest honors." 

I dropped my h^ad then, and he said, "Tommy," he says, "what is 
on your mind? What are you thinking about? Won't you see this 
guy from Chicago ?" 

1 said, "Gil, O. K., but I won't guarantee I wijl go along with him." 

He said, "Any day all right with you ?" 

I said, "Any dav is O. K. with me." 

He said, "What about Friday?" and I said, "That is all right with 
me." 

He said, "Well, I will make arrangements, and I will let you know." 

He said, "Whatever went on behind these doors," he says, "don't 
breathe a word about it." 

That was the end of the conversation. 

Mr. Kennedy. Why would he bring up about the fact that you 
had a long-term interest in the retirement plan? What did you 
consider that he meant by that ? 

Mr. Hession. The way I took it was that if tlie A. F. of L. won 
on*- ^^lat we would lose our profit-sharing. 

Mr. Kennedy. How were you going to lose the profit sharing? 

Mr. Hession. They would automaticalh^ drop the profit sharing 
from us. 

Mr. Kennedy. If you went along with the A. F. of L., the com- 
pany would take the profit sharing away from you ? 

Mr. Hession. Would take the profit sharing away from us. 

Mr. Kennedy. And he wanted you to oppose them, oppose the 
retail clerks, and you explained to him about your friends, and that 
there was a lot of dissension as to how things were being handled 
and that you wanted to go along with the retail clerks ? 

Mr. Hession. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And he wanted j^ou to see this man from Chicago 
and you agreed to do it, is that right ? 

Mr. Hession. I did after a while. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you ever see the man from Chicago ? 

]\fr. Hession. I did. 

Mr. Kennedy. Will you tell us about that, how you happened to 
see the man from Chicago ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 6069 

Mr, Hession. After I went back to work, about a half hour later, 
Leo Grue came in to the receiving room, and he said, "Tommy, have 
you got any rug samples for me V 

Mr. Kennedy. This Leo Grue is the same one from the furniture 
department ? 

Mr. Hession. Yes. At that time he was sales promotion man- 
ager for the furniture and rug department. He worked out of the 
office in the warehouse. 

He said, "Have you got any rug samples for me?" 

I said, "No, Leo," and I turned around and asked another fellow 
if he saw any, and he said no. As he came close to me, he said, 
"I have to have them for a hotel meeting tomorrow morning at the 
Hotel Braemore." 

I said, "What have you got, a rug show on ?" 

Pie nudged me, and he said, "That is for you. Tommy, Hotel Brae- 
more tomorrow morning at 9 o'clock. Go to the desk and ask for 
the party in room 152." 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you know that you were supposed to go up 
and meet this man from Chicago ? 

Mr. LIession. That was it. 

Mr. Kennedy. Through this message ? 

Mr. Hession. Through this message. He said, "The hotel is in 
two sections, section 1 and section 2," 

He said, "Section 1 means building No. 1 and 5 means the fifth 
floor." 

I said to Leo, "What about my time ?" 

He said "That will be taken care of." 

And that was the end of that conversation. 

Mr. Kennedy. So did you go down to the Hotel Braemore? 

Mr. Hession. I did. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you meet anyone there ? 

Mr. Hession. I did. 

Mr. Kennedy. Go ahead. Who did you meet there ? 

Mr, PIession. AVell, I got to the hotel about 10 minutes to 9 and I 
hung around until 9 o'clock and I went to the desk and I asked the 
fellow at the desk — I told him that I wanted to see the party in 
room 152. 

Mr. Kennedy. Would you speak up a little louder, please ? 

The Chairman. Get the microphone in front of you. 

Mr. Hession. All right. 

I went to the desk and I asked the fellow at the desk — I told the 
fellow at the desk that I wanted to speak to the man in room 152. 
He said "W^ell, he is busy talking to the airlines right now. Just 
be seated and give me your name." 

So I did. After he got off the airlines, he told me to go up to room 
152, He told me where the elevator was. So I went up there. As I 
got off the elevator, I turned left and the first door on the right 
was 

Mr. Kennedy. You have a very good memory. 

The Chairman. Let's get on inside the room. 

Mr. Hession, The door was open. 

The Chairman. All right. Lefs have order. 

Proceed. 



6070 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Hession. The door was open and inside the door stood this 
fellow. He said "Are you Mr. Hession ?" 

I said "Yes." 

He said "My name is Guffy." 

The Chairman. Guffy? 

Mr. Hession. Guffy. So he asked me to sit down and he walked 
over to the window and he started looking; out, and he says "I a]n not 
a stranjjer in Boston." He says, "I used to go to B. 1 1." 

Mr. Kennedy. He said what ? 

Mr. Hession. He said "I am not a stranger in Boston. I used to 
gotoB.TJ." 

Then the telephone rang. 

The Chairman. Let me suggest to the witness that he get down to 
the facts. These details are interesting but not necessarily esE.ential. 
You had a conversation with a man in room 152. 

Mr. Hession. I did. 

The Chairman. He told you his name was Guffr. 

Mr. Hession. Guffy. 

The Chairman. What did he want to tallc to you about, or what 
did he talk to you about? This matter that we are investigaling? 

Mr. Hession. Two other fellows came in and he started his con- 
versation. 

Mr. Kennedy. You recognized Mr. Guffy in the room? Had you 
seen him yet ? 

Mr. Hession. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Is that Mr. Guffy ? Will you point him out ? 

(The witness complied with the request.) 

The Chairman. All right. Thank you, Mr. Guffy. 

Proceed. 

Mr. Hession. So he started in. He said, "We believe in unions, 
though not all unions. Some of them have a tendency to lean to the 
Communist side." 

He says, "If it takes 2i/^ years, we will break this thing and spend 
plenty of money doing it." 

Hanson asked him, "Isn't it true that there is unions in other Sears 
stores?" 

And he says, "Yes." He says, "Out in Detroit," he says, "the auto 
workers tried to get in and," he said, "we didn't care for the auto 
workers, and we put tlie A. F. of L. in." 

I told him — I told him that I had signed an A. F. of L. card and 
belonged to the negotiation committee. He said, "I don't know why 
local management never told us about this trouble. Had they told 
us about this trouble, we could have straightened it out. But we will 
never trust the local management again." 

He said, "If any of you people have any grievances against the 
company and the company won't go along with you, let me know, and 
I will take care of them." 

Then he said, "They picked this hotel because the people wouldn't 
figure there would be meetings going on here." 

Mr. Kennedy. I am sure of that. 

Mr. Hession. Then he pulled out a bunch of cards and he gave us 
each two of them, called declaration of rights cards. He asked us to 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 6071 

sign one and get another employee to sign the other and turn them 
over to Angie Giammasi. 

Mr, Kennedy. Who was Angie Giammasi ? 

Mr. Hession. At that time he was with the unaffiliated council, which 
was just starting. I don't know what office he ran for in the 1952 
election, but he was defeated. 

Mr. Kennedy. So what did you say to this ? 

Mr. Hession. I didn't say anything to that. We took the cards and 
put them in our pocket. He asked us to sign our names on a piece of 
paper, and addresses and telephone numbers, if we had one, and then 
he invited us down to breakfast. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did he say who he was, or who he was affiliated with, 
or what he was doing ? 

Mr. Hession. No ; he did not. 

The Chairman. You spoke of a declaration of rights card. Could 
you recognize one of them if you saw it now ? 

( Document handed to witness. ) 

Mr. Hession. I believe this is the same thing. 

The Chairman. That may be made exhibit No. 19. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 19" for refer- 
ence and will be found in the appendix on p. 6228.) 

Mr. Kennedy. So you had breakfast with him, did you ? 

Mr. Hession. I did. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then you went back to your work ? 

Mr. Hession. I did. 

Mr. Kennedy. He took you to breakfast and then you returned ? 

Mr. Hession. I did. 

Mr. Kennedy. What did you decide to do then ? 

Mr. Hession. Well, I went home and I talked to my friends in 
Roxbury, and I came back in to work Monday morning and I met 
Gillispie about 10 o'clock. I said, "Gil, I am not going along with this 
thing. I haven't eaten or slept even for 3 days." 

He said, "Tom, don't lose any sleep over it. Just forget about it." 

I said, "Will you straighten everything out with Guffy," and he 
said, "I will." That was the end of the conversation. 

Mr. Ivennedy. Were you told to keep quiet as to your conversation 
with Guffy? 

Mr. Hession. Yes. He did say, "Don't say anything about it." 

The Chairman. Did you keep quiet ? 

Mr. Hession. I did up to that moment. 

The Chairman. And soon thereafter, what happened ? 

Mr. Hession. When I told my story would be around April. 

The Chairman. This was in what month ? 

Mr. Hession. That was February. 

The Chairman. You kept quiet for a couple of months ? 

Mr. Hession. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Mr. I^NNEDY. Subsequently did another gentleman come up to see 
you and started interviewing the employees ? Do you know Mr. Herb 
Melnick? 

Mr. Hession. Melnick, yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. What was his position? What was he doing ? 



6072 IMPROPER ACTIVrTIElS EST THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Hession. Well, he called me over to the office some time in the 
latter part of February, He told me that he was from 707 in Chicago. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is a department in Chicago ? 

Mr, Hession. Yes, sir. That is the personnel department. He told 
me that he is tired of telling people what he is here for, and he asked 
me if I knew what he was here for. I said, "The only thing I heard 
was that you are interested in the 25th anniversary." I said, "I don't 
believe I can help you in any form or other." 

Mr. Kennedy. What did he mean, the 25th anniversary ? 

Mr. Hession. Well, that was the 25th year of business, and they was 
going to have some kind of promotions, I believe. 

Mr. Kennedy. Why was he interviewing you ? 

Mr. PIession. He wanted to know if I had any suggestions in regard 
to advertising, evidently. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did he ask you any other questions ? 

Mr. Hession, He said "Some people here believe I am in here be- 
cause of this union deal," 

I said, "How I voted is my business," I never revealed how I voted. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was he interested in how you voted ? 

Mr, Hession. Well, he appeared that way then, 

Mr. Kennedy. And you wouhln't tell him? 

Mr. Hession. I wouldn't tell him. 

Mr. Kennedy, Did he tell yon subsequently that he was also in- 
terviewing otlier employees, at the otlier Sears, Roebuck stores in Bos- 
ton, and Cambridge? 

Mr, Hession, Not then. I met him at a party for Mr. Lienberry and 
asked him what he was doing in Boston so long. He said he was over 
in the Cambridge store. 

Mr. Kennedy. Interviewing employees there ? 

Mr. Hession. Interviewing employees there. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is all, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Chairman? 

The Chairman. Senator Curtis. 

Senator Curtis. What reason was given why you should run for 
treasurer ? 

Mr. Hession. Because I was very honest and conscientious. 

Senator Curtis, And what about the incumbent treasurer ? Didn't 
you say something about that ? 

Mr, Hession, Yes, Her boss was Mr. Grue and he felt as though 
she was losing too much time on the floor collecting dues and the job 
was too much for her, and he wanted somebody like me to run for 
treasurer. 

Senator Curtis, She continued to work there, did she? 

Mr, Hession, She did. 

Senator Curtis. And so did you? You have continued on since 
then? 

Mr. Hession. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. That is all. 

Mr. Kennedy. I might ask you this question : How did you get your 
awards ? You said you got some awards from Sears. 

Mr. Hession. Yes, In 1939 they ran a contest over a period of 
about 3 months. There were six awards for the World's Fair. There 
was a hard-line division, a soft-line division 



IMPROPER ACnvrriES IN THE LABOR FIELD 6073 

Mr. Kennedy. I don't have to know each one, but what did you get? 

Mr. Hession. There was two awards for nonselling employees. I 
don't know how it worked, but 

Mr. Kennedy. What did you get the award for? What did you 
do? 

Mr. Hession. Meritorious service over the period of 3 months. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then did you get another award ? 

Mr. Hession. I did. 

Mr. Kennedy. What is that? 

Mr. Hession. A 4-star pin. 

Mr. Kennedy. What is that? 

Mr. Hession. The highest honor to an employee in Sears, Roebuck. 

Mr. Kennedy. When did you receive that award ? 

Mr. Hession. November 1939. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was that just for your general services that you 
had performed ? 

Mr. Hession. General service, high and beyond. 

Mr. Hession. High and what? 

Mr. Hession. High and beyond the call of service. 

Senator McNamara. May I ask a question at this point, Mr. Chair- 
man? 

The Chairman. Senator McNamara. 

Senator McNamara. Did you get any more money because of this 
award ? Did you get a raise in pay or anything ? 

Mr. Hession. I did. 

Senator McNamara. How much ? 

Mr. Hession. I think when I won the World's Fair award, I got 
a dollar raise. 

Senator McNamara. A dollar a day ? 

Mr. Hession. A dollar a week. 

Senator McNamara. Two cents an hour ? 

Mr. Hession. When I got the 4-star pin, I got $2. 

Senator McNamara. A total of three? 

Mr. Hession. A total of three. 

Senator McNamara. That is not bad. 

The Chairman. Are you still with Sears, Roebuck ? 

Mr. PIession. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Are you happy with your work ? 

Mr. Hession. Very much so. 

The Chairman. You have no complaints now ? 

Mr. Hession. No, sir. 

The Chairman. Are you still in the union ? 

Mr. Hession. There is no union there now. 

The Chairman. Are you happy that it is out? 

Mr. Hession. Yes, sir. 

The Chx\irman. Thank you. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is all. 

The Chairman. Call the next witness. 

Mr. Kennedy. Rov Webber. 

The Chairman. Do you solemnly swear that the evidence you shall 
give before this Senate select committee will be the truth, the whole 
truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God ? 

Mr. Webber. So help me God. 



6074 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 

TESTIMONY OF EOY W. WEBBER 

The Chairman. State your name, j^our place of residence, and your 
business or occupation. 

Mr. ^Vi:bber. ^ly name is Roy W. Webber. My place of residence 
is 1055 Beacon Street, Brookline 46, Mass. I am self-employed in 
the mail-order business from the same address. 

The Chairman. How long have you been self-employed I 

Mr. Webber. I have been self-employed since January of 1957.. 

The Chairman. Where did you formerly work? 

Mr. Webber. Sears, Roebuck & Co. 

The Chairman. How long did you work for them ? 

Mr. Webber. I first went to work for them in May of 1928, and. 
I left in January of 1929. I came back in June of 1930, and I was 
discharged October 12, 1953. 

The Chairman. 1953? 

Mr. Webber. 1953. And I came back, due to the National Labor 
Relations Board decision, I came back in July of 1955, and I was 
discharged again in January of this year. 

The Chairman. Do you have another complaint pending before- 
the National Labor Relations Board ? 

Mr. Webber. No ; I have not. 

The Chairman. All issues have been settled ? 

Mr. Webber. I didn't make any complaint at the end, when I was 
discharged the last time. I hadn't 

The Chairman. Do you waive counsel ? 

Mr. Webber. I waive conusel. 

The Chairman. Proceed, Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. Kennedy. In 1953, in January of 1953 — first, you were as- 
sociated with this Sears, Roebuck Employees Council, were you not ? 

Mr. Webber. I succeeded Mr. Harold Roitman, as the chairman. 

Mr. I^nnep^ . You became the chairman of it? 

Mr. Webber. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you hold a position during 1952 and 1953? 

Mr. Webber. From 1939 up until 1950, I was chairman of local 1 
and also supreme chairman of the board. After 1950, up until 
January 1953 I was chairman of the supreme board of the Seal's 
Roebuck Employees Council. 

Mr. Kennedy. Specifically in 1953, in January, you were chair- 
man of the Sears, Roebuck Employees Council ? 

Mr. Webber. I relinquished the office the first week in January in 
1953. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were 3'ou president when they voted to affiliate with 
the retail clerks ? 

Mr. Webber. I convened the meeting and after the new board of 
officers were elected, I made a farewell speech and left. I wasn't 
there^when the A^ote transpired. 

Mr. Kennedy. So vou were not an officer in the one tliat was affil- 
iated with the A. F. of L., is that right ? 

Mr. Webber. No, sir ; I was not. 

Mr. Kennedy. You were not. Were you active on the part of the 
Retail Clerks, A. F. of L.? 

Mr. Webber. I certainly was. I was the one that initiated it. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 6075 

Mr. Kennedy. You had initiated it and yon were active for them 
in 1953? 

Mr. Webber. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. During that period of time, did vou have anything to 
dowithMr.Guffy? 

Mr. Webber. I have never met the gentleman, to my knowledge, un- 
til I saw him in this building. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you have anything to do, did you have any con- 
tact, with a man by the name of Louis Jackson ? 

Mr. Webber. Yes ; I knew Mr. Jackson over the years. He used to 
represent the company in the early lOiO's, in negotiating statement 
of policies with the council. 

Mr. Kennedy, So did you meet him in 1953 while you were active 
on the part of the A. F. of L., Retail Clerks ? 

Mr. Webber. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. You met him during that period of time ? 

Mr. Webber. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who was he ? What was Mr. Louis Jackson's posi- 
tion? 

Mr. Webber. Well, he was a representative of Nathan Shefferman 
in the New York office, or in the Labor Relations 

Mr. Kennedy. Labor Relations Associates ? 

Mr. Webber. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. So he was the representative of Mr. Shefferman in 
Labor Relations Associates from New York and came up to Boston ? 

Mr. Webber. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. While you were active in the retail clerks, and you 
liad led the movement initially to affiliate with the retail clerks and you 
were active in 1953, were any jobs offered to you, any positions offered 
to you, to get you out of Boston ? 

Mr. Webber. Do you want me to go back to 1948 ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Well, if you want to briefly, I would like to have 
you. What does that entail ? 

Mr, Webber. Mr. McCane offered me a job as mechandising man- 
ager in the Brooklyn store, the New York store. 

Mr. Kennedy. When was this? 

Mr. Webber. That was 1948. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was that when you were active ? 

Mr. Webber. I wasn't active in negotiations 

Mr. Kennedy. I don't want to have every time you were offered a 
job. I want to find out about the jobs which you were offered and the 
circumstances under which you were offered jobs while you were work- 
ing for the retail clerks. 

Mr. Webber. The retail clerks ? 

In 1953, Mr. Jackson came to see me in the furniture department, 
and invited me out to lunch. I had had my lunch. He said "Where 
can we talk?" So we sat down in the furniture department and he 
wanted to know why all this trouble. After some conversation I told 
him about the vote, that this store had voted almost 9 to 1 for an 
affiliation. So in the course of the conversation, he said "Why don't 
vou do something for yourself, Roy ? If you want to, I can arrange a 
transfer for you down to South America, because I know the vice 
president of the Sears Roebuck Co. down there." 



G()76 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES m THE LABOR FIELD 

I think his name is Smith, although I may be mistaken. 

I said to him, "Lou, I am not interested. I know I could get down 
there, but how could I get back ?" 

Mr. Kennedy. So you turned that job down ? 

Mr. Webber. I turned it down ; yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were you offered any other job other than the one 
in South America ? 

Mr. Webber. Yes, sir ; I was. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who offered you that job ? 

Mr. Webber. Mr. Caldwell, the vice president in charge of personnel. 
That was in June of the same year. 

Mr. Kennedy. What conversation was it that you had with them? 

Mr. Webber. He called me down to the Sheridan Plaza Hotel, 
through the management of the local store he called me down there to 
meet him. He wanted to know from me why all this trouble always 
in Boston in union affairs. In the course of the conversation, he told 
me that if I would agree to it, that he could place me as a labor rela- 
tions man in some factory through the Midwest after a short period of 
ti'aining. 

I told liim that I wasn't interested, and that I wasn't an officer in the 
union, but I was very much intei-ested in organizing for the A. F. of 
L. and i-ather than leave the people in the fight, I would rather cut 
cordwood at my place in New Hampshire. 

He said "Well, think it over. I will have a man in the store in about 
2 weeks, and you can let him know. Think it over with an open 
mind." 

So in 2 weeks I was asked to go down to the manager's office. I 
believe the man introduced himself as Mr. Sw^enson, and he asked me 
whether or not I had not thought more about what Caldwell had said, 
and I said "yes, I had thought about it, but I hadn't changed my 
mind." 

Mr. Kennedy. So you didn't take that position. You remained 
M'ith Sears, Roebuck? 

^Ir. Webber. I remained selling furniture and organizing or trying 
to organize for the retail clerks. 

Mr. Kennedy. Subsequently, in 1953, were you fired from your job ? 

Mr. Webber. In 1953 1 was fired, yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. You were fired. Wliat month was that ? 

Mr. Webber. That was November — it was the day after the holiday, 
November 12. 

Mr. Kennedy. That you were fired ? 

Mr. Webber. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. October 12 ? 

]Mr. Webber. November 12. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was it November 12 ? 

Mr. Webber. Yes, the day after Armistice. 

Mr. Kennedy. What reason did they give you for firing you at that 
time? 

]SIr. Webber. Well, Mr. Romizer said that he had reviewed my sales 
back for a few years, and that I was consistently low man in the 
department, and that they were relieving me of the job. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were you in fact low man in your department? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 6077 

Mr. Webber. I had been low man due to the fact, in my estimation, 
because of my activities with the council. It took so much time off of 
the floor. But in the year in which I was discharged, I had over a 
70-percent increase in business over the year before. That was proven 
in the National Labor Relations Board. 

Mr. Kennedy. Well, anyway, the National Labor Relations Board 
made a study of that, then ? 

Mr. Webber. Yes. There was a hearing there, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. What finding did they make on it ? 

Mr. Webber. The finding came out that they had to put me back to 
work and pay any loss tliat I had financially that I might have suffered 
in the meantime due to my discharge. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did they say that you had been fired, in fact, because 
of your union activities ? Did they find that ? 

Mr. Webber. Yes, the National Labor Relations Board, to that 
extent, yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. That that was the reason ? 

Mr. Webber. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. So you were brought back in January of 1955 ? 

Mr. Webber. No, sir. I was brought back in July, right after the 
Fourth. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were you offered a settlement in lieu of going back 
to work ? 

Mr. Webber. Yes, I was. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who were you approached by? 

Mr. Webber. By Mr. Bachman. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you know who Mr. Bachman was ? 

Mr. Webber. He was representing Mr. Shefferman. I was called 
down to Mr. Harold Kowall's office, the general counsel of the NLRB 
board in Boston. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did he offer you $2,000 ? 

Mr. Webber. He offered me $2,000. 

Mr. Kennedy. Instead of reinstatment ? 

Mr. Webber. Yes, and I blew my top. 

Mr. Kennedy. You took the reinstatement ? 

]\Ir. Webber. I took the reinstatement ; yes. 

JNIr. Kennedy. And tlien in January of 1967 the store manager 
asked you to resign, did he not ? 

Mr. Webber. When I went down again, he said, "Now you can do one 
thing or the other. We can let you go or you can resign. If you re- 
sign and you apply for a job elsewhere, we will have to say that you 
left because of resigning. But if you don't resign, we will have to say 
that we fired you because of your sales." 

In other words, that left two strikes on me. 

Mr. Kennedy. So what did you do ? 

Mr. Webber. I said, "You fire me." 

Mr. Kennedy. And they fired you ? 

Mr. Webber. They fired me. 

The Chairman. What is it about your sales? That seems to be the 
reason given for complaint against you. Were you the lowest in 
production of sales? 

Mr. Webber. That is right. 

The Chairman. And vou said what caused that ? 



6078 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Webber. Well, diu'ing the years that I was president of the 
council, the chairman of the council, I had to spend considerable time 
running down complaints from individual members of the council, and 
I was off the floor. That went on from the time I was elected chair- 
man of the council, and it progressed during the years, and after the 
war it became more acute when we seemed to have more complaints. 

The Chairman. I am trying to get this into its proper perspective. 
You were devoting your time to the services of the council ? 

Mr. Webber. That is right. 

The Chairman. At the same time drawing your salary or pay 

Mr. Webber. I was drawing a salary of $20 as a backup man in the 
department, plus I was getting a 5-percent commission. 

The Chairman. Were you paid on the basis of commissions ? 

Mr. Webber. That is right. From the company. 

The Chairman. So if you lost out in sales, you were suffering as well 
as the company ? 

Mr. Webber. Yes. That is right, sir. 

The Chairman. And it wasn't that they were paying you a salary 
and you were devoting your time to the union, to the local, or to the 
council ? 

Mr. Webber. My main compensation was 5 percent against my 
sales, and at no time did I ever, that I remember, through the years — 
we received a drawing account. At no time tlirough the years do I 
remember that they liad to wipe out any red deficit that I had. I 
always made more than my draw. 

The Chairman. This last time they fired you, j^ou say you have 
made no complaint about it ? 

Mr. Webber. I made no complaint, sir. 

The Chairman. You just decided to accept the discharge and forget 
about everything else ? 

Mr. Webber. I wanted a little harmony left in my life. 

The Chairman. Senator Curtis ? 

Senator Curtis. Was this extra activity for the council a factor in 
this last discharge ? 

Mr. Webber. No, sir ; that was not. 

Senator Curtis. That related to your sales ? 

Mr. Webber. That related to my sales. If I might explain it to 
you. Senator, wlien I came back in 1955, I went back in the furniture 
department. I wasn't the low man in the furniture department. I 
was down near the bottom. There was a man lower than me. In 
1956 when I came back from my July vacation, they had removed the 
low man in the department to another department, which placed me 
in the low spot. Then they called me in and told me I was low man, 
which I was. I had had an operation for my eye, on my right eye in 
February, and I was out until May of that year. I had a detached 
retina, a torn retina, and was practically blind in my right eye. 

When I came back in May, my doctor advised, and they had a copy 
of the letter, that I couldn't move too fast on the floor due to the fact 
that it may injure the eye again, or I couldn't stoop too quickly. In 
the department I found it very difficult to get over the floor. In other 
words, it was a fast moving department. 

Senator Curtis. What is your age, Mr. Webber ? 

Mr. Webber. Fifty-seven, sir. 



IMPHOPE'R ACT'IVmES EST THE) LABOR FIELD 6079 

Senator Curtis. Were you able to share in the profit-sharmg? 

Mr. Webber. I shared in the profit sharing all the years. 

Senator Curtis. How many years altogether did you put in there? 

Mr. Webber. With the company or in the profit-sharing ? 

Senator Curtis. Both. 

]Mr. Webber. Well, when I went into the profit sharing, you had 
to be there a year before you could participate in it. So it is just a 
year less than my service. 

Senator Curtis. Roughly how many years was it ? 

Mr. Webber. Well, 1 would say close to 26 years. 

Senator Curtis. Did you lose that ? 

JNIr. Webber. No, no. I got my profit sharing. 

Senator Curtis. Would you mind telling us how much you got? 

Mr. Webber. No. I don't mind telling you at all. 

Senator Curtis. If you feel it is a personal matter, I shall not 
press it. 

Mr. Webber. I received the stock, and the way it has been going 
down lately, I just don't know what I have. 

Senator Curtis. What did you receive? Wliat was the value of 
it at the time you received it ? 

Mr. Webber. Well, I will tell you. There was two ways. The Fed- 
eral Government requires that you list when paying your tax based on 
the difference of what you put in and the actual average cost per 
share. But the State of Massachusetts requires when you take your 
profit sharing out, that you pay the whole thing. They base their 
tax on earned income, rather than the Federal Government. I know 
my earned income with the State of Massachusetts was around $39,000. 
I liad to pay income tax on that amount. 

Senator Curtis. The value of the profit sharing that you got ? 

Mr, Webber. I had to pay an income tax in the State of Massachu- 
setts on $39,000. 

Senator Curtis. In 1 year ? 

Mr. Webber. That is right. Good, old Massachusetts took the tax 
on $39,000. 

Senator Curits. When was that withdrawn ? 

Mr. Webber. Well, I received it about 10 days after I was dis- 
charged in 1953. It came in the year of 1953 for tax purposes. 

Senator Curtis. Were you able to participate again ? 

Mr. Webber. When I came back; yes. When I came back, they 
took me in profit sharing again. But when I was discharged — when 
I was taken back, the point I brought up before the National Labor 
Relations Board is, I lost tlie momentum. I was ordered back by the 
National Labor Relations Board, l3ut there was a tremendous loss to 
me of the momentum of that trust fund. Had I not been discharged, 
and that trust fund still would have been in effect, my profit sharing 
would have been a lot more. 

Senator Curtis. But it amounted to $39,000 the way the State of 
Massachusetts figured it? 

Mr. Webber. Yes. 

Senator Curtis. And that included what you had put in and 

Mr. Webber. And the company's contribution, and the earnings, 
and the natural advancement of stock, and the splits over the years. 

89330- 



6080 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Curtis. And then you were in abont 3 or 4 years after that ? 

Mr. Webber. After that ? 

Senator Curtis. Yes. 

Mr. Webber. No. I was only back about a year the second time. 

Senator Curtis. I thought you went back in 1954. 

Mr. Webber. No. I didn't go back until 1955, sir. 

Senator Curtis. I see. But you drew wages ? 

Mr. Webber. Do you mean during the time I was out ? 

Senator Curtis. Yes. 

Mr. Webber. During the interval 

Senator Curtis. Didn't the NLKB order wages ? 

Mr. Webber. Yes. According to the NLEB, as I understand it, if 
you make that money elsewhere, the company doesn't owe you any- 
thing. But I had gone into the building business and made a loss, 
so that the company owed me the whole thing. 

Senator Curtis. Well, I hope Massachusetts didn't get all that, 

Mr. Webber. Massachusetts certainly did. 

Senator Curtis. That is all. 

The Chairman. Are there any other questions ? 

Mr. Kennedy. I have just a couple of questions. 

After you voted in 1953, or recommended, the affiliation with the 
retail clerks, did you receive any change in salary at that time ? 

Mr. Webber. I did, sir ; the next night after that meeting in which 
I recommended the affiliation. At that meeting I was called to the 
platform. I recommended the affiliation with the A. F. of L. I criti- 
cized Mr. jSIcDermott for his interference in the internal affairs of 
our union, and I gave a brief history of the council from its formation. 
The next night I was called in by Mr. Fick, the store manager, and 
relieved of the $20 that I was receiving as a backup man. 

Mr. Kennedy. That was $20 a week ? 

Mr. Webber. $20 a week. 

Mr. Kennedy. So you received a reduction in salary of $20 a week? 

Mr. Webber. That' is right. 

The Ciiairjman. Do you attribute that to your speech at the council 
meeting ? 

Mr. Webber. I believe it was, sir. 

The Chairman. Was any other reason assigned ? 

Mr. Webber. No. He told me when he called me in, he said — do you 
wish me to give you the conversation ? 

The Chairman. I don't know how long it is. 

Mr. Webber. It will not be long, no. 

The Chairman. All right, briefly. 

Mr. Webber. He said, "I called you in here. You have been on 
our books for a long time as backup man. I am going to take you 
off it at the end of the period." 

He said, "We are going to have Mr. DeStef ano as a full-time backup 
man." 

Then he said, "Roy, why did you go over with the American Federa- 
tion of Labor?" 

I said "I went over there so that the people would still have a bar- 
gaining unit because the council is falling to pieces." 

I said, "I am not an officer in the union, but I recommended its 
becomino; an affiliate." 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 6981 

He said, "You did more than recommend it, you led it." 

The Chairman. "You led it"? 

Mr. Webber. "You led it." I didn't say anything, but mentally I 
agreed with him. 

Senator McNamar^v. Will the witness tell us what a backup man is? 

Mr. Webber, Well, backup man is somebody that the management 
can raise hades with when the division manager is out. In other 
words, when the division manager is away from the department, he is 
the man responsible in the department should the management require 
some information or want some jobs done pertaining to that one 
department. In other words, he is the next in line, practically, to the 
division manager. 

Senator McNamara. You back up the division manager, is that it? 

Mr. Webber. That is right. 

The Chair^ian. Is there anything further ? 

Senator Curtis. Is the backup man part of management ? 

Mr. Webber. Well, we didn't consider him so in the council. But 
at the last election, from a decision handed down by the NLRB, the 
backup men in the departments were excluded from voting in the 
election because of their closeness to the management. 

The Chairman. Is that all ? 

Thank you very much. 

The committee will stand in recess until 2 o'clock Monday afternoon. 

(Whereupon, at 12: 55 p. m., the committee was recessed, to recon- 
vene at 2 p. m. Monday, October 28, 1957.) 

(Committee members present at time of recess : Senators McClellan, 
McNamara, Ervin, and Curtis.) 



INVESTIGATION OF IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE 
LABOR OR MANAGEMENT FIELD 



MONDAY, OCTOBEB 28, 1957 

United States Senate, 
Select Committee on Improper Activities 

IN the Labor or Management Field. 

Washington, D. C. 

Tlie select committee met at 2 p. m., pursuant to Senate Resolution 
74, agreed to January 30, 1957, in the caucus room. Senate Office 
Building, Senator John L. McClellan (chairman of the select com- 
mittee) presiding. 

Present : Senator John L. McClellan, Democrat, Arkansas ; Senator 
Irving M, Ives, Republican, New York ; Senator Pat McNamara, Dem- 
ocrat, Michigan; Senator Sam J. Ervin, Democrat, North Carolina; 
Senator Barry Goldwater, Republican, Arizona; Senator Carl T. 
Curtis, Republican, Nebraska. 

Also present : Robert F. Kennedy, chief counsel ; Pierre E. G. Salin- 
ger, investigator; Walter Sheridan, investigator; Ruth Young Watt, 
chief clerk. 

The Chairman. The committee will be in order. 

(Members of the select committee present at the convening of the 
session were Senators McClellan, Ives, McNamara, Goldwater, and 
Curtis. ) 

The Chairman. All right. Call the witness. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. James Neilsen. 

The Chairman. Mr. Neilsen come forward, please. 

You will be sworn. You do solemnly swear that the evidence you 
shall give before this Senate select committee will be the truth, the 
whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God ? 

Mr. Neilsen. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF JAMES T. NEILSEN, ACCOMPANIED BY HIS COUNSEL, 

STAMFORD CLINTON 

The Chairman. State your name, your place of residence, and your 
business or occupation. 

Mr. Neilsen. James T. Neilsen. I am a labor relations consultant. 
I live at 39 Williamsburg Road, Evanston, 111. 

The Chairman. You have counsel with you, Mr. Neilsen, to repre- 
sent you ? 

Mr. Neilsen. Yes, I do. 

The Chairman. Mr. Counsel, identify yourself for the record, 
please. 

6083 



'6084 IMPROPER ACTIVrXIElS EST THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Clixtox. Stamford Clmton, of Chicago, 111., Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much. 

All right, Mr. Counsel. 

Mr. Kennedt. Mr. Neilsen, you have been with Labor Relations 
Associates, have you ? 
. Mr. Neilsen. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Are you still with them? 

Mr. Neilsen. I am, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. You still work for Mr. Shefferman ? 

Mr. Neilsen. Right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Out of the Chicago office ? 

Mr. Neilsen. That is right. 

Mr. KJENNEDY. You have been with him for how long ? 

Mr. Neilsen. A little over 14 years. 

Mr. KJENNEDY. Fourteen years ? 

Mr. Neilsen. Right. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you have always operated out of the Chicago 
office, have you, for him ? 

Mr. Neilsen. That is right, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who has been giving you your assignments? Mr. 
SheffeiTnan personally ? 

Mr. Neilsen. Well, case assignments sometimes we get from him. 
I mean, if the company has a problem, we are assigned that problem 
to go in and handle it for the company. Sometimes we get them from 
Shelley — that is, Shelton Shefferman — and the way that is done, at 
least as far as I am concerned, is that you are given the name of the 
company that has got a problem, and then you go and meet the com- 
pany and talk to them about whatever the problem may be. 

Mr. Kennedy. Does he give you any instructions as to how the 
matter should be handled ? 

Mr. Neilsen. Well, he hasn't given me any for a long time. 

Mr. Kennedy. You just go in and handle it the way you see fit? 

Mr, Neilsen. That is rio;ht. We handle them according to the gen- 
eral policies of our organization. Generally, the men who go out in 
the field are expected to know our general policies. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did Mr. Shefferman give you the directive on what 
your general policy should be ? 

Did he give you instructions ? 

Mr. Neilsen. Well, 3'ou learn that just by being in our office over 
a period of time. We don't sit down too often and talk about those 
policies. You just kind of learn that by being around. 

Mr. Kennedy. You just learn what to do by being around? 

Mr. Neilsen. No. You learn the general policies and principles. 
We discuss them and so on, but we don't sit down and say, "Here is a 
principle and a policy to follow on certain kinds of cases." I mean, 
we don't have that type of approach. 

Mr. Kennedy. Had you had any experience in the labor field prior 
to going to work for Mr. Shefferman? 

Mr. Neilsen. Yes, I had, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. What kind of work had you been doing ? 

Mr. Neilsen. I had been handling labor negotiations problems. 

Mr. Kennedy. As an attorney ? 

Mr. Neilsen. I beg your pardon ? 



IMPROPE'R ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 6085 

As an attorney ; that is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. When you go into these areas — for instance, in Bos- 
ton, you used a name other than James D. Neilsen ? 

Mr. Neilsen. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. You used the name of Mr. Guffy ? 

Mr. Neilsen. That is the name I used when I first went to Boston. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then you used another name ? 

Mr. Neilsen. That is right, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. What name did you use later ? 

Mr. Neilsen. Warren. I think it was Fred Warren. 

Mr. Kennedy. Fred Warren ? 

Mr. Neilsen. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Any other name up in Boston ? 

Mr. Neilsen. I don't think so. 

Mr. Kennedy. What about other areas you have been into ? 

Mr. Neilsen. I think I have just had different names, probably 
-5 or 6 in the 14 years. 

Mr. Kennedy, What ? 

Mr. Neilsen. I have used 6 names, I think, roughly that, in the 
14 years that I have been with Mr. Shefferman. In other words, on 
5 or 6 occasions, something like that. 

Mr. Kennedy. What other names have you used ? 

Mr. Neilsen. Frankly, I don't remember right now. 

Mr. Kennedy. How about Jim Edwards? Did you use Jim 
Edwards ? 

Mr. Neilsen. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wliere did you use Jim Edwards ? 

Mr. Neilsen. I used that in McAllister, Okla., I believe. 

Mr. Kennedy. In connection with what case was that ? 

Mr. Neilsen. Seampruf. 

Mr. Kennedy. Seampruf ? 

Mr. Neilsen. Right. Seampruf or Sealpruf. I was only down 
there a day or two. I don't remember the company too well. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were they having difficulty with the union there? 

Mr. Neilsen. They had been having difficulty there for 6, 8, or 10 
years, constantly. That wasn't anything new. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you go down to set up a vote "no" committee? 

Mr. Neilsen. No, sir. I went down to see what was going on, and 
to talk with the manager of the company and talk to one of our men 
who was already down there. I talked with an attorney in town by 
the name of Mr. Jones, I think his name is. He had really the vote 
■"no" committee going at that time, to some extent. I talked to him 
about the vote ''no" committee. And if he hadn't had it, I probably 
would have assisted him to set it up. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you ever use 

Mr. Neilsen. Let me ask you, sir, or maybe I am too early on it. 
I would like to explain before we go too far 

( The witness conferred with his counsel. ) 

Mr, Neilsen. I wanted to explain what the vote "no" com.mittee 
is sometime. 

Mr. Kennedy. You can go ahead now, if you would like to. 

The Chairman. If you would like to, exj^lain what a vote "no" 
committee is. You mav do so. Go ahead. 



6086 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Neilsen. I would like to explain that, honestly. I have been 
hearing conversation about it, and I would like to explain a little bit 
about it. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Mr. Neilsen. In the places where I have used it, and that is all I 
can speak of firsthand, it is a situation like this : We go into a town 
where there is a union drive on. It can be an extensive drive, depend- 
ing upon how many union organizers are sent on the case. We talk — 
the first thing I do when I get into town on a case like that is I talk 
to company supervision, particularly top management in the area, 
the management of the factory or whatever it may be, and I ask him, 
"Are there any people that have come to you, and who are the people 
who have come to vou. and asked for help in tlie face of this union 
drive?" 

I say, "Has anybody been intimidated at their homes ? Have they 
had threats, force, or have they asked you for your help ?" 

I say, "If an^'body has come to you and asked your assistance or 
help, that is the people I want to see." 

The reason for that is I feel definitelj' that when there is a union 
drive on, the people wlio want the union have the union organizers 
and the union committees to go to for tlieir assistance and counsel, 
whereas the people who do not belong to the union and who don't 
want the union go to the superintendent or the foreman or the plant 
manager, and the plant manager, superintendent and foreman turn 
them down. They ore afraid to talk to them. So the poor people 
haven't an}' place to go for any advice, counsel, or anything. 

I feel tliat I am rendering tliose kind of employees a real service in 
this country by giving them — by sitting down and giving them advice 
and counsel. You should see the faces on those people the first time 
they meet with me. 

Mr. Kennedy. We have heard about some of them. 

Mr. Neilsen. Maybe so. 

Mr. Kennedy. Have you used any other names when you have be^n 
setting up these vote "no" committees other than Guffy, Warren, 
Edwards ? 

Mr. Neilsen. I don't recall. Maybe I have. I have used several 
other names. 

Mr. Kennedy. How about Jim Neil ? 

Mr. Neilsen. Yes : I certainly did. 

Mr. Kennedy. "Wliere did you use that ? 

Mr. Neilsen. I used that in Austin, Ind. 

Mr. Kennedy'. "Wliere? 

Mr. Neilsen. Austin, Ind. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wliat were you doing there? 

Mr. Neilsen. I was fighting an organization drive by the teamstere. 

Mr. Kennedy. And were you setting up a vote "no" committee 
down there ? 

Mr. Neilsen. Yes. I didn't set it up. The people set it up them- 
selves. 

Mr. Kennedy. With your help ? 

Mr. Neilsen. The only help I give them is advice and counsel on 
how to set it up. We can't possibly set up a vote "no" committee. 
People will come to us for advice and counsel and I tell them the only 



I^IPROPE'R ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 6087 

way to fight a large campaign of a large union is to sit down with us 
and talk and we tell them liow to organize a campaign against the 
campaign by the union. They have to do it themselves. If they are 
not interested in fighting a union, I might as well get out of town. 
They have to be interested in fighting it themselves, and then they 
have to do the work themselves, just like the union people get the 
union people to call on the homes and get the workers. That is ex- 
actly the kind of campaign that the vote "no" committee does. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you pay any of these people money for that ? 

Mr. Neilsen. I pay tliem for any expenses they entail, whether it is 
publishing things, taking people to dinner, going out to meet the 
people at their homes. I try to meet the same kind of a campaign 
that the union does. Tiie union entertains them, pays them expense 
money, pays them to go out and go to people's homes. I reimburse 
them in the same certain sense. 

Mr. Kennedy. Is that out of your own personal money? 

Mr. Neilsen. No. I bill that to the company under expenses. 

Mr. Kennedy. Why doesn't the company set it up directly and say, 
"We want to help these people" ? 

Mr. Neilsen. Tliat is what I am doing for them. 

Mr. I^nnedy. Why don't they do it directly ? Why do you go in 
and use aliases, and why don't you just make your presence known, 
say, and put a little sign up ancl say, "Come and see me if you want 
to be against the union ?" 

Mr. Neilsen, The reason I don't want to have my name known in 
those places where I used different names is that international union 
men all around the country have known me for years. For the first 6 
or 7 years I was with Mr. Shefferman, I didn't do hardly anything 
except negotiate all through the country in behalf of Sears, Roebuck. 
I met a great many union people and there are lots of them that are 
friends of mine. I didn't feel that it was necessary for me to jeop- 
ardize my relationship with other places or to cause a different issue 
to be made in the place where I am. They would immediately make 
an issue of me instead of the issue of. Do these people want this union? 
That is the issue we are faced with. Do they want this union in there? 
It isn't whether I am on the job or not, but it would be immediately 
made an issue concerning me personally. 

Mr. Kennedy. It never occurred to you that what you were doing 
was in violation of the Taft-Hartley Act ? 

Mr. Neilsen. Sir, I don't think it was, and I don't think it is. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you tell these people when you were up in 
Boston that they should keep quiet about what they were doing, be- 
cause it was in violation of the Taft-Hartley Act? 

Mr. Neilsen. I don't recall making that kind of a statement. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you think vou might have said anything like 
that? 

Mr. Neilsen. I don't think I said anything about the Taft-Hartley 
law. I don't remember anything like that. 

Mr. Kennedy. You know that 1 or 2 of them testified ? 

Mr. Neilsen. I know, I read the record this year. 

Mr. Kennedy. You say that never happened ? 

Mr. Neilsen. It is my best recollection that that never happened, 
for this reason : I don't think it does violate the Taft-Hartley law. 



6088 IMPROPER AcrrviTiEis m the labor field 

Mr. Kennedy. Of setting up these committees and having the 
companies finance them ? 

Mr. Neilsen. I don't set them up. They set them up after I advise 
and counsel how to do it. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Neilsen, you get the names from tlie company. 

Mr. Neilsen. No. The people come to me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who sends them to you ? 

Mr. Neilsen. I tell the company to send people to me, a few people, 
not very many, but send somebody to me who has come to them for 
advice and counsel and help in facing some problem, and who have 
been turned down and have no place to go, so they come to me and I 
counsel with them. 

Mr. Kennedy. So they go to James Neilsen and he counsels with 
them and he suggests to them that they set up a committee ? 

Mr. Neilsen. I tell them if they want to go against the union, the 
wa}^ to do it is to set uj) their own committee and fight the problem 
as the union is fighting the problems themselves. 

Mr. Kennedy. And that is all going to be financed hy the company ? 

Mr. Neilsen. I don't necessarih^ tell them that, but it is. 

Mr. Kennedy. It is all financed by the company, your salary up 
there, your expenses ? 

Mr. Neilsen. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. You pay these people individually ? 

Mr. Neilsen. I reimburse them, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. You give them monej^ ? Every week you give them 
money ? 

Mr. Neilsen. I reimburse them. 

Mr. Kennedy. It is not reimbursement. You gave them $20 or 
$30 a week. 

Mr. Neilsen. No, it is reimbursement. 

Mr. Kennedy. Is it reimbursement for going out and seeing people? 

Mr. Neilsen. I don't pay them for coming down and seeing me. 

Mr. Kennedy. You pay them for whatever use they want to make 
of the money, whether it is expenses money or not ? 

Mr. Neilsen. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. Haven't there been cases when you have paid these 
people $20, $30, or $50 a week for being in favor of the vote "no"^ 
committee ? 

Mr. Neilsen. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Have you paid any of them any money ? 

Mr. Neilsen. Sure, I have paid lots of people money for reimburse- 
ment for expenses they incurred. 

Mr. Kenj^edy. "\^'Tiat kind of expenses would these people have? 

Mr. Neilsen. They would have the same kind of expenses as the 
people who are trying to bring the union in. They will have dinner 
expenses for people, to talk to them, transportation expenses to go 
to their liomes, they will have circulars to meet the union circulars. 
They will have meetings they want to put on. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know how much money you spent on enter- 
tainment in Boston alone for entertainment when you were there? 

Mr. Neilsen. I don't know. But my hotel bill was pretty heavy. 

Mr. Kennedy. How much do you tliink that amounts to? It was 
$6,786 for entertainment while in Boston. How long were you up 
there ? 



IMPROPER ACnVrriES EST THE; LABOR FIELD 6089 

Mr. Neilsen. Six months, roughly. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who were you entertaining ? 

Mr. Neilsen. A lot of that entertainment involved supervision. I 
had meetings in my hotel from early morning to late at night 
constantly all the time I was there. Sometimes I had 2 or 3 meetings 
at a time. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel. ) 

Mr. Neilsen. I had a suite there, in order to have several meetings 
going on at the same time. Sometimes I had a group of people that 
were fighting the union that had grievances of different kinds, that 
had nothing to do with this union problem, but they would talk with 
me about their grievances, unburden themselves about it, and I would 
listen to them like I would listen to anything else. Then I would talk 
to supervision about the grievances. These grievances didn't involve 
the people I was talking about, but involved anybody in the place 
that they felt needed somebody to counsel, advise, and help them. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you get anybody else to counsel, help, and assist 
them? 

Mr. Neilsen. No ; not that I recall. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you get an attorney ? 

Mr. Neilsen. I dicln't get the attorney. They already had the 
attorney, 

Mr. Kennedy. They didn't always have the attorney ? 

Mr. Neilsen. I said they already had the attorney when I came in. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who paid the attorney ? 

Mr. Neilsen. To the best of my knowledge, I think the committee^ 
paid him some money, the committee themselves. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who paid him the most of this salary ? 

Mr. Neilsen. Well, I paid him somewhere between $3,000 and 
$4,000 altogether. 

Mr. K>.nnedy. Then you paid him ; did you not ? 

Mr. Neilsen. Yes, but the main service, as far as I am concerned, 
that he rendered to me 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Neilsen. O. K. 

Mr. Kennedy. You paid him to advise the council, advice this com- 
mittee, whatever it might be ? 

Mr. Neilsen. No ; that wasn't the main reason that he received that 
$3,000 or $4,000. 

Mr. Kennedy. Our figures show that he received from you $3,350. 

Mr. Neilsen. $3,350? 

Mr. Kennedy. That is above the $6,766.40 for entertainment. 

Mr. Neilsen. All right. That could be right. I have never kept 
a record of how much he was paid. 

Mr. Kennedy. So who paid for the literature there ? 

Mr. Neilsen. I did. 

Mr. Kennedy. You paid for that ? 

Mr. Neilsen. To the best of my knowledge. They might have got 
some that I didn't pay for. 

Mr. Kennedy. Let's take Boston. When you went up there to 
Boston, who sent you up to Boston ? 

Mr. Neilsen. Somebody from the parent company called the office 
and I was in California, and when I called in the office they told me 
that Sears wanted me to come out to Boston on a problem. 



G090 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN TIIE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. So you went up there ? 

Mr. Neilsen. So I went straight to Boston, I came to Chicago, 
repacked, and I went on to Boston. 

Mr. Kennedy. Whom did you meet? Whom did you confer with 
when you got up there ? 

Mr. Neilsen. When I got to Boston ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. 

Mr. Neh^sen. Well, I conferred with almost everybody in Sears' 
Boston, management, and also conferred with Walter Hook, who was 
in charge of labor relations. 

Mr. Kennedy. There had been an employees' council, the Sears, 
Roebuck Employees Council, in existence ? 

ISIr. Neilsen. That is right. I think that had existed about 15 
years. 

Mr. Kennedy. And they had voted to affiliate with the A. F. of L., 
the retail clerks, had they not ? 

Mr. Neilsen. You are talking about that January meeting in 1953 ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes, just before you got up there. 

Mr. Neilsen. The people I talked to said they didn't vote at that 
meeting. They said that was a rigged meeting, and the Labor Board 
has upheld that position, that that meeting was not a proper meeting. 

Mr. Kennedy. Let's go back. When you first arrived there, at 
least, the information was that tliey had had a meeting, and that they 
had voted to affiliate with the retail clerks ; had they not ? 

Mr. Neilsen. Well, yes, except the people didn't think it was a 
proper meeting. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you met with some of these people ? 

Mr. Neilsen. Yes, just like I told you. 

Mr. Kennedy. And then did you set up another council to deal 
with it? 

Mr. Neilsen. No. They set their own council up. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you give them advice on setting up their own 
council? 

Mr. Neilsen. I gave them counsel on how to do all of these things, 
but they had to do it themselves. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you get a list of the employees from them? 

Mr. Neilsen. I beg your pardon ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you get a list of the employees ? 

Mr. Neilsen. It could be. I don't remember. It could be. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you check over the employees and find the ones 
that were prounion and the ones that were against the union ? 

Mr. Neilsen. We would sit down frequentl}^ as I recall, at meetings, 
and they would discuss the people. They would talk among them- 
selves. I didn't know tlie people. They would talk: "Here is John 
Jones. Do you think we can talk to hmi? Here is so and so." 

They talked among themselves about organizing against the unions, 
just like the union people would talk about who the}- could get to join 
the union. 

Mr. Kennedy. This is a little bit different than that, because in the 
first place all of your activities were financed by the company. In the 
union, whatever they were doing, it was well known and established 
that what they were doing was union activities. What you were do- 
ing was for the company. There is aU the difference in the world. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE: LABOR FIELD 6091 

If the employees had set up their own committee, and doing this 
on their own, that is not the question. You attempted to make this 
appear as if it was an independent group acting independently from 
the company, a group of employees against the union. That was not 
true at all. Everything that you did was financed and directed by the 
company. 

( The witness conferred with his counsel. ) 

Mr. Neilsen. The group of employees I met with didn't want this 
union and neither did the company. There is no question about that. 
The}'- had the same purpose and everything. But, on the other hand, 
I met with these people to counsel with them, and to give them the 
same kinds of financial assistance that the union gives to their people 
who go out and make their drive. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is fine, but it was not an independent council. 
They were going to the employees of Sears, Eoebuck and selling this 
as an independent council, ''Come with us, it is an independent coun- 
cil," when, in fact, it was all directed and financed by the company 
through you. 

Mr. Neilsen. Sir, it was financed so far as reimbursement. I just 
counseled with them. 

Mr. Kennedy. Counseled with tliem '? You put tlieir literature out, 
you paid tliem, you paid the attorne}^ 

Mr. Neilsen. They put it out. 

Mr. Kennedy. But you got the literature, you drew it up ? 

Mr. Neilsen. I did A-ery little on drawing it up. They drew it up 
themselves. 

Mr. Kennedy. You paid the attorney, you paid their leaders. You 
counseled the company on firing Roy Webber, did you not ? 

Mr. Neilsen. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you know Roy Webber was being fired ? 

Mr. Neilsen. I don't recall. 1 don't think I was even in the Sears 
Roebuck Boston picture when he was fired. 

Mr. Kennedy. You were not there ? 

Mr. Neilsen. I beg \'Our pardon ? 

Mr. Kennedy. You knew he was fired for union activities ? 

Mr. Neilsen. Only what I heard yesterday and rumored before. 
But I wasn't representing Sears Boston. 

Mr. KiiiNNEDY. But you knew at tliat time or you knew subsequently 
that Avas the reason he was fired ? 

Mr. Neilsen. No, 1 never heard of that. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were you checking over ? Did you know that there 
was a detective up there that was following and checking on the activi- 
ties of those who were in favor of the union ? 

Mr. Neilsen. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you know Mr. Okey ? 

Mr. Neilsen. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you talk to Mr. Okey ? 

Mr. Neilsen. No. I talked to him the last day I saw Mr. Miller. 
He ha}i])ened to be going into an office when I did. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know Mr. Okey ? 

Mr. Neilsen. Just by appearance. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Neilsen. But I have never had any conversations with him. 



6092 IMPROPER ACTTIVITIBS IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. What (Joes Mr. Okey do ? 

Mr. Neilsen. He is a private detective, as far as I know. 

Mr. Kennedy. From where? 

Mr. Neilsen. From Chicago. 

Mr. Kennedy. He was up in Boston ? 

Mr. Neilsen. Yes, I understand he was. 

Mr. Kennedy. What was he doing in Boston ? 

Mr. Xeilsen. I understand he was there, so far as I am concerned, 
from what I know about it, he was there to find out about this sexual 
pervert that was in the Boston store. 

Mr. Kennedy. To check on some of the employees ? 

Mr, Neilsen. No. There was somebody in the store in Boston, 
that people pretty well felt was a sexual pervert. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did it happen to be that this man that they were 
-checking on also was one of the leaders for the retail clerks? 

Mr. Neilsen. I beg your pardon ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Did it also happen that this man that they were 
checking on was also one of the leaders of the retail clerks ? 

Mr. Neilsen. I understand he was. 

Mr. Kennedy. You don't think there is any connection between the 
two? 

Mr. Neilsen. Not according to my information. Let me tell you, 
when my people talked about it, that is the first thing I heard from 
the people I met, was about this man, the sexual pervert, and sexual 
perversion, before I even heard about it from the company. That is 
why I engaged this attorney to do what investigation he could on it. 

Mr. Kennedy. What about Mr. Webber ? Did you know Mr. Okey 
was following Mr. Webber ? 

Mr. Neilsen. I had no knowledge of that at all. 

Mr. Kennedy. What about Mr. Leiden ? 

Mr. Neilsen. I had no knowledge. 

Mr. Kennedy. You didn't have anything to do with that ? 

Mr. Neilsen. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you would be surprised to know that the com- 
pany was doing that as well as what you were doing ? 

Mr. Neilsen. I didn't have anything to do with that and I didn't 
know anything about that. 

Mr. Kennedy. If the company was doing that, they were doing 
it on their own ? 

Mr. Neilsen. They certainly weren't doing it through me. I never 
heard about it in our organization. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you ever write any letters or give the council 
any advice, the council you were working with, any advice on the 
letters tliat they should write to the Sears, Roebuck Co.? 

Mr. Neh.sen. I don't recall. 

Mr. Kennedy. Are you familiar with this letter, or these two 
letters? 

The Chairman. The Chair hands you a document here, of three 
pages, handwritten, which does not appear to be signed, but I will 
ask you to examine it and state if you identify it. 

(A document was handed to the witness.) 

Mr. Clinton. May we have the question again ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THEi LABOR FIELD 6093 

The Chairman. I asked him to examme it and see if he identified 
it. I did not see any signature on it and I do not know whether he is 
familiar with the document or not. 

Mr. Neilsen. It is very difficult for me to read this writing. I 
don't recognize the writing and I don't recognize the document, from 
what I can see here. 

The Chaieman. You do not recall having seen the document before ? 

Mr. Neilsen. I may have and I don't recall by looking at it now. 

The Chairman. You did not prepare the document ? 

Mr. Neilsen. To the best of my knowledge I had nothing to do 
with the preparation of it. 

The Chairman. Is' that your handwriting? 

Mr. Neilsen. No, sir. 

The Chairman. All right, that document may be made exhibit No. 
20. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 20" for ref- 
erence and may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

The Chairman. It is for reference only and I do not want to put 
it in the record. 

Mr. Kennedy. You are not familiar with this letter at all? 

Mr. Neilsen. I don't recall it. 

Mr. Ejennedt. Do you know if any arrangements were made for 
this council you were working with, to write a letter to the Sears, 
Roebuck Co. and say and set forth certain facts, and say that they 
were afraid that the Sears, Roebuck Co. might bargain with the re- 
tail clerks and that they did not want them to do that and then the 
company writing back a letter ? 

Mr. Neilsen. I recall — excuse me. I thought you were through. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is all. 

Mr. Neilsen. I recall some of the committee meetings I had with 
these people I have been meeting with, discussing that, but I don't 
recall what was done about it. It was brought up in general con- 
versation along that line, but I don't remember anything further 
done about it. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, was the Shefferman organization writing the 
letters for the council as well as writing the letters for Sears, Roe- 
buck in reply to the letters from the council ? 

Mr. Neilsen. No, sir ; not to my knowledge. 

Mr. Kennedy. This letter is taken from the files of Shefferman, 
in Chicago. 

Mr. Neilsen. I don't know who wrote it and I have no informa- 
tion about who wrote it. 

Mr. Kennedy. It is a letter, a rough copy of a letter from the 
council to the Sears, Roebuck store, and then a rough copy of the 
reply from Sears, Roebuck to the council and it is all in the same 
handwriting. 

Mr. Neilsen. I don't recall anything about it at all. I do recall 
conversation about it, but I doubt if I was present when it was 
drawn up. 

Mr. Kennedy. You assisted the council, did you not, in writing 
their letters? 

Mr. Neilsen. I counseled with them on writing pamphlets and 
things and I do not recall assisting them on writing letters, but per- 
haps I did, and I just don't recall it. 



6094 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES rST THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kenxedy. So you were really operating from both sides, were 
you not, operating and 'advising the company and you were being 
paid by the company 'i 

Mr. Neilsen. Wait a minute. 

Mr. Kennedy. You were having conferences Vidth the company, 
were you not ? 

Mr. Neilsen. My conferences with the company were practically 
entirely engaged 

Mr. Kennedy, What is that? 

Mr. Neilsen. With the company' that I had out there, had to do 
almost entirely with different kinds of grievances that these people 
I met with had. 

Mr. Kennedy. You were being paid by the company and you were 
brought in there by the companj^ and what this council was was 
really a figment of the company and it was certainly grossly mis- 
leading to the employees of Sears, Roebuck. 

It must have been. It was notliing more than an operation that 
was set up and established by the company to try to keep the people 
away from joining the AFL Retail Clerks. 

Mr. Neilsen. Well, sir, that is Avhere we disagree. 

Mr. Kennedy. How could you advise them both? 

Mr. Clinton. I think he should be permitted to answer. 

Mr. Neilsen. In my opinion, the council was a group of em- 
ployees wlio did not want, on their own, they did not want the clerks 
and that is certainly the wa}^ they always talked with me. I can 
even add that at my iirst few meetings, or a niunber of meetings, I 
had with these peoi)le, they were afraid to fight the clerks because 
they thought some of the people in Sears locally, were in favor of 
the clerks. 

The Chairman. The real issue here is, were you setting this up? 
While you say the}" set it up and you advised them? 

Mr. Neilsen. I advised them on it. 

The Chairman. You counseled with them to set up a council or 
committee that had this outward appearance and its purpose was to 
pretend it was not associated with tlie company, but on their own 
initiative they were opposing the union ? 

Mr. Neilsen. That is right, sir. 

The Chairman. When in fact as to the people that tliey approached 
and in their work and in your work, you did not let it be known 
that your operations were being financed by the company. That is a 
fact, is it not ? 

Mr. Neilsen. Yes, the people on my committee. The people I 
was working with knew. 

The Chairman. But actually, it amounted to a front organization 
or group for the company. 

Mr. Neilsen. No, that isn't it, sir, honestly. It was their own or- 
ganization that they were figliting for themselves. If I had not been 
there, my guess would be someone in that group eventually would 
have had the courage and the stamina to do what they did with my 
counsel and advice. 

Senator McNamara. You have tried to tell the committee now for 
the record that your interests were just working with the committee '! 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE' LABOR FIELD 6095 

Mr. Neilsen. That is right, sir, and I worked for the employer, 
too, of course, and I counseled the committee, but I was hired by the 
employer. 

Senator McNamara. You were hired by the employer to deal with 
some of his employees, and you were doing just that ? 

Mr. Neilsen. That is right. 

Senator McNamara. You were dealing with the employees in the 
interest of management? 

Mr. Neilsen. That is right. 

Senator McNamara. Then you seem to try to take the position that 
you were not an agent of management. 

Mr. Neilsen. No, sir; I was an agent of management, but while I 
was dealing with the employees, I was dealing with them in their own 
interest. The interests were the same. 

Senator McNamara. What would motivate that on your part? 

Mr. Neilsen. Because they were opposed to the union and I feel 
people who are opposed to union should have the same rights of advice 
and counsel and help as people who are for a union. 

Senator McNamara. And this is just coincidental that the manage- 
ment was paying you to feel that way in this case ? 

Mr. Neilsen. No, because if the management had not paid me, I 
would not have had a chance to meet with the people. That is why I 
was there. 

Senator McNamara. I was quite interested in your definition of the 
vote ''no-' committee that you wanted to get into the record. 1 suppose 
you are defining this for the Shefferman organization and not just for 
your own viewpoint ? 

Mr. Neilsen. I am defining it, that is the vraj I understand it, and 
that is the w ay I have worked. 

Senator McNamara. After being an employee of the Shefferman 
company for 14 years, then you get your information largely from the 
activities of that company. 

Mr. Neilsen. Of course I don't know how every man operates in 
detail when I am not there, but I think most of them operate like this. 

Senator McNamara. Now, j^ou said that the committee was set up to 
work M'ith employees so they would have a fair chance in opposition to 
the union, if that was their viewpoint. 

Mr. Neilsen. Yes, sir. 

Senator McNA:\rARA. However, we find tlie Shefferman company in 
the case of the Morton Co. out in Iowa, representing to the employees- 
committee that they should join a certain union. 

Mr. Neilsen. In my opinion, the employees' interests and the com- 
pany's interests, in that case, were identical and I was not in tlie case 
but I feel that it is very possible and very probable that if the em- 
ployees there had not joined the union out there, there would not have 
been any plant for the management or the employees either one. 

Now, I may be wrong, but I feel the interests were the same there. 

Senator McNamara. Before a certain date, I think it was in Decem- 
ber of that year, the services of the Shefferman company were used to 
oppose any union. 

Mr. Neilsen. That I don't know, and I wasn't there. 



P.!).S30— 57— pt. ir>- 



6096 IMPROPER ACTIVITIEiS IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator McNamara. The record so shows, and j^ou have read the 
record ? 

Mr. Neilsen. Yes. 

Senator McNamara. Then, as of a certain time when this parent 
company came into the picture, the policy was to sell a certain union 
to the employees. The Shefferman hrm completely reversed, fi^yhting 
the union one day and the next day they were all for the union. 

Mr. Neilsen. Let me answer that by telling you, if I had been there 
to meet that situation personally, what I would have done. 

Senator McNamara, I think that is incidental, but what I am trying 
to do is fit this into your definition of the vote "no" committee, and 
it is a little hard to fit in. 

Mr. Neilsen. Because the interests are the same there, too. If they 
had not voted for the union, the chances are they would not have had 
a plant there. It was to their interest as well as the company, because 
it looked like the plant was going to be closed. It would be closed by 
the union in their drive. 

Senator McNamara. I understand. 

Mr. Kennedy. You were at Mortons, yourself, were you ? 

Mr. Neilsen. I was there one day, I think, on two different oc- 
casions, something like that. 

IMr. Kennedy. And you met with Mr. Merle Smith there, did you ? 

Mr. Neilsen. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. According to iVfr. Merle Smith's testimony before 
the committee, you suggested to him to set up a phoney negotiating 
committee, and act as if the employees were actually negotiating a con- 
tract which had already been negotiated and signed by the higher 
officials of the company and of the union ? 

Is that part of your operation ? 

Mr. Neilsen. I don't recollect that at all. And I remember I talked 
to Merle Smith about his testimony afterward and I told him I didn't 
recollect anything like that. And I met with Merle Smith when I got 
out there, expecting the contract had already been negotiated and we 
were supposed to talk about the contract. 

When I got out there, I found this was all signed and delivered 
and so my purpose in going there that day was to meet with the com- 
pany and tell them how to get along under the contract. 

They had never had one before and to meet the local people and the 
local union committee, officials and Mr. Merle Smith, and go over some 
of tlie clauses in the contract. I don't recall that conversation. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you set up a vote "no" committee at the Eng- 
lander Co. ? 

Mr. Neilsen. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is 1953 ? 

Mr. Neilsen. That is right, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know a Floyd Norman Lewis ? 

Mr. Neilsen. I think he was the personnel director there, or per- 
sonnel assistant there. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you ever recommend that any of those who were 
in favor of the union be beaten up by the goons ? 

Mr. Neilsen. Never, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Are you familiar with the affidavit that Mr. Lewis 
filed with the National Labor Relations Board ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES ENT THE LABOR FIELD 6097 

Mr. Neilsen. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. In which he said, while working with you, you made 
such a suggestion, that these employees, those in favor of the 
union 

Mr. Neilsen. It is certainly false, and we don't operate like that 
anywhere. 

Mr. Kennedy. You cannot remember that ? 

Mr. Neilsen. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is not true ? 

Mr. Neilsen. That is not true. I did not do it. 

Mr. Kennedy. This is an affidavit from Lewis, and you are welcome 
to examine it, but it says : 

W^aterman was the company official. The day after Cooper — 

he was the employee of the Englander Co. — 

was fired, he told me that he just came from a meeting at which Jim Neilsen 
was present. Neilsen expressed satisfaction about Cooper being fired, stating 
that he had been making plans to have Cooper beaten up and had contacted a 
couple of fellows to do the job, but he was glad it happened this way because 
that was risky business. 
Neilsen said that plans were also made to have Starmach also beaten up. 

The Chairman. That is in an affidavit filed before the National 
Labor Relations Board, by this employee, in which he apparently, as 
I understand it, is accusing you of having made plans, according to 
your own statement, to have these people beaten up. 

Mr. Neilsen. Sir, it is not true. 

The Chairman. You say that affidavit is false? 

Mr. Neilsen. Yes, sir ; in respect to that, it is false. 

The Chairman. It did not happen ? 

Mr. Neilsen. No, sir. 

The Chairman. There is no objection to your seeing it if you want 
to see it. 

Mr. Neilsen. No; I just don't make that kind of statement, and I 
know it is false. 

The Chairman. All right, proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. You have had some difficulty with the law, yourself, 
have you not, Mr. Neilsen ? 

Mr. Clinton. Mr. Chairman, this question was put to this wit- 
ness in my office and it was answered responsively. It serves no leg- 
islative purpose at all to procure the answer to it. The fact is in the 
committee's records and I see nothing but just plain brutality in 
bringing it out at this time, and this place. 

The Chairman. Well, now, we have this problem : We have been 
showing in the course of these hearings that people who are employed 
or sometimes appointed officials and so forth of unions are people 
who have bad reputations, have been convicted of crime and been 
charged many times. 

We have been a little bit critical of it. I have, I am sure. Possibly 
other members of this committee have been of that class of people, 
people with such background as that being placed in a position of 
authority and trust with respect to union members. 

I do not want to discriminate, but I want to be just as fair with 
one as the other. I do not even know what the answer is. When we 
have labor people in here or their representatives in here, if we are 



6098 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 

going to shoAv their background I see no reason wliy we should not 
show the background of- business people, particularly those represent- 
ing business who are employed to oppose imionism. 

Mr. Clinton. May I just say, Mr. Chairman 

Mr. Kennedy. The reason I asked the question is that on two mat- 
tei-s of some importance Mr. Neilsen has said he can't remember the 
connection with Roy Webber and in connection with two mattei-s, 
and then the third matter he denied, and we are going to have some 
testimony on these things as we go along. 

The question of the credibility of the witness is a matter of some 
importance, I believe. But I will discuss it with the chairman and 
for that reason I asked the question. 

(A short recess was taken.) 

The Chairman. "Well, this presents a problem. 

Mr. Clinton. May I make an additional statement, Mr. Chairman? 

The Chairman. You may in a moment. As far as actually serving 
a legislative purpose, my thouglit is, as we have been investigating the 
practices of certain unions and certain union officials and the employ- 
ment and placing in position of authority of people with past criminal 
records, if it would not have any legislative purpose there, it would 
not have here. 

If it has one there, it may liave one here because when we go to 
legislate, I think maybe both sides of this issue, both the labor and 
the management side are going to receive some attention. I do not 
understand how we could veiy well have a rule to apply here when 
we are interrogating the labor people and then dispense with that iTile 
when we go to interrogate those representing business or industry. 

All right, you may make a statement, Mr. Counsel. 

Mr. Clinton. I do agree, Mr. Chairman, that certainly you and 
the distinguished members of the committee are entitled to know the 
facts and when the question Avas put it was answered responsively in 
my office as far back as May, so that you have a complete information 
about this particular witness. 

But I do think that there are other considerations that you 
ought to bear in mind, and I respectfully suggest them for your con- 
sideration. This particular incident occurred some 18 years ago, and 
tliis man has been rehabilitated and he is living with a wife and his 
children and he has to bring them up. 

To disclose it here would result m a kind of publicity wdiich would 
be in effect, striking at his children and his wife. I do not see any 
value, or any necessity in the deliberations of the committee in that 
regard. I think it is unnecessaiy and it is brutal to do it. I hope that 
you will rule that the question need not be answered. 

The Chairman. Well, the only thing I know to do is to hold a 
conference of the committee here at some time and discuss it. I do 
not want to take the full responsibility. 

Can you proceed with some other questions ? 

Mr. Kenni:dy. As far as I am concerned, it has been answered, that 
Mr. Neilsen did have some difficulty, and it was just prior to your 
going to work for ]Mr. Shefferman ; was it not ? 

NoAV, we can leave it at that, and I don't care to pursue it bevond 
that. 

Mr. Clinton. Let us leave it at that. 



IRIPROPER ACTRTTIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 6099 

Mr. Kennedy. If the committee wants to leave it at that, I have no 
objection, but you did have some difficulty just prior to going to work 
for Mr. Shelferman. 

The Chaiemax. For the present, go ahead and I want the commit- 
tee to pass on it. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were you passing out membership cards for the 
membership council, Mr. Neilsen ? 

Mr. Neilsen. You are talking about Boston ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. 

Mr. Neilsen. Yes ; I had cards in the suite and when the committee 
would come in they could pick them up and take them with them and 
it was a handy place for them to pick up their cards. 

Mr. Kennedy. That was membership for this council, this sup- 
posedly employees' council of Sears, Roebuck ? 

Mr. Neilsen, That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, there was an unfair labor practice charge 
brought in Boston in 1953 ? 

Mr. Neilsen, Yes, sir; I understand there was. 

Mr. Ivennedy. And the name Guft'y was brought up at that hear- 
ing, before the examiner : was it not ? 

Mr. Neilsen. I understand it was. 

Mr, Kennedy. Your activities were discussed ? 

Mr. Neilsen. I understand so. 

Mr. Kennedy. You were in Boston at that time ? 

Mr. Neilsen. Yes, sir; I was in there during part of the hearing, 
I am sure. 

Mr. Kennedy. What kind of work were 3'ou doing then ? 

Mr. Neilsen. Meeting with some of the committee on this problem. 

Mr. Kennedy. You were continuing the same operation that the 
Board was looking into at that time ? 

Mr. Neilsen. I was. At that time, I was talking with them pri- 
marily about grievances in the place. 

Mr. Kjennedy. But j'^ou were also looking into this same matter 
that you had been looking into, over 5 or 6 months ? 

Mr. Neilsen. In my opinion, the time of the meetings I had in 
Boston, during the hearing and from then on, were primarily con- 
cerned, I think almost entirely concerned, with different grievance 
problems and so on. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. Didn't you meet with Mr. Giammasi during this 
period, of time giving him advice on the continuation ? 

Mr. Neilsen. Yes ; I met with him. 

Mr. Kennedy. On the continuation of the committee, did you not? 

Mr. Neelsen. Yes ; although it wasn't 

Mr. Kennedy. Wasn't this during the same period of time in which 
the examiner from tlie National Labor Relations Board was having a 
hearing ? 

Mr. Neilsen. During part of the time. 

Mr. Kennedy. "Wliat was your name then ? 

Mr. Neilsen. Fred Warren. 

Mr. Kennedy. You had given up "Guffy" and you were now Fred 
Warren ? 

Mr. Neilsen. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were you at a different hotel ? 

Mr. Neilsen. Yes, sir. 



6100 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EN THE LABO'R FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. You were meeting these same people at a different 
hotel under the name of Warren ? 

Mr. Neilsen. Yes ; I stayed in several hotels. 

Mr. Kennedy. 'Wliile the National Labor Relations Board was ex- 
amining into your activities under the name of "Guffy" ? 

Mr. Neilsen. That part I didn't know. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you know that the National Labor Relations 
Board was looking for you during that period ? 

Mr. Neilsen. I heard rumors but no one told me definitely they 
were. The reason I moved from the hotel was because the people 
coming to my meetings felt they were being followed by other em- 
ployees. 

Mr. Kennedy. The company knew that they were looking for you, 
did they not ; Sears, Roebuck ? 

Mr, Neilsen. I assumed so, but I wasn't advised they were looking 
for me. 

Mr. Kennedy. You said you heard rumors of it. 

Mr. Neilsen. Nobody told me definitely that the Board was looking 
for me, nobody from the Government. 

Mr. Kennedy. You never had any discussion about it and you never 
went down to the Board and said, "Can I throw light on this by telling 
you what was going on up here ?" 

Mr. Neilsen. I did not. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did the company ever suggest that you do that? 

Mr. Neilsen. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. They had you back there under the name of "War- 
ren" pursuing the same activities, is that right ? 

Mr. Neilsen. Well, I was back there and I was under the name of 
Warren while part of the Board hearing was going on. 

Mr. Kennedy. Where else did you set up vote "no" committees? 
You told us Englander, and where else ? 

Mr. Neilsen. I believe in Louisville. 

Mr. Ivennedy. What company down there? 

Mr. Neilsen. Pilcher, P-i-1-c-h-e-r, Co. 

]\Ir. Kennedy. Who was J. Smith down there ? 

Mr. Neilsen. He was an attorney for the vote "no" committee. 

Mr. Kennedy. You paid the attornej^ down there? 

Mr. Neilsen. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. A^Hiere else ? 

Did the company know you were doing this down there ? 

Mr. Neilsen. I tliink so, the man who I worked under on that, the 
man I worked with, was the manager of that particular factory, but 
he is no longer with the company now, and I forget his name. 

Mr. Kennedy. A^Hiere else? 

Mr. Neilsen. Michigan City, Ind. 

Mr. KJENNEDY. "Wliat company there? 

Mr. Neilsen. Englander. 

Mr. Kennedy. "VA^iere else ? 

Mr. Neilsen. Well, I told you about Austin, Ind. 

Mr, Kennedy. Any other places ? 

Mr. Neilsen. I can't recall any others. 

Mr. Kennedy, ^^^lat has been your relationship with Harold 
Gibbons ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN" THE LABOR FIELD 6101 

Mr. Neilsen. He has been a friend of mine for, I don't know, 8 
or 10 years. 

Mr. Kennedy. Would you discuss these matters with him directly 
about your activities ? 

Mr. Neilsen. When we were together we didn't discuss business 
unless I have a particular problem I ask advice on. We are friends. 

Mr. Kennedy. You handled the matter at Sears, Roebuck and St. 
Louis ? 

Mr. Neilsen. Yes ; I handled the negotiations there for them for a 
good many years. 

Mr. Ivennedy. Have you had many conversations with Mr. Harold 
Gibbons on that? 

Mr. Neilsen. When I was down there handling the problems with 
his local 688, 1 used to talk to him very frequently. The negotiations 
were generally handled by his own negotiations committee and another 
man. 

Mr. Kennedy. As you know, you have a large number of telephone 
calls to Mr. Harold Gibbons. 

Mr. Neilsen. Sure ; he is a friend. 

Mr. Kennedy. And entertainment of Mr. Gibbons. 

Mr. Neilsen. Certainly. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is all in connection with this Sears, Roebuck 
store and all charged to Sears, Roebuck. 

Mr. Neilsen. If it is charged to Sears, Roebuck store, it is in con- 
nection with Sears, Roebuck store. 

Mr. Kennedy. Entertainment of union officials, for instance here, 
April 23, 1953, $139. 

Mr. Neilsen. That is probably right. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is Mr. Gibbons? 

Mr. Neilsen. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. You must have 25 or 30 telephone calls to Mr. Gib- 
bons. 

Mr. Neilsen. That could be. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you talk to Mr. Hoffa at all ? 

Mr. Neilsen. Your committee has asked me that a number of times 
and I don't ever remember talking to Mr. Hoffa on a telephone or 
otherwise. Now, if his name appears anywhere, I still don't think I 
ever talked to him about anything. 

Mr. Hoffa would not know me if he were to walk in here and see 
me here. 

Mr. Kennedy. You do not remember talking to him in connection 
with Florence Stove Co. ? 

Mr. Neilsen. No, sir; I would have no occasion to talk to him. 

Mr. Kennedy. You have it on your records that you made a tele- 
phone call. 

Mr. Neilsen. I don't know how that happened because I would 
have no reason to talk to him and he would not know who I was if 
I called him. My records must really be wrong. The only other thing 
that might have happened on that, and I rem.ember talking to your 
committee about it, I did try to reach Gibbons on the Florence Stove 
matter and Gibbons wasn't in his office and I miglit have tried to reach 
Gibbons through Hoffa 's office, to put it down that way, aud I don't 
know. 



6102 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. Was Gibbons' local involved in that matter? 

Mr. Neilsen. No, and I just wanted to talk to him for advice. 

Mr. Kennedy. On how you should handle the matter^ 

Mr. Neilsp:n. No, on Avho he might know that I could meet, to help 
settle the 6-week strike. 

Mr. Kennedy. And it w^as settled, was it not ^ 

Mr. Neilsen. Yes; it was settled. 

Mr. Kennedy. When 3'ou got down there 

Mr. Neilsen. Not with any help from Mr. Gibbons. 

Mr. Kennedy. But you were able to settle it ? 

Mr. Neilsen. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Ivennedy. I guess that is all. On the Boston situation, just to 
see if I am correct, the literature that was passed out by this employees' 
council was financed by the company and the lawyer for the council 
had his bill paid by the company and you paid tlie employees for 
whatever they did for the council, did you not, and you handed out 
these cards for the employees' council ? 

Mr. Neilsen. That is a long statement. 

Mr. Kennedy. There are four things that I see here : The employees 
being paid ; the employees that were the head of the council and ran 
this council were paid by you, is that right ? 

Mr. Neilsen. Reimbursed, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. The literature was financed ? 

Mr. Neilsen. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And the lawyer was paid by you ? 

Mr. Neilsen. lie was paid for a mmiber of things. 

Mr. Kennedy. $-3,500 he was paid by the company, and then the or- 
ganizational cards were distributed by you. 

Mr. Neilsen. Well, I had them. 

Mr. Kennedy. Just answer the question. 

]\Ir. Neilsen. We sent them out, sure. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you say you know nothing about Eoy Webber 
being fired, you never discussed that ? 

Mr. Neilsen. I don't recall anything about that at all. 

The Chairman. Senator jVIcNamara ? 

Senator McNamara. Mr. Chairman, I want to say at the outset that 
I agree Avith your ruling that since we have asked previous witnesses 
about their past police records, tliat it is going to be a little hard for the 
committee to defend itself if charged with unfair practices if we deal 
differently with representatives of management. I might add in that 
regard that this witness we had before us made the statement that a 
private detective was hired to clieck on an officer of the Retail Clerks 
Union in this instance, and that he was checking on this party being 
a sex pervert. I think that was a little brutal, too. I think we have 
been quite brutal in the past. Since the pattern is already set, I want 
to say that I agree with you, even though it is brutal, that it would 
be improper for us to treat a representative of one side differently 
than we do the other. That is all. 

Senator Goldwater. Mr. Neilsen, did I understand you to say that 
you are a lawyer ? 

Mr. Neilsen. I was a lawyer. 

Senator Goldw^ater. You had law training ? 

Mr. Neilsen. Yes, sir. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IK THE LABOR FIELD 6103 

Senator Goldwater. And you have been 14 years in labor-manage- 
ment relations ? 

Mr. Neilsen. Yes, sir. 

Senator Goldwater. Longer than that ? 

Mr. Neilsen. Yes. I have been with Mr. Shefferman over 14 years, 
and I handled problems of this type before I came with Mr. Sheffer- 
man. 

Senator Goldwater. My question is merely to clear up one point. I 
am afraid it might be left in people's minds, particularly reading the 
record without clarification, that what you did would be against the 
law for a company to do. 

Are you acquainted with section 8 (c) of the Taft-Hartley law? 

Mr. Neilsen. Yes, sir. 

Senator Goldwater. Is it not true that had Sears, Roebuck or any 
company — and it is Sears, Roebuck in this particular case — wanted to 
express views, arguments, or opinions or to disseminate them, or 
whether they were in vrriting or visual form, that they would have a 
right to do that under the Taft-Hartley ? 

Mr. Neilsen. That is correct. 

Senator Goldwater. I wanted to clear that up, Mr. Chairman, be- 
cause I was afraid that it might rest in some people's minds that the 
company did not have the right to do that under the Taft-Hartley. 
They did not have that under the Wagner Act. 

Mr. Clinton. That is correct. It was doubtful. 

May I add one short statement, Mr. Chairman? Absent the ele- 
ment of pressure and intimidation, absent the element of reward, it is 
very doubtful that it is against the law for an employer to finance a 
vote "no" committee. 

The Chairman. Well, whether it is against the law or not against 
the law, the committee's purpose is to develop the facts and practices 
that are being engaged in today, and tlien to undertake in its best 
wisdom and judgment to make recommendations with respect to those 
acts that we think are improper. 

Mr. Kennedy. I would like to say, Mr. Cliairman, that we had Mr. 
Bachman before the committee and we have looked into this matter. 
The setting up of a spontaneous committee, supposedly spontaneous, 
having it set up by the company and financed by the company is an 
unfair labor practice as far as the study and investigation we have 
made, and it is also sustained by Mr. Bachman, who used to work for 
Labor Relations Associations. I don't think there is anj^ question but 
where a vote "no" committee, this type of operation, set up, which is 
supposed to be spontaneous, while, in fact, it is being run and operated 
by the company, is an unfair labor practice. 

Mr. Clinton. I disagi'ee. 

The Chairman. Lawyers often disagree. Call the next witness. 

Mr. Kennedy. Angelo Giammasi. 

The Chairman. You do solemnly swear that the evidence you shall 
give before this Senate select committee will be the truth, the whole 
truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God ? 

Mr. Giammasi. I do. 



6104 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 

TESTIMONY OF ANGELO GIAMMASI 

The Chaikmax. State your name, your place of residence, and your 
business or occupation. 

Mr. GiAMMASi. My name is Angelo G. Giammasi, 7 Woodland Road, 
Hyde Park 36, Boston, Mass. I work for Sears, Roebuck, in the 
Brookline Avenue store in Boston. I am in the parts and services 
department. 

The Chairmax. Do you waive counsel ? 

Mr. Giammasi. I do. 

The Chairman. Proceed. 

Mr, Kennedy. Mr. Giammasi, you were against the affiliation of 
the employees council with the retail clerks, is that right, in January 
of 1953? 

Mr. Giammasi. I was. 

Mr. Kennedy, You attended the meeting and although the vote was 
some 9 to 1, you felt that more time should have been given to the 
opposition ; is that right ? 

Mr. Giammasi. Right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Shortly afterward, after the vote of affiliation, did 
you meet with Mr. James Guffy ? 

Mr. Giammasi. I did. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were you told to meet with Mr. Guffy ? 

Mr. Giammasi. I was. 

Mr. Kennedy. And by whom ? 

Mr. Giammasi. Mr. Gannon, 

Mr. Kennedy, Who is Mr. Gannon ? 

Mr. Gia:m:masi. ]Mr. Gannon was the coordinator for the council, for 
both Cambridge and Boston. 

Mr. Kennedy. That was the old council, the unaffiliated council? 

Mr. Giammasi. The original unaffiliated council. 

Mr. Kennedy. He told you to see Mr. Guff'y ? 

Mr. Giammasi. I was told to see Mr. Guffy. 

Mr. Kennedy. What did Mr. Guffy say to you ? 

Mr. Giammasi. When I first met with IVIr. Guffy I had the impres- 
sion he was here in Boston to help out the council and maintain the 
council at any cost. I also understood at the time that he came 
into Boston on some checkup of a morals case of some kind. 

Mr. Kennedy. And what do j^ou mean, that he was going to main- 
tain the council at any cost? 

Mr. Giammasi. Well, I understood he was from the Chicago office. 
I understood he was from Sears, Roebuck. With this in mind, I went 
along with his talks, because I thought he was going to back up and 
help us maintain the council which we thought at the time we were 
more or less — I don't know the exact words for it, but from the Lennox 
Hotel meeting, which was supposed to be an affiliation meeting, we 
thought at the time that the meeting was not correctly conducted. 

Mr. Kennedy. So that we understand what the facts are — in Janu- 
ary of 1953, the council voted to affiliate with the A, F. of L. ? 

Mr. Giammasi. That is riglit. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you objected to it ? 

Mr. Giammasi. Yes, sir. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 6105 

Mr. Kennedy. A short time afterward you met with Mr. Guffy, and 
there was another council. Then two councils came into existence, 
right? 

Mr. GiAMMAsi. Well, actually I had the impression that it was the 
same council. 

Mr. Kennedy. I am not going to get into that, whether the other 
council was wrong, or your council was wrong. But there were two 
councils, right, one for affiliation with the A. F. of L., and one inde- 
pendent or unaffiliated ? 

Mr. GiAMMAsi. Eight. 
~ Mr. Kennedy. And Mr. Guffy, his activity was promoted toward 
this unaffiliated council ; is that right? 

Mr. GiAMMASi. Correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. But most of the officers had gone over with the one 
that voted to affiliate with the A. F. of L. ; is that right ? 

Mr. GiAMMASi. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. When you went up and saw Mr. Guffy, what sugges- 
tions or recommendations did he make to you at that time ? 

Mr. GiAMMASi. It is pretty hard for me to remember word for word. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did he have at that time a list of the employees ? 

Mr. GiAMMAsi. At the time that I saw Mr. Guffy, he had a piece of 
paper with, I suppose, some names on it, which he read or had in his 
memorj\ I don't know. I did not see the names. But he had a piece 
of paper in his possession which I assumed he was reading from, some 
names of some of the employees, and he asked me about some of these 
employees and what I thought of them in regard to them being of any 
help in the contest for the council. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did he give you any money at that time, on the first 
visit ? 

Mr. GiAMMAsi. I don't think so. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was that subsequently that he gave you money ? 

Mr. GiAMMAsi. It was a little later. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wiat did he tell you about keeping this opposition 
secret ? 

Mr. GiAMMAsi. He told us, us meaning Mr. Gannon, and this prob- 
ably was at the second meeting — he did tell us that the council was 
going to be maintained at any cost, and that some things that were 
being done were being done and should be done on the QT and not 
to let anybody know about them. 

Mr. Kennedy. For what reason did he say ? 

Mr. GiAMMASi. I understood that it had something to do with the 
Taft-Hartley Act. 

Mr. Kennedy. "Wliat did he say about it ? 

Mr. GiAMMAsi. Actually, as I said, I don't know the exact words. 

Mr. Kennedy. What diet he say about what he was doing in con- 
nection with the Taft-Hartley ? 

Mr. GiAMMAsi. He said that what he was doing was against the 
Taft-Hartley Act. 

Mr. Kennedy. And, therefore, would have to be kept quiet? 

Mr. GiAMMAsi. It would have to be kept secret. 

Mr. Kennedy. You met with him on several occasions, did you? 

Mr. GiAMMASi. I did. 

Mr. Kennedy. And did he get some cards for you to hand out? 



6106 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. GiAMMAsi. Yes. When I saw him, it could have been the first 
or the second meeting, he had some cards which were mimeographed 
cards. Mr. Gannon had those cards. Mr. Gannon gave them to 
me. He got them from Mr. Guffy. Where Mr. Guffy got them, I 
don't know. 

(At this point Senator Gold water left the hearing room.) 

Mr. Kennedy. These were declaration of rights? 

Mr. GiAMMAsi. Declaration-of -rights cards. 

Mr. Kennedy. Declaration-of-rights cards which were to show 
that you were in favor of the unaffiliated council, is that right? 

Mr, GiAMMAsi. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you were to pass them out among the em- 
ployees ? 

Mr. GiAMMxVSi. We were supposed to circulate those cards and see 
that the employees would sign them, and they were to be returned 
to Mr. Gufl'y with the notation, if they didn't want to sign it, why 
they didn't want to sign it. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did he entertain you and pay your bills during 
this time ? 

Mr. GiAiMiMASi. As far as I know, he must have, because I didn't. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did he also start giving you money ? 

Mr. GiAMMAsi. He did. 

Mr. Kennedy. How much money did he give you originally? 

Mr. GiAMMAsi. I remember at one time he gave me something 
like — I made some notes on this because I didn't really take uny 
minutes of all this. I just am guessing at the amounts. But it is^ 
somewhere near right. I think the first time he gave me somewhere 
around $125, $100 or $125. 

The Chairman. "\VliRt was that for? 

Mr. GiAMMASi. I understood from him — of course, I didn't ask for 
this, but I was given the money with the understanding that I was 
losing time off the floor as a salesman, a commission salesman. Also, 
I was losing my mileage, which was part of the setup on a commission 
salesman. And because of the time spent off the floor, he told me that 
I had nothing to worry about, and that I would be taken care of. So 
we commenced to receive this money. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were you the only one who received the money? 

Mr. GiAMMASi. As far as I know. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did he tell you that 3'^ou would have nothing to worry 
about financially if you continued in this work? 

Mr. GiAMMASi. He told me that I had nothing to worry about, and 
he guaranteed me that we were going to win out and the council would 
win, and for this I was to keep on fighting for the council, and that I 
would have nothing whatsoever to worry about as long as we fought 
this thing through. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did he help you or assist you with the literature? 

The Chairman. I never did get the full amount of the money. I 
interrupted you. Go ahead and tell the rest of the money. 

Mr. GiAMMAsi. Well, as far as I can figure out, in spasms he used 
to give me some, maybe $50, $60, or whatever he thought he wanted to 
give me, and I would say probably within the whole time that Mr. 
Guffy was connected with us in Boston, I probably collected from him 
somewhere around $500. I am guessing at that figure. It could be a 
little less or a little more. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 6107 

The Chairman. I interrupted you a while ago, but I wanted to get 
that in the record. 

Mr. Kennedy. What about the literature ? Did he assist you with 
the literature ? 

Mr. GiA3iMAsi. Mr. Guffy assisted with some of the literature with 
Mr. Gannon and myself. 

Mr. Kennedy. He gave you some assistance on how the literature 
was to be ? 

Mr. GiAMiMAsi. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. What about Roy Webber? Did you ever discuss 
Roy Webber with him ? 

Mr. GiajNimasi. There was some talk about Roy Webber. 

Mr. Kennedy. Roy Webber had been the leader, as I understand 
it, for affiliation with the A. F. of L. ? 

Mr. GiAMMAsi, That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. And when you heard that Roy Webber was fired, 
did you make an objection to it ? 

(At this point Senator Gold water returned to the hearing room.) 

Mr. GiAMMASi. Wlien Roy Webber was fired, I made my objection 
then, but before he was fired, I heard that they were checlnng on him 
and I understood they were going to do something about it, him and 
a couple of others who they were supposedly checking on. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wlio is "they" ? 

Mr. GiAMMASi. I don't know who was checking on him. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who reported that to you ? 

Mr. GiAMMASi. Mr. Guffy. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Guffy reported to you about checking on Roy 
Webber? 

Mr. GiAMMASi. That is right. 

Mr. KIennedy. And about checking on these other people ? Is that 
right? 

Mr. GiAMMAsi. He said — to be specific, he said that in due time 
those people would be taken care of. That, whatever this meant, 
was left to me right there. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Guffy said that to you ? 

Mr. GiAMMASi. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wlio paid for the literature that you put out? 

Mr. GiAMMASi. Some was paid by — I assume Mr. Gannon paid for 
it. I suppose he got it from Guffy. Some of it was paid by my own 
local 1 council and some was paid by local 2 council of Cambridge. 
Some was paid by check. Most of it was paid in cash. 

Mr. Kennedy. There was a hearing by the National Labor Rela- 
tions Board in Boston, was there, during this period of time ? 

Mr. GiAMMASi. There was. 

Mr. Kennedy. And charges by the council affiliated with the retail 
clerks that there had been an unfair labor practice? 

Mr. GiAMMAsi. Right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did Mr. Guffy come to town during that period of 
time? 

Mr. GiAMMASi. I believe Guffy was still in town at that hearing. 
From what I gather now, the name Fred Warren reminds me that 
he must have been there, l3ecause I heard that name mentioned, and 
I am sure he was there while that hearing was going on. 



6108 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. I^NNEDY. Did you meet with liim at all ? 

Mr. GiAMMASi. I think I did. 

Mr. I^JENNEDT. And you remember him under the name of Fred 
Warren. 

Mr. GiAMMASi. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then Mr. Warren, Mr. Neilsen, or Mr. Guffy,, 
wihchever you like, finally departed from town ; is that right ? 

Mr. GiAMMASi. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did anybody else replace him ? 

Mr. Gix\MMASi. Yes. Mr. Jackson. It was a little while later 
when Mr. Jackson fuially talked to me. How long he was in town, 
I don't know. 

Mr. Kennedy. What is Mr. Jackson's first name? 

Mr. GiAMMAsr. I understand his name is Lou Jackson. That 
may not be his riglit name, but we called him Lou. I think his 
name is Lou. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did he continue the same practices as Mr. Guffy? 

Mr. GiAMMASi. Yes. He continued along the same channels as 
Guffy had already started. 

Mr. Kennedy. And this was through the end of 1953, was it, or 
when? Wien did ^Mr. Jackson come, do you know? August? 

Mr. GiAM:\rASi. Yes, I would say around August or September 
of 1953. I am not sure, but it was around that time. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know where he was from? 

Mr. GiAMMASi. I understood he was from New York, but that 
he was also here on orders from Sears-Roebuck, the Chicago office. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was he the representative of Labor Relations As- 
sociates in New York ? Did you understand that ? 

Mr. GiAMMASi. I didn't laiow that. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did vou know if lie was from the same office as 
Mr. Guffy? 

Mr. GiAMMASi. I didn't laiow that, 

]Mr. Kennedy. Did he continue to paj' you? Did he pay you 
any money? 

Mr. GiAMMASi. He didn't right off, but a little later on as we got 
to talking about these things, and I was having no money for com- 
ing, and my week's pay was onlj^ $52, I kind of mentioned it to JMr. 
Gannon, and Mr. Gannon relayed it to Jackson, and by a round- 
about way he got to talking to me about it, this Jackson did, and 
he said, "Well, I don't know what I can do for you, except this: I 
will give you some today" — I think it was $35 or something like 
that, and he said he didn't have any more, otherwise he probably 
would have given me a little more. But later on I got a little extra 
from him. Somehow, an envelope was sent to Mr. Rohrdanz, I be- 
lieve. Mr. Rohrdanz at the time was, I was told, personnel relations 
manager for the Boston store. 

Mr. Kennedy. And did he make arrangements to give you this 
little extra money ? 

Mr. GiAMMAsi. It could be that ]Mr. Jackson made arrangements 
with Mr. Rohrdanz. 

Mr. Kennedy. VHio did you get the money from, actually? 

Mr. GiAMMASi. I got the envelope from Mr. Rohrdanz. I don't 
know whether he knew what was in it or not. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 6109 

Mr. Kennedy. How much money did you receive altogether, ap- 
proximately, from Mr, Jackson, tlu'ough Mr. Rohrdanz directly? 

Mr. GiAMMASi. Well, including this envelope and I don't know 
whether this was a balance due me from Mr. Guffy's guaranty that 
he had given me, after he left so fast from Boston, it was about 
6 or 7 weeks, and I suppose it could be part of that 

Mr. Kennedy. How much money did you receive ? 

Mr. GiAMMASi. I would say from Mr. Jackson, including that en- 
velope, probablv a couple of hundred dollars, $200 or something like 
that. 

Mr. Kennedy. $200 or $300 ? 

Mr. GiAMMASi. It could be. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you receive also an increase from the company 
itself? 

Mr. GiAMMASi. I didn't receive any increase in my pay. But later 
on Mr. Jackson arranged for me to get a voucher from the company, 
$20 a week. 

Mr. Kennedy. You were working for the unaffiliated council ; is that 
right? 

Mr. GiAMMASi. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did Mr. Jackson say he was interested in the un- 
afliliated council also ? 

Mr. GiAMMASi. I understood — I don't know whether he said so or 
not, but I understood from him that he was to carry on the same as 
Mr. Guffy, and at any cost we were going to beat the retail clerks, 
AFL, and retain the council. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did that idea remain through to the end ? 

Mr. GiAMJMASi. This whole system remained the same until the Na- 
tional Labor Relations Board gave a decision and a vote was asked by 
the National Labor Relations Board. And about this time I dis- 
covered that there was some dissension as to whether a council un- 
affiliated should go on the ballot. 

Mr. Kennedy. So what did Mr. Jackson say ? 

Mr. GiAMMASi. Mr. Jackson didn't want the unaffiliated 

Mr. Kennedy. So, about 3 days before the election was to be held, 
did he withdraw his support from the council ? 

Mr. GiAMMASi. We finally got — if I may say so, we finally got the 
imaffiliated council on the ballot for the National Labor Relations 
Board. 

Mr. Kennedy. But did he withdraw? I am talking about Mr. 
Jackson. Did he tell you that the unaffiliated council should now, 
instead of being in favor of the unaffiliated council, should now be 
against any union at all ? 

Mr. GiAMMASi. Yes. Mr. Kennedy, after our name went on the 
ballot, and we fought like the dickens to get on there, because we 
found out at that particular time that they didn't want us to be on 
the ballot, they called us in at a meeting. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who is "they" ? Jackson ? 

Mr. GiAMMASi. Mr. Jackson and Mr. Gannon. We went to this 
meeting, and at this meeting the question came up of a letter which 
was either already written or was written while I was on the way 
over there, but the letter was being drafted. This letter was read 
to me. I don't know exactly who read it, but someone read it in that 



6110 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

meeting. I objected to that letter because of tlie woi-dintr- The 
reason I objected to it was because after fightintr for the unatHliated 
council for 2% years, that they should come out at the last minute 
and ask me as the coordinator and appointed chairman to turn my 
back on the people I was trying to interest back into the unaffiliated 
council. 

Mr. KJENNEDY. What actually happened was that they had prepared 
a letter, Mr. Jackson had prepared a letter, and it was going to be a 
letter to the employees of the store, saying although the unaffiliated 
council you had supported, the unaffiliated council, that 5^ou finally 
thought that the best thing was to withdraw the support from the 
unaffiliated council and vote against any union because conditions 
were so good in the store, is that right ? 

Mr. GiAMMAsi. Yes. This letter that was drawn up either by Mr. 
Jackson or Mr. Gannon, or both together, was, in a sense, asking for 
no vote. 

]\Ir. Kexxedy. So this Jackson, who was the representative from 
Labor Relations Associates 

Mr. GiAMMASi. That is a union vote. 

Mr. Kennedy. A vote against any union at all ? 

Mr. GiAMMAsi. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. He sponsored your withdrawing your support of the 
unaffiliated council, is that right ? 

Mr. GiAMMAsi. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. And suggested that you be against any union at all, 
and that is what you went along on ? 

Mr. GiAMMAsi. Tluit is right. The reason he gave was that it 
seemed nobod}' knew who was on what side at what time. 

Mr. Kennedy. 'N^liat was the hnal vote? 

Mr. GiAMMAsi. The final vote, I don't have the exact figures, but 
I think it was 9 to 1, or something like that, in favor of the no union. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is the letter. 

Mr. GiAMMASi. Maybe I am wrong on that, but it was a no union 
vote. 

Mr. Kenntidy. After that was over, did Mr. Jackson come to you 
and suggest that you might leave Sears, Roebuck ? 

Mr. GiAMMAsi. Yes. But before I get into that, I think I mentioned 
it to you at my meeting with Mr. Sheridan about the letter which I 
previously had written in my own handwriting, which I wanted to 
gubmit to the employees, because of the fact that we were on the 
ballot. That letter, you have a copy of it in my own handwriting. 
And which Mr, Jackson and Mr. Gannon refused. 

Mr. Kennedy. So this letter was sent out ? 

Mr. GiAAiMAsi. So the other letter was substituted in its place. 

Mr. Kennedy. After the vote and the results being against any 
union at all, did Mr. Jackson then suggest to you that you leave 
Sears, Roebuck completely ? 

Mr. GiAMMAsi. Yes. I met with Mr. Jackson a few time after that. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did he suggest to you at that time that he could 
set you up in a printing business ? 

Mr. GiAMsiAsi. Yes. He suggested that I look around and get my- 
self a press. 



IMPROPER ACrniTIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 6111 

!Mr. Kexxedx. Did lie say that he thought Sears, Roebuck store 
would purchase the press for you i 

Mr. GiAMMAsi. Yes. He told me that Sears was willing to pur- 
chase the press for me if I was willing to go along with the deal. It 
was a deal. That is what I understood. 

Mr. Kexxedt. Do you know why they wanted to get you out of the 
store at that time ? 

^Ir. Glvmjiasi. I had no idea. 

Mr. Kexxedt. Did you understand at the same time that they were 
trying to get out of the store anybody who was involved in this mat- 
ter in any way { 

Mr. GiAAiiiASi. Yes; on either side. I did get that impression; 
yes. sir. 

Mr. Kexxedy. Anybody on either side that knew anything about 
the activities of Mr. Jackson. Mr. Guffy. or, on the other side, that 
they were trying to get those people out of the store ? 

^Ir. GiAMMAsi. That was my impression. 

Mr. Kexxedy. Tliat they either were going to transfer them to 
another store or get them into an outside business ; that is right ? 

Mr. GLA^r^tiAsi. That is true. 

Mr. Kexxedt. TTould you tell us of your experience ? !Mr. Jack- 
sori came to you and said that he would see if they wouldn't set you 
up in a printing business ? 

Mr. Gl^mmasi. That is right. 

Mr. Kexxedt. And he told you to look around and see if you 
coukhi't locate a printing press ? 

Mr. GriAMiiAsi. That is right. 

Mr. Kexxedt. And you found a second-hand one worth about 
$2,500 and you went to him. and he came back, after talking to the 
store, and said that would be too much ; is that right ? 

Mr. Glvmmasi. Tliat is right. 

^Ir. Kexxedt. Then did he say he would be willing to ^ive you 
$1,000 if you would go out and set up a printing business of j'our 
own < 

yir. GiAMMASi. That is right. 

Mr. Kexxedy. And that lie would see that the company give you 
some 

Mr. GiAMMASi. He told me that Sears would give me in addition 
to Pxiy profit sharing, $1,000, if I left Seai^s-Roebuck and went into 
business for myself. 

-\Ir. Ivexxedt. Were they also going to get you certain business ? 

Mr. Gia:mmasi. He said he would see to it that Sears-Roebuck gave 
me some printing business to keep me going. 

Mr. Kexxedt. Did you decide that unless you could get a guar- 
anty that they would give you enough business so that you would be 
able ro pay for the printing equipment over a period of 5 years, you 
wouldn't accept their otf er I 

Mr. Giammasi. Yes, sir. I talked it over with my Avife. I knew 
it didn't sound right. TTe discussed it at home, with her, and we 
came to the conclusion that if we were going to do this, and if I was 
going to be out of Sears-Roebuck, one way or another, it was high 
time I was protectinof myself. So I made him the proiDOsition, and 
I asked him to go back to Sears-Roebuck, if that is what he was domg 

89330 — 57 — pt. 15— — 23 



6112 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES m TELE LABOR FIELD 

business with, and if tlrey would sign a contract for 5 j-ears and pro- 
duce the press, I would go in business, providing they would give me 
the business for 5 years. He said he didn't think this was hardly pos- 
sible, but he would try. 

Mr. Kennedy. And it ultimately ended up 

Mr. GiAMMASi. It ended, as far as I am concerned, although I did 
have a meeting with him, and he said he was sorry that they wouldn't 
go along witli the contract business, and he was sorry he couldn't do 
anytliing for me. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you said you wouldn't accept the $1,000? 

Mr. Gl'immasi. That is right. 

The CiiAiTiMAN. Senator McNamara ? 

Senator McNaimara. You made a remark in reply to a question of 
chief counsel that you were appointed chairman of this council. Do 
you remember that ? 

Mr. GiA]\rMASi. I was appointed coordinator of this council. 

Senator McNamara. You were appointed coordinator but you acted 
as chairman? 

Mr. GiAM:\rAsi. For the time being, until the election took place 
for the officers. 

Senator McNamara. Who appointed you ? 

Mr. GiAMMASi. Mr. Gannon appointed me through the recording 
secretary-treasurer of the supreme board, Edna Donovan. That is 
the way I understood it. I didn't talk, myself, with Edna Donovan 
until a few days later. 

Senator McNajiara. You were appointed, as you understood it, by 
Mr. Gannon through the authority of Edna Donovan ? 

Mr. GiAMMASi. Yes. 

Senator McNamara. What was Mr. Gannon's job ? 

Mr. GiAMMASi. At the time I don't think he had any council office 
at all. 

Senator ]\IcNa3iara. He was an attorney ? 

Mr. GiAMMASi. No. I don't think he is. 

Senator McNainiara. How did you assume that he had any authority 
to appoint you to anything, if you don't know who he was. 

Mr. GiAMMASi. Well, as I say, I understand that Mr. Gannon was 
told by Edna Donovan that whatever he did for the supreme board 
and the council was all right with her. As a matter of fact, she was 
the only surviving officer, actually, who was with us on the unaffiliated 
council. 

Senator IMcNamara. How many members did you have in your 
council at this time ? 

Mr. GiAMisiASi. I would have to have you clarify that because I 
don't know what you mean, sir. 

Senator McNamara. Well, you were appointed to some office by 
Mr. Gannon, and that office made you an officer of a council. Do you 
know how many members were in the council ? 

Mr. GiAMMASi. Well, sir, it is pretty tough to tell you exactly how 
many we had because of the confusion of the whole thing. But we 
could put our hands on maybe 30 people that we knew that were with 
the council yet. 

Senator McNamara. You didn't hold any regularly scheduled meet- 
insfs of this council ? 



IMPROPEE ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 6113 

Mr. GiAMMASi. We didn't hold regular meetings. We did hold some 
meetings of the council. 

Senator McNamara. Did you have the list of the membership ? 

Mr. GiAMMAsi. I had a list of members at the time. 

Senator McNamara. And there were about 30 on your list ? 

Mr. GiAMMASi. Yes. 

Senator McNamara. Thirty out of how many employees? 

Mr. GiAMMASi. Maybe 250 in that particular store. 

Senator McNamara. Thank you. That is all. 

Senator Goldwater. Mr. Giammasi, how much did you get out of 
the profit-sharing plan when you left Sears ? 

Mr. GiAM:NrAsi. I haven't left Sears. 

Senator Goldw^ater. You haven't ? 

Mr. Giammasi. No, sir. 

Senator Goldwater. I am sorry. I thought you had. 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Chairman ? 

The Chairman. Senator Curtis. 

Senator Cltitis. You w^ere in favor of the unaffiliated council, were 
you, all through this controversy ? 

Mr. Giammasi. Yes, sir. I might clarify now that at tlie Januaiy 
21 meeting in the Hotel Lennox, I never knew a Mr. Gannon, and he 
was there, and he objected to the meeting and, of course, I followed 
suit. 

Senator Curtis. But that was your own feeling and it was not 
brought about by pressures from outside ? 

Mr. GiAM]MASi. No, sir. 

Senator Curtis. That is all. 

Mr. Kennedy, As I understand it, you went to Mr. Guffy with the 
idea to get the advice of maintaining the council. Is that right ^ 

Mr. Giammasi. That is right. I thought he was there for that 
purpose. 

Mr. Kennedy. You were interested in maintaining tlie unaffiliated 
council ? 

Mr. Giammasi. Yes, 

Mr. IvENNEDY. And when Guffy left, you went to Jackson for the 
same purpose ? 

Mr. Giammasi. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. And 3 days before the election, Mr. Jackson told 
you that you should all switch your support to no council and no 
union at all? 

Mr. Giammasi. That is right, to which I objected. 

Mr. Kennedy. And nevertheless a letter went out that because of 
the recommendation of Mr. Jackson from Labor Eelations Associates, 
being paid by the company, that you should all swing your support to 
no union at all ? 

Mr. Giammasi. Not only on the recommendation of Mr. Jackson, 
but on the recommendation of Mr. Gannon. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you feel that you were double crossed on this 
matter? 

Mr. GiAisiMASi. Yes. 

The Chairman. Did that letter s:o out ? 



6114 LMPROPER ACTTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

^[r. GiAMMAsi. The letter w;is ciiciilatod the morning of (he vote, 1 
believe, or the Saturday before the vote. It was circulated by our 
own members. 

The CiiAiiotAx. I beo- your pardon? 

Mr. GiAM^EAsi. It was circulated, passed out by hand. 

The Oil AiiorAX. Is this the letter you refer to, or a copy of it i 

(Document handed to witness.) 

Mr. GiASEMASi. That is the letter. I don't have to read it. 

The Chaikmax. That may be made exhibit Xo. '21. 

(The letter referred to was marked ''Exhibit Xo. 21" for reference 
and will be found in the appendix on p. C220.) 

Mr. Kkxxedy. That is all, ^h\ Chairman. 

Senator McNamaka. Who signed it, Mr. Chairman? 

The CiiAiKMAx. Did you sion the letter I 

^[r. GiA:NrMASi. ^ly name is on there. I don't remember signinor it, 
but the name went on there. It was printed. I think one of those 
orticers who was on there. Miss Preston, was not present at the time 
the letter was drawn up. I think her mother was sick at the time. 

The CiiAiK^iAX. Did you sign the letter? Did you ever authorize 
that it be distributed in your name? 

Mr. GiAMMAsi. "We did, at that particular meeting with Mr. Jackson. 

The CiiAiiotAX. All right. 

Call the next witness. 

;Mr. Kkxxedy. Harry Farren. 

The CiiAiKMAx. Do you solenudy swear that the evidence vou shall 
give before this Senate select committee will be the truth, the whole 
truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? 

Mr. Fakkj:x. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF HAREY D. FAKREN 

The Chaikmax. State your name, your place of residence and your 
business or occupation. 

]Mr. F-VRKEX. ^[y name is Harry D. Farren, 1640 "Washington Street, 
West Xewton. I am a former newspaper man, presently self-em- 
ployed as a free-lance writer. 

The Cu ATKMAx. Thank you very much. Do you waive counsel? 

Mr. Fakkex. Yes. sir. 

The CnAiRMAX. Mr. Kennedy, you may proceed. 

Mr. Kexxedt. Mr. Farren, you were interested in the unaffiliated 
council? You were working out in Cambridge, were you, at the Cam- 
bridge store of Sears, Roebuck? 

^[r. Farrex. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kexxedt. How long had you l>een with Sears, Eoebuck? 

'Sir. Fakrex. I came to ^ears. Roebuck in October 1953. 

^[r. Kexxedy. "What was your position there i 

Sir. Farrex. I was working in sporting goods. 

^Ir. Kexxedy. Sporting goods? 

Mr. Farrex'. As an extra. 

Mr. Kexxedy. And you were interested in the unaffiliated council, 
as I undei*stand it. 

Mr. Farrex. I was interested subsequently in it. yes, not im- 
mediately. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 6115 

Mr. Kennedy. Well, in September and October of 1953 ? 

Mr. Farren. Well, no, between October and January of 1953. 

Mr. Kennedy. But your sentiments generally were in favor of the 
unaffiliated? 

Mr. Farren. Rif(ht, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. In October 1953, were you transferred? 

Mr. Farren. No, I was — wait until I get my notes. 

I was at Sears in Cambridge from 1952 — that is right — to November 
of 1953. I went to the Fenway store. 

Mr. Kennedy. Whose position did you take at that time? 

Mr. Farren. Mr. Webber. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you know what had happened to Mr. Webber? 

Mr. Farren. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. "V^Tiat happened to him ? 

Mr. Farren. I knew he had been the center of a great deal of con- 
troversy because of his affiliation with the retail clerks, and that on 
his dismissal I Avas given the opportunity to take his position. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do yon know why they wanted you in there? 

Mr. Farren. Well, I assumed that they felt that whatever I might 
do in the way of persuading and influencing people in the furniture 
department at Fenway, there was a lot of cloak-and-dagger work 
going on in the store, they felt that whatever I might say to influence 
the furniture men who seemed to be the core of resistance to the union 
affiliated council, might be very helpful. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was this a promotion for you? 

Mr. Farren. Subsequently it turned out that way. I was in sport- 
ing goods, and before I was transferred to furniture, I was promoted 
to what they call a white-goods department, refrigerators and deep 
freeze, and then I went from that department to furniture. 

Mr. Kennedy. WHiich was a promotion ? 

Mr. Farren. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you meet with Mr. Louis Jackson after this? 

Mr. Farren. Yes, sir; many times. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did he request that you assist him in influencing 
people against the retail clerks? 

Mr. Farren. He did. 

(At this point Senator McClellan left the hearing room.) 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you assist him in that manner? 

]\Ir. Farren. Yes, sir ; I did. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you receive any money for that ? 

Mr. Farren. Yes, sir. From time to time $20, $10, and that was 
paid to me for time that 1 spent off the floor as a commission sales- 
man to go to these meetings at the hotel in the evening or afternoon. 

Mr. Kennedy. But it wasn't for any expenses that you had ? 

Mr. Farren. No; just for the loss of commission, that is all, for 
the time I would be off the floor. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you knoAv if they were also paying loss of com- 
mission to those in the company who were losing commissions because 
they were in favor or devoting time to the retail clerks? 

Mr. Farren. Gee, I couldn't answer that, Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you work with him for the unaffiliated council? 

Mr. Farren. Yes ; I did. 



6116 niPROPER ACTRITIES EN' THE L-\BOR FIELD 

Mr. Kexxedy. Did you work for Mr. Jackson? 

Mr. Farrex. Eight. 

Mr. Kennedy. How much money did j^ou receive altogether ? 

Mr. Farrex. During that period of time, I would say somewhere 
between $200 and S300, in small sums. 

Mr. Ivexx'edy. Did you also meet with Mr. Ed Robey ? 

Mr. Farex. I didn't meet with Mr. Robey until sliortly before the 
election. He came into the picture very late. 

Mr. IvEX'XTDY. Was he also from Labor Relations Associates? 

Mr. Farrex^. Yes, sir. 

Mr. IvEX*x'EDY. You understood that ? 

Mr. Farrex'. Right. 

Mr. Kex'xedy. "\Vere you for the unaffiliated council up until the 
very end? 

]\rr. Farrex'. Yes, sir. 

]Mr. Kexxedy. And then Mr. Jackson liad vou switch over to vote 



no 



Mr. Farrex". T^et me explain it very briefly to you. My activities 
insofar as this whole operation is concerned were very nominal. Let 
me put it that way. I was a working salesman and I was more inter- 
ested in making my commissions than I was in dealing in any particu- 
lar cau.se. I did promise them that I would help to influence the fel- 
lows in the furniture department. But besides that, I didn't. T\Tien 
it came to the vote "no" committee, I said I wanted no part of it, and 
they agreed that that was all right, but would I recommend some 
people that I thought were interested in the vote "no." At that time, 
in the Fenway store, the general atmosphere was completely defeatist, 
that there would be any union or unaffiliated council, and I think heads 
had rolled in this process. I don't rememl^er just exactly avIio, but 
the Bailey case, and 2 or 3 people had been discharged, and there was, 
I would say, a considerable fear on the part of man}' of the employees. 
I felt the tactic of vote "no"' was a very good one, because it would 
take a lot of people off the hook. 

(At this point Senator McClellan returned to the hearing room.) 

Mr. Kexx'edy. At the same tmie that Mr. Jackson was supporting 
the unaffiliated council, there was also an operation for vote "no": is 
that right ? 

Mr. Faerex'. As far as I recollect, Mr. Kennedy, the vote "no" 
committee sprang up within 48 or 72 hours prior to the election. 

Mr. Kexx-edy. Just after this meeting that the unaffiliated council 
had? 

^Ir. Farrex*. I assume so, sir. 

^Ir. Kexx'edy. Did you have a meeting with Mr. Shefferman? 

Mr. Farrex. Yes : I did. 

Mr. KJEX'XEDY. Did he make any offers or propositions to you ? 

Mr. Farrex. "Well, he, as I recollect, didn't directly. Jackson, Lou 
Jackson, had mentioned to me that because of my past background 
and writing on matters pertaining to labor-management relations 
that they would be more or less happy to have me come to Chicago at 
some later date and try out, as it were, with Labor Relations Asso- 
ciates. 

^Ir. Kex'xedy. And they also wanted to move you out of the Boston 
store ? 



ijmpropeb activities in the labor field 6117 

Mr. Farren. That would be to go to Chicago, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you agree subsequently to go to Chicago ? 

Mr. Farren. Yes ; I did. 

Mr. Kennedy. What financial arrangements did they make with 
you prior to going there ? 

(At this point Senator McNamara left the hearing room.) 

Mr. Farren. Mr. Shefferman called me from Chicago and said that 
he was going on a trip ; that he would be gone several weeks ; that I 
should take a leave of absence from Sears, Roebuck — this is in June of 
1956 — and that Mr. Jackson would be in Boston and meet with me, 
and he would paj me $800, $400 of which would be to sustain my fam- 
ily while I was m transit, more or less, and the other $400 to sort of 
tide me over when I arrived in Chicago. 

Mr. Kennedy. If you would come to Chicago and start to work 
for him ? 

Mr. Farren. Right, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was this after the election ? 

Mr. Farren. This is after ; yes. This is in June, and the election, I 
recollect, was in May. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you ultimately go ? 

Mr. Farren. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. You received $800 in cash ? 

Mr. Farren. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. And then you went 

Mr. Farren. To Chicago in June and worked with Mr. Shefferman 
until August. 

Mr. Kennedy. And then you left and came back to Boston ? 

Mr. Farren. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. For what reason do you think they wanted to give 
you tliis job ? What is your best judgment on tliat ? 

Mr. Farren. There were no other jobs for me in Sears, Roebuck at 
that particular time. It would give me the income I needed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you understand they wanted to get you out of 
Boston ? 

Mr. Farren. I would assume so. 

Mr. Kennedy. Is that what you understood ? 

Mr. Farren. I am assuming that. They didn't tell me that. As a 
matter of fact, when I left Chicago, in all fairness to Shefferman, he 
did offer me, I think it was $9,000 a year plus expenses to stay with 
them, and my wife was with me at that meeting with Mr. Shefferman 
and we decided to decline the offer and return to Boston. You can't 
actually say that he wanted to get rid of me. I mean, that would be 
untrue. 

Mr. Kennedy. The people that were for the unaffiliated council, for 
the vote "no" committee and for the retail clerks, were a good number 
of them moved out of Boston ? 

Mr. Farren. There was a lot of shuffling around going on, and as I 
said prior, there was a case of Bailey who got moved up in a sex 
deviation case and then there were 3 or 4 people that I remember that 
were caught pilfering either merchandise or money from the cash 
register, and they were dismissed. 

As I recollect it, most of them were people who were in opposition 
to the unaffiliated council. 



6118 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kkxnedy. xViiybody tliat "Wfis involved in this operation fit all, 
on both sides, were you aware of an effort for tliose people involved on 
either side, to move them out of Boston ? 

Mr. Farren. Yes; that was generally accepted. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is all. 

Senatoi- Goldwater. Mr. Farren, you mentioned in the course of 
3'our testimony that you wrote on labor-management subjects? 

Mr. Farren. Yes, sir. 

Senator Goldwater. AVhat was your background on that? 

INIr. Farren. From the time I was a Hearst newspaperman ; I was a 
labor reporter with Hearst for some time. 

Senator Goldwater. "\Miat paper ? 

Mr. Farren. I worked on many of them. I started in Boston and 
worked on the New York Mirror and Washington Herald and with 
International News Service in New York and back in Boston on the 
American. 

Senator Goldwater. Do you think that had any bearing on your 
employment in Sears ? 

Mr. Farren. I doubt it very nuich because at the time that I made 
application for the job — as a matter of fact, I did not make the appli- 
cation but mj^ wife did, and just to get extra work over Christmas. 
We were having tough financial sledding and she went over and made 
the application for extra work. I didn't do anything about that until 
I actually made my application and put that down as my background. 

Senator Goldwater. How did the AFL contact the employees of 
Sears relative to their interests ? 

Mr. Farren. As I recollect it, they circulated men through the store 
and I knoAv that it was like a Falstaffian comedy. When one of the 
retail-clerk operators would enter our store, they w^ould be followed 
by the 211 men, the detectives in the store, plus the store manager and 
the assistant manager and the personnel director when they were 
attempting to make contact with the employees. It was pretty ludi- 
crous. 

Senator Goldwait:r. Were these people representing the AFL em- 
ployees of Sears ? 

Mr. Farren. Yes ; at that time they were ; yes, sir. 

Senator Goldw^ater. They were employed. Who was paying them 
for their time off ? 

Mr. Farren. If they were being paid at all, it must have been 
through the union. I am sure that Sears wasn't paying them. 

Senator Goldwater. That is all. 

The Chairman, All right, call the next witness. 

Mr. Kennedy. James R. Donoghue. 

The Chairman. Do you solemnly swear that the evidence you shall 
give before this Senate select committee shall be the truth, the whole 
truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God ? 

Mr. Donoghue. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF JAMES R. DONOGHUE 

The Chairman. State your name and your place of residence and 
your business or occupation. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 6119 

Mr. DoNOGHUE. James E. Doiiogliue, 4 Parksicle Avenue, Brain- 
tree, Mass. My place of employment, Sears television department in 
Boston store. 

The Chairman. Do you waive the right to counsel ? 

Mr. DoNOGHUE. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Donoghue, how long had you been working for 
Sears, Roebuck ? 

Mr. Donoghue. Sixteen years, seven months, and I don't know how 
many days. 

Mr. Kennedy. In what position ? 

Mr. Donoghue. From stock purchase to salesman. 

Mr. Kennedy. In 1953 you were in favor of the retail clerks, were 
you ? 

Mr. Donoghue. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And did you feel in 1953 tliat you had been let down 
by Mr. Webber and by others, that could have brought the retail clerks 
in if they had been active in tlieir work, but they declined to be ? 

Mr. Donoghue. I believe Mr. Webber let everything down, but I 
also believe Mr. Myers, and the whole retail clerks, let the whole 
thing down. All they were interested in was collecting of the dues. 
We had a Labor Relations hearing in Boston and at the time I was 
on vacation and I went down. 

In other words, rather than spend my vacation, I went to the bank 
and I had a money order for their dues to be made out. The vice 
president, Mr. Myers, came on from Washington and he turned 
around and sent a telegram to my house for the money of the dues- 
paying members, and I thought he was in town mainly for the trial 
at the Labor Relations Board. 

Mr. Kennedy. But you were generally disappointed in the opera- 
tion of the retail clerks ; is that right ? 

Mr. Donoghue. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And w^ere you approached by a friend of yours, Mr. 
John Lind, to work in connection with the teamsters ? 

Mr. Donoghue. I wasn't aproached. I met him from time to time 
and then he mentioned the teamsters and I was willing to go along 
with it. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. John Lind had originally been an organizer for 
the retail clerks ? 

Mr. Donoghue. Yes, sir. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. And did Mr. Shefferman arrange for Mr. Lind — this 
is in 1953 — did Mr. Shefferman arrange for Mr. Lind to get a job 
with the laundry workers as an organizer ? 

Mr. Donoghue. That I don't know. 

Mr. Kennedy. But you know he went as an organizer for the 
laundry workers. 

Mr. Donoghue. I knew about a month afterwards, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then, did he start to do some work in the Sears, 
Roebuck store for the teamsters ? 

Mr. Donoghue. There was nothing mentioned on that until some- 
time in 1954. 

Mr. Kennedy. In 1954 he started to work for the teamsters? 

Mr. Donoghue. Yes, sir ; I believe so. 



6120 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr, Kennedy. And because of your disgust with the operation of 
the retail clerks, you went to him and said that you would help with 
the teamsters ; is that right ? 

Mr. DoNOGHUE. No; I didn't. In other words, I was willing to 
listen to anything that went along and I didn't go along with any- 
body until the thing vras right to the end. 

Mr. Kennedy. But anyway, you were talking to Mr. Kind ? 

Mr. DoNOGHUE. I had several talks with him. 

Mr. KJENNEDY. Did you meet with Mr. Jackson at all during that 
time ? 

Mr. DoNOGHUE. I never met Jackson in my life, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. You never met Jackson i 

Mr. Donoghue. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And did you meet the representative of the team- 
sters up there, Mr. Dominic Zenga? 

Mr. Donoghue. I met with Mr. Zenga once at the Hotel Lennox, 
and another time, in fact several times when I was down in the Cold 
Spot department he was going into Mr. Rawlings' office and he was 
claiming that he was negotiating the contract of the Sears service. 

Mr. Kfnnedy. Did he tell you that if the retail clerks put a picket 
line around the service station of Sears Roebuck that the teamsters 
would go through it ? 

JVIr. Dono(5iiue. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, did you receive any money from Mr. Lind or 
anvone else, trying to influence people in favor of the teamsters dur- 
ing 1954? 

Mr. DoNOtJHUE. Yes ; at parties ; yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy, Approximately how much money did you receive? 

Mr. DoNajHUE. $125, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was that to try to influence people in favor of the 
teamsters against the retail clerks? 

Mr. Donoghue. In other words, to get a group together, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you know that Mr. Lind was in conference with 
Mr. ShelTerman about the matter? 

Mr. Donoghue. I knew he had known him and I don't know of any 
conferences he had, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were you having some difficulty in making money 
in the position that you were holding and Mr. Lind made arrange- 
ments to have you transferred to a better department ? 

Mr. Donoghue. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. After joii indicated that you would help the 
teamsters ? 

Mr. Donoghue. I didn't indicate, and I didn't go. As I said, I 
didn't do anything until the end of the whole thing, sir. In other 
words, I was supposed to have a committee of 30 people in which I was 
involved myself, and I wouldn't put an^-body else in the middle. 

Mr. Kennedy. You told them that you had a committee of 30 ? 

Mr. Donoghue. They asked me if I could get a group and I told 
them I would net about 30 people. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you haA'-e 30 ? 

Mr. Donoghue. No. sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, just prior to the election, was there a conversa- 
tion and a conference with you regarding a use that would be made of 
vour automobile ? 



rMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD G121 

Mr. DoNOGHUE. I knew Avliat was happening to my automobile be- 
forehand ; yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you have a talk with Mr. Lind among others, 
about your automobile ? Let me ask you this : Was it agreed by you 
with other? that you would allow your automobile to be wrecked just 
before the election, that it would then appear to people that the retail 
clerks wrecked your automobile and this would get the employees of 
the store to vote against the retail clerks ? 

Mr. DoNOGiiUE. I had let my car be wrecked on the one condition 
that nothing would happen to any of the people that were organizing 
that worked in the stoi-e for the retail clerks and tliat agreement was 
accepted. 

They did not bother anybody that was left, or anybody that was 
organizing for the retail clerks that held with them to the end and 
nothing liappened to them and I went on that one agreement. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you park your car ? Where did you park your 



car 



Mr. DoNOGiiUE. At the same place I always did, in the lot across the 
street from the store. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did Mr. Lind tell }70u what was going to happen 
to the car ? 

Mr. DoNOGHtT:. I knew bef oreliand, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy . You knew beforehand ? 

Mr. DoNOGHTjE. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. That something would happen to your automobile ? 

Mr. DoNOGHUE. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you knew" the reason was so that the retail 
clerks could be blamed for it ; is that right ? 

Mr. Donogpiue. I believe so, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. What did they do to your automobile? What ar- 
rangements were made and what did tliey do to it? Did they slash 
the tires ? 

Mr. DoNOGHUE. They ice picked the tires 'and put a brick through 
the window. 

]\ir. Kennedy. Then it was the following clay, or the following 
few days, this wrecking of your automobile was blamed on the retail 
clerks ? 

Mr. DoNOGHUE. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were you reimbursed for the harm done your auto- 
mobile ? 

Mr. DoNOGHUE. No, sir. Well, I was given three tubes, I believe. 

Mr. Kennedy. By whom ? 

Mr. Donoghue. By the store to put in my car. 

Mr. Kennedy. Sears, Roebuck gave you that ? 

Mr. Donoghue. The car was over there and they put tubes in it 
and I never was charged for them, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is Sears, Roebuck ? 

Mr. Donoghue. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And then the insurance took care of the rest? 

Mr. Donoghue. They took care of the window, yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, did you hear or know that there were two 
individuals that were hired by Sears that were to do nothing else but 
organize for the teamsters ? 



6122 IMPROPER ACTIVITTES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. DoNOGiiuE. I knew of two people that were organizing over in 
the warehonse and I knew one of them by name and that is all. 

Mr. Kennedy. And their job was to organize for the teamsters. 

Mr. DoNOGHUE. I believe they were organizing for the teamsters. 

Mr. Kennedy. Being paid by Sears ? 

Mr. DoNOGHUE. As far as I know, they were over there working, and 
I don't know. In other words, I had nothing to do with them over 
there. 

Mr- Kennedy. Did you understand that these two people were hired 
by Sears and to work at the warehouse to do organizing ? 

Mr. DoNOGiiuE. T didn't know, and I took it for granted that they 
were organizing for the teamsters. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you discuss with anybody in the company the 
fact that your car was going to be wrecked ? 

Mr. DoNOGHUE. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who made the arrangements for you to be reimbursed 
for the tubes by the company ? 

]\Ir. Donoghue, The only thing — in other words, they were fixed 
over in the service station and I went in to Mr. Romizer and I asked 
him about the charge and he said just forget about it. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is Mr. Romizer ? 

Mr. Donoghue. He was the manager of the store. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is all. 

Senator Curtis. In the first instance you were for the retail clerks 
union ? 

Mr. Donoghue. I was for the retail clerks up until the time when 
they turned around and turned their backs to the employees. In other 
words, at the end, I believe it was. 

Senator Curtis. Before you got to the end, but during the early 
part of their efforts in there, you agreed with them and you were 
for them ^ 

Mr. Donoghue. I worked right with them until the time Mr. House- 
right and the retail clerks agi-eed to split up the whole setup there. 
In other words, they sacrificed the Cambridge store and then there 
Avas one unit between Central Service and Boston and they agreed 
to an election in a split. 

They refused to bring it to the Supreme Court or bring it into 
any court and all along they had promised that there would never be 
another election and if they liad it they would fight it right up to the 
courts, which they did not do. 

Senator Curtis. What was this reference that you made to their 
desire to collect dues? That was a moment ago in answer to Mr. 
Kennedy's question. 

Mr. Donoghue. That is the dues ? 

Senator Curtis. You said something about their desire to collect 
dues. 

Mr. Donoghue. All they were interested in was collecting the dues 
and not in the people. 

Senator Curtis. T\^iich union ? 

Mr. Donoghue. The retail clerks, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Well then, later you joined up with the teamsters 
group, is that right? 

Mr. Donoghue. I was going along with them. In other words, I 
didn't do anything on it for the teamsters. In other words, I was 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 6123 

asked to get a committee and I told tliem that I had 30 men, which I 
did not have, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Why did you go with the teamsters ? 

Mr. DoNOGHUE. When you were in the middle of everything, sir, 
after awhile you start looking for yourself, sir. 

Senator Curtis. But all through this you felt that you wanted a 
union in the store ? 

Mr. DoNOGHUE. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. When did you start working for Sears ? 

Mr. DoNOGHUE. March 13, 1941, the second time. The first time 
was at the Christmas rush of 1940, 

Senator Curtts. Are you still working for them ? 

Mr. DoNOGHUE. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Were you one of the leaders of the retail clerks 
at any time, or one of the officeis ? 

Mr. DoNOGHUE. When the treasurer, the originally elected treasurer, 
dropped out, they asked me to become the treasurer. 

Senator Curtis. So you have worked out there about 16 years. 

Mr. DoxoGHUE. Sixteen years and 7 months, sir. 

Senator Curtis. What is your present position ? 

Mr. D()N0GHUE. Salesman. 

Senator Curtis. That is all. 

The Chairman. Is there anything further? 

Mr. Kennedy. There is one thing I want to clear up. 

John Lind at this time, while w^orking on the teamstei-s, was ac- 
tually on the payroll of the laundry workers union, is that right? 

Mr. DoNOQHUE. That I don't know. I believe he was, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. I know that you don't want to get anybody else into 
difficulty, so I will phrase the question carefully. You talked over 
the wreclving of your car with Mr. John Lind prior to the time it was 
wrecked ? 

Mr. DoN(JGHUE. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. I am not saying that he was the one that gave in- 
structions for it, but you did have a conversation with him prior to 
that time, is that right 'i 

Mr. DoNOGHUE. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. All right. Thank you very much. 

Senator Goldwater. I have a question, Mr. Chairman, of counsel, 
which I wish to clear up. 

In the New York Times of Sunday, October 27, there appeared a 
list of organizations linked to Labor Relations Associates. I was 
just wondering if the counsel could tell me of these firms listed how 
many were contacted by committee personnel, 

Mr. Kennedy. Senator, we did it on the basis of the fees that were 
paid. Some of those companies paid very small fees. We did it first 
on the basis of the fees that were paid, to find out whether it was worth 
while going into. We contacted 50 companies that paid tlie largest 
fees. Some of them, as has been brought out, paid maybe only a cou- 
ple or $300 a year to Labor Relations Associates consultants. 

Senator Goldwater. Have you determined how many of the firms 
have been guilty of violations of the Taft-Hartley law? 

yir. Kennedy. We can have that. I might say that many of the 
companies, in fact, almost the majority of the companies that we 



6124 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

went into were not trntkfiil with us when we asked them about their 
rehations with Mr. Shefferman. And how many are involved in things 
that we are looking into here, I will have to give you that figure 
tomorrow. 

Senator Goldwater. Do you know how many cases have been liled 
with the NLKB involving these firms. 

Mr. Kennedy. No, I do not. 

Senator Goldwater. Could you find that out ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Of the 50 ? 

Senator Goldwater. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. We can write to them. 

Senator Goldwater. That is not too important, if you can answer 
the second question : 

How many finns have been guilty of Taft-Hartley violation ? 

Mr. Kennedy. In our estimation ? 

Senator Goldwater. Well, that would be in the NLRB estimation. 
I would like to know yours, too, was the committee tlie source of this 
list? 

Mr. Kennedy. No. Well, I believe a member of the committee was. 
No staff member was. 

Senator Goi>dwater. j\[r. Chairman, I do not want to be critical of 
the committee staff, and I am certainly not — — 

IVIr. Kennedy. This didn't come from the staff of the connnittee. I 
will say that. 

Senator Goldwater. I think a list like this, connected with a man 
who is being investigated, is guilt by association. I have heard a 
lot of criticism in my 5 years here of that type of release. I think 
it should be made clear by the committee counsel just what viola- 
tions are included with this list, to the end that many firms in there, 
who I have known for many years, are not falsely associated with 
something we are investigating. 

The Chairman. Counsel, did you release the list ? 

Mr. Kennedy. No, we did not. 

The Chairman. Did any member of the staff release it ? 

Mr. Kennedy. No. There were a number of Senators on the com- 
mittee who requested the list. The list was furnished under the rules 
of the committee, and the list appeared in the newspapers. But the 
list did not come to any newspaperman from a member of the staff of 
this commiteee. 

Senator Goldwater. That satisfies me. I don't think it is proper 
to put out a list like this at the time we are investigating them. 

IMr. Kennedy. I agree. 

The Chairman. The staff Avouldn't put out a list like that without 
consulting the chairman. Of that I am confident, because the chair- 
man had not heard of it. 

Senator Goldwater. I wanted to clear that up, because there are 
about 425 firms here who should be heard from. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is right. 

The Chairman. The committee stands in recess until 10 o'clock in 
the morning. 

(The following committee members were present at time of recess: 
Senators McClellan, Goldwater, and Curtis.) 

("N^^iereupon, at 4:20 p. m. the committee was recessed, to recon- 
vene at 10 a. m. Tuesday, October 29, 1957.) 



INVESTIGATION OF IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE 
LABOR OR MANAGEMENT FIELD 



TUESDAY, OCTOBER 29, 1957 

United States Senate, 
Select Committee on Improper Activities, 

IN THE Labor or Management Field, 

Washington, D. 0. 

The select committee met at 10 : 30 a. m., pursuant to Senate Reso- 
lution 74, agreed to January 30, 1957, in the caucus room, Senate 
Office Building, Senator John L. McClellan (chairman of the select 
committee) presiding. 

Present : Senator John L. McClellan, Democrat, Arkansas ; Senator 
Irving M. Ives, Republican, New York; Senator Pat McNamara, 
Democrat, Michigan; Senator Barry Goldwater, Republican, Ari- 
zona; Senator Carl T. Curtis, Republican, Nebraska. 

Also present : Robert F. Kennedy, chief counsel ; Pierre E. G. Salin- 
ger, investigator; Walter Sheridan, investigator; Ruth Young Watt, 
chief clerk. 

The Chairm^vn. The committee will be in order. 

(Members of the select committee present at the convening of 
the session were Senators McClellan, Ives, and McNamara.) 

The Chairman. We will proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Raymond J. Compton. 

The Chairman. Mr. Compton, will you come forward, please? 

Will you be sworn? You do solemnly swear the evidence you 
shall give before this Senate select committee shall be the truth, the 
whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God ? 

Mr. Compton. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF RAYMOND J. COMPTON AND HARRY H. KUSKIN 

The Chairman. State your name and your place of residence and 
your business or occupation. 

Mr. Compton. Raymond J. Compton, 300 Monticello Boulevard, 
Alexandria, and I am employed as chief legal assistant to the Chair- 
man of the National Labor Relations Board. 

The Chairman. How long have you had that position, Mr. 
Compton ? 

Mr. Compton. To Judge Leedom, I have been about a year. Prior 
to that time I was also chief legal assistant to Board Member Reynolds 
and Board Member Peterson, and so since Taft-Hartley I have been 
in this capacity. 

The Chairman. How long have you been connected with the Na- 
tional Labor Relations Board ? 

6125 



6126 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

JVIr. CoMPTON. About 20 years. 

The Chairman. About 20 years. 

Mr. CoMPTON. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. You have counsel present with you, to represent 
you? 

Mr. CoMPTOx. He is my associate and assistant. 

The Chairman. Will you be sworn, too, sir, as we may desire to 
interrogate you. 

You do solemnly swear tliat evidence you shall give before this 
Senate select committee sliall be the truth, the Avhole truth and nothing 
but the truth, so help you God i 

Mr. KusKiN. I do. 

The Chairman. Be seated and state your name and place of resi- 
dence and your business or occupation. 

Mr. KusKiN. Hany II. Kuskin, 2511 Harmon Road, Silver Spring, 
]\Iu.. and I am associate cliief legal assistant to chairman of the board, 
Bo3^dLeed{)m. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much. 

xVll right, you may proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, there have been some questions raised 
about some of the practices of various employers in connection with 
unions and antiunion activity, and I thought it might be well if we 
had somebody from the National Labor Eelations Board to discuss 
the act, and some questions we might have to ask him on specific events 
as to whether they are violations of the Taft-Hartle}^ Act or unfair 
labor practices under the Taft-Hartley Act. 

( At this point, Senator Curtis entered the hearing room.) 

Mr. Kennedy. Specitically, 1 would like to ask you if a union comes 
in to organize an employer, as an exanqile the retail clerks come in to 
organize an employer, an<l the employe]- is against the union, and if the 
employer t:;kes action eitlier himself or througli an agent and gets an 
outside agent to set up a group of em])loyees and the purpose of the 
employees' group Avhicli is formed into a committee, is to oppose union- 
ization, is that an unfair practice ? 

Now, in the event the employees' committee is financed by the com- 
pany directly or ii 'directly and there is literature passed out by this 
em])loyees' committee and that is financed by the company directly or 
indirectly; and the third element is that the lawyer is brought in to 
advise this em]:)loyees' committee and he is financed by the company 
either directly or indirectly — when I talk about "indirectly" I mean 
through a third party, an outside party. 

Now, in your opinion, Avould this action on the part of the company 
constitute an unfair labor practice? 

Mr. CoMPToN. I would say it would. It woidd constitute a viola- 
tion of section 8 (a) (1), which pi-events an employer from any inter- 
ference or ]-esti'aint of its employees in their attempts to organize. 

Senator Curtis. How long is that section S (a) (1) that you re- 
ferred to ? 

Mr. CoMPTON. 8 (a) (1 ) — how long it is? 

Senator Ci'Rtis. Yes : vou just referred to it. 

Mr. CoMiTON. Well, it is several 1 incs and sentences. 

Senator Cfrtis. T would like to have it read in the record right 
here. This is some' hin.Q- we may want to tujii back to. 

Mr. Co:\rPTox. Yes. sir. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 6127 

Ml'. Kennedy. Here it is. 

Senator Curtis. I will give it to you, and you read the section in 
that you referred to. 

(At this point Senator Gold water entered the hearing room.) 
Mr. CoMPTON. This is section 8 (a) (1) : 

It shall be an unfair labor practice for an employer to interfere with, restrain, 
or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in section 7. 

Would you like to have me read section 7 ? 
Senator Curtis. Yes. 
Mr. CoMPTON (reading) : 

Sec. 7. Employees shall have the right to self-organization, to form, join, or 
assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their 
own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of col- 
lective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, and shall also have the 
right to refrain from any or all of such activities except to the extent that such 
right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organiza- 
tion as a condition of employment as authorized in section iS (a) (3). 

Senator Curtis. Now, is there any other section that restrains the 
employer in contacting a committee or a labor organization? 

Mr. CoMPTON. If any committee that is set up in the plan may be 
found to meet the definition of a labor organization, any assistance of 
any kind to that organization would violate section 8 (a) (2) of 
the act. 

Senator Curtis. Now, that particular section relates to a labor or- 
ganization in the sense it is a defined term, is it not ? 

Mr. Compton. It is a defined term ; yes. 

Senator Curtis. By a ""defined term'' it means in substance that it 
is the collective organization? 

Mr. Compton. To deal with an employer regarding the employees. 

Senator Curtis. And it would qualify as a defined term after it 
became a certified union, would it not? 

Mr. Compton. It does not have to become a certified union. We will 
certify it if it is a labor organization and otherwise it could not be 
certified. 

Senator Curtis. Well, suppose it is a labor organization in other 
establisliments, but has not been recognized as one in the establishment 
in question. Then is it a labor organization within the meaning of 
tliis last section you referred to? 

Mr. CoMPTox. Well, if it could be deemed to be the same organiza- 
tion tliat Mas working in this plant, and had been set up for the 
purpose of dealing with employers with respect to their employees, 
the fact that it had not actually engaged or achieved that status by 
dealing with the employers would not affect its status as a labor 
organization. 

That would be my opinion. It exists for that purpose, generally. 

Senator Curtis. Is a "vote 'no' committee" a labor organization 
within the meaning of this section ? 

Mr. Compton. That I would say would depend upon whether in 
other aspects they met the definition in the act. If that were the bare 
tiling, I would say it did not meet the definition. 

Senator (Vrtis. Now, wnll you read that section we have been 
talking about? 

Mr. Compton. You mean 8 (2), the assistance? 

Senator Curtis. Yes. 

89330— 57— pt. 15 24 



6128 IIVIPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIEOLD 

Mr. CoMPTOx. This is the same thing. 

It shall be an unfair labor practice for the employer to dominate or interfere 
with the formation or administration of any labor organization or contribute 
financial or other support to it : Provided, That subject to rules and regulations 
made and published by the Board pursuant to section 6, an employer shall not be 
prohibited from permitting employees to confer with him during working hours 
without loss of time or pay; 

Senator Curtis. Now, what are the sections relating to the free- 
speech aspects of the employer's rights? 
Mr. CoMPTON. That is section 8 (c). 
Senator Curtis. Would you read that into the record? 
Mr. CoMPTON (reading) : 

The expressing of any views, argvmient, or opinion, or the dissemination 
thereof, whether in written, printed, graphic, or visual form, shall not constitute 
or be evidence of an unfair labor practice imder any of the provisions of this 
act, if such expression contains no threat of reprisal or force or promise of benefit. 

Senator Curtis. Now, were all of those sections enacted at the 
same time? 

Mr. CoMPTON. I believe they were. 

Senator Curtis. They have substantially the same legislative his- 
tory? 

Mr. CoMPTON. Well, of course, you mean as of Taft-Hartley. You 
are not speaking of the old Wagner Act ? 

Senator Curtis. I mean of the Taft-Hartley law. 

Mr.CoMPTON. Of the Taft-Hartley Act? 

Senator Curits. Yes, so would it be correct to say that section 8(1) 
should be interpreted in the light of section 8 (c), and vice versa? 

Mr. CoMPTON. It generally is. 

Senator Curtis. Now, would it be correct to say that section 8 (2) 
should be interpreted in the light of section 8 (c), and vice versa? 

Mr. CoMPTox. That is true. That is generally considered to be 
true. 

Senator Curtis. They have to be taken together ? 

Mr. CoiviPTox. Pardon me. 

(The witness conferred with Mr. Kuskin.) 

Mr. CoMPTOx. I want to make it clear that 8 (c) does not limit 
8(2) entirely. 

Senator Curtis. I did not say they limited it, but they have to be 
read together ? 

Mr. CoMPTox. It would be read together because if we had an 8 (2) 
charge and the 8 (c) issue was raised as to something that he had done 
that was being brought forward as support for an organization, if it 
fell within the 8 (c) language, of course, it would be free speech, and 
be protected. We could not use that as an unfair-labor practice. 

Senator Curtis. What do the terms in section 8 (1), the words, 
"interfere, restrain, and coerce" mean ? Do they mean anything be- 
yond their plain dictionary meaning ? 

Mr. CoMPTox. I would say that the Board in its decisions has per- 
haps arrived at things that might not quite coincide with the plain 
dictionary meaning. We take into consideration in finding that, of 
course, labor conditions, and situations that exist and what the con- 
gressional intent was in prohibiting such type of interference. 

So I would say it would not be exactly coterminous with the defini- 
tion in the dictionary. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 6129 

Senator Curtis. An expression of views, or an argument or an opin- 
ion would not necessarily be interference or restraint or coercion; 
would it i 

Mr. CoMPTor. No, it would not. 

Senator Curtis. What was tlie point in the case that went to the 
court? I believe it is referred to as the Cleveland Trust case; is that 
correct ? 

Mr. CoMrTox. I am sorry, I can't remember that one. 

Senator Goldwater. In order to assist the Senator, I have the 
Cleveland case here. 

Senator Curtis. I lost the book that had it in. I am glad to find that 
you have it. 

Senator Goldwater. Would the Senator yield so that I might put 
pertinent parts of this in the lecoi-d at this point, because I think it is 
very pertinent. 

Senator Curtis. Do you liave the NLRB case or the court case? 

Senator Goldw^ater. I have the court case that reversed the 
decision. 

The Chairman. Let the Chair suggest that if you will mark the 
pertinent parts to have printed in the record, the Chair will order 
tliem printed in the record at this point, and of course, you may refer 
to tliem. 

Senator Goldwater. I would rather have it done that way for ac- 
curacy, but there were only two paragraphs in here that I felt were 
important to this instance. This, I believe, is the only case that we 
have had in tlie courts yet that pertains to the subject we are discussing 
here. 

Some of the language of the court in referring to the opinion, such as 
we are discussing here, said : 

The committee clearly was not a labor organization for the uncontradicted 
testimony shows that it was formed for the sole purpose of ojiposing unioniza- 
tion, that it worked to that single end, and was disbanded after the election. 

The opening statement in paragraph (7) says : 

The finding and decision of the Board that the respondent committed an un- 
fair labor practice by paying for the mimeographing and distribution of letters at 
the request of employees who opposed union representation cannot be sustaineo. 

Mr. Chairman, I am not going to bore the group with this entire 
reading, as you suggested, it will be put in the record, but they say 
further that the total expense of mimeographing and distributing 
amounted to $468.24. 

The union conceded at the hearing that it had expended at least 
an equal amount to mailings to the employees various union news- 
papers and literature under the 7 months of the campaign and they go 
on further and state : 

We think the broad provisions of the statute clearly cover and protect this 
action. 

And the final decision of the court was that the petition for en- 
forcement is denied. That is the United States Court of Appeals in the 
Sixth Circuit, Mnj 27, 1954, A^LRB v. The Cleveland Trust Co. It 
is in Federal Reporter, 2d series, 214, on page 95. 

Mr. Chairman, I will submit this for printing. 



6130 IMPROPER ACTR'ITIES IN THE L\BOR FIELD 

The Ciiair:max. Woiikl you indicate to the reporter the section or 
para<2;raphs you wish to have in the record ? 

Senator Goldwater. It is very short and it only covers three pages 
and it is so important to this discussion. 

The Chairman. Do you want all of it ? 

Senator Goldwater. I think the whole thing should be put in the 
record. 

The Chairman. Without objection, it will be printed in the record 
at this point. 

(The decision is as follows :) 

National Labor Relations Board v. Cleveland Trust Co. No. 11966 
United States Court of Ai»i»eals, Sixth Circuit, May 27, 1954 

Proceeding on petition to enforce National Labor Relations Board's order 
directing employer to cease and desist from unfair labor practices. The Court 
of Appeals, Allen. Circuit Judge, held that evidence on issues of whether em- 
ployer had granted wage increases and increased vacations for purposes of 
discouraging union membership, and whether it had interrogated employees 
and warned them to refrain from joining union did not support finding that 
employer had been guilty of unfair labor practices. 

Petition for enforcement denied. 

1. Labor Relations (key) 59^ 

The National Labor Relations Board is not authorized to ignore material 
uncontradicted facts (National Labor Relations Act, par. 1 et seq., as amended, 
20 T'. S. C. A., par. l.")l et seq.; Administrative Procedure Act, par. 7 (c), 5 
U. S. C. A., par. 1006 (c)). 

2. Labor Relations (key) 384 

That employer, in noncoercive letter expressing opposition to union, called 
employees' attention to benefits they enjoyed, and to a general wage increase 
already made, outside usual schedule, the date of increase being advanced 
because of competitive pressure from similar organizations, increased cost of 
living, and threatened wage freeze, did not constitute an unfair-labor practice 
(National Labor Relations Act, par. 8 (c), as amended, 2!) U. S. C. A., par, 
158 (c)). 

S. Labor Relations (key) 3S3 

An employer is entitled, in absence of coercion or promise of benefit, to re- 
count the beneficial effects of the relationship with his employees, without being 
guilty of ;in unfair labor practice (National Labor Relations Act, par. 8 (c). 
as amended, U. S. C. A., par. 158 (c) ). 

4. Labor Relations (key) 556, ol 6 

In proceeding before National Labor Relations Board on unfair-labor-prac- 
tices complaint, evidence did not support finding that vacation increases and 
wage increases had been given to discourage union membership, rather than 
as a result of competitive pressure from similar organizations, increased cost 
of living, and threatened wage freeze (National Labor Relations Act. par. 
8 (c), as amended, 29 U. S. C. A., par. 158 (c) ; Defense Production Act of 
1950, par. 1 et seq., 401, 402 (b) (1), (c), 403 (b), 702 (e), 50 U. S. C. A. 
Appendix: par. 2061 et seq., 2101, 2102 (b) (1), (c), 2103 (b), 2152 (e) ; 
Executive Order No. 10161, 50 U. S. C. A. Appendix, par. 2071 note) . 

5. Labor Relations (key) 539 

In proceeding on unfair labor practices, complaint, wherein employer was 
charged with an unfair-labor practice in awarding a wage increase to discourage 
union membership, burden of proving that the raise was illegal rested upon 
the National Labor Relations Board, National Labor Relations Act (pars. 1 
et seq., as amended, 29 U. S. C. A., par. 151 et seq.). 

6. Labor Relations (key) 393 

Employer was entitled, in view of admitted cost-of-living increase, to increase 
his employees' wages, without being guilty of an unfair-labor practice, and 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 6131 

was not required to refrain from benefiting his employees in order to make 
them more inclined to vote for a union. 

7. Labor Relations (key) 367,380,381 

That employer paid for mimeographing and distributing letters prepared by 
an employees' committee, which was not a labor organization but an antiunion 
group, did not constitute domination or interference with the formation or 
administration of a labor organization or contribution of support to a labor 
organization. (National Labor Relations Act, par. 8 (a) (2), as amended, 2U 
U. S. C. A., par. 158 (a) (2)). 

8. Labor delations {key) 366 

That employer openly contributed to expense of preparing and distributing 
letters, which were written by an employees' committee, which opposed union 
organization, but which contained nothing coercive nor any promise of benefit, 
did not constitute an unfair labor practice. (National Labor Relations Act, par. 
8 (c». 29 U. S. C. A., par. 158 (c) ). 

9. Labor Relations {key) 557,570 

In proceeding on unfair labor-practices complaint, evidence did not support 
finding that employer had been guilty of unfair practices in respect to interrogat- 
ing employees concerning union atfiliation and warning them to refrain from 
joining union. (National Labor Relations Act, par. S (c), as amended, 29 
U. S. C. A., par. 1.58 (c)). 

Frederick U. Reel, Washington, D. C, George J. Bott, David P. Findling, 
A. Norman Somers, Frederick U. Reel, Jean Engstrom, Washington, D. C, on 
brief for petitioner. 

Welles K. Stanley, Carl H. Clark, Stanley, Smoyer & Schwartz, Cleveland, 
Ohio, Hawley E. Stark, Douglas, Stark, Jett & Biechele, Cleveland, Ohio, for 
respondent. 

Before Simons, Chief Judge, and Allen and Miller, Circuit Judges. 

Allen, Circuit Judge. 

This petition to enforce an order of the National Labor Relations Board arises 
out of a complaint charging that the respondent violated the National Labor 
Relations Act (29 U. S. C. A., par. 151 et seq.) in the alleged discriminatory dis- 
charge of employee William Sorger, in the granting of wage increases and in- 
creased vacations with pay to the employees for the purpose of discouraging 
membership and activities on behalf of the union, and that it interrogated em- 
ployees concerning their union aflSliation and membership and warned them to 
refrain from becoming members of the union. 

The trial examiner found that the discharge of Sorger was for cause without 
knowledge of Sorger's activities on behalf of the union and was not discrimina- 
tory. The Board concurred in this ruling, but held that upon the other charges 
the respondent had been guilty of unfair labor practices, and issued the usual 
cease and desist orders. 

Respondent gave its employees two wage increases, one on November 21, 1950, 
and one on April 1, 1951. The union drive for membership was begun in the fall 
of 1950 and open organization meetings were held on October 19th and Novem- 
ber 2d in Cleveland, Ohio. 

The trial examiner foimd that because of a sudden turnover in employment 
in the area, the raising of wages by other employers in competing banks, the 
inflationary trend in the national economy, the rise in income-tax rates, plus the 
threat of a wage freeze, the respondent did not by granting the increase of 
November 21, 1950, violate the Act. 

This finding was not sustained by the Board, which held the increase to be an 
nnfair labor practice because it was announced in a letter which expressed hos- 
tility to the imion. 

The sending of the letter by respondent to its employees, dated November 21, 
1950. which announced a salary increase effective November 15, 1950, came about 
as follows : 

When the union began to organize its cami>aign, some of the bank's employees 
asked their supervisors for information concerning the union. These inquiries 
were referred to management, and the president of the bank gave an extended 
talk to the supervisors. A copy of this talk was mailed to each employee No- 
vember 21, 1950. The statements of fact made in this letter are not con- 
troverted. 



6132 IMPROPER ACnVITIES EN THE LABOR FIELD 

Both the examiner and the Board found that it contained nf> coercive or 
illegal statements and was protected by Section 8 (c) In substance, the super- 
visors were instructed as follows : 

The employees have a right to join a union and to convince others to join so 
long as the campaign is carried on during nonworking time. Employees have 
an equal right to refuse to join the union and to convince others that they should 
not join ; if they have joined they have a right to withdraw. 

The antiunion campaign must also be carried on in nonworking time. Repre- 
sentatives of management can neither threaten nor intimidate employees in the 
making of their choice, nor promise a benefit. Management representatives 
must refrain from interrogating employees regarding union activities, and must 
not ask any employee if he has joined a union or attended union meetings, if 
he knows who has joined, and if he knows who has attended a meeting. 

The letter called attention to benefits enjoyed by the employees, such as grou]) 
life and accident insurance carried without cost to employees and the pension 
plan for employees which had been in effect for many years. It also stated that 
employees with over 19 years' tenure would receive a three weeks' annual vaca- 
tion with pay instead of the two weeks' paid vacation theretofore granted. 

Under Section 702 (e) of the Defense Production Act of I'JoO, this increase 
in vacations with pay was included in the phrase "wasres. salaries, and other 
compensation" (64 Stat. 816) authorized to be stabilized or frozen. 

If the increase in vacation periods had not been granted prior to the issuance 
of the freeze order, January 26, 1951, which was expected to be made shortly, 
the increase in vacations could not have been given without the prior approval 
of the Wage Stabilization Board. 

The reason for the salary increase was stated in the letter to be the recent 
increase in the cost of living, the increase in the federal income tax, and the 
possibility of a threatened wage freeze in the immediate future. 

The vacation increase for the employees with 19 year