'
r^
fs. 13 Ah
Given By
"U. S. SUr^. OF DOCUMENTS
t
3^
INVESTIGATION OF IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE
LABOR OR 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 30, 31, NOVEMBER 1, 4, AND 5, 1957
PART 16
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 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE
LABOR OR MANAGEMENT FIELD
EIGHTY-FIFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
PURSUANT TO SENATE RESOLUTION 74, 85TH CONGRESS
OCTOBER 30, 31, NOVEMBER 1, 4, AND 5, 1957
PART 16
I'rinted 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 Library
SuperiTitonr!p.rit of Documents
JAN 2 9 1958
SELECT COMMITTEE ON IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR OR
MANAGEMENT FIELD
JOHN L. McCLELLAN, Arkansas, Chairman
IRVING M. IVES, New York, Vice Chairman
JOHN F. KENNEDY, Massachusetts KARL E. MUNDT, South Dakota
SAM J. ERVIN, Jr., North Carolina BARRY GOLDWATER, Arizona
PAT McNAMARA, Michigan CARL T. CURTIS, Nebraska
Robert F. Kennedy, Chief Counsel
RCTH YODNG Watt, Chief Clerk
II
CONTENTS
Detroit, Mich., and Related Areas (Sheffekman)
Page
Appendix 657S
Testimony of —
Bellino, Carmine S 6523, 6564
Bender, Fred W 6291
Graff, Max H 6438, 6445
Graham, James 6387
Jackson, Louis 6342, 6367
Kamenow, George 6507, 6524
0
3
5
5
9
7
?
)
J
)
ERRATUM SHEET ,
There are no exhibits numbered 31 and 32. These were >
skipped in the numbering. j
Introduced Appears
on page on page
33. Check No. 803 dated April 4, 1953, payable to Mike
Katz, in the amount of $2,300 and signed bv Shelton
Shefferman '_ 6262 6573
34. Check No. 804 dated April 4, 1953, payable to Western
Union and sent to Mike Katz, in the amount of $500
and signed by Shelton Shefferman 6262 6574
35. Telegram dated August 7, 1956, San Francisco, Calif.,
to Nathan Shefferman, Chicago, from Mike Katz 6265 (**)
36. Letter dated September 20, 1956, on stationery of
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Ware-
housemen and Helpers of America, Washington,
D. C, to Dave Beck and signed bv J. R. Hoffa,
Conference of Englander Locals 6298 6575-
37A. Check No. 3150 dated December 13, 1954, payable to 6577
Fred B. Wheeler, in the amount of $1,000 and signed
by Shelton Shefferman 6321 6578
*Will be found in the printed report.
Boston Public Library
SuperintonHent of Documents
JAN 2 9 1958
CONTENTS
Detroit, Mich., and Related Areas (Shefferman)
Page
Appendix 657S
Testimony of — ■
Bellino, Carmine S 6523, 6564
Bender, Fred W 6291
Graff, Max H 6438, 6445
Graham, James 6387
Jackson, Louis 6342, 6367
Kamenow, George 6507, 6524
Katz, Michael 6241
Kierdorf, Frank H 6527, 6540
Korshak, Sidney R 6274,6283
Langenbacher, Erwin 6445, 6496, 6503, 6536, 6545
MacGregor, Kent L 6475
Mennen, George 6327,6398,6399
Moser, Henry S 6307
Nagle, David 6374, 6393
Oldenburg, Henry 6339, 6399
Pitzele, Merlyn S 6403
Powell, Hyman 6299
Rhodes, William E 6394
Salay, Emile 6469
Salinger, Pierre E. G 6282, 6298, 6556
Schagane, Chester 6451
Schreiber, Abe 6460
Shefiferman, Nathan W 6550, 6556, 6557, 6567
Sheflferman, Shelton 6550, 6556, 6557, 6567
Sheridan, Walter 6555
Shellev, Hon. John F 6294
Skaff,"Donald 6427
Spaulding, George 6483
Thompson, Jack D 6541, 6546
Thrower, Albert R 6493
Wagner, Garfield 6497, 6504
Wheeler, Fred B 6318
EXHIBITS
Introduced Appears
on page on page
33. Check No. 803 dated April 4, 1953, payable to Mike
Katz, in the amount of $2,300 and signed bv Shelton
Sheflferman \ 6262 6573
34. Check No. 804 dated April 4, 1953, payable to Western
Union and sent to Mike Katz, in the amount of $500
and signed b}- Shelton Sheflferman 6262 6574
35. Telegram dated August 7, 1956, San Francisco, Calif.,
to Nathan Shefferman, Chicago, from Mike Katz 6265 (**)
36. Letter dated September 20, 1956, on stationery of
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Ware-
housemen and Helpers of America, Washington,
D. C, to Dave Beck and signed bv J. R. Hoffa,
Conference of Englander Locals 6298 6575-
37A. Check No. 3150 dated December 13, 1954, payable to 6577
Fred B. Wheeler, in the amount of $1,000 and signed
by Shelton Shefferman 6321 6578
**Will be found in the printed report.
Ill
IV CONTENTS
EXHIBITS— Continued introduced Appears
on page on page
37B. Check No. 3151 dated December 13, 1954, payable to
Fred B. Wheeler, in the amount of $1,000 and signed
by Shelton Shefferman 6321 6579
38. Check No. 105 dated December 1954, payable to cash
in the amount of $2,000 and signed by Fred B.
Wheeler 6321 6580
39. Travel expense report made to Labor Relations Asso-
ciates by Fred Wheeler 6321 6581
40. Letter dated May 12, 1954, to employees and signed
by George Mennen 6360 (**)
41. Interoffice memorandum from L. J. to the files. Subject:
Englander, Pittsburgh, and signed by Mr. Louis
Jackson 6364 (**)
42. Interoffice memorandum from L. J. dated June 20,
1955, Subject: Milton Gordon 6365 (**)
43. Slip of paper given to Mr. Graham with the name of
John A. Wyckoff, 9 Burch Drive, Morris Plains,
N. J., MO.-4-6770-M, who is a lawyer 6378 6582
44. Check No. 9180 dated August 15, 1956, payable to
Trans World Airlines in the amount of $1,998.80 and
signed by W. N. Skaff 6434 6583
45. Letter dated April 8, 1954, to Otto Graff, Inc., Flint,
Mich., and signed by Henry Lower, local 299,
Detroit 6439 6584
46. Letter dated April 22, 1954 to Otto P. Graff, Inc., from
Frank Kierdorf, general organizer, General Drivers
Union, Local 332 6441 6585-
47A. Bill charged to Otto P. Graff, Inc., by Labor Relations 6586
Associates, dated June 30, 1954, in the amount of
$1,894.13 6443 6587
47B. Bill charged to Otto P. Graff, Inc., by Labor Relations
Associates, dated June 30, 1955 in the amount of
$600 6443 6588
47C. Bill charged to Otto P. Graff, Inc., by Labor Relations
Associates, dated July 31, 1955, in the amount of
$600 6443 6589
47D. Bill charged to Otto P. Graff, Inc., by Labor Relations
Associates, dated August 31, 1955, in the amount of
$600 6443 6590
47E. Bill charged to Otto P. Graff, Inc., by Labor Relations
Associates, dated September 30, 1955, in the amount
of$400 6443 6591
47F. Bill charged to Otto P. Graff, Inc., by Labor Relations
Associates, dated December 31, 1955, in the amount
of $250 6443 6592
47G. Bill charged to Otto P. Graff, Inc., by Labor Relations
Associates, dated June 30, 1956, in the amount of
$1,325.97 6443 6593
47H. Bill charged to Otto P. Graff, Inc., by Labor Relations
Associates, dated December 31, 1956, in the amount
of $775 6443 6594
48A. Check No. 2383 of Otto P. Graff, Inc., dated July 17,
1954, payable to Labor Relations Associates, in the
amount of $1,894.13 6443 6595
48B. Check No. 6749 of Otto P. Graff, Inc., dated July 16,
1955, payable to Labor Relations Associates, in the
amount of $600 6443 6596
48C. Check No. 7122 of Otto P. Graff, Inc., dated August 12,
1955, payable to Labor Relations Associates, in the
amount of .$600 6443 6597
48D. Check No. 7573 of Otto P. Graff, Inc., dated Septem-
ber 19, 1955, payable to Labor Relations Associates
in the amount of $600 6443 6598
48E. Check No. 7953 of Otto P. Graff, Inc., dated October
18, 1955, payable to Labor Relations Associates in
the amount of $400 6443 6599
**Will be found in the printed report.
CONTENTS V
EXHIBITS — Continued Introduced Appears
on page on page
48F. Check No. 9081 of Otto P. Graff, Inc., dated January
17, 1956, payable to Labor Relations Associates in
the amount of $250 6443 6600
48G. Check No. 1264 of Otto P. Graff, Inc., dated July 23,
1956, payable to Labor Relations Associates in the
amount of $1,325.97 6443 6601
48H. Check No. 3259 of Otto P. Graff, Inc., dated January
28, 1957, payable to Labor Relations Associates in
the amount of $775 6443 6602
49. Check No. 44999 of Advance Electric Supply Co.,
dated December 20, 1954, payable to George Kame-
now, in the amount of $2,000 6454 6603
50A. Bill rendered to Royalite Co. by Labor Relations
Associates, dated December 31, 1954, in the amount
of $705 6466 6604
SOB. Bill rendered to Royalite Co. by Labor Relations
Associates dated January 11, 1955, in the amount
of $800 6466 6605
50 C. Bill rendered to Royalite Co. by Labor Relations
Associates dated February 28, 1955, in the amount
of $800 6466 6606
50D. Bill rendered to Royalite Co. by Labor Relations
Associates dated February 29, 1956, in the amount
of $917.33 6466 6607
50E. Bill rendered to Royalite Co. by Labor Relations
Associates dated March 31, 1956, in the amount
of $856.08 6466 6608
50F. Bill rendered to Royalite Co. by Labor Relations
Associates dated May 31, 1956, in the amount of
$1,350.88 6466 6609
50G. Bill rendered to Royalite Co. by Labor Relations
Associates dated December 31, 1956, in the amount
of $1,287.77 . 6466 6610
51A. Check of Royalite Co. dated December 31, 1954, pay-
able to Labor Relations Associates in the amount of
$705 6466 6611
51B. Check of Royalite Co. dated March 3, 1955, payable to
Labor Relations Associates in the amount of $800- _ 6466 6612
51C. Check of Royalite Co. dated April 13, 1955, payable to
Labor Relations Associates in the amount of $800. _ 6466 6613
51D. Check of Royalite Co. dated March 26, 1956, payable to
Labor Relations Associates in the amount of $512.13- 6466 6614
51E. Check of Royalite Co. dated July 9, 1956, payable to
Labor Relations Associates in the amount of $450.88- 6466 6615
51F. Check of Royalite Co. dated November 5, 1956, pay-
able to Labor Relations Associates in the amount of
$500 6466 6616
51 G. Check of Royalite Co. dated February 18, 1957, pay-
able to Labor Relations Associates in the amount of
$500 6466 6617
52. Bill rendered to Flint Sausage Works, Inc., by Labor
Relations Associates, dated Julv 31, 1956, in the
amount of $2,227.42 and check No. A7997, dated
August 16, 1956, payable to Labor Relations Associ-
ates in the amount of $2,227.42 signed by Emile
Salay 6474 6618
53A. Statement to MacGregor Tire Co. from Labor Rela-
tions Associates dated April 30, 1954, in the amount
of $706.99 6483 6619
53B. Statement to MacGregor Tire Co. from Labor Rela-
tions Associates dated November 30, 1954, in the
amount of $595.08 6483 6620
63C. Statement to MacGregor Tire Co. from Labor Rela-
tions Associates in the amount of $350 6483 6621
54A. Check No. 11697, dated May 19, 1954, payable to Labor
Relations Associates in the amount of $706.99 and
signed by Kent MacGregor 6483 6622
VI CONTENTS
EXHIBITS — Continued Introduced Appears
on page on page
54B. Check No. 12414, dated December 14, 1954, payable to
Labor Relations Associates in the amount of $520.08
and signed by Kent MacGregor 6483 6623
54C. Check No. 12415, dated December 14, 1954, payable to
Labor Relations Associates in the amount of $75, and
signed by Kent MacGregor 6483 6624
54D. Check No. 13578, dated October 20, 1955, payable to
Labor Relations Associates in the amount of $350,
and signed by Kent MacGregor 6483 6625
55A. Statement to Applegate Chevrolet Co., from Labor
Relations Associates, dated August 31, 1954, in the
amount of $2,293.06 6486 6626
55B. Statement to Applegate Chevrolet Co., from Labor
Relations Associates, dated May 31, 1955, in the
amount of $2,105.08 6486 6627
55C. Statement to Applegate Chevrolet Co., from Labor
Relations Associates, dated December 31, 1955, in
the amount of $402.06 6486 6628
55D. Statement to Applegate Chevrolet Co., from Labor
Relations Associates, dated May 31, 1956, in the
amount of $2,100 6486 6629
56A. Check No. 2537, of Applegate Chevrolet Co., dated
September 17, 1954, payable to Labor Relations
Associates in the amount of $2,293.06 6486 6630
56B. Check No. 3483, of Applegate Chevrolet Co., dated
June 15, 1955, payable to Labor Relations Asso-
ciates in the amount of $2,105.08 6486 6631
56C. Check No. 4107, of Applegate Chevrolet Co., dated
January 17, 1956, payable to Labor Relations As-
sociates in the amount of $402.06 6486 6632
56D. Check No. 4780, of Applegate Chevrolet Co., dated
June 19, 1956, payable to Labor Relations Associates
in the amount of $2,100 6486 6633
57A. Statement to Kelly Homes from Labor Relations As-
sociates, dated November 30, 1954, in the amount of
$2,741.81 6495 6634
57B. Check No. 1223, dated June 24, 1955, payable to Labor
Relations Associates, in the amount of $2,124.97,
signed by Albert Thrower of Kelly Development Co. 6495 6635
57C, Check No. 399, dated September 2, 1954, payable to
Merchants & Mechanics Bank in the amount of
$2,000 signed by Albert Thrower of Kelly Develop-
ment Co 6495 6636
58. Telegram dated March 6, 1957, to manager, McDonald
Cooperative Dairy, and signed by Leonard Bennett,
State mediation board 6499 (**)
59A-0. Fifteen statements to McDonald Cooperative Dairy,
from Labor Relations Associates dated from No-
vember 30, 1955, through April 30, 1957, in the
amount of $11,150.94 6502 (*)
60. Daily report of December 14, 1953, of Mr. Kamenow
for mileage expenses in the amount of $480.25 6515 6637
61. Daily report of Mr. Kamenow dated December 18,
1953, entry charged to AwTey Bakery in the amount
of $425, marked "Xmas gifts" 6515 6638
62. Daily report of Mr. Kamenow in the amount of
$1,635.95 for mileage expense 6517 6639
63. Travel expense report, August 25 through 28, 1954,
1954, showing travel expense for August 28, 1954, in
in the amount of $1,991.90 6517 6640
64. Check No. 2736 dated August 30, 1954, payable to
George Kamenow in the amount of $2,000 and
signed by Nathan Shefferman 6518 6641
*Will be found in the files of the select committee.
**Will be found in the printed report.
CONTENTS
vn
EXHIBITS — Continued Introduced Appears
on page on page
65A. Daily report of Mr. Kamenow, dated November 10,
1955, northern trip, Detroit to Iron Mountain in
the amount of $292.36 6520 6642
65B. Daily report of Mr. Kamenow, dated November 18,
1955, northern trip, expenses in the amount of $400_ 6520 6643
65C. Daily report of Mr. Kamenow, dated November 18,
1955, northern trip, travel and miscellaneous ex-
penses in the amount of $703.91 6520 6644
66. Daily report of Mr. Kamenow, dated August 3, 1955,
expenses in regard the Chamberlain Co. in the amount
of $575.50 6521 6645
67A. Check No. 4847, dated January 16, 1956, payable to
George Kamenow in the amount of $1,776.79, signed
by Shelton Shefferman and endorsed Chamberlain
Corp. by Oline Zoller 6522 6646
67B. Check No. 4848, dated January 16, 1956, payable to
George Kamenow, signed by Shelton Shefferman in
the amount of $529.20 and endorsed Chamberlain
Corp. by Oline Zoller 6522 6647
67C. Check No. 5634, dated July 20, 1956, payable to George
Kamenow, in the amount of $2,043.80 and signed bv
Shelton Shefferman '_ 6522 6648
67D-K. Checks, payable to George Kamenow, in various
amounts 6522 (*)
68. Clients to whom George Kamenow charged Christmas
gifts, 1953, 1954, 1955, and 1956 in the amount of
$23,274.93 6524 6649
69. Schedule of selected entertainment and transportation
expenses shown on daily reports for the vears 1953
through 1956, in the amount of $33,710.22 6524 6650-
70. Articles of agreement. Carbonated Beverages — Sales 6652
Drivers and General Drivers Local 142, years 1955-57,
approved by Nathan Shefferman, dated September 3,
1955 . 6555 (*)
71. Memorandum agreement, supplement to and part of
the agreement of November 18, 1953, between Retail
Associates, Inc., on behalf of LaSalle & Koch Co.
with Lion Dry Goods, Inc., and Tiedkte's Inc., and
Lamson Bros., Toledo, Ohio, and signed by Nathan
Shefferman 6556 6653-
72. Document to National Boulevard Bank of Chicago, 6655
dated July 30, 1956, signed by Shelton Shefferman
with order to buy $10,000 United States Treasury
bonds at market 6560 6656
73. Notice of maturity note, dated January 31, 1957, in the
amount of $6,600, sliowing Mr. L. N. Steinberg had
borrowed $6,600 6560 6657
74. Cashier's check No. 977090 dated July 31, 1956, payable
to L. N. Steinberg in the amount of $6,448.20 6561 6658
Proceedings of —
October 30, 1957 6241
October 31, 1957 6327
November 1, 1957 6403
November 4, 1957._ 6427
Novembers, 1957 6507
*WiU be found in the files of the select committee.
INVESTIGATION OF IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE
LABOR OR MANAGEMENT FIELD
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 30, 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 Buildmg, 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, Arizona.
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 come to order.
(Members of the select committee present at the convening of the
session were Senators McClellan, Ives, McNamara, and Goldwater.)
The Chairman. Call your next witness. '
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Mike Katz.
Mr. Katz. Before I am sworn, I would like to make a statement.
The Chairman. You may make a brief statement.
(Mr. Katz made a short statement off the record.)
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. Katz. I do.
TESTIMONY OF MICHAEL KATZ
The Chairman. State your name and your place of residence and
your business or occupation.
Mr. E^Tz. My name is Michael Katz, K-a-t-z. I reside in San
Francisco, Calif.
The Chairman. What is your street address ?
Mr. Katz. No address, please.
The Chairman. What is your occupation ?
Mr. Katz. I was employed as a "rat exterminator" and a Commu-
nist exterminator for 15 years.
The Chairman. Employed as what ?
Mr. Katz. A rat and Communist exterminator. That is right,
Your Honor.
Mr. Kennedy. A rat and Communist exterminator?
6241
6242 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
The Chairman. I hope you were successful.
Mr. Katz. For 10 years we were successful, Senator McClellan.
The Chairman. Are you now employed ?
Mr. Katz. At the present time I am at liberty.
The Chairman. You are at liberty ?
Mr. Katz. Yes.
The Chairman. You waive counsel, do you ?
Mr. Katz. I do.
The Chairman. Now then, if you wish to make a brief statement
under oath, you may do so.
Mr. Katz. All right. Senator.
When I was served the first subpena so dramatically in the post
office in San Francisco, and the newspapers took up the line from there
and all about San Francisco, many of the fine trade unionists asked
me, "What goes?"
I informed them I knew nothing "what goes," except what the
investigator had asked me, and the answers I had given the investiga-
tor to the best of my ability with reference to certain activities.
I did not know what the subpena was about until he had explained
it to me with reference to several people. As time went by, newspaper
reporters on the coast kept on asking me questions, and I knew no
answers until I go to Washington.
Wlien I came the first time to Washington, Mr. Senator, I had a long
conference with 2 more investigators, and they went over another 10
years of my life, what my activities were. I did not know. All I
knew is that I came to Washington to testify under the subpena given
to me as a witness.
I did not know if I was a defendant. All I knew I was a witness.
After 2 days of discussing the matters with the committee investi-
gators who are a little, let us say, hasty, say they are trying to do a job.
The Chairman. You say they are pretty good ?
Mr. Katz. I didn't say they are pretty good. I think they are
reaching out too far.
The Chairman. We will see, and we will get your testimony.
Mr. Katz. That is right and Mr. Senator, up until a week ago when
I finally received word from one of your investigators, to finally come
to Washington, I asked them over the phone and I sent a telegram
to the effect to your office, "Why can't I come on the 21st so I can hear
all of these characters that you have been discussing about." The last
time I was here in Washington I wanted to get a chance to listen to
some of these so-called witnesses.
The Chairman. You are welcome at any hearing, sir. You are wel-
come to be here at any time.
Mr. Katz. I thank you for your return telegram at my request, my
request that I be permitted to come here at the 21st and listen to all
of the testimony. You did answer the telegram and did send me a
ticket finally, round trip.
The Chairman. We sent you the ticket when we wanted you.
All right, Mr. Counsel, proceed.
Mr. Kennedt. You have been in the labor union movement, Mr.
Katz?
Mr. Katz. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. For how long have you been ?
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 6243
Mr. Katz. Twenty-seven years. "
Mr. Kennedy. Twenty-seven years ?
Mr. Katz. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. How did you start out, and what union were you in
originally ?
Mr. Katz. My first strike was the lollypop strike when I was 13
years of age, Public School 25, in New York City.
Mr. Kennedy. A lollypop strike ?
Mr. IL\TZ. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. What union were you in ?
Mr. Katz. At that time we had a students' group there.
Mr. Kennedy. Wliat ?
Mr. Katz. A students' group.
Mr. Kennedy. What union were you in after you got out of school ?
Would you tell us what official position did you hold in unions? I
would like to get a little bit of your backgroiuid and history.
Mr. Katz. For many years I was engaged in activities to organize
the different retail stores, wholesale factories, and manufacturing
plants as an inside worker as we call an inside organizer.
Mr. Kennedy. What is an inside organizer?
Mr. Katz. An inside organizer is a fellow that goes into the plant
and gets a job and does his work and at the same time gets the workers
to bring them out to the union meetings and discuss the problems in the
plant and present to our employer a union contract. That was before
theNKA.
Mr. Kennedy. What unions were you working for, as an inside
organizer ?
Mr. I^TZ. Inside organizer for Sidney Hillman and I worked for
Dubinsky, and I worked for the retail clerks with various different
offices.
Mr. Kennedy. What was your base of operations chiefly ?
Mr. Katz. At that time in New York City.
Mr. Kennedy. You worked in New York City for various unions ?
Mr. Katz. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. You would go in and get hired and then do work
and try to organize the plant ; is that right ?
Mr. Katz. That is right ; that is an inside organizer.
Mr. Kennedy. That is an inside organizer ?
Mr. Katz. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you ever become an official of any union ?
Mr. Kj^tz. No, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. You never did ?
Mr. Katz. I never wanted to be an official.
Mr. Kennedy. You never have been an official of a union ?
Mr. Katz. Not in New York.
Mr. Kennedy. Well, have you been an official any place else ?
Mr. Katz. I have been an official many times after that. I don't
know what you mean by "official," a representative ?
Mr. Kennedy. You moved from New York and where did you go
after that ?
Mr. Katz. I went to California.
Mr. Kennedy. What year was that ?
Mr. Katz. In 1940.
6244 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. Kennedy. Did you continue your work with labor unions
there ?
Mr. Katz. No; I was supposed to go overseas with the Seabees,
and I was deferred because they found out I was a diabetic, so I went to
work in the shipyards as a steamfitter.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you become a union man there ?
Mr, Katz. No, sir; during the time there, there was no activities
at the time because the war was on, and all we did was have fine
labor-management and labor-union committees, with the Government
as chairman at all times. That was until the war was over.
Mr. Kennedy. What did you do then ?
Mr. Katz. After the war was over, it seemed that the gates started
to open to destroy the labor unions in California.
Mr. Kennedy. The gates started to open ?
Mr. Katz, To destroy. Management wanted to destroy the labor
unions in California,
Mr, Kennedy. And were you trying to close the gates, or what ?
Mr, Katz. We were there in front of the gates there to stop the com-
panies from hiring scabs at Bethlehem for the metal trades,
Mr, Kennedy. WIlio were you working for ?
Mr. Katz. I worked for the council at that time.
Mr. Kennedy. Wliat council ?
Mr. Katz. The Metsil Trades Council,
Mr. Kennedy. Was that Joe Roberts you were working for at that
time ?
Mr. Katz. No, sir,
Mr, Kennedy. Go ahead.
Mr. Katz. At that time, there, the company had opened its door in
Bethlehem, the usual practice, to hire nonunion men, and we had a
beef in the yard about maintaining our union contract and seeing that
the employees get their rights. Bethlehem informed us that there
will be no more union here, and with that result a strike ensued. I
was stabbed on the picket line by a scab.
Mr. Kennedy, You were what ?
Mr. Katz. Stabbed on the picket line by a scab, and I refused to
testify against.the man.
Mr, Kennedy, Then what did you do ?
Mr. Katz. After the strike was settled at the Bethlehem Steel, a
call to arms was given on the waterfront in San Francisco. All of
the volunteers rushed to the waterfront because Mr. Bridges, Com-
missar Bridges, with the help of the shipowners, had tried to infringe
on the labor rights of other workers who are unionmen. They were
good Americans.
Mr. Kennedy. What did you do ?
Mr. Katz. Wliat did I do? I participated as an activist on that
waterfront, and volunteers met with Commissar Bridges' men and a
fight ensued, and several of the men were hurt and injured, and after
the riot was over we went back to our respective headquarters.
Mr. Kennedy. Where was your headquarters at that time ?
_ Mr. Katz, At that time, the labor temple, I was working at that
time for Secretary John O'Connell, the immortal John O'Connell.
Mr. Kennedy. And then after you were working for John O'Con-
nell, then what did you do ?
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 6245
Mr. Katz. I participated in every activity against the Communist
Party and Mr. Bridges, Commissar Bridges, to take away or break
up all of the small unions in San Francisco. Every time that they
tried to disorganize an AFL shop plant, the volunteers came out
there to protect the vrorkers at all times.
Mr. Kennedy. You were one of the volunteers ?
Mr. Katz. Yes, sir; one of the volunteers.
Mr. Kennedy. Where were your headquarters then ?
Mr. Katz. In the labor temple in San Francisco.
Mr. Kennedy. You just remained in the temple and when they
asked for volunteers, out you would come.
Mr. Katz. I didn't remain in the labor temple all day. In the
morning at 5 o'clock we went out to organize the different plants,
shops, that the little unions counldn't control because of Commissar
Bridges' activities with the strongarm squads and goons, in front of
these little places, keeping the AFL workers out. This always
started about 6 in the morning because the men used to line up.
Mr. Kennedy. So then you would come out; would you?
Mr. Katz. My volunteers.
Mr. Kennedy. You had people working under you ?
Mr. Katz. Nobody worked under me. Every man was a volunteer.
Mr. Kennedy. All of you volunteers would rush out ?
Mr. Katz. From the labor temple, and we would rush out in cars,
trucks, and taxis ; that is correct. The San Francisco Police Depart-
ment has the full record. We rushed out there.
Mr. Kennedy. Speaking of records, have you had some difficulty
with the police ?
Mr. Katz. I have had many difficulties with the police. We are
talking about, as you said, Mr. Counsel, what goes in San Francisco
with myself and my activities. That is what I want to answer.
Mr. Kennedy. Then what happened? For what period of time
was all of this going on ?
Mr. Katz. This went on, it took us almost about a year before we
crushed Commissar Bridges' activities.
Mr. Kennedy. What year was this that you were doing this volun-
teer work ?
Mr. Katz. 1946 and 1947.
Mr. Kennedy. You were getting paid by whom ?
Mr. Katz. The labor council.
Mr. Kennedy. That is all you did was just be a volunteer?
Mr. Katz. All we did was not only volunteer, but organize the un-
organized plants in the city.
Mr. Kennedy. For whom ?
Mr. Katz. For the labor council and through the little labor unions
who had the jurisdiction at that time.
Mr. Kennedy. You would go out as an organizer ?
Mr. IvATz. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. For any union that wanted you ?
Mr. Katz. Any union that needed assistance, Mr. Counsel.
Mr. Kennedy. You would go out and do the organizing ?
Mr. Katz. I was instructed to go out by John O'Connell, the secre-
tary, to go out and the other organizers of the different unions, and
sign workers up, and prepare them for NLRB hearings and for
elections.
6246 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. Kennedy. Wliat year was this going on ?
Mr.KATz. 1946, 1947, and 1948.
Mr. Ejsnnedy. You were a volunteer during all of this period of
time ?
Mr. Katz. I was working for the council.
Mr. Kennedy. Then in 1948, what did you do then ?
Mr, Katz. In 1948, let me see now. In 1948 I worked for so many
various unions in their troubles, in 1948 with the machinists on Com-
munist invasion.
Mr. Kennedy. You were fighting the Communists again in 1948 ?
Mr. Katz. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. In the machinists ?
Mr. IvATZ. That is right. I was employed then by the machinists
union.
Mr. Kennedy. Then what did you do after the machinists ?
Mr. Katz. After the machinists union, I was called in to assist
the leather workers union, and the garment workers union, the canning
workers union, the laundry workers union, and any union needing aid.
Mr, Kennedy. They would call on Mike Katz?
Mr. Katz. They called on the volunteers and Mike Katz, and I was
organizing for the council and so I had to coordinate the drive with
the other representatives of the local who had not the experience.
Mr. Kennedy. In 1950, were you with the upholsterers union?
Mr. IvATz. In 1950? In 1950, yes; I was with the upholsterers
union,
Mr, Kennedy. In 1951 how long did you stay with the upholsterers
union ?
Mr. Katz. I stayed with the upholsterers, I think, for 6 months,
and I had several elections wliich we had won and coordinated drives
on different plants with other unions.
Mr. Kennedy. Then did you leave the upholsterers union ?
Mr. Katz. Yes ; I left the upholsterers union,
Mr. Kennedy. Voluntarily ?
Mr, Katz. Definitely, my job was done.
Mr. Kennedy. You had organized the unorganized ?
Mr, Katz. I had organized those plants that had been set out to be
organized.
Mr. Kennedy. What did you do then ?
Mr. Katz. Then I went to work for the garment workers in Los
Angeles, chasing the Communists up and down Los Angeles in front
of the shirt factories.
Mr. Kennedy. Then, when were you with them ?
Mr. Katz, The garment workers, it was just before I left the up-
holsterers, I had agreed to go down to Los Angeles to fight the Com-
munist Party, At that time it was called the Amalgamated Clothing
Workers and the Wood Workers of America, Perlo's group of the
Communist Party,
They^all were organizing the shirt workers, even the wood workers,
Mr, Kennedy, So you were fighting them ?
Mr. Katz. We were fighting them.
Mr. Kennedy. And then after the upholsterers union, whom did
you go with ?
Mr. Katz. After the upholsterers union, it came to my attention
that the Military Sea Transportation Service Workers had come to
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 6247
John Sweeney, the AFL organizer, and discussed that they would
like to get the assistance and help in order to organize the Military
Sea Transportation Workers, which involved 40,000 men around the
world.
Mr. Kennedy. So what did you do ?
Mr. Katz. I agreed to help in the campaign.
Mr. Kennedy. What union was that ?
Mr. Katz. That was the Government Employees Union.
Mr. Kennedy. That is the American Federation of Government
Employees ?
Mr. Katz. That is correct, at that time.
Mr. Kennedy. Was that in 1951 ?
Mr. Katz. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. You were an organizer or were you an officer for
them ?
Mr. Katz. I was an organizer and then became an officer.
Mr. Kennedy. What position did you take in that ?
Mr. Katz. I was organizer and became an officer later on.
Mr. Kennedy. What office ?
Mr. Katz. I was voted in as president.
Mr. Kennedy. You were voted in as president ?
Mr. Katz. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Is that the first time you became an officer ?
Mr. Katz. That is the first time I became an officer.
Mr. I^nnedy. In 1951 you became president of the lodge, 1251,
was it?
Mr. Katz. Something like that.
Mr. Ivennedy. Of the American Federation of Government Em-
ployees ?
Mr. I^Tz. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. How long did you remain with them ? How many
members did you have there ?
Mr. Katz. We organized close to 5,000 members, in spite of Com-
missar Bridges attacking our organization from day to day.
Mr. Kennedy. How long did you stay with them ?
Mr. Katz. I stuck with them until I had my stroke in New York
while on assignment.
Mr. Kennedy. You what ?
Mr. Katz. While on assignment to New York, to open the port of
New York.
Mr. Kennedy. What was this ?
Mr. Katz. In 1952, in February. After having a meeting, a hot
meeting with one of the staff, the brass out at the Navy Yard, with
reference to our men boarding the vessels and refused tlie right given
to us by the Navy Department, I had returned to pick up pickets from
our local headquarters which we had established and on the staircase
I had a stroke and I was paralyzed.
Mr. Kennedy. Where did you have your offices for this American
Federation of Government Employees ?
Mr. Katz, At 450 Harrison Street, first, and then we moved to
Mission Street.
Mr. Kennedy. Was that the sailors ?
Mr. Katz. The Sailors Union of the Pacific.
6248 DvIPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. Kennedy. Did Mr. Lundberg ask you to leave there ?
Mr. IvATz. No, sir.
Mr. KJENNEDT. He didn't request you to get out of liis office ?
Mr. Katz. At no time.
Mr. Kennedy. Were you released from the American Federation
of Government Employees ?
Mr. IvATZ. Released? I don't get that.
Mr. Kennedy. Were you fired by them ?
Mr. Katz. No. I was never employed by the American Federation
of Government Employees International.
Mr. Kennedy. Were you president of the local ? Were you forced
to resign?
Mr. E^ATz. I was not forced to resign. According to the constitu-
tion, while I was paralyzed, it said that in our constitution shall the
president become incapacitated, the vice president shall take over.
Mr. Kennedy. Were there any charges made against you at all?
Mr. Katz. There were some charges after I got out. There were
some officers that made charges to the district attorney that were
kicked out. It was never proven, and it was kicked out.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you go back into that union after you got well ?
Mr. Katz. No, I didn't get quite well at that time. It took me
some time to get back and able to walk, and to be able to speak.
Mr. Kennedy. Then what did you do ?
Mr. Katz. I then went to work. I was offered a position in Chi-
cago by the Amalgamated Meat Cutters Union.
Mr, Kennedy. Did you form another union of your own, then,
another Government Employees Union ?
Mr. Katz. I thought we were speaking about the same thin^.
Mr. Kennedy. Wasn't there, or was there an unaffiliated union ?
Mr. Katz. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. Then there was an affiliated union at one time?
Mr. Katz. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. In 1951 vou were with the affiliated union, is that
right?
Mr. Katz. I originally was with the affiliated union, and we decided
after having a discourse with the president
Mr. Kennedy. You had a dispute with the president ?
Mr. Katz. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. So you walked out of that union, is that right?
Mr. Katz. I did not walk out. I returned the message back to the
port stewards, to all the delegates, what had transpired, that the pres-
ident of the American Government Employees Union refused to see
the light, that the only way we can fight these commissars on the
seas, the same as the immortal Lundberg did, was not let them in our
organization, that we would have to screen them as tightly as they
were screened before they accepted positions in the military trans-
portation.
Mr. KJENNEDY. Had he made certain charges against you also?
Mr. Katz. There were never any charges against me from the
president.
Mr. Kennedy. Were there charges from other people ?
Mr. Katz. No cliarges at no time before we oecame independent.
Mr. Kennedy. At the period of time that you had the altercation,
were there charges ?
IIMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 6249
Mr. Katz. There were no charges whatever. All they wanted was
the per capita. We told them "What would they put in to organize?"
Mr. Kennedy. So there Avas a question about the finances; was
there not ?
Mr. Katz. There never was a question of finances
Mr. Kennedy. I mean at the time you broke up with them and
formed your own local, there was a question of financing?
Mr. Katz. There was no question of financing. There was a ques-
tion of him coming along to see that all Government employees get a
fair shake and money was necessary to organize tlie workers.
Mr. Kennedy. The question of money came up between you and the
international president ?
Mr. Katz. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. And you then formed your oAvn local union ; is that
right ?
Mr. Katz. Xo ; it doesn't go step by step that way with unions. You
just don't form your own locals.
Mr. Kennedy. Well, you got a group together.
Mr. Katz. No. I came back to California, as I said before. I met
with all the men wlio come off the vessels, who are our stewards on the
vessels, our "patrolmen" is the word we used, and discussed this matter,
and they decided they would not want to be part of any group and
pay any revenue to an organization that did not want to assist them
and go all out in their fight to gain recognition before the United
States Government.
Mr. Kennedy. So what did you do ?
Mr. Katz. And after the meeting was held there, we had several
port meetings of the different districts in the area, all held at 450
Harrison, and it was decided that we would call ourselves the Govern-
ment Employees Union Independent.
We set up our constitution, which, under the laws of the Department,
we sent this constitution to the Chief of Staff in Washington to be
approved. We received communication from, I think it was, Hague,
and he informed us that our organization was recognized. We then
proceeded to passing out our literature and organizing the workers
on the high seas.
Mr. Kennedy. So you were unaffiliated at that time, an independent
union ?
Mr. Katz. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. How long did you keep that independent — how long
did you stay with that independent union ?
Mr. Katz. Until I was paralyzed.
Mr. Kennedy. I thought you were paralyzed already. You were
paralyzed after this, after this second one; is that right?
; Mr. Katz. That is right, after the second union. Let's stand
corrected.
Mr. Kennedy. Was there also an altercation at the time you left
the second union, the independent union? Was there also a dispute
about money at that time?
Mr, Katz. I wasn't well enough to know what was going on.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you have a lot of blank checks in your pos-
session ?
Mr, Katz. When I was paralyzed ?
89330— 57— pt. 16 2
6250 IMPROPER ACTIVrTIES IN THE LABOR FIEIiD
Mr. Kennedy. Yes.
Mr. Katz. Yes. I had checks signed by the secretary-treasurer,
which we generally do. When he goes on travel, I sign my name so
he can have those checks for expenses. I had a lot of money with me,
too, and drew money for expenses to travel to New York.
Mr. Kennedy. So was there a dispute between the union and your-
self regarding that money ?
Mr. Katz. At no time was there any dispute. The only thing, when
I came out of the partial stroke and my family permitted me to read
the papers and know what went on, and the workers came to my house,
and the doctors advised them against coming to my house because
I wasn't so well as to talk to them, I was very upset that this all
had transpired after such a fine campaign had been set up. The
first time in history the military sea transportation workers would
finally have a chance to get a contract and recognition.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you ever say to any of these officials that you
would get two gunmen from Chicago and have them rubbed out ?
Mr. Katz. Again I want to point out to the committee that your
investigators play cops and robbers. I have never — gunmen ?
Mr. Kennedy. Gunmen. Did you?
Mr. Katz. I was paralyzed, Mr. Counsel.
Mr. Kennedy. I know, but can you answer the question ? Did you
ever say to any of the officials of the union that you were going to
get two Chicago gunmen and bring them to California and rub these
men out ?
Mr. Katz. I was paralyzed, the record will show, and I was unable
to speak at the time for months.
Mr. Kennedy. Well, when you were able to speak.
Mr. Katz. Well, at the time
Mr. Kennedy. Were you able to speak enough to say that to them ?
Mr. Katz. No. I left the hospital against the doctor's orders
Mr. Kennedy. Just tell me if you ever said that to the officials of
the union, that you were going to get a couple of gunmen from Chicago
and have them rubbed out.
Mr. Katz. No, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. You never did ?
Mr. Katz. It is ridiculous.
Mr. Kennedy. Do you know Jack Shelley ?
Mr. Katz. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you ever pull a gun on Jack Shelley ?
Mr. Katz. Never did. Had no reason to.
Mr. Kennedy. Never did ?
Mr. I<:atz. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. Never did ?
Mr. IvATz. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. And you never made the statement to Mr. Dick
Clare, who was the official of this union, that you were going to have
a couple of gunmen from Chicago ?
Mr. Katz. With Mr. Dick Clare, I don't need any gunmen. I need
these two hands and a good piece of pipe. Ex-Communist Clare you
are speaking about, formerly with the machinists. He sold the
machinists down the river.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you ever say anything like that to him ?
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 6251
Mr. Katz. For what reason ? As long as I have these two hands, I
will take him myself.
The Chairman. The first question is, Did you ?
Mr. Katz. No, sir.
The Chairman. If you say you did not, you did not.
Mr. Katz. I never threatened anybody.
Mr. Kennedy. You have had some problems with the law yourself,
haven't you, Mr. Katz ?
Mr. Katz. I had many problems. In a lifetime people get hurt.
They can't hurt me any more than I have been hurt before.
Mr. Kennedy. Burglary and grand larceny back in 1931 and 1933?
Mr. Katz. I don't know.
Mr. Kennedy. Bad checks in the 1940's ?
Mr. Katz. I don't know.
Mr. Kennedy. Well, can you remember in the 1950's, 1949, did you
have a problem then ?
Mr. Katz. I had many problems, family problems, which comes to
any man.
Mr. Kennedy. In 1955 can you remember any problems that you
had then ?
Mr. IvATZ. I had many problems.
Mr. Kennedy. Are you on probation now ?
Mr. Katz. My probation is over.
Mr. Kennedy. When was your probation over ?
Mr. Katz. In April of last year.
Mr. Kennedy. April of 1957 ?
Mr. Katz. April of 1956.
(At this point Senator Ives withdrew from the hearing room.)
Mr. Kennedy. While you were with the upholsterers union, did you
have a picket line out at the Englander Co. ?
Mr. Katz. May I review this, please? That was in 1951 — 1951.
I was paralyzed in 1952, so I couldn't be anywhere near the Englander.
The Chairman. Let's talk about the area as much as we can when
j^ou were not paralyzed.
Mr. Katz. You mean when I was working for or assisting the up-
holsterers union ?
The Chairman. We accept your statement that at one time you
were paralyzed.
Mr. Katz. Well, the records will show that.
The Chairman. I don't doubt that. Let's get in the area, in the
time when you were not paralyzed, and your activities at those times.
Mr. Kennedy. Were you ever doing any work at the Englander Co. ?
Mr. Katz. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. When was that ?
Mr. Katz. In 1951.
Mr. Kennedy. And what were you doing out there ?
Mr. Katz. We had called a meeting with the Warehousemen's Local
853, in Oakland, and discussed the Englander Co. coming into Oak-
land, Calif.
Mr. Kennedy. Who was that? Who did you have the discussion
-with ?
Mr. Katz. Mr. Nichols.
Mr. Kennedy. What was his position ?
6252 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. Katz. He was business manager of the Teamsters Union, Local
853
Mr. Kennedy. So what did you decide to do ?
Mr. Katz. We first looked over, checked out, this Englander Co.,
and we found that they had the rottenest contract, with conditions
comparable to what we had established in San Francisco over the
years, 15 vears that the upholsterers prior to my coming in had estab-
lished with wages, that Englander was coming in with mass production
and were cutting the wages down to about 70 or 80 cents less per hour
than was paid in the prevailing area.
Mr. Kennedy. What did you decide to do ?
Mr. Katz. We decided to send a letter to Mr. Friedburg, in Chicago,
y^-^Q is — I understood from the people at the plant — in production,
that we woukl like to have a meeting to discuss the industry, with
reference to coming into the area with the industry. We never re-
ceived any answer from them.
Mr. Kennedy. So what did you do then ?
Mr. Katz. We then met and discussed that we place an organiza-
tional picket line on there, and then they would come out at this time
and discuss what goes before they opened that plant. We were not
going to permit this plant to come into an area
Mr. Kennedy. So you put a picket line there before it opened, is
that right?
Mr. Katz. The plant had several people in it, as I understood, and
I was notified — I am far ahead of myself — that local 262 of the furni-
ture workers were out there trying to organize the plant, and local 262
was a Communist organizer. Hertez, the organizer, was out there.
Mr. Kennedy. So you went out to fight the Communists ?
Mr. Katz. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. And you put a picket line around the place ?
Mr. Katz. After not hearing
Mr. Kennedy. Were there any employees working there, actually
making mattresses at the time you went out there ?
Mr. Katz. ^Vhen we got talking to people, they would never tell us
what they were going to make. We heard so many different stories.
Mr. Kennedy. Were there any employees actually working there,
producing whatever they were going to make at that time ?
Mr. Katz. They were not in production as yet, but they had hired
employees.
Mr. Kennedy. And you put the pickets out there before they
went into production ?
Mr. Katz. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. And it wouldn't be possible for any employees to
indicate that they wanted to join your union? There were no em-
ployees, even there ?
Mr. Katz. We decided with this outfit, because of its notorious rec-
ord, that we would give them the economic business.
Mr. Kennedy. The economic business ?
Mr. Katz. That is right. Before they would get a chance to spread
their disease, we would stop it, like a cancer.
Mr. Kennedy. So you went out to stop them. And you put a picket
line around them ?
Mr. Katz. That is right.
EVIPROPEK ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 6253
Mr. Kennedy. What happened then ?
Mr. Katz. When we placed the picket line on there at that time, we
had the upholsterers' picket line, and several pickets appeared from
local 12 of the teamsters union, I asked, "What are you fellows doing
here?" They said they are instructed to come out and help us. I
thought that 853 was in this. "I want no business with "Back Door"
Dillon. Pie is your boss. Take a hike."
Mr. Kennedy. You said that to them ?
Mr. Katz. That is right. They went back to the headquarters of
the teamsters union, and John Sweeney came out to see me, and he
said, "Well, Mike, we want local 12 built up. You know local 12 was
set up against Commissar Bridges." I said, "I know all about that, a
year ago."
I wanted to repudiate them. The spots on the leopard don't change,
and they worked for Bridges, and he is a commie.
He said, "Well, Mike, for Christ's sake, we got Bridges on the run."
I said, "Wliat run?" I said, "What run? He is getting stronger
every day."
He said, "Well, Mike, the best thing is, we get this thing working
and see what is doing."
I said, "Well, we haven't heard from the company yet. We will
stand by here and until such time your pickets coordinate with our
pickets."
Mr. Kennedy. Dillon, although he had been with Bridges' union,
broke with Bridges in 1946 over this very question, had he not, on the
question of communism ?
Mr. Katz. That is the biggest joke perpetrated upon the public.
They take absolution, the Communists, as usual, and then divide and
conquer. He did a good job in the last few years. He is almost on
top, I gave warning to the teamsters, beware of this man. He took
absolution. He got a fine absolution, a $50,000 home, he is the secre-
tary of 4 organizations, collecting revenue from 4 unions, but nobody
talks about that. He took absolution, he is one of us now. The people
around San Francisco didn't like my talk.
They said, "Mike, you are one of us."
I said, "^Vliat do you mean 'one of us' ?"
The same guy who chopped my head down sent out goons to beat
me up, and I in turn retaliated, shall we say, to defend myself, and
have now accepted. Why ? To get Bridges ? We got Bryson, didn't
we? We will get him, too. And any stooge of Bridges is still a
stooge. Nobody can tell me that the flag he puts around him of the
teamsters' banner is ever going to sell me that he is not a Communist.
Mr. KJENNEDY. So what did you do then, after you told all of this to
John Sweeney?
Mr, Katz, After 6 weeks on the line
Mr. Kennedy, Did the teamsters stay on the line ?
Mr, Katz, They were with me out there.
Mr. Kennedy, Was that against your will ?
Mr. Katz. No; not against my will. After we were waiting for
the thing to be discussed by the local powers to be, the Joint Council
of Teamsters
Mr, Kennedy, So you both had pickets out there. Then what
happened ?
6254 EMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE L.\BOR FIELD
Mr. Katz. Then I received a call at my office. At that time I was
engaged at the American Federation of Government Employees
Union, and the garment workers in Los Angeles, chasing the Com-
munists down the street, so when I came back to my office, a call came
from "Back Door" Dillon, and he said he wanted to see me. He came
to my office and he said that he was instructed by the powers that
be that he was going to talk to the company. I said :
"Look, Dillon, you and I are never going to speak the same lan-
guage, so the best thing is to have your powers call me or meet me."
And he left.
When I met the powers to be
Mr. I^NNEDY. Wlio were the powers to be ?
Mr. Katz. The different representatives, who had been also fooled
by Dillon.
Mr. IvENNEDY. Who were the powers to be ?
Mr. Katz. I don't want to mention their names.
Mr. Kennedy. What do you mean ? They are powers to be of the
company or powers to be of the union ?
Mr. Katz. In the union.
Mr. Kennedy. Of the union?
Mr. Katz. Of the teamsters' union.
Mr. Kennedy. Had you met Mr. Nathan Shefferman by that time ?
Mr. Ka^tz. No, sir.
Mr. KJENNEDY. Had you talked to him ?
Mr. Katz. I never spoke to the man.
Mr. I^NNEDY. So you spoke to some powers to be of the union ?
Mr. Katz. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. What did they say to you ?
Mr. Katz. They said, "Look; this plant isn't what it is supposed
to be. They are supposed to be 300 people. The organization you are
assisting will get, say, 200 people from production and the rest would
go to the warehouse and the teamsters. We checked this company
out that their operation would maybe not be more than 80 to 100
people, and we are telling you now that as far as we are concerned,
there is no use in beating around the bush. We would like to have
this plant before the Communists take it."
Mr. Kennedy. So you were worried about Communists again?
Mr. Katz. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. So tlie powers to be told you what? What did
you do ?
Mr. Katz. That they would keep the fight going, and they would
try to organize the plant, because I was engaged at that time on 2
drives, 1 drive in Los Angeles, with the garment workers, and the
other drive in all ports of the Military Sea Transportation workers.
I was very heavily engaged.
Mr. Kennedy. What did you do ?
Mr. Katz. I just withdrew.
Mr. Kennedy. You withdrew your pickets ?
Mr. IC4TZ. Myself. I told the organization, the upholsterers' union,
that there was no use in spending money out there any further, that
any money that was expended, should the teamsters mean well, which
they said they would, any partial expenses they had would be given
back to them.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 6255
Mr. Kennedy. So you had a conversation with somebody and they
suggested you withdraw your pickets after you had been out there all
this period of time, and you decided to do it; is that right?
Mr. Katz. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. Who were these people that you talked to that told
you to do this ?
Mr. Katz. Well, John Sweeney was, for one.
Mr. Kennedy. John Sweeney is dead now ?
Mr. Katz. John Sweeney ?
Mr. Kennedy. He is dead now ?
Mr. Katz. Yes ; he is dead.
Mr. Kennedy. Who else ?
Did you talk to Shelton Sheff erman at all ?
Mr. Katz. No.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you talk to anybody from Labor Kelations
Associates ?
Mr. Katz. Never.
Mr. Kennedy. Shelton Shefi'erman did not come to see you ?
Mr. Katz. No.
Mr. Kennedy. Are you sure of that ?
Mr. Katz. Positive.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you talk to anybody having any connection with
the Sheffermans, Mr. Katz ?
Mr. Katz. No. Not that I remember.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you talk to anybody having any connection with
Labor Kelations Associates ?
Mr. Katz. No, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. And you don't think that 'Mr. Shelton Shefferman
talked to you on the phone and then came to see you ?
Mr. Katz. I don't recall any phone conversation. I don't remember
speaking to any stooge of an employer.
Mr. Kennedy. Is Shelton Shefferman a stooge of an employer ?
Mr. Katz. After hearing all of these hearings, I am definitely
convinced. A good stooge.
Mr. Kennedy. All right.
Who else talked to you about backing down ?
Mr. Katz. Backing down in the area there ?
Mr. Kennedy. Yes.
Mr. Katz. The poor fellows are on the spot now. With the chang-
ing of powers they will probably be bounced out of a long length of
service. One of the top officials in the area at the time there, and I
think he may be retired — and I refuse to answer that at the present
time.
The Chairman. You are ordered and directed to answer the ques-
tion. Who was the other man who spoke to you about pulling out?
Mr. Katz. It was Mr. Comboy, Bill Comboy.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Mr. Kennedy. What was Bill Comboy's position ?
Mr. Katz. He was international representative at that time.
Mr. Kennedy. Of what ?
Mr. Katz. Of the teamsters union.
Mr. Kennedy. x4.nd he spoke to you about pulling out ?
Mr. Katz. Yes. He said that there is no use of carrying this fight
on together. "You fellows are running short of money. You can't
6256 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
keep this thing going. We believe that this thing can come to pass
in time and we can square it away and get a contract from this com-
pany."
Mr. Kennedy. He said what to vou, again ?
Mr.KATz. What?
Mr. Kennedy. What did he say ?
Mr. Katz. He said he believed because this thing has been all the
way out, and we had hoped as soon as the employees came into the
plant that we could continue this campaign, and I vigorously told
Bill that I resent "Back Door" Dillon being involved here, because I
know he would sell them out as he did in the past.
He said, "Well, it isn't up to him any more." He was instructed
that that was the beef, and he was going to break the line.
After talking to John Sweeney — I am sorry that he is not here to-
day— John Sweeney says, "Well, Mike, you got these drives going
on here. This misfit outfit will come to life and we will square it
away." But there had been so much maneuvering at that time
there
Mr. Kennedy. What kind of maneuvering was taking place ?
Mr. Katz. They told me, you know, "Mike, things are changing
up here."
I said, "I haven't changed. Any time you have trouble, you send
forme."
Mr. Kennedy. Were you approached by anybody else to take your
pickets off ?
Mr. Katz. I never removed my pickets.
Mr. Kennedy. You removed them this time.
Mr. Katz. I did not remove my pickets.
Mr. Kennedy. You didn't take the pickets off ?
Mr. KL4.TZ. I didn't take the pickets off.
Mr. Kennedy. "V^^io took the pickets off ?
Mr. Katz. The pickets left. They didn't get paid any further, so
they left.
Mr. Kennedy. Isn't that, in fact, taking your pickets off, when you
are not paying them any longer ?
Mr. Katz. No. I had told the boys — we hire them from the labor
temple from time to time.
Mr. Kennedy. You stopped hiring pickets ?
Mr. Katz. I had said that we hadn't had the funds to go on in this
thing. I had no explanation to make.
Yes, sir ?
The Chairman. Do you know a better way to get pickets to quit,
or anybody else to quit, than to stop their pay ?
Mr. Katz. Let me say this. Senator, that we had no people avail-
able, and the people that were unemployed were the people we used.
We took them out of the labor council.
The Chaieman. Well, the pickets were called off.
Mr. Kennedy. Did anybody else speak to you about taking the
pickets off ?
Mr. Katz. Nobody would ever dare speak to me about taking pickets
off.
_Mr. Kennedy. Your testimony here, compared to the interview
with the investigators, is incredible. You said you had been ap-
EVIPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 6257
proached many, many times to take your pickets off. Now you say
nobody would dare approach you.
Mr. Katz. They wouldn't dare approach me. They know my
feelings.
Mr. Kennedy. Certainly, Comboy and Sweeney, according to your
testimony, suggested you take your pickets off.
Mr. Katz. I told them, as long as '^Back Door" Dillon Avas there, I
would not take the pickets off.
Mr. Kennedy. Well, you stopped paying your pickets.
Mr. Katz. We had no funds to go on. That is why.
Mr. Kennedy. Then your drive did not continue any longer, and
the teamsters organized that plant ?
Mr. Katz. So I hear.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you ever meet Mr. Shefferman ?
Mr. Katz. At a later date, in Chicago.
Mr. Kennedy. IVhen did you meet Mr. Shefferman ?
Mr. Katz. I met Mr. Shefferman in Chicago in 19— the end of 1952
or 1953, I think it is. I just had received the job, as I said, to go to
Chicago to fight the packinghouse Communist squads there at Wilson.
They were trying to organize the plant.
Mr. Kennedy. In Chicago ?
Mr. Katz. That is right ; Chicago, 111.
Mr. Kennedy. Somebody brought you to Chicago to fight the Com-
munists ?
Mr. Katz. Yes, The butcher workmen's union.
Mr. Kennedy. Wlio brought you there ?
Mr. Katz. Mr. Pat Gorman.
Mr. Kennedy. He asked you to come to Chicago and fight the Com-
munists ?
Mr. Katz. That is right. Which is my specialty.
Mr. Kennedy. So you went there and saw Mr. Shefferman ?
Mr. Katz. I did not see Shefferman then.
Mr. Kennedy. What did you do ?
Mr. Katz. Months later, while I was in Chicago, I think it was at
a hotel there, I saw him. I was sitting with some people there. A guy
says, "You know Mike Katz?" He said, "Oh, sure ; I know him. He
is a son-of-a-bitch. I am sorry.
The Chairman. Well, listen. You are on the air, I think. Is this
on the air ?
You better have a little more respect. You can use language that
will convey your thoughts without such language as that. I would
suggest you be just a little calmer and pay attention to the questions and
answer them calmly.
Mr. Katz. I am trying my best, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Proceed,
Mr. Kennedy, So, you came to Chicago to fight the Communists
for the butchers ?
Mr, Katz, That is correct.
Mr, Kennedy, Did you see Mr, Shefferman at that time ?
Mr, Katz. Not at that time.
Mr. Kennedy, You did not. When did you see Mr, Shefferman?
Mr. Katz. It was months later, as I said before.
Mr. Kennedy. Under what circumstances ?
6258 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE L.\BOR FIELD
Mr. Katz. Somebody was sitting there, and he said, "Do you know
so-and-so"
Mr. Kennedy. Know who ?
Mr. Katz. Some fellow there from another labor union.
Mr. Kennedy. Said what ?
Mr. Katz. He said, ''I want you to meet Nat Shefl'erman." I looked
at the man, a fine looking fellow. He says, "His name is Mike."
And he says, "That is the character out on the coast. Nobody can
talk to him. He is crazy." He said, "Sit down." Nathan Sheffer-
man said that to this fellow about me.
Mr. Kennedy. Said you were crazy ?
Mr. Katz. That is right. Maybe I am, being in the business as long
as I have been.
Mr. Kennedy. So you met Mr. Sheff erman then ?
Mr. Katz. That is right. We kicked it around there, and that is
about all.
Mr. Kennedy. Then did you see Mr. Sheff erman again ?
Mr. Katz. After I finished my drive
Mr. Kennedy. When was this, approximately, the first time you
saw Mr. Sheff erman ?
Mr. Katz. I don't know the exact date. I had just come back from
my stroke.
Mr. Kennedy. Was it February, March, April ?
Mr. Katz. I was so busy engaged in that beef out there at the stock-
yards. We had the same trouble. We had our officers bound by the
Commies.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you go to Mr. Sheff erman's office ?
Mr. Katz. At no time.
Mr. Kennedy. You never did ?
Mr. Katz. Until I left the butcher workers union.
Mr. Kennedy. When was that ?
Mr. Katz. I left them, I think, in January, when the election was
over.
Mr. Kennedy. January of 1953 ?
Mr. Katz. Something like that. I don't know the exact date. I
was going down to Florida, to my sister's.
Mr. Kennedy. ^YhJ did you go to Mr. Sheff erman's office?
Mr. Katz. He called up the office and said he would like to see me.
Mr. Kennedy. So you went there?
Mr. Katz. I did ; my job had been finished with the butcher work-
men.
Mr. Kennedy. What did he want you to do ?
Mr. Katz. He discussed with me. He said, "You have a great
knowledge of Communists, and I always need specialists." I said,
*'My type of work you don't need. You represent business, I repre-
sent labor, at times, when I am called." He kept on talking about
do I know this Commie of New York and that Commie of New York.
And I said, "Sure, I know Perlo, I know all of the old worker Com-
munists of the old days, I knew Lustick, and all the rest of the Commies
that are still in this country that have not been deported." He said,
"Well, you are going to Florida, I understand. We didn't know you
were paralyzed when you came to Chicago." I said, "I didn't have
to tell anybody. I was strictly on a campaign, the strictly desk work,
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 6259
until such time as the crisis broke.'' I told him I was going down to
Florida, I had a bad cold, and I was going to dry out down there.
Mr. Kennedy. You were going to do what ?
Mr. Katz. Dry out. I had not been acclimated to the climate in
Chicago. Then he discussed the subject. "You are a Commie fighter,
Mike,'" he says, "and we are having a battle." I said, "If they are
having a battle, I hope it is a good one."
Mr. Kennedy. Down where ?
Mr. Katz. In New York.
Mr. Kennedy. So what happened ?
Mr. KLvTZ. Well, he says, "You are going down to Florida," he says,
"could we use your services ?"
I said, "What services can I give you ?"
Mr. Kennedy. You said to him ?
Mr. Katz. Yes. He said, well, he tried to smooth me up by saying,
"Well, 3^ou are a Commie specialist." All of a sudden I got a title
I never got paid for. I said, "What do you want exactly, Mister?"
He said, "Well, you go down there and check out the Commies, and
you have done it voluntarily, I understand, and everybody talks about
you." I said, "Everybody talks about me? I know nothing." He
said, "You must know some of the Commies. We believe that some
of the west coast Commies are down there, instigating down there."
I don't know if they had trouble with the company or what was
going on. He had said to me, "Maybe you can identify some of these
west coast Commies." I said, "I have connections with people in New
York who have been volunteers before, and I think we can look over
the thing, but"
Mr. Kennedy. What company is this he is talking about that he
was having trouble with the Commies ?
Mr. Katz. Out in Brooklyn. I forget the name of the plant. It
was Englander.
Mr. Kennedy. Englander, the same one down in California ?
Mr. Katz. I didn't know it was Englander until I came there.
Mr. Kennedy. So he said the Englander case again ?
Mr. Ivatz. Then I told him, "I am through."
Mr. Kennedy, You said you wouldn't go ?
Mr. Katz. I was in New York at the time then.
Mr. Kennedy. You were in New York ?
Mr. Katz. I was in New York.
Mr. Kennedy. I thought you were in Chicago.
Mr. Katz. I had finished Chicago, I had told you.
Mr. Kennedy. And then you were going to Florida ?
Mr. Katz. That is right, until I spoke with Mr. Shefferman.
Mr. Kennedy. He suggested that vou go to New York ?
Mr. Katz. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. So you accepted ?
Mr. Katz. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. Decided to go to New York ?
Mr. Katz. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. Wliat were you going to do in New York ?
Mr. IvATz. Check out the west coast companies, see if there were
any Commies.
Mr. Kennedy. Look over the city ?
6260 IMPROPEE ACTlVmES IK THE LABOR FIEXiD
Mr. Katz. Look over the plant, as usual. When I saw it was the
Englander plant, I stopped.
Mr. Kennedy. Why? You stopped?
Mr. Katz, That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you go out to the plant ?
Mr. Katz. I did.
Mr. Kennedy. Where is the plant ?
Mr. Katz. I don't know exactly.
Mr. Kennedy. Whereabouts? You got to New York and where
did you go ?
Mr. ICatz. Things moved so swiftly and I had been ill so many times
I don't know.
Mr. Kennedy. You must know where the plant was. Where did
you go ? How does the plant look ? Describe the plant.
Mr. Katz. I don't remember exactly.
Mr. Kennedy. Whereabouts is it in New York ? s
Mr. Katz. In Brooklyn.
Mr. Kennedy. Whereabouts in Brooklyn ?
Mr. Katz. I don't know, I told you,
Mr. Kennedy. You must know. You went to the plant, did you
not?
Mr. Katz. I did not go into any plant.
Mr. Kennedy. You can remember everything else, Mr. Katz.
Mr. Katz. I can remember the things that are facts and the things
I don't remember are not facts and I have nothing to do with that.
Mr. Kennedy, You were in the Englander plant — I agree with
you.
The Chairman, Let us stick to the facts.
Mr, Katz, Shall we go on ?
Mr. KJENNEDY. Yes. Did you go out to the plant then ?
Mr. K^Tz, That is right,
Mr, Kennedy, You went out to it ?
Mr. Katz. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. To the Englander Co. ?
Mr. Kj\.tz, I think that was the plant.
Mr. Kjennedy. And you arrived there and what did you do ?
Mr. Katz. I looked around and I went with my associates, and I
said, "This thing stinks,"
Mr, Kennedy, Who were your associates ?
Mr. Katz. Some of the volunteers in New York.
Mr. Kennedy. The volunteers of what ?
Mr. Katz. Men who knew Communists and have talked before the
McCarthy committee.
Mr. Kennedy. Wliat do you mean, a volunteer or any Communist
fighter?
Mr. Ivatz. In every city, Mr. Counsel, you may not know, but the
Communists are alive, very much alive with their cells.
Mr. Kennedy. You have a volunteer ?
Mr. Katz. I have been away for so many years from the east coast
that I did not know what goes, and they put me up to date.
Mr. Kennedy. I thought he brought you all of the way from Ciii-
cago to pick these people out.
Mr. Katz. After I discussed with the fellows what goes— ^ —
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 6261
Mr. Kennedy. Wliat do you mean, "what goes" ?
Mr. Katz. Wliat goes in the area with reference to what is going
on in the district. "Wliat goes" means what is transpiring with the
unions there.
I found out that this union was moving in for economic fights
against the employer. After we discussed it, I called Mr. Shefferman
and told him, "I want no part of it."
Mr. Kennedy. When did you find it was the Englander Co. ?
Mr. IvATZ. What?
Mr. Kennedy. When did you find out it was the Englander Co. ?
Mr. Katz. When I came out there.
Mr, Kennedy. You mean out to the plant ?
Mr. Katz. I am trying to think of that date. It is so many years.
Mr. Kennedy. You do not remember ?
Mr. Katz. I mean where it was, I don't.
Mr. Kennedy. When did you find out it was the Englander Co.?
Mr. Katz. After I spoke to these boys around there.
Mr. Kennedy. Didn't the people hiring you — didn't Mr. Sheffer-
man tell you where you were supposed to go ?
Mr. Katz. I spoke to him over the telephone.
Mr. Kennedy. Didn't he tell you where you were to go to find the
Communists ?
Mr. Katz. When I came out there, I woke up.
Mr. Kennedy. When you woke up, didn't he tell you then ?
Mr. Katz. That is the time I called him up and told him I wanted
no part of it.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you ever go out to the plant ?
Mr. Katz. Again, no.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you go once ?
Mr. Katz. I was there two times.
Mr. Kennedy. You were there two times ?
Mr. Katz. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. I thought you didn't find it. Once you found out
it was the Englander Co., you said you would not have anything to
do with it ?
Mr. Katz. I wanted to see the activity.
Mr. Kennedy. What sort of activity ?
Mr. Katz. That was taking place outside the plant.
Mr, Kennedy, What did you do when you got out to the plant ?
Mr, Katz, Just observed,
Mr, Kennedy, Just stood outside the plant ?
Mr, Katz. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. How much money did you receive for standing out-
side the plant ?
Mr. Katz. I billed Mr. Shefferman not enough, $3,000.
Mr. Kennedy. For standing outside the plant ?
Mr. Katz. For observing and checking it out.
Mr. Kennedy. Here are the checks, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. The Chair presents to you a photostatic copy of a
check dated April 4, 1953, made payable to you, drawn on Labor
Relations Associates' account by Shelton Shefferman, in the amount
of $2,300.
I ask you to examine that check and state if you identify it as a
photostatic copy of the check you received.
6262 n^iPROPEE activities in the labor field
(A document was handed to the witness.)
Mr. Katz, That is correct.
The Chairman. Your signature is on the back of it, is it ?
Mr. Katz. That is right.
The Chairman. That may be made exhibit No. 33.
(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 33" for refer-
ence and will be found in the appendix on p. 6573.)
The Chairman. I now present to you another check, the original,
dated the same date, April 4, 1953, drawn on the account of Labor
Relations Associates, by Shelton Shefferman, made payable to Western
Union. I ask you to examine that check and see if you know who got
the proceeds of it.
(A docmnent was handed to the witness.)
Mr. Katz. I received that, too. I said that a minute ago.
The Chairman. Was that money wired to you by Western Union ?
Mr. IvATz. It was wired to me and the check was sent special de-
livery, airmail, because I told them I was going to Florida and I re-
ceived it at the Picadilly Hotel and I went to Florida and I deposited
it in a Florida bank.
The Chairman. That may be made exhibit No. 34.
(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 34" for refer-
ence and will be found in the appendix on p. 6574. )
Mr. Kennedy. You were staying at the Picadilly Hotel ?
Mr. I^TZ. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. How long were you there ?
Mr. Katz. Two days.
Mr. Kennedy. You went out to the plant how many times ?
Mr. Katz. I went out to the plant twice but my associates had been
out there checking out the plant for weeks.
The Chairman. Let us get the facts. You mean to tell the com-
mittee you got this money for standing outside of a plant for 2 days ?
Is that the pay you got for standing outside of a plant for 2 days?
Mr. Katz. I received that money.
The Chairman. That does not answer my question. You already
said you received the money.
Mr. Katz. I got paid for my consultation and that is what I asked
and that is what I got paid.
The Chairman. For the one consultation in Shefferman 's office ?
Mr. IvATz. I beg pardon ?
The Chairman. You had one consultation with Shefferman in his
office ; is that right ?
Mr. Katz. That is right.
The Chairman. And then you spent 2 days outside of a plant look-
ing it over ?
Mr. IvATz. That is right, and checking it out with my associates.
The Chairman. With your associates ?
Mr. Katz. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. And then you immediately called him and told
him you^did not want to have anything more to do with it?
Mr. Katz. I wanted this and he screamed and he hollered about
the money.
The Chairman. For that very arduous service ?
Mr. Katz. That is correct.
lAIPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 6263
Mr. Kennedy. "\'\liat did you do wlien j^ou were standing outside
the plant, Mr. Katz ?
Mr. Katz. Just observing the activities around the plant, at quit-
ting time.
Mr. Kennedy. What sort of things would you do ?
Mr. Katz. Just observe the activities, people coming in and going
out. You can't check a guy out if you are not in the plant.
Mr. Kennedy. What were you looking for ?
Mr. Katz. I was looking for some familiar faces, maybe some
friendly faces from the coast.
Mr. Kennedy. Some Communists from the west coast ?
Mr. Katz. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. You came outside the plant for 2 days at quitting
time to see if you could see somebody ?
Mr. Katz. In the morning and quitting time.
Mr. Kennedy. Twice a day ?
Mr. Katz. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. You were just out there 1 day ?
Mr. Katz. Twice.
Mr. Kennedy. You came out there 1 day, in the morning and at
quitting time, to observe and see if you could find any Communists
from the west coast, and you were paid $2,800 for doing that?
Mr. Katz. That was still cheap, after I had the hearings here.
Mr. Kennedy. $2,800 for that 1
Mr. I^j^Tz. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. And Shefferman was reimbursed by the Englander
Co. for that payment to you ?
Mr. Katz. That I don't Imow, whoever reimbursed him, and I don't
know anything. All I know is that he asked what was coming to me
and we had a big time screaming about it and I told him that is what
I want.
Mr. Kennedy. Have you ever done any other work like that?
Mr. Katz. No, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. That is the only time ?
Mr. Katz. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you feel that you did pretty well that time,
making $2,800 for that day's pay ?
Mr. Katz. I was pretty sick at the time there and I was on my
way to Florida to get well.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you have anything more to do with Mr. Sheffer-
man?
Mr. Ka.tz. No ; I never saw him again.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you ever talk to him ?
Mr. Katz. I don't recollect. I was in the hospital in Florida for
a long time.
Mr. Kennedy. You were sick again ?
Mr. Katz. That is correct, Mr. Counsel.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you talk to him at all ?
Mr. Katz. I don't remember talking to anybody.
Mr. Kennedy. Was he pleased with the work that you did ?
Mr. Katz. He was displeased with the bill I sent him.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you find any Communists from the west coast ?
Mr. Katz. You have the wrong coast now, and you mean the east
coast.
6264 imprope:r AcrivrTiES in the labor field
Mr. Kennedy. Did you find any Communists from the west coast
coming out the plant or going into the plant ?
Mr. Katz. I did not.
Mr. Kennedy. You did not find any ?
Mr. Katz. None that I could identify.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you have a conversation with Mr. Shefferman
again after that ?
Mr. Katz. I don't know. I think when I called him, he called me
back and he said, "You are asking for a lot of money."
Mr. Kennedy. After that, and this is 1953, did you talk to him
again in 1954, 1955, and 1956 ?
Mr. Katz. I don't remember.
Mr. Kennedy. You do not remember ?
Mr. Katz. I have been sick.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you try to go to work for him again ?
Mr. Katz. Not that I remember.
The Chairman. When was the last time that you were ill ?
Mr. Katz. I had sustained an injury on January 4 on a ship.
The Chairman. What year ?
Mr. Katz. 1957, this year.
The Chairman. This year of 1957 ?
Mr. Katz. Yes.
The Chairman. What was the state of your health during 1956 ?
Mr. Katz. I have been disabled.
The Chairman. In what respect ?
Mr. Katz. I had had 2 heart attacks and I had had thrombosis,
cerebral palsy, and I had an affliction in 2 legs, and when I came out
of Mount Sinai your investigators were looking for me.
The Chairman. Where were you in August of 1956 ?
Mr. Katz. In August of 1956 1 was up in Los Angeles.
The Chairman. Up in Los Angeles ?
Mr. Katz. That is right.
The Chairman. Did you visit San Francisco during that time ?
Mr. Katz. In August?
The Chairman. Yes.
Mr. Katz. In 1956 I may have visited San Francisco.
The Chairman. I do not quite remember now, but this work you
did for Mr. Shefferman was back in 1953, when you got your checks,
and you got your money.
Mr. Katz. That is right.
The Chairman. Have you ever worked for him any since that time ?
Mr. Katz. Never.
The Chairman. Have you tried to work for him since that time ?
Mr. Katz. No.
^ The Chairman. Have you sought employment with him since that
time?
Mr. Katz. I don't remember.
The Chairman. Have you had any communication with him since
that time about being employed or seeking employment ?
Mr. Katz. I might have sent him a Christmas card from Florida.
The Chairman. A Christmas card ?
Mr. Katz. That is right.
The Chairman. From Florida?
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 6265
Mr. Katz. Yes, sir ; on New Year's.
The Chairman. I present to you a telegram and suggest you iden-
tify it and then read it. Maybe it will refresh your memory.
(A document was handed to the witness.)
Mr. Katz. Yes, I remember this telegram. I told him, "Happy
New Year and what's cooking?"
The Chairman. Happy New Year in August?
Mr. Katz. No, that is not in August, sir, that is New Year's.
Doesn't it say "Christmas and New Year's" ?
The ChairmxVN. I will read the telegram for you. It is sent from
San Francisco, Calif., August 7, 1956, 9 : 20 p. m. :
Nathan Shefferman,
Care, Labor Relations Associates of Chicago, Inc.,
75 East Wacker Drive, Chicago:
As per our conversation I can be reached at 7440 Balboa Street, apartment
303, San Francisco, residence until September 20. I'lease telegraph if work is
available any place at your service. A very happy New Year to you and your
family.
Mike Katz.
That is the Jewish New Year ?
Mr. Katz. That is correct.
The Chairman. That is all right. It is perfectly all right for you
to wish him a happy New Year, either Jewish New Year or Christian
New Year— either one. I think it is quite proper that you washed him
a happy New Year. All right, this telegram may be made exhibit
No. 35.
(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 35" for refer-
ence and may be found in the tiles of the select connnittee.)
Mr. Kennedy. Did you ever meet Shelton Sheti'erman ?
Mr. Katz. I did.
Mr. Kennedy. Where did you meet Shelton Shefferman ?
Mr. Katz. In the office with his father.
Mr. Kennedy. That is the only time ?
Mr. Katz. I may have met him a few times on the street.
Mr. Kennedy. Other than a few times you met him on the street,
did you ever meet him in California ?
Mr. Katz. No.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you ever talk to him in California ?
Mr. Katz. No.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you ever meet him in an office other than in
Mr. Nathan Sheli'erman's office. Labor Relations Associates ?
Mr. Katz. No, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you meet him in his office ?
Mr. Katz. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Was he sitting with you at this time ?
Mr. Katz. Was he sitting with me ?
Mr. Kennedy. Was he in the conference that you had with Nathan
Shefferman ?
Mr. Katz. He was sitting down, naturally.
Mr. Kennedy. He was there present at the conference ?
Mr. Katz. He was sitting there, as I remember, is all.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you know Mr. Sidney Korshak ?
Mr. Katz. No.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you ever meet him ?
89330— 57— pt. IG -3
6266 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. Katz. Except what I read in the papers.
Mr. Kennedy. You never met him ?
Mr. Katz. No, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. You never talked to him ?
Mr. Katz. No, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you know that he had anything to do with the
Englander case ?
Mr. Katz. No, until he read it in the Influence Peddlers, in the book.
Mr. Kennedy. Beyond that j^ou did not ?
Mr. Katz. It was there in the digest.
Mr. Kennedy. You never talked to him ?
Mr. Katz. No, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. And you have never met Sidney Korshak ?
Mr. Katz. I wouldn't know him if I saw him — if he came in front
of me.
Mr. Kennedy. Were you attempting to organize the Max Factor
Co.?
Mr. Katz. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you ever talk to Sidney Korshak about the Max
Factor Co. ?
Mr. Katz. No, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. You never did ?
Mr. Katz. No, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. When were you organizing tlie Max Factor Co. ?
(At tliis point Senator INIcClellan withdrew from the hearing room.)
Mr. Katz. I left the papers at the hotel. I had the exact dates and
the NLRB petition. By the way, the last time I was here, I left some
on the table and when I got back to California, when I was talking to
some of your visitors, I left them on the table, and I can't find some of
those papers.
Mr. Kennedy. When were vou trving to oriianize the Max Factor
Co? ....
Mr. Katz. He Avas organizing Max Factor from August on, I think.
195(1
Mr. Kennedy. August 1956 ?
Mr. Katz. No, 1955. Let's stand corrected.
Mr. Kennedy. 1956, 1 believe.
Mr. Katz. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. AYhat local were you with tlien ?
Mr. Katz. The Processing Fabricators.
Mr. Kennedy. Local 802 ?
Mr. Katz. Right.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you form that local ?
Mr. Katz. No.
Mr. Kennedy. It was in existence before ?
Mr. Katz. It was in existence before I came.
Mr. Kennedy. What was your position in the local ?
Mr. Katz. As an organizer.
Mr. Kennedy. You were working with Joe Roberts at that time^
Mr. Katz. This is Los Angeles, Calif., we are talking about. I don 1
know wliy you mention the man's name.
Mr. Kennedy. Where was the Max Factor Co. located?
Mr. Katz. Up in Hollywood.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 6267
Mr. Kennedy. What were they making? What do they manu-
facture ?
Mr. Katz. Making cosmetics with slave labor.
Mr. Kennedy. Were you successful in your organization ?
Mr. Katz. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you organize them ?
Mr. Katz. We had the plant practically organized, but lo and
behold, who comes on the picture but "Back Door" Dillon.
Mr. Kennedy. And what happened then ?
Mr. Katz. And then the smoke started to fly. Before "Back Door"
Dillon showed his kisser in Los Angeles, some of his organizers from
the mighty Western Conference had come to my office and spoke to
some of tlie boys there to get away from Max Factor, stay away from
Max Factor, aiid the fellow there was just an office fellow. He said,
"I know nothing about it, you better go see Mike Katz."
The fellow said, "Leave your name," and he left his name. His
name was Seman, Bud Seman.
When I got the guy's name, I got into the car and hiked over to
the Teamsters Temple to look for this character. When I came into
the office, we sat down and he started to talk about "We had a deal
cooking with the company, the top brass."
I said, "We have a campaign out here, we are playing music three
times a day, we are staying here until this plant is organized. We
have many meetings of these workers, we have cards signed. We have
petitioned for an election."
Mr. Kennedy. Who said they had a deal with the top brass?
Mr. Katz. Mr. Seman.
Mr. Kennedy. What is his position?
Mr. Katz. He works under "Back Door" Dillon the warehouse-
men. This sounds very funny, but it is true.
Mr. Kennedy. So then what did you say?
Mr. Katz. I had told him, "Tell your boss we will not permit any-
one to come into this plant," because we had discussed this matter with
the local teamsters, and they had had several drives in the cosmetic
field and they had given me a copy of the contracts that existed in
the cosmetic field, and they didn't want any part of it. Tlie next
thing I knew this Mr. Seman was throwing his weight around, until
I started to straighten him out.
Mr. Kennedy. You straightened him out, did you?
Mr. Katz. He called. He said his boss would be up from San
Francisco to talk to me. Well, he came back, "Back Door" Dillon,
to Los Angeles.
Mr. Kennedy. Who came?
Mr. Katz. "Back Door" Dillon.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you have a meeting with him ?
Mr. Katz. I met with him.
Mr. Kennedy. What did you decide to do ?
Mr. Katz. He said, "I^t's forget about the past, this, that, and the
other, and you know we are trying to organize all of these plants."
I had told him that we had these workers organized. I didn't like
the tactics of Mr. Seman on one of our organizers, and nobody is going
to push us around in Los Angeles.
He said. Well, as far as he is concerned, he would take it up with
his superiors. I don't know what he means by the word "superiors,"
6268 IMPROPER AcnvrriEis est the labor field
Bridges or someone else. I did not see him for several weeks. We
kept our campaigning, we kept our meetings going. At the plant we
had a fine committee. We had a fine
Mr. Kennedy. Did you ultimately organize them ?
Mr. Katz. We will come to that very closely. We organized them.
95 percent, and we were prepared to go into the election, when lo and
behold, the NLEB notifies me to appear. I came there to the hearing
and I found — his name was Anderson, I think, representing the Los
Angeles group of "Back Door" Dillon's outfit, and he said that he
was going to intervene in the election.
The Examiner, Bill Kolanski, has said they had the right to inter-
vene, they got a few names. We left the NLRB and we went down
the stairs and we went in for a sandwich and he started to tell me. I
said, "Weren't you told by 'Back Door' that you were going to pull out
and stay away from this deal, that there would be no funny business
here, that we were going to take this plant in the proper manner and
liberate these people?"
He said he had received no instructions.
Well, as time went on, I heard no word.
(At this point Senator McClellan returned to the hearing room.)
Mr. Kennedy. Will you just get to the point? What happened?
Mr. Katz. Wliat happened ?
Mr. Kennedy. Did you organize them ?
Mr. Katz. We had them organized until the election.
Mr. Kennedy. Then Avhat happened?
Mr. Katz. When the election was held, the teamsters were on the
ballot, we were on the ballot, and no union.
Prior to the election being held, the teamsters were permitted to
go into the plant, with the connivance of the employer, and meetings
were held to expose me as a racketeer and gangster, what a man of
this type would do to lead you.
Mr. Kennedy. They were saying that about you ?
Mr. Katz. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. Being a racketeer and a gangster ?
Mr. Katz. That is right, wanted by the FBI, et cetera, while I was
outside the plant for 6 months. The committee resented that, and
we met that night. Two days before the election. We called a meet-
ing. Affidavits were signed by the workers statins: tha^ they were
called into the office by the management and told that thev are <"oo
cooperative. The fellow's name was Cecil Caro. His name is on
the election ballot, C-a-r-o. I am sorry, but I have all the papers at
the hotel.
This started in the plant 2 days prior to the election. We had met
with the company prior to that before the Labor Council to discuss
what was going on.
Mr. Kennedy. What happened, Mr. Katz ?
Mr. Katz. So we had an election, and the workers voted no union.
Mr. Kennedy. Now, you say that you never talked to Mr. Korshak
at all about this matter?
Mr. Katz. No.
Mr. Kennedy. You never did ?
Mr. Katz. No.
Mr. Kennedy. You never knew he had anything to do with it ?
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 6269
Mr. Katz. No.
Mr. Kennedy. What was your telephone number in San Francisco
at that time?
Mr. Katz. I had so many telephone numbers. I moved so many
places.
Mr. Kennedy. Well, in October of 1956, what was your telephone
number ?
Mr. Katz. Was I in the hospital then? I don't remember.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you ever have the telephone number Tuxedo
5-6028 ?
Mr. Katz. I don't remember.
Mr. Kennedy. You don't remember that ?
Mr. Katz. No.
Mr. Kennedy. In October 1956 ?
Mr. Katz. No.
Mr. Kennedy. You don't remember Mr. Korshak calling you on
October 25, 1956 ?
Mr. Katz. Nobody ever called me.
Mr. Kennedy. They did not ?
Mr. Katz. No.
Mr. Kennedy. He didn't talk to you about this matter ?
Mr. Katz. No.
Senator McNamara. I would like to ask a question.
The Chairman. Senator McNamara.
Senator McNamara. Early in your story, j'ou worked in a ship-
yard ?
Mr. Katz. Yes.
Senator McNamara. What was the name of the yard ?
Mr. Katz. I worked for the Kaiser shipyards, the Bethlehem ship-
yards.
Senator McNamara. Both located in
Mr. Katz. Oakland and San Francisco.
Senator McNamara. Oakland and San Francisco ?
Mr. Katz. That is right.
Senator McNamara. When you worked as a steamfitter, did you
belong to the union ?
Mr. Katz. Yes.
Senator McNamara. What union ?
Mr. Katz. Steamtitters Union, local 580.
Senator McNamara. When you Avere employed by the labor coun-
cil, what do you mean by labor council ?
Mr. Katz. The central labor council is a council consisting of all
the unions in San Francisco. I worked under the direction of John
O'Connell, wiio was the secretary.
Senator McNamara. He was the secret aiy -treasurer of the central
body where ?
Mr. Katz. San Francisco.
Senator McNamara. Did he pay you a set salary, or did you get
paid for what you did ?
Mr. Katz. I got paid a set salary like other organizers did. They
paid our car insurance.
Senator McNamara. About this time you mentioned that somebody
took absolution. Who was that ? I didn't eret the name.
6270 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. IvATZ. His given name is Joseph M. Dillon.
Senator McNamara. Dillon. He was the witness we had on here
yesterday ?
Mr. Katz. That is correct, sir.
Senator McNamara. Wlio gave him absolution ?
Mr. Katz. The teamsters union.
Senator McNamara. The teamsters.
Mr. Katz. Yes.
Senator McNamara. When you were in New York, did you find
any west-coast Commies ?
Mr. Katz. No; unless they had mustaches on. I didn't recognize
them.
Senator McNamara. You didn't find any. So Shefferman got noth-
ing for the $2,800 that he paid you? You didn't give him reports on
Commies or anything in New York?
Mr. Katz. "There was nothing there," I said, "and as far as this
thing, I don't want any part of it."
He was very belliget-ent, and he kept on saying, "Do the job," and
this and that. I said, "What are you talking about? You are fight-
ing a trade union over here, and if they have Communists in their
leadership, let their membership kick them out. I want no part be-
cause it stinks."
Senator McNamara. When you refer to your associates in New
York, who are you referring to ? The associates of Shefferman ?
Mr. K^TZ. No. Voluntary workers on the waterfront, who are very
well acquainted with the activities of the Young Communist League,
and the Communist Party.
Senator McNamara. \Y1io are these volunteer workers ?
Mr. Katz. That, Mr. Senator, I respectfully cannot give their
names. It may jeopardize them.
Senator McNamara. Do you consider this sort of a union, or what
is its nature? "Wliat kind of an organization is it? A patriotic
organization?
Mr. Katz. We are all Americans, Mr. Senator. We choose our way
of living and our way of life.
Senator McNamara. Dillon is not an American ?
Mr. Katz. I don't know. I don't want to make a statement, because
you would say I am prejudiced.
Senator McNamara. I am sure you are not prejudiced.
Mr. Katz. Thank you.
Senator McNamara. You say this was an organization of
Americans ?
Mr. Katz. That is right.
Senator McNamara. What do you mean by Americans? Every-
bodv is an American, practically.
Mr. Katz. Eight, Senator. But these men are employed in dif-
ferent occupations. We don't believe in the principles of communism.
We don't want to be sold down the river by the party. We don't want
to eat what tlie;^ sell us, or do what they tell us to do. This thing has
been going on in the city of New York for God knows how many
years. There are many 'factions of the partv. It would take me
weeks to explain. We have no use for them. We don't want no part
of them. We don't want them, in any condition, around. These
IMPROPER ACnVITTES IN THE LABOR FIELD 6271
fellows who I have known for years on the waterfront and in fac-
tories, know the moves of every Commie. If they would come to the
west coast and ask me, I would interchange and identify people to
them. We interchange it.
Senator McNamara. This volunteer organization was not a Shef-
f erman organization ?
Mr. Katz. Definitely not.
Senator McNamara. You say you and others were employed by
them. When you say employed, do you mean they paid you ?
Mr. Katz. By who ? I was paid.
Senator McNamara. You were paid by the volunteers ?
Mr. Katz. No. I was paid by Shefferman. Stand corrected.
Senator McNamara. At the time you were working with the
volunteers ?
Mr. Katz. Yes.
Senator McNamara. But it wasn't a Shefferman organization ?
Mr. Katz. No.
Senator McNamara. Why did he pay you, then ?
Mr. Katz. He paid me for my ability.
Senator McNamara. And your ability developed the recognition of
no Communists ?
Mr. Katz. At that time I could tell the man nothing but the truth.
Senator McNamara. I am sure
Mr. Katz. Definitely.
Senator McNamara. Then you weren't paid by the volunteers ?
Mr. Katz. No.
Senator McNamara. You were paid by Shefferman ?
Mr. K^ATz. That is correct.
Senator McNamara. And you were working with the volunteers, by
his assignment ?
Mr. Katz. I checked out with the volunteers the assignments.
Senator McNamara. You were not paid by the volunteers, and at
the time you were not paid by Shefferman ?
Mr. Katz. Are you talking about New York ?
Senator McNamara. That is right.
Mr. Katz. Shefferman paid me. He paid me.
Senator McNamara. He did pay you. Did he know you were work-
ing for the volunteers ?
Mr. Katz. No. He said "When you go on your own, you do as you
please."
I told him, "There will be no strings attached to me how I operate.
I operate in my own manner, and before I start out I am telling you
now, I will give the score straight. I am not going to waste your
time or waste my time, because I want to get down to Florida. I am
sick."
Senator McNamara. Well, what is the score ?
Mr. Katz. The score as I told the council. I did not identify
anybody.
Senator McNamara. You didn't see anybody you recognized ?
Mr. Katz. No. That is right.
Senator McNamara. You made no reports to Shefferman?
Mr. Katz. I just gave him the report and told him what my bill
was.
Senator McNamara. Did you write him a report ?
6272 IMPROPER ACnVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. Katz. I don't write no reports. There was no necessity for it.
Senator McNamara. Do you belong to any union now ?
Mr. Katz. At the present time I don't belong to any place.
Senator McNamara. When you were trying to organize Max Fac-
tor, did you belong to a recognized union ?
Mr. Katz. An organizer, Mr. Senator, don't belong to any union.
I have a withdrawal card from my organization, the steamfitters. Of
course, I was out of the trade, working in tlie field as an organizer,
so you pay out of the trade $2 a month in order to protect my death
benefits.
Senator McNamara. Were you a trained steamfitter? Had you
served an apprenticeship ?
Mr. Katz. I used to do alteration plumbing back in New York
years ago.
Senator McNamara. Were you a member of the plumbers union
at that time ?
Mr. Katz. No. At that time the alteration plumbers had no recog-
nition. We were an independent group.
Senator McNamara. Working in the building trades, or is it ship-
yard alteration ?
Mr. Katz. No ; it is alteration of tenements, tubs, bathtubs.
Senator McNamara. You were not a member of the union at that
time?
Mr. Katz. There was no union at that time, except for a small
group of 600 workers.
Senator McNamara. You had an organization that was not a recog-
nized union in this maintenance or whatever field you call it?
Mr. Katz. I didn't have no organization. I was strictly a plumber.
Senator McNamara. A nonunion plumber ?
Mr. Katz. A union plumber in our own group, like the electricians
had an alliance and another one had an association. We were an unin-
corporated association.
Senator McNamara. It was an unaffiliated association ?
Mr. Katz. That is right. We paid no dues. We met every month
and discussed the problems in the area and would like to affiliate with
the UA. But the UA did not want to take alteration plumbers, fel-
lows that did the repair work, and there was so much unemployment
that we just worked where we could.
Senator McNamara. Did you have a large group in this associa-
tion that paid no dues ?
Mr. Katz. I believe there was about six or seven hundred.
Senator McNamara. Six or seven hundred ?
Mr. Katz. Yes.
Senator McNamara. Did you have a license to do plumbing by the
State of New York?
Mr. Katz. We were not plumbers. I want to stand corrected.
Senator McNamara. You were not plumbers ?
Mr. Katz. We were not plumbers. On alteration plumbing, the
one who has to fight up the final gas pipe and get checked out has
to be licensed. We were the helpers to the plumbers — helpers' helpers'
helpers — there is a fii^t-class, second-class, and general helper.
Senator McNamara. What category were you ?
Mr. Katz. I reached the first class.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 6273
Senator McNamara. First-class helper.
Mr. Katz. That is right.
Senator McNamara. The journeyman had to have a license ?
Mr. Katz. That is right.
Senator McNamara. AVas the journeyman a member of the union ?
Mr. Katz. The journeymen at the time had licenses, and at that
time there, as I can recall, there was quite a heavy battle between the
building trades and other groups.
Senator McNamara. Is that the only union you ever belonged to ?
You were a dues-paying member of the United Association. Is that
the only union you belonged to ?
Mr. Katz. I belonged to the union in California, and was a dues-
paying member.
Senator McNamara. Do you have a withdrawal card from the
machinists ?
Mr. Katz. Yes.
Senator McNamara. When you worked trying to organize Max
Factor, you mentioned some other group. Who were they?
Mr. Katz. The processors and fabricators.
Senator McNamara. Who are they affiliated with ?
Mr. Katz. The A. F. of L.
Senator McNamara. Is that a division of the chemical workers'
union?
Mr. Katz. What?
Senator McNamara. Is that a division of the chemical workers'
union ?
Mr. Katz. No.
Senator McNamara. They must have some affiliation with some
international. Are they an independent international union ? I mean,
independent in that the A. F. of L. is an international union ? Pro-
cessing and what ?
Mr. Katz. Fabricating.
Senator McNamara. Is that an international union ?
Mr. Katz. It is a local union.
Senator McNamara. Were they affiliated internationally with some
outfit.
Mr. Katz. They were affiliated with some organization.
Senator McNamara. You don't know who they were affiliated with ?
Mr. Katz. A. F. of L. It has Federal locals, industrial locals.
Senator McNamara. This was a Federal charter ?
Mr. Katz. A Federal local.
Senator McNamara. Chartered directly from the A. F. of L., not
through an international, is that the way you understand it ?
Mr. Katz. Yes.
Senator McNamara. I see. Thank you.
Senator Gold water. I just have one question.
Mr. Katz, you are not working ?
Mr. Katz. At present I am at liberty.
Senator Goldwater. If you were offered a job tomorrow by Mr.
Shefferman, would you go to work for him ?
Mr. Katz. After these hearings and all the things that went on in
the past that I heard ; no.
Senator Goldwater. Would you go to work for a similar organiza-
tion ?
6274 IMPROPER ACTivrriES m the labor fieild
Mi-.ICatz. No.
Senator Goldwater. Would you go to work for a union ?
Mr. IVATZ. Yes, sir.
Senator Goldwater. Are you essentailly, then, a union man ?
Mr. Katz. That is right.
I gave skin all my life for the unions.
Senator Goldwater. And you still maintain your loyalty to the
union movement ?
Mr. Katz. Definitely.
Senator Goldwater. That is all.
The Chairman. All right, Mr, Counsel.
Mr. Kennedy. We will go on to another witness, but I would like
to say, Mr. Chairman, that the record seems to indicate from Mr. Katz'
testimony that in 1951 there was an attempt to organize the plant at
Englander; that Mr. Katz sent some pickets out there even prior to
the time that there were any employees at the plant ; that subsequently,
after some conversations with higher-ups, he withdrew the pickets;
that the teamsters went ahead and organized the plant of Englander ;
that subsequently in 1953 when Mr. Katz was in Chicago, he was
called up to Mr. Shefferman's office. He had a conference with Mr.
Shefferman and our recoi'ds show it was on January 8, 1953. The
matter tliat was discussed, according to the records we have, was the
Englander; tliat jNIr. Katz tlien made arrangements to go to New
York. He went to New York and according to his testimony it was
to go to the plant and look at people coming in and out of the plant.
He went there on one day, according to his testimony, and he cannot
identify where the plant was, what it looked like. All he can say is
that he stood outside the plant.
For this standing outside the plant in the morning and the after-
noon he received $2,800. He also stated that in the organization drive
on the Max Factor Co., which was ultimately unsuccessful, that he
never talked to Mr. Sidney Korshak regarding the matter. Specifi-
cally, he didn't talk to him in October 1956.
I would like at this time to call Mr. Sidney Korshak. Maybe Mr.
Katz M'ill be recalled.
The Chairman. You may stand aside for the present. I think you
will be recalled.
(Committee members present at this point: Senators McClellan,
Goldwater, and McNamara.)
The Chairman. You do solemnly swear that the evidence you shall
give before tliis Senate select committee will be the truth, the whole
truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God ?
Mr. Korshak, I do.
TESTIMONY OF SIDNEY E. KORSHAK
The Chairman. State your name, your place of residence, and busi-
ness or occupation.
Mr. Korshak. Sidney R. Korshak, K-o-r-s-h-a-k, 2970 Lake Shore
Drive is my residence, in Chicago, 111. 134 North La Salle Street is
my office. I am an attorney. I have been practicing since 1930.
The Chairman. I assume you waiye counsel ?
Mr. Korshak. Yes.
The Chairman. Proceed.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 6275
Mr. Kennedy. We will get right on the question of the Max Factor
Co. Did you ever talk to Mr. Katz regarding an organizational drive
in the Max Factor Co. ?
Mr. KoRSHAK. Mister who?
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Katz.
Mr. KoRSHAK. In 1956, 1 believe I was in the Friars' Club in Cali-
fornia. I received a telephone call from Mr. Katz. He met me in
front of the place. He told me that he was organizing the company,
and tliat he was having difficulty getting with management. He under-
stood that one of the Factors was from Chicago. He asked if I would
arrange a meeting with management.
Mr. Kennedy. AVliich Factor was that ?
Mr. KoRSHAK. This was a Mr. John Factor. Mr. John Factor was
in the club at this particular time. I asked Mr. Katz to wait. I
walked in and told Mr. Factor what I had just learned from Mr. Katz.
Mr. Factor said that tlie only one that he knew at the plant was a half-
brother, and that he was in Europe at the time, so he couldn't or
wouldn't talk to anyone else. I went out and communicated that to
Mr. Katz.
Mr. Kennedy. I am sorry, I will have to go back.
How did he learn about you in the first place ?
Mr. KoRSiiAK. I would imagine that he called my office in Chicago.
Mr. Kennedy. How did he know ? Is it Jack Factor ?
Mr. KoRsiiAK. Well, I tried to state that a minute ago, Mr. Kennedy.
He presumed that because Mr. John Factor was from Chicago, that
maybe I knew him. He didn't know that I knew him. He just
thought that I might. He asked me to intercede, if I did know him.
Mr. Kennedy. So what did you do ? I am soriy to go over it.
Mr. KoRSHAK. I went back into the club and I talked to Mr. Factor.
I told him that there was a Mr. Katz who told me that he had organ-
ized the Max Factor Co. in Los Angeles.
Mr. Kennedy. "Wlien you say you went back into the club, did you
call Mr. Factor?
Mr. KoRSiiAK. No ; he was in the club. Mr. Factor was in the club.
Mr. Kennedy. Which Factor was in the club ?
Mr. KoRSHAK. John Factor. He has nothing to do with the busi-
ness, and had nothing to do with the business. I believe he is a half
brother of the man who owns the business.
Mr. Kennedy. As a matter of interest, is he the one who was kid-
naped by Koger Touhy ?
Mr. KoRSHAK. That is correct. I told Mr. Factor of the conversa-
tion I just had had with Mr. Katz. He told me that the only one that
he talked to at that plant was his half brother ; that his half brother
was in Europe.
Mr. Kennedy. Wliat is his half brother's name ?
Mr. KoRSHAK. I believe that would be Max Factor. That he was
in Europe at the time, and that was that. I went out and communi-
cated that to Mr. Katz.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you discuss this again at all after that?
Mr. KoRSHAK. I don't know. I really don't recall.
Mr. Kennedy. Do you remember telephoning him regarding the
matter in October, again, 1956 ?
Mr. KoRSHAK. No; I have no recollection of that telephone call.
That may have been in response to an inquiry as to whether or not Mr.
6276 IMPROPER ACTIVmES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Factor had returned from California— from Europe — or whether they
were interested. I would only be hazarding a guess on that. I don't
know. I have no recollection of that telephone call.
Mr. Kennedy. We have a toll ticket from your office. It shows a
telephone call to Mike Katz, Tuckerman 5-6028. It is on October 25,
1956. The conversation began at 9 : 15 and ended at 9 : 33. The con-
versation lasted 18 minutes and 9 seconds. Do you reniember that?
Mr. KoRSHAK. No ; I really don't. I have no recollection of it.
Mr. Kennedy. Is your telephone number BU 1-1433 ?
Mr. KoRSHAK. It was then. It is changed now.
Mr. Kennedy. Well, it was from your residence, a telephone call
from your residence. As I say, the telephone conversation lasted 18
minutes. But you say you definitely did meet with Mr. Mike Katz ?
Mr. KoRSiiAK. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Katz' testimony was that he had
not met with Mr. Korshak or knew that Mr. Korshak knew anything
about this matter, or that he had talked to him on the telephone.
The Chairman. Can you not recall why you may have called him ?
That is less than a year ago. Can you not recall why you may have
called him at that time ?
Mr. Korshak. Senator, a great deal of my business is transacted on
the telephone. I would be hazarding a guess if I said other than I
can't recall.
Was that telephone call, Mr. Kennedy, around the same time that
the Max Factor Co. was being organized?
Mr. Kennedy. That is correct.
Mr. Korshak. Then if I guessed, I would say that I called him to
tell him — he may have tried to reach me. He may have wired me,
or attempted to reach me. I may have been returning the call. I
am sure it would have to do with the ]Max Factor Co. I am sure that
I would have told him that I have no interest whatsoever in the
Max Factor Co., and that Mr. John Factor wasn't interested in the
Max Factor Co.
Mr. Kennedy. I have a few other matters that I want to discuss at
this time.
Mr. Korshak. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Do you know Mr. Nathan Shefferman ?
Mr. Korshak. I do.
Mr. Kennedy. How long have you known him ?
Mr. Korshak. I met him in 1952, when I commenced my relation-
ship with the Englander Co.
Mr. Kennedy. You were representing the Englander Co. at that
time ?
Mr. Korshak. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Shefferman was also doing some work for the
Englander Co.?
Mr. Korshak. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. The teamsters started an organizational drive about
that time, or shortly afterward ?
Mr. Korshak. Where was this ?
Mr. Kennedy. In the Central Conference ?
Mr. Korshak. No, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. This was much later, in 1955 ?
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 6277
Mr. KoRSHAK. Right. Are you speaking now of Oakland, Calif. ?
Mr. Kennedy. Were you familiar with that drive ?
Mr. KoRSHAK. No, I wasn't.
Mr. Kennedy. You didn't have anything to do with that ?
Mr. KoRSHAK. No, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Were you familiar at all with Mr. Mike Katz, what
role he had in the Oakland matter?
Mr. KoRSHAK. No, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you know anything about Mr. Mike Katz' work
in the Englander plant in Brooklyn, N. Y. ?
Mr. KoRSHAK. What year was that in New York ?
Mr. Kennedy. 1953.
Mr. KoRSHAK. I believe I was in New York at the time with Mr,
Sheiferman. I think that Mr. Katz' conversation concerning that is
substantially correct. I believe he only stayed there 1 day. Wliat his
reasons were in leaving, I don't know.
Mr. Kennedy. Do you know what he did ?
Mr. KoRSHAK. I don't think he did anything.
Mr. Kennedy. Do you know if he ever went to the plant ?
Mr. KoRSHAK. That I don't know. I have never been to the plant.
Mr. Kennedy. Did Mr. Shetferman tell you at that time that he
was paying this money to Mr. Katz ?
Mr. KoRsiiAK. I believe he did. I believe he did. And I believe
Mr. Katz was correct in saying that Mr. Shefferman was very mucli
upset about it. I believe that Mr. Katz wanted more money "at that
time.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you approve of the payment?
Mr. KoRSHAK. No, sir. I neither approved nor disapproved.
Mr. Kennedy. It had nothing to do Avith you ?
Mr. KoRSHAK. I had nothing to do with it.
Mr. Kennedy. He was ultimately reimbursed for that payment for
the Englander Co. ?
Mr. KoRSHAK. I am sure he was.
Mr, Kennedy. That wasn't your responsibility ?
Mr. KoRSHAK. No, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. He talked to you about it, but it wasn't necessary,
to clear it through you ?
Mr. KoRSHAK. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. The following day, after the checks were made out,
there were some conferences between Mr. Shefferman and Mr. Abe
Lew regarding the Englander matters in New Jersey. Did you know
anything about those ?
Mr. KoRSHAK. Where were these conversations or conferences ?
Mr. Kennedy. In New York City.
Do you know Mr. Abe Lew ?
Mr. KoRSHAK. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. How long have you known him ?
Mr. KoRSHAK. I met him in connection with the Englander Co.
Mr. Kennedy. When was that ?
Mr. KoRSHAK. I believe that is the time that the Middlesex plant
was organized. Was that in 1953 ?
Mr. Kennedy. Was the plant open at the time it was organized ?
6278 IMPROPER ACTwrriES in the labor field
Mr. KoRSHAK. I don't believe so, but I will accept Mr. Salinger's
findings on it. We gave him all of that information and I am not
quite sure.
Mr. Kennedy. It was not open, I believe, at that time.
Mr. KoRSHAK. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. Was there a contract signed with Abe Lew at that
time ?
Mr. KoRSHAK. I would not know about that. These negotiations
on the Middlesex plant took place between Mr, Shefferman and Mr.
Abe Lew and the local plant manager, Mr. Ferdinand. I did not
partici])ate in those negotiations.
Mr, Kennedy. "Wliat was Mr. Abe Lew's position at that time ?
Mr, KoRSHAK, He was the head, I believe, of the retail clerks local
in New Jersey.
Mr. Kennedy. Ultimately, that plant moved from Bayonne, up to
Middlesex, did they ?
Mr. Korshak. No ; I believe from Middlesex to Bayonne.
Mr, Kennedy. Did Mr. Lew organize that plant, too?
Mr. Korshak. I believe he had an election, Mr. Kennedy, at both
places, in Middlesex and at Bayonne,
Mr. Ivennedy. Did the National Labor Relations Board find that
the company had assisted Mr. Abe Lew in organizing that plant?
Wasn't that the result?
Mr. Korshak. I don't know that,
Mr, Kennedy. You are not familiar with that?
Mr, Korshak, I am not familiar with it,
]Mr. Kennedy, Had you heard that ?
Mr, Korshak. No; I didn't, but if that is true, the company has
cooperated with Mr. Salinger and given him whatever information
he required and he had that information, I will accept it.
Mr. Kennedy. They found, I believe, that in a report dated June 1,
1955. Have you had many dealings with Abe Lew, yourself?
Mr. Korshak. I haven't had any dealings with him outside of con-
versations that I had with him pertaining to these two plants in New
Jersey, but I did not negotiate the contracts, but I am sure I talked
to him about them.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you know he was going to assist the company in
the organizational drive?
Mr. Korshak. I have no knowledge of that.
Mr. Ivennedy. Did you know he had a company called Presto Ex-
terminators ?
Mr, Korshak. No, sir,
Mr. Kennedy. He never spoke to you about that ?
Mr. Korshak. I don't know it now.
Mr. Kennedy. Was there an effort in 1955 by the teamsters to or-
ganize one of the Englander plants in the Midwest ?
Mr. Korshak. Would you repeat that again?
Mr. Kennedy, Was there an effort by tlie teamsters in 1955 to or-
ganize one of the Englander plants in the Midwest ?
Mr. Korshak. Yes, sir. There were several. They organized the
plnnt in Chicago.
Mr. Kennedy. How did they go about that? Could you tell us
about what discussions you had regarding the organization of the
plant at Michigan City ?
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 6279
Mr. KoRSHAK. Yes, sir, I received a telephone call and I was in
New York at the time and I believe I received it from the company.
They informed me that the teamsters had pulled the employees out of
the plant in Michigan City. They were on strike.
I returned to Chicago the next day and I got in touch with Mr.
Jenkins, who I was told was the business representative for the team-
sters local in Michigan City. Now, I may have attempted to reach
Mr. Jenkins from New York and I am not quite sure about tliat.
At any rate, I met witli Mr. Jenkins in my office in Chicago, and
he told me that he had the employees of the plant. I don't think it
was called Englander at that time, and I think it was Lowe Industries.
I asked him if he would consent to an election, and he was reluctant
at first and he said tliat the people were out and wanted to stay out
and that they wanted a contract negotiated. I told him that, in view
of the fact that we had some plants that were not organized, it would
be highly beneficial to the company if he could see his way clear to
consenting to an election, in view of the strong statements to me that he
had our people.
He did consent, and Mr. Mendlesohn was in my office and he walked
over to the Labor Board and we asked for an immediate election and
one was set down for some 15 or 12 days afterward. They won the
election.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you give them any assurances at that time ?
Mr. KoRSHAK. As to what, Mr. Kennedy ?
Mr. Kennedy. As to what the company's position would be on the
election ?
Mr. KoRSHAK. I told them tliat the company would remain com-
pletely impartial; that, if he had the people, I would be happy that
they so certified that before the Board, and that we would make no
efforts to defeat his winning recognition as the bargaining agent for
the employees.
Mr. Kennedy. That plant had an election ?
Mr. KoRSHAK. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. What were tlie results of the election ?
Mr. KoRSHAK. The union won by one vote.
Mr. Kennedy. And the union was recognized; the teamsters?
Mr. KoRSHAK. Yes, sir ; and subsequently we drew up a contract.
Mr. Kennedy. Then, were there other efforts after that to organize
the rest of the Englander Co. plants?
Mr. KoRsnAK. Yes, sir; there were. I received a telephone call,
I believe, from the Central Conference of Teamsters, requesting an
appointment. I then met with a Mr. Harold Gibbons, wlio was the
president of the national warehouse division of teamsters union. At
that particular time, the warehouse division of the teamsters union
had a drive on to organize all mattress companies around the country.
Mr. Gibbons represented to the company and to to myself that they
had the majority of our employees and they wanted a contract.
We sat down and negotiated v.ith tliem. We accepted the statement
of the teamsters' union.
Mr. Kennedy. A majority of their employees were?
Mr. KoRsiiAK. Around the country. At that pardcular time, I
believe that Michigan City was organized and Chicago was organized
by the teamsters, and Los Angeles, Oakkuul, Dallas, and Houston,
Tex. I believe tliey had six of our }?l;ii!ls.
6280 IMPROPER ACXaVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. Kennedy. And how many other phmts did you have?
Mr. KoRSHAK. We have 17. One was covered by the clerks' luiion
and one was covered by tlie United Steelworkers in Birmin<»;ham, Ala.
Mr. Kennedy. So there were nine plants that were added ?
Mr. KoRSHAK. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. So that all of the employees of these nine plants
were brought into the teamsters union, with this contract.
Mr. KoRsiiAK. Into this national contract, but I mioht add this,
Mr. Kennedy, that the teamsters started oroanizing on a local level
and, after we signed the master agreement and before we made any
deductions of dues from any of our employees, we were given authori-
zation cards by the teamsters union.
Mr. Kennedy. But even prior to the time that these people had
indicated any desire to do so, the master contract had been signed by
the officials of the Englander Co. and Mr. Harold Gibbons; is that
correct ?
Mr. KoRSiiAK. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. The individuals in these some nine other plants were
never consulted about whether they wanted to belong to the teamsters
union or not?
Mr. KoRSHAK. Mr. Kennedy, we were under the impression that
our employees in these nine other plants were ap]^roached by the team-
sters union and were being unionized and organized by the teamsters
union.
Mr. Kennedy. Had vou found that vou received any evidence nt all
that these people had indicated a desire to join the teamsters union?
Mr. KoRSiiAK. Only that there was union activity at most of our
plants around the country.
Mr. Kennedy. Maybe the employees were against joining the team-
sters union. The point is that none of tliem were ever consulted in
these some nine plants as to whether they wanted to belong to the
teamsters union or not.
Mr. KoRsiiAK. Mr. Kennedy, usually when a union official comes in
and makes representations to you that he has your employees, you find
it difficult to even get evidence from them of that.
Mr. Kennedy. You could have held an election. Now, for instance,
in the election that you held in this Michigan City ])lant, where the
union official said he had all of the employees, and you people were
completely neutral, the teamsters only won by one vote.
Mr. KoRsiiAK. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Based on that, and based on them signing u]:» the
Chicago plant, some nine other plants were brought into the teamsters
union.
Mr. KoRsiiAK. At this particular time, I would like to give you a
little history here as to the thinking of the company.
At this ]>articnlar time, the pa^^ers were full of the merger of the
AFL and tlie (TO and calling attention that the merged federation
was s:oing to start a drive to unionize every unorganized company in
the United States.
We were fearful of that, and we felt that we could live with the
teamsters. As a matter of fact, we felt at that particular time that a
master contract covering all of our employees would be much prefer-
able to having 17 different contracts around the country.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 6281
Mr. Kennedy. I would think that the employees would have a right
to be consulted as to whether they wanted to belong to the teamsters
or did not want to belong to any union at all or wanted to belong to
another union. As we have gone into this in the past, this decision
was made by Mr. Pink, of the Englander Co., and Mr. Harold Gib-
bons, of the teamsters union, without any consultation with any of
the employees whatsoever.
Mr. KoRSHAK. That is correct, sir, other than that they did have
six of our plants.
The Chairman. You see the point at issue here. It is a question of
whether the management and some union head can get together and
just say, "The plant is organized," and sign a contract without giving
the people, wdio do the work and who are ultimately to pay the dues,
a voice in it as to whether they want to be unionized or whether they
prefer some other union.
That sort of an arrangement, I may say, gives rise to the oppor-
tunity for management and some union leader to enter into collusion
and agree on something. It gives rise to it, and it is a practice that,
I think, is very much in error.
I can appreciate that sometimes you think, "Well, they will finally
get us anyhow ; we will go ahead and join." I understand that.
Mr. KoRSHAK. Or find a picket line in front of our plant.
The Chairman. But I am talking about the practice where it is
engaged in by an arrangement that is worked out with management
and with some high union official in an international union or coun-
cil, where it denies to the people or operates to deny the right to the
workingmen and the man who is the pawn in the negotiations and
ultimate contractual relations any voice in it or right to say whether
he wants to belong to a union or not.
Mr. KoRSHAK. I will subscribe to that 100 percent, sir.
The Chairman. I can appreciate the circumstances under which
it arises from both sides. That is labor and management. Labor
says, "If we can get them all, get them in here, and get a contract, that
is fine."
Management says, "Well, I guess they will ultimately get us organ-
ized and if they do not, they wnll put a picket line around us and so
just in the course of least resistance we w^ill do that."
Mr. KoRSHAK. That is what we were worried about.
The Chairman. There are times when these things have happened,
according to the testimony before this committee, where the arrange-
ment was made solely for somebody to get a payofi' and for manage-
ment to get a benefit from it in a sweetheart contract. It is a practice
that I think should be condemned and should be stopped.
Mr. KoRSHAK. Might I just comment on our contract. Senator?
The Chairman. Yes, and these are examples that we are looking
into because I think that they need some attention.
Mr. KoRSHAK. I will go along with you on that, and I will sub-
scribe to your statement. If this contract is a "sweetheart" contract,
it is one for the union. It is a catastrophe for my company.
The Chairman. I did not say that was true in your case.
Mr. KoRSHAK. Yes.
The Chairman. But we have found that some were sweetheart
contracts for management.
89330— 57— pt. 16 4
6282 IMPROPER ACTIVrTIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. KoRSHAK. I am sure that you have.
The Chairman. Where they were negotiated in substantially the
same manner as this one.
Mr. Kennedy. Isn't it true that the Western Conference of Team-
sters refused to come in on this nationwide contract ?
Mr. KoRSHAK. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy: Isn't it also true that the Western Conference of
Teamsters contract with tlie Englander plants is far higher than the
contract that was siirned by tlie officials of the Englander Co. with
Harold Gibbons and Mr. Hoff a ?
Mr. KoRSHAK. I tried to explain that to you, Mr. Kennedy. His-
torically, the wages on the west coast are higher than they are any
place else. Our wage scale is the same with some exceptions. Their
pension fund is higher. The Western Conference of Teamsters has a
10 cent pension fund. The eastern, and southern conferences have a
5 cent pension fund.
Their health and welfare is about 6l^ cents as against 5iA of the
eastern conference.
Mr. Kennedy. You say the increases that were given in the western
conference were greater tlian the ones given here ?
Mr. KoRSHAK. No, sir, with the exception of the fringe benefits.
Mr. Kennedy. Which are very important.
Mr. KoRSHAK. That is correct and we would have liked to have just
given 5 cents, but they have a pattern out there that is at variance with
the pattern of the teamsters in the South and East.
Mr. Kennedy. Did the wage scale remain approximately the same ?
Mr. KoRSHAK. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Salinger has a copy of the con-
tract that was signed with the Central Conference of Teamsters and
the one signed on the west coast, and I would like to just have him
read out the figures as a comparison and I think it would be of interest
to you. Have you made a comparison ?
Mr. KoRSHAK. I have not.
Mr. Kennedy. I think it would be very interesting.
The Chairman. Mr. Salinger, you have been previously sworn.
TESTIMONY OF PIEKRE SALINGER
The Chairman. The testimony you give now is a result of your
investigation and the comparisons you have made between the con-
tracts ?
Mr. Salinger. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. All right, proceed.
Mr. Kennedy. Let me ask you first, Mr. Salinger, as an overall
picture, what is the highest salary that they receive under the central
conference contract ?
Mr. Salinger. You cannot label it as a central conference contract
because there are slight differentiations from one Englander company
to another, but let us take Michigan City, which has been brought up
here.
In the Michigan City contract, and now we are talking about 1955,
at the time the contract was signed, the highest wage scale was $1,721/2
an hour. That was for what they called job class I, a maintenance
mechanic.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 6283
Now, our examination of the similar contracts in Los Angeles, for
the same year, with the teamsters, shows that their lowest wage for a
job was $1,601/2 for one of their classifications. Now, I might say that
because of the difference in the classifications it is hard to compare
one contract with another without knowing the exact job specifications,
but let us take a simple job like porter or janitor.
In Michigan City a porter- janitor in 1955 was paid $1,271/2 per
hour. Under the contract with the retail clerks union in Middlesex,
N. J., it was $1.35. The contract in Seattle was $1.57i/^ an hour.
In other words, it was 30 cents an hour higher. The contract in
St. Louis, which is one of the contracts in this central agreement,
was $1.22iA an hour. So that there is a marked difference and as
best we can compare them, there is a marked difference of approxi-
mately 30 cents an hour between the Midwest contracts and the
western contracts.
Mr. Kennedy. Would you read some of the figures of what these
people receive ?
Mr. Salinger. In Michigan City, job class I, cushion fitting, $1.27i/2,
and job class II, arm frame driller, $1,321/^; job class III, hardware
stock clerk, $1.37i/.: job class IV, assembler, jackknife sofa, $1,421/2;
job class V, cutter-fitting materials, $1,471/^; job class VI, cushion
closer, $1,521/2; job class VIII, product repairmen, $1.62.
That is the main employees. Females are job class I, buttonmaker,
$1,071/2.
Mr. Kennedy. That is 7V2 cents over the minimum,
Mr. Salingp:r. That is correct, and I think at this point, when
they got the 7i/2-cent increase, they gave them an increase over the
national average.
Mr. KoRSiiAK. How many employees are there ?
Mr. Salinger. I have no knowledge of how many buttonmakers
there are. I will read some of the rest of them :
Job class II, these are female employees, air stapler assembler,
$1,121/^. Air stapling assembler (A) $1,171/^ an hour. Product
development worker, $1,221/4, on up to the highest classification for
women, $1,421/2 an hour.
Mr. Kennedy. Would you read it for the west coast now, please ?
Mr. Salinger. Here we have a seamstress, $1.70% ; bordermaker,
$1,621/2; border machine operator, $1,971/2; floor girl, $2.02 an hour;
box spring assembler, $1.89; general help $1.63; packers, $1,631/2;
tufter, $1,821/2. Those are representative of the figures in that con-
tract.
The Chairman. Is there anything further ?
TESTIMONY OF SIDNEY R. KORSHAK— Resumed
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Shefferman was working for the Englander
Co., was he not ?
Mr. KoRSHAK. He was.
Mr. Kennedy. Do you know during the period of time that he
was working that his representatives were attempting to avoid union-
ization ?
Mr. KoRSHAK. No, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. You do not have any information on that ?
Mr. KoRSHAK. No, sir.
6284 IMPROPER ACTIVrTIEiS IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. Kennedy. Would you, Mr. Salinger, give us the figures of how
much the Englander Co. paid to Mr. Shefferman, up to the time that
the contract was signed by the teamsters ?
Mr Salinger. The figures go past that time. The Englander Co.
paid Mr. Shefferman in the year 1953, $28,324.40. In 1954 they paid
him $22,664.92. In the year that the contract was signed with the
teamsters, 1955, they paid them $24,011.60. The services ceased in
January of 1956, when he received $1,403, a total for those 3 years
plus 1 month of $76,401.87.
Mr. KoRSHAK. I am being grossly underpaid.
Mr. Kennedy. After the contract was signed with the teamsters,
then, Mr. Shefferman's services ended; is that right?
Mr. Salinger. Yes, soon thereafter; yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Now, I just have one other matter that I want to
take up with you and that is another company, entirely, which I
und.erstand you had something to do with and that is the Echo
Products Co.
Mr. KoRSiiAK. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. You have been retained by them ?
Mr. KoRSHAK. Since 1956, 1 think.
Mr. Kennedy. 1956?
Mr. KoRSHAK. Maybe 1955, but I think it is 1956.
Mr. Kennedy. Are you familiar with the Autoyre Co., a subsidi-
ary of Echo Products ?
Mr. KoRSHAK. I know something about it ; yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. They had a plant in Connecticut, did they ?
Mr. KoRSHAK. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. In what place in Connecticut?
Mr. KoRSHAK. That I don't know, Mr. Kennedy. In Connecticut.
Mr. Kennedy. Were you familiar with the organizational drive
against that company ?
Mr. KoRSHAK. That was handled by INIr. Lou Becker.
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Lou Becker ?
Mr. KoRSHAK. Of the company. His title is "Personnel and em-
ployee relations." I have talked to him many times concerning that
company, but I wasn't present at any of the negotiations, and I
would have to guess at what took place.
Mr. Kennedy. Did Mr. Shefferman also work for Echo ?
Mr. KoRSHAK. I believe he did. I believe he did perform some
services.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you have any conferences with Mr. Shefferman
in that regard ?
Mr. KoRSHAK. No, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Were you familiar with the organizational drive
being made on the company, the plant, in Connecticut? Were you
brought in on that matter at all ?
Mr. KoRSHAK. No, sir. I was aware of it.
Mr. Kennedy. You had no conferences at all ?
Mr. KoRSHAK. I think I had conferences, but they would have had
to have been telephone conferences.
Mr. Kennedy. You didn't have any conferences with any of the
officials of the unions that were making the organizational drive?
Mr. KoRSHAK. I had — are you talking of telephone conferences ?
Mr. Kennedy. Telephone conferences ?
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 6285
Mr. KoRSHAK. I am sure I had telephone conferences.
Mr. Kennedy. Was that a drive by both the UAW-CIO and by
the jeweh-y workers union?
Mr. KoRSHAK. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. And Mr. Charles Carrigan was in charge of the
drive bytheUAW?
Mr. KoRSHAK. I know that now.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you ever meet with him ?
Mr. KoRSHAK. I met him once.
Mr. Kennedy. Where did you meet with him ?
Mr. KoRSHAK. I met him at the Essex House in an apartment of a
Mr. Phil Weiss.
Mr. Kennedy. You had a conference with him at that time ?
Mr. KoRSHAK. I didn't have a conference with him ; no, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. You just met him ?
Mr. KoRSHAK. Would you like the circumstances of the meeting ? It
is brief.
Mr. Kennedy. All right.
Mr. KoRSHAK. I was in a room opposite Mr. Weiss' room. I evi-
dently was usin^ the telephone. He knocked on my door and asked
if I would come m. I walked in and there I met Mr. Carrigan. They
were having a drink. That was the first and last time I met Mr. Car-
rigan, and I spent 5 minutes in the room.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you talk to him about the organizational drive '?
Mr. KoRSiiAK. No, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. How did you happen to be in New York?
Mr. KoRSHAK. I am in New York about every 10 days.
Mr, Kennedy. Did you have anything to do with this plant ?
Mr. KoRsiiAK. I don't think so.
Mr. Kennedy. You did not?
Mr. KoRSHAK. I don't think so.
Mr. Kennedy. Had you been requested by Mr. Becker to go to New
York?
Mr. KoRSHAK. I may have been.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you talk to Mr. Carrigan ?
Mr. KoRSHAK. Just on that one occasion.
Mr. Kennedy. Were you requested by Mr. Lou Becker to come to
New York to talk to Mr. Carrigan ?
Mr. KoRSHAK. No, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. You were not ?
Mr. KoRSiiAK. No, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. You say you do not remember whether you discussed
the drive by the UAW on this plant ?
Mr. KoRsiiAK. That is right. Let me just add this, Mr. Kennedy :
It is possible that Mr. Carrigan brought up the question of the Echo
plant at that particular time, but at that time the Echo plant at Water-
bury, Conn., had already started dismantling its operations, and it
would have been a moot question.
Mr. Kennedy. When was that ?
Mr. KoRSHAK. That I don't recall. The only thing I do recall is
the meeting that I had with Mr. Carrigan.
Mr. Kennedy. The meeting, as I understand it, was in February of
1955.
6286 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. KoRSHAK. Then the plant — was this in 1955 ?
Mr. Kennedy. 1956. February 1956.
Mr. KoRSiiAK. Then I am sure at that particular time the i:>lant
was already on its way out.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you have any conferences with Mr. Carrigan ?
Mr. KoRSHAK. No, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you talk to anybody else ?
Mr. KoRSHAK. No, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you talk to Mr. Phil Weiss about the matter ?
Mr. KoRSHAK. No, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you talk to Mr. Hyman Powell, of the jewelry
workers union ?
Mr. KoRSHAK. I have talked to Mr. Hyman Powell many times.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you talk to Mr. Hyman Powell of the jewelry
workers about this matter ?
Mr. KoRSHAK. I am sure I did.
Mr. Kennedy. I thought you said originally you hadn't talked to
any union officials about the matter ?
Mr. KoRSHAK. No, I did not.
Mr. Kennedy. I misunderstood you.
Mr. KoRSHAK. I am sure that in this period when we were beset with
the two labor unions that I had conversations. I don't think I ever
met with Mr. Powell at that particular time in person, but I am quite
sure I talked to him on the telephone. I am sure I talked to Mr.
Becker many times when he was in Mr. Powell's presence about that
particular thing.
]Mr. Kennedy. Were you attempting, as a representative of the
plant, to- get the jewelry woi'kers in there ?
Mr. KoRsiiAK. No, sir. I had no choice whatsoever. As a matter
of fact. United Auto Workers offered to take over the contract of the
jewelry workers for 3 or 4years.
Mr. Kennedy. So that never was an issue at all ?
Mr. KoRsiiAK. No, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. You never had any conversations with Mr. Hyman
Powell about that matter ?
Mr. KoRsiiAK. About what matter?
Mr. Kennedy. About getting the automobile workers union out of
there and getting the jewelry workers union in ?
Mr. KoRSHAK. Mr. Powell may liave mentioned it to me.
Mr. Kennedy. But you were not responsive ?
Mr. KoRSHAK. No, sir. I didn't do anything about it.
Mr. Kennedy. What did he suggest that you do ?
]\Ir. KoRSHAK. He may have suggested that I do something with
the Federation on the question of jurisdiction, of getting the United
Auto Workers to withdraw and let the jewelry workers stay there.
Mr. Kennedy. Did he suggest that you see or talk to anyone about
that?
JNIr. KoRSHAK. He may have. He may have suggested that I see Mr.
Carrigan, but I never did. I only saw"^him on that one occasion and
that was by chance.
Mr. Kennedy. Did he suggest that you see or talk to anyone else?
Mr. KoRSHAK. No, sir.
Mr. KJENNEDY. He did not ?
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 6287
Mr. KoRSHAK. No, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you talk to Mr. Phil Weiss about this matter
at all 'i
Mr. KoRSiiAK. I did not.
Mr. Kennedy. Did Mr. Powell suggest you talk to Phil Weiss?
Mr. KoRSiiAK. I don't think so.
Mr. Kennedy. Did Mr. Powell ever come to see you ?
Mr. KoRsiiAK. Yes, he did.
Mr. Kennedy. Whereabouts?
Mr. KoRSHAK. In Chicago.
Mr. Kennedy. He came to see you in Chicago ?
Mr. KoRSHAK. Sure. Mr. Powell luis come to Chicago many times.
Mr. Kennedy. He came to see you about this matter ?
Mr. KoRSHAK. That I don't know, Mr. Kennedy. He may have.
I am not trying to be coy. I just don't know.
Mr. Kennedy. What matter did he come to see you about, then?
Mr. KoRSHAK. Well, we have about three plants that Mr. Powell
represents our employees in. He may have come about any 1 of the 3.
He may have talked to me about this particular time about our plant
in Idlewild. I am sure I was very much interested in it, and I am sure
we were beset with the problem of having two miions. I am sure
that
Mr. I^nnedy. Did you discuss with him at that time or any other
time about what methods you could use to get the automobile workers
out and get the jewelry workers in ?
Mr. KoRSHAK. No, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. You did not?
Mr. KoRSHAK. No, sir. Other than to appeal to the auto workers.
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Becker didn't call you in Palm Springs and
ask you to come East on this matter ?
Mr. KoRSHAK. Pie may have.
Mr. Kennedy. Well, it must have been of some importance. I
thought when we started out you didn't know anything about this.
Now it seems that you met with Mr. Ilyman Powell, and you at least
met Mr. Carrigan, and Mr. Becker called you all the way to Palm
Springs to discuss it.
Mr. KoRSHAK. I am trying to tell you that I didn't sit in on the
negotiations. I have never been at the plant. I tried to say that I
may have had conferences or conversations about it. But the one
who could give you firsthand information on that would be Lou
Becker.
Mr. Kennedy. I understand that you also might have some infor-
mation, so I am trying to get that from you.
Mr. KoRSiiAK. If I have, I will be happy to give it.
Mr. Kennedy. What did Mr. Becker want you to come East for?
Mr. KoRSHAK. When was this, Mr. Kennedy, that he wanted me to
come East?
Mr. Kennedy. About February of 1956. Did he suggest that you
come and meet Mr. Phil Weiss?
Mr. KoRSHAK. No, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. He did not ?
Mr. KoRSHAK. Definitely not.
Mr. I^nnedy. It was just by chance that you met Phil Weiss ?
6288 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. KoRSHAK. Correct. As a matter of fact, Mr. Kennedy, I don't
think Mr. Becker ever met Phil Weiss in his life.
Mr. Kennedy. That is not the question.
Mr. KoRSHAK. Well, you asked
Mr. Kennedy. What did he want from you? 'Wliat did he want
you to come East for?
Mr. KoRSHAK. Mr. Becker?
Mr. Kennedy. Yes.
Mr. KoRSHAK. I wouldn't know now.
Mr. Kennedy. You don't remember that ?
Mr. KoRSiiAK. No, sir. We have a plant in Holyoke; Ave have a
plant in Geneva. It could have been in relation to those plants, and
if we were still on this Holyoke — on this Waterbury thing, it could
have been in relation to that.
Mr. Kennedy. This plant was closed down and moved to Chicago,
was it?
Mr. KoRSiiAK. That is correct. Economic reasons dictated that.
Mr. Kennedy. Was it organized when it got to Chicago?
Mr. KoRSiiAK. We have a union in Chicago. They became part of
that union.
Mr. Kennedy. What union is that?
Mr. KoRSHAK. Teamsters union.
Mr. Kennedy. They became members of the teamsters union in
Chicago ?
Mr. KoRSHAK. That is correct. Actually, may I just add this, Mr,
Kennedy : Actually, very few employees came in with the plant. Ac-
tually, very few moved out of the area.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you know if Mr. Shefferman's services ended
after the plant went to Chicago and became part of the teamsters
union ?
Mr. KoRSiiAK. I am sure of that.
Mr. Kennedy. Would vou give us the figures on that, Mr. Salinger,
on the Echo Co. ?
Mr. Salinger. In the year 1953, the Echo Co. paid Mr. Shefferman
a total of $10,484.90. In the year 1954, there was almost no activity.
They paid $544.60. In the year 1955 they paid a total of $5,804.98.
The last invoice sent to the JEcho Co. by Mr. Shefferman was in No-
vember of 1955. That was shortly before the jewelry workers organ-
ized this plant in Connecticut. Subsequently the plant was closed
down and moved to Chicago. The total billing for the 3-year period
is $16,834.48.
Mr. Kennedy. After they moved to Chicago and were organized by
the teamsters, did they retain Mr. Shefferman then?
Mr. Salinger. They did not.
Mr. Kennedy, That is all for now, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Senator McNamara ?
Senator McNamara. I have just a couple of questions.
You stated that you believed Mike Katz correctly reported his ac-
tivities in New York ?
Mr. KoRSHAK. When he said. Senator, that he didn't do anything.
Senator McNamara. Yes. How would you know about Mike Katz'
activities in NeAV York so that you could make that statement ?
Mr. KoRSHAK. Just what I listened to here, and what I heard from
Mr. Shefferman.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 6289
Senator McNamara. Did Sheffernian advise you that Mike Katz
was coming to New York?
Mr. KoRSHAK. No, sir.
Senator McNamara. You didn't observe his activities ?
Mr. KoRSPiAK. No, sir.
Senator McNamara. You surprise me a little bit when you make
the statement that he correctly stated his activities in New York. You
knew nothing of his activities until you heard them here?
Mr. KoRSHAK. Actually that is so.
Senator McNamara. You certainly Averen't giving the committee
any information, because we sat here and heard that, too. As an at-
torney, and an intelligent person, I don't understand what you meant
by that.
Mr. KoRSHAK. Well, I had some conversation with Mr. Sheffernian
in New York. I told the committee I was present there.
Senator McNamara. Prior or afterward ?
Mr. Korshak. No; during the time Mr. Katz was in New York.
Senator McNamara. Did you see Mr. Katz in New York?
Mr. KoRSHAK. I don't know whether I did or didn't.
Senator McNamara. But you say to us that you believe he stated
correctly what his activities were there?
Mr. KoRSHAK. AVell, maybe I am in error, then.
Senator McNamara. Somebody is in error. Tell us about this
national contract with the teamsters union. You were representing
the Englander Co. when it was negotiated, this nationwide contract?
Mr. KoRSHAK. Tliat is correct.
Senator McNamara. That covered all the plants. Did it include
the west coast plants or not ?
Mr. KoRSHAK. No; it did not. It just covered, as Mr. Kennedy
stated, the eastern and southern and midwestern. I had to go out to
the west coast and negotiate independently.
Senator McNamara. When you say it covered the South and Mid-
west, did it cover the east coast plants, too?
Mr. KoRSHAK. That is correct.
Senator McNamara. Do you consider that part of the midwest
territory ?
Mr. KoRSHAK. Well, they negotiated for them. They evidently had
the head of tlie eastern conference, and the head of the southern con-
ference, and the head of the central conference present there.
Senator McNamara. Why didn't it include the west coast plants ?
Mr. KoRSHAK. I believe that at the time this contract was nego-
tiated. Senator, there was a keen rivalry between Mr. Hoffa and Mr.
Brewster. I learned of it at that particular time. So Mr. Brewster
would resent anything that Mr. Hoffa would do, and Mr. Hoft'a would
resent anything that Mr. Brewster would do.
The fact that Mr. Hoffa negotiated this contract with us, Mr.
Brewster wouldn't accept it.
Senator McNamara. This contract that covered the plants in the
midwest and the eastern district, established minimum wages? Mini-
mum wages ? Or were these top wages ?
Mr. KoRSHAK. I don't know. I don't know about that. All I am
familiar with. Senator, is the increases that we gave during these
negotiations.
6290 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Senator McNamara. How much was that ?
Mr. KoRSHAK. In 3 years we have given 41.5 cents to the west
coast, 32 cents plus to the central, midwest and eastern conferences.
Senator McNamara, The west coast didn't enter into this thing at
all?
Mr. KoRSHAK. No, sir.
Senator McNamara. Let's talk about the one that you did enter
into on this broad coverage.
Mr. KoRSHAK. I went out. I negotiated with the west coast, too.
Senator McNamara. I understand, but separately.
Mr. KoRSHAK. Right.
Senator McNamara. I am talking about the one that you nego-
tiated that covered the midwest and southern areas. You assumed
that these were just not minimum wages, but these were top wages,
is that it? I mean, you set buttonmakers at $1,075. Could you pay
buttonmakers more under the contract ?
Mr. KoRSHAK. No, sir; that that Mr. Salinger read, I am sure, is
base rates. Ninety percent of this company is on an incentive rate.
Their take-home pay is comparable to the best that any employees in
a like industry make in tlie United States.
Senator McNamara. This $1.07, in this case, was a mininnnn rate?
Mr. KoRSiiAK. That is correct.
Senator McNamara. Weren't all the other rates in the contract
minimum rates?
Mr, KoRSHAK. Base rates?
Senator McNamara. Yes.
jMr. KoRSHAK. I am sure they were.
Senator McNamara. Tlien you could pay the employees more than
was established in this agreement ?
Mr. KoRSHAK. That is right.
Senator McNamara. On that basis, there seems to be no reason why
that couldn't cover the west coast, too, because you could have paid
the $1,075 out tliere, even under this contract, except for the rivalry
between the 2 individuals.
Mr. KoRSHAK. Witli this exception, Senator: These companies
were already established on the west coast and rates were being paid
out there. They may have started at higher rates.
Senator McNamara. They were already under contract ?
Mr. KoRSHAK. Sure. We certainly wouldn't be interested in
bringing them up to the highest. As a matter of fact, great consid-
eration was being given to moving out of the west coast because it
was impossible to pay those rates.
Senator McNamar^v. That is all.
The Chairman. Is there anything further?
Mr. Kennedy. I have just a couple of things.
We have some information on the closing of the plant, as far as the
date is concerned, and I thought we better straighten that out.
Wliat did the record show as far as the closing of the plant ?
Mr. Salinger. The first notice to the many employees was posted
on the bulletin board April 2, 1956.
Mr. Kennedy. TYlien was that ?
Mr. Salinger. Four days after the National Labor Relations Board
ordered the company to hold an election with the autoworkers union.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 6291
Mr. Kennedy. So the notice to the employees about the closing of
the plant did not come mitil 4 days after the National Labor Relations
Board ordered an election which was to include the automobile
workers.
Mr. KoRSiiAK. I have no knowledge of that.
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Katz testified that he received
the instructions from Mr. Comboy, or received the request from Mr.
Comboy of the teamsters union to stop his organizing. We have
talked to Mr. Comboy this morning. Mr. Salinger might report the
results of that conversation. Of course, it is not sworn to.
The Chairman. He may report it, but it is not testimony. It will
not go into the record as such.
Mr. Salinger. Mr. Comboy stated he will furnish an affidavit on
that.
The Chairman. It will be received and will be placed into the
record.
Mr. Salinger. He stated that he knew Mr. Katz, and his feeling was
that Mr. Katz is a man of extremely ill repute in the labor movement,
and that he never discussed this matter with him at any time or any
other matter.
The Chairman. Is there anything further ?
Mr. Kennedy. There will be some matters that we will go into at a
later time with Mr. Korshak. He has been very cooperative.
The Chairman. Mr. Katz will remain until this afternoon. The
committee now stands in recess until 2 : 30.
(Members of the select committee present at time of recess : Sena-
tors McClellan and McNamara.)
(Whereupon, the committee recessed at 12 : 55 p. m., to reconvene at
2 : 30 p. m. the same day. )
AFTERNOON SESSION
(Committee members present at reconvening of the afternoon ses-
sion : Senator McClellan, McNamara, and Goldwater.)
The Chairman. Tlie committee will come to order.
Be sworn, please. You do solemnly swear 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. Bender. I do, sir.
TESTIMONY OF FRED W. BENDER
The Chairman. State your name, your place of residence, and your
business or occupation.
Mr. Bender. Fred W. Bender. My business address is 122 North
7th Street, St. Louis, Mo. I am an industrial relations consultant.
The Chairman. A what ?
Mr. Bender. Industrial relations consultant.
The Chairman. Do you waive the right to counsel ?
Mr. Bender. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. All right, Mr. Kennedy, proceed.
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Bender, how long have you been an industrial
relations consultant ?
Mr. Bender. Since 1945.
6292 EMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. Kennedy. In that capacity, have you met Mr. Nathan Sheffer-
man ?
Mr. Bender. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. AVlien did you meet him ?
Mr. Bender. In 1955.
Mr. Kennedy. And you met him in St. Louis ?
Mr. Bender. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. He came to your office ; did he ?
Mr. Bender. He did.
Mr. Kennedy. AVliat conversations did you have with him at that
time ? Would you relate them to the committee, please ?
Mr. Bender. Yes. He came in and said he wanted a man in the
industrial relations business to represent him in St. Louis, and as far
south as the gulf coast, over to Indiana, and that he particularly
wanted a man to set up independent unions, company unions.
Mr. Kennedy, What sort of thing did he say that he wanted?
Would you explain what he had in mind that you would do for him ?
Mr. Bender. Well, he didn't sjiend too much time introducing him-
self. He mentioned the name of a person that I had met in 1953, and
that was the sort of an introduction. He thought that I would be the
kind of a man to work along with him. On this independent union
thing, he said he had 3 plants in mind, 1 at Jackson, Miss., 1 at St.
Louis, and 1 in Indiana. In St. Louis, he had the Englander plant
in mind.
Mr. Kennedy. What do you mean he had in mind ? What sort of
idea was he trying to put over ? AVhat were you supposed to do for
him?
Mr. Bender. Well, he was going to set up a committee of employees
between he and the company, and send the committee into my office,
and I was to advise the committee how to organize an independent
union, direct the distribution of the literature, and consult with
them until the thing was organized.
Mr. Kennedy. So you were to establish in this area company unions ?
Mr. Bender. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. And what did he say about the negotiations? Wliat
would he do about that, about the negotiation of the contracts ?
Mr. Bender. Well, we never got into that field of it at all. He said
that these people, the committee that would be sent to me, would be
a picked committee, each person on the committee would be selected
by himself and management so that there wouldn't be any mistakes.
There wouldn't be any one on the committee that would cause any
trouble. But beyond that, he didn't go into negotiations.
Mr. Kennedy. Did he speak to you about how much he would pay
you if you performed these services ?
Mr. Bender. My offices are in a building that is out of the high-
priced district. I have some furniture that is about 35 years old. I
guess he thought that high up in five figures would interest me.
Mr. Kennedy. In five figures?
Mr. Bender. I rarely get into the five figures.
Mr. Kennedy. But he mentioned five figures ?
Mr. Bender. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. That is how much he would pay you ?
Mr. Bender. Yes.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 6293
Mr. Kennedy. Were you to organize these company unions in other
plants than the Englander in St. Louis'? Where else did he say?
Mr. Bender. In Jackson, Miss.
Mr. Kennedy. What company there ?
INIr. Bender. There was no company mentioned except Englander.
Mr. Kennedy. And wliere Avas the third one ?
Mr. Bender. He just mentioned the State — Indiana.
Mr. Kennedy. Were you to organize these company unions in other
areas ?
Mr. Bender. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. You were to have general charge of this Midwest
area, tlie lower Midwest area ?
Mr. Bender. That is right. He said that this would be the begin-
ning of a relationship that would be extremely useful to myself, be-
cause he had extra connections with Dave Beck and Hoffa, and could
make it very profitable for me.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you turn him down at that time?
Mr. Bender. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. You didn't perform any services for him ?
Mr. Bender. No, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. You refused to do that ?
Mr. Bender. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. That is all I have at this time.
Tlie Chairman. ^^Hien did this occur?
Mr. Bender. In 1955 — in the spring of 1955.
The Chairman. And wliat he wanted to engage your services for
was principally to organize company unions?
jSIr. Bender. That is right, sir.
The Chairman. They would develop the committee, send the com-
mittee to you, and you would take over and counsel and consult with
them as a labor relations man?
Mr. Binder. That is right, sir.
The Chairman. And you say he was willing to pay you up into
five figures?
Mr. Bender. High up in five figures.
The Chairman. High up in five figures?
Mr. Bender. I don't know what he meant.
The Chairman. Didn't that interest you ?
Mr. Bender. No, sir. I just could be
The Chairman. I think about the lowest in 5 figures would be
$10,(X)0, so high up would be higher than 10.
Mr. Bender. Well, I have done a great deal of work in coopera-
tion with the United States Government, and my reputation — I just
couldn't take it.
The Chairman. You mean you thought at that time that you had
some idea that your reputation might become involved if you got
entangled ?
Mr. Bender. That is right.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Senator McNamara.
Senator McNamara. You said that in this original contact with
Mr. Shefferman he mentioned a name that you knew — somebody who
was a mutual acquaintance. AVho was that?
6294 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. Bendek. That was Harry Karsli. I met Harry Karsh in 1953.
He had been a former business a^ent for the teamsters' local 688.
In 1953 he was representing^ himself as a labor counselor in St. Louis,
a labor adviser. Well, after we met he told me about Sheff'erman.
He tried to arrange a meeting between She Herman and myself, but
I refused. He told me Shefferman had a great connection in the
teamsters with Beck and that he probably could do me a lot of good
in St. Louis.
Senator McNamara. Harry Karsh is a St. Louis man ?
Mr. Bender. Harry Karsh in 1953, as I say, was not in the labor
movement. But prior to that he was a business representative of
teamsters' local 688. That teamster local merged with the United
Distribution Workers — Harold Gibbons' union. When they merged,
Mr. Karsh was given severance pay and he left the organization.
Today he is back into the movement as the business agent of the car-
nival workers. I think the number is 447, a teamsters' local.
Senator McNamara. Did you intend to insinuate when he mentioned
Harry Karsh's name tliat you were no longer interested; is that it?
You no longer wanted to be associated with him?
Mr. Bender. Well, that was one reason.
Senator JMcNamara. I wondered if that was what you were in-
sinuating.
All right. Thank you very much.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Call your next witness.
Mr. Kennedy. Congressman Shelley.
The Chairiman. 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. Shelley. I do.
TESTIMONY OF HON. JOHN F. SHELLEY
Tlie Chairman. State your name, your place of residence, and state
your repi-esentation.
Mr. Shelley. i\Iy name is John F. Shelley. I represent the Fifth
Congressional District of California in the House of Representatives.
My residence address in San Francisco is 1001 Pine Street, San Fran-
cisco. My residence address in the Washington area is 2622 South Joy
Street, Arlington, Va.
The Chairman. How long have you served in Congress ?
Mr. Shelley. I was elected to Congress in a special election in
November 1949 and have been reelected in 1950, 1952, 1954, and 1956,
most of the times without opposition of either party.
The Chapman. Thank you very much.
Proceed, Mr. Counsel.
You are not under subpena, are you ?
Mr. Shelley. No, sir.
The Chairman. Members of the staff contacted you ?
Mr. Shelley. They contacted me in my office a couple of hours
ago and told me about some statements that were made here this
morning and asked me if I would be willing to make an appearance
this afternoon, and I assured them I would.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 6295
Mr. Kennedy. Congressintm, could you tell the committee a little
of your background as far as the labor movement is concerned?
Mr. Shelley. I was born in San Francisco. My father was a long-
shoreman. I was educated there, went to public and parochial
schools. I went to sea as a young man and came back and went to the
University of San Francisco on a football-baseball scholarship. I
went back to sea. I came back in January 1929. I joined the team-
sters union on the basis of having secured employment with the Conti-
nental Baking Co., Wonder Bread and Hostess Cake, and went back
to law school at night at the University of San Francisco, from
which I took my law degree in 1932.
In 1932 I was elected delegate to the San Francisco Central Labor
Council, was later elected vice president of the bakery wagon drivers,
a post which I held for 2 years, was later elected vice president of the
central labor council, and in January 1937 was elected president of
the labor council, a post which I held until 1948 when the then secre-
tary-treasurer passed away, old John O'Connell, and I was elected
secretary-treasurer of the labor council.
In 1947 I was elected president of the California State Federation
of Labor, reelected in 1948, 1949, and after my election to Congress in
1949, did not resign but did not run for reelection in 1950, and since
then have held no official position with labor but still hold a member-
ship in local 484, the bakery wagon drivers in San Francisco of the
International Brotherhood of Teamsters.
Mr. Kennedy. While you were with organized labor and held these
official positions with organized labor, did you ever come across Mr.
Mike Katz ?
Mr. Shelley. May I tell tlie story in my own way, Mr. Counsel ?
Mr. Kennedy. Yes. Would you, please ?
Mr. Shelley. In 1938, 1 was elected to the California State Senate,
which is a ]iart-time job, was reelected in 1942 without any opposition
on either ticket, and in 1946 was the Democratic nominee for lieu-
tenant governor. That is one I did win. The present Governor
of California was the Republican nominee and successful. I took a
leave of absence from my paid job as pi-esident of the central labor
council to campaign, and upon my return after the elections in Novem-
ber I found that there had been set up in my absence what they called a
special organizing committee which had been given offices on the mez-
zanine floor of the Labor Temple at 2940 16th Street, San Francisco.
This organizing committee was set up because of the fear of some of
the members of particularly the metal trades unions who had had great
membership during the war period, with sliipbuilding activities, that
with the spread of unemployment and layoffs following tlie cancella-
tion of war contracts and the cessation of the war, that the CIO groups
would move in on them and use this unrest in order to pull the men
away from them and take tlie men out of the A. F. of L. setup.
I can understand their concern. They set up this special organizing
committee which was supposed to have had the approval of the Central
Labor Council by a resolution that was adopted. Mike Katz was one
of the organizers. There were two gentlemen working in this com-
mittee and handling it — one a Mr. Joe Roberts, about whom I have
nothing bad to say. He is employed in California at the present time,
and I tliink has always done a clean job.
6296 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. Mike Katz was also employed in this office. After I came back
on the job in about December of 1056, 1 started looking into the activi-
ties of this committee, and some of the activities of Mr. Katz, in partic-
ular, because I was the president of the central labor council, and
felt that labor should be militant, labor should be radical in the best
sense of the word "radical," in demanding changes and improvement,
but it should not have characters with bad reputations affiliated with
them or people who used rough, tough, bad practices in trying to
achieve labor's legitimate ends.
I one night walked into their office, which was just downstairs under
mine. Mr. Roberts and Mr. Katz were in the office. It w^as about 6 : 30
at night. I think this was in early 1947. It was about 6 : 30 in the
evening. I said I wanted to have a talk and get an explanation of
w^hat they thought they were doing and an explanation of a couple
of things. I don't recall the exact incidents at the time.
I had had rej^orts that they were using what I consider not good
tactics. They w^ere threatening and involving themselves in issues
which were not organizing, but trying to intimidate both union mem-
bers and employers.
As I went in and sat down on Mr. Roberts' desk, Mr. Katz, w^lio sat
at another desk just inside the door, made some comment. As I
wheeled around to ask him what he had said he produced a .38
revolver, either from the desk or from his clothing, and laid it on the
desk and made a crack about "Don't get tough with us."
I told Mr. Katz that he better stuff the revolver back where he got
it, or I would stuff it some place else, butt first.
Mr. Katz put the revolver in the desk drawer. Mr. Roberts and I
had our conversation. I left the office.
Several months later, Mr. Katz was terminated from employment
with this committee, and some several months after that, the committee
was dissolved because there was actually no use for it.
Mr. Kennedy. Did your paths cross again, with Mike Katz?
Mr. Shelley. I think at several labor meetings, up to about 1950, 1
saw Mr. Katz. I had no conversation with him. But I don't think
I have seen Mr. Katz personally since 1950 or 1951.
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Katz made some statements about Joe Dillon.
He called him "Back Door" Dillon, I believe, this morning when he
testified. Could you tell the committee what your experience has been
as far as Joe Dillon is concerned, and his general reputation ?
Mr. Shelley. Yes, Mr. Counsel.
I have known Mr. Dillon and his family since I was a young boy
in San Francisco. He comes from a highly respected family. Joe
Dillon, if I can give you the background as I know it, spent several
years in the seminary studying to be a priest in St. Patrick's Seminary
in Menlo Park, Calif. He left and later went to work as a warehouse-
man. At that time they Avere unorganized. The ILWU, the Bridges
longshoremen, organized the warehousemen. Dillon became a
business agent for that organization. He later broke with Mr.
Bridges and Mr. Goldblatt and some of the leadership of that union
on a difference of view on policy. Mr. Dillon talked to me about it,
I believe it was 1945 or 1946, and I arranged meetings with Mr. Dillon
and Mr. Inar Mohn, Mr. Joe Devany, and some of the men from the
top of the teamsters. He was then hired as an organizer for the team-
sters wareliousemen and went to work for them.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 6297
To the best of my knowledge, as long as I have known Mr. Dillon,
which is probably for 20 or 25 years, he is clean, he is honest, he is
respectable and he is a good American citizen and a good trade
unionist.
The Chairman. Are there any questions ?
Senator McNamara.
Senator McNamara. I would like to ask the Congressman a question.
After Mike Katz pulled a gun on you in your office, or in the office
that was in the Labor Temple
Mr. Shelley. It wasn't in my office, Senator. It was in this com-
mittee's office, which was a floor below mine.
Senator McNamara. I refer to it as your office where you were presi-
dent of the central body, and this was the Labor Temple. It was your
building.
Mr. Shelley. That is right. The Labor Temple in San Francisco
is owned by the Central Labor Council or by a separate corporation
setup.
Senator McNamara. You indicated that the committee continued
in that employment for a couple of months afterward. There must
have been some accounting for that. I don't know why you tolerated
him the next day.
Mr. Shelley. I didn't have the authority to dismiss him or he
would have been out of there fast and furiously at that time. But
I did not have the authority, and it took a little time, as I think you
can appreciate. Senator, to work out the means and the procedure
for clearing the desks.
Senator McNamara. He was employed by the special organizing
committee 'I
Mr. Shelley. Yes.
Senator McNamara. And that was established by the Central Labor
Council ?
Mr. Shelley. That is right, sir.
Senator McNamara. They were given a certain sum of money and
authority to hire?
Mr. Shelley. That is right, sir.
Senator McNamara. Therefore, you didn't have direct charge ?
Mr. Shelley. Yes.
Senator McNamara. I think the record ought to explain why he
was continued if he pulled the gun on you, and that is your answer.
Mr. Shelley. That is why it was done.
The Chairman. Senator Goldwater ?
Senator Goldwater. Congressman Shelley, is it not true that Mr.
Dillon has been actively against Mr. Bridges ever since Mr. Bridges
has been disclosed as what he is in the labor movement ?
Mr. Shelley. Well, of course I don't know what you mean by
disclosed as to what he is in the labor movement. It is a peculiar
situation, Senator.
Senator Goldwater. I refer to his Communist activities.
Mr. Shelley. You have a very peculiar situation there. A great
number of us disagree with a lot of Mr. Bridges' political ideas. But
even the men in his own union who might disagree with that will
sometimes support him because they figure he has done a job for the
men on the waterfront in San Francisco.
89330— 57— pt. 16 5
6298 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. Dillon, however, was a man who for a long time fought him
inside his own union because of these differences of opinion on the
basis of political philosophy. I think that the job that he holds
with the teamsters in organizing the warehouse division indicates
that he still holds that viewpoint.
Senator Goldwater. The reason I asked that was Mr. Katz testi-
fied this morning, and during the testimony he left the impression
with me that in his opinion Mr. Dillon was not devout in his opposi-
tion to communism. It has been my understanding from friends in
the labor movement in the San Francisco area that Mr. Dillon has
been extremely devout in his opposition to Mr. Bridges and to
communism.
Mr. Shelley. I will agree with what you have just expressed as to
the reports you have from friends of Mr. Dillon as being my own
opinion. I think he is devoutly opposed to communism. I think he is
a good American. If he is a Communist, then perhaps we all better
look at ourselves. I have been called one at times, and I think there are
times when people who just want to get even with somebody in the
labor movement, even in interunion fights, will say, "Oh, he is a darn
Communist." That is the only basis that someone would say it about
Joe Dillon. But as far as having a taint of Communist philosophy
in his whole being, it just doesn't exist.
The Chairman. Thank 3'Ou very much. Congressman Shelley.
Mr. Shelley. Thank you.
The Chairman. Call the next witness.
TESTIMONY OF PIERRE SALINGER— Resumed
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. C'hairman, we had some discussion this morning
regarding the Englander contract, and the difference between that
contract and the contract on the west coast. We have here an analysis
of the complaints made in some of the local areas in the midwest, a
document which shows some of the complaijits that were read. I
would like to have permission to put that into the record, to make it
an exhibit for reference.
The Chairman. Mr. Salinger, what is the source of the document
you liave?
Mr. Salinger. This document. Senator, was turned over to me as
part of the files of the Englander Co. that we requested. It is a copy
of a letter on the stationery of the International Brotherliood of
Teamsters, Warehousemen, and Helpers of America, 25 Louisiana
Avenue NW., Washington, D. C. Signed by James K. Hoffa, chair-
man, Conference of Englander Locals, and J. J. Gibbons, acting
director, national warehouse division.
The Chairman. This letter was taken from whose files ?
Mr. Salinger. The files of the Englander Mattress Co., Chicago,
The Chairman. The letter may be marked "Exhibit No. 36."
(The letter referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 36" for reference
and will be found in the appendix on pp. 6575-6577. )
The Chairman. The witness may refer to the items of interest.
Mr. Salinger. The letter is a report on the progress that the
teamsters have been making in their negotiations witli the Englander
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 6299
Co. Included are a number of complaints from locals about conditions
they feel are unfair to them. Several of these :
Dallas, Tex., and Kansas City, Mo., contend that there are inequalities between
their plant and other plants in this same industry in their area. A request
was made that a study be made of this problem.
Down below it says :
St. Louis, Mo., requests that something be done in connection with the low
minimum rates.
This is an extension of the testimony this morning of the wage rates
in the contracts of the Englander Co.
The Chairman. All right. Call the next witness.
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Hyman Powell.
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 ?
Mr. Powell. I do.
TESTIMONY OF HYMAN POWELL
The Chairman. State your name, your place of residence, and your
business or occupation.
Mr. Powell. Hyman Powell, 390 West End Avenue, New York
City, secretary-treasurer of the International Jewelry Workers' Union.
The Chairman. Jewelry workers ?
Mr. Powell. That is correct.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Do you waive counsel, Mr. Powell ?
Mr. Powell. I do.
The Chairman. All right, Mr. Kennedy, you may proceed.
Mr. Kennedy. How long have you been with the jewelry workers*
union, Mr. Powell ?
Mr. Powell. Approximately 16 years.
Mr. Kennedy. How many members do they have, the international ?
Mr. Powell. About 26,000 or 27,000 members.
Mr. Kennedy. Most of them are centered in New York, are they ?
Mr. Powell. I would say the great majority of them.
Mr. Kennedy. Do you have them in other areas ?
Mr. Powell. We have them throughout the United States and
Canada.
Mr. Kennedy. But the majority of them are in the East ?
Mr, Powell. In the East.
Mr. Kennedy. How many of your 26,000 are in New York or that
vicinity ?
Mr. Powell. About 13,000 are concentrated in the New York area.
Mr. Kennedy. How long have you held the position of secretary ?
Mr. Powell. Approximately 10 years.
Mr. Kennedy. Were you elected to that position ?
Mr. Powell. I was.
Mr. Kennedy. How often are you reelected ?
Mr. Powell. Every 3 years we have a regular convention, at which
time, by secret ballot, the officers of the international union are elected,
Mr. Kennedy. Have you had any opposition in the past ?
Mr. Powell. I have had opposition almost on every occasion.
6300 IMPROPER ACTIVITIEiS IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. Kennedy. T\^ien was the last time you were reelected ?
Mr. Powell. In 1956, 1 guess.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you have opposition at that time ?
Mr. Powell. Yes; I did.
Mr. Kennedy. Who was the opposition?
Mr. Powell. A man by the name of Harry Spodich, the president
of a silverware local.
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Powell, are you familiar with the organizational
drive that your union had at the Autoyre Co. in Waterbury, Conn. ?
Mr. Powell. I am.
Mr. Kennedy. When did that begin?
Mr. Powell. In approximately November of 1955.
Mr. Kennedy. Were you familiar, at the time that your organiza-
tional drive started in November of 1955, that the United Automobile
Workers had been attempting to organize that plant since August of
that year ?
Mr. Powell. I was not.
Mr. Kennedy. As I understand it, there were some pickets that
were sent out by the jewelry workers union.
Mr. Powell. Well, what happened was, when we originally started
to organize that plant, my people reported to me, my organizers did,
that the area was predominantly UAW, which is United Automobile
Workers, and that they had 18,000 members in a plant nearby — I
think it was called Scoville Brass — and they had a few thousand
members in a plant called Chase Brass. And, after they started
their activities, the United Auto Workers then got busy, because
they didn't want any otlier union to get a foothold in that area. They
were running into a problem.
As a result, I suggested that they call a quick strike up there, that
is, ])ut pickets up there, organizational pickets, and see whether we
could shut the plant down and get a contract.
^Ir. Kennedy. When was that that you sent the pickets up ?
Mr. Powell. That was about the early part of January 1957.
Mr. Kennedy. At that time, had the company indicated to you
that they wanted your union in there rather than the UAW?
Mr. Powell. I had no conferences witli the company.
(At this point Senator McClellan withdrew from the hearing
room.)
Mr. Kennedy. Had they indicated to you, either by telephone or
otherwise, that they wanted your union in there rather than the
UAW?
Mr. Powell. No ; they did not.
Mr. Kennedy. They had not ?
Mr. Powell. They had not.
Mr. Kennedy. As of that date they had not ?
Mr. Powell. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. Where did these pickets come from that you sent
up there ?
Mr. Powell. They were members of our international union, and
they were organizers and local officials of different unions.
Mr. Kennedy. How many pickets did you send up?
Mr. Powell. I think there was about 30 or 40, probably, that went
up.
Mr. Kennedy. About 50 pickets ?
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THEi LABOR FIELD 6301
Mr. Powell. I would say between 30 and 50. I don't know the
exact amount, but our records would indicate that.
Mr. Kennedy. And did any of the employees of the plant serve as
pickets ?
Mr. Powell. No ; we did not have any of them.
Mr. Kennedy. These were all outsiders that were sent up from New
York and New Jersey ?
Mr. Powell. New York and Connecticut.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you bring some over from New Jersey ?
Mr. Powell. No.
Mr. Kennedy. Just New York ?
Mr. Powell. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Most of them were from New York City ?
Mr. Powell. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. How did you transport them up there ?
Mr. Powell. By automobile.
Mr. Kennedy. And then they stayed outside the plant. Did the
management in the plant send their employees out when you arrived
with your pickets ?
Mr. Powell. Well, we had practically all of the gates closed, and
the people congregated outside, and we had arranged, at least my
organizers had arranged, so they tell me, I wasn't there at the time,
that they had taken a hall nearby where all of the workers were sent
to and where they held a meeting.
Mr. Kennedy. Did the officials of the company send the employees
to the hall to be signed up ?
Mr. Powell. No; our people were standing right in front of the
gate and, as the people came in to work, we suggested to them to go
over to this hall.
Mr. Kennedy. Did the officials of the company send the employees
that already arrived in the plant over to the hall to be signed up ?
Mr. Powell. I don't know what they did, and I wasn't there.
Mr. Kennedy. You did not have any conversations with them ?
Mr. Powell. No ; I did not.
Mr. Kennedy. Did they ever report to you, did the company officials
report, or did your people, that this procedure was followed by the
officials of the company ?
Mr. Powell. No ; my people reported that they sent the people over
to the union hall.
Mr. Kennedy. You never heard that tlie company also sent people
over there ?
Mr. Powell. No, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. When was that ? When did you send these pickets,
these 30 to 50 pickets ?
Mr. Powell. Around the early part of 1956, 1 think, the early part
of January.
Mr. Kennedy. Now, were arrangements made to sign a contract
with the company ?
Mr. Powell. Well, what happened at that time, and I am reporting
what my organizer told me, a committee was elected at this meeting
that took place among the workers and a group of workers went in
with the organizers and met with management and they selected an
impartial person who would conduct a card check. Wlien manage-
6302 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
ment was satisfied that we represented a majority of the people, they
then entered into a contract with our union.
Mr. Kennedy. How long after you sent the pickets up did that
happen ? Didn't it happen the same day ?
Mr. Powell. It happened later that afternoon.
Mr. Kennedy. So the same day that you sent 50 pickets up from
New York City to picket the plant, a contract was signed with manage-
ment ; is that right ?
Mr. Powell. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. At the same time the United Automobile Workers
had been attempting to organize the plant ?
Mr Powell. We\\, at tliat point, yes. One of the reasons for the
picketing was that Ave knew, we as an international union with 23,000
people certainly were not in any position to enter into an organiza-
tional campaign bucking an organization that had 1 million people.
Mr. Kennedy. Didn't you understand at that time that the com-
pany wanted to sign a contract with you rather than the UAW ?
Mr. PoAVELL. Xo, I did not.
Mr. Kennedy. When did you learn of that happening ?
Mr. Powell. I learned that they had signed tliat day.
Mr. Kennedy. When did you learn that they were interested in
keeping the UAW out and bringing your union in "?
Mr. Powell. As soon as that contract was signed, I think it was the
following day or the day after, we were told that a petition for certifica-
tion by the UAW was filed with the labor board in Boston.
I had spoken then to the labor relations man for the company and he
indicated a preference to me, tliat he would prefer to deal with us.
Mr. Kennedy. Who was that ?
Mr. Powell. A man by the name of Louis Becker, and I might point
out that we have had contracts with this company for over 12 years. I
am safe in saying at least 12 years, and we have gotten very decent
contracts and very good contracts and very substantial benefits for our
members and I do not think we ever had one day of industrial strife
with them.
Mr. Kennedy. Did the UAW bring charges before the National
Labor Eelations Board ?
Mr. Powell, No ; they brought a petition for certification.
Mr. Kennedy. Then what steps did you take after that?
Mr. Powell. Well, I then sent a telegram to Mr. Maizy, and Mr,
Walter Reuther, pointing out to tliem that we were parties to a no-
raiding agreement and that we had a contract covering these workers,
and if he felt that we did not belong there, or that we had signed any.
agreement that should not have been signed, we were prepared to
meet with him and let the arbitration procedure under the no-raid
pact be the guiding spirit, and that we would submit to arbitration
under the AFL-CIO no-raid pact. So that we were pretty sure of our
position at the time because were we not, certainly, no arbitrator
would uphold us.
Mr. Kennedy. Now, Mr. Charles Kerrigan was representing the
UAW, was he not?
Mr. Powell. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you make arrangements to meet with Mr. Ker-
rigan to see if he would withdraw his petition ?
Mr. Powell. I did.
IMPROPE'R ACTIVrrrES IN THE' LABOR FIELD 6303
Mr. Kennedy. Did you meet with him personally ?
]Mr, Powell. I met with him on two occasions.
Mr. Kennedy. When did you meet with him ?
Mr. Powell. I met him immediately after the petition was filed and
I subsequently
Mr. Kennedy. Where did you meet with him at that time ?
Mr. Powell. I met with him approximately the second or third
week of January.
jMr. Kennedy. Where ?
Mr. Powell. At the Essex House.
Mr. Kennedy. Where ?
Mr. Powell. Phil Weiss' suite.
Mr. Kennedy. Why did you arrange to meet in Phil Weiss' suite ?
Mr. Powell. I did not make the arrangements. What happened
was, I know Phil Weiss and I know Charlie Kerrigan and I had met
Charlie there before and I was going to ask Phil Weiss if he could use
his influence with Charlie Kerrigan to get them to withdraw that
petition.
Mr. Kennedy. What does Phil Weiss do ?
Mr. Powell. I haven't any idea at all.
Mr. Kennedy. You do not know what job he has ?
Mr. Powell. I haven't any idea.
Mr. Kennedy. But you went to Mr. Phil Weiss' to see if he would
use his influence with Kerrigan to get him or the UAW to leave the
plant ?
Mr. Powell. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. You met up in Phil Weiss' apartment?
Mr. Powell. To withdraw the petition.
Mr. Kennedy. You met up in Phil Weiss' apartment ?
Mr. Powell. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. What did Mr. Kerrigan say ?
Mr. Powell. He would check into the whole thing and he wasn't
entirely familiar with it.
Mr. Kennedy. You met with Mr. Kerrigan again ?
Mr. Powell. I met him subsequently, at his office.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you again renew your request ?
Mr. Powell. I asked him at that time why his parent organization
had ignored the telegram and why they were not prepared to sit down
and have this thing handled by negotiations and if that failed, the
no-raid pact ought to apply.
He said that he would check into that and he would call Detroit and
he would be in touch with me.
Mr. Kennedy. Wlio else did you see to have them talk to Kerrigan
or try to bring pressure on Kerrigan ?
Mr. Powell. A man by the name of Goggi.
Mr. Kennedy. Wlioishe?
Mr. Powell. He is a labor relations man who was a former inter-
national representative for the United Auto Workers, and who had
worked on Charles Kerrigan's staff.
Mr. Kennedy. "Wlio else ?
Mr. Powell. That is all I know of at the moment,
Mr. Kennedy. Wlio else did you arrange either directly or indirectly
to speak to Mr. Kerrigan about withdrawing from this plant?
6304 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. Powell. I don't know of anybody else. I might have gone to
my own attorney, whose partner's brother is a staff member of the
UAW.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you go out to see Mr. Sidney Korshak ?
Mr. Powell. I did. Eight after that, I spoke to Mr. Becker.
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Becker was working for whom ?
Mr. Powell. For the Echo Co.
Mr. Kennedy. Did he have a position with the National Labor
Relations Board ?
Mr. Powell. I think he was the secretary or the executive secretary
to the National Labor Relations Board. I asked him whether he,
since he was indicating a preference at that point, could use any in-
fluence he might have had. He suggested to me that the next time
I am in Chicago, I call him and we would sit down with his attorney
and see whether anything could develop there.
I made it my business, and I especially went to Chicago and called
him and asked him to arrange a meeting with his attorney. I met
Mr. Korshak, who was the attorney, and I asked Mr. Korshak whether
he could use his influence since he dealt with a lot of LTAW people
connected in the labor movement, to get the United Auto Workers
to withdraw.
I think it is safe for me also to point out at this time that while
we were trying to run all over the lot trying to get them to withdraw,
the UAAV was holding meetings in the plants where they had mem-
bers and they were telling their members to speak to their relatives
who worked in Autoyre and tell them to be loyal to the UAW and
that type of thing.
Mr. Kennedy. Whom did j^ou want, specifically, Mr. Korshak to
speak to ?
Mr. Powell. I wanted him to speak to everybody, but I mentioned
to him Phil Weiss' name and I mentioned other names to him.
Mr. Kennedy. Why did you mention Phil Weiss' name to him?
Mr. Powell. I don't know. I would have mentioned it to anybody.
Mr. Kennedy. Who is this Phil Weiss, whom you don't know ?
Mr. Powell. I mentioned it to Goggi, also, and I mentioned it to
everybody because I felt that Phil Weiss had some influence with
Kerrigan, and so whoever I spoke to and requested that they use their
influence, I would mention that.
Mr. Kennedy. So you went out to see Mr. Korshak in Chicago and
requested at that time that he speak to Phil Weiss ?
Mr. Powell. And also speak to Kerrigan. I thought he might be
able to speak to him.
Mr. Kennedy. Did he make arrangements to go east to speak to
Kerrigan ?
Mr. Powell. I don't know what he did and he told me that he
would do what he can and made no commitments whatsoever.
(At this point. Senator McClellan entered the hearing room.)
Mr. Kennedy. Did he speak to Mr. Kerrigan, that you know of?
Mr. Powell. I subsequently found out that he met him for a minute
or two.
Mr. Kennedy. Where did he meet him ?
Mr. Powell. He was supposed to have met him in the Essex Hotel.
Mr. Kennedy. Again, in Phil Weiss' apartment ?
IMPROPER ACTIVrTIES IN THE. LABOR FIELD 6305
Mr. Powell. I don't know whether it was in there of his own apart-
ment or where it was, but I know he met him in the hotel.
Mr. Kennedy. What about Paul Dorfman, did you speak to Paul
Dorfman about it ?
Mr. Powell. I did not.
Mr. Kennedy. Do you know Paul Dorfman ?
Mr. Powell. Yes, sir ; I do.
Mr. Kennedy. What did he do in this ?
Mr. Powell. He didn't do anything.
Mr. IvENNEDY. Was he spoken to about this ?
Mr. Powell. I don't think so.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you ever hear his name mentioned in connection
with it?
Mr. Powell. No.
Mr. Kennedy. What about Johnny Dio ?
Mr. Powell. I heard that he was supposed to do something.
Mr. Kennedy. Who made arrangements for Dio to do something?
Mr. Powell. I don't know.
Mr. Kennedy. Well now, Mr. Powell, you know something about
this, and you were working on it and you knew a couple of days ago
about Mr. Dio.
Mr. Powell. I knew a couple of days ago about Dio? I certainly
did not.
Mr. Kennedy. Tliat Mr. Dio involved himself in this matter?
Mr, Powell. I don't know. I never spoke to him.
Mr. Kennedy. Who told you about Mr. Dio being interested in it?
Mr. Powell. I never spoke to Mr. Dio about this matter.
Mr. Kennedy. Who spoke to Mr. Dio for you ?
Mr. Powell. I don't know.
Mr. Kennedy. How do you know Mr. Dio was involved at all ?
Mr. Powell. I heard this.
Mr. Kennedy. Who told you ?
Mr. Powell. I had spoken to an investigator from your department.
Mr. Kennedy. That is the first you heard of it, Mr. Powell ?
Mr. Powell. No ; that is not the first I heard of it.
Mr. Kennedy. Well— —
Mr, Powell. You hear rumors. You hear a lot of rumors, and I
don't know exactly who I heard it from. But I heard he was interested
in trying to get Kerrigan to withdraw.
Mr. Kennedy. Why were you trying to get Dio, and Phil Weiss,
and taking a trip to Chicago to see Korshak and all of this to get the
UAW out of the plant?
Mr, Powell, Let us get the record straight, I never tried to get
Dio, and I never had any business with Dio and I never went to Dio
with this thing and I never discussed this with Dio.
Mr, Kennedy, Dio was brought in on the matter ?
Mr, Powell. I don't know that to be a fact and I heard that. I was
not there and I did not discuss it with him and I could not testify to
that.
The Chairman. When did you first hear it, Mr, Powell ?
Mr, Powell. Right about that same time. God Almighty, I must
have spoken to 20 different people asking them to try to use their in-
fluence and we are a small international.
6306 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
The Chairman. I understand that this was at the time,
Mr. Powell. I beg your pardon ?
The Chairman. All I wanted to establish was that you heard of it
at the time that this was happening and not something of recent days
or weeks. You heard of it at that time ?
Mr. Powell. Yes, sir.
Tlie Chairman. You heard of it in a sense, at that time ?
Mr. Powell. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. The company was also interested in achieving this
result ?
Mr. Powell. Oh, yes.
Mr. Kennedy. They were also doing whatever they could to try to
get the UAW out?
Mr. Powell. I assumed that ; yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy, You had conferences with them ; did you not ?
Mr. Powell. Yes. They said that they would try and they did not
tell me how, and they did not tell me by what methods.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you ever hear that they were contemplating
offering some money to try to get the UAW out of the plant ?
Mr. Powell. Well, I discussed that with you, and I pointed out to
you that I had discussed the first time I had heard anything like that
was months after the company had moved to Chicago.
Now, I said at that time I did not know where I heard it and there
was some talk about that and I said to my best recollection, I might
have heard it for the first time from one of the men that is w^ith your
staff.
Mr. Kennedy, You think that is the first time you heard of it ?
Mr. Powell. That is possible.
Mr. Kennedy. Some 16 months later — 16 months after it happened ?
Mr. Powell. I discussed that with them long before that.
Mr. Kennedy. But you cannot remember who might have mentioned
that to you ?
Mr. Powell. That is correct. I do not even know if anything like
that was mentioned.
Mr. Kennedy. Despite all of these efforts, Mr, Kerrigan remained
interested in the j)lant, did he not ?
Mr. Powell, Yes ; he did.
Mr. Kennedy. And the National Labor Relations Board ordered an
election ?
Mr. Po^vell. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. And 4 days after the election was ordered the elec-
tion was going to be between your union and the UAW and no union
at all, and the plant moved from Connecticut — posted a notice and said
they were moving ; isn't that correct ?
Mr. Powell, That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. Do you know Mr. Nathan Shefferman ?
Mr. PoAVELL. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. What connection have you had with Mr. Sheffer-
man?
Mr. Powell. We have a firm under agreement called Simon Bros,
in Chicago. They are watch-repair people, and Nathan Shefferman
represented the employer and we negotiated a contract covering, I
think, some forty-odd watch repairmen.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 6307
Mr. Kennedy, Had Mr. Shefferman approached your union about
pulling out of that plant ?
Mr. Powell, If I remember correctly, yes. He asked me if I
couldn't forget about it, and I said, "Absolutely not."
Mr. Kennedy. He had not asked you to come in there, had he ?
Mr, PowTCLL. No, sir,
Mr. Kennedy. He had not approached you about coming in ?
Mr. Powell. No; on the contrary, he asked us to get out, and we
insisted upon a contract and we negotiated a contract.
Mr. Kennedy. Did he ever make any offers to anybody ?
Mr. Powell. He did not, not that I know of.
Mr, Kennedy, Or any of his representatives ?
Mr. Powell. I don't know whether there is an attorney by the name
of Mr. Roth, whether he is a representative of his or not.
Mr. Kennedy. Mr, Roth ?
Mr. Powell. He represented the company, I know, and my organ-
izers in Chicago told me that he had made representations to them.
Mr. Kennedy. That is all for now, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Are there any questions ?
Thank you very much.
Call the next witness,
Mr. Kennedy. We are going into a new matter now, the Allstate
Insui-ance Co., and I would like to call Mr. Henry Moser.
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. MosER. I do.
TESTIMONY OF HENRY S. MOSEE
The Chairman. Mr, Moser, state your name and your place of resi-
dence and your business or occupation.
Mr. MosER. My name is Henry S. Moser. I live at 1214 Hull Ter-
race, Evanston, 111., and I am senior vice president of the Allstate
Insurance Co., of Skokie, 111.
The Chairman. Do you waive counsel?
Mr. MosER. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. Proceed, Mr. Kennedy.
Mr. Kennedy. You have been with the Allstate Insurance Co. for
how long, Mr. Moser ?
Mr. Moser. I was general counsel with the company since its origin
in 1932, but part of the time I was involved also in the general practice
of law, and I have held the office of vice president and general counsel
from 1953 to 1957, and since February of this year I have been senior
vice president of the company.
Mr. Kennedy. Does the Allstate Insurance Co. have some rela-
tionship with the Sears, Roebuck Co. ?
Mr. Moser. It is a wholly owned subsidiary.
Mr. Kennedy. Of the Sears, Roebuck Co.?
Mr. Moser. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy, Now, in 1954, was there an organizational drive by
the International Union, AFL, Insurance Agents?
Mr. Moser. There was, in the State of Michigan.
Mr. Kennedy. Did that involve your company, Allstate Insurance
6308 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. MosER. It involved the agents of onr company.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you bring in — or were Labor Relations Associ-
ates recommended to you ?
Mr. MosER. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. By whom ?
Mr. MosER. Well, let me go back for just a minute, if I may, Mr.
Kennedy, to say to you that notwithstanding we have been in business
since 1932, in 1954 was the first time that we were confronted with the
possibility of an organization of a portion of our agency force.
At that time we had no labor relations experts or men trained in
that field in our company personnel. We were not familiar ourselves
with problems of that character and when we got notice of a claim
of representation of our men, we first naturally reported it to the
parent company and after a talk with them and at their suggestion,
we employed Labor Relations Associates.
Mr. Kennedy. Who was it, specifically, that recommended them?
Do you know ?
Mr. Moser. I think it was Mr. Caldwell.
Mr. Kennedy. Did they send representatives up to work at your
company ? Did Labor Relations Associates do that ?
Mr. MosER. They sent a representative, at least one that I know of,
to Michigan during tlie pendency of the drive and the hearings on
the appropriateness of tlie unit and the election.
(At this point Senator Gold water returned to the hearing room.)
Mr. Kennedy. Did you have a meeting with Mr. Shefferman in
his office prior to the time the representative came up ?
Mr. MosER. We did, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. And then the representative came up. T^liat was
his name?
Mr. MosER. The representative that went to Michigan?
Mr. Kennedy. Yes.
Mr. MosER. Fred Wheeler.
Mr. Kennedy. Fred Wheeler ?
Mr. Moser. Right, sir.
Mr. Ivennedy. For how long a period of time did he remain there?
Mr. MosER. It is my understanding that he stayed there through-
out the — from the commencement through the election period. That
ran from April 1954 through, I think, October 1954.
Mr. Kennedy. While lie was there, did he form a vote ''no'' com-
mittee ?
Mr. MosER. Well, I can tell you how it was formed. I don't want
to characterize it as his forming it. Do you want the facts about it?
Mr. Kennedy. All right.
Mr. MosER. It is my understanding that the first thing that Mr.
^Ylieeler did was to attempt to ascertain for us what was the cause
of the difficulties. We prided ourselves in the yeai*s of our existence
of a relationship of trust and confidence between our employees and
supervisory force. Apparently the communications lines had broken
down in the State of Slichigan. There was some irritation on the
part of our agency people, and their irritations were not coming back
to the home office. We found that it was due to the fact that the
assistant sales managers in the State of Michigan— we had, I think,
some 10 men, each of w^hom were assigned to help and assist some 7,
8. or 10 agents, who, in turn, were working under a sales manager —
IMPROPER ACTIVirrES EST THE LABOR FIELD 6309
had, to some extent, lost the confidence of the agency men, were at-
tempting to conduct their matters through dictatorial, autocratic
fashion, rather than through a method of confidence.
So the first thing that Mr. Wheeler did was to get at the bottom
of that situation for us. He conferred with our assistant sales man-
agers and attempted to bring them back into line so that their
handling of men would be in accord with company policy. In the
course of that situation, some discussion was had as to which of our
men who had been an agent with us for a long while would feel or
would be more likely to feel constrained to be perfectly satisfied with
the way the company was operating. After some suggestions as to
who that might be
Mr. Kennedy. Let's go back a second. Wasn't he also finding out
whether the agents were for or against the union while he was up
there ?
Mr. MosER. I think that was one of the things that he was doing,
Mr. Kennedy, in addition to that, in addition to the things that I
outlined for you. That was one of the reports that he was getting
back from our assistant sales managers from time to time.
Mr. Kennedy. Didn't he go to Mr. Johnson of the All- State Insur-
ance Co. and obtain from him the name of somebody whose sentiments
would be against the union ?
Mr. Mosp:r. That is right. I was just coming to that.
Mr. Kennedy. Was that name furnished to Mr. Wlieeler ?
Mr. Moser. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. And was there a vote "no" committee formed ?
Mr. Moser. We learned afterwards that a vote "no" committee was
formed ; yes, sir,
Mr. Kennedy. Who was the agent who headed up tlie vote "no"
committee ?
Mr. Moser. An agent in Flint, Mich., by the name of Jack Car-
rerras, who had been with us for some 18 years. I think 15 at that
time.
Mr. Kennedy. Did that vote "no" committee print up literature?
Mr. Moser. There was literature printed and distributed.
Mr. Kennedy. Who paid for that ?
Mr. MosER. I cannot tell you that, sir, because I do not know.
Mr. Kennedy. You do not have that information ?
Mr. MosER. No, sir ; I do not.
Mr. Kennedy. But it was distributed by tliis committee that was
formed by Mr. Wheeler ?
Mr. Moser. It was distributed under that name, and I assume it
was distributed by the committee.
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Moser, while Mr. Wlieeler was up there, he
spent considerable amounts of money ; did he not ?
Mr. Moser. I think so.
Mr. Kennedy. While he was there, for this 6 or 7 months, he spent
Ji total of $27,393.22.
Mr. Moser. That is not all expenditures, Mr. Kennedy. We paid
that mucli, but tliat sum was not all expended by Mr. Wheeler ; $13,000
of that was for services of Labor Relations Associates, and I sup-
pose that somebody spent it after we paid a fee. But that was not all
spent in connection with this matter.
6310 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. Kennedy. I was going to break it down : $13,000 of it was for
that, and then the rest was for expenses while Mr. Wheeler was up
there ?
Mr. MosER, That is right, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Could you tell the committee where all that money
•went, what it was being used for ?
Mr. MoYER. No, sir ; I cannot. I can tell you where part of it went,
but the rest of it I cannot tell you.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you try to get a breakdown as to how this
money was being spent ?
Mr. Moser.. No, Mr. Kennedy. I should say to you, for your infor-
mation, that that was not an unusual or distinctive practice so far as
we were concerned. We approved many bills in 1953, prior to that
time, and 1954 and 1955 of what I would term, perhaps, professional
people for disbursements or expenses incurred, without asking for
itemization. For the benefit of the committee, I had our accounting
department pick out a number of typical such bills. I have them here
before me.
Mr. Kennedy. I don't think that answers the question as to whether
you knew where this money was going and, if you did know where
the money was going, will you tell the committee. That is what I
am trying to find out. There were large sums of money charged to
guest expenses, looking at the record, and sundries.
Mr. ^losER. We never received any bills for guest expenses and
sundries, Mr. Kennedy. We got a bill from Labor Relations Asso-
ciates each month. I think on one occasion the month was skipped
and we thereafter got a bill for 2 months. They were for services
rendered for the month and for disbursements during the month.
Those were the only bills that we received and the only bills that we
paid. Sundries and guest expense are new terms to me. They never
appeared upon our invoices or upon our bills.
The Chairman. Mr. Moser, let me see if I understand this. You
would get a bill each month, and in one instance you got a bill for 2
months, for services rendered. Did it show the amount of fee ?
Mr. Moser. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. It would show the amount of fee for that month ?
Mr. Moser. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. And then it would say for disbursements ?
Mr. Moser. Right.
The Chairman. Just a blanket amount, disbursements ?
Mr. INInsER. A blanket amount.
The Chairman. lYliat was the fee per month ?
Mr. MosER. The fees ranged from — I think the first bill we got
covered 2 months and was for $-1,800 for services and $1,808 for dis-
bursements during that 2-month period. The next bill we got •
Tlie Chairman. The disbursements were in no way broken down ?
Mr. M(^sER. They were not. Senator.
The Chairman. So you didn't have the information, at least of
record, as to what the disbursements were for?
Mr. Moser. That is correct, sir.
The Chairman. But that was regarded as expense, or expenditures,
over and above the fee ?
Mr. Moser. Right, sir.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 6311
The Chairmax. And you got no breakdown on it ?
Mr. MosER. We got no breakdown. As I indicated to you, that was
not uncommon in our operation.
Mr. Kennedy. Maybe you could read the rest in. I would like to
get it for the fee and the disbursement for each month.
Mr. MosER. I will be happy to. Suppose I give you the fees first,
and then the disbursements. That is the way I happen to have them
broken down on my sheet of paper.
The Chairman. Give us the fees for each month.
]Mr. MosER. The lirst bill, I think, was dated April 30, and contained
an item for services of $4,600. The next bill was June 6, and was for
$1,700.
The Chairman. Services $1,700 ?
Mr. MosER. Eight, sir. July 23, services, $1,050 ; August, services,
$1,900.
The Chairman. $1,900?
Mr.MosER. $1,000.
The next 2 months, I think, were lumped in 1 bill, but broken down
by months. August, $2,850 ; September, $800. Then there was a bill
in December for $100. The total of that. Senator, is $13,000. The
disbursements were as follows :
April 30, the disbursements were $1,808.42; May, $77.41; June,
$967.36; July, $1,822.87; August, $2,648.65; September, $1,407.70;
October, $2,860.30 ; and December, $2,162.
The total disbursements were $23,693.22.
The Chairman. That varies a little from the total here. They have
a total of $27,393.22.
Mr. MosER. $26,693.22. I would be very happy to look for the differ-
ence, if it is important. Senator.
The Chairman. It is not that important, but I do notice the varia-
tion.
Taking your records or our records, the expense involved did not
involve the fee.
Mr. MosER. That is right.
The Chairman. And there is no breakdown as far as your records
are concerned, for the disbursements ?
JNIr. INIosER. No, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Was he entertaining the agents, and things like that,
while he was up there '^ Was that part of his job ?
Mr. MosER. I don't know, Mr. Kennedy, the extent of entertainment
that Mr. Wheeler did, whether that money was for entertainment of
money or expenses in connection with his meeting with our super-
visory force up there. I cannot tell you what it was for. We assumed,
when you break the thing down over a period of 6 months, that it ran
about $2,000 a month. Here was a man away from home. We assumed
it covered his railroad fare, his hotel, his meals, his telephone expense,
but what other items were included, I cannot tell you.
Mr. Kennedy. In September it is $1,000 a week. Even a man away
from home is doing very w^ell. Do you treat all your
Mr. MosER. May I call your attention to the fact that — I don't know
what the date of that election was in October. His September bill
was $1,407.70. That is about $400 a week, isn't it, or $300 a week?
Mr. Kennedy. I thought you said $1,400.
The Chairman. The bill in October was $2,860.30.
6312 iMPROEER AcrrivrrrES in the labor field
Mr. MosER. Eight, sir.
The Chairman. So it was running pretty high at that time.
Senator MgNamara. That was against fees of $800 that month.
There is quite a contrast.
The Chairman. There was an $800 fee in September. Apparently
for October, it was all expense and disbursements. Do you have any
fee for October ?
]SIr. MosER. I didn't give you one. Let me check and see. Our
statement for October merely says disbursements for month of October
$2,860.30. Whether any portion of that was for fees or not, I do not
know. It was not broken down that way. I gave you the figure as
we had it.
The Chairman. As I checked your figures, there was no report
from you for a fee for October, but the expense was $2,880.30.
Mr. MosER. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. All right.
Mr. Kennedy. Was any of this money, to your knowledge, given to
any individuals up there ?
Mr. MosER. Yes, sir. We know, of our own knowledge, that in
December of 1954, some time after the election, $2,000 was paid to
Mr. Carrerras to reimburse him in part, or we thought entirely, for
what we thought he lost by way of income for not being able to pro-
duce business while he was devoting some time in expressing his views
on the union problem to his brother agents throughout the State.
Mr. Kennedy. A\Tio made those arrangements for the $2,000 '?
Mr. MosER. We miderstand that at the time Mr. Johnson spoke to
him, early in March, he was told — he was asked first what his views
were on our problem, and he indicated that he was perfectly satis-
fied with the company, that he was earning nearly $20,000 a year, he
was in profit-sharing, and hoped that by the time he would retire
he could get as much, perhaps, as a quarter of a million dollars, out
of Sears profit-sharing plan, that he wanted no part of any union,
that he had discussed the matter with some of his agents at Flint
and they felt the same way about it.
Mr. Kennedy. I understand that he did not want to have a union,
that he was legitimately against unions. I am not inquiring into that.
What I asked you about was the $2,000 payment. How was that
arranged ?
Mr. Moser. At the time he indicated his willingness to carry his
views to his agents, he was told lie would not lose any money by
virtue of loss of production time. When the matter was"^ all over, he
spoke to either Mr. Wheeler, or one of our men, or one of our branch
managers, and indicated or pointed out that he had not been paid for
his loss of production time. The matter Avas then reported to the
home office. We should say to you that that was the first time we
knew of the promise. But at any rate, we concluded to keep it.
We made as best a determination as we could as to how much he
lost in earnings by virtue of having devoted his time in the efforts of
this committee.
Mr. Kennedy. "Wlio made that study ?
]\Ir. Moser. It was made by our personnel department, and I think
by our man who was in charge of branches at that time. I can give
you the basis of the computation if you so desire.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 6313
Mr. Kennedy. Maybe you could give it to Mr. Salinger after the
hearing.
Mr. MosER. I would be very happy to do it.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you pay him the $2,000 in view of the fact that
tliis was an entirely proper expenditure ? As I understand your state-
ment, did you pay him directly for it ?
Mr. Moser. No, sir ; we did not.
Mr. Kennedy. How did you arrange it ?
Mr. Moser. None of us at the home office had had any discussions
Avith Mr. Carrerras about the situation theretofore. Our payroll
department was handled out of Michigan. We had a new manager at
that time. After some consideration, we concluded that the better way
to handle it would be to let Labor Associates pay him, bill us, and we
would pay Labor Eelations Associates, and that is the way it was
handled.
Ml'. Kennedy. I don't understand why it should be handled in that
way, if it Avas a perfectly legitimate transaction. You made a study
to hnd out how much he was entitled to. Why didn't you just pay him
the $2,000 ?
Mr. Moser. Mr. Kennedy, looking back in retrospect, I think it was
a mistake for us to have handled it that way. We are frank to admit
to you that having it to do over again, we probably should have and
woidd have issued the check directly. All I can say to you is that
that is the way we did it, and in retrospect I think we should have paid
the check directly.
The Chairman. What it actually amounts to is that you paid
$2,000 to him to have him work against organization of the plant?
Mr. Moser. I don't think that is quite an accurate description,
Senator.
The Chairman. Well, if he was spending time in that operation,
losing time from his normal work, losing salary or commission, what-
ever it was, if he was doing that, then he was not producing for the
company in his regular employment. His production for the company
during the time he lost was production of sentiment against union
organization. Therefore, this was paid for work to oppose the union
organization.
Mr. MosER. Well, I suppose it might be characterized that way. 1
might say to you. Senator — may I tell you how I look at it?
The Chairman. You may, but I find it difficult to characterize it
any other way, if you put it in its proper perspective.
Mr. Moser. Let me tell you how we concluded. Of course, it is your
])rivilege to characterize it any way you see fit.
The Chairman. I know we all sometimes have different opinions.
Mr. MosEK. Here was a man wlio was working on a commission
basis. We felt honestly, as he felt honestly, that unionization was a
bad thing for him and a bad thing for the company. He spent away,
according to our best estimates, and all we had Avere estimates, oO
days, or 5 hours a week, conveying his views to the other agents. We
figure he wrote that many policies less. If he had devoted his time
to writing policies, he would have earned at least $2,000 more than he
did. We wanted to reimburse him for that $2,000.
The Chairman, I think that is correct. There is no question about
that. But as a proper charge on your books, if you apply it to services
89330 — 57— pt. 16 6
6314 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD
rendered, and undertake to identify the services, it was not for getting
you business; it was not for earning commission, but it was for the
time spent in opposing the organization of the plant.
Mr. MosER. I think tliat that is probably true, Senator. It is similar
to reimbursing Mr. Carrerras for vacation time when he takes off. We
reimburse him. We figure out how much he would have sold during
vacation and we pay him.
If he is ill, we make the same kind of computation and we pay him.
In this, he took off time, both for his own personal beliefs and com-
pany beliefs and, thereupon, we did the same thing.
The Chairman. I am not questioning that. But if he was drawing
a salary and this was reimbursement for salary, you could not charge
it to wages.
Mr. MosER. Well, I am not an accountant.
The Chairman. Neither am I.
Mr. MosER. You have had much more experience in those respects
than I have. Senator, and I bow to your judgment.
The Chairman. I doubt that I do. I do not have any. I just look
the thing in the face and see what it looks like and I name it accord-
ing to my vision and judgment. I believe that is what it amounts to.
Mr. JNIosER. We try to do the same thing, sir.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. IvENNEDY. If he was on vacation, you would pay him the
money ; is that right ?
Mr. MosER. Yes, sir.
Mr. IvENNEDY. And if he was ill ?
Mr. MosER. Yes, sir.
Mr. IvENNEDY. And if he was working against the union you would
pay him ?
Mr. MosER. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. "Wliat if he was working for the union ?
Mr. MosER. No, sir; we would not. I do not think the union paid
him when he was working for the union, Mr. Kennedy. We would
not have paid him a sou.
Mr. Kennedy. It would seem the way these checks were handled,
going to what we were discussing before, it would appear anyway, and
I think you will agree, there was an effort to hide the transaction,
instead of just paying the $2,000 as you would pay him if he were
sick or on vacation, but the two $1,000 checks were made out to Mr.
Fred Wheeler, of Labor Relations Associates and he, in turn, depos-
ited that in a bank account and made out a check for $2,000 to cash
and then that $2,000 in cash was turned over to Mr. Carrerras.
Mr. MosER. Mr. Kennedy, I should say to you in the complete sin-
cerity that the knowledge of these two $1,000 checks and the deposit
in Mr. Wheeler's bank account was as new to us as it was to you when
you first learned of it. I think, as I said to you in retrospect, w^e
would have been much better off had we issued a check directly. We
issued this check to Mr. Shefferman's company. We assume that it
might well be paid by check. We had no knowledge of that, of the
payment in cash at all.
Mr. Kennedy. But you were the one that started it off'. You cer-
tainly started off by paying two $1,000 checks.
Mr. MosER. No, sir; we did not do any such thing. We did not
draw two $1,000 checks, Mr. Kennedy.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 6315
Mr. I\JENNEDY. How clicl you start it off originally ?
Mr. MosER. We told Mr. Wheeler that we wanted Labor Relations
Associates to pay the $2,000 and to bill us for it. We got a bill. We
paid the bill to Labor Kelations Associates.
The CiiAntMAN. In that bill, was it identified ?
Mr. MosER. No, sir; it was just marked "disbursements."
The Chairman. Covered up with just the word "disbursement"?
Mr. MosER. It was disbursements.
(Members of the select committee present at this point were Sena-
tors McClellan, McNamara, and Gold water.)
Mr. Kennedy. It was listed on Mr. Wheeler's weekly report as guest
expense.
Mr. MosER. I did not prepare ]\Ir. Wheeler's report and I must dis-
claim any responsibility for how he listed it.
Mr. Kennedy. Then the Shefferman office, after that money was
paid to him, made out these two $1,000 checks to Fred ^Vlieeler, who
turned around and put them in a bank account and then made another
$2,000 check to cash and the money was then turned over to Mr. Car-
rerras. It was a complicated transaction.
Mr. Moser. I did not draw those checks, nor did I have any knowl-
edge of those checks, nor did anybody in our company have any knowl-
edge of those checks.
Mr. Kennedy. You know that the transaction was not being handled
just by making a check, a simple check out, $2,000 to Mr. Carrerras, as
it could have been ?
Mr. Moser. I know that ; yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Who made the decision to handle it in that way, or
the fashion it w^as handled ?
Mr. Moser. I think it w\as made by the head of our personnel depart-
ment and I was then vice president in charge of branches.
Mr. Kennedy. Who finally won the election ?
Mr. Moser. The Allstate Insurance Co.
Mr. Kennedy. What was the vote ?
Mr. Moser. Fifty-four to thirty-nine.
Mr. Kennedy. Against the union ?
Mr. Moser. Against the union.
The Chairman. You considered the money well spent ; did you not ?
Mr. Moser. I considered it very well spent, sir.
Senator McNamara. Incidentally, in connection with the money
being well spent, this was between $25,000 and $30,000 that you spent
to prevent some 93; what was that total number of employees in
Michigan ?
Mr. Moser. Ninety-tliree voted and I think there may have been a
few tliat did not vote, somewhere around there.
Senator McNamara. You think the expenditure of between $25,000
and $30,000 to prevent 93 employees from joining a union was money
well spent ?
Mr. MosER. Well, Senator, I think as you know, these men were not
Avorking for pittances. The average earnings of our agents is nearly
$10,000 a man. Tlie average earnings of our agents who work for us
for more than 10 years was nearly $19,000 per 3'ear, in addition to
having every benefit that a Sears employee has, inlcuding profit
sharing.
6316 IMPROFElR ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Here was a typical agent with a profit -sliaring interest of $50,000
who had a contract upon retirement, who had illness allowance, who
had all of Sears' benefits and we think that the union could have con-
tributed nothing to those men. We felt so then and we feel so now.
Senator McNamara. Tell me this : You say that you think the money
was well spent, and you made that statement and I am just repeating
your words.
Mr. MosER, Yes, sir.
Senator McNamara. To prevent 100 employees from joining the
union. All right. Since you pay them from 10 to 20 thousand dol-
lars and they are going to get up to a quarter of a million dollars profit-
sharing if they stay a normal length of time, what do you think in-
spired them to try to develop a union under such circumstances?
It does not make sense, does it, to you or to me ?
Mr. MosER. I don't know what inspires all people and, I think some
may be inspired honestly and legitimately. But I sat in this hearing
room this morning and I heard how some employees were inspired
to join the union. Senator McNamara.
Now, I make no charges as to what happened in this transaction,
but tliese 93 men are now earning far in excess of what they earned
in 1953 and 1954. I say to you we have a very happy family.
I say to you, too, that this was our only experience. We have had
only one labor election since. We had no vote "no" committee.
We did not use Labor Relations Associates in that one and we won
it by a larger majority. In 25 years of reaching the point where we
are probably 1 of the 2 largest insurance companies in the United
States, those were the only experiences we had, which indicates, at
least to my mind, a pretty good personnel program.
Senator JSIcNamara. You are talking about something else. My
question to you was, What do you think inspired your people who were
so well off to want to have a union ?
Mr. MosER. Part of it. Senator, was due to a breakdown of communi-
cations that I mentioned before, of an irritating manner of an assist-
ant sales manager in handling these men. He became dictatorial in
his manner, contrary to public policy.
Senator McNamara. You mean company policy ?
Mr. Moser. Contrary to company policy. That created an unjusti-
fiable sense of insecurity.
Now, whether that was fanned by people from the outside coming
in and endeavoring to organize them, we know that the attempt to or-
ganize was not theirs alone, or the men's alone, but there were a good
number of outsiders who contributed to that. I want to say this to
your question, that Labor Relations Associates, despite the fact that I
do not approve of their payment of some of these items in cash the
way they did it, did a fine job so far as discovering for us this break-
down in communications and improving and correcting something
which never should have existed in the State at all.
Senator McNamara. I think that you made that quite plain.
Now, you mentioned that this Jack Carrerras did not get paid when
he worked for the union. You imply he worked for the union ?
Mr. Moser. No, sir; I said that the union did not pay Jack Car-
rerras and we did not pay any of the people who were working for
them.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 6317
Senator McNamaka. You are not implying he worked for the union ?
Mr. MosER. No.
Senator JSIcNamara. I did not get your point.
Mr. MosER. Let me see if I can make it clear.
The Chairman. What you are saying, as I understand it, is that
the union did not pay the men you had working against the union and
you did not pay the union men who w^ere working for the union.
Mr. MosER. Exactly, Senator ; that is right.
Senator McNamara. At the time that this drive was going on to
organize the employees of Allstate, was it not a fact that there was
a drive to organize insurance agents generally in Michigan and this
was just part of an overall drive ?
Mr. MosER. Not at all, sir.
Senator McNamara. This was just a drive on your company ?
Mr. MosER. In the history of this insurance business, there has
only been one class of agents organized and those are debit agents
of industrial insurance companies. There has never been any attempt
to organize the agents of casualty or fire companies, or life companies
that are in the general life business and distinguished from industrial
business.
I knew of no campaign in 1954 or any other time in Michigan, to
organize the insurance companies generally.
Senator McNamara. Prior to 1954 there was an organization of
insurance salesmen in the city of Detroit. I do not know so much
about the rest of the State. By 1954, it was well established.
Mr. MosER, Those were debit men solely, for the most part, people
who call at homes and collect 5 or 10 or 15 or 25 cents a week for life
insurance. It has nothing to do with our character of business. We
are not in that business and never have been and there was no attempt
at any time to organize agents such as ours that I know of in the
State of Michigan.
Senator McNamara. That is all. Thank yon.
The Chairman. Mr. Moser, the purpose of course, as you under-
stand, of this inquiry is this : I can appreciate the feeling of manage-
ment when they feel there should not be organization and they feel
sometimes justly and maybe other times not, that a union would not
benefit either the company or the men.
But the question arises here, and this is the way it appears to me,
of whether this is a legitimate expense of that practice or those tac-
tics, whether it would be a proper practice to have the sanction of law
or should it be prohibited by law.
I am sure the Congress in considering legislation will want to give
consideration to whether the use of money for the purpose of fighting
a union in this fashion is a legitimate expense of the business and is
deductible under the income-tax laws and so forth.
Mr. MosER. Are you asking for my views ?
The Chairman. No ; I am pointing up a problem.
Mr. MosER. I appreciate your problem fully, Senator, and we want
to help and cooperate in any way we can.
The Chairman. You have been very frank in your testimony and
I want to express my appreciation to you for it. What I want to point
up for the record is that this committee is trying to get facts and
trying to get the practices that now prevail.
6318 IMPROPER ACTIVnTES IN THE L.\BQR FIELD
We want to evaluate them and weigh them in the light of what is
proper and what is improper to keep the balance between union and
management in its proper sphere.
Mr. MosER. I think it is a very commendable effort and one badly-
needed.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Call the next witness.
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Wheeler, please.
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. Wheeler. I do.
TESTIMONY OF FRED B. WHEELER, ACCOMPANIED BY HIS
COUNSEL, STANFORD CLINTON
The Chairman. State your name and your place of residence and
your business or occupation.
Mr. Wheeler. My name is Fred B. Wheeler, my residence is Y33
Highland Avenue, Glen Ellyn, 111. I am consultant with Labor Rela-
tions Associates at 75 East Wacker Drive.
The Chairman. How long have you been employed by Labor Rela-
tions Associates ?
Mr. Wheeler. Since 1946.
The Chairman. You have counsel with you, Mr. Clinton.
Mr. Wheeler. Yes, sir.
Mr. Clinton. My name is Stanford Clinton. I am a lawyer and
my offices are at 134 North La Salle Street, Chicago, 111.
Mr. Kennedy. If it is all right, Mr. Salinger will handle this
witness.
The Chairman. All right, Mr. Salinger, proceed.
Mr. Salinger. How long have you been employed by Labor Rela-
tions Associates ?
Mr. Wheeler. Since 1946.
Mr. Salinger. Generally, what type of work do you do for LRA?
Mr. Wheeler. Most of my work has been in a consulting capacity
to management attempting to develop better relationship between the
management of the company and the employees working largely with
representatives of the top management and supervision.
Mr. Salinger. During the year 1954, were you assigned by Mr.
Shefferman to work in relation to the Allstate Insurance Co. ?
Mr. Wheeler. Yes, sir.
Mr. Salinger, And what was the problem that the Allstate Insur-
ance Co. had ?
Mr. Wheeler. There was a breakdown in relationship some place
along the line and I was to find out what it was and make recommenda-
tions to correct it.
Mr. Salinger. Did you go to Detroit, Mich., in regard to this
matter ?
Mr. Wheeler. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. When you speak of a breakdown in relationship,
was that related solely as you found it, or as you understood it at the
time that you undertook your assignment, a breakdown in the sense
that there was an effort to organize the employees ?
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 6319
]\lr. Wheeler. No, not only that, no, sir.
The Chx\irman. Now, in addition to that?
Mr. Wheeler. There was a felling that had not existed before
becanse there had always been, from what I understood, and not hav-
ing been there before but they told me that there had always been a
fine relationship between all of the agents and the management of
that particular office.
Then, at some point, as had already been stated, one of the assistant
management people did become dictatorial, causing people not to
want to work in the places that they had been working, under his
supervision.
That indicated that something was wrong.
The Chairman. Let us get the record straight. Had the organiza-
tional drive already started when your agency was retained or your
services were retained ?
Mr. Wheeler. I am sure it had, to some extent at least.
The Chairman. All right, proceed.
Mr. Salinger. When you got to Detroit, Mr. Wheeler, did you
contact certain supervisors in following up on your work?
Mr. Wheeler. Yes, sir. I worked with all of those in the Detroit
area, in the branch office and in the regional office or area offices.
Mr. Salinger. Did you inquire as to the union sympathies or the
company sympathies of the agents through these supervisors?
Mr. Wheeler. Yes, I did, as time went on.
Mr. Salinger. Did you ask Mr. Johnson, the Detroit manager of
the Allstate Insurance Co. to suggest someone who might head up a
vote "no" committee?
Mr. Wheeler. In the course of the conversation, both with Mr.
Johnson, the Detroit office man, and the area man, I found that there
were a number of people who were opposed to joining the union and
did not want to. As a result of that, I asked Mr. Johnson what he
knew about it and who did he feel felt that way, and which ones
and what would be done next.
Mr. Salinger. Did Mr. Johnson recommend someone to you to
head up a vote "no" committee, specifically ?
Mr. Wheeler. Yes, sir.
Mr. Salinger. Wliom did he recommend to you ?
Mr. Wheeler. Mr. Jack Carrerras.
Mr. Salinger. He was an agent in Flint, Mich. ?
Mr. Wheeler. Yes, sir.
Mr. Salinger. Did you subsequently go to Mr. Johnson to see Mr.
Carrerras ?
Mr. Wheeler. Yes, sir, subsequently.
Mr. Salinger. And Mr. Carrerras formed a committee?
Mr. Wheeler. Yes, sir.
Mr. Salinger. He formed a committee ?
Mr. Wheeler. Yes, sir.
Mr. Salinger. Did j^ou suggest to IMr. Carrerras that he and some
other agents might go to Detroit and consult with an attorney relative
to the work of this committee ?
Mr. Wheeler. I suggested that they might need counsel.
Mr. Salinger. Who was to pay for the cost of this counsel ?
Mr. Wheeler. That was left at the time, because certainly I gave
no indication.
6320 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. Salinger. Who did pay for it ?
Mr. Wheeler. The company paid for it.
Mr. Salinger. The company ?
Mr. Wheeler. I mean Allstate.
Mr. Salinger. Allstate paid the attorney ?
The Chairman. Directly or did you pay it and were reimbursed ?
Mr. Wheeler. Indirectly, sir.
The Chairman. Let me see about that "indirectly." You paid it as
a part of the expense or the disbursements that you billed the insur-
ance company for ; is that correct ?
Mr. Wheeler. It was paid in that manner ; yes, sir.
The Chairman. That is what I mean, just like this man's salary was
paid here, Carrerras? You simply paid for the attorney to advise the
vote "no" committee. Labor Relations Associates paid for it.
Mr. Wheeler. I am quite sure that is correct, sir.
The Chairman. Then you just submitted a bill, reimbursement so
much, and you were reimbursed for it, or your company was?
Mr. Wheeler. That is right ; yes, sir.
Mr. Salinger, Now, follovv^ing the campaign, and following the
election, did you have any conversation with anyone relative to pay-
ing some money to Mr. Jack Carrerras ?
Mr. Wheeler. I will have to back up just a bit. The first time that
Mr. Johnson talked with Mr. Carrerras it was indicated by Mr, John-
son to Mr. Carrerras that he would get nothing for any efforts that
he expended, but that he would not lose anything.
Mr. Salinger. It was agreed that if he took time off from his work,
he would be reimbursed for this, for working for this antiunion com-
mittee ?
Mr. Wheeler. Yes, sir.
Mr. Salinger. So arrangements were made for you to pay Mr.
Carrerras ; is that right?
Mr. Wheeler. I am sorry.
Mr. Salinger. Arrangements were made for you to pay Mr. Car-
rerras ?
Mr. Wheeler. Yes, sir.
Mr. Salinger. Let me ask you this : Prior to the time we are talking
about, this repajmient to Mr. Carrerras for losing time for working
for this antiunion committee, had you given other sums of money to
him?
Mr. Wheeler. Yes, sir.
Mr, Salinger, About how much ?
Mr. Wheeler. I have not figured it up, but he used a considerable
amount of money in traveling around the State, meeting with the vari-
ous agents, having dinner with them, and I reimbursed him for those
expenditures.
Mr. Salinger. Would you show those expenses on your daily report ?
What would those be shown as ?
Mr. Wheeler. Entertainment.
Mr. Salinger, You show them as entertainment ?
Mr. Wheeler. Yes, sir,
Mr. Salinger. Would you say it was more or less than $1,000 that
you gave Mr. Carrerras in this manner ?
Mr. Wheeler. That is a very difficult question because my recollec-
tion as to the specifics, I would think that it was that or more.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 6321
Mr. Salinger. $1,000 or more ?
Mr. Wheeler. I would think so.
Mr. Salinger. Now, this is exchisive of this transaction where you
were to give him the money for his reimbursement at the end of the
campaign ; is that right ?
Mr. Wheeler. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. The money you gave him at the end of the cam-
paign, as I understand it, was handled in this fashion : Two checks of
the same date, December 13, 1954, in the amount of $1,000 each, were
issued to you by Labor Relations Asosciates ?
Mr. Wheeler. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. I present to you those two checks and ask you to
identify them. J
( Documents were handed to the witness. )
The Chairman. Can you tell us why 2 checks were made instead
ofl?
Mr. Wheeler. I don't know that. These are the checks; yes.
Those are mine.
Mr. Salinger. You deposited those checks in your account ?
The Chairman. Those checks may be made exhibits 37-A and 37-B.
(The documents referred to were marked "Exhibits Nos. 37-A and
37-B" for reference, and will be found in the appendix on pp. 6578-
6579.)
Mr. Salinger. Did you subsequently withdraw any money from
your account ?
Mr. Wheeler. $2,000.
Mr, Salinger. How was that handled ? Did you write a check to
cash?
Mr. Wheeler. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. Is this the check referred to ?
(A document was handed to the witness.)
Mr. Wheeler. Yes, sir.
Mr. Salinger. I have in front of me your weekly report for the
week of December 13 to 17, 1954.
The Chairman. The check for $2,000, made payable to cash, may
be made exhibit No. 38.
(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 38" for ref-
erence, and will be found in the appendix on p. 6580.)
Mr. Salinger. And, on December 14, 1954, you show guest expense
in the amount of $2,015.50.
The Chairman. I present to you what appears to be photostatic
copy of travel expense reports you made to Labor Relations Asso-
ciates, Inc., and will you examine that and identify it, please ?
(A document was handed to the witness.)
Mr. Wheeler. I identify it.
The Chairman. That may be made exhibit No. 39.
(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 39" for refer-
ence and will be found in the appendix on p. 6581.)
The Chairman. I note there you show that $2,000 of the $2,015
item, dated on that date, was taken out by you in cash.
Mr. Wheeler. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. How did the money reach Mr. Carrerras ?
Mr. Wheeler. I gave it to him.
The Chairman. By check or in cash ?
6322 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. Wheeler. In cash.
The Chairman. You gave it to him in cash. All right.
Mr. Salinger. Mr. Wheeler, what was the purpose of this rather
complicated way of getting this $2,000 to Mr. Carrerras ?
Mr. Wheeler. I don't think that there is a very good explanation
for it. It was merely the manner in which we decided to handle it
at the time.
Mr. Salinger. Was it an effort to conceal the transaction ?
Mr. Wheeler. No ; I would not say necessarily. Well, an effort to
conceal it from whom ?
The Chairman. From anyone.
Mr. Wheeler. Well, that was not within my miderstanding. I
could not answer for the decision that was made in handling it that
way, as was mentioned earlier.
Mr. Salinger. Let me ask you this : When I questioned you in Chi-
cago originally on this transaction and asked you about the $2,000,
did you tell me that the money had gone to Mr. Carrerras ?
Mr. Wheeler. No, sir. I don't believe the question was raised, to
my recollection. At that time I did not know what type of ques-
tions were going to be
Mr. Salinger. I asked you specifically about the $2,000 item on this
date, and I asked you what that money had gone for. Did you tell
me at that time that you had spent it for entertainment ?
Mr. Wheeler. I believe I did ; yes, sir.
Mr. Salinger. In fact, it had not gone for entertainment, but had
gone to Mr. Carrerras ; is that right ?
Mr. Wheeler. Yes, sir.
Mr. Salinger. So on that occasion you were trying to conceal the
transaction ; is that right ?
Mr. Wheeler. I will say I was merely inaccurate. I couldn't re-
member all the things at the time.
Mr. Salinger. You couldn't remember that you had given the $2,000
to Mr. Carrerras on that occasion ?
Mr. Wheeler. Yes, sir.
Mr. Salinger. Mr. Wheeler, at any other time have you formed a
*'vote no" committee ?
Mr. Wheeler. Once.
Mr. Salinger. Where was that ?
Mr. Wheeler. Indianapolis.
Mr. Salinger. The name of the company ?
Mr. Wheeler. H. P. Wasson & Co.
Senator McNamara. I have a question on the Detroit situation.
The Chairman. Senator McNamara.
Senator McNamara. Did I understand you to say that you secured
the services of an attorney in Detroit to help you out on the handling
of this affair?
Mr. Wheeler. To whom the members of this committee could go
for counsel ; yes, sir.
Senator McNamara. You secured the attorney for the committee?
Mr. Wheeler. LKAdid.
Senator McNamara. Well, you, as the LRA agent ?
Mr. Wheeler. No ; not me, personally.
Senator McNamara. Then this was handled by the Chicago office?
Mr. Wheeler. Yes, sir.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 6323
Senator McNamara. Do you know how many members jom had in
this so-called committee? Did you have anybody besides Jack
Carrerras ?
Mr. Wheeler. With whom I worked directly? He took it from
there.
Senator McNamara. As far as you know, he was a committee of one ?
Mr. Wheeler. No.
Senator McNamara. There were more than one ?
Mr. Wheeler. There were more than one.
Senator McNamara. Do you know the second one ?
Mr. Wheeler. I mean there was more than one person on the com-
mittee, Senator.
Senator McNamara. That is what I am referring to. How many
23eople were there ?
Mr. Wheeler. There were several. It went from 5 to 10 to 12.
It varied, as they were able to get away from their work to go to
meetings.
Senator McNamara. Do you know the name of another man who
was on the committee ?
Mr. Wheeler. No, sir ; I do not.
Senator McNamara. As far as you know, there was this one man and
you think there were others ?
Mr. Wheeler. Yes. I know there were others.
Senator McNamara. Who was the attorney that your company hired
in Detroit that worked for you ?
Mr. Wheeler. I am sorry. I didn't hear you.
Senator McNamara. Do you know who the attorney was ?
Mr. Wheeler. Yes ; Brenner & Schwartz.
Senator McNamaRxV. Brenner & Schwartz ?
Mr. Wheeler. Yes, sir.
Senator McNamara. Thank you. That is all.
Mr. Salinger. Following up a minute on Senator McNamara's
questions, this committee for Allstate put out literature; is that right?
Mr. Wheeler. Yes, sir.
Mr. Salinger. Did you write the literature ?
Mr. Wheeler. No ; not all of it. I may have helped fi'om time to
time.
Mr. Salinger. Did Mr. Carrerras write any of it ?
Mr. Wheeler. I think it was a matter of sometimes working to-
gether, and more, though, than anyone else, it was the attorney.
Mr. Salinger. Who distributed this literature ?
Mr. Wheeler. Well, whoever the attorney gave it to.
Mr. Salinger. Who paid for the cost of printing it ?
(The witness conferred with this counsel.)
Mr. Wheeler. Well, eventually Allstate did.
Mr. Salinger. In other words, did you pay for it and then bill it to
Allstate?
Mr. Wheeler. Sometimes; or it may have been included in the
attorney's fees.
Mr. Salinger. Or it ma}^ have been included in the attorney's fees ?
Mr. Wheeler. Yes, sir.
Mr. Salinger. Getting back to the H. P. Wasson Co., is that the
H. P. Wasson Co. of West Washington Street, Indianapolis, Ind. ?
6324 IIMPBOPER ACTIVITIES UST THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. Wheeler. Yes, sir.
Mr. Salinger. During 1953, did you set up a vote "no" committee
there?
Mr. Wheeler. Yes, sir.
Mr. Salinger. The record of disbursements made to Mr. Sheffer-
man's firm by the H. P. Wasson Co. shows that a total of $12,013.66
was spent during the year 1953 by LRA people in Indianapolis. Can
you tell me what some of that money went for ?
Mr. Wheeler. I was in Indianapolis for some time prior to the
formation of the committee. I worked closely at that time with top
management, but more closely with the various buyers and super-
visors throughout the store, and, as it developed later, with a number
of the people.
Frequently, we would meet after the store closed. We would have
dinner in groups of 3, 4, 8, and we did that quite frequently.
Mr. Salinger. Your daily reports show a number of items of $100
or $125 for committee expenses. Is that what you are referring to?
Mr. Wheeler. Yes, sir. Either the supervisors calling them loosely
as a committee
Mr. Salinger. The expenses of the vote "no" committee ?
Mr. Wheeler. Yes, sir.
Mr. Salinger. A^lio suggested to you in the Wasson company who
should be on the vote "no" committee ?
Mr. Wheeler. Well, in that case, that was most completely my own,
because I had been there and worked with the people long enough to
know some of the people, and also to get ideas from some of the
supervisors.
Mr. Salinger. At the Wasson company, did you also set up what we
happen to know as rotating committees ?
Mr. Wheeler. Yes, sir.
Mr. Salinger, ^^^lat is the purpose of these rotating committees ?
Mr. Wheeler. To give the employees an opportunity to sit with a
representative of management to discuss any problems, situations,
that are on their minds.
Mr. Salinger. Are these rotating committees used to detect em-
ployees that were in favor of the company or those that were against
the company ?
Mr. Wheeler. No, sir.
]\Ir. Salinger. They are not used at all for that purpose ?
Mr. Wheeler. They are not used for that purpose.
Mr. Salinger. We have had a number of witnesses here, including
Mr. Bachman of your firm, who said that is the purpose they were
used for.
Mr. Wheeler. That is not my experience, and particularly not at
Wasson.
Mr. Salinger. You never used them for that purpose ?
Mr. Wheeler. Not at Wasson's ; no.
Mr. Salinger. And on this vote "no" committee, at Wasson's, be-
cause of your prior experience you were able to pick out the employees
yourself ?
Mr. Wheeler. Well, as I say, with the suggestions of the super-
visors.
Mr. Salinger. And the expenses were paid by you and charged to
the Wasson company ?
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 6325
Mr. Wheeler. What expenses there were ; yes, sir.
Mr. Salinger. Did you ever give any money to members of the
vote "no'' committee at the Wasson company ?
Mr. Wheeler. Not within my recollection at all.
Mr. Salinger. Did you reimburse them for any out-of-pocket ex-
penses, or anything like that ?
Mr. Wheeler. No, sir ; not within my recollection ; I did not.
Mr. Salinger. So you say most of this $12,000 went into enter-
tainment?
Mr. Wheeler. Entertainment, travel. There were other people
down there.
Mr. Salinger. Who was there besides you ?
Mr. Wheeler. John Schorr, two men who are no longer with us.
One was, I believe, Sy Burrows. I believe Mr. Patterson was there.
Mr. Salinger. Mr. Nathan Shefferman was also there during that
thing?
Mr. Wheeler. Yes, sir.
Mr. Salinger. Besides the Allstate company and the Wasson com-
pany, do you recall any other place you have set up a vote "no" com-
mittee ?
Mr. Wheeler. No, sir. I cannot recall any other place where I set
up a vote "no" committee.
The Chairman. If there are no further questions, thank you very
much.
The committee will stand in recess until 10 : 30 tomorrow morning.
(Members of the select committee present at time of recess: Sena-
tors McClellan, Goldwater, and McNamara.
(Whereupon, at 4: 30 p. m. the select committee recessed to recon-
vene at 10 : 30 a. m., Tliursday, October 31, 1957.)
INVESTIGATION OF IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE
LABOR OR MANAGEMENT FIELD
THUBSDAY, OCTOBER 31, 1957
United States Senate,
Select Committee on Ijiproper Activities
IN THE Labor or Management Field,
Washington, D. O.
The select committee met at 10 : 30 a. m., pursuant to Senate Reso-
lution 75, 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 Pat McNamara, Democrat, Michigan ; Senator Barry Goldwater,
Republican, Arizona.
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 come to order. Call the next
witness.
Mr, I^NNEDT. Mr. George Mennen, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman. Mr. Mennen, come forward, please.
Will you be sworn, please, sir? 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. Mennen. I do, sir.
TESTIMONY OF GEOKGE MENNEN, ACCOMPANIED BY HIS COUNSEL,
JAMES L. R. LAFFERTY
The Chairman. State your name, your place of residence, and your
business or occupation.
Mr. ]VIennen. My name is George Mennen. My place of residence
is 61 Grover Lane, West Caldwell, N. J. My occupation is vice
president in charge of manufacturing at the Mennen Co.
The Chairman. Thank you very much. Mr. Mennen, do you have
counsel with you ?
Mr. Mennen. I do, sir.
The Chairman, Counsel, will you identify yourself ?
Mr. Laffertt. My name is James L. R. Lafferty. My office is 24
Commerce Street, Newark, N. J.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Mr, Mennen, I understand you have a prepared statement you wish
to read,
6327
6328 IMPROEER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIEiLD
Mr. JVIennen. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. Counsel advises it was submitted within the rules.
Mr. Laffertt. I beg your pardon. I am afraid we did not submit
it within the rules. We submitted it last night to committee counsel,
but I am asking leave for Mr. Mennen to read it.
The Chairman. The only purpose of the rule, as the Chair has
said before, is so that we may know in advance about it, and we will
not permit a statement to be read into the record that is improper, and
which has no relevancy. But the statement has been examined by the
staff and there is no objection to it. You are quite welcome to read it.
Mr. Mennen. Yes, sir. My name is George Mennen. I am vice
president in charge of manufacturing for the Mennen Co., of Morris-
town, N. J. It is my understanding that this committee is seeking
ways to build intelligent and constructive legislation for the future by
careful and minute examination of past practices of both labor and
management. I sincerely hope that the recounting of our experiences
will be of help to this committee — and ultimately every citizen of
this great country.
I believe your understanding will be greatly aided if I may be
permitted to take a few minutes to tell you some important facts
about the Mennen Co. They may reveal to you our basic motives
for the actions we have taken in matters relative to this committee
hearing.
By American business standards, we are a relatively small busi-
ness. Our complete offices and manufacturing operations are in a
modern building in Morristown which we built and occupied 4 years
ago. Our total plant working force, at its peak, has never gone
beyond 291 employees ; and, taking seasonal fluctuations into account,
we have averaged less than 200. Our annual sales volume is approxi-
mately $25 million.
We are proud to be numbered among the many American businesses
which clearly typify this country's opportunities and freedom of
enterprise. The Mennen Co. is family owned and family operated.
It was started some 80 years ago by my grandfather, Gerhard
Mennen, who came to this country from Germany at the age of 15
to seek opportunity.
My grandfather started his career by doing odd jobs in a Hoboken
apothecary shop, worked his way through night school to gain a
degree in pharmacy, and got a job as a prescription clerk in a Newark
drugstore. Not content to be just a clerk, he experimented and
developed Mennen 's Sure Corn Killer. To sell his product, he hired a
banjo player and a horse and wagon, went about the city peddling his
merchandise.
His next venture was a superior type talcum powder for babies, and
he was even credited with introducing the first tin powder can whicli
would allow the user to sprinkle powder from a perforated top. Tlie
list of products bearing the ISIennen name grcAv, and by two's and
three's, the number of people who worked for tlie company grew.
My grandfatlier died, and for a while my grandmother ran tlie
company. Today, the president of the compjiny is William G. Men-
nen, my father. My brother, Bill Mennen, Jr., is executive vic^, presi-
dent, and I am vice president in charge of manufacturing. We are
the family members who have the res})onsibility of running the busi-
ness of the Mennen Co. from day to day.
IMPROPER AcnvrrrES est the labor field 6329
The stock in our company is owned by other members of the Mennen
family as well — my 2 sisters, my aunt, my 3 cousins who include, as
you know. Gov. G, Mennen Williams, of Michigan. We are, as indi-
viduals, and as a company, deeply proud of our record and we try to
be good citizens as individuals as well as a company.
Back in the depression, my father and his sister contributed a sum
of money to build a large dormitory at Cornell University where he
was educated, and in the intervening years my father has devoted
countless spare-time hours collecting a library of rare books which he
has given to Cornell. Just last spring my brother Bill contributed a
substantial sum which made possible the complete restoration of Old
St. Luke's Church in Smithfield, Va., America's oldest church — now
a national shrine for people of all denominations.
(At this point Senator Gold water entered the hearing room.)
Mr. Mennen. It is obvious that with such a small group of em-
ployees, we are bound to be very close to them. There is no need to
contrive an artificial feeling of friendliness — we spend the greater
part of our waking hours under the same roof.
President, vice president, department manager, and machine oper-
ator can be found every day eating together and relaxing at coffee
breaks in our attractive plant cafeteria. Without feeling the least bit
self-conscious, we confess that there is a feeling closely akin to a
family relationship among our coemployees on all levels.
It is manifestly apparent also that if we are fair and aboveboard
with our employees we all can gain. As a matter of fact, it would be
impossible to be otherwise in such a small and close-knit group.
Finally, we are concerned with the welfare of the community in
which we operate, and where our people live. The Mennen Co., within
the last 15 months, has run a bicycle safety program in schools, cul-
minating in a safety parade with 4,000 mothers, fathers, and children
on hand. The Mennen baseball diamond provides a much-needed fa-
cility for the local Babe Ruth Baseball League. Last summer 15,000
members of local families enjoyed a concert and fireworks display on
tlie Fourth of July— and dozens of civic ventures count on support
from the Mennen Co.
A business can have a "personality" as well as an individual. I
recount these typical examples of our behavior so that this committee
can gain an insight into the motives and traditions that govern our
actions. We believe these actions demonstrate our awareness of our-
obligations to our employees, our community, our industry, and our
country.
Further, this brief background on the Mennen Co. and the Mennen
family has an important bearing on the events which have culminated
in this hearing today.
Certain of these events — and perhaps the ones which are of most
interest to this committee — should, it seems to me, be highlighted at
this point. The details will be filled in later. I might add in addi-
tion to what is written here, sir, that none of these originate particu-
larly with your committee. They are matters of public })rint in
general. These events include :
1. The linking of the Mennen Co. with the name of one Nathan
Sheff erman in the public print.
89330^57— pt. 16-
6330 EMPROEER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
2. The implication, again in public print, that the Mennen Co. had
been guilty of union busting.
3. The implication — and I am not sure that I have seen this in
print, or whether it is something our friends have told us is rumored—
that the Mennen Co. had been a party to a payoff or had been guilty
of collusion or bribery in attempting to settle any union difficulties.
AVith reference to No. 1 — Natlian Shefferman — I want to say that
he was and is completely unknown to us personally.
Labor Relations Associates has been retained by the Mennen Co.
on two different occasions, and an agency now known as Personnel
Advisory Service is currently retained by the Mennen Co. The rea-
sons we engaged this firm and the details of our relations with them
will be given you later.
It may be "of interest to you that the total amount of money paid
to Labor Relations Associates by the Mennen Co. between May 1953
and April 1957 was $16,112.92. Of this total sum, $14,550 was for
services and $1,562.92 was for disbursements.
Our total payments to Lal)or Relations Associates averaged only
$335.69 per month. Originally our payments to Labor Relations As-
sociates were made through our counsel, because he wished to exercise
authorit}^ over these services. Later these payments were made by
the Mennen Co. direct to Labor Relations Associates. Photostatic
copies of the bills and checks of payment have been furnished to your
investigators.
At no time during the entire relationship between the Mennen Co.
and Labor Relations Associates has Nathan Shefferman participated
in the confereiices with or had correspondence with the JNIennen Co.
So far as the Mennen Co. is concerned in this respect, the only persons
known as employees or associates of Labor Relations Associates are :
Louis Jackson, Ohre, Rhodes, Brayfield, and Lewis. To this day,
neither I nor any executive of the Mennen Co. nor, so far as I know,
any employee of the Mennen Co. has ever had any contact with Nathan
Shefferman.
With respect to No. 2 — the implication that we have engaged in
union busting — this is not true. In the few cases where unfair labor
practice charges have been filed against the Mennen Co., each of those
proceedings was administratively dismissed after investigation by the
National Labor Relations Board.
In 1953, James Graham, a INIennen employee, discussed with us what
relief was available to employees during a period when some of the
employees wanted to be represented by the Chemical Workers Union
at a time when the union headed up by Johnny Dioguardi — United
Automobile Workers, AFL — was not servicing the union contract for
which the emplo3'ees' dues were being checked off.
We told him that a petition for deauthorization was the only remed}'
available at that time under the applicable laws. On July 21, 1953,
a deauthorization petition was filed by Graham.
His attorney was one suggested by our counsel and his — Graham's —
counsel fees in that proceecling were paid by the Mennen Co. We did
not regard this action of ours at that time, nor do I now consider it,
as an attempt to break a union.
If you will realize that our company is a small family business, that
the number of plant employees averages, as I said before, less than 200,
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN" THE LABOR FIELD 6331
that we know them all personally — join them in our plant cafeteria
for meals and at coffee breaks — and from time to time lend them money
for family emergencies, you will understand that there seems nothing
unusual in providing counsel fees for an employee who was seeking
relief for himself and his fellow employees from what they regarded
as an intolerable situation.
In the spring of 1954, at the expiration of the contract with the
United Automobile AVorkers (AFL), the NLEB granted the petition
of the Chemical Workers for an election. As required by law, the
ballot permitted a vote for either of the two unions or for "no union."
The result was 4 votes for United Automobile Workers, 49 for the
Chemical Workers, and 117 for no union.
With regard to No. 2 — the implication of bribery — I would like
to tell you the details of that as nearly as I can reconstruct them from
memory.
During the organizational strike in 1951, we received a call from
the organizing union as a result of which we went to the union head-
quarters in New York and met a man who introduced himself as Mr.
Zackman, president of the imion, and one or two others. They sug-
gested that we go out for coffee.
We went with them to a hotel one or two blocks away from the union
offices, somewhere on the west side of Manhattan, and in the hotel one
of them asked us if we would like to have this strike favorably settled
at an early date. We said "Yes,"' and they suggested that a payment
of aromid $15,000 would result in a settlement. We promptly
rejected the proposal and left the conference.
You may ask me why we did not report such an attempt at extortion.
My answer is that this suggestion of a payo-ff', although clearly recog-
nizable to us as such, was merely a thinly veiled suggestion and some-
thing that could not have been proved. I mention this now, because
I want this committee to know everything that we know about the
events under discussion.
I realize that the three points I have mentioned are not given here
in full detail, or in chronological order. This information will be
supplied tliis committee.
I should like to add that on behalf of the Mennen Co., we welcome
the opportunity to give the facts of this matter to your committee —
because they show how a business firm, operating in good faith, can
find itself dealing with racketeers under the guise of labor organiza-
tions. The facts show^ also how employees may be victimized by un-
scrupulous racketeers, under present laws, apparently without means
of relief other than those employed.
The Chairman. This chronological summary, if you desire, may be
printed in the record, or do you wish to read it ?
Mr. Mennex. I don't think it is necessar3\
The Chairman. It may be printed in the record at this point.
(The summary refei-red to is as follows :)
Chronological Summary
1. In the summer of 1951, a union calling itself local 102 of tlie United Auto-
mobile Workers (AFL) be.uan organizing the Mennen Co. employees, under the
leadership of a man named Zackman. In August 19.'tl there was an organiza-
tional strike in the company's warehouse at South Kearney which employed
about 40 men. The strike forced the closing of the production plant at Newark
which employed about 150.
6332 IMPROPER ACTIVmES EST THE LABOR FIELD
2. No demands were presented to the company, but Zackman offered to call
oflE the strike and the organizing campaign if the company would pay him oft.
The proposal was rejected and no payment of this kind to any person was ever
made.
3. The strike continued, but a new union representative, named John Dio-
guardia, showed up to deal with the company. Dioguardia said he deplored
Zackman's effort to extort money from the company and that Zackman was
dishonest and had been fired from local 102. Dioguardia said he wanted nothing
but a fair contract.
He made contract demands, and after some negotiating, a contract covering
the warehouse employees was signed. The union then proceeded to organize
the production workers and a contract covering the Newark plant was signed
2 months later. Dioguardia signed one in November 1951 as secretary-treasurer
of the union, and the other in February 1952 as president.
4. The contracts contained a 10-cent-an-hour wage increase and many fringe
benefits for the employees.
5. In 1952 Dioguardia announced that the number of the local at the Mennen
plant was to be changed to local 649. He said local 102 would henceforth
^organize New York taxicab drivers.
tj. Long before the strike, the company had been planning to consolidate its
operations in a new plant at Morristown. There was no question of any intent
to run away from the union. The new plant was located only 19 miles from
the old one, and the contract and all employees who wanted to stay with the
company went along to the new location.
7. About this time the criminal activities of Dioguardia were revealed in the
newspapers. It became apparent that local 102 was Johnny Dio, and Johnny
Dio was a racketeer. Dio's place was taken by Joseph Curcio and George Baker
as union representatives. Both these men were indicted recently in New York
for withholding information from a Federal grand jury.
8. Meanwhile the situation in the plant went from bad to worse. No service
was given to the employees by the union, although the company was bound by
its contract to check off dues. The exposure of racketeering in the union caused
great discontent among the employees.
9. In March of 1953 a jurisdictional fight developed. A group of employees
joined the Chemical Workers (AFL) and the chemical union petitioned the
NLRB for bargaining ricrhts. Local 649, through one Abe Goldberg, a business
agent, demanded that the employees who joined the chemical workers be fired.
The company refused. Local 649 struck, but the strike was a failure, and local
649 filed unfair labor practice charges against the company. These charges
were dismissed by the NLRB.
10. In the spring of 1054, at the expiration of the contract with local 649,
the NLRB granted the petition of the Chemical Workers for an election. As
required by law, the ballot permitted a vote for either of the two unions, or
for no union. The result was 4 votes for local 649, 49 for the Chemical Workers,
and 117 for no union.
In an effort to improve its personnel policies, the company retained, for a
month or two in 1951, and again commencing May 19.53, a New York firm of labor
relations counsel known as Labor Relations Associates, headed bv one Louis
Jackson, with oflBces at 21 East 40th Street. This firm was retain; d after a
check was made with other employers who gave a favorable report on its record
and services.
The company noted that the firm appeai'ed to be associated with another such
agency in Chicago headed by Nathan Shefferman, but it knew nothing about
Shefferman.
When Shefferman figured in testimony this year before the Senate committee,
the company suspended its relations with Labor Relations Associates, and no-
tified .lacksou that it would have nothing further to do with him as long as
he had any connection with Shefferman.
Jackson subsequently established his own firm, known as Personnel Advis-
ory Service, and informed the company he had terminated all association with
Shefferman and the Chicago firm, and was operating independently. Personnel
Advisory Service was again retained on this assurance.
The Chairman. The Chair will make this statement for the record :
I notice you say here you welcome the opportunity to get these facts
to the public. As I understand your statement, the three charges or —
What do you term them ?
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 6333
Mr. Mennex. They are just things that have come out in public
print, sir.
The Chairman. Rumors or charges.
I do not understand that any of that emanated from this commit-
tee, any statement that the committee has made or a member of the
staff.
Mr. Mennen. I attempted to point that out.
The Chairman. We have brought no charges. In the attempt to
investigate the matter, throughout, with the information we received
earlier about Mr, Shefferman's operation, your company came into
the picture when we found out that you had been a client.
I don't think any statement has been given out by anyone on this
committee or any member of the staff that reflected on your company
in any way. The first that it came to my attention was when I re-
ceived a letter from Governor Williams about it, saying that he felt
now that it should be brought out, that it should be developed here
before this committee.
Mr. Mennen. We appreciate that.
The Chairman. But it was not a case of the committee being out
after your company. It just came about in the course of its ordinary
work. The request has come from one of your stockholders that it
be placed on the record in public hearing. That is the effect. That
was the tone of his letter.
Mr. Mennen. Right, sir.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
All right, Mr. Counsel, proceed.
Mr. Kennedy. You retained Mr. Louis Jackson of Labor Relations
Associates back in 1951, Mr. Mennen ?
Mr. Mennen. That is correct, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. He came in at that time to make some personnel
survey, did he ?
Mr. Mennen. No, sir. At that time he came in to appraise the
situation of the organizational strike, and to appraise for us the situa-
tion as it occurred in the warehouse where the organizational strike
was taking place.
Mr. Kennedy. Was that an organizational strike by 102 of the
UAW-AFL?
Mr. Mennen. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. And he came in to give you some advice on that, to
appraise that situation ?
Mr. Mennen. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. How did you happen to come across Mr. Louis Jack-
son or Labor Relations Associates ?
Mr. Mennen. Exactly, sir, I cannot tell you. The recommendation
came to our personnel manager at the time through, I imagine, his
personnel manager's association group. We, as you know, or as
we told your investigators, had used a number of people, and they
were one of a number of people which we had used.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you call him in or retain Mr. Jackson and Labor
Relations Associates again in 1953 ?
Mr. Mennen. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. What was that ? What was that about ?
Mr. Mennen. Well, that was basically, sir, to strengthen our per-
sonnel department. As I pointed out to you in my statement before,
6334 IMPROPER AcnvrriES ix the labor field
we are a small company, and we can't afford a large specialized per-
sonnel department. With the situation depreciating; as it was, with
the various factions present, the net result to us as inanagement was
a breakdown in our work. We knew it was through personnel weak-
nesses. We called in Mr. Jackson to audit the services being rendered
by our personnel department, and help us correct them and bring
them up to standards.
Mr. Kennedy. So it was in connection with the personnel depart-
ment that you called him back in ?
Mr. Mennen. That is correct, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Did he have anything to do with the union at that
time, local 102, or 649, as it must have been called then ?
Mr. Mennen. Basically, no; I would say this: Where you are deal-
ing in personnel, and you have personnel problems that come up, the
union might certainly have gotten into it. But his basic purpose was
not that.
Mr. Kennedy. I understand that during 1953, there was a deau-
thorization petition by certain of the employees in your plant?
Mr. Mennen. That is correct, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Did Mr. Jackson have anything to do with that ?
Mr. Mennen. No. He was there at the time, I believe. He was
working with our personnel department at the time, but he did not
have anything to do with it as such.
Mr. Kennedy. He did not have anything ?
Mr. Mennen. No, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. He wasn't the one that suggested ?
Mr. Mennen. No, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. He did not. He never made any statement that
the way that this should be handled must be kept a secret, and it would
have to appear to be a spontaneous thing by the employees ?
Mr. Mennen. Not so I would know, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Wliat ?
Mr. Mennen. Not so I would know, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Who would know in your plant that that took place?
You never heard of that ?
Mr. Mennen. No, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. After the deauthorization petition was filed, as I
understand it, there was a strike in 1953 by Mr. Dio ?
Mr. Mennen. That is correct. Well, I don't think Mr. Dio. I
think at that time he was in prison.
Mr. Kennedy. Well, then, by Mr. Baker and Mr. Curcio ?
Mr. Mennen. I believe the strike was called by a chap named Abe
Goldberg.
Mr. Kennedy. Abe Goldberg ?
Mr. Mennen. Maybe my counsel can help me out on that.
Mr. Kennedy. There is an official by that name. The employees
went out on strike, and as I understand, it was an illegal strike, was
it not ?
Mr. Mennen. It was, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. And 50 or so of the employees that went out at that
time were not rehired because they violated the contract ?
Mr. Mennen. That is correct.
IMPBOPEiR ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 6335
Mr. Kennedy. Then there Avas an effort, as I understand it, at the
end of 1953 to bring in a new union by some of the employees, the
chemical workers union ?
Mr. Mennen. That was j)rior to that time, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. The strike, as I understand it, was around July or
August of 1953.
Mr. Mennen. It was August of 1953 and I believe that the chemical
workers first filed their petition for recognition in the spring of 1953.
Mr. Kennedy. Then it continued through the time of the strike and
after the strike, as I understand it, through 1953 until 1954 ?
Mr. Mennen. I think counsel can answer that better than I can.
Mr. Kennedy. Will you check with counsel on what the records
show. I believe the election was held in April of 1954.
Mr. Mennen. May of 1954.
Mr. Kennedy. And the election was held in May of 1954 and the
chemical workers had requested the election back in the spring of 1953
and so their efforts continued through the year of 1953 into the first
part of 1954.
Mr. Mennen. That is right, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. At that time, or during that period of time, was Mr.
Jackson active in the plant ? Was he still doing w^ork out there ?
Mr. Mennen. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Had he made arrangements to have a survey taken
among the employees during this period of time or right after the
strike^?
Mr. Mennen. There was a survey taken, sir, whether it was imme-
diately after the strike, I don't know. But that was not in relation
to the strike.
Mr. Kennedy. What was the purpose of that survey ?
Mr. Mennen. If I recall the purpose of that survey — I hate like the
dickens to speak from memory, sir — in our attempts to keep close to
our help, we have run numerous surveys and I would not want to swear
to this statement, but I believe that particular survey that was run
in the spring of that year was to find out from our various employees
what their various goals and aspirations were, and how they felt they
fitted into their present job.
Mr. Kennedy. Were you trying to gather any information as to how
they felt about the union ?
Mr. Mennen. Oh, no, sir.
Mr. KJENNEDY. You were not doing anything like that ?
Mr. Mennen. No, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Were there any cards kept ? We have had some tes-
timony on cards that were kept by some companies, 3 by 5 cards, which
would be marked as to how an employee felt about the company or felt
about the union.
Mr. Mennen. Gee, I am sure not, sir, because I did not conduct the
survey personally myself, and the purpose of it was not to find out how
the employees felt about the company and the union, so I would cer-
tainly suspect that those cards were not kept. If they were, I certainly
did not see them.
Mr. Kennedy. You never heard about the cards ?
Mr. Mennen. No, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Now, going on to another matter, we have had some
testimony about so-called rotating committees. Did you have any ro-
6336 IMPROPER ACTIVmES IN THE LABOR FIELD
tating committees at the Mennen Co. during this period of time when
the chemical workers were trying to come into the plant ?
Mr. Mennen. We had our rotating safety committees; and when
you say "rotating," you mean committees on which different people
serve on with each meeting. That is correct; our safety committee
was set up on that basis.
Mr. Kennedy. Had Mr. Jackson suggested that ?
Mr. Mennen. I believe he did.
Mr. Kennedy. Was the purpose of the rotating committee, or one
of the purposes of the rotating committee, in addition to finding com-
plaints against the company, to find those who were for or against the
union ?
Mr. Mennen. No, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. That did not have anything to do with that ?
Mr. Mennen. I would like to correct one thing, sir. You said in
addition to finding complaints about the company. This was a safety
committee. We are very proud of its record as a safety committee.
Mr. Kennedy. So it had nothing to do with finding out whether
people were for the company or for the union ?
Mr. Mennen. Certainly it was not organized for that.
Mr. Kennedy. Did it do that, or perform that service ?
Mr. Mennen. As far as I know, no, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. It did not ?
Mr. Mennen. No.
Mr. Kennedy. Did Mr. Jackson ever suggest to the company that
a vote "no" committee be set up ?
Mr. Mennen. No, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. He never made such a suggestion ?
Mr. Mennen. No, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you hear Mr. Shefferman's name? I notice in
your statement you did not know much about Mr. Shefferman. Did
you hear Mr. Shefferman's name discussed by Mr. Jackson ?
Mr. Mennen. The only time I heard Mr. Shefferman's name, or
saw it, we got a Christmas card one year from the Chicago office, and
we saw his name at that point. As far as I know, that is the only
time, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Shefferman never came to the plant ?
Mr. Mennen. Never.
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Shelton Shefferman never came to the plant?
Mr. Mennen. He never came, sir. We have never seen the gen-
tleman.
Mr. Kennedy. Were there any layoffs of any people after the chem-
ical workers lost the election in 1954 ? Were there any layoffs of any
individuals because of the fact that they had favored the miion ?
(At this point Senator McNamara entered the hearing room.)
Mr. Mennen. No, sir. In the first place, I don't know who favored
the union and who didn't, so that could be no basis for layoff. All of
our layoffs have always been in strict accord with the seniority clause
that was in our union contract.
We have followed that at the time the union was there and we have
always followed it since.
Mr. Kennedy. We have had some testimony about efforts that can
be made where you find an employee undesirable because of the fact
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 6337
he might be for the union, that efforts are made to find causes for lay-
ing them off. Was any of that done at your company ^
Mr. Mennen. It couldn't be, sir, because we lay off in accord with
seniority.
Mr. Kennedy. None of that was done?
Mr. Mennen. No, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Now, the company themselves and the officials of
the company were against the cliemical workers coming in there ; were
they not?
Mr. Mennen. I wouldn't saj so necessarily. Let me answer that
question this way, sir :
We as a company are the whole group of both officials and em-
ployees and what our employees wanted in that regard was what they
were going to get, sir. We naturally appreciated the tremendous vote
of confidence they gave us in this NLRB supervised vote and we con-
sidered it quite a compliment, but if thev had voted in the chemical
workers, the chemical workers, they would have had.
Mr. Kennedy. I understand that, but did you attempt to influence
them at all against the chemical workers or tell them you were against
the chemical workers?
Mr. Mennen. No, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. You did not ?
Mr. Mennen. No, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. I wonder, Mr. Chairman, if I could call Mr. Olden-
burg. I would like to ask him some questions. He was in the company
at the time.
The Chairman. Let me get one thing clear before you do that.
What was the name of the union you referred to as Johnny Dio's
union ?
Mr. Mennen. That was the United Automobile Workers, AFL,
local 102, to start with.
The Chairman. Was that the local that was in New York?
Mr. Kennedy. Yes.
Mr. Mennen. It later became local G49. You will see in the
chronological report, sir, it was converted to a taxicab union, I believe,
and they switched our local to 649.
The Chairman. Had they unionized your plant some years before?
Mr. Mennen. Our plant was unionized in 1951, the end of 1951.
The Chairman. This was this 102 ?
Mr. Mennen. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. One of Johnny Dio's controlled locals ?
Mr. Mennen. That is correct.
The Chairman. Did you know at the time of his connection with it,
at the time your plant was unionized ?
Mr. Mennen. He came in in the middle of the negotiations, sir.
The Chairman. He came in person ?
Mr. Mennen. He came in person, yes.
The Chairman. How did it happen that his union was ever rec-
ognized ?
Mr. Mennen. By us ? His union was recognized quite frankly, be-
cause we deserved it. They had an organizational strike in the ware-
house and the conditions in our warehouse were such that the union
was deserved.
6338 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD
The Chairman. The union was what ?
Mr. Mennen. I wonld say the union was deserved at that time in
the warehouse.
The Chairman. It was deserved ?
Mr. Mennen. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. You mean there should have been a union ?
Mr. Mennen. I would say so.
The Chairman. Now, did they have an election and your men
selected this union ?
Mr. Mennen. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. In other words, when it is unionized, or when your
plant was first unionized and Johnny Dio's local 102 was in there,
your people voted in an election to unionize ?
Mr. Mennen. They voted by a card count and that card count was
made at that time, sir.
The Chairman. There was no election, but a majority of them
signed cards ?
Mr. Mennen. That is correct.
The Chairman. That is how you got into that union ?
Mr. Mennen. That is correct.
The Chairman. What did you discover about that union, or your
men discovered or management that caused you to want to get out from
under it ?
Mr. Mennen. In the first place, I would say Johnny Dio's notoriety
right at that time was known to none of us. It was not known to any-
body and so Dio, as far as we were concerned, was the same as any
other union president and I am afraid as far as our help were con-
cerned.
I am speaking of opinion, of course, but I would say the reason that
the help felt they wanted to get out of it was that it was a completely
dominated union by union headquarters. As far as I know, the help
never had a chance to vote for their shop steward.
The account was never serviced by union headquarters. They felt
they were not getting any help from their union headquarters and they
felt they should have had the privilege of voting for their own shop
steward and their own shop organization in our plant.
The Chairman. As to the movement to decertify the local 102 as a
bargaining agent or representative for your employees, did that move-
ment to decertify originate with your men, with your employees, or did
it originate with management or both ?
Mr. Mennen. I would like to get my terminations straight here. I
have heard of certification and dcauthorization. That is the deauthor-
ization.
The Chairman. It is the deauthorization or decertification. I think
it means the same.
^Ir. Mennen. It originated with our employees.
The Chairman. It originated with your employees ?
Mr. Mennen. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. They came to you for counsel about it, did they?
Mr. Mennen. They came to our personnel department ; yes, sir.
The Chairman. For counsel, and when I say "you," I mean the
management.
]Mr. Mennen. Yes, sir; as I pointed out to you, we are a sort of a
small, closely knit group and people can speak freely back and forth.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 6339
The Chairman. Is that the instance in which yon employed an
attorney and the Mennen Co. paid for the services of an attorney ?
Mr. Mennen. That is correct.
The Chairman. To tight tlie battle of the men to get certification,
and to get out from under the Johnny Dio local ?
Mr. Mennen. That is correct, sir; and I may point out that was
an attorney that none of us personally had ever known ourselves.
The Chairman. I wanted to get the facts straight in my own mind.
I thought that was what had occurred.
Mr. Kennedy. I would like to ask some questions of Mr. Oldenburg.
The Chairman. Do you 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 ?
TESTIMONY OF HENRY OLDENBURG, ACCOMPANIED BY HIS
COUNSEL, JAMES L. R. LAFEERTY
The Chairman. State your name, your place of residence, and your
business or occupation.
Mr. Oldenburg. Henry Oldenburg, plant manager of the Mennen
Co., Morristown, N. J.
The Chairman. The same counsel is appearing for you ?
Mr. Lafferty, Yes.
Ths Chairman. Proceed.
Mr. Kennedy. In 1951 the Labor Relations Associates was brought
into the plant ; is that right ?
Mr. Oldenburg. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. In 1953 they were brought back into the plant to
do some work.
Mr. Oldenburg. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy, What was the purpose of bringing them in in 1953 ?
Mr. Oldenburg. The purpose was to straighten out some employee
difficulties. We had factions operating against each other in the plant
with the result that the production suffered. I am primarily inter-
ested in the production, and the lack and loss of production was blamed
on noncooperation of the employees who would put something on the
conveyor belt here, and the next man or woman may refuse to take
it off because they were not on speaking terms.
The material would get lost in the warehouse because these boys or
girls wouldn't cooperate with each other. It was just a mess.
Mr. Kennedy. So he came in to straighten all of that out ?
Mr. Oldenburg. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. While he was there did he have anything to do with
the union and local 649 ?
Mr. Oldenburg. No, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. He didn't have anything to do with that ?
Mr. Oldenburg. No, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Did he make any suggestions on the deauthorization ?
Mr. Oldenburg. No, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. You didn't have any conversations with him about
that?
Mr. Oldenburg. No, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. He never said anything to you about the fact that
this would have to appear to be spontaneous ?
6340 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. Oldenburg. In fact, as far as I know, since 1952 there had been
gripes about the union for a long time.
Mr. Kennedy. There might be gripes, but then if this dex;ertifica-
tion or deauthorization came actually from the company, and the com-
pany set it up, then it would get into the field of an unfair labor prac-
tice. Did he ever discuss that with you ?
Mr. Oldenburg. No, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. He never gave you any advice on that ?
Mr. Oldenburg. No, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Now, after the strike which I discussed with Mr.
Mennen, which happened in August of 1953, there was a survey that
was taken, as I understand it, among the employees.
Mr. Oldenburg. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. What was the purpose of that survey ?
Mr. Oldenburg. The purpos of that was again to try to combat
some of these complaints that we had from employees on favoritism,
on promotions, and so on, and we wanted to make sure that we would
have sufficient information to see the interests and skills and expe-
rience outside of the Mennen Co. that they had brought into the job,
so that we could promote from within to a better degree than we had
done before.
Mr. Kennedy. Now, that survey that was taken, as I understand it,
was by Labor Relations Associates ; is that right ?
Mr. Oldenburg. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. Was there anything in that survey that you were at-
tempting to find out how people stood about the union or about tlie
company ?
Mr. Oldenburg. No, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. There was nothing like that?
Mr. Oldenburg. No, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. As I said to Mr. Mennen, we have had some testi-
mony about these 3-by-5 cards that were kept on employees in some
other plants. Were there any 3-by-5 cards here?
Mr. Oldenburg. I have never seen any or I didn't hear any con-
versation about them.
Mr, Kennedy. Where you would mark plus or minus, or 1, 2, 3, 4,
5, showing whether a person was strongly for or against the union ?
Mr. Oldenburg. No, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Nothing like that ?
Mr. Oldenburg. No, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Now, Mr. Mennen talked about the rotating com-
mittees, called safety committees.
Mr. Oldenburg. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. Were these rotating or safety committees — was there
any purpose there to try to find out whether the employees were for
or against the union or for or against the company ?
Mr. Oldenburg. No, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. That wasn't the purpose of them ?
Mr. Oldenburg. No, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Jackson never suggested that they be used for
that purpose ?
Mr. Oldenburg. We had safety committees in 1954, and have con-
tinued to have safety committees until now, and we will continue to
have them.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 6341
Mr. Kennedy. I think IMr. Mennen said that these committees, the
rotating committees, might have been set up at the suggestion of Mr.
Jackson, but you say they weren't used for the purpose of finding
out whether the employees were for or against the company, or for
or against the union.
Mr. Oldenburg. I said they were not set up for that purpose.
Mr. Kennedy. AVere they used for that purpose ?
Mr. Oldenburg. No, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Did he give any direction as to how those com-
mittees should be run or operation, ^Ir. Jackson ?
Mr. Oldenburg. I couldn't tell you that.
Mr. Kennedy. He didn't tell you about it ?
Mr. Oldenburg. No ; we had these committees before, and whether
he may have added something to it or not, or suggested some modifica-
tion, I don't know.
Mr. Kennedy. Whatever suggestions he made, were they along
the line of finding out anything about a person's union sympathies, or
how they felt about the company ?
Mr. Oldenburg. I have never heard of any, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Did Mr. Jackson ever suggest that a "vote no"
committee be set up ?
Mr. Oldenburg. I never heard of it.
Mr. Kennedy. You never did ?
Mr. Oldenburg. No.
Mr. Kennedy. Did Mr. Jackson discuss with you often the con-
nection of Mr. Shefterman with the firm ?
Mr. Oldenburg. No, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. He did not?
Mr. Oldenburg. No, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Did Mr. Shefferman ever come to the plant ?
Mr. Oldenburg. No, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Do you know Mr. Shelton Shefferman ?
Mr. Oldenburg. No, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Were there any discussions at all about the laying
off of emploj^ees because of union sympathies ?
Mr. Oldenburg. No, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Never any discussion about that ?
Mr. Oldenburg. No, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. There was never any discussion with you by Mr.
Jackson or others that you would get rid of people that were for the
chemical workers or strongly in favor of imions?
Mr. Oldenburg. No, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. There was never any discussion like that ?
Mr. Oldenburg. No, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Did the company actually itself, were they for or
against the union or were they neutral ?
Mr. Oldenburg. Neutral.
Mr. Kennedy. You never indicated to the employees one way or
the other ?
Mr. Oldenburg. No, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. The answer is "No ?"
Mr. Oldenburg. The answer is "No, sir."
Mr. Kennedy. All riffht. That is all.
6342 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
The Chairman. All right, call the next witness.
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Louis Jackson, please.
Mr. Lafferty. May I ask this question on behalf of Mr. Mennen ?
Is he excused now, and Mr. Oldenburg, because there are personal
reasons that were made known to your counsel ^
The Chairman. I wanted to interrogate Mr. Mennen a little more.
Mr. Kennedy. I don't think that they are finished yet.
Mr. Lafferty. We will wait.
The Chairman. We will try to get through with you this morning.
TESTIMONY OF LOUIS JACKSON, ACCOMPANIED BY HIS COUNSEL,
NICHOLAS ATLAS
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. Jackson. I do.
The Chairman. State your name, your place of residence, and your
business or occupation.
Mr. Jackson. My name is Louis Jackson and I reside at 25 East
76th Street, New York City. I am a personnel relations consultant
and my address of business is 21 East 40th Street, New York City.
The Chairman. You have counsel with you ?
Mr. Jackson. I do, sir.
The Chairman. Will you identify yourself for the record ?
Mr. Atlas. My name is Nicholas Atlas, and my office is at 45 Ex-
change Place, in ^lanhattan. New York.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Mr. Jackson, are you with the Labor Relations Associates ?
Mr. Jackson. I am no longer, sir.
The Chairman. You have been in the past?
Mr. Jackson. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. All right, Mr. Kennedy.
Mr. KJENNEDY. How long were you with Labor Relations Asso-
ciates ?
Mr. Jackson. Since 1945.
Mr. Kennedy. And you left them at what time ?
Mr. Jackson. Late in April.
Mr. Kennedy. Of this year ?
Mr. Jackson. Of this year.
Mr. E^ENNEDY. For what reason ?
Mr. Jackson. Well, just so it will be clear, I operated the New
York office as an autonomous business. Since I opened the New
York office in 1945 I liad notliing to do with nor any knowledge of
the personal affairs of Mr. Shefterman or his son.
In consideration for my clients and in consideration that I wanted
to continue a good and sought-after and highly reputable service for
these clients, and in consideration for my staff and for myself, dic-
tated the severance which I undertook in April and I formed my own
company. Personnel Advisory Service, and the date of the corpora-
tion was May 8 of this year.
The Chairman. Had you been on a salary basis prior to that time,
or during the time you were with Labor Relations Associates ?
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 6343
Mr. Jackson. I was always on a salary basis, plus annual bonus.
I had no participation, stock participation in the company.
The Chairman. No what?
Mr. Jackson. No stock participation in the company.
The Chairman. I see. You worked under the directions of the
Sheffermans ?
Mr. Jackson. Yes and no. Yes, I was an employee of the com-
pany. No in the sense that I ran the office in New York since 1945,
quite autonomously. On occasion I would be signed to some work
by Mr. Shefferman, on occasion.
The Chairman. And the other w^ork that you did was work that
came to your office ?
Mr. Jackson. And which I obtained and which came to my office.
The Chairman. Which you obtained and which you handled as
an employee of the Shefferman's ?
Mr. Jackson. It is yes and no also.
The Chairman. In other words, you felt you were pretty much
your own boss
Mr. Jackson. That is right.
The Chairman. In the way you operated and in the way in which
you represented the clients that came to you ?
Mr. Jackson. That is right.
The Chairman. But while they were your clients, they were also
Shelfermann's clients in the sense that you were employed by Sheffer-
man ?
Mr. Jackson. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. You would take your instructions, would you not,
from Mr. Shefferman ?
Mr. Jackson. I have to answer that yes and no. If I were on a job
which Mr. Shefferman asked me to go on, which he did on occasion,
I would take my instructions from him. If it was on a matter that
was solely within my autonomous area, like the Mennen case, the in-
structions were only my own and to my staff.
Mr. Kennedy. When you say your autonomous area, that was not
a physical area, was it ?
Mr. Jackson. Fairly physical area.
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Shefferman came, for instance, even to New
York City and handled clients ?
Mr. Jackson. Yes, that is true.
INIr. Kennedy. And he sent you to handle clients in various sections
of the country, did he not ?
Mr. Jackson. On occasion.
Mr. Kennedy. And you received in salary and bonus from Mr.
Shefferman how^ much, for instance, in 1956^
Mr. Jackson. I don't recall. I have not those figures with me. If
the committee can help me with that figure, I will be very glad to
help it, if it is pertinent.
Mr. Kennedy. I believe it is $33,000 in 1956. Would that be ap-
proximately right, salary and bonuses ?
Mr. Jackson. That is about right.
Mr. Kennedy. And you were the head of his office in New York
City, were you not ?
Mr. Jackson. That is risht.
6344 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. Kennedy. And you made his reports to liim when he wanted
them?
INIr. Jackson. All the bookkeei^ing and all the reports went to the
Chicago office.
Mr. Kennedy. And there was likewise an office up in Detroit ?
Mr. Jackson. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. And that was operated by Mr. George Kamenow ?
Mr. Jackson. That is correct.
]\Ir. Kennedy. And if Mr. Shefferman wanted you to come even
into Detroit or into Michigan, he could send for you and send you
up there ?
Mr. Jackson. Mr. Kennedy, I think that happened only about once
in my recollection.
Mr. Kennedy. Didn't you go up on the Morton Frozen Foods case?
Mr. Jackson. I went out to Webster City on one occasion, the day
of the election.
Mr. Kennedy. "Wliat was the purpose of tliat ? Were you sent out
there by Mr. Shefferman ?
Mr. Jackson. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. What were you doing out there ?
Mr. Jackson. On the day before an election, questions arise as to
the eligibility list. You see, a Labor Board examiner who conducts
an election does not want to have too many challenges. There were
many, many cards that the union had had for people that had been
there and left. It was a highly seasonal business. The union had many
questions about the eligibility list. I sat with the union representatives
and with the Labor Board representative, and we went over the eligi-
bility list so that tliere would be very, very few challenges.
Mr. Kennedy. That was in connection with the packinghouse
workers election ?
Mr. Jackson. Tliat is right.
Mr. Kennedy. You were sent up there by Mr. Shefferman ?
Mr. Jackson. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. You also went to Boston, Mass ; did you not ?
Mr. Jackson. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. You were sent there by Mr. Shefferman ?
Mr. Jackson. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. While you were up there, did you negotiate with
representatives from the Sears, Roebuck Employees Council pre-
viously ?
Mr. Jackson. In the middle 1940''s, for some few years, I was the
collective-bargaining re]:>resentative for the company with the Sears
Employees Council, with the engineers union, with the garage union,
or the superservice station union, and with the teamsters union, both
for retail and mail order.
In about 1949, I think, Sears became regionalized and had labor
relations counsel on their own staff, whom I helped train. They took
over the negotiations. I was recalled to Boston, I believe, in 1953 by
Mr. Shefferman and local management.
Mr. Kennedy. While you were up there, you had dealings with the
employees council : did you not ?
(The witness conferred with his counsel.)
Mr. Jackson. I met with a group of employees who had a position
that you couldn't say was a council or wasn't.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 6345
Mr. Kennedy. Let me ask you tliis : Didn't the Sears, Roebuck Co.,
who was retaining you, didn't the Sears, Iloebuck Co. while you were
up there in 1953 recognize this employees council as the bargaining
agent ?
Mr. Jackson. Yes, but if you recall
Mr. Kennedy. I understand there was a rivalry. But the employer,
the person who retained you, recognized this employees council ?
Mr. Jackson. Let me say this, that the negotiations with the council
at that time, and since the time I left in 1948, were handled by the
regional office out of Philadelphia
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Jackson
Mr. Jackson. Just a minute, please, sir. And I was not negotiating
with that group.
Mr. Kennedy. I didn't ask you that. All I said was at the time
you were up there in 1958, wasn't the Sears Employees Council recog-
nized by the Sears, Roebuck store as the bargaining agent? Were
they not ?
Mr. Jackson. Yes ; they were.
Mr. Kennedy. While you were up there, did you pay any money to
the officials of the Sears, Roebuck Employees Council ?
Mr. Jackson. I did not.
Mr. Kennedy. You did not ?
Mr. Jackson. Will you restate that question ?
Mr. Kennedy. While you were in Boston, did you pay money or
give anything of value to any representative of the Sears, Roebuck
Employees Council ?
Mr. Jackson. The company was supporting
Mr. Kennedy. Just answer the question .and then you can give any
explanation you want.
Mr. Jackson. You must accept my answer, unless you want to
testify.
Mr. Kennedy. Go ahead.
Mr. Jackson. The company had, up to August 1953, been support-
ing 2 or 3 employees of the company. These employees were commis-
sion salesmen, and they subsidized them for their work for their
absence from the premises. The company also was paying the attorney
for this council group. There was a grave question at that time : What
was the council ? What was the group ? The retail clerks claimed to
have
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Jackson, that is not answering my question.
Mr. Jackson. I have answered the question, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you pay any member of the Sears, Roebuck Em-
ployees Covmcil any money while you were in Boston ?
Mr. Jackson. In behalf of the company I delivered payments which
the company chose to make to these individuals, Giammasi
The Chairman. Mr. Jackson, it seems to me the answer is, "Yes,
you did it."
Mr. Jackson. With company funds.
The Chairman. At the instance of the company and with company
funds, or with funds for which you were reimbursed?
Mr. Jackson. No, I was not reimbursed. They were company funds
which they gave me.
Tlie Chairman. All right, whatever the facts are.
80330— 57— pt. 16 8
6346 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. Jackson. It was not a reimbursement.
The Chairman, I am not saying it was, but I am trying to move
this along and just get the facts.
Mr. Jackson. I am sorry.
The Chairman. As I understand it, the question was : Did you pay
any of these employees any money or anything of value while you
were there ?
The answer was, "Yes, you did," it was company money and they
had been paying them before you got there.
Mr. Jackson. I will accept your restatement of my answer.
The Chairman. Is that correct ? That is the way I understood you.
Mr. Jackson. Yes, that is right.
The Chairman. All right.
Mr. Kennedy. And whose instructions were they to continue paying
this money ?
Mr. Jackson. The regional office, labor relations office, of Sears, in
Philadelpliia, and local management.
Mr. Kennedy. Who, specifically, instructed you to pay this money ?
Are you familiar with section 302 ?
Mr. Jackson. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. Where it says —
It shall be unlawful for any employer to pay or deliver or to agree to pay or
deliver any money or other thing of value to any representative of any of his
employees who are employed iu an industry affecting commerce.
Mr. Jackson. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. You are familiar with that?
Mr. Jackson. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Who gave you the instructions from Sears, Roebuck
Co., or from the Shefferman concern, to make these payments to these
individuals who were representing the Sears, Roebuck employees
council, with whom Sears. Roebuck was bargaining?
Mr. Jackson. I would say, sir, that out of Chicago Mr. Caldwell,
out of Philadelphia Mr, Hooke, at first, out of local management Mr.
Rohrdanz, with whom I worked very closely, and Mr. McDermott,
and the local manager there
Mr, Kennedy, Mr, Romizer ?
Mr, Jackson. No. Jardine, I think, before McDermott got there.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you object to making any of these payments?
Mr. Jackson. No, I did not. Sears, Roebuck is one of the finest
employers in the country. They wished to maintain a status quo there.
I helped the company in every way I could,
Mr, Kennedy. Did you make any payments to Mr. Roy Webber?
(The witness conferred with his counsel.)
Mr. Jackson. I made no payments to Roy Webber.
Mr. Kennedy. Were there any paym.ents made to Mr. Roy Webber
that you are aware of ?
Mr. Jackson. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. What were they ?
Mr. Jackson. When Mr. Webber first formed the council, he spent
a good deal of time. This was before my time. It is all hearsay.
Shall I continue?
Mr. Kennedy. I want to know from 1951 on, 1950 or 1951 on.
_ Mr. Jackson, From 1951 on, I think the pristine arrangement con-
tinued.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 6347
Mr. Kennedy. Was that the $20 a week ?
Mr. Jackson. His $25 or $20 a week, which was not an unusual
arrangement. It was to compensate him for the time he spent in
grievance procedure. That is not an unusual thing. Henry Ford
spends a billion and a hall" dollars a year on fully paid grievance time
for union shop stewards. It is not unusual.
Mr. Kennedy. I am not questioning that $20 payment by the com-
pany. Were there any other payments made directly or indirectly to
Roy Webber?
Mr. JxVOKSON. I know of none, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. You know of none ?
Mr. Jackson. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. Were you told that he was receiving other moneys,
other tlian the $20 ?
Mr. Jackson. I was not.
Mr. Kennedy. You were not ?
Mr. Jackson. No.
Mr. Kennedy. You never had anj^ conversations along that line?
Mr. Jackson. No.
As a matter of fact, I never discussed the $25 with him, either.
Mr. Kennedy. I am not talking about him. I am talking about any
discussions you might have had with company officials.
Mr. Jackson. No. They told me that that was the arrangement.
Mr. Kennedy. That is the only payment that you know of ?
Mr. Jackson. That is right, except for a back pay award.
Mr. Kennedy. The payments you made personally were to Angelo
Giamassi ?
Mr. Jackson. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. And who else ?
jVIr. Jackson. And Gannon.
Mr. Kennedy. What is his first name ?
Mr. Jackson. Richard Gannon.
Mr. Kennedy. Richard Gannon ?
Mr. Jackson. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you make any payments to Harry Farren ?
Mr. Jackson. In behalf of the company I disbursed some moneys
to Mr. Gannon.
Mr. Kennedy. If these moneys were all legitimate payments, why
didn't the company make them directly rather than through you ?
Mr. Jackson. I tliink now they would share the feelings of Mr.
Moser, wlio testified yesterday, that hindsight would have made them
much wiser in paying directly.
Mr. Kennedy. This is a quite different situation than Mr. Moser,
where the payment there was just to an individual. Here the pay-
ments were being made to a group which was heading up the union
with whom the Sears, Roebuck Co. was bargaining. These payments
are quite different than the ones whicli were made by Allstate Insur-
ance Co.
Mr. Jackson. I don't think so, sir. I differ with you.
Mr. Kennedy. I read section 302 which is directly in point.
Mr. Jackson. Well, I differ with you, Mr. Kennedy.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you make arrangements for the attorney for
this so-called independent council. Sears, Roebuck Employees
Council ?
6348 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD
Did you make arrangements for him to be paid ?
Mr. Jackson. I continued the practice that I found in August of
1953 when I was called to follow up on Mr. Neilsen.
Mr. Kennedy. On whose instructions did you make those pay-
ments ?
Mr. Jackson. I will have to give you the answer as best I know it.
It was Mr. Caldwell, the Philadelphia regional office, and local man-
agement. As I told you, I worked very closely with Mr. Kohrdanz.
Mr. Kennedy. What about the literature that was put out by the
Sears, Roebuck Employees Council? Did you finance any of that?
Mr. Jackson. Yes, the company financed that.
Mr. Kennedy. Is that an unusual practice by you, Mr. Jackson, to
help finance the union with whom the employer is bargaining ?
To give money to the ones w^ho w^ere the officials of the employees
council, to pay the attorney for the employees council, which is the
union
Mr. Jackson. No.
Mr. Kennedy. To paj^ for the literature ?
Mr. Jackson. No. The answer is "No." It is not an unusual
practice.
Mr. Kennedy. Has anything similar to that happened in any other
case ?
Mr. Jackson. I don't recall at the present moment.
Mr. Kennedy. Do you think it is possible you have done it else-
w^here ?
Mr. Jackson. It might be, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. It is ?
Mr. Jackson. But not a usual practice.
Mr. Kennedy. But you have done it elsewhere ?
Mr. Jackson. I don't remember, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. You can't remember whether you have done it else-
where ?
Mr. Jackson. No, I can't. I have had thousands of cases since I
have been in this business for 20 years, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. And this was not so unusual that j^ou would remem-
ber having done something similar to this elsewhere ?
Mr. Jackson. I repeat my answer that it was not usual practice.
Mr. Kennedy. But you can't tell us any other place that you have
done it, Mr. Jackson ?
Mr. Jackson. I will have to repeat my answer, that it was not usual
for me to do that, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you offer Mr. Giammasi a thousand dollars if
he would leave his job and find employment elsewhere ?
Mr. Jackson. Mr. Kennedy, I did not ask Mr. Giammasi to leave
his job. That idea originated with the company.
Mr. Kennedy. Who in the company, if you say it is the company ?
Who was it in the company ?
Mr. Jackson. So you will understand this, and it applies to all
future answers so you don't have to ask that again
Mr. Kennedy. I will ask what I want to ask. You answer the
questions.
Mr. Jackson. I don't want to feel obliged to ask it. Every time I
was in Boston, I met with local management and sometimes a member
of the industrial relations department out of Philadelphia, and on
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 6349
occasion with Mr, Caldwell, and on occasion with Mr. Shefferman.
I cannot segregate meeting from meeting and tell you which of these
men were there. I ask you to accept an answer that it was the com-
posite advice of all or a quorum or a few or of one.
Mr. IvENNEDY. You Can't tell who it was that told you that?
Mr. Jackson. No, I cannot.
Mr. Kennedy. Just these 3 or 4 people; 1 or 2 or 3 or 4 of these
people told you ?
Mr. Jackson. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. But you did make the offer to Mr. Giammasi that
you would give him $1,000 or the company would be willing to give
him $1,000 if he would leave their employment and set up a printing
company outside ?
Mr. Jackson. I transmitted some such message to Mr. Giammasi.
Mr. Kennedy. Was that the message ?
jNIr. Jackson. If I recollect, I think that is so, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. For what reason were you trying to get Mr. Giam-
masi out of Sears, Roebuck ?
Mr. Jackson. I was not trying to get him out.
Mr. Kennedy. For what reason, then did these other people tell you
to do this, and you went ahead and tried to do it ?
Mr. Jackson. Mr. Giammasi was not a very good worker. He had
a series of jobs there in different departments and they hnally gave
him a position in customer service, in the customer service department.
He was unhappy there. As a matter of fact, he was always unhappy.
But I did not arrange or promote any discharge idea, or resignation
idea.
Mr. Kennedy. You went to him about it, though ?
Mr. Jackson. Yes. I am a very loyal worker to this company.
I told you that I like Sears, Roebuck and I think they are a grand
company, and I would do those things for them. That is what I was
there for.
Mr. Ivennedy. I understand.
The Chairman. If you will just answer the questions
Mr. Jackson. I mean it was no idea of mine. Senator McClellan.
The Chairman. All right, you said that. Stop. It was the other
fellow's idea, and you carried it out.
Go ahead.
Mr. Ivennedy. If Mr. Giammasi was not a very good employee and
did not have a very good record, why were the extra payments being
paid to him periodically ?
Mr. Jackson. Because of the loss of his earnings.
Mr. Kennedy. If you are so interested
Mr. Jackson. I don't know the exact chronology, but I think that
after all of this necessity for his giving time was done with, perhaps
the local management took another look at the man.
Mr. Kennedy. That is on Giammasi. AYliat about Mr. Roy Web-
ber ? Did you ever offer him a job in South America ?
Mr. Jackson. Well, I think after the publicity I got out of that,
I will open an agency down there. Mr. Webber did not tell the accu-
rate story.
(At this point Senator McNamara withdrew from the hearing
room.)
6350 rMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. Jackson. Mr. Webber approached me — you see, I used to ne-
gotiate with Webber a long time back. I told you, in 1948. We were
pretty friendly. Mr. Webber asked me what chance there was to
be transferred down to the Miami store, the Miami Beach store. I
said I would inquire. AVhen I made inquiry, I was told by Mr. Cald-
well that Sears S. A., South America, had openings, not for rank and
file, because apparently down there you can't hire rank and file who
are not citizens, but there were openings for management employees,
such as division manager. I transmitted that message to him. He
said he was not interested.
Now, about 3 months or so, if I recall, after he was discharged, I
received a letter in New York, and Mr. Sheridan knows about this
letter, I received a letter in New York asking me to get him a job.
The original letter is in the files of Sears, Roebuck & Co. He said,
"I have had work witli this union and I can make a very good per-
sonnel man for somebody, and I would be glad to do it."
I went to work to try to find a job for him. It was not entirely
altruistic. If he got a job, it would cut down the back pay running
against the company at the time, if his discharge were sustained as
being an unjust discharge or unfair labor practice charge, as it finally
was. I got an appointment for him at Florence Stove Co., in Gard-
ner, Mass., wlio at that time was having a strike with the steel work-
ers. They did have an opening there for him. The money, I think,
he said was not sufficient. I think it was about $5,500. I talked to
Englander Co. in Boston and New York, and they said they would
like to offer him a job, I think, for about $6,000 a year as salesman
in the New York and New England area. He did not want to travel.
(At this point Senator McNamara returned to the hearing room.)
Mr. Jackson. I got him an appointment with the president of R. H.
White Co., in Boston, now defunct, and nothing jelled out of that.
Those were the three attempts I made at his request, Mr. Kennedy.
Mr. Kennedy. What about Mr. Gannon; diet you know of any
efforts to transfer Mr. Gannon out of the Boston store ?
Mr. Jackson. Mr. Gannon ?
Mr. Kennedy. He was another one of those leading the employees'
council,
Mr. Jackson. That is right. Mr. Gannon at one time was a ware-
house manager for Sears, Roebuck, and was demoted. He became a
furniture salesman. At this time I don't recall at whose suggestion
it was, whether it was his or someone else's, but some effort was made
to find him a job as a warehouse manager with a company I don't re-
member the name of.
The record I read yesterday tells the name of the company. My
participation in that was nil, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. But you knew of that?
Mr. Jackson. Oh, yes.
Mr. Kennedy. What was the purpose of that with Mr. Gannon ?
Mr. Jackson. I liked Gannon, and I think he is a fine man.
Mr. Kennedy. While you were up in Boston, in addition to paying
these moneys that you talked about, were you also entertaining the
officials of the Sears, Roebuck employees' council ?
Mr. Jackson. I will ask you please to strike out tlie first half of
that question.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIEILD 6351
Mr. Kennedy. Let me put it this way : While yon were in Boston
and paying the money to the officials of the Sears, Roebuck employees'
council, which money came from the employer, were you also enter-
taining the members of the Sears, Roebuck employees' council ?
Mr. Jackson. Whenever we had a grievance meeting or whatever
you call those meetings, and I don't know how to describe them, if I
saw them at lunch, and if I saw them at dinner, I bought dinner.
Mr. Kennedy. During this same period of time wlien these activi-
ties of yours were going on, did you also make arrangements to hire
another attorney, Mr. DeGiacomo, to do some other work ^
Mr. Jackson. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. You did ?
Mr. Jackson. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. You had some conversations with him ?
Mr. Jackson. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. And he ultimately arranged for a so-called vote "no"
committee of the employees ?
Mr. Jackson. I must insist on interpolating one thing there, sir.
Mr. DeGiacomo was referred to me by Mr. Allan Tepper. There was
a case at the Labor Board for determination of bargaining representa-
tive. There was an issue on the appropriateness of the unit.
Now, the way the petition was read, as I recall it, it might have
included certain managerial employees. Sears has a departmental
system with certain numbei's and in certain departments they only
have the one employee who is a department manager. He is a man-
agerial employee.
There have been some cases that have held that where a man is the
only one in the department he cannot be both management and his own
employer, and be a worker in that department. The company wanted
the supervisory staff's protected and we asked Allan Tepper, the com-
pany's counsel, to find a lawyer.
Mr. DeGiacomo was a young man, as you saw, and he did not know
anything about labor-relations law, or about Board procedures and I
undertook to instruct him and he represented this group. For this,
he M^as paid by the company and the company supplied the funds.
Mr. Kennedy. Why did you pick a young man that did not know
anything about labor law? Is that a procedure that you follow in
other areas to try to get someone who does not know a great deal
about labor law ?
Mr. Jackson. Will you unload that question, please ?
Mr. Kennedy. I think you can understand it.
Mr. Jackson. I cannot answer it.
Mr. Kennedy. Is that a procedure in other areas, when you are
going in and finding an attorney, for one reason or another ?
Mr. Jackson. I am going to answer that question
]Mr. Kennedy. Do you want to answer the question or not. Can
3^ou answer it ?
Mr. Jackson. Excuse me.
Mr. Kennedy. Do you attempt to find an attorney who has little
background or knowledge of labor law? Is that your usual pro-
cedure ?
Mr. Jackson. I will answer you in this way ; that, in Boston, when
I asked Allan Tepper for a lawyer, he sent me Mr. DeGiacomo. Mr.
DeGiacomo did not have to know too much labor law.
6352 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. Kennedy. In other areas where you are looking for an attorney
to do work for you, do you attempt to find an attorney who does not
have a great deal of background or knowledge of labor law ? Is that
your procedure ? You can answer that "Yes" or "No."
Mr. Jackson. Will you read that back to me.
(The pending question was read by the reporter.)
Mr. Jackson. If ever I have needed a lawyer, and I do not know
what other areas you are talking about, but we will conclude this
answer : If in other areas I ever need a lawyer, to me it did not make
any difference whether the lawyer knew or did not know, and I did
not purposely, if I did in other areas, seek out a young, inexperienced
lawyer.
Mr. Kennedy. That is right. That is what I am trying to find out.
Did you arrange to have Mr. DeGiacomo paid ? Did you paid him or
arrange to have him paid ?
Mr. Jackson. Yes ; the company paid him through me.
Mr. Kennedy. And on whose instruction was that done ?
Mr. Jackson. Also through the entire group.
Mr. Kennedy. You cannot tell who told you specifically ?
Mr. Jackson. The particular one ; no, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. How much money did you pay Mr. DeGiacomo ?
Mr. Jackson. I think the company paid him in the neighborhood of
$1,000 or something.
Mr. Kennedy. You were aware, were you not, that he had a vote
"no" committee operation in existence when you paid him the money ?
Mr. Jackson. I was not aware of that, sir. At the outset, when I
was instructing him, he was representing a group of management
people.
Mr. Kennedy. I do not think, perhaps, you heard my question.
Mr. Jackson. Wait a minute. I did hear your question very well,
indeed. After that he was working witli Mr. Robey, and I understand
now — and my recollection has been refreshed since reading the tran-
script— that Mr. DeGiacomo was then later used by Robey to assist
him in this vote "no" group.
Mr. Kennedy. You still have not answered the question.
Mr. Jackson. I have answered the question.
Mr. Kennedy. Would you read him the question back ?
(The pending question was read by the reporter.)
Mr. Jackson. I do not think I was aware of that at that time, sir.
What I knew as a fact was the purpose for which I had retained him
in behalf of the company ; that is my best answer.
Mr. Kennedy. You paid him well after the election some $1,000 or
$1,500 ; tlie money came from the employer, and you mean to say that at
that time you still did not know what Mr. DeGiacomo was doing or
had done?
Mr. Jackson. Mr. Kennedy, may I tell you very frankly that, in
reading the testimony, when it was brought out that he had talked to
130 employees or so, and I don't remember how many
Mr. Kennedy. I cannot understand why you have to ramble off, Mr.
Jackson, and why don't you answer the question.
Mr. Jackson. I am not rambling off. I knew exactly what I was
doing, arid I did not know entirely what Mr. Robey was doing.
Mr. Kennedy. You knew enough to pay him the money.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 6353
Mr. Jackson. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. You must have known what services he performed.
Mr. Jackson. The company knew well enough what they were pay-
ing the money for.
The Chairman. There isn't any question about that. The ques-
tion is: Did you know at the time you paid the man his attorney
fees that he had had going a vote "no" committee as a part of his
services to the company or to you ?
Mr. Jackson. My present recollection, Senator, is that I did not.
The Chairman. You did not know at the time you paid the fee?
Mr. Jackson. My present recollection is I did not.
Mr. Kennedy. Three or four days prior to the election in this
operation that you were running for the employees' council, did
you suggest at that time that they switch their operation over to a
vote "no" operation and vote against any union ?
Mr. Jackson. I participated in some such discussions.
Mr. Kennedy. And you say that, even at that time, you did not
know Mr. DeGiacomo was working with such a vote "no" operation ?
Mr. Jackson. Mr. DeGiacomo did not work with the people whom
I was meeting.
Mr. Kennedy. I understand that, but you knew, certainly, that a
vote "no" operation was in existence, because that is what you were
suggesting that the employees switch thir votes over to.
Mr. Jackson. That was not it. When you vote "no" you are not
voting for a vote "no" committee; you are just voting "No."
Mr. Kennedy. I understand that.
Mr. Jackson. And their membership had not increased, and they
saw no hope of prevailing. They were bitterly opposed to the retail
clerks union.
Mr. Kennedy. I understand all of that.
Mr. Jackson. Do you want me to answer the question ?
Mr. Kennedy. You don't seem to answer the question, and you
seem to want to make a speech.
The Chairman. Get the question and the Chair will get the answer.
We will find out. Let us move along.
Mr. Kennedy. At the time that you had the meeting with the em-
ployees from the employees' council, and you suggested at that time
that they vote against the union or vote against any union, weren't
you aware of the fact that there was an operation in existence at that
time against the union, a vote "no" operation ?
Mr. Jackson. I may have, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. That is as close as you can get ?
Mr. Jackson. That is as close as I can get.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you know that Mr. Donoghue's car was being
wrecked, the plan on the wrecking of Mr. Donoghue's car?
Mr. Jackson. IMy first information as to that was when I read the
record and read the newspapers.
Mr. Kennedy. You had not known anything about that?
Mr. Jackson. I have never met Donoghue and I don't know any-
thing about that operation.
Mr. Kennedy. What was the purpose of your being contacted by the
Mennen Co. in the spring of 1953 ?
Mr. Jackson. To do a personnel program there.
t3354 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. Kennedy. Did you have anything to do with the union at that
time?
Mr. Jackson. No. All matters in connection with the union, and
in the previous strike and previous negotiations and all Labor Board
proceedings were handled by Mr. LatTerty.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you make any suggestions on the decertification
or deauthorization ?
Mr. Jackson. My best recollection, sir, is that when I came back or
when I was recalled to the Mennen Co., I had a meeting with the
personnel director, David Nagle, and Mr. Oldenburg may have been
present and he may not have been, and I don't remember.
The dissatisfaction of the employees with the Dio outfit was dis-
cussed and a general review was had by me or I gave them a general
review as to what might be done in a case like that and what the
employer's relief was. PTere an employer was saddled and the em-
ployees were saddled with a union which they apparently did not
want. There were a number of alternatives open to them. One,
they could refuse to bargain at the end of the time.
Mr. Kennedy. Could you answer the question of whether you gave
them any advice, any suggestions on the deauthorization or decerti-
fication certificate that was going to be issued or passed ?
Mr. Jackson. I have answered the question and I was telling you
what I did.
Mr. Kennedy. I don't want to know everything that you told them
while you were there and I want to find out whether you told them
anything about this.
Mr. Jackson. I told these men what their remedies of the company
and the employees might be.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you tell them at that time that this would have
to be a spontaneous matter, or appear to be spontaneous and come from
the employees ?
Mr. Jackson. I don't recall that I said any such thing.
Mr. Kennedy. Did yovi make the suggestion to them about obtain-
ing an outside attorney to handle the matter?
Mr. Jackson. I don't believe so, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you say to them at that time that this attorney
should be a young attorney, and an inexperienced one and he could be
directed, or he should be inexperienced in the field of labor law?
Mr. Jackson. I don't recall I did that.
Mr. Kennedy. Do you think it is possible you might have done
those things ?
Mr. Jackson. I don't know, sir.
Mr, Kennedy. You don't know the answer to that ? Your memory
fails you on that ?
Now, in 1953, there was a strike and following the strike an indi-
vidual from your office came up and started a survey of some kind
among the employees.
Mr. Jackson. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. Was the purpose of that survey to determine
whether the employees were for or against the union ?
Mr. Jackson. It was not.
Mr. Kennedy. Was one of the purposes to obtain that information ?
Mr. Jackson. I don't believe so.
Mr. Kennedy. Do you think that is possible ?
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 6355
Mr. Jackson. Mr. Kennedy, whenever you talk to an employee, you
might learn a little something about him and some people might say
something about the union, derogatory or not derogatory, but that
was not the purpose of these interviews.
Mr. Kennedy. Were you attempting to find out any information
about the employees as to whether they were for the company or for
the union ?
Mr. Jackson. I think not, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. But you can't answer that ?
Mr. Jackson. I did not conduct those interviews, and I did send
the men^ — excuse me — I sent the men in there to do their share in this
personnel program that I was a party of, on the resumption of our
work.
Mr. Kennedy. When you sent the men in, the men came from your
office ?
Mr. Jackson. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. One of the things they were there to find was to
learn and determine whether the employees were for the union or for
the company.
Mr. Jackson. I don't think so, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Can't you answer that question ?
Mr. Jackson. You asked an alternative question and I say they
were there to find out grievances and gripes that they may have had
so that we could make that place a better place to work and it was
not for purposes of finding out whether they were for a union or
against a union, or whatever union you are talking about.
Mr. Kennedy. Were there cards that were kept on the employees,
3-by-5 cards, kept on the employees, and symbols made on those cards
to show whether they were for or against the union ?
Mr. Jackson. I know of no such cards.
Mr. Kennedy. You were not aware of those cards ?
Mr. Jackson. No, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Were any files kept on the employees who were in
favor of the Chemical Workers Union, that you know of ?
Mr. Jackson. No, not as such.
Mr. Kennedy. "Wliat do you mean, "No, not as such" ?
Mr. Jackson. I had had the company install a jacket system for all
of their employees, which included forms, application blanks, and
recommendations from reference people and so on. So I had no
particular file as such. That is what I mean.
Mr. Kennedy. There wasn't any separate files kept on the em-
ployees who were in favor of the Chemical Workers Union ?
Mr. Jackson. Not to my knowledge, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Did yon make the suggestion on the rotating com-
mittees being set up there ?
Mr. Jackson. Yes, and I always do.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you make the suggestion on that ?
Mr. Jackson. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. And the rotating committees were installed were
they ?
Mr. Jackson. Yes, I think so.
Mr. Kennedy. Whom did you make that suggestion to ?
Mr. Jackson. The personnel man.
6356 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. Kennedy. "\^nio was he ?
Mr. Jackson. I think David Nagle at that time.
Mr. Kennedy. And they were installed ?
Mr. Jackson. Yes, sir.
Mr, Kennedy. Did you discuss that with Mr. Mermen ?
Mr. Jackson. I think with Mr. Oldenburg and I rarely saw Mr.
Mennen. My dealings were with Mr. Nagle, the personnel man and
Mr. Oldenburg.
Mr. Kennedy. But you did discuss the setting up of rotating com-
mittees with Mr. Oldenburg?
Mr. Jackson. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. And they were set up ?
Mr. Jackson. I think so.
Mr. Kennedy. They were established ?
Mr. Jackson. Yes.
Mr. Ej:nnedy. Now, was one of the purposes of the rotating com-
mittee to determine how the employees felt about the company and
to learn what complaints they had about the company ?
Mr. Jackson. No.
Mr. Kennedy. It was not ?
Mr. Jackson. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. Or learn how they felt about the union and what
complaints they might have ?
Mr. Jackson. No.
Mr. Kennedy. Was that information obtained and reported from
these rotating committee meetings ?
Mr. Jackson. Reports were made of the gripes that people
brought up from those meetings.
Mr. Kennedy. Were they gripes that they had about company
policy ?
Mr. Jackson. No ; they were gripes in the early days about super-
vision, mainly. The company needed to embark upon a good super-
visory program.
Mr. IvENNEDY. After that, what were they ?
Mr. Jackson. Before that, I mean. After that, a lot of picayunish
things like the question on their vacation time or their not getting the
full rest period and so on, and the type of thing that develops in any
organization.
Mr. Kennedy. Were any complaints they might have against the
company ? Is that right ? "
Mr. Jackson. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. So it went beyond? They were not just safety
committees, they were actually to try to find out what complaints
they had ?
Mr. Jackson. Basically, safety committees, but when you talk to
a group of people, I don't think that you can contain their expression
of opinion and feeling, and that has been my experience with rotating
committees.
Mr. Kennedy. But it had nothing to do with learning anything
about the union, as such?
Mr, Jackson, No, sir,
Mr. Kennedy, Now, did you suggest up there that a vote "no"
committee be set up ?
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 6357
Mr. Jackson. No, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. You don't believe so ?
Mr. Jackson. I say no, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. No, sir?
Mr. Jackson. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. Have you ever set up a vote "no" committee in any
area ?
Mr. Jackson. I don't recall at the present moment. I may have.
If you have some documentation on that, I would be very glad to have
my recollection refreshed.
Mr. Kennedy. Is that an unusual thing for you to do, set up a vote
"no" committee?
Mr. Jackson. It is not a usual thing for me to do?
Mr. Kennedy. And you can't think of any place you have done it ?
Mr. Jackson. No.
Mr. Kennedy. But you have done it.
Mr. Jackson, I can't recall.
Mr. Kennedy. You can't remember whether you have done it or
not?
Mr. Jackson. I have had thousands of cases all of these years and
I do not recall. Will you please accept my answer?
Mr. Kennedy. It is just impossible for me to believe that you can't
remember. I can see where you might not remember where you set
it up, but I would think you would remember whether you have set
one up. That is not asking too much.
Mr. Jackson. It is possible.
Mr. Kennedy. It is very possible, or just possible?
Mr. Jackson. It is possible.
Mr. Kennedy. But you can't remember ? '
Mr. Jackson. I can't remember.
Mr. Kennedy. You have a bad memory today. Did you discuss
with Mr. Mennen or did you discuss first with Mr. Mennen your con-
nection with Mr. Shefferman ?
Mr. Jackson. No.
Mr. Kennedy. You did not discuss Mr. Shefferman's relationship
with any teamsters officials or anything like that?
Mr. Jackson. No.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you discuss with Mr. Oldenburg, Mr. Sheffer-
man?
Mr. Jackson. No; I never mentioned Shefferman.
Mr. Kennedy. Did Mr. Shefferman ever come out to the plant ?
Mr. Jackson. No, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Did Mr. Shelton Shefferman ever come to the plant ?
Mr. Jackson. Never.
Mr. Kennedy. He never did ?
(The witness conferred with his counsel.)
Mr. Kennedy. You didn't make any arrangements for Mr. Shelton
Shefferman to go out to the plant ?
Mr. Jackson. I don't recall. But if you have something to refresh
my recollection, will you let me have it ?
Mr. Kennedy. You seemed very definite in the beginning.
Mr. Jackson. I will tell you why I am definite. Because most of my
clients did not know either Shefferman or his son or anything about
6358 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN" THE LABOR FIELD
them, except from an annual Christmas card that lie sent out ; one of
these long
Mr. Kennedy. I understand. But you were very definite in your
answer. On June 9, Tuesday, 1953, did Mr. Shelton Shefferman go
out to the company and meet with Mr. Nagel and other company
officials?
Mr. Jackson. Will you show me that report, sir ?
The Chairman. I believe you have stated that you have no recol-
lection of it.
Mr, Jackson. That is riglit.
Mr. Kennedy. He denied it. Mr. Cliairman.
The Chairman. The Chair presents to you a daily report sheet dated
June 9, 1953. I will ask you to examine this daily report sheet dated
June 9, 1953. I will ask you to examine it and state if you recognize
it and identify it.
(Document handed to witness.)
Senator McNamarv. Whose dail^^ report is it, Mr. Shefferman's l
Mr. Kennedy. Shelton Shefferman.
Senator McNamara. Thank you.
Mr. Jackson. This is Shelton Shefferman's report. I have no recol-
lection of it. Do you have any i-eport for that day, June 9, 1953 ?
If my report so shows, and his does, I presume he was out with me,
and my memory stands ref reslied.
The Chairman. Is that the form of report that you used also in
reporting to the company expense you had ?
Mr. Jackson. Yes. Every staff member made a daily report of the
work he did and the moneys disbursed and the allocation of those
disbursements.
The Chairman. And Mr. Shelton Shefferman made the same report
on his own ?
Mr. Jackson. Yes, sir ; and so did senior.
The Chairman. So did the senior.
I present to you another report, a daily report dated June 9. It
doesn't say the year here.
Mr. Kennedy. It is 1953.
The Chairman. It says Tuesday. It is the same as Mr. Sheffer-
man's report. It says Tuesday, and this has "Jackson" on it. I
presume it is yours.
Mr. Jackson. That is right.
The Chairman. Will you examine it, please ?
Mr. Jackson. There is only one of me in the company.
(Document handed to witness, who conferred with his counsel.)
Mr. Jackson. Well, this report shows that I had a conference at my
office on that day, and the time is marked '"Mennens"- — no, it must have
been in ]SIorristown. That is riglit.
The Chairman. You had a conference there that same day ?
Mr. Jackson. Yes.
The Chairman. The same day that Mr. Shefferman reports that
he had one ?
Mr. Jackson. I did not recall it. My memory stands refreshed. It
still doesn't — I mean, I just don't recall being out there with him.
The Chairman. But according to the report you submitted and
which Mr. Sheft'erman submitted, you were both there that clay?
Mr. Jackson. Yes, that report is right, I think.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 6359
The Chairman. All right,
Mr. Kennedy. Did you have any other clients in Morristown ?
Mr. Jackson, In Morristown? Yes. There was the Morristown
Electrical Supply.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you have them during 1953 also ?
Mr. Jackson. No. They came to us on recommendation of Mr.
Mennen in late 1956. They had an organizational strike.
The Chairman. I present to you another daily report of Mr. Shelton
Shefferman, dated June 25, 1953, and ask you to examine it and state
if that refreshes your memory.
(Document handed to witness, who conferred with his counsel.)
Mr. Jackson. May I see my corresponding report ?
Mr. Kennedy. "We do not have that.
Mr. Jackson. Then I am unable to answer at this moment until we
can get that.
The Chairman. Does that indicate
Mr. Jackson. This indicates a trip to Morristown with him, but
unless I had my report I couldn't say that, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. You have no daily report for that day ?
Mr. Jackson. I have no daily report for that day.
(The witness conferred with his counsel.)
Mr. Jackson. I say, I don't even know that he went out there.
The Chairman. The staff advises that we have no daily report of
yours of that date.
Mr. Jackson. I w^ill try to find one, if I can. I kept some copies of
some reports.
jMr. Kennedy. That would appear that Mr. Shelton Shefferman,
at least, went to Morristown, N. J., on that date ?
Mr. Jackson. It would appear that he did.
The Chairman. He so reported.
Mr. Jackson. He so reported. I have no recollection of it.
Mr. Kennedy. And that was on June 25.
Mr. Jackson. What was the other one ?
Mr. Kennedy. June 9. During this period of time the chemical
workers were attempting to come into tlie plant, and following it, did
you make any recommendation to the Mennen Co. officials that em-
ployees who were in favor of the union be fired ?
Mr. Jackson. No, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you say that "You have got to get rid of all of
these s. o. b.'s'' 1 Did you say anything like that ?
Mr. Jackson. No, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. You did not. You didn't say "You can't trust
people like that ; you have got to get rid of them" ?
Mr. Jackson. No, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you ever — I will ask you for an explanation of
this: Before we get into that, the Mennen Co., were they neutral in
this election ?
IVIr. Jackson. I think they were very neutral in this election.
Mr. Kennedy. They never pronounced themselves for or against
the union ?
Mr. Jackson. I don't think so.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you ever prepare any literature for them against
the union?
6360 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. Jackson. No; I helped write some speeches for Mr. Mennen.
Mr. Kennedy. AVere they neutral speeches ?
Mr. Jackson. I think so.
Mr. Kennedy. They weren't for or against the union ?
Mr. Jackson. I think so.
Mr. Kennedy. I am having trouble hearing you now.
Mr. Jackson. I think so.
Mr. Kennedy. You are not sure of that ?
Mr. Jackson. If you have the documentation and you could remind
me of it, I would be glad to take a look at it. I think not, sir. I think
they were neutral throughout.
Mr. Kennedy. You weren't advising them on how to move against
the union or how to keep the union out ?
Mr. Jackson. I told you before that the union affairs and the Board
affairs were in the hands of Mr. Lafferty.
Mr. Kenndy. So you didn't have anything to do with that ?
Mr. Jackson. No, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. A^liat was this literature or this letter — did you
say you prepared something for them ?
Mr. Jackson. I think there was a letter prepared — well, I don't
remember exactly, whether there was a letter prepared urging every-
one to go out and vote
Mr. Kennedy. But not for or against the union ?
Mr. Jackson. I am sure of that, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Both Mr. Mennen and Mr. Oldenburg stated that
they were neutral, and you say that is correct.
Mr. Jackson. I think that is true.
Mr. Kennedy. I will ask you if this refreshes your recollection.
The Chairman. The Chair presents to you a letter dated May 12,
1954. It seems to be a form letter signed by jNIr. George Mennen.
Will you examine it and state if you identify it, and if that is some-
thing you helped prepare while you were there ?
State if tliat letter was distributed to the employees.
(Document handed to witness, who conferred with his counsel.)
Mr. Jackson. I think I partook in the drafting of this letter.
The Chairman. In the preparation of it ?
Mr. Jackson. Yes.
The Chairman. That letter may be made exhibit 40.
(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 40'' for refer-
ence and may be found in the files of the select committee.)
The Chairman. "Was that letter distributed, that circular or letter,
whatever you term it, to the employees of the company ?
Mr. Jackson. I don't know how it was distributed, sir, whether by
hand or by mail or what.
The Chairman. But you understood it was distributed ?
Mr. Jackson. If that was written, and it was, I am sure it was
written to be distributed, and was distributed.
The Chairman. All right.
Mr. Kennedy. "Would you read it for us, Mr. Jackson ?
Mr. Jackson. A^Hiat is that ?
Mr. Kennedy. Would j^ou read the letter for us ?
Mr. Jackson. Sure.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 6361
The Chairman. I understood this letter goes to the question of the
company being neutral or being actively favoring one side or the
other.
Mr. Jackson. That is right. And neutrality is not embossed on
its face.
The Chairman. Proceed.
Mr. Jackson (reading) :
Dear Employee : The unions have been telling you that if you vote "neither"
(that is for no union) in Friday's election, your wages could be cut, your bene-
fits taken away, people laid off or fired, and in other ways this place made not
fit to work in.
The Menuen Co. assures you that this is not true.
The Meunen Co. has and always will take care of its employees.
Now, at last, you have the opportunity to speak your piece on this whole ques-
tion. Do it by voting on Friday. Here are a few things for you to keep in mind.
No one can deny you the right to cast a ballot and there is no one who can
say to you that you must vote in any particular way. You have the absolute
right to vote "neither." Just because you may have signed a union card in the
past or paid dues does not mean that you have to vote for a union. You still can
vote "neither."
The Mennen Co. believes that you should vote "neither." You will continue
to be fairly treated without having to pay dues or any money to anybody.
This is undoubtedly as important an election as you have ever voted in.
Remember you have the full ri.yht to vote against botli unions and you can be
assured that no one will discriminate against you in any way because of your
decision. No one will know how you vote unless you tell.
I sincerely hope you will do your duty and go to the cafeteria and vote.
Make it a wise choice, one that will assure you peace, the right to work at your
jol) without interference, and the very best of ivorking conditions.
Be sure to vote. Don't ever let anyone say that things would have been
different if every employee had voted. The Mennen Co. wants everyone to vote.
Sincerely,
George Mennen.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Mr. Kennedy. It does give the company's situation in that letter,
<loes it not?
Mr. Jackson. It apparently does, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Would you read that again ?
Mr. Jackson. No- I think one reading is sufficient.
Mr. Kennedy. Then pass it up here.
It says here —
The Mennen Co. believes that you should vote "neither." You will continue
to be fairly treated without your having to pay dues or any money to anybody.
The Chairman. I want to get something understood here. Is that
when they were trying to get decertification of the 102 or was that when
there was an election to determine whether you have the other union ?
Mr. Jackson. What was the date of that letter, sir ?
The Chair]man. INIay 12, 1054. This was after you had gotten rid of
the local 102 or the Dio group, is that correct ?
Mr. Jackson. No, I don't think so. The election
The Chairman. I am asking. I am not sure.
Mr. Jackson. What was that date aoain ?
The Chairman. May 12, 1954.
Mr. Jackson. On Mav 12, 1054, thero Avas a petition for nn elr -"ion,
and on the ballot were the chemical workers union and tlie Dio union.
So there were three boxes on that ballot.
80330— 57— pt. 1(
6362 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
The Chairman. That is all I ^Yanted to get. I wanted to get it
clear. All of it was an issue at that time ?
Mr. Jackson. That is right. That was in context with that
election.
Mr. Kennedy. And you helped prepai-e this letter, did you not ?
Mr. Jackson. Yes. Of course, you understand, Mr. Kennedy, that
I had no idea until this morning what you were going to talk to me
about.
Mr. Kennedy. All we want is the truth.
Mr. Jackson. That is right. But if you had let me refresh my
recollection from some of the things that I may have liud in my files,
it would have been very, very hel])ful. But I am very willing, sir, to
take your refreshment of recollection all the way through.
Mr. Kennedy. Thank you very much.
Mr. Jackson. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. We have had that experience before.
Mr. Jackson. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. I want (o turn to another matter before we call
another witness.
(At this point Senator McClellan left the hearing room.)
Mr. Kennedy. I would like to ask you about tliis document.
Did you have anything to do witli the Englander Co., Mr. Jackson ?
Mr. Jackson. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. What work did you do with the Englander Co. ?
Mr. Jackson. I negotiated Avitli the company's attorney at the
Brooklyn plant when they were in business there.
Mr. Kennedy. Who was that that vou negotiated with ?
Mr. Jackson. What ^
Mr. Kennedy. Who did you negotiate with ?
Mr. Jackson. With the Furniture Workers, CIO, the bedding divi-
sion. I forget the local numbei'. Do you remember what that local
number was ?
Mr. Kennedy. The furniture workers, was it ?
Mr. Jackson. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. When was that ? When did those negotiations take
place ?
Mr. Jackson. Would vou help me out on that ?
Mr. Kennedy. About '1953 or 1954 ?
Mr. Jackson. It could be.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you ever nuike a suggestion to them that you
could ^et a friendly union in there ?
Mr. Jackson. I made no suggestion.
Mr. Kennedy. You made no suggestion about getting any kind of
a union in there ?
Mr. Jackson. No.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you have anything to do with any Englander
plant anyplace else ?
Mr. Jackson. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. Whereabouts ?
Mr. Jackson. In Bayonne — Bayonne or Hoboken.
Mr. Kennedy. Is that where you negotiated with Mr. Abe Lew f
Mr. Jackson. I did not negotiate with Abe Lew.
Mr. Kennedy. Who negotiated with Abe Lew ?
Mr. Jackson. I think it was Shelton Sheff erman.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 6363
Mr. Kennedy. But you had something to do with that one also?
Mr. Jackson. To this extent : The company had a very misatisf ac-
tory reLitionship witli this furniture workers' union, which was Com-
munist dominated. It was run by two well-known Communists by
the name of Bernie Mintner and Alex Sirota, who gave ulcers to a
great many people over the years.
Mr. Kennedy, Did you have any conversations or conferences, you
and Mr. Shefferman, with Mr. Abe Lew, prior to the time that the
plant opened there ?
Mr. Jackson. I met Abe Lew perhaps 2 or 3 times. I had no such
conversations. That matter was handled primarily by Mr. Sheffer-
man, or absolutely by Mr. Shefferman.
Mr. Kennedy. AVere you aware that such conversations took place
with Mr. Abe Lew, to try to get Mr. Abe Lew to bring his union in
there prior to the opening of the plant ?
Mr. Jackson. In Bayonne ?
Mr. Kennedy. Yes.
Mr. Jackson. I was aware of it.
Mr. Kennedy. He approached Mr. Abe Lew and tried to get him to
bring his union into the plant ?
Mr. Jackson. I think you ought to ask him those questions.
Mr. Kennedy. I am asking you.
Mr. Jackson. I do not
Mr. Kennedy. I am asking you if you were aware of it.
Mr. Jackson. Yes ; I was aware that they were trying to escape the
Communists very bacll}'.
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, we have tried to get in touch with
Mr. Abe Lew, but he is in the hospital and too sick to come.
What about Englander anyplace else, Mr. Jackson ?
Mr. Jackson. Could you help me out on that ?
Mr. Kennedy. What about Pittsburgh ?
Mr. Jackson. Yes, Pittsburgh ; a long time ago.
Mr. Kennedy. How long ago was that ?
Mr. Jackson. Perhaps about 10 years ago. That was about 10
years ago.
Mr. Kennedy. Was it that long ago ?
Mr. Jackson. I don't recall.
Mr. Kennedy. About 1955 did you have anything to do with the
Englander Co. in Pittsburgh ?
Mr. Jackson. I don't recall that, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you ever make any suggestions regarding the
Englander plant in Pittsburgh, to get a certain union into that plant?
Mr. Jackson. I don't believe I did.
Mr. Kennedy. Did anybody ?
Mr. Jackson. It may have been the company and Mr. Shefferman.
I am not sure.
Mr. Kennedy. What union did you have in mind ?
Mr. Jx\ckson. I don't know.
Mr. Kennedy. Did sucli conversations take place that you were
aware of?
Mr. Jackson. I dimly recall overhearing such conversations. I
don't think I was a part of it. I am sure I was not.
Mr. Kennedy. Was it the teamsters union or was it another union
that they were trying to get in there ?
6364 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. Jackson. If you have that, wouldn't you be gracious enough
to tell me ?
Mr. I^NNEDY. I am just trying to find out. It is 1955.
Mr. Jackson. Dear sir, you bring me down here barehanded, on a
bare slate. If you wanted that information, give me an opportunity
to find out what I did. I have been in the situation for over 20 years.
I have been bargaining, kicked around by unions and so on. I can't
remember all these things.
Mr. Kennedy. We will try to refresh your recollection.
Mr. Jackson. I will be very happy to.
Senator Goldwater. I have what appears to be an interoffice mem-
orandum from L. J. to the files, subject : Englander, Pittsburgh. It
says:
Consider turning over to toy and novelty workers. Mr. Milton Gordon's
man is Sol Sobol, Central Building, Wilkes-Barre, Pa. Telephone Valley 4-l(j.57.
Address of company is 1825 Liverpool. Manager is McDonald.
It appears to have been signed by Mr. Jackson. "Would you identify
this?
(The document was handed to the witness.)
(The witness conferred with his counsel.)
Mr. Jackson. That is not my signature, but tliat does not attack
the validity of the memorandum.
Mr. Kennedy. I believe it is Mr. Shefferman's signature.
Mr. Jackson. I don't recognize the writing.
(At this point Senator McClellan entered the liearing room.)
Mr. Kennedy. What is the year of the memorandum ?
Mr, Jackson. Are you offering that in evidence ?
Senator Goldwater. Do you want it offered in evidence?
Mr. Kennedy. Yes, as an exhibit.
Senator Goldwater. That will be made a part of the record and
will be exhibit No. 41,
(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 41** for ref-
erence and may be found in the files of the select committee, )
Mr. Kennedy. It states, "Consider turning over to toy and novelty
workers," What does that mean?
Mr, Jackson, As I recall it now, there was a desire on the part of
the company that its plants be unionized, I was asked by Mr. Shef-
ferman whether I knew of some group that the company mioht be
interested in having in that plant. That suggestion was made.
Mr, Kennedy. Are you aware of the general reputation of tlie toy
and novelty workers ?
Mr. Jackson. No, not too well, but I think I know something about
them. I never had any dealings with — who is it, Powell? Hvman
Powell?
Mr. Kennedy. That is the jewelry workers. Tlie toy and novelty is
different.
Mr. Jackson, I thought it was Hyman Powell.
Mr, Kennedy, No, toy and novelty. You have here "Consider
turning over to toy and novelty union." That is Mr. Milton Gordon.
Do vou know him ?
Mr, Jackson. I have met him on occasion, yes.
Mr. Kennedy. Do you know his general reputation ?
Mr. Jackson. No.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 6365
Mr. Kennedy. What ?
Mr. Jackson. No. He has been in the movement a long time.
Mr. Kennedy. He certainly has. Why were you suggesting turn-
ing this Englander Mattress Co. over to the toy and novelty workers
union?
Mr. Jackson. I don't know. The company expressed the desire to
have them organized. For years the only plant that was organized
was this Brooklyn plant. What change in company policy took place
I don't know. I was not responsible for it.
Mr. Kennedy. The toy and novelty workers union has a reputation,
at least, of being a very corrupt union.
Mr. Jackson. I don't know that, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Why would you be suggesting to the Englander
Mattress Co. to turn over this plant to the toy and novelty workers
union?
Mr. Jackson. I don't know. There may have been
Mr. Kennedy. They were looking for a union, and you came up
with the toy and novelty workers ?
Mr. Jackson. I don't recall that.
Mr. Kennedy. You can't recall that, either ?
Mr. Jackson. Xo. I would let the memorandum speak for itself,
because I have no independent recollection of it.
Mr, Kennedy. Did you have any further conversations on that
matter ?
Mr, Jackson. No, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Would you have him identify this, Mr. Chairman?
The Chairman. I hand you another interoffice memorandum dated
June 20, 1955 ; subject, Milton Gordon,
I ask you to examine it and state if you identify it.
(The document was handed to the witness.)
(The witness conferred with his counsel.)
Mr, Jackson, That is a memo from my desk.
Mr, Kennedy. Can I have the memo ?
May we have this made an exhibit, Mr. Chairman ?
The Chairman, Yes. That will be exhibit No, 42,
(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No, 42" for refer-
ence and mav be found in the files of the select committee.)
Mr, Atlas, What is the date of that ?
Mr, Kennedy. The date is June 20, 1955. It says : "L. J.'s desk."
I believe "L. J." is you ?
Mr, Jackson. That is right, and my desk,
Mr, Kennedy (reading) :
Subject : Milton Gordon. June 20, 1955.
Gordon called L. J. in Chicago about June 10 ; stated that his man Lew Cole in
Los Angeles did not have success with the teamster west-coast man. He asked
whether NW^S—
who I believe is Nathan ShefFerman — ■
might direct him to Joe Divauey, whose address is 25 Taylor Street, San Fran-
cisco. Shelly states that the men there are Jack Annon and Joe Dillon.
What is all that about ?
Mr. Jackson. I was merely reporting a message given to me by
Gordon. I don't know any of the men, who they are, who are named
there.
6366 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. Kennedy. You know Milton Gordon?
Mr. Jackson. Yes. I say those other men.
Mr. Kennedy. What was he reporting about ?
Mr. Jackson. The memo will speak for itself. He was report-
ing— may I see the memo, please ?
(The document was handed to the witness.)
Mr. Jackson. I think this had connection with the attempts to
organize the Englander plant in Los Angeles.
Mr. Kennedy. How did the toy and novelty workers get involved
in that?
Mr. Jackson. I don't know.
Mr. Kennedy. You must know something about it. You were
writing memos about it.
Mr. Jackson. In this case, I was reporting a conversation to Mr.
Shefferman about three men whom I don't know.
Mr. Kennedy. Yes, but you were called by Mr. Milton Gordon,
who you did know.
Mr. Jackson. Yes ; that is true.
Mr. Kennedy. This memorandum doesn't refresh your recollec-
tion at all as to what you were talking about in the memorandum?
Mr. Jackson. It was in connection with organization of the plant,
apparently, of the Englander plant in Los Angeles.
Mr. Kennedy. Again, the toy and novelty workers attempting to
come into the Englander plant ?
Mr. Jackson. Out there?
Mr. Kennedy. Yes.
Mr. Jackson. I don't know who those three men are. If you will
tell me who those three men are, and what unions they are in, I will
tell you.
IVIr. Kennedy. Joe Divaney is a teamster and Dillon is a teamster
on the west coast.
Mr. Jackson. Who is Cole ?
Mr. Ivennedy. In Los Angeles, it says :
Gordon called L. J. in Chicago about June 10 stated that his man Lew Cole
in Los Angeles did not have success with the teamster west coast man.
Mr. Jackson. I was just re])orting a message, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. That is all for now, Mr. Chairman.
One moment, please.
Answer me this : How did you divest yourself of Nathan W. Shef-
ferman, or he divest himself of you? How did that happen? How
did you go about doing that ?
Mr. Jackson. I called him a^id told him that I wanted to leave.
I wanted to buy him out. I set up my own corporation, and have
not seen him or talked to him since, except through counsel.
Mr. Kennedy." And you bought these clients?
(The witness conferred with his counsel.)
Mr. Kennedy. You bought him out, did you, these clients ?
Mr. Jackson. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. And you continued to service the same clients that
you had before?
Mr. Jackson. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. They are the same clients that you had at the time
you were with Mr. Nathan Sheflferman ?
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 6367
Mr. Jackson. Yes, in my own autonomous region.
Mr. IvENNEDY. And you are performing the same kind of services
for them at the present time ?
Mr. Jackson. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. You are still with the Mennen Co. ?
Mr. Jackson. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. Are there further questions ?
Senator Goldwater. I have some questions, but if the chairman
wants to recess for lunch, I will be happy to wait.
Mr. Atlas. Will the questions be long questions? Will they take
some time ?
Senator Goldwater. They won't be long questions, but there might
be a number of them.
The Chairman. The committee m ill stand in recess until 2 o'clock.
(Members of the select committee present at time of recess: Sena-
tors McClellan, McNamara, and Goldwater.)
(Whereupon, at 12:40 p. m. the select committee recessed, to re-
convene at 2 p. m. the same day . )
AFTERNOON SESSION
The Chairman. The committee will come to order.
TESTIMONY OF LOUIS JACKSON, ACCOMPANIED BY HIS COUNSEL,
NICHOLAS ATLAS— Resumed
The Chairman. Senator Goldwater, you may proceed with your
questions.
Senator Goldwater. Mr. Jackson, I want to ask you these questions
because since I have been in these hearings, you are the first person
who has had actual experience in the whole field that you are testi-
fying to.
I wanted to get some of these answers in the record. Unfortunately
for myself, I will not be here after tomorrow.
When you were working with Labor Relations Associates, do you
have any idea of how many cases that firm handled during the time
you were w4th them ?
Mr. Jackson. I think in the thousands, sir.
Senator Goldwater. Would you say 2,000 or 3,000 ?
Mr. Jackson. I wouldn't know. I would say perhaps 2,000.
Senator Goldw^vter. During the time you were with this organiza-
tion of Mr. Shefi'erman, did you work for both management and
unions ?
Mr. Jackson. No, sir.
Senator Goldwater. Just for management?
Mr. Jackson. Just for management.
Senator Goldwater. Would you tell us briefly how you operate
when a person calls you or writes you to come and do a job for them?
Mr. Jackson. Senator, what I usually do is make a survey of their
current practices, personal practices. I will analyze their entire per-
sonnel procedures, look at their forms, which means application
blanks and so on; will ask questions about their sources of employ-
ment, USES, the families of employees; I will talk to them about
methods of their recruitment and interviewing procedures, making
6368 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
notes all the time of what they are telling me for purpose of future
recommendations.
I talk about methods of induction of new employees, training of
new employees, rating of new employees, probationary period prac-
tices, training and retraining of regular employees. All these things
will mean more to us as a department store man.
Practices aflfecting part-time employees, benefits accruing to them
as distinguished from full-time employees. We look at their wage-
and-hour standards and their merit rating, if they have any, wage
progressions and job classifications, job analyses and promotion and
transfer systems.
We look tlirough their records. We find out what methods they
have of employee communication, such as newspapers and employee
handbooks and so on. We ascertain what sort of suggestion system
they have and how they go about it, what sort of safety program they
have, what sort of sports and entertainment program, the company
publications.
We look into their fringe benefits for comparison with the area,
insurance, pensions, holidays, vacations, employee discounts on pur-
chases, clothing allowance, sick leave, travel allowance, reduced work-
week, and so forth.
We look into their general compensation plans for their supervisors.
We look into their whole practice of getting reference checks on the
new employees. We attend supervisory meetings, and if they have
none we take steps to initiate them.
We teach the how — teach the supervisors how — to appreciate and
live with their people. We preach giving the supervisors the responsi-
bility in personnel functions, in training and retraining supervisors,
their own merit rating, and the merit I'ating of the subordinates under
them, recommendations and promotions by supervisors.
We study the area wage rates in conjunction with the company's
own sources. We attempt to correlate job titles and descriptions.
We develop certain reporting forms on absenteeism, and so forth. We
counsel them on morale surveys.
You know, there are a great many companies like Science Research
Associates. We counsel on that because that is one way of evaluating
employee attitude. We have, in cases, devised a homemade morale
survey through the use of supervisors, because if the supervisors
undertake to do that, they understand it, and it becomes their project.
We try to help the company get the best of aptitude tests. We will
help them in connection with their incentive plans. We have written
a large number of employee handbooks. We rewrite employee and
company rules to make them more palatable, instead of the usual
"dont's," "you must nots," and "something that you do you may get
fired," and that sort of thing. We help write messages to emploj^ees,
at Christmastime and so forth.
We help companies institute service awards, the 5 -year pin, the 10-
year pin.^ We prepare the necessary personnel forms, warning inter-
views, exit interviews, employee requisitions, lateness and absenteeism
reports, timekeeping records' and statistics.
We study and review with them general labor relations trends in
the industry.
(A list of services follows:)
IMPROPER ACTH'ITIES IN THE LABOR FIEILD 6369
PebsonneHj Program
I. Survey of current personnel practices of employer through questionnaire.
II. Analysis of structure of personnel department.
III. Analysis of personnel procedures.
(a) Procedural forms.
( b ) Sources of employment.
(c) Methods of recruitment.
((?) Interviewing procedures.
(e) Methods of induction of new employees.
(/) Training of new employees.
(g) Rating of new employees.
(h) Probationary period practices.
(i) Training and retraining of regular employees.
(;') Practices affecting part-time employees.
(k) Wage and hour standards.
(I) Merit rating.
(m.) Wage progressions.
(n) Job classifications,
(o) Job analysis.
ip) Promotions.
{q) Transfers.
(r) Records systems.
(s) Employee communications.
(t) Suggestion system.
(u) Safety program.
(v) Sports and entertainment programs.
(w) Handbook and company publications.
(x) Fringe benefits — insurance, pensions, holidays, vacations, discounts,
clothing allowance, sick leave, travel allowance, reduced workweek.
(y) Compensation plans — supervisory and uonsupervisory.
(z) Obtaining and use of new employee references.
IV. Initiation of meetings of supervisors on personnel matters.
(a) Teaching appreciation to supervisors of personnel department and
functions.
{b) Getting supervisors to know their people.
(c) Giving svipervisors responsibility in such personnel functions as, e. g.,
training and retraining, merit rating, recommendations or promotions,
morale building within department.
V. Study of area wage rates and participation in wage surveys.
(a) Personnel group activity in conjunction with other employers in area
(ft) Correlating job titles and descriptions.
(c) Development of reporting wage sheets.
id) Study of wage composite surveys.
(e) Report of recommended changes as result of survey.
VI. Study of area fringe benefits and recommendations for change.
VII. Devising and conducting morale surveys,
(a) Questionnaire.
(&) Analysis of results.
VIII. Aptitude tests.
IX. Incentive plans for personnel.
X. Development of house organs and employee newspaper.
XI. Installing or amending employee handbooks.
XII. Employee and company rules.
XIII. Drafting of letters and messages to employees.
XIV. Instituting service awards.
XV. Preparation of needed personnel forms, employment application, em-
ployee interview records, Vk'arning notices, exit interviews, employee requisi-
tions, lateness and absenteeism reports.
XVI. Controls on use of discount privileges.
XVII. Timekeeping record and statistics.
XVIII. Study and review of general labor relations trends in the industry.
XIX. Assistance to counsel and company officials in connection with labor
proceedings.
XX. Assistance to counsel and/or company officials in connection with negoti-
ations with unions representing employees.
XXI. Institution of suggestion systems and awards for suggestions.
6370 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
XXII. Institution of committees of employees designed for employees' partici-
pation in matters of housekeeping, safety, recreation, newspaper reporting,
suggestions, sunshine funds, charity drives.
XXIII. Institution of program of conferences with individual employees re
benefits and job skills.
XXIV. Discussions and consultation with personnel director and staff.
XXV. Reports on trends in laws relating to hours of work, minimum wage
and hour law, child and women labor restrictions, wage board hearings, labor
relations. Federal wage-and-hour law.
XXVI. Assisting in recruiting and selection of personnel of personnel de-
partment.
Senator Goldwater. In that respect, let me ask you this question :
Is your employment always for the purpose of preventing- organi-
zation ?
Mr, Jackson. By no means, sir.
Senator Goldwater, Would that constitute a large part of your
practice ?
Mr. Jackson. No.
Senator Goldw^^ter, A relatively small part?
Mr, Jackson. Yes. I wouldn't say a relatively small part. The
word "small" is a difficult thing to describe. I would rather put it
this way. Senator. The area of my work is negotiations with unions
where they are there, and assisting their counsel in connection with
them. The major portion of my work is to go in and survey and do
the tlmgs I am talking about.
On the third, we are called in sometimes when there is a union drive
on or there is an attempt to get in from the top down through organi-
zational picketing.
Senator Goldwater. Let me ask you this question : Are the firms
that you represent usually small firms or are they mixed up ?
Mr. Jackson. The firms I represent are small firms in number of
employees.
Senator Goldwater. Firms that couldn't afford to have their own
labor relations department ?
Mr. Jackson. Well, there are some larger department stores with
whose counsel I work because of my greater knowledge of the person-
nel factor of labor relations and personnel relations work.
Senator Goldwater, How many clients do you have now?
Mr. Jackson. I think perhaps about 60. Your question takes me
ofi' guard because I don't know.
Senator Goldwater. Do you do this work you are describing for
these 60 on a regular basis, that is, month by month and year by year ?
Mr. Jackson. Most of my clients, sir, are on a retainer basis.
Senator Goldw^ater. But you perform these functions that you are
outlining ?
Mr. Jackson. Yes. We are continually doing some of these things
for them and with them.
Senator Goldwater. How many people are in this field? How
many firms are operating in this field ?
Mr. Jackson. I think they are legion, sir, I don't know whether
there are many large ones. Stevenson, Jordan & Harrison, for exam-
ple, who are general industrial engineers, do have labor relations men
on their staffs. Most industrial management concerns have labor re-
lations men on their staffs who do this type of work for some of their
clients. There are a great many attorneys who do this type of work.
IMPROPER ACTWITlfiS IN THE LABOR FIEILD 6371
Not in the exact sense that I do. I think that I, insofar as these at-
torneys are concerned, know a good deal more about the things I am
mentioning here, because that is what my mind and my ear is attuned
to.
Senator Goldwater. You mentioned attorneys. Do you find a
shortage of attorneys who understand labor law?
Mr. Jackson, Yes, sir; very definitely, although the shortage is
rapidly disappearing with the increasing union activity.
Senator Goldwater. Mr. Chairman, I do not want to prolong the
questioning by having him answer completely the first question I asked
him. I see he has it written down. I would like to suggest that it
may be made a part of the record so that we can refer to it in our
studies.
Mr. Jackson. I will be glad to.
The Chairman. Do you want it as a part of the record or just filed?
Senator Goldwater. He read most of it into the record. I think
if we would include what he didn't, it would be fine.
The Chairman. If you will submit it, the Chair will suggest that
at the place where you were reading it into the record, it be printed
in full.
Senator Goldwater. If you will, please, that will be fine.
That is all I have.
The Chairman. Senator McNamara.
Senator McNamara. Since you have set up your own corporation,
do you have a charter ? Is it with the State of New York ?
Mr. Jackson. No, I am a Delaware corporation. Senator.
Senator McNamara. A Delaware corporation ?
Mr. Jackson. Yes, sir.
Senator McNamara. Was the previous corporation a Delaware cor-
poration also ?
Mr. Jackson. No. That was an Illinois corporation, is my recol-
lection.
Senator McNamara. I see.
You indicated that you are continuing to serve approximately the
same accounts that you previously had under the Shefferman setup.
Mr. Jackson. That is right.
Senator McNamara. And I suppose 3'OU will perform the same
services and have the same policies that you have indicated in this
memorandum that you just put into the record ?
Mr. Jackson. That is right. The policies that I have followed in
my area.
Senator McNamara. Generally, the committee can assume that you
will continiie the same as you have in the past, except that you are
now operating independently ?
Mr. Jackson. That is right.
Senator ]\IcNamara. In other words, the name is the only thing
that has changed ?
Mr, Jackson. Yes, insofar as my clients are concerned. The name
is the only thing that has changed.
Senator McNamara, We had some testimony yesterday, and I don't
know whether you were present or not, involving a Mr, Katz who
came in on the plant in Brooklyn, the Englander plant. That was
in your area and that was one of your accounts ?
6372 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. Jackson. The Englander account was not my account. The
Enghander account, like a number of other accounts in New York,
was the account of Chicago. I was assigned by Mr. Shetferman to
do that negotiation witli those two charming men I told you about.
Senator McNamara. Well, to that end it was your account ?
Mr. Jackson. Yes.
Senator McNamara. In a limited way. You didn't get it origi-
nally, but it became part of your operation by reference from the
Chicago office ?
Mr. Jackson. That is right, Senator.
Senator McNamara. Did you meet Mr. Katz when he was in New
York?
Mr. Jackson. I don't recall the gentleman.
The Chairman. The Chair was going to remark that he didn't see
how you could ever forget him, if you had met him.
All right.
Senator McNamara. Did you enter into the payment of $2,800 to
Mr. Katz ?
Mr. Jackson. The first notice I ever got of it was what I read in
the papers and heard through the testimony yesterday. I took no
part in it.
Senator McNamara. From that answer, I assume you did not.
Mr. Jackson. The answer is "No."
Senator McNamara. With reference to the Boston situation, I un-
derstood that you paid some of these officials of the employees council
some money that was to compensate them for loss that they would
have had from their personal employment. You paid them in cash?
Mr. Jackson. I don't want to appear to be laboring the point, but
the company paid these moneys. I made some of those payments
Senator McNamara. I thought you previously testified that you
paid them.
Mr. Jackson. No, it was the company funds.
Senator McNamara. But you paid them, you physically paid them ?
Mr. Jackson. Yes.
Senator McNamara. That is the point I am making. You physi-
cally paid them with money that was furnished to you?
Mr. Jackson. Yes, sir.
Senator McNamara. Was this money in cash ?
Mr. Jackson. Yes, sir ; in cash. Its source I don't know.
Senator McNamara. Somebody furnished you with cash ?
Mr. Jackson. The compan}^ f urnislied the cash.
Senator McNamara. ^Y]m in the company furnished the cash?
Do you know that ?
Mr. Jackson. In most instances it was brought to me by Mr.
Rolirdanz.
Senator INIcNamara. By whom ?
Mr. Jackson. Mr. Rohrdanz.
Senator McNamara. What was his position ?
Mr. Jackson. He was superintendent of the store. No, he was
assistant superintendent of the store and then superintendent of the
store, and tlien he became tlie area personnel man.
Senator McNamara. So he personally gave you the cash that you
handed on to these people ?
IMPROPER ACTTV'ITIES IN THE LABOR FIESLD 6373
Mr. Jacksox. Yes. Sometimes it was sent to me by messenger from
the Fenway store.
Senator McNamara. But it would be the same man sending it; is
that right ?
Mr. Jackson. Yes.
Senator McNamara. And this money that was paid for expenses,
such as hmches and dinners, was that paid to you in advance also, or
was that collected later ?
Mr. Jackson. Xo. I laid that out and reported it on the daily report
forms.
Senator McNamara. So there was a difference in the manner that
the employees were
Mr. Jackson. A very substantial difference, sir.
Senator McNamara. You don't have any accounting for that differ-
ent method, why in one instance you paid out your company's funds
and were compensated for it and in the other instance you were paid
by the company directly ?
Mr. Jackson. "Well, this other matter was quite unusual, and the
company wanted me to see to it that the people received this money.
I said, "You get me tlie money and they will receive it.''
I was not going to put it on my expense account.
Senator McNamara. That was the usual procedure ?
Mr. Jackson. Yes.
Senator McNamara. One of your accounts is still the Mennen Co.,
as I understand it ?
Mr. Jackson. Yes, sir
Senator McNamaim. Did you participate in the preparation of the
statement that they made here today ?
Mr. Jackson. The letter that was read ?
Senator McNamara. No. The statement.
Mr. Jackson. No. As a matter of fact, I had to scurry around to
get one.
Senator McNamara. I notice you had to scurry around to get one,
but I thought your familiarity with it, once you received it, indicated
it wasn't new to you. That is why I asked the question.
(The witness conferred with his counsel.)
Mr. Jackson. No, I didn't write it. I didn't participate in the
writing of it.
Senator McNamara. I asked you if you participated in writing it,
because wlien you did scurry around and obtained a copy, you seemed
to know about it.
Mr. Jackson. I read it over there. One of the good reporters gave
it to me.
Senator McNamara. You did read it ?
Mr. Jackson. Yes, sir.
Senator McNamara. That is all.
The Chairman. Mr. Jackson, do you have a list of your present
clients ?
Mr. Jackson. Not with me, sir.
The Chairman. Will you supply that for the committee, not for
tlie record but we just want it for reference.
Mr. Jackson. May I ask a question, sir, or make a request ?
The Chairman. Yes, sir.
6374 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. Jackson. The publication of the list of clients of Labor Rela-
tions Associates, the quantum clients, for the most part, disturbed me
no end and disturbed a number of companies no end.
The Chairman. This is not for the purpose of publication.
Mr. Jackson. JMay I have that assurance?
The Chairman. It is not for publication.
Mr. Jackson. I will be grateful for that.
The Chairman. I don't mean that none of your clients will ever be
known, but the ])urpose of obtainincr the list is not to secure it to pub-
lish it.
Mr. Jackson. Mr. Kennedy has a certain amount of omniscience.
I know. I will (jive him the whole list.
Shall I send it to counsel or to you?
The Chairman. Address it to the committee.
Mr. Jackson. To the committee. Thank you.
The Chairman. Is there anythino; further?
Thank you very much.
iVIr. Atlas. Will you want us any further today? Or any further?
Mr. Jackson. Mr. (Miairman. I have been immobilized since October
21. I have been waiting clay to day for calls. I know ISIr. Salinger
has done his very best to give me as much notice as he could, but I
came down here on Monday, and then Mr. Atlas got a call late Monday
night that I should not come down, and here I was. I have been out
of business for 8 or 9 days.
I am an awfully busy man and I would like to be excused.
The Chairman. I can appreciate those problems. The Chair re-
grets that they occur. But there is no way to know how fast you can
expedite a lawsuit or expedite an investigation.
]\rr. Atlas. Are we excused now ?
Mr. Kennedy. I might say what he has given, his testimony here
before the committee, will be directly refuted by a witness to follow.
The Chairman. You may remain here for a little while. We will
try to excuse you after the other witness testifies.
Mr. Jackson. Thank you.
The Chairman. We will try to excuse you during the day.
Call the next witness.
Mr. Kennedy. IMr. Nagle.
(Committee members present at this point: Senators McClellan,
Ives, Goldwater, and McNamara.)
The Chairman. Will you be sworn, please. 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 ?
Mr. Nagle. Yes, sir.
TESTIMONY OF DAVID NAGLE
The Chairman. State your name, your place of residence and busi-
ness, your occupation.
Mr. Nagle. My name is David Nagle. I live at 49 Pollard Road,
Mountain Lakes, N. J. I am the manager of employee relations for
the Aniline & Film Corp. in New York City.
The Chairman. Have yon counsel or do you waive counsel ?
Mr. Nagle. I waive counsel.
The Chairman. Thank you.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIElLD 6375
Mr. Kennedy ?
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Nagle, for a period of time you were with the
Mennen Co. ?
Mr. Nagle. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. What period of time ?
Mr. Nagle. Approximately 1953 to March or April 1955.
Mr. Kennedy. And what position did you hold ?
Mr. Nagle. Personnel manager.
Mv. Kennedy. Of the plant in Morristown ?
Mr. Nagle. Well, that was the company sir. It was a combination
of a plant and office, general headquarters, and I was the personnel
manager for the company.
Mr. Kennedy. Up until 1955 ?
Mr. Nagle. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. You were there, were you not, when Labor Relations
Associates were employed to perform certain services i
Mr. Nagle. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Could you tell the committee when you first heard
of Labor Eelations Associates and under what circumstances?
Mr. Nagle. I was asked by tlie plant manager, ]Mr. Oldenburg, to
accompany him to Newark to meet a man who, he said, was a labor-
relations man and could possibly help us out.
Mr. Kennedy. What were you trying to get helped out with at that
time ?
Mr. Nagle. We w^ere trying to do something about Mr. Dioguardi.
Mr. Kennedy. You were trying to do something about Mr. Dio-
guardi's union?
Mr. Nagle. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. That is the reason you went to Labor Relations Asso-
ciates at that time in 1953 ?
Mr. Nagle. As I understood it, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. That is what Mr. Oldenburg told you at that time ?
Mr. Nagle. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you meet with them ? Did you meet with some-
body representing LR A at that time ?
Mr. Nagle. I met with Mr. Jackson in the lobby of the hotel in
Newark.
Mr. Kennedy. In a lobby of the hotel ?
Mr. Nagle. The Hotel Robert Treat, in Newark.
Mr. Kennedy. Who accompanied you ?
Mr. Nagle. Just Mr. Oldenburg.
Mr. Kennedy. And the two of you met Mr. Jackson at that time ?
Mr. Nagle. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. What was discussed in that first conversation?
Mr. Nagle. Mostly the union situation, the fact that we had local
649 in there, that it was causing a problem, and we would just as soon
not have it in there.
Mr. Kennedy. What advice did he give you at tliat time? Relate
the conversation, what he said to you.
Mr. Nagle. We described the employees' dissatisfaction with the
union, the notoriety attached to Mr. Dioguardi's name, and felt that
the employees would be a lot better off if they were not represented by
Mr. Dioguardi's union. We pondered what could be done. The con-
versation tlien turned to Mr. Jackson's listing of possible remedies.
6376 IMPROPEK ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
At that time, I think lie mentioned the fact that it would probably
be fairly easy for another union to move in there and replace 049.
Mr. Kennedy. Arrangements could be made to perhaps get rid of
this union and have another union move in in its stead.
Mr. Nagle. Well, I think the conversation then just went as far as
to say it would be easy to move another union in there because of the
situation.
Mr. Kennedy. Had you known that LRA and Mr. Jackson had been
employed before by the company back in 1951 ?
Mr. Nagle. No, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. This was your first connection with them ?
Mr. Nagle. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. And they were brought in at that time, in 1953, for
the purpose, at least as it was described to you, for the purpose of
getting rid of local 649 ; is that right ?
Mr. Nagle. On the basis of that meeting, which was the only thing
I knew ; yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you have any further meetings with Mr. Jack-
son?
Mr. Nagle. Yes : quite a few. He came out to the plant quite regu-
larly and we met, Mr. Oldenburg, Mr. Jackson, and myself, and some-
times, Mr. Lafferty.
Mr. Kennedy. What was the topic of conversation at those times,
when lie came to visit you ? Well, the first time, what did you discuss
when he came out to the plant ?
Mr. Nagle. We discussed the fact that the employees were dissatis-
fied with the union that was representing them, and discussed various
ways of that union being gotten out of there.
Mr. Kennedy. Did he have any specific suggestions — Mr. Jack-
son— at that time ?
Mr. Nagle. The first specific suggestion came from one of his assist-
ants, a Mr. Lewis.
Mr. Kennedy. What suggestion did they make ?
Mr. Nagle. That they try a decertification or deauthorization peti-
tion.
Mr. Kennedy. That came to you and to who else in the company ?
Mr. Nagle. I know Mr. Jackson was there. I know Mr. Oldenburg
was there, and I am fairly certain Mr. Lafferty was, but I can't go
further than that.
Mr. Kennedy. Did he tell you how that would have to be handled,
the decertification ?
Mr. Nagle. He explained what it was. I don't think any of us
really knew what it Avas. He explained that it would have to be a
spontaneous movement from the employees themselves.
Mr. Kennedy. What was going to occur? Did he tell you how to
handle it ?
Mr. Nagle. Yes. He said one way to handle it Avas to have a com-
mittee of employees Avork through an outside lawyer and draw up a
petition and sign it and send it in. One man would haA^e to lead the
thing, one employee.
Mr. Kennedy. Was it decided that that would be the procedure that
would be followed ?
Mr. Nagle. It was decided to go ahead along those lines and try to
pick somebody that could do that.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 6377
Mr. Kennedy. So what did you do ? How did you go about that,
trying to find somebody to do this ?
Mr. Nagle. We had a series of meetings.
Mr. Kennedy. Who is "we" ?
Mr. Nagle. The attendance varied, but at one time or another they
were attended by Mr. Jackson and some of his assistants, Mr. Lafferty,
myself, Mr. Oldenburg.
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Lafferty is the attorney for the company ?
Mr. Nagle. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. And he attended a number of these conferences ?
Mr. Nagle. Yes, sir ; he did.
Mr. Kennedy. What was the purpose of these conferences ? To try
to pick out somebody who could handle it ?
Mr. Nagle. That is right, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Did Mr. Jackson emphasize that it would have to
appear to be coming from the employees ?
Mr. Nagle. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Did he emphasize it would have to be spontaneous ?
Mr. Nagle. Yes, sir. He explained the wdiole thing to us.
Mr. Kennedy. What did he say about the lawyer? Did he say
anything about how you should handle the lawyer part of the matter ?
Mr. Nagle. The only thing I remember about that was that a
lawyer was to be picked and handled in such a way that the employees
did not know that the lawyer was picked by the company.
Mr. Kennedy. How were they going to handle that ?
Mr. Nagle. By directing one of the employees to the lawyer.
Mr. Kennedy. Plow would they arrange to pay the attorney ?
How would that be done ?
Mr. Nagle. I don't know how it actually was done, but as far as
the discussion was concerned, I think it was to be arranged through
Mr. Lafferty.
Mr, Kennedy. What was the attorney supposed to say to the em-
ployee when he came, or what was supposed to be the background?
Mr. Nagle. Well, the idea was that if it was a fairly young attor-
ney, who was getting started in the business, his excuse for putting
out all of this effort on behalf of the employees might be a mixture
of reasons, one of which would be that it would give him a chance
to meet people and possibly pick up some new clients.
Mr. Kennedy. So if they got a young, inexperienced attorney,
he could give this explanation to the employees when they came to
see him ; is that right ?
Mr. Nagle. It would certainly fit ; yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. And the reason for that explanation being needed
was because the employees that would come to the attorney would
not have the money to pay him ; is that right ?
Mr, Nagle. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. And they wanted to keep hidden the fact that the
company was paying the attorney ?
Mr, Nagle. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Is that the explanation as to why the attorney
should have this kind of a story ?
89330— 57— pt. 16 10
6378 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. NacxLE. I don't know whether it was solely from the employees
that they wanted to keep that fact hidden. But I know that fact was
to be kept quiet.
Mr. Kennedy. So at these meetings that you had within the com-
pany, did you finally pick or select a man to perform this ?
Mr. Nagle. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Who was selected ?
Mr. Nagle, a man named James Graham.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you then get in touch with Mr. Graham?
Mr. Nagle. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you have a conference with liim ?
Mr. Nagle. a very short one ; yes, sir,
Mr. Kennedy. What did you tell him at that time ?
Mr. Nagle. I told him what I had been told to tell him, that I knew
about this lawyer who had helped some other employees in a similar
situation, and that he might go over and see if he couldn't lielp them
out, and I gave him his name and address.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you give him a note at that time ?
Mr. Nagle. A little slip of paper with the lawyer's name and address
on it.
Mr. Kennedy. Do you know if Mr. Graham ever went to see the
attorney ?
Mr. Nagle. I assume he did.
Mr. Kennedy. Who had selected the attorney ?
Mr. Nagle. AVell, the group had, but I think the main suggestion
came from Mr. LafFerty, who, I believe, was acquainted with the
lawyer's father.
Mr. Kennedy. What was the attorney's name ?
Mr. Nagle. Wyckoff.
Mr, Kennedy. Mr. Wyckofl' ?
Mr. Nagle. Yes.
The Chairman. I present to you a little slip of paper with some
names on it, marking his on it. I will ask you to examine it and
state if you can identify it and, if so, what it is.
( Document handed to witness. )
Mr. Nagle. That looks like the one given Mr. Graham, with the
attorney's name and address and telephone on it.
The Chairman. Where did you get it ?
Mr. Nagle. My secretary typed it up. The information on it came
from either Mr. Lafferty or Mr. Oldenburg or one of Mr. Oldenburg's
assistants. I don't remember.
The Chairman. That may be made exhibit 43.
(The document referred to was marked '"Exhibit No. 43" for refer-
ence and will be found in the appendix on p. 6582.)
Mr. Kennedy. Why was Mr. Graham selected ?
Mr. Nagle. I think the main reason he was selected was because
he was also active in support of another union group and this seemed
to be a good way of keeping an eye on him, what he was doing all
the way around.
Mr. Kennedy. Although he was against Johnny Dio and the T^AW,
he was very strongly in favor of the chemical workers union ; is that
right ?
Mr. Nagle. Yes, sir. He also wielded quite a bit of influence with
the employees.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 6379
Mr. Kennedy. And he was selected and met with the attorney, did
lie, 01" do yon know that ?
Mr. Nagle. I don't know whether he met him. I assume he did.
Mr. Kennedy. Did Mr. Jackson and his representatives from Labor
Rehitions Associates remain active in the plant, or active ont there
dnrini>- this period of time ?
Mr. Nagle. Durino; that period they were pretty active.
Mr. Kennedy. Was tliere a petition for decertification circulated
in the plant?
Mr. Nagle. I never saw it. Well, I saw the fact from the Labor
Board that it was filed.
Mr. Kennedy. As well as tryino; to o-et rid of Johnny Dio, there was
also an effort by some of the employees to bring in the chemical
workei's, led by Mr. Graham ; is that right ?
Mr. Nagle. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Now, did Mr. Jackson arrange to have any check
made on how^ the employees felt about the union and about the com-
pany ?
Mr. Nagle. There were a number of things that were done out of
which we got that information.
Mr. Kennedy. Could you tell us what soil of things were done and
what you arranged ?
Mr. Nagle. One of the things was a series of interviews which was
an index of industrial skills, which provided for a man, an interviewer,
to be alone and ])rovided an opportunity for a skilled interviewer to
start a man talking on practically any subject.
Mr. Kennedy. What was the purpose, or the main purpose of hav-
ing those interviews ?
Mr. Nagle. The main })urpose was to run a cross-index of industrial
skdls pnd at the same time thei'e was a record kept or made where
])OSsib1p, of the man's either pro- or anti-union feelings.
Mr. Kennedy. Were there cards kept on those employees ?
Mr. Nagle. Yes, sir, there was.
Mr. Kennedy. To show whether he was for or against the union ?
Mr. Nagle. There was a set of cards kept or filled out with the
industrial skill information and there was also another set of cards
kept on which were notations, which would indicate the man's feelings
as far as the union was concerned.
]Mr. Kennedy. What kind of notations were on that card ?
Mr. Nagle. Primarily a numbered code.
Mr. Kennedy. What kind of a number code ?
Mr. Nagle. It ran from 1 through 5 and 1 would be a man who was
in favor of workins: without a union and 5 would be the opposite.
Mr. Kennedy. Was it arranged in the company with Mr. Jackson
that these interviews take place and that this information be obtained ?
Mr. Nagle. It was his suggestion that the interviews were made and
it was his instructions that a second set of cards and the number system
be used, his or Mr. Rhodes.
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Rhodes is an employee of his ?
Mr. Nagle. I understand he was.
Mr. Kennedy. And he came out and conducted the interviews ?
Mr. Nagle. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Those cards were turned over to you ; w^ere they ?
6380 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. Nagle. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Did anybody else in management know about the
cards ?
Mr. Nagle. I assume that Mr. Oldenburg knew they existed.
Mr. Kennedy. Plow do you assume that ?
Mr. Nagle. Because we used to discuss people in terms of numbers
and discuss the cards themselves.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you go over the cards with Mr. Oldenburg ?
Mr. Nagle. I can't remember specifically an instance, but I discussed
what was on the cards with him.
Mr. Kennedy. Did he know you were keeping the cards ?
Mr. Nagle. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. You discussed the cards with him ?
Mr. Nagle. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. And you discussed the fact that you kept these sym-
bols of the people being for or against the union on the cards?
Mr. Nagle. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Was there also another system used regarding the
employees to find out whether they were for it or against the company ?
Mr. Nagle. "\A'ell, again, it was a perfectly bona fide employee rela-
tions maneuver and it was a committee.
Mr. Kennedy. What was it called i
Mr. Nagle. Safety committee, and members rotated.
Mr. Kennedy. Did Mr. Jackson explain to you what could be done
as far as committees ai"e concerned ?
Mr. Nagle. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. What did he call tlie committees ?
]VIr. Nagle. He called it a safety committee, a rotating safety com-
mittee. The idea is, when you get people together around the table
and get them relaxed and don't put any bars on what they talk about,
they will talk about anything. It uncovers a lot of personal feelings,
and you can get a lot of information no matter what the original sub-
ject of the discussion was.
]\Ir. Kennedy. Was there any connection between the cards that you
kept and these rotating committees?
Mr. Nagle. Only that from the cards we know a little bit more
about the individual who attended the meetings.
Mr. Kennedy. Would you have all the "5'' people at one time or all
of the "1" people at one time, or how did you arrange that?
Mr. Nagle. They would be mixed.
Mr. Kennedy. You would mix the people up I's and 2's and 4's
and 5's?
Mr. Nagle. Yes, sir; that usually started the conversation that led
to information.
Mr. Kennedy. Now, did Mr. Jackson make any suggestion about
forming a vote "no" committee ?
Mr. Nagle. Later on he did ; yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. When was this ?
Mr. Nagle. Tliat was after it was learned that there would be a
representation election and I imagine that was around February or
March.
Mr. Kennedy. Did the company turn down that suggestion?
Mr. Nagle. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. They decided not to do that ?
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 6381
Mr. Nagle. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Is that right ?
Mr, Nagle. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Did Mr. Jackson also suggest that through the vote
"no" committee that literature could be distributed ?
Mr. Nagle. He mentioned that as a possibility ; yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. But the company turned that down ?
Mr. Nagle. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. Now, during this period of time just prior to the
election, was the company in favor of having a union or were they
neutral or against the union ?
Mr. Nagle. From what the company published and from what I
know of the Avay the company was operated, in other words what came
to my attention, I would say that they would much prefer to operate
without one.
Mr. Kennedy. When had it switched over from the fact that they
would replace the Dio local to the time when they were against hav-
ing any union at all ?
Mr. Nagle. It was gradual, but it came about, as it became evi-
dent that it was a possibility. In other words, the company was
without a union from the end of the strike, in the early fall until
May when there was an election. It was during that period that it
became evident that that was a possibility because it would be a vote
on the ballot.
Mr. Kennedy. Was Jackson against any union at all in there and
did he make suggestions along that line ?
Mr. Nagle. He made suggestions as to courses of action which
would result in a "neither" vote.
Mr. Kennedy. A "neither" vote being neither the chemical work-
ers nor 649.
Mr. Nagle. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. The election was finally held and prior to the elec-
tion did Mr. Mennen distribute a letter indicating that the company
was against having either union or having any union in the company ?
Mr. Nagle. His name was on it and I don't think he participated
so much in the actual writing of that letter. I did, and Mr. Lafferty
did and Mr. Jackson did.
Mr. Kennedy. And the letter was distributed, is that right?
Mr. Nagle. It was handed out at the plant door.
Mr. Kennedy. Now, after the election was held and all of the
unions were defeated, what did you do with these cards that you
were keeping on these people?
Mr. Nagle. I turned them over, I believe, to Mr. Oldenburg.
Mr. Ivennedy. Mr. Oldenburg?
Mr. Nagle. Yes, sir; I am not sure about that. sir. I was told
that they were going to eventually end up with Lafferty and whether
I gave them to Mr. Oldenburg or whether Mr. Lafferty himself or
his assistant, I don't know, but it was one of that group.
Mr. Kennedy. What was the feeling or what had you decided to
do about those who led the fight for the chemical workers union?
Was there any discussion about that ?
Mr. Nagle. There was a discussion about it but the STim total of the
discussion was that there would be nothing done. There were no
specific statements made on that particular subject right then ; no, sir.
6382 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. Kennedy. Subsequently, was there any discussion about those
who had been in favor of th chemical workers union i
Mr. Nagle. Yes, sir; I was asked to keep a pretty close check on
their activity.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you keep a file on those people ?
Mr. Nagle. I did, sir; yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. What knid of a file did you keep on them ?
Mr. Nagle. Daily records of any incidents that came to my atten-
tion, involving those people and also, standard files such as absentee-
ism and things of that nature.
Mr. Kennedy. Who gave you the instructions to keep files on those
people?
Mr. Nagle. Mr. Oldenburg.
Mr. Kennedy. And were they separate files from those kept on all
of the other individuals ?
Mr. Nagle. Yes, sir.
Mr. Ivennedy. Just on the individuals wlio had be^n in favor of the
union ?
Mr. Nagle. Yes. Well, yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you make credit checks on some of these indi-
viduals ?
Mr. Nagle. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. Was that under instructions?
Mr, Nagle. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Did Mr. Jackson have any feeling about what
should be done about these people who were in favor of the union ?
Mr. Nagle. Yes, sir, he indicated that if an opportunity presented
itself to eliminate them from the plant, that that should be done, but
he did not suggest that anything illegal or against the employer's
rights be done.
Mr. Kennedy. Did he say anything about getting rid of these
people ?
Mr. Nagle. Yes, sir, he said that it would be much better if some-
way were found to eventually, over a period of time, get them
out of there.
Mr. Kennedy. Now, this Mr. Graham who had led the fight or
passed this decertification certificate and who led the fight for the
chemical workers union, was he dismissed from his job subsequently?
Mr. Nagle. He was laid off, I believe.
Mr. Kennedy. He was laid off ?
Mr. Nagle. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Were there a number of other employees who had
been active for the chemical workers union and were they laid off?
Mr. Nagle. There were 1 or 2 and I think there were some people
who left voluntarily after the election, too.
Mr. Kennedy. Were you told that the company was interested in
getting rid of these people ?
Mr. Nagle. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. By whom ?
Mr. Nagle. By Mr. Oldenburg.
Mr. Kennedy. '\'\niat did he say to you ?
Mr. Nagle. Well, you mean in addition to keeping the records on
them, you mean ?
Mr. Kennedy. Yes.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 6383
Mr. Nagle. He told me tliat, as far as this one iDarticular depart-
ment, machine shop was concerned, there would be a layott'. The gen-
eral feeling — and it was expressed and I can't remember the exact
words — was that you could never really tiiist these people.
Mr. Kennedy. You could never trust these people ?
Mr. Nagle. That is right ; the ones who had been active.
Mr. Kennedy. Well, when the department was cut down, did they
express some satisfaction that you could then move against these
people?
Mr. Nagle. Yes, sir. They seemed to be quite happy that the oppor-
tunity had presented itself to legally eliminate them.
Mr. Kennedy. So Graham was eliminated and a number of others?
Mr. Nagle. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Now, you left the plant hi 1955 ?
Mr. Nagle. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. And that was by mutual consent ?
Mr. Nagle. Well, probably a little bit stronger than that on their
part; yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. They were anxious to get rid of you at that time in
1955, when you left ?
Mr. Nagle. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. In fact, it would amount to the fact that you were
fired?
Mr. Nagle. Well, I resigned.
Mr. Kennedy. But if you had not resigned, you would have been
fired ?
Mr. Nagle. I can't say that.
Mr. Kennedy. But it was indicated to you as such ?
Mr. Nagle. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. And have you ever been arrested ? Do you have any
criminal record?
Mr. Nagle. No, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. That is all.
The Chairman. Any questions ?
Senator McNamara, I would like to ask the witness a couple of
questions.
In this card system that was established, classifying or setting up a
code, Nos. 1 to 5, do you remember about how the breakdown went ?
Were there more in No. 1 than there were in No. 5 in the category ?
Mr. Nagle. No ; I think originally there were an awful lot of people
that were in the middle, and the ones who were actually able to be
classified on one extreme or the other were pretty much even, I think,
at first.
Senator McNamara. And they would largel}^ fall into the No. 3
category, that were more or less in the middle.
Mr. Nagle. Yes; but that was natural, because they did not get
that much information out of the meetings themselves. In other
words, a man would never know, a man who had never met these
people before, and all he could tell was by the way he talked to him.
Senator McNamara. You are saying this code system was of little
consequence ?
Mr. Nagle. At the beginning, it spotted the very obvious I's and
the very obvious 5's, but left a gray area in the middle.
6384 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Senator McNamara. How many were in the very obvious "1" and
very obvious "5," to rephrase my question a little different way.
Mr. Nagle. I would say about 20 percent either end.
Senator McNamaka. Twenty percent either end?
Mr. Nagle. Yes, sir.
Senator McNamara. And the total of how many employees
approximately?
Mr. Nagle.' The bargainin<2: unit, somewhere around 200.
Senator McNamara. Then there would be how many there?
Mr. Nagle. There would be about 40 that you could classify.
Senator McNamara. Forty in No. 1 ?
Mr. Nagle. That is right.
Senator McNamara. And 40 in No. 5 ?
Mr. Nagle. Yes, sir.
Senator McNamara. That seems to be a substantial number, 80 out
of 200.
Mr. Nagle. This question has been discussed and had been argued
among the employees for a good, long time, several years, and it was
not a new question, the idea of whether or not they needed union
representation.
Senator McNamara. Out of the 2 or 3 or 4 classifications that re-
main, would they be about equally distributed, 40 in each one?
Mr. Nagle. I think so, sir, but that was not a true reflection of
what tliose people actually thought and it was just the interviewer's
inability to get any further with them.
Senator McNamx\ra. I am talking about the significance of the
numbers, 1 to 5.
Mr. Nagle. That is right.
Senator McNamara. You set it up as a thing apart from a1)ility.
Mr. Nagle. You could term them ''on the fence.''
Senator McNamara. You had 2 sets of cards ?
Mr. Nagle. Yes, sir.
Senator McNamara. I want to refer to the 1 set ; in your remarks
3^ou were referring to another set and you said there were 2 sets of
cards, 1 on ability and 1 on loyalty to the company or disloyalty to the
company.
Mr. Nagle. That is right and maybe I misunderstood you.
Senator McNA:5rARA. Let us talk about the ones tliat were numbered
from 1 to 5 indicating their loA^alty, I suppose, is the way vou would
call it.
Mr. Nagle. No; it was indicating their feelings as to whether they
wanted to work — whether they trusted or felt they could work with
the company without union representation and I would say probably
about 20 percent actually expressed themselves strongly and were put
in 1 classification and about 20 percent also in No. 5 classification.
Senator McNamara. And about 20 percent in 2, 3, and 4, also,
roughly, as you would call it?
Mr. Nagle. About 40 percent; j-es, sir.
Senator McNamx\ra. Now we are changing the 1 and 5 in this
statement.
Mr. Nagle. No, sir; I said 20 percent in the 1 classification and 20
percent in the 5 classifications.
Senator McNamara. That would be 20 percent in each 1 of the
5 classifications, then, would it not ?
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 6385
Mr. Nagle. Excuse me, but I don't know whether the middle three
were divided that evenly.
Senator McNamara. We are not arguing then. It is about 20 per-
cent in each one ?
Mr. Xagle. That is right. I just wanted to be sure I was telling
you exactly what you were asking.
Senator McNamara. Twenty percent would fall into each of the
five categories ?
Mr. Nagle. We can say that, yes.
Senator McNamara. They would average No. 3 in the code.
Mr. Nagle. Yes, sir.
Senator McNamara. Actually, you indicate that three of them were
discharged in this No. 5 category.
Mr. Nagle. No, they were laid off, sir.
Senator IMcNamara. Laid off ?
Mr. Nagle. Yes, sir.
Senator McNamara. Kemoved from the payroll one way or an-
other, or cut down. When you cut down in the work force, these
were the first laid off ?
Mr. Nagle. No, we laid off in the machine shop and the seniority
ap)3lied only to the machine shop.
• Senator McNamara. Then Mr. Graham, he was one of those in cate-
gory No. 5 ?
Mr. Nagle. Yes, sir.
Senator McNamara. And he was one of the first laid oft' when you
cut down the force ?
Mr. Nagle. No, he was laid off in the machine shop according to
seniority within the department itself.
Senator McNamara. I understood as you answered the questions of
counsel, that he was laid off and he was one that was on the list to be
gotten rid of.
Mr. Nagle. That part is true, but he was also laid off strictly within
the regulations of the plant and the way it operated.
Senator McNamara. Does this imply that you had to lay others off
to get to him ?
Mr. Nagle. I couldn't say that because the actual reason for the
layoff was the lack of need,' at that particular time, with that many
people in the machine sliop.
Senator McNamara. Did the layoff' not stop when you reached him ?
Mr. Nagle. I don't think so, and I think it involved four people
and I don't think he was fourth on the list.
Senator McNamara. Was there some downgrading as far as jobs
were concerned, as well as the severances in the case of Graham, with
the people who were put on less desirable work ?
Mr. Nagle. No, sir.
Senator McNamara. "A^Hien you were told to get rid of them or it
was suggested that you get rid of them as you stated it, how were you
in a position as personnel man to get rid of them ?
Ordinarily the foreman would have to do that.
Mr. Nagle. I was not, except that there are certain rules and regu-
lations in a plant, the infraction of which are grounds for discharge.
All my job would be was to collect information which would be a basis
for discharge.
6386 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Senator McNamara. Then, when you intimated at least, that you
were told to get rid of them, then you had to pass that information
on to the foreman, to get rid of them ; is that the way it happened ?
Mr. Nagle. No ; I was not told to get rid of them. I was told that
they wanted to get rid of them and my part in it would be to collect
the information and I passed none of that on to the foreman.
Senator McNamara. What did you do with the information that
you collected ?
Mr. Nagle. I kept it in the file and I made it available to any of
the men who wanted to see it or who were directing me to do it.
Senator McNamara. Inchiding the foreman ?
Mr. Nagle. No ; the foreman was not involved.
Senator McNamara. Then I can't get how you used these cards
that had the code numbers 1 to 5. You just collected the data, put
it in the file, and it wasn't available to the foremen who could get
rid of them ?
Mr. Nagle. The information collected on the cards was prior to
the election, and was used merely at the moment that tlie information
was collected, to try and ascertain the feelings of the people in the
plant. In other words, should there have been an election the very
next day, how would they have voted. It had nothing to do witK
any kind of a case that might be built up against various individuals
at a later date.
Senator McNamara. Even in the case of Mr. Graham ?
Mr. Nagle. No, sir; because none of the things that he ever said
in there would ever be any basis for discharge. There is a time differ-
ence in there, sir, of about 6 or 7 months.
Senator McNamara. And the cards continued to be used after the
election ?
Mr. Nagle. By that time it was pretty obvious who the few indi-
viduals that had been active were, and the cards were not used after
that.
Senator McNamara. They were not used ?
Mr. Nagle. No.
Senator McNamara. When you left the company, did you have
these cards in your possession ?
Mr. Nagle. No, sir.
Senator McNamara. Wliat was the implication in your leaving the
company? You indicated that — Well, you didn't get fired and you
resigned, but you would have gotten fired. Why were they trying to
get rid of you ?
Because of your connection with these incidents, or something else ?
Mr. Nagle. No, sir; I can't say that. I just wasn't performing the
job the way Mr. Mennen wanted me to.
Senator McNamara. That is all, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Are there any other questions ?
Is there anything further ?
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. May I ask one question ?
You had around 200 employees ; is that correct ?
Mr. Nagle. In the bargaining unit ; yes, sir.
The Chairman. In the bargaining unit. How many of those did
you have cards on ?
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 6387
Mr. Nagle. I believe we had cards on everybody in the bargaining
unit.
The Chairman. You finally had cards on everyone ?
Mr. Nagle. Yes. You would normally cause the cross index of
industrial skills was meant to include the whole bargaining unit.
The Chairman. I am talking about these cards where you evalu-
ated their attitude toward the union and toward the company.
Mr. Nagle. They also included all of the bargaining unit.
The Chairman. You finally had cards on all of them, all the
employees ?
Mr. Nagle. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, I might say we interviewed Mr.
Nagle, our investigator interviewed him, around August 20, 1957,
which was well before we started these hearings. At that time, I
believe on August 23, Mr. Nagle furnished an affidavit. He had at
that time furnished the same information that he has furnished here
before the committee. He knew all the details regarding this oper-
ation, which we have seen and developed as a pattern in many other
areas in the country. I just thought I would point that out regarding
Mr. Nagle's testimony.
The Chairman. In other w^ords, you gave to the investigating staff
the same information when they first interviewed you some 2 or 3
months ago ?
Mr. Nagle. Yes, sir ; I did.
The Chairman. And you supplied it in affidavit form ?
Mr. Nagle. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. He was subpenaed to appear before this committee.
I might say originally he had been reluctant to talk to us, and then
he agreed to talk to us at a later time.
The Chairman. Is there anything further ?
If not, thank you very much.
Call your next witness.
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Graham.
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 ?
Mr. Graham. I do, sir.
TESTIMONY OF JAMES GKAHAM
The Chairman. State your name, your place of residence, and your
business or occupation.
Mr. Graham. INIy name is James Graham. I reside at 59 Conrad
Place, in Dover, N. J., and I am employed as a maintenance machinist.
The Chairman. By whom ?
Mr. Graham. Howe Manufacturing, in "VVhippany, N. J.
The Chairman. You waive counsel, do you ?
Mr. Graham. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. All right, Mr. Kennedy.
Mr. Kennedy. You were with the Mennen Co. for a period of time ?
Mr. Graham. Yes, sir ; I was.
Mr. Kennedy. "V^^iat period ?
Mr. Graham. Around, I believe, the 15th of April in 1952, until
October 21 or 22, 1954.
6388 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. Kennedy. And you have been a machinist for how long, ap-
proximately ?
Mr. Graham. Well, since I was about 19 years old, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. That doesn't answer the question. About 10 years ?
Mr. Graham. I wdsh it were.
Mr. Kennedy. Well, for a number of years ?
Mr. Graham. We will say roughly 20 years, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. And you were performing as a machinist at the
Mennen Co. ?
Mr. Graham. Yes, sir ; I was.
Mr. Kennedy. While you were there, were you a member of any
local union ?
Mr. Graham. Yes. I Avas handed a card to join local 102, which
later became local 649. We were told that we had to join within a
j3eriod of time.
Mr. Kennedy. TV^io told you that ?
Mr. Graham. A man, John Wershing, who was personnel man, who
hired me.
Mr. Kennedy. Do you mean of the company ?
Mr. Graham. Yes, sir. He was personnel man at the time.
Mr. Kennedy. You were told at that time that you had to become
a member of local 102 ?
Mr. Graham. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. And you became a member, did you ?
Mr. Graham. Yes, sir ; I did.
Mr. Kennedy. How did you get along in that union ?
Mr. Graham. Well, the first meeting that I went to, I was impressed
by the men who headed this union, one by the name of George Baker,
and the other by the name of Joe Curcio, who called no meeting to
order but stood up in front of a room in the Essex House in Newark,
N. J., and in a very rough tone of voice told us that they were the
leaders of the group, and if anybody had anything to say they would
like to hear it.
I wanted to know how these people were brought about in to power,
who had elected them, and so forth, and what happened to my dues
money which I paid in this organization.
Mr. Baker told me that it was none of my business, just to pay my
dues and shut my month, and just mind mv own business that that was
the only thing I could do to get along in this outfit.
A^Hien I went back to work the next day I spoke to several of the
fellows that worked near me that didn't make kosher the way they ran
things. A fellow by the name of Otis Ives spoke up and he said "Well,
at 1250 Broad Street there is an American Federation of Labor office."
He thought it best that we go down and contact them and see if that
was the i^rocedure, the wav they run their meetings. So we went down
to Broad Street. Myself, Qitis, a fellow by the, name of Chuck
Kniffht, and Frank H;uick, I believe. We inquired of a Mr. Vincent
Busby, who was then eastern vice president of the United Chemical
Workers, AFL. A^Hien we told him how our union was operated, he
said no, that wasn't in line with the way a union should be operated,
and if we wanted to, the only way we could bring about an election
would be to have people sign cards. By that, they would turn it in
to the National Labor 'Relations Board and get us an election.
The Chairman. Was that to sign cards for another union ?
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 6389
Mr. Graham. Pledge cards for the United Chemical Workers
Union, that is right.
The Chairman. All right.
Mr. Grahajm. So we took the cards and we went amongst the em-
ployees and had them sign them. I was reprimanded once for doing
this. We were told that if we did it on our own time, nobody could
do anything about it, that that was our own business. But I had taken
the liberty, as well as others, to do it on company time. We did it
because we felt the people needed a change in their union.
We had cards signed I don't know on how many occasions. I know
it was possibly 3, 4, or 5. Then in the meantime we had been trans-
feri'ed to the Morristown plant, which was partially finished. At the
Morristown plant, we were doing a lot of rearranging of the lines and
wliatnot. We still continued our passing of cards and ha^dng them
signed, and turned them over to Mr. Busby.
(At this point Senator Goldwater left the hearing room.)
The Chairman. Who was Mr. Busby ?
Mr. Graha]m. Ml'. Busby was eastern representative or vice presi-
dent of the United Chemical Workers.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you have a conversation or were you approached
by anybody in the company about contacting an attorney?
Mr. Graham. Yes, I was.
Mv. Kennedy. Would you tell us what happened?
Mr. Graham. It was a known fact that I was interested in the
chemical workers. Not for myself, but to get a better union in, where
we could elect our own president and so forth.
Mr. Nagle called me into the office one day and he said that he
vv'ould give a note to take to a lawyer in Morris Plains. I took this
note to this lawyer, John Wyckotf, in Morris Plains, and he in turn
told me that we would have a petition signed and we w^ould bring
about an election.
We had a trial in Morristown, both the 649 and Mr. Wyckoff, myself
and several others. After that came about an election.
Mr. Kennedy. Did he discuss with you or did you discuss with
him at that time about his being paid ?
Mr. Graham. No, because Nagle told me not to woriy about it being
paid, I wouldn't have to pay it. I couldn't pay it on the salary I
made.
Mr. Kennedy. So you don't know what happened as far as his
being paid?
Mr. Graham. I never saw any check passed. I do not know how
Mr. Wyckoif was paid. However, it was not by me.
Mr. Kennedy. Had you thought, during this period of time when
you were working against the UAW, that the company would allow
another union to come in, namely, the Chemical Workers Union ?
Mr. Graham. Yes, I was, because at a hearing held in Newark,
N. J., Mr. Oldenburg himself explained the situation of the plant,
its layout, and he himself admitted the work done at the Morristown
plant was definitely of a chemical worker nature. I think the court
records will reveal that.
Mr. Kennedy, Toward the end, just prior to the election, did you
find that the company was against the Chemical Workers Union as
well as the UAW?
6390 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. Graham. Xot until George IMennen lianded the letter out which
he himself had signed, and said that no one could force us to vote
for anybody, and that it was his opinion that he would give us as
much without a union as we had with one.
Tliat was my first knowledge that he definitely was against any
union.
Mr. Kennedy. And that the Mennen Co. believed that you should
vote neither ?
Mr. Graham. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. That would mean against your union as well as any
other union ?
Mr. Graham. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. That was the first time that j^ou learned that the
company was against your union ?
Mr. Graham. Yes, sir,
Mr. Kennedy. Were you surprised ?
Mr. Graham. Yes, I was.
The Chairman. Let the witness examine this temporarily and see
if he recognizes this, exhibit No. 40, as being the letter to which he
refers.
(Document handed to the witness.)
Mr. Graham. Yes, it is,
Tlie Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Kennedy. That was the first time you knew that the company
was against the union ?
Mr. Graham. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. You were released from your job some time after
the election?
Mr. Graham. Yes, sir ; I was.
Mr. Kennedy. When was that, approximatelv ?
Mr. Graham. The latter part of October, the 21st or 24th of the
month.
Mr. Kennedy. Of 1954?
Mr. Graham. 1954.
Mr. Kennedy. Could you tell the committee what the circumstances
were under which you were released ?
Mr. Graham, Well, I was told because there was a lack of work.
But at the time there was lack of work just previously to that, I had
been told by Mr, Joseph ]\Iezzo, who was my immediate boss, that we
were going to make quite a considerable number of parts for the
equipment rather tlian go out and buy them, and also the fact that
we were then building a huge steel rack, in which we were supposed
to handle the gas, which is used in the manufacture of foam shave.
We were building that, and it wasn't that we were short of work.
I was welding right on the floor Avhen I was told to report to Mr.
Joseph Mezzo. At that time, another boss, Burris Turchek, had been
talking to Otis Ives, and Frank Hauck, and they had been let go.
Mr. Kennedy. Who were they ?
Mr. Graham. Frank Hauck and Otis Ives were two of the other
boys that helped me with securing signatures on these chemical
workers cards.
Mr. Kennedy, And they were let go at the same time ?
Mr, Graham, They were notified the very same day.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 6391
Mr. Kennedy. And you all were released, the three of you ?
Mr. Graham. We were given 2 weeks time that we were going to
be let go. As I say, my time terminated on or around the 21st of
October.
Mr, Kennedy. Were the three of you the ones who were chiefly
responsible for the drive for the chemical workers 'i
Mr. Graham. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. That is all, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Senator McNamara.
Senator McNamara. I would like to ask the witness a question or
so.
Have you worked as a machinist most of the 20 years that you make
reference to ?
Mr. Graham. Yes, sir.
I was employed 16 years of it at the Picatinny Arsenal.
Senator McNamara. Were you ever a member of the machinist
union ?
Mr. Graham. No, sir. The Government didn't recognize any union.
Senator McNamara. When you were released by the company, did
you take the matter up with the proper authorities as an unfair labor
practice ?
Mr. Graham. No, sir.
Senator McNamara. You now think it was ?
Mr. Graham. Yes, I do, but I was also given the impression that
I would be better off if I would go out and get a job and just let it go
at that.
Mr. Nagle, the last time I spoke to him, told me it would be wise to
get a job, which I already had, and it was very nuich to his surprise
that I had already been hired by the Kowe Manufacturing. As a
matter of fact, the day that I went in the office to talk it over with
him, that I was actually going that day, the personnel manager of
Rowe Manufacturing called on the telephone for a reference, and
he had no choice but to give it right in front of me. It was a very
good reference. I will say that.
Senator McNamara. In effect, they assisted you in getting your
new job. Would you have otherwise proceeded with an unfair labor
charge '^
Mr. Graham. They did not assist me in getting a job.
Senator McNamara, They gave you a good recommendation?
Mr. Graham. I think my recommendations were high enough on
my own and the type of work that they needed, because Rowe Manu-
facturing at the time was in dire need of a man who understood
punch presses and heavy equipment. Because of past experience I
was given that job.
Senator McNamara. What was your reference to the telephone
call ? Maybe I misunderstood you.
Mr. Graham. Well, I say, while I was in Mr, Nagle's office, talking
with him, a fellow by the name of Ernie Austin called from Rowe.
Naturally, a company wants to know a little bit of the person's past
employment. JVIr. Nagle sat there, and I sat across the table from
him, and he explained that I was considered one of the better machin-
ists in that shop, but because of the shortage of work, he claimed, I
was beine let so.
6392 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Senator McNamara. You had no reason to doubt it at that time, or
did you ?
Mr. Graham. Well, sir, if you have ever had anything to do n\
unions, you know very well that once your union was defeated, the
company you are working for wouldn't keep you around. You would
be a thorn in their side.
Senator McNamara. Let's assume that I have had something to do
with unions and answ^er the question on that basis.
Mr. Graham. Yes, I really believe it was. After all, they weren't
going to keep me there to run around passing out some more cards to
give them a hard time in another year, wliich I surel}^ would have
done.
Senator McNamara. Have you done it in your new shop ?
Mr. Graham. No, sir.
Senator McNamara, Why ?
Mr. Graham. I don't want nothing to do with unions, period. I
will pay my dues and shut up.
Senator McNamara. You will pay your dues and shut up?
Mr. Graham. That is right.
Senator McNamar^\. In other words, treat it just like an employ-
ment agency ?
Mr. Graham. Yes, sir.
Senator jVIcNamara. You think that is the right way to operate?
Mr, Graham, In my particular instance, after the deal that I was
led to fight Johny Dioguardi and his gang of thugs alone; yes, sir; I
do.
Senator McNamara, Don't you think that if you and eveiybody
else pay your dues and pay no more attention to the union, that it
wouldn't be long before the Johnny Dios will have charge of all
unions, if you don't try to keep a democratic organization?
Mr, Graham, I do, sir, very much so. But I feel as though I was
made the goat of once, and I don't care to be agaim.
Senator McNamara. Well, I hope you change your attitude. I
think that the salvation of not only the unions but democracy gener-
ally depends upon us taking an interest in these organizations that we
pay money into, particularly unions. I hope you get over this bad
outlook you have at this time.
Mr. Graham. Well, I don't know whether you have ever been in the
position tliat I was in, but right on Broad Street in Newark, N. J., I
was told by Joe Curcio to go on home and mind my ow-n business, when
we were going to attend a meeting. He said "Son, you are cutting me
out of bread and butter and you covdd get hurt, you know,"
Again, Mr. Dio — the man who is now prosecutor in Morris County
was going to have the hoodlums have a meeting in the Legion Hall in
Morristown, N. J., and again I had quite a time and got kicked around
a little bit, not bodily but trying to get the American Legion to block
Johnny Dioguardi from coming there. Mr. Frank Sherbo had to call
himself and call it off. After I am through with it, I want to settle
down to normal living and no more activities like that.
Senator McNamara. I agree with you it is easier to go bowling, play
cards, stop in with the boys and have a drink and that sort of thing,
but it is still important that organized labor, the men who pay the
dues, do a little policing as to what liappens to the money.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 6393
I still express the hope that you do get over it and go back because
I think we have to have people in to police the unions as well as pay
money.
Mr. Graham. It is very good, sir, but when you are trying to raise a
child you have to think of his welfare, too.
Senator McNamara. I think if you are going to consider the child,
you are more apt to do what I am saying, than if you do not have a
child. You want to leave it a better world for him if for no other
reason.
]\Ir. Graham. I agree 100 percent, providing you are dealing with
gentlemen.
Senator McNamara. Today, let us hope you are.
This George Baker thing, where he got up in the Essex Hotel and
said, "This is what is going on here; does anybody have any com-
pl aints ? " You raised some questions ?
Mr. Graham. Yes, sir.
Senator McNamara. Was this done openly at a group meeting?
Mr. Graham. Yes, it was, right in the hall.
Senator McNamara. This conversation that you reported was you
talking to him from the floor of this group meeting at the Essex
House ?
Mr. Graham. Yes, sir, that is right. I was not the only one. There
Avere women that got up and asked questions. He, in his very sulky
way, would refer to them to shut up and don't give him any noise and
what not. Nobody ever got any satisfaction from him.
Senator McNamara. Thank you.
The Chairman. You regard them as just gangsters in charge of the
union, did you not ?
Mr. Graham. Yes, sir, I did.
The Chairman. I think j^our appraisal of them was quite accurate,
Mr. Kennedy. That is all.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Mr. Kennedy. I want to ask Mr. Nagle one question, if he will
return.
The Chairman. Come back, Mr. Nagle.
TESTIMONY OF DAVID NAGLE— Resumed
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Nagle, I wanted to ask you whether Mr. Shef-
ferman ever came to the plant while you were there.
Mr. Nagle. There was one visit by a man whom I was introduced
to as Shelton Sheiferman or Sheldon.
Mr. Kennedy. Shelton Sheiferman ?
Mr. Nagle. He was fairly young, a big fellow.
Mr. Kennedy. Did he come by the plant ?
IVIr. Nagle. He came into my office at the plant.
Mr. Kennedy. '\'\^io brought him in there?
Mr. Nagle. I believe it was Mr. Jackson.
Mr. Kennedy. You were here this morning, were you not ?
Mr. Nagle. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. And the testimony that you have given is in direct
contradiction to the testimony given by Mr. Mennen and Mr. Olden-
burg, and, to some extent, Mr. Jackson.
S!»330~57— i)t. 16 11
6394 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
You are aware of that, are you not ?
Mr. Nagle. I gave the answers to the question you asked me. I
gave you the honest answers the best I know.
Mr. Kennedy. Thank you very much.
Mr. Ehodes ?
(Present at this point were Senators McClellan and McNamara.)
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. Rhodes. I do.
TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM E. EHODES
The Chairman. State your name, your place of residence, and your
business or occupation.
Mr. Rhodes. William E. Rhodes, 56 West 65th Street, New York
City. I am now a graduate student at New York University.
The Chairman. You are now a student ?
Mr, Rhodes. Yes; I am taking my masters of law at New York
University.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Go ahead.
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Rhodes
The Chairman. Do you waive counsel ?
Mr. Rhodes. I waive counsel.
Mr. Kennedy. You worked for Labor Relations Associates at one
time ?
Mr. Rhodes. I did, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. You were working for them in 1953 ?
]Mr. Rhodes. I was.
Mr. Kennedy. You were working specifically for Mr. Louis Jack-
son?
Mr. Rhodes. That is riglit.
Mr. Kennedy. And you did some work out at the INIennen Co. ; did
you?
Mr. Rhodes. I did.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you take some surveys out at the Mennen Co. ?
Mr. Rhodes. I did.
Mr. Kennedy. The results of some of those surveys, as far as some
of the sentiments of the employees for or against the company — were
th( ise sentiments placed on 3 by 5 cards ?
JNIr. Rhodes. Sentiments? When I talked to the employee I made a
statement on the card.
Mr. Kennedy. On what ?
Mr. Rhodes. Of the sentiments of the employees.
Mr. Kennedy. Regarding being for or against the company ?
Mr. Rhodes. Not as such. My impression of the employee was
whether or not — the attitude of the employee was placed on the card.
Mr. Kennedy. How would you place that on the card ?
Mr. Rhodes. By a designation.
Mr. Kennedy. What kind of designation ?
Mr. Rhodes. A plus, if the employee seemed to be satisfied with the
present workings of management and supervision of the company ; a
minus if there was a negative attitude . That is, he did not think
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 6395
supervision was good and he thought plant conditions were bad or
could be improved.
It was an attitude surve3^
Mr. Kennedy. Whom did you turn those cards over to ?
Mr. Rhodes. To the best of my recollection, Mr. Kennedy, I handed
those cards over to Mr. Nagle.
Mr. Kennedy. To Mr. Nagle ?
Mr. Rhodes. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. Who gave you the instructions to go out and make
that survey ?
Mr. Rhodes. I worked under the direct supervision of Mr. Jackson.
jSIr. Kennedy. Now, have you in any of the surveys that you hava
taken or kept, used numbered symbols rather than plus or minus?
Mr. Rhodes. Not to my recollection. I used mainly plus or minus.
If I used a numerical system, I dont' recall it, at that time.
Mr. Kennedy. Is it possible that you would have used a numerical
system '?
Mr. Rhodes. I would say "No" ; it is not possible. I think basically,
I used plus and minus systems.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you ever use a numerical system anywhere ?
Mr. Rhodes. Not to my recollection.
Mr. Kennedy. You think it is possible ?
Mr. Rhodes. It could have been possible, but I do not recall it at
this time.
]VIr. Kennedy. Were the plus and minus system and the numerical
system, systems that you were told that you could use?
Mr. Rhodes. When you say "told that we could use," it was not
a question of being told we could use them. , It was a method of in-
struction that I knew or had been told. It was a method of in-
struction that I had learned through my work.
Mr. Kennedy. From whom had you learned that?
Mr. Rhodes. Through my work with the Labor Relations.
Mr. Kennedy. Wlio instructed you on using the plus or minus
system ?
Mr. Rhodes. I don't recollect. I think when I first went with
the organization in Chicago, when I first went to work with Labor
Relations, I think at that time I learned the plus and minus system.
Mr. Kennedy. Wlio taught you, and I want to find out who taught
you the system.
Mr. Rhodes. I don't remember.
Mr. Kennedy. You don't remember who it was ?
Mr. Rhodes. I don't remember the name of the individual.
Mr. Kennedy. Somebody out in Chicago ?
Mr. Rhodes. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. At that time did they also state to you, or was it
also explained to you that you could use the numerical system ?
]Mr. Rhodes. No.
Mr. Kennedy. It was not ?
Mr. Rhodes. No.
Mr. Kennedy. Was there ever any discussion about the numerical
system ?
Mr. Rhodes. Not that I recollect.
6396 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. Kennedy. Some of the employees of Labor Relations Associ-
ates have used the numerical system as well as the plus and minus
system.
Mr. Rhodes. They may have, and I have no knowledge of that.
Mr. Kennedy. But you do not remember ever using it yourself ?
Mr. Rhodes. That is correct, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. But you did file these cards or did use these cards
or have these cards in which you reflected the position of the em-
IDloyee toward the company, is that right ?
Mr. Rhodes. I didn't understand you.
Mr. Kennedy. You did make up these cards which were to reflect
the employees' attitudes toward the company; is that right?
Mr. Rhodes. The employee's attitude, that is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. Were you also present when these so-called rotating
committees were set up ?
Mr. Rhodes. I wasn't — ^Are you speaking of what situation now,
Mr. Kennedy ?
Mr. Kennedy. 1953.
Mr. Rhodes. You are referring to the Mennen situation ?
Mr. Kennedy. Yes.
Mr. Rhodes. I knew of the committees being set up. As to being
present at tlie exact time, I don't recollect.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you work on those at all ?
Mr. Rhodes. Yes, sir ; I did.
Mr. Kennedy. Were they also to determine the attitude of the
employee toward the company?
Mr. Rhodes. They certainly were not.
Mr. Kennedy. They did not have anything to do with that?
Mr. Rhodes. They certainly did not.
Mr. Kennedy. Were they to find out whether there were any com-
plaints of the employees toward the company ?
Mr. Rhodes. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. Well then, they would also reflect how the employee
felt about the company, whether he liad complaints or not.
Mr, Rhodes. Well now, the committee was set up primarily
Mr. KJENNEDY. Go ahead.
Mr. Rhodes. The committees were set up primarily to find out from
the employee if there was something on his mind and it was an outlet
for the employee. And your other question, that is double, I don't
think that was the primary one. It was not to find out — Wliat was
your other question, now ?
Mr. I^NNEDY. I asked you, to find out how he felt about the com-
pany.
Mr. Rhodes. That is it, how he felt about the company, that is my
answer.
Mr. Kennedy. That is the reason it was set up ?
Mr. Rhodes. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. Now, did you discuss these 3 by 5 cards with Mr.
Nagle and who else did you discuss them with ?
Mr. Rhodes. That is the only person I recollect discussing them
with.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you discuss them with Oldenburg ?
Mr. Rhodes. No ; I don't believe I did.
Mr. Kennedy. Do you know if you did not ?
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 6397
Mr. Rhodes. The only way I would discuss anything with Mr. Olden-
burg would be from these cards we compiled, why the employee was
unhappy, why the plant was in the bad situation, and what was wrong
with the plant, and from these cards, I would compile maybe mental
notes, or physical notes and as such, talk that over with Mr. Olden-
burg.
JNIr. Kennedy. Well then, he was aware you were keeping these liles
on these employees ?
Mr. Rhodes. I do not know.
Mr. Kennedy. You do not know ?
Mr. Rhodes. No.
Mr. Kennedy. You did not have the cards when you were talking
with him ?
Mr. Rhodes. That is right. As I said previously in my statement,
I took the information from those cards, why the employees were un-
happy and compiled it either mentally or actual written notes, and I
talked that over with Mr. Oldenburg.
Mr. Kennedy. The only one that you know definitely that was
aware that you were keeping these cards was Mr. Nagle ?
Mr. Rhodes. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. But the cards were kept on these employees?
Mr. Rhodes. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy, Thank you.
Senator McNamara. I have a couple of questions, Mr. Chairman.
Whom do you work for now ?
Mr. Rhodes. Sir, I am going to school now, full time, and I get out
in January,
Senator ISIcNamara. When you left Mr. Jackson's association he
was still with the Labor Relations Associates?
Mr. Rhodes. That is correct. Senator.
Senator McNamara. You have not been with the new company at
all?
Mv. Rhodes. When I left in December, no; I have not been with
them.
Senator McNamariV, Reference has been made here to two sets of
cards, and did you hear that reference?
Mr. Rhodes, Yes, sir ; I did.
Senator McNamara. Did you set up both sets of cards ?
Mr. Rhodes, I have no recollection of the second set that they are
speaking of.
Senator AIcNamara. The second set is the one tliat had the num-
bers indicating
Mr. Rhodes. Nos. 1 through 5, I believe the testimony was.
Senator ]McNamara, You knew nothing of those cards ?
Mr. Rhodes. No.
Senator McNamara. You turned over only one set of cards to the
personnel manager ?
Mr. Rhodes. That is right.
Senator McNai\[ara. As far as you know the second set was devel-
oped after that ?
Mr. Rhodes. I have no knowledge about those cards.
Senator McNamara. You do not know anything about those at all ?
Mr. Rhodes. No, sir.
Senator McNamara. That is all, Mr. Chairman.
6398 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Mr. Memien, will you come back to the stand, please ?
TESTIMONY OF GEORGE MENNEN, ACCOMPANIED BY HIS COUNSEL,
JAMES L. R. LAFFERTY— Resumed
The Chairman. When we excused you from the witness stand
this morning, the Chair made a statement that he had some further
questions to ask you. Primarily I had in mind to pursue the matter
further to detei-mine how this second election came about and to find
out about that. I think that has been pretty well developed since, and
I do not need to ask or interrogate you about that. But this morning,
in your prepared statement, you said something about a bribe being
offered, or a suggestion made that if you would pay some money to
someone everything could be settled peacefully. I do not believe
you were interrogated about tliat this morning. Will you relate that
again? At what stage or what time was it when this incident took
place ?
Mr. Mennen. This was during the organization strike, sir, in 1951,
when our business was completely shut down. We were being organ-
ized by local 102 of the UAW-AFL and at that time, very honestly,
we were babes in the woods. We had been in business for about 80
years, or at that time over 70 years, and we had never had a union and
we did not laiow about the fine dealings in this.
The Chairman. I was trying to make the record clear as to who you
were having the conference with. As I recall, you said you went over
to a hotel or coffeeshop.
Mr. Mennen. We went over to the union headquarters in New York,
which at that time were down
The Chairman. Wliat union headquarters ?
Mr. Mennen. UAW-AFL, 102. They were down around 35th or
36th Street, somewhere in midtown New York, sir. We went in there
and we were told to wait and then Mr. Zackman came out with another
fellow or two and said, "Come on out; we will have a cup of coffee."
The Chahiman. Who was Mr. Zackman?
Mr. Mennen. Mr. Zackman, as we knew it, was the then president
of that union.
The Chairman. Then president of that union.
Mr. Mennen. That is correct, sir.
The Chairman. Do you remember the others who went with you ?
Mr. Mennen. I don't, sir.
The Chairman. Who was with you and who accompanied you ?
Mr. Mennen. Mr. Oldenburg.
The Chairman. And you went to a coffeeshop in the hotel close by.
Mr. Mennen. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. ^Ylio made the offer or made the suggestion that for
$15,000 they thought it could be settled ?
Mr. Mennen. Sir, that was 8 or 9 years ago, and I really couldn't
say. In the first place, as I mentioned in my statement, it was sort of
a thinly veiled offer. As I remember it in my mind, I think it was
Zackman, but I couldn't be sure, sir, but it was one of that group.
The Chairman. You do not know the names of the others ?
Mr. Mennen. I don't, sir.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR TTEILD 6399
The Chairman. So Mr, Zackman or someone at least, in that group
made the suggestion ?
Mr. Mennen. That is true, sir.
The Chairman. I believe you said while you regarded it as an
attempt to bribe you, or get a payoff — that is what you meant?
Mr. Mennen. I distinguish it as just plain extortion.
The Chairman. We will call it that and I think that is it. You
regarded it as an attempt to extort money out of you to get a strike
settled.
Mr. Mennen. I surely did, sir.
The Chairman. But you said it was so veiled that you could not
make a positive statement and, therefore, you did not take action
about it.
Mr. Mennen. That is correct.
The Chairman. I just wanted to get the record clear on it.
Is there anything further ?
Now, you have heard some testimony here that is a bit contradictory,
I think, to what you testified to earlier.
Mr. Mennen. It would certainly seem so.
The Chairman. As a matter of courtesy and fairness to you, do
you wish to make any comment before you leave the stand ?
Mr. Mennen. Yes, I think that we should.
TESTIMONY OF HENRY OLDENBURG, ACCOMPANIED BY COUNSEL,
JAMES L. R. LAEFERTY— Resumed
Senator McNamara. AYhile the record is being looked up, I would
like to ask Mr. Oldenburg, if that is the correct name ; does he know
the names of the other two people that accompanied Mr. Zackman at
this Kaffee-klatsch ?
Mr. Oldenburg. I do not remember. I never met them again.
Senator McNamara. Did you also get the impression that there
was a veiled suggestion that if $15,000 were paid — you got the same
impression ?
Mr. Oldenburg. I got the same impression.
TESTIMONY OF GEORGE MENNEN, ACCOMPANIED BY HIS COUNSEL,
JAMES L. R. LAFFERTY— Resumed
Mr. Mennen. There is one thing I would like to point out as we
go through our notes, and that is the fact that Mr. Graham was
never replaced. As we mentioned earlier in the testimony, this whole
affair happened shortly after our move to Morristown, N. J., and
Mr. Graham testified that he was a machinist. I am sure that you
can appreciate that in order to move the complex equipment we have,
we had to double the size and scope of our shop.
When all of the installation work was completed, and the plant
was running smoothly and properly, we did give these fellows notice,
and we were forced to make the layoffs.
Generally, we hope that something like that would come from at-
trition, but in this case it did not and we were forced to make the
layoffs.
The Chairman. You said you never did replace Mr. Graham ? Did
you replace either of the other three discharged ?
6400 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. Mennen. No, sir; there are still only four machinists in the
shop. The only addition which has been made to the shop at all
since Mr. Graham left us was the addition of a trainee and in line
with our principles of promotion from within.
The Chairman. Were you acquainted with Mr. Graham's activi-
ties with respect to the United Chemical Workers Union ?
Mr. Mennen. Oh, yes, sir.
The Chairman. You were well acquainted with -that ?
Mr. Mennen. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. You were also acquainted with his efforts in con-
nection with the decertification movement with respect to 102 or
649 ?
Mr. Mennen. Well, I don't think that I was acquainted at all with
the certification movement. It was in order to certify the chemical
workers union. However, he necessarily came into the picture during
the deauthorization movement because 649 tried to force us to fire
Graham and Ives at that time.
We did not feel that was proper or in order and we did not do it.
The Chairman. All right, proceed if there is anything further you
wish to comment about.
Mr. Mennen. Yes, sir ; there is one other thing that does come up.
It is the letter which was written and has been offered here as testi-
mony. I did write the letter and I did write it in conjunction with Mr.
Lafferty here, and I would not be surprised if it was with Mr. Nagle
and any other good advice I could get.
I wrote the letter and the letter was heartfelt and I am sure would
have been heartfelt with all of you gentlemen if you had had to put up
with a bunch of thugs and criminals that we had to put up with from
649.
That was my feeling at the time and I feel it was sincere, sir.
The Chairman. There is no question but what we may have felt the
same way about Johnny Dio's union, and I think you were fortunate
to get rid of them. But I understood you to say this morning that your
company, either you or IMr. Oldenburg one or both of you, said that the
company remained absolutely neutral in this issue of the chemical
workers union.
Mr. Mennen. We tried to force nobody, sir.
The Chairman. I did not say "force," but you would not regard,
now just being frank about it, that letter as stating a definite neutral
position, would you ?
Mr. Mennen. No, sir; but the inference that I drew was in our
going out and circulating among the help prior to that time, sir.
The Chairman. You were asked this morning by Mr. Kennedy :
I understand that, but did you attempt to influence them at all against the
chemical workers or tell them you were against the chemical workers?
And your answer was :
No, sir, I did not. No, sir.
I thought I remembered that testimony this morning.
Mr. Mennen. I misunderstood Mr. Kennedy's question. I thought
that he meant that we were circulating among the help and talking
to them directly, sir. Our statement was public, sir, and Mr. Ken-
nedy had that in his hand and I knew that was such. I though he
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR' FIELD 6401
meant that I was attempting to circulate and spread conversation
about it.
The Chairman. I thought I remembered your testimony and 1 was
surprised when this letter showed up here which was absolutely contra-
dictory to what you had testified to.
Mr. Mennen. That is why I wanted to make that matter clear.
Mr. Kennedy. "What about Mr. Oldenburg. Let me read you his
answer to the question :
Mr. Kennedy. Did the company actually itself — were they for or against the
union or were they neutral?
Mr. Oldenburg. Neutral.
Mr. Kennedy. You never indicated to the employees one way or the other?
Mr. Oldenburg. No, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. The answer is "No"?
Mr. Oldenburg. The answer is "No," sir.
Nothing could be clearer than that.
Mr. Oldenbueg. Well, you had the letter and the letter was public
property and Y.'e misunderstood your questioning as such. I would
still like to point out that if the help felt they wanted a union, we would
still do nothing to stand in their way.
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Mennen, there is no question whatsoever that
that letter is perfectly proper to inform the public and there is no
question that the sympathies of the committee would be with you in
anything to get rid of 102 or 649. The only question that arises, at
least in my mind, is about these contradictions. Ever since we began
talking to you, ^xe have never gotten or never had any of these
things explained to us. It continued right through this hearing
here.
Mr. Mennen. Are they properly explained ?
Mr. Kennedy. They are not, in my mind, at least. I do not un-
derstand why you could not come out and say that you were against
102, and against 619, but we had to go through all of this and then
Mr. Oldenburg's and your answers to these questions about the fact
that you stayed absolutely neutral, which, of course, is not the
case.
The Chairman. As far as getting rid of 102 or 649, after you
learned of tlie group that was running it, I can have some apprecia-
tion and understanding that you might resort to almost any tactics to
get rid of them. But, on the other question of another legitimate
union coming in and trying to organize tlie plant, that is where the
question is raised here as to your testimony this morning. You say
you misunderstood the question, but your testunony left the record
in a shape where you had been flatly contradicted over your own
signature. So, I wanted you to clear it up.
Mr. Mennen. If you will recall my opening statement, I made
mention of our feelings about 649 and the intolerable situation that
existed at that time. I think that our feelings were clear right from
that point, and I feel that I just misinterpreted the intent of Mr.
Kennedy's question.
The Chairman. I am not taking a position for unions or against
unions, insofar as any particular plant is concerned, whether it
should be organized or should not be. I am not taking that posi-
tion. But I think it is our duty, as this committee pursues its as-
signment, to go into these matters and make the record of practices
6402 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
that exist today, that prevail, so that we can weigh them when we go
to submit recommendations for legislation. Is there anything
further ?
Mr. Kennedy. There were seven areas that were in dispute be-
tween Mr. Mennen's and Mr. Nagle's testimony and Mr. Mennen's
and Mr. Oldenburg's testimony on the one hand, and, to some extent,
Mr. Jackson's and Mr. Nagle's testimony on the other. One of the
seven areas was this letter that we have talked about. The other
was on the question of Mr. Shefferman coming to the plant, and
there were five others.
The Chairman. Is there anything further? That is why I called
you back ; to see if you wanted to make any comment.
Mr. Mennen. As far as I know, about Mr. Shefferman coming to
the plant, it still goes. I told 5^ou at that time that I did not know
him or that no executive knew him and, as far as I know, none did.
As a matter of fact, I am not too sure but what this isn't the first
time that I have heard this gentleman, Shelton Shefferman, men-
tioned. I referred to Nathan Shefferman, and I never knew Shelton
Shefferman.
The Chairman. Is there anything further? Are there any ques-
tions ?
Thank you very much.
The committee will stand in recess until 10 : 30 in the morning.
(Members of the select committee present at the taking of the re-
cess were Senators McClellan and McNamara.)
(Wliereupon, at 3 : 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
FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 1, 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 Pat McNamara, Dem-
ocrat, Michigan; Senator Barry Goldwater, Republican, Arizona.
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, and Goldwater.)
The Chairman. Mr. Sigmond Snyder?
It will be I'ecalled that during the course of the hearings when we
were looking into the Detroit situation, particularly with respect to
Mr. Hoffa, we were interested in locating a Sigmond Snyder, who
was an important witness, from the committee's viewpoint.
At that time we were unable to locate him and to serve a subpena on
him. The report from his wife and others was that no one know where
he was. On yesterday, however, we were able to serve a subpena on
him to appear forthwith. I do not know whether he has had time to
get here or not.
At any time during the day that he arrives, the committee will be
interested in hearing his testimony. If he does not arrive today, he
will be expected to be here Monday. If he does not come at all, there
will be some attention given him otherwise.
Who is your next witness ?
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Merlyn Pitzele.
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 ?
Mr. Pitzele. I do.
TESTIMONY OF MERLYN S. PITZELE
Mr. Pitzele. Mr. Chairman, could we dispense with the lights,
please ?
6403
6404 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
The Chairman. All right, gentlemen, will you desist for a moment?
Will you state your name and your place of residence and your business
or occupation ? o -r.- i
Mr. PiTZELE. Yes, sir. My name is Merlyn S. Pitzele, and I am
labor editor of Business Week, and I live in New York City.
The Chairman. Thank you very much. Now, you have some re-
quest you wish to make of the committee ?
Mr. Pitzele. Yes, I would like the lights turned off, please.
The Chairman. For the comfort and convenience of the witness,
the lights will be turned off. May I inquire, does it interfere with
you if the lights are channeled in this direction ?
Mr. Pitzele. No, sir ; it does not.
The Chairman. The lights will not be placed on the witness.
Mr. Pitzele. Is this, too, dispensable, Mr. Chairman?
The Chairman. Yes, it is. The photographers will desist.
Mr. Pitzele, you have counsel ?
Mr. Pitzele. No, sir.
The Chairman. You waive counsel ?
Mr. Pitzele. I do.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Gentlemen, the photographers and the movies and so forth will
respect the Chair's direction.
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Pitzele, could you give the committee a little of
your background, please ?
Mr. Pitzele. I am trained academically as a labor economist. I
have taught in the field and I have been employed in the course of my
professional career by labor organizations and employers of various
sorts.
I have written extensively in this field. I have lectured before
groups of all sorts including universities. Is that sufficient ?
Mr. Kennedy. Just where were you born ?
Mr. Pitzele. I was born in Chicago, 111., in 1911 and I attended the
Universities of Wisconsin and Chicago and some graduate work at
Columbia University as well as these two other institutions.
I lived in Chicago until I was 13 years old and I moved to St. Paul,
Minn., and I went from St. Paul, Minn., back to Chicago. I stayed as
a Chicago resident until I went to the University of Wisconsin to
teach.
I came to New York in 1940 to head up the industrial relations
department in a firm called Wilson Oliver & Co., management con-
sultants.
Mr. Kennedy. You have been living in New York since ?
Mr. Pitzele. Since 1940 ; yes.
Mr. Kennedy. How long have you been with Business Week?
Mr. Pitzele. Since 1941.
Mr. Kennedy. Now, you are appearing here voluntarily, at our
request ?
Mr. Pitzele. I am appearing voluntarily.
Mr. Kennedy. You are not under subpena ?
Mr. Pitzele. I am not here under subpena ?
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Pitzele, in the course of your work, have you
met Mr. Nathan Shefferman?
Mr. Pitzele. I have, both in the course of my work and in the
course of other things.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 6405
Senator Goldwater. Could we clear up one point ?
In answer to the question of counsel, are you appearing here volun-
tarily, or were you asked to come down ?
Mr. PiTZELE. I was, sir. I have been in contact with Mr. Salinger
for a matter of months, in which he has asked me for information
about a number of things, which I have provided, and he asked me
the first time he came to me whether if in the committee's judgment
there would be some purpose served by my coming here as a witness,
whether I would come and I answered him "Yes."
The Chairman. All right.
Mr. Kennedy. You say that you met Mr. Nathan Shefferman?
Mr. Pitzele. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Could you tell the committee when you first met
him?
Mr. Pitzele. Yes.
Mr. Chairman, Mr. Kennedy has told me in a preliminary meeting
this morning that he would like me to be detailed about this, and if
I am excessively detailed, I trust you will indicate it.
The Chairman. All right.
Mr. Pitzele. In 1936 I was doing graduate work at the University
of Chicago on a fellowship and I had a small, part-time job working
for the Chicago Federation of Labor, which is the city central body
of AFL unions in Chicago. The head of the Chicago Federation of
Labor was a man by the name of John Fitzpatrick of the horseshoers'
union.
. My job was in connection with the radio station WCFL, which the
Chicago Federation of Labor runs. I put on an educational pro-
gram which was designed to teach something about parliamentary
procedure, labor history, and the rude elements of economics.
When my fellowship came to an end in 1936, jobs were not plenti-
ful and Mr. Fitzpatrick, who took an interest in me, gave me the
names of a number of people to see about a job.
One name he gave me was up to that point unknown to me, Nathan
Shefferman, who was identified as the employee relations director of
the Sears, Roebuck Co. I made an appointment with Mr. Shefferman
and I went to see him. The only reason, Mr. Chairman, tliat I have
for recalling that appointment and that session with Mr. Shefferman
was of something which happened during it.
I walked in his door, being shown in by his secretary, and he
pointed a gun at me, a shotgun, and all during the course of my 10
minutes or 15 minutes of being interviewed, he kept on aiming this
shotgun around the room and occasionally at what seemed to be the
lobe of my right ear.
He explained, of course, that somebody had made him a present of a
handmade, fine gun, and he himself was not a hunter and it was some-
thing of a toy to him and he was playing with it.
Under the circumstances that I was interviewed for a job, T did
not think that I presented myself, perhaps, to the best advantage.
At any event, I did not get the job. That was my first meeting with
Mr. Nathan Sliefferman, the year as I recall, being 1936.
Do you want me to continue ?
Mr. Kennedy. Yes. And what was the next contact you had with
Mr. Shefi'erman or any member of his family ?
6406 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. PiTZELE. All right. In 1938, I was teaching in the University
of Wisconsin. I had in my class of nndergraduate students who were
taking labor economics, a yonng man by the name of Shelton Slieffer-
man, who the committee knows as an associate of Nathan, in the firm
of Labor Eelations Associates.
I must say that Shelton Shefferman was not an outstanding student.
As a matter of fact, the grades I gave him v^ere in the lowest quarter
of the class. Mr. Shelton Shefferman called himself to my attention
repeatedly, being one students I had who would consistently come in
the office after grades were out and complain about his grades.
He explained to me that his father was a large figure in the field,
in the field in which he was taking tliis course from me, and that he just
could not bring such low grades home to his father and wouldn't I
please raise the grades.
In the course of tlie sessions in tlie office witli me, in Madison, he
would tell me about his father's eminence and his father's work, and
at tliis time I think that he described for me the fact, or he told me
the fact that his father was about to change the basis of his con-
nection with Sears, Roebuck and go into the consulting business with
Seal's, Roebuck as his first or principal client.
He gave me to believe that Sears, Roebuck was going to help his
father in the sense of getting other firms with Avhich Sears did business
for other clients for Mr. Sheffernuin.
During this period, so far as I recall, I did not see Nathan Shef-
ferman, but I saw the boy every time the class met and on these
rather unhappy occasions when grades came out.
My next meeting — shall I go on ?
Mr. Kennedy. Please.
(At this point. Senator McNamara entered the hearing room.)
Mr. Pitzele. My next meeting with Mr. Shefferman was either late
in 1943 or early in 1944. I had been commissioned to write a series
of articles for the Saturday Evening Post. The editors of the Post
felt that there were some interesting personality pieces perhaps, in
some second-level union leaders, people who were on the way up, but
were not as well known as Philip Murray or Bill Green or the other
folks, and John Lewis, who were in the top ranks. They asked me
if I wouldn't write pieces about some of these people. I agreed to
do so.
As I recall, the first piece I wrote was on George Meany who was
then secretary -treasurer of the AFL and not nearly as prominent a
gentleman as he is today. But when the first piece appeared, the Sat-
urday Evening Post carried a little box to the effect that this was the
first of a series in which a number of labor people were going to be
written about.
Directly after that appeared, I got a call from Mr. Nathan Sheffer-
man who asked me to take lunch with him in New York City. I did.
The purpose of the lunch was to induce me, encourage me to write
a piece about Dave Beck. He told me that Dave Beck was an up-and-
coming fellow and he was certainly going to be the next president of
the teamsters union and would make his mark in the world— an
understatement if I ever heard one— and that I should do a piece on
Beck. ^
I told him that I had never met Beck and only knew about him
what had appeared in the newspapers, that he ran the Western Con-
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 6407
ference of Teamsters and was one of the vice presidents of tlie Inter-
national Brotherhood of Teamsters. He said it would be easily ar-
ranged for me to meet Beck and would I have dinner with him and
Dave Beck in Xew York the following week. I agreed to do so.
We went to dinner at a restaurant downtown, called the Grotto on
Mulberry Street, which is renowned for its lobster diablo, and I met
Beck for the first time.
Mr. Beck made a great — or at least I thought he made a great dis-
play of his abstemiousness. When he was offered a cigarette, he
made a statement that he did not indulge in tobacco. When he was
offered a cocktail before dinner, he made a statement that he never
touched hard liquor. When the waiter suggested wine with the lob-
ster diablo, he made a statement to the effect that he never touched
wine.
Mr. Beck's conversation — or I sat back and let him do most of the
talking. It was to a large extent, a monologue and I was interested in
the man, and I had never met him before. To a large extent Mr. Beck
talked about the need for a better understanding between labor and
industry.
He represented himself as a stalwart exponent and defender of the
American private enterprise system. I remember nothing else partic-
ularly about that meeting or about that dinner.
There was no talk at that dinner of my writing a piece. Perhaps
Mr. Sheft'erman considered it indelicate or B^ck considered it indeli-
cate to raise this, and I was not encouraging a discussion of it be-
cause I felt after meeting INIr. Beck that I di 1 not want to write a
piece and that he was a little too enigmatic a figure and if I were
going to write a piece about him it would require a lot of research and
a lot of interviewing, which I was not prepared to do because there
was a plenitude of subjects which I could tackle that would not re-
quire so much work.
So, when Sheff'erman called me within the week, after this dinner,
I told him that I thought that it would just be too much work to do
a piece on Beck. He said, "Well, we will do all of the work for you,
what work there is to be done."
I said I would want to go out to the coast and talk to a lot of people
who knew Beck and people who dealt with him and so on, and that I
just did not have the time to do it. "Well," he said, "suppose you just
tell us what you want and we will get you all of that information."
He was very persistent and I said, "All right, get me some complete
biographical material on Beck," and there was at that time, as I recall,
a dis])ute between the west coast teamstei^ and, as I recall it, Safeway,
the big grocery chain.
This was a dispute which at any moment might possibly erupt into
a strike and make national news and so I said, "Also, give me all of
the facts of what is involved in this Safeway dispute." Sheft'erman
said, "All right, we will get all of that stuff to you. You can have
everytliing you want."
I got nothing. Nothing ever came. If I thought about it at all,
and there was no reason to think about it, I suppose my conclusion
was that those people did not think it was worth the trouble, and they
were convinced I wasn't going to do the piece anyway, and so that was
the end of that interlude, and my first meeting with Beck.
6408 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
My next meeting with Mr. Shefferman follows the election of Dave
Beck to the presidency of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
which came late in 1952. In order for me to make the implications
of this clear, I think, if I may be permitted, I would like to talk about
my relations with Beck, to which the Shefferman business is an aux-
iliary or ancillary point. May I do that, sir ?
The Chairman. Yes.
Mr. PiTZELE. Beck became president of the teamsters in 1952, and
the teamsters were in some ways a strange organization. Mr. Daniel
Tobin, who had been president, was a man who went his own way,
and let the local entities of the teamsters union handle their business
pretty much on their own. It was a very mixed bag, the teamsters
union. There were some locals in some localities in which it was a
union above reproach. You have here met such people as Tom Hickey,
for example.
In Tom Hickey's area and in Tom Hickey's local union, the team-
sters approach anybody's idea of what a good union should be. In
other areas, the teamsters union was a far different kind of an organ-
ization. Beck came in in 1952 and he was looked toward as a strong
man, as a fellow who was going to take hold of this organization and
change its fundamental character from a lot of local virtually autono-
mous units into a much more monolithic structure.
Not only that but, gentlemen — and it may be hard for you to recall
this in the light of what you have now found out and exposed about
Dave Beck — in 1952, Dave Beck was tagged as a man who was going
to clean up in the teamsters union, and who was going to be one of
the forces for good in the American labor movement.
The first thing that Beck did when he became president, at least as
far as New York was concerned, was to kick out of the union a man
by the name of Joe Poppa, and take away the charter of a local in
New York, local 202, which functions in the food market, the Wash-
ington market in New York City. This was hailed. There were edi-
torials in the New York Times, and the press was just applauding
unanimously because this was an example of the kind of new broom
sweeping clean which everybody felt that the teamsters union re-
quired. There was going on also at this time, you may recall, a great
effort to clean up the New York waterfront. We had had in the State
of New York a crime commission, an anticrime commission, under
Judge Proskauer, which had held extensive hearings on corruption in
the New York waterfront.
It was held that one of the basic reasons for the corruption of all
sorts on the New York waterfront was the evil nature of the Interna-
tional Longslioremen's Association.
Subsequently the A. F. of L. under George Meany, expelled the In-
ternational Longshoremen's Association for being corrupt bevond re-
pair, imreformable, and the A. F. of L. established a committee of top
labor leaders whose purpose was to give the workers on tlie New York
flocks a decent union in place of the ILA, which had been expelled.
1 ^AT V ^^^ °^^ ^^ *^^^ leading figures in this movement to reform
the New York waterfront. He worked with communitv agencies, with
the entities of government in an effort to clean up the docks. This was
back m 1953.
All right. There was in the teamsters union, since resigned, a gen-
tleman by tlie name of David Kaplan, who was the economist for the
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 6409
teamsters union, and a friend of mine of long standing. He was a
man whose personal honesty and integrity I would be prepared to
vouch for under any circumstances. David Kaplan came to me and
asked me if I would see Beck. I did so. Beck wanted to hire me. He
offered me a job. He offered me a job at my own figure of compensa-
tion, with any title that I wanted to choose, working for the teamsters
union.
What he wanted me to do was to take over all of the publications of
the teamsters union, improve them, edit them, start what he called a
communications program in the union. It was a job that, although it
was a very flattering offer, to be offered a job and name your own price,
I turned it down.
Mind you, let me make it very clear, Mr. Chairman, I did not turn
it down because I felt that Beck was a bad or evil man. I turned it,
down because I didn't want to change my professional career. In-
deed, I thought at that time that Beck did represent a person who
would make a very useful and a healthy contribution to a cleaner,
better labor movement in America.
In any event, Kaplan came to me again after my refusal and said
Beck wanted to see me another time, that Beck wanted to use me as an
adviser. So I saw Beck again. He told me that he would like me
to advise him on how the teamsters should be operating, how they
should use whatever power they had to help clean up the waterfront
situation. He would like me to keep under surveillance, so to speak,
the publications of the teamsters union and make recommendations to
him for their improvement. He would like me, he said, to advise him
on what the teamsters union should be doing to improve their relations
with employers.
I said I would be glad to do this, that it was something that I
thought was a fine thing to be doing, and I would advse him up to the
limit of my wisdom and ability. I thought that the matter had been
left at that. It hadn't however, because Kaplan came to me after this
meeting and he says, "Mr. Beck wants to put this on a business basis,"
this advisory relationship.
I told Kaplan, as I told Beck, that I would be glad to do this with-
out fee or pay or anything of the sort, because it was something that
I wanted to do. He explained to me that Beck didn't operate that
way, that when Beck wanted advice from somebody he wanted to pay
for it, and that the only way, presumably, that this relationship could
be established would be if I would take a fee. So I asked Kaplan what
a fee should be, what I should do under the circumstances. Kaplan
said that, in his opinion, I should take a retainer of $5,000 a year, and
that if there were any expenses or additional costs that I would have
in functioning as Beck's adviser I should send in an expense account.
I agreed to do this. Incidentally, let me say that there was never
any expense account, never any expenses which I asked reimbursement
for. Just to finish this before I come back to Shefferman, this rela-
tionship prevailed in 1953, 1954, and 1955. When I had my belly
full, I terminated it. I came to certain conclusions then about Beck
and the teamsters union, which I want to tell you about afer I finish
this part of my story, and I didn't want an}^ part of it.
Now, after this conversation with Kaplan in which, at his sugges-
tion, $5,000 a year was the retainer, enter Nathan Shefferman. I got
80330—57 — pt. 16 12
6410 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
the impression that Mr. Shefferman was chancellor of the exchequer,
shall we say, for Dave Beck. Shefferman said to me he knew about
these arrangements which had been made, and he asked me how I
wanted to be paid. I didn't at first understand the purport of the
question, but what it meant was did I want to be paid weekly, monthly,
quarterly, or annually. I said to Shefferman that as long as I was
going to get paid I would take it all at once. That was the end of
that conversation.
Wliat followed was a letter addressed to me on the letterhead of
Labor Eelations Associates in Chicago, a brief letter wliich "con-
finned the arrangements" — that brief, precise, or ambiguous, as you
prefer^ — and asking me to respond by saying that these were the ar-
rangements. I did so, and there followed then, and in 1954 and 1955,
a check from Labor Eelations Associates, which was compensatoin for
advising I did to Beck and the teamsters union.
During the period of these 3 years I found sometimes that Beck was
hard to reach. When I had something to say to Beck I couldn't find
him or I couldn't reach him. And at the end of the period Beck was
not available to me. We had developed some very serious differences,
apparentlj^ about what the teamstei's union should be doing to clean
up what was becoming obvious, the growing fester of corruption
within.
So Shefferman, on a lunnber of occasions, was my line of communi-
cation to Beck. When I could not reach Beck, when he was unavail-
able to me, when he, in effect, did not receive a phone call that I put
in to liim, and the matter, I thought, was important enough, in my
mind, at any rate, to communicate, I would sometimes use Shefferman
as that channel of communication. I also used David Kaplan and,
occasionally, Tom Hickey, in New York.
In 1955 I had come to the conclusion that Beck was either unwilling
or unable to do anything about the rise of Hoffa and the whole spread-
ing, festering evil in the teamsters union. That suspicion crystalized
and became final in my mind when, in 1955, Hoffa, in the name of the
teamsters union, offered a loan of $600,000 to the old, corrupt, driven
out of the A. F. of L. International Longshoremen's Association, and
attempted to revive this union by the teamsters, who, in 1953 and 1954,
had declared that they were going to fight it to the death.
When Beck was unable or unwilling to do anything about this
proffer from Hoffa to rehabilitate — not reform, just restrengthen,
revivify — this utterly corrupt organization, that was the end of the
line. That was my final conclusion arrived at a few years before
this committee started its investigations, that Mr. Beck at the very
least had to be written off as ineffectual if not, indeed, worse.
So I told Kaplan and I told Shefferman — by this time I couldn't
reach Beck — I had had a number of proposals, which I will be glad
to tell you about if you are interested in them, as to what Beck
should do with his union. As an adviser I was a great failure, Mr.
Chairman. He took none of my advice.
Well, I wouldn't say he took none of it. Pie took none of my
advice where it had to do with cleaning up the union. I obviously
became difficult to him. I mean, he didn't want to hear these pro-
posals any more, so he just didn't answer when I called him, or I
didn't see him any more.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 6411
The Chairman. May I interrupt at this point ?
Mr. PiTZELE. Yes.
The Chairman. Did you have a 3-year contract in tlie beginning?
Mr. PiTZELE. No. I had no contract.
The Chairman. Just year to year ?
Mr. PiTZELE. Yes, sir.
So, as I say, after these events, in 1955 it became very clear to me
that this was a hopeless situation. Because I could not communicate
with Mr, Beck, I told Mr. Shelferman and Mr. Kaplan that I was
done, period, that I wanted nothing more to do with it.
The Chairman. Have you concluded ? I don't mean to interrupt.
Mr. PiTZELE. No, I understand, Mr. Chairman. I could fill in.
There are more details, but this is the skeleton outline of my relation-
ship.
The Chairman. As you are interrogated, you may fill in any addi-
tional details as you like.
Are there any questions before the counsel proceeds, gentlemen ?
Senator McNamara. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask a
cjuestion.
The Chairman. Senator McNamara.
Senator McNamara. Did you agree in advance with Mr. Beck as
to how much per year salary you would receive ?
Mr. PiTZELE. I never discussed it with Mr. Beck or Mr. Sheffer-
man. Beck was the kind of a man, obviously, who didn't like and
didn't want to discuss financial details. This is the "Chancellor of
the Exchequer," Mr. Shefferman. There was no discussion of a fee
at all, with Mr. Beck, after I turned down his job to come to work
for him and naming my own figure. That was with Mr. Kaplan.
Senator McNamara. So you were adviser to Mr. Beck from 1952
to 1955, and you were paid by Shefl'erman for this advising that you
did?
Mr. PiTZELE. I would put it, sir, that I was paid through Sheffer-
man.
Senator McNamara. By Beck ?
Mr. PiTZELE. I assume that the teamsters reimbursed — maybe the
teamsters paid more than I received. I don't know. There was
never anything between me and Beck in writing about that. All I
know was that this arrangement was made by an official of the team-
sters union, Mr. David Kaplan, and the compensation came through
Mr. Shefferman, Labor Relations xlssociates.
Senator McNamara. Then you don't accept that he was "Chancellor
of the Exchequer" at this point? He was previously, but he is not
now ? I mean, if he was, then he paid you through Shefferman ; is
that not right ?
Mr. PiTZELE. Senator McNamara, I don't quite understand your
question, sir.
Senator McNamara. Well, the question was this : Were you paid by
Beck through Shefferman ?
Mr. PiTZELE. Yes.
Senator :McNamara. All right. And you had no idea you were to
be paid in advance ? You had no agreement ?
Mr. PiTZELE. No, sir. I had with Mr. David Kaplan this conversa-
tion which I have related for you, in which Kaplan's suggestion was—
I mean, I made it clear that I was prepared to do it without any fee.
6412 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Senator McNamara. How did Kaplan enter into the paying off of
you for this thing ? He didn't enter into the payment ; did he ?
Mr. PiTZELE. No.
Senator McNamara. Let's forget Kaplan.
Mr. PiTZELE. The figure came from Kaplan, the $5,000.
Senator McNamara. $5,000 per year ?
Mr. PiTZELE. Yes.
Senator McNa jiara. Then he suggested $5,000 ?
Mr. PiTZELE. He did, sir.
Senator McNamara. And you said that was acceptable ?
Mr. PiTZELE. Yes, sir.
Senator McNamara. And you were paid on that basis ?
Mr. PiTZELE. Yes, sir.
Senator McNamara. How do you qualify as a labor expert or ad-
viser ?
Mr. PiTZELE. How do I qualify ? Well, one has always
Senator Iat.s. Mr. Chairman, may I butt in there for just a minute.
I don't think Senator McNamara was here when you started out your
discourse this morning and gave your background.
Senator McNamara. Well, just briefly. I don't want you to review
the whole thing.
Mr. PiTZELE. I wondered if you wanted more than that. Excuse
me, Senator.
Well, first of all, I was born into the labor movement, if you please.
My father was a small official in the Brotherhood of Locomotive
Firemen and Enginemen. The early family friends that I recall
as a child, coming to the house, were people who were associated with
my father in the labor movement. When I came out of college in the
depression, like most other young people, I was dependent on family
contacts, so to speak, for a job. So the first job I got, really, when I
came out of college, was working for a labor organization, the Chicago
Federation of Labor. I went into that. Senator.
Senator McNamara. That is sufficient. That is all I wanted.
Mr. PiTZELE. I am trained, and deeply trained, in this field.
Senator McNamara. You said that Tom Hickey, of New York, was
a good labor leader ?
Mr. PiTZELE. I do, sir.
Senator McNamara. When he was before our committee, he indi-
cated that he had been the international representative of the team-
sters' union during the period when these charters were bouncing
around in the New York area. If he is a good labor official, in your
judgment, why didn't he do something about these so-called bounc-
mg charters? He didn't have any good answer for that. Do you
have any answer ?
Mr. PiTZELE. Let me say this. Senator : I knew Tom Hickey in a
period earlier tlian this. 1 knew him as a man who was determined,
devoted, and really one of the most stalwart people in the labor move-
ment in New York involved with community groups in cleaning up
the New York waterfront.
I know Tom Hickey. I read in the report of this committee that
I believe Senator Mundt said to Tom Hickey when he was down here,
"You have a face like an affidavit." I would like to add that, insofar
as I am aware, he is without any larceny in his heart. This is, in my
judgment, an honest, simple man. If you want my hypothesis— I do
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 6413
not know Tom Hickey in any other relationship. I have never met
Hoffa, I have never met Dio, I know none of these people. If you
want my hypothesis as to why he did nothing, I shall be glad to give
it to you, but it is an opinion. Do you want it ?
Senator McNamara. No ; not necessarily.
Mr. PiTZELE. O. K.
Senator McNamara. I expect that most of the people that you come
in contact with in the labor movement fall in this category, then, of
good labor leaders, if this is your description. This is the yardstick
you use ?
Mr. PiTZELE. This is one of the yardsticks I use.
Senator McNamara. He wasn't a crook ; he was honest ?
Mr. PiTZELE. I would say "Yes," because most of the people in the
labor movement are decent, honest people, and I come into contact
Avith a reasonable cross-section of them. I would then say that most
of the labor people that I know are decent, honest people.
Senator McNamara. Using the yardstick of honesty, and not cor-
ruption ?
Mr. PiTZELE. Yes, sir.
Senator McNamara. Then Hickey was just one of the
Mr. PiTZELE. He certainly would number among them. If this com-
mittee ever exposed anything wrong about Tom Hickey, I will confess
to my great surprise.
Senator McNamara. I think the only thing the committee exposed
wrong about Tom Hickey was tliat he was responsible for charters
at the time that these improper charters were bouncing around in
New York. I think that was very definitely improper. I don't think
the average international representative of labor organizations would
tolerate that condition. He would either quit or he would take control.
The Chairman. May the Chair interrupt. Senator I
I think, as I recall the testimony, Mr. HoflPa forced those charters.
Mr. Hickey didn't know about it until after they were up there.
Senator 'McNamara. Mr. Hickey was probably the only one that
didn't know about it. Everybody else knew about it. I don't see how
he can be in the position of international representative and not know
about it. He had the responsibility and Hoffa did not. Beck issued
the charters and lie issued them through the international representa-
tive, ordinarily.
The Chairman. He didn't in this instance.
Senator McNahcara. No, he didn't in this instance, but this was the
customary course.
Mr. Kennedy. They didn't follow that. Senator.
Senator McNamara. I realize they didn't follow it, but still, they
were bouncing around in his area.
Mr. PiTZELE. Did he know about them ?
Mr. Kennedy. No.
Mr. PiTZEi,E. I didn't think so.
Senator McNamara. What is that ?
Mr. PiTZEEE. My recollection of his testimony is that he didn't even
know about them.
Senator McNamara. Did a^ou know about them ?
Mr. PiTZELE. Certainly not.
Senator McNamara. You didn't know about the bouncing charters
in New York?
6414 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. PiTZELE. When newspaper stores be<T:an to appear
Senator McNamara. Wliicli was lonij before we started.
]Mr. PiTZELE. Rjoht. But the charters were already issued then.
The chartv^rs coiddn't bounce, Senator, before they were issued. Your
criticism of Plickey is about the issuin<r of the charters, as I under-
stand it.
Senator McNamara. Xo. About not controlling them. His job as
international representative was to control the charters in New York.
Mr. PiTZELE. Well, Senator McXaniara, I think that Hickey was —
and would tell the committee — was ineffectual in this situation to do
anythino- witli the combine of the national office of l^eck on the one
hand and Hoii'a and Dio on the other. You might say he might have
resigned. But sometimes, I^Ir. Chairman — wait a moment, Sena-
tor— may I just observe this, as long as we are talking rather
philosophically ?
Sometimes a man makes a very hard choice, that if he stays in a
situation, he may still be able to influence it for good, even though
that situation is deteriorating. I am not imputing this, necessarily,
to Tom Hickey. But knowing this man, T would say tliat maybe this
is a consideration which atfected him. He has given liis whole life
to the teamsters union. As long as there is an opportunity in there
to do something to improve it, I don't think that he would resign from
the lists and retire.
Senator McNamara. Don't you think you would if you had been in
his place?
Mr. PiTZELE. I don't know that T would. I would have fought with
every weapon at my command the Hotfas and the Dios and tlie Becks
in this situation, on the theory that I perhaps could have been more
effective staying in and fighting, as these people who are fighting
Hoffa's election now. They have not resigned. Their whole case that
they can make before the courts is that they are members in good
standing of th- teamsters union, and that their rights have been
trampled on. If those people had resigned, the basis for that action,
it seems to me. would not have existed.
Senator McNamara. The only thing wrong with that position is
that he apparently didn't do this fighting, because these charters
continued.
Mr. PiTZELE. All we can say. Senator, is that he was not successful.
Neither you nor I know fully what he did to oppose these people.
Senator McNamara. Well, when he appeared before this committee
as an international representative, and we asked him wdiere a certain
charter was, and he said "I don't know," I don't think he is taking
that much interest.
Mr. PiTZELE. Tom Plickey is an orphan in the teamsters union.
That title international representative as far as it attaches to Tom
Hickey, is a fiction, a meaningless fiction.
Senator McNamara. ^Y[\o did he support in the election at the last
convention in Miami ? Do you know ?
Mr. PiTZELE. I do not recall. I think he su]>ported the opposition to
Hoffa. He tried to mobilize support for an alternative to Hoff'a. He
\yas the first fellow in the union to stick his neck out on that. His
life in New York has been made miserable within the teamsters union
on account of it, and his wliole job and his whole career and his whole
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 6415
profession liangs in the balance because of his courage in fighting
the thing.
Senator McNamaea. You indicated that you thought the predic-
tion that "Beck would make a mark in the world," I suppose that is
the labor world, was an understatement. Would you say he made a
scar, rather than a mark ?
Mr, PiTZELE. I certainly would. I certainly would say that.
Senator McNamara. That is all.
Senator Ives. We will proceed.
Mr. Kennedy. I take it that you were an admirer and had been
an admirer of Tom Hickey for sometime?
Mr. PiTZELE. I am an admirer of a man who has honesty and in-
tegrity and who is willing to face some kind of scorn as apparently,
Senator McNamara scorns him for staying in and fighting what he
believes to be the good fight.
Mr. Kennedy. In 1953, when this fight was going on regarding the
ILA and the support for Mr. Hickey against the corruption in the
ILA was withdrawn by Dave Beck, what was your position at that
time?
Mr. PiTZELE. The support for the fight against the ILA was not
withdrawn until 1955.
Mr. Kennedy. Oh, no. Wlien Mr. Beck came out originally for a
cleanup of the ILA, then there was a dispute between Mr. John
O'Eourke and Mr. Tom Hickey in 1953.
Mr. PiTZELE. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. In which Mr. Beck gave only outward support to
Mr. Hickey but gave actual support to John O'Rourke.
Now, Mr. Hickey was complaining about that from 1953 on, and
I am just wondering whether that did not arouse some suspicion in
your mind regarding Mr. Beck.
Mr. PiTZELE. On these events, if that was Mr. Hickey's testimony,
I must disagree. In 1953 Mr. Beck's support insofar as I could see
it, I again was in a position to see it rather clearly, was very strong
support for Hickey as against O'Rourke, and I will relate an incident
if you would like me to.
Mr. Kennedy. I am talking now about the end of 1953. Do you say
that Mr. Beck did not turn his support to John O'Rourke over Mr.
Hickey at that time?
Mr. PiTZELE. On the waterfront ?
Mr. Kennedy. Yes.
Mr. PiTZELE. Not to any knowledge that I have, Mr. Kennedy.
Mr. Kennedy. I thought it was really not something that came out
before this committee, but it Avas common knowledge in 1953 that Mr.
Beck had withdrawn his support of Mr. Hickey in the fight on the
ILA.
Mr. PiTZELE. Mr. Kennedy, sometimes common knowledge is wrong.
Mr. Kennedy. The facts have been established since that time,
that that was true and that is my point.
Mr. PiTZELE. I must say that I dissent and I disagree.
Mr. Kennedy. What about when the Hoffman committee began its
investigation in 1953, of Mr. Hoffa and some of the other people out
in the Midwest and Mr. Beck did not take any action at that time?
Mr. PiTZELE. Beck represented to me that he was in the process of
taking action. This, in part, is where he turned to me for advice. One
6416 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD
of the things that I advised Beck to do and he encouraged me to work
out the details for him, was to establish at least a plan, a plan for
the establishment of a national commission made up of people whose
eminence, integrity, and qualifications were beyond any dispute.
It was the leading lawyers, for example, and what was planned was
that this commission would be given special authority. There would
be an amendment to the teamsters constitution. This commission
would be given special authority and full power to deal with any
charge of corruption against anybody in the teamsters union.
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Pitzele, I am talking now about 1058. I under-
stand that you stated that you made this proposel, but that was the
last proposal that you made.
Mr, Pitzele. Oh, no; it wasn't. What was the last proposal — and
this was not the last proposal, but this discussion of this went over a
course of a period of time — what helped to end and disenchant me
completely was tlie fact that nothing Avas done about this proposal and
that Hoifa obviously was rising to a position where he was more
powerful.
Mr, Kennedy, The Hoffman hearings were back in 1953, and you
were taking some of your money in 1955, which was 14 or 15 or 16
months later.
Mr. Pitzele. I tried to describe at the outset what kind of union
the teamsters was, where there were these virtually autonomous seg-
ments of it. Everyone was aware that there was in this union elements
whicli were unsavory and corrupt. Hoffa represented such an element.
Mr. Kennedy. Then there was the Archer Midland case, involving
Vice President Brennan, in 1954. You remained on the payroll well
after that case was made public and Mr. Connelley's machinations in
1953 and 1954. All of those things were going on during this period
of time, and you continued to receive money well after that.
Mr. Pitzele. That is right. My function, and my conviction was
that Beck was — and they may seem, in this point in history, in view
of all of this hindsight, to be very naive — but my belief was, up until
1955, that there was still hope in the situation' that Beck would do
something to clean it up.
Mr. Kennedy. Now, you spoke of Mr. Shefferman as a sort of a
chancellor of the exchequer. Did you find in your relationship, when
you saw Mr. Beck and Mr, Shefferman, that Mr. Shefferman was
paying Mr. Beck's bills ?
Mr. Pitzele. On these occasions I have described, Shefferman
would always pick up the tab. On those occasions when I viewed
these gentlemen together, Mr. Shefferman was involved in making
travel plans for Mr. Beck, and talking wdth the airlines and getting
liis accommodations and making hotel reservations for him over the
telephone aand checking with him on his schedule. I never saw Beck
pay for anything.
Mr. Kennedy. Here you were, working with these two men, and
you were receiving your money
Mr. Pitzele. Wait a second.
Mr. Kennedy. Wait until I finish— from the teamsters, through
Mr. Shefferman, and Mr. Shefferman was a representative of Sears,
Eoebuck, of a large number of employers, and he was paying all of
the bills of Mr. Beck durhig this period of time. Didn't that raise
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 6417
any question about Mr. Beck's honesty and integrity there ? You were
right on the scene.
Mr. PiTZELE. I was concerned up until I found that there was noth-
ing left to be concerned with, with Mr. Beck's good intentions. Shef-
f erman I will describe for you, if you want.
Mr. Kennedy. I do not think it is answering the question, Mr.
Pitzele.
Mr. Pitzele. Will you repeat the question ?
Mr. Kennedy. These things were going on not only for Mr. Hoffa.
Mr. Pitzele. Was I disturbed by them, you mean ?
Mr. Kennedy. And also Mr. Beck himself, for a period — this is not
just for a year or a couple of months; this is a period of 3 years that
you were receiving this money.
Mr. Pitzele. All right. Beck's phrase — and Shefferman repeated
it often enough — was that he was giving these characters enough rope
to hang themselves.
Mr. Kennedy. He was giving himself enough rope, too, because he
was the one who was having Mr. Shefferman pay the bills.
Mr. Pitzele. You are so right, Mr. Kennedy.
Mr. Kennedy. I don't understand you. With the background that
you have had in labor, working with this man and working with the
head of the biggest labor union in the country, and working with a
representative of employers, and you saw all of these things going
on, this representative of the employer paying all of Mr. Beck's bills,
and yet you continued in this arrangement for a period of 3 years.
I don't understand your explanation, if you have any explanation.
Mr. Pitzele. Well, my explanation is that both Mr. Beck, as the
record has subsequently proved so fulsomely, both Mr. Beck and Mr.
Shefferman were somewhat peculiar gentlemen.
A relationship there and the way Mr. Shefferman picked up all of the
tabs, in another situation and with another union man, let us say, would
be a remarkable or incredible thing. But this is just the way it was.
It was a situation in which I was prepared to do what I could, to work
in the situation for what I thought to be good ends.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you see anything improper in the relationship
between Mr. Beck and Mr. Shefferman ?
Mr. Pitzele. Well, I saw what I have described as this peculiar
thing. What lay behind this, and whatever Beck meant to Shefferman
in terms of Shefterman's clients and so on, I saw none of. The pro-
priety of one man picking up the tab for another man did not loom to
me as a large and improper thing.
Mr. Kennedy. This is not just one man picking up the tab for an-
other man. This is Nathan Shefferman, the representative of Sears,
Roebuck, and some 300 clients, picking up the tab of the head of the
largest labor union in the country. Did you see anything improper in
that?
Mr. Pitzele. If — now wait a minute
Mr. Kennedy. Will you go ahead ?
Mr. Pitzele. If, in return for picking up the tab, Shefferman got
more than his money back when Beck at the end of the month paid his
bills, then, certainly, it would be improper. But I had no reason to
believe that there was anything more than that involved.
6418 IMPROPER ACTWITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. Kennedy. You were seeing this, Mr. Pitzele, going on over and
over again, according to your own testimony. Every time you saw
them together, Mr. Shefferman paid the bill
Now, didn't you see anything improper in this sort of practice con-
tinuing for a long period of time over and over and oyer again ?
Mr. Pitzele. Mr. Kennedy, I saw such peculiar things by 1955 that
E wanted out.
Mr. Kennedy. I am talking about this in 1953 and 1954, and you
were receiving and getting your money in 1955. You got paid in 1955
and you worked in 1955. Could you answer the question, whether you
saw anything improper in Mr. Beck himself ?
Mr. Pitzele. In Shefferman paying for lunch ?
Mr. Kennedy. Over and over and over again ?
Mr. Pitzele. Wait a second ; there were not so many occasions, Mr.
Kennedy.
Mr. Kennedy. Every time you saw them together; let us put it that
way.
Mr. Pitzele. There were maybe 3 or 4 such occasions. I must con-
fess that I did not see anything improper in Shefferman paying the
checks.
Mr. Kennedy. That answers the question. Did you see Mr. Beck
very often during this period of time, this 3-year period ?
Mr. Pitzele. Early, during the waterfront phase, you might say,
of these years, I saw Mr. Beck frequently. I don't know whether I saw
him every time he was in New York, but I would see him at least once
a month.
Mr. Kennedy. What about 1954 ; how often ?
Mr. Pitzele. 1954, much less ; 1955, so far as I recall, not at all.
Mr. Kennedy. You did not see him at all in 1955 ?
Mr. Pitzele. This is my recollection.
Mr. Kennedy. What did you receive the $5,000 for in 1955 ?
Mr. Pitzele. For transmitting to Beck, either by phone early in
1955, 1 could still reach the man, or through Kaplan or through Sheffer-
man, the kind of advice which I thought was useful and the best advice
I could provide.
Mr. Kennedy. Let me ask you this: Were you on the New York
State Mediation Board during this period of time ?
Mr. Pitzele. I was, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. What was your position on that ?
Mr. Pitzele. I was a member of the board and subsequently chair-
man of the NeAv York State Board of Mediation.
Mr. Kennedy. When were you a member of the board ?
Mr. Pitzele. I became a member of the board in 1945 or 1946.
Mr. Kennedy. When did you become chairman of the board ?
Mr. Pitzele. In 1950 or 1951, before these events you are here
concerned with.
Mr. Kennedy. Were you chairman of the board during the period
of time you were receiving the $15,000 ?
Mr. Pitzele. I was.
Mr. Kennedy. 1953 and 1954 and 1955 ?
Mr. Pitzele. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. You were chairman of the board ?
Mr. Pitzele. Yes, sir.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 6419
Mr. Kennedy. Did that board have any matters dealing with the
teamsters ?
Mr. PiTZELE. May I describe the operations of the board ?
Mr. Kennedy. If you could answer the question and then describe
it, that would be fine.
Mr. PiTZELE. Yes. The New York State Board of Mediation has a
civil-service staff who are concerned, or a staff which is concerned pri-
marily with mediation of labor disputes. I say "primarily" because
in addition to that, the State of New York provides free arbitration ;
and parties who do not want to avail themselves of other institutions
which provide arbitration will, in the State of New York, use the
board.
The New York State Board of Mediation has seven members. It is
a per diem, part-time function for the members, including the Chair.
The chairman has no authority in statute or regulation which dis-
tinguishes him from the other six members of the board.
None of the members of the board make their living by being mem-
bers of the mediation board. They are made up of people who pre-
sumably have some special expertness, some special expertness and
relationships in the field of labor and management.
Theory is that a lawyer who has, let us say, employer clients can
be very useful in mediating a dispute by working with the employer
in that dispute and so, on the board there are people like myself — and
I am no longer a member of the board, by the way — people who like
myself are professional people in this field, who are employed as
lawyers, as counselors and so on, employers, industries, unions, and
so on.
Each of the members of the board usually leave the mediation to the
staff. The members of the board function primarily as arbitrators, for
which the State of New York compensates them or did then, at the fee
of $25 a day.
During this period, although in New York the teamsters have their
own authority, there is set up in New York under Mr. Hugh Sheri-
dan, a special umpireship so that disputes which arise with the team-
sters union are referred to this special tribunal which they themselves
and jointly with the employers have established.
But without recalling any specific cases, I would say that very
likely, if not indeed certainly, over these years some cases that the
staff' of the board was concerned with involved teamsters unions.
The members of the board have no authority. The individual civil-
service person or board member is assigned to, or takes the case and
works with it from the beginning to the end and uses for purposes
of trying to achieve a settlement of the dispute, whatever contacts
and resources he has open and available to him.
Mr. Kennedy. Now, a few more questions: The editor of the
magazine
Senator Ives. Just a minute. Before going on to that, I want to
clear this thing up about the mediation board. I know something
about Mr. Pitzele.
Mr. PiTZELE. You do, indeed.
Senator Ives. In the first place, I want to read into the record sec-
tion 754 of the New York State labor law, which has to do with the
disqualification of members of the board. Insofar as I am aware
regardless of the good or bad taste involved or the propriety involved,
6420 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD
you committed no violation of the law, and so I am reading this
particular section into the record. It is headed, "Section 754: Dis-
qualification" :
No meuiber or officer of the board having any financial or other interest in
a trade, l)nsiness, industry, or occupation in which a labor dispute exists or
is threatened and of which the board has taken cognizance, shall be qualified
to participate in any way in the acts or efforts of the board in connection with
the settlement or avoidance thereof.
That is the end of the quotation. I think that was the law when
you were on the State mediation board. Now, the question I want
to raise is this : Did you have the approval of Governor Dewey when
you took this work up with the teamsters ?
Mr. PiTZELE. You mean when I entered into this arrangement with
Mr. Beck, did I have his approval ?
Senator Ives. Yes.
Mr. PiTZELE. He was unaware of it, sir.
Senator Ives. That is all I want to know. I want to make sure that
he knew nothing about it.
Mr. PiTZELE. May I add that the Governor — and this applies to
Governor Harriman, too. Senator, because the chairman serves at
the pleasure of the Governor and after Governor Harriman came in
I continued and he did not replace me as chairman for a period of
6 months or a year. I did not take up with either of these two
governors under whom I served, the work I did as a private individual.
Senator Ives. I have pointed out that you were not violating the law
and I read the law into the record for tliat purpose. The question of
propriety is something else. I wanted to find out if the Governor
knew you were acting in this capacity. Thank you very much.
Mr. Kennedy. Was the editor of your magazine aware of the fact
that you were receiving this money from the teamsters ?
Mr. PiTZELE. No, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. ?Jr. Chairman, could I ask Mr. Salinger to put in the
figures of what we found out from an examination of the accounts?
The Chairman. Just one moment. I woukl like to get one thing
clear. During the time you served on the board and during the time
you were drawing this salary from Labor Eelations Associates, were
there any matters involved before the board or any matters pending
before the board in which the teamsters union was interested ?
Mr. PiTZELE. In which the teamsters union was interested ?
The Chairman. Where it figured, where it was interested in the out-
come of the decision of the board.
Mr. PiTZELE. Sir, there is no decision by the board. I just want to
make that clear and I will answer the question.
The Chairman. I will withdraw the word "decision" and where it
was interested in whatever function the board performed.
Mr. PiTZELE. My answer is, although I cannot recall any, there must
have been some, so my answer would be "yes."
The Chairman. In other words, there were cases where the board
was undertaking to dis])ose of or hinidle matters, or vork in connection
with matters in which the teamsters union was involved ?
Mr. PiTZELE. Where staff or individual members of the board might
have been involved.
The Chairman. Now, wait a minute.
Mr. PiTZELE. I am sorry.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 6421
The Chairman. What I am trying to get, and I do not know just
how tliis board functioned, is this : Would the teamsters union at any-
time during tlie 3 years you served on the board and drew this salary — •
you served longer than that — during the time you drew this salary,
was there anything before the board in which the teamsters had an
interest, a direct interest as the teamsters union, in a controversy or
anything to be mediated in which they were interested or involved?
Mr. PiTZELE. I would answer that, sir, "yes."
Senator Ives. May I raise a point there ?
Did you, Mr. Pitzele, at any time, when the teamsters were involved
in anytliing before the board, participate as a member of the board ?
Mr. Pitzele. Thank you for that question, Senator.
Senator Ives. I think that is important. If you did not participate,
you violated no law. If you did, I am not so sure.
Mr. Pitzele. The answer is an emphatic "no," sir.
Senator Ives. Thank you.
Senator McNamara. "As I understand it, you were hired by Mr.
Shefferman as a consultant?
Mr. Pitzele. No, sir; I was not hired by Mr. Shefferman as a con-
sultant.
Senator McNamara. "Who hired you ?
Mr. Pitzele. I was hired by Mr. Beck. I am very anxious to make
that clear, sir. If there is any question in your mind, let's go into it
in detail.
Senator McNamara. I think it is important. I think we ought to
go into it in some detail.
Mr. Pitzele. I think it is important, too. I did nothing for Nathan
Shefferman or Labor Relations Associates. But let me say this, sir,
if we explore this in full detail, it is not because Mr. Shefferman did
not ask me to. Frequently, after these meetings with Beck, when
Shefferman and I would go down in the elevator together, or some-
thing of the sort, he would give me little snippets of information as
to what he was doing. He was involved in a situation, which this
committee has had an interest in, in Port Arthur, Tex., and he would
tell me about how effective he — he never said his organization — he has
been in this, and would suggest to me that perhaps I could refer clients
to him. So, as I say, my lack of business relations in Shefferman's
business is not because Shefferman would not like to liave had me be
helpful to him. I referred nobody, recommended him to nobody.
Again, not because at that point I thought he was a crook, a scoun-
drel, or an evil man, but I knew nothing about his business. "Wlien
people asked me, as they sometimes do, they had some problem and
they want some advice, some consultant, I would refer them to one of
the better known firms that do consulting in this field, or a lawyer of
probity and quality.
Senator McNamara. You weren't hired by Shefferman. Who were
you hired by ?
Mr. Pitzele. Beck.
Senator McNamara. You were hired by Beck and paid by Sheffer-
man ?
Mr. Pitzele. Yes, sir.
Senator McNamara. Who did you send your reports to or your
recommendations? Whatever vou call thein.
6422 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. PiTZELE. Beck. And wlien Beck was not available, through
whatever channels were open to me.
Senator McNamara. You considered yourself an employee of Beck
and not an employee of Shefferman ?
Mr. PiTZELE. Absolutely, sir.
Senator McNamara. You got a payroll check, I suppose, from
Shefferman ?
Mr. PiTZELE. I got three checks, so far as I recall — Mr. Salinger
can check this — over this 3-year period from Labor Relations As-
sociates which were signed, I think, by Shelton Shefferman.
Senator McNamara. It is an unusual situation, to say the least.
Mr. PiTZELE. It certainly is.
Senator McNamara. You were hired by one and paid by another.
It is a little hard to understand.
Mr. PiTZELE. As you understand, this is an unusual union and these
are unusual people.
Senator McNamara. Not only an unusual union, but you had an
unusual employer.
Mr. PiTZELE. I had an unusual employer, yes, I did indeed.
Senator Ives. I would like to clear up one thing.
Mr. Pitzele, while I pointed out what appears to me to be very
clear, and that is in what you did you violated no law, at the same
time I am not passing judgment on the propriety of what you did. I
cannot approve of that at all. You and I know each other pretty
well, and I am a little surprised.
Mr. PiTZELE. You are surprised that I tliouglit tliat I could be
useful in this situation, and to make some contribution to cleaning
up the teamsters ?
Senator Ives. No. You know my action and activity in the field
of labor relations. It has always been my effort to try and get labor
and management together.
Mr. PiTZELE. Right.
Senator I\t.s. Not by collusion of a dubious manner. I don't
think yours was either. I am not saying that. But I am surprised
that you didn't clear this with the Governor before taking it on.
Mr. PiTZELE. Well, Senator, let me be very candid with you and
tell you that it never even occurred to me. I say I will be very can-
did with you and tell you that there was no decision in my mind — yes
or no— to clear it, that it never even occurred to me. I say, as a private
individual, the Governor has enough
Senator I\tes. You were an appointee of the Governor ?
Mr. PiTZELE. Yes, sir.
Senator I\^s. Responsible to the Governor ?
Mr. PiTZELE. Yes.
Senator Ives. You were chairman of the State mediation board?
Mr. PiTZELE. Yes.
Senator Ta-es. It seems to me that on a thing like this you would
want to talk to him about it before you did it. I know I would have
if I had been in 3^our place.
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Pitzele, it never occurred to you also that there
was anything improper in Mr. Shefferman paying Mr. Beck's bills,
is that right? These things never occurred to you, that there was
anything wrong or improper?
Mr. PiTZELE. In paying his lunch bills ?
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 6423
Mr. Kennedy. These other bills. As you described him, acting
sort of as an exchequer for him.
Mr. PiTZELE. Toward me ?
Mr. Kennedy. No. For Mr. Beck.
Mr. Pitzele. No, no, no. The onl}^ time I saw him was making
travel arrangements and hotel accommodations for Beck.
Mr. Kennedy. Didn't you understand that he was going to ar-
range to get the architect on the building, and that he was going to
make all of those arrangements ?
Mr. Pitzele. Subsequently that he took care — that is a very am-
biguous phrase — of the professional services which Beck and pre-
sumably the teamsters needed, that he was going to hire the archi-
tect for the new building, the interior decorator. Whether he hired
doctors and medical help and so on for Beck, I don't Iniow. But it
occurred to me as being strange, very strange.
Mr. Kennedy. And you in your personal experiences instead of
being paid outright by the teamsters, you were paid by Mr. Sheffer-
man for a period of 3 years ?
Mr. Pitzele. That is right. Very strange.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you have any similar financial arrangements
with any other labor organizations ?
Mr. Pitzele. No, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you have any financial arrangements with any
labor organizations?
Mr. Pitzele. No, sir.
By any financial arrangement, do you mean this kind of advisory
relationship ?
Mr. Kennedy. No. Were you receiving any money from any other
labor organization ?
Mr. Pitzele. During this period — I can't fix the date. Mr. Sa-
linger did not go in to this with me, as I recall, so I have no reason
to fix the date. The only thing I ever did for wdiich I was compen-
sated was to write a booklet, a history of a union on its 21st anni-
versary, which they distributed to their members and to the public at
large, and the employers in the industry. For this I received com-
pensation.
Mr. Kennedy. Wliat union was that ?
Mr. Pitzele. Local 32-B of the building service employees.
Mr. Kennedy. In New York City ?
Mr. Pitzele. Why do you wince, Mr. Kennedy? Yes, in New
York City.
Mr. Kennedy. "Wlien was that ?
Mr. Pitzele. I don't know exactly, but I would say it is in the
period 1952 to 1955.
Mr. Kennedy. How much money did you receive for that ?
Mr. Pitzele. I received $2,000, but it wasn't all for me, because I
arranged for the artwork — in other words, I had an artist do illus-
trations for it, there was some research attendant to it. My owm net
compensation — I would have to check back on my income tax re-
turns— my own net compensation, I think, was about $1,000.
Mr. Kennedy. And did the Governor at that time, or the editor
of your newspaper or magazine, know about that arrangement ?
Mr. Pitzele. No, sir.
6424 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. Kennedy. That is the only other one other than the teamsters ?
Mr. PiTZELE. Yes, sir.
Senator Ives. Mr. Chairman, I think we ought to point out at this
stage in this hearing that Mr. Pitzele's position on the board of medi-
ation in the State of New York, was only part-time employment. It
was not full employment. It was on a per diem basis, and I dare say
that months went by and he had nothing to do.
Mr. PiTZELE. Exactly, sir.
Senator Ives. In other words, if you liadn't had these other things
bringing you in remuneration you wouldn't have been able to be on
the board of mediation ?
Mr. PiTZELE. Exactly, sir.
Senator Ives. How much did you make a year on the board of
mediation ? Not much of anything, did you ?
Mr. PiTZELE. Well, again, I would have to check back.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you receive $50 a day ?
Mr. PiTZELE. I don't know what it is now.
Senator Ives. It was $25 and it is now $40. I think in 1955 it was
raised to $40.
Mr. PiTZELE. I would say hurray for the people who raised it.
Senator Ives. We had a change in administration in 1955, you will
remember, and it went up.
Mr. PiTZELE. Yes. Thanks for recalling it.
Mr. Kennedy. Can Mr. Salinger put these figures in ?
Tlie Chairman. Mr. Salinger has been previously sworn.
Mr. Salinger, where did you get the information you are now
supplying?
Mr. Salinger. These figures are taken from the books of the Labor
Relations Associates in Chicago, provided to us in Chicago by Mr.
Shetferman.
The Chairman. These are Sheff erman's records ?
Mr. Salinger. That is right, sir.
The Chair]V[an. All right.
Mr. Salinger. First of all, tliei-e is a special account set up in the
books known as special services. During the year 1953, that account
shows 2 payments to Merlyn S. Pitzele, 1 on September 25, 1953, in
the amount of $2,500, with a notation "Writer," and another on No-
vember 4, 1953, another $2,500, with the notation "Writer," a total of
$5,000 for the year 1953.
In the year of 1954, on March 22, 1954, one check to Mr. Pitzele in
the amount of $5,000. All of this is in the account of special services.
In the year 1955, 2 checks, 1 on March 7, 1955, in the amount of
$2,500, and another, March 18, 1955, in the amount of $2;500, a total
of $5,000 in the year 1955, and a total of $15,000 for the 3 years.
An examination of the cash receipts book of Labor Relations Asso-
ciates reflects the receipt of retainer fees from the teamsters as follows :
September 25, 1953, $5,000; February 26, 1954, $5,000; March 11,
1955, $6,000.
In other words, our examinations of these books lead us to the
conclusion that the teamsters paid Mr. Shefferman $1,000 more than
he paid Mr. Pitzele.
Mr. Pitzele. This is very interesting. This was the question I had,
Mr. Salinger, as to what was Shefferman getting out of this.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 6425
The Chairman. Is there anything further ?
The committ_ee will stand in recess until 10 : 30 Monday morning.
(The following committee members were present at time of recess:
Senators McClellan, Ives, Goldwater, and McNamara.)
(Whereupon, at 12:03 p. m., the committee was recessed, to recon-
vene at 10 : 30 a. m. Monday, November 4, 1957.)
89330— 57— pt. 16 13
INVESTIGATION OF DIPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE
LABOR OR MANAGEMENT FIELD
MONDAY, NOVEMBEB 4, 1957
United States Senate,
Select Committee on Improper Activities
IN the Labor or ^Manage^ient Field,
Washington^ D. C.
Tlie select committee met at 10 : 30 a. m., pursuant to Senate Resolu-
tion 74, agreed to January 30, 1957, in the caucus room, Senate Office
Building, Senator Jolm L. McClellan (chairman of the select com-
mittee) presiding.
Present : Senator John L, McClellan, Democrat, Arkansas ; Senator
Karl E. Mundt, Republican, South Dakota.
Also present: Robert F. Kennedy, chief counsel; P. Kenneth
O'Donnell, assistant counsel ; Irwin Langenbacher, assistant counsel ;
Pierre Salinger, investigator; Walter Sheridan, investigator; Ruth
Young Watt, chief clerk.
The Chairman. The committee will be in order.
(Members of the select conmiittee present at the convening of the
session: Senators McClellan and Mmidt.)
The Chairman. As the Chair announced last week, there had been
a witness who we hachi't been able to serve with a subpena, and finally
we found liim and served him with a subpena to appear forthwith.
His testimony is not desired in connection with this particular series
of hearings, but was desired in the previous hearings we held. His
name is Ziggw Snyder. I announced that I expected him here today
as he did not appear last Friday, and he did not respond to the call
of the Chair at that time.
Is Mr. Snyder present ^ Is Mr. Ziggy Snyder present ?
Ziggy Snyder? Ziggy Snyder?
I believe that is the way they do it in court. I have called him
three times. Let the record show that he does not respond. Tliis
matter will receive the further attention of the committee in due
course.
The next witness is Mr. Donald Skaff. Will you come aromid,
please ?
Mr. Skaff, do you 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. Skaff. Yes, sir.
TESTIMONY OF DONALD SKAFF
The Chairman, Mr. Skaff, state your name, your place of residence,
and your business or occupation, please.
6427
6428 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. Skaff. My name is Donald Skaff. I live at 3633 Sherwood in
Flint, Mich., and I am the secretary of the Skaff Rug Co.
The Chairman. Thank you very much. How long have you been
secretary of that company ?
Mr. Skaff. Since 1950.
The Chairman. Do you waive counsel ?
Mr. Skaff. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. All right, Mr. Kennedy, proceed.
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, this morning, and for an hour or so
this afternoon at least, we wall have a number of small-business men
who had some contacts with Labor Relations Associates and specifi-
cally with Mr. George Kamenow, who is the representative of Labor
Relations Associates in Detroit, Mich., and Mr. Donald Skaff is the
first of a group of witnesses.
Mr. Skaff, how many employees does your company have ?
Mr. Skaff. Approximately 45.
Mr. Kennedy. Now, was there an effort to organize those employees
in 1956?
Mr. Skaff. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. When did that start ?
Mr. Skaff. It started in February of 1956.
Mr. Kennedy. By what union ?
Mr. Skaff. Tlie Teamsters Union, Local 332, in Flint.
Mr. Kennedy. Could you tell us how the organizational drive by
the teamsters originated ?
Mr. Skaff. Yes ; I have a few notes here in reference to it.
The overriding theme in the entire incident is that we were pre-
pared to have a vote of the employees involved from the very first day
that we were approached by the teamsters. They were unwilling to
have a vote. They wanted to organize from the top, and have us sign,
and not have a vote of the employees.
The Chairman. Who wanted you to do that ?
Mr. Skaff. The teamster business agent, Mr. Frank Kierdorf .
The Chairman. He wanted you to sign without having a vote of
the employees ?
Mr. Skaff. That is correct.
The Chairman. All right.
Mr. Skaff. So on February 22, of 1956, they started picketing our
store.
Mr. Kennedy. Was that the first time you had heard from them, or
had you heard originally
Mr. Skaff. No, we talked and their demanding recognition and
our refusing recognition, all during the month of February. On
February 22 the picketing started.
Senator Mundt. Prior to that time had you told the business man-
ager you were willing to have a vote ?
Mr. Skaff. Many, many times we expressed our desire to have a
vote.
Senator Mundt. Prior to the tim,e of the picketing ?
Mr. Skaff. Prior to the time of the picketing. In fact, from the
first moment that he indicated he wanted recognition.
Senator Mundt. What would his reaction be when you told him
that?
Mr. Skaff. He said, "We will not consent to a vote."
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 6429
Senator Mundt. In other words, he didn't want to have a vote. You
wanted to have a vote to determine whether they were to be the bar-
gaining agent, and because you refused to push them into it from the
employer's standpoint, tliey began the picketing operation ?
Mr, Skaff. That is correct.
All during the month of March, during the picketing, we had many,
many incidents of employees being threatened, their families being
threatened, and at least a dozen instances of our carpetlayers being
run off the road and told that they would be hurt if they continued
with the job.
The Chairman. What was that ?
Mr. Skaff. They would be hurt if they continued with the job. All
during this month of March we had constant meetings Avith the busi-
ness agent of the teamsters, expressing our desire to have a vote and
our willingness to abide by the vote. They would not consent. Ap-
proximately on March 20 there were two stinkbombs thrown through
the front window of my mother's home in an effort to make us succumb
to their demands, at a cost of about $1,500, and several months of
misery.
On March 28 or thereabouts, the front window of our store was
broken, and a fire was started in the store of unknown origin. On
April 1 we requested and got a meeting with the Michigan State
Mediation Board, and our sole request at the meeting with the media-
tion board was a vote of the members, and the union refused. After
about 20 minutes, the mediation board recommended that we join the
union, since it was simply a case of who is the strongest.
The Chairman. Since what?
Mr. Skaff. He said it was simply a case of who was the strongest,
the staff of our company and the teamsters, and he recommended we
sign recognition papers.
The Chairman. Who made that recommendation ?
Mr. Skaff. I don't know the man's name, but he is a Michigan State
Mediation Board member.
The Chairman. A member of the board ?
Mr. Skaff. That is right.
The Chairman. Did they have signed cards from a majority of the
employees ?
Mr. Skaff. They were never displayed.
The Chairman. Did they claim to have ?
Mr. Skaff. Yes ; they claimed to have signed cards from a majority
of the unit involved.
The Chairman. Wliat unit was that ?
Mr. Skaff. The unit of carpet installers only.
The Chairman. I beg your pardon ?
Mr. Skaff. Carpet installers. The unit of our employees who in-
stall carpet are the only ones that they were concerned with.
The Chairman. They claimed to have a majority of them signed as
favoring joining the union ?
Mr. Skaff. Yes, sir ; which I don't believe.
The Chairman. They never did produce the cards to you ?
Mr. Skaff. Never produced them.
The Chairman. Did they produce them to the Mediation Board of
Michigan ?
Mr. Skaff. Xo, sir.
6430 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD
The Chairman. How many employees did you have in that unit?
Mr. Skaff. Approximately 18.
The Chairman. Approximately 18 ?
Mr. Skaff. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. Wliat information did you have from your em-
ployees, if any, regarding their attitude ?
Mr. Skaff. No definite information.
The Chairman. You had no definite inf omiation ?
Mr. Skaff. No.
The Chairman. So, it was just a claim that they had signed up a
majority of them ?
Mr. Skaff. Yes.
The Chairman. Without the claim being substantiated ?
Mr. Skaff. That is correct.
Senator Mundt. Let me ask you about your mediation board.
Wouldn't the board have the power to order an election ?
Mr. Skaff. No, sir; not in Michigan.
Senator Mundt. They would not ?
Mr. Skaff. Both parties have to agree to an election in Michigan.
The union and the company have to agree. We were too small a com-
pany to demand NLRB, and we could not get the NLRB because of
our size. We had to resort to mediation board, and Michigan law
is that both parties have to agree to a vote.
Senator Mundt. You are operating in a twilight zone, then, beyond
the purview of the Federal Board and in a State where the State
board doesn't have the power to order an election unless both parties
agree.
Mr. Skaff. That is correct,.
Senator Mundt. Do you think that there is some inadequacy in the
law, either at the State level or the Federal level, to meet the needs
of a small-business man like you in that connection ?
Mr. Skaff. We are just small-business people, unacquainted with
the politics of labor.
Senator Mundt. Other small-business men have told me in recent
conferences I have had that they feel that they are orphans in this
labor storm ; that they are too small to come under the authority of
the Federal Board, and the State board either says they don't have
the responsibility, or, in the case of the Michigan board, they don't
have the authority.
The;^ write to me or come to me and say, "What do we do in a case
like this? How do you get out of this kind of a box?" As I under-
stand it, you went voluntarily to the mediation board trying to find
some kind of relief from the goon-squad attacks that had been
launched against your mother, and against your store, and against
your workers ; is that right ?
Mr. Skaff. That is correct. We were the ones that requisitioned
them.
Senator Mundt. And the only answer was to suggest that you
capitulate.
Mr. Skaff. Their only answer, after a very short meeting, was that
it was a test of strength, and the teamsters were considerably stronger
than we were.
The Chairman. What kind of strength is that?
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 6431
Senator Muxdt. I was going to ask you ; what kind of strength was
that?
Mr. Skaff. a matter of their holding our merchandise away from
us, so we could not do business, and our efforts to go and get the
merchandise.
Senator Mundt. Did you ever consult a lawyer? Aren't there any
laws in the State of Michigan against people throwing firebombs
and stinkbonibs, and engaging in physical violence? Did you ever
go to a lawyer or a law-enforcement officer with your problem?
Mr. Skaff. Yes, sir.
Senator Mundt. Wliat happened then ?
Mr. Skaff. Nothing.
Senator Mundt. You mean you didn't go, or you went there and
couldn't find them, or you went there and they said, "Well, this is the
way things go in Michigan, and we can't do anything about it," or
what happened ?
Mr. SivAFF. There were more acts of violence, and we requested
help from the police, who told us they could not get involved in a
labor incident. If we could furnish proof of who started the fire in
our building, or of who threw the stinkbomb in my mother's home,
they would be glad to prosecute them.
Senator Mundt. If a bank is robbed in Michigan, do the police re-
fuse to look for the bank robber unless you can tell them who did it ?
Mr. Skaff. That is not a labor incident, sir.
Senator Mundt. But in labor incidents, they have a different kind
of law?
Mr. Skaff. They have a different outlook, at least.
Senator Mundt. You must identify the goon or the marauder, and
unless you can do that, the police can't get involved.
Mr. Skaff. They refused to, and I talked to the chief of police in
Flint for a matter of 3 hours.
Senator Mundt. Well, I don't know. In conferences I have had,
not with people in Michigan, but with small-business men, they say
that the labor situation, from the standpoint of a small-business man,
leaves him clear out in left field, because, if he is too small, NLRB
doesn't take jurisdiction. Apparently, there are other States and
other areas and other problems where State mediation boards or
labor authorities either lack the power to function or they lack the
capacity or courage to function. A small-business man does have
problems, and I am curious to know what you did to extricate your-
self from this problem.
Mr. Skaff. I will get to that.
Mr. Kennedy. Can you tell the committee what other acts of vio-
lence were committed, and what brought you to have the conference
with the chief of police ?
Mr. Skaff. All right.
Mr. Kennedy. How many were there altogether ? Would you give
a recitation of those facts ?
Mr. Skaff. Well, we are up to April 1, now, where we had a meeting
with the State mediation board. We had picketing all of this time,
and we could not get our merchandise into the store by way of truck
because the teamsters refused to cross the picket line. So we deter-
mined to have it shipped by rail, and have our own men pick it up at
the railroad station, and do our business that way.
6432 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
On April 4 we had 2 men out, 1 by the name of Bill Moore, and he
was standing beside his truck awaiting direction as to where to pick
up his merchandise, and there was a vicious attack by 4 or 5 men who
hit him with a sharp object, as the doctor called it at the hospital, and
knocked him to the ground. Then they spun around the railroad
station attempting to run over him and he rolled under his truck, and
when we took him up to the hospital he had 20 stitches in his head
and a very serious, brutal attack was made on him. Now, this was
April 4. On April 9 we thought that we had enough evidence to go
to the courts and ask for an injunction.
Mr. Kennedy, Was there any identification of the car or the auto-
mobile at that time ?
Mr. Skaff. Yes, sir; the car was recognized by railroad employees,
the license number was taken, and it was a car owned by local 332 of
the teamsters in Flint.
Mr. Kennedy. So did you report that to the police ?
Mr. Skaff. Well, we reported the license number, and they reported
to us that it was owned by them.
Mr. Kennedy. Was anybody arrested ?
Mr. Skaff. No, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Nothing was done ?
Mr. Skaff. Nothing was done.
Senator Mundt. Did the}^ report back to you why nothing was done ?
Mr. Skaff. There was not enough evidence. Our man was struck
from behind, and he could not identify anyone and there seemed to
be a lack of enthusiasm to do anything.
Senator Mundt. Now, in all of this series of picketing incidents,
were any of your own employees involved in the picket line? Were
they the picketers, or were they all picketing together?
Mr. Skaff. There were two of our employees that were picketers.
Senator Mundt. Two picketers ?
Mr. Skaff. Yes, sir.
Senator Mundt. And the rest of them were all outsiders ?
Mr. Skaff. Ten or twelve hired or business agents of the union.
The Chairman. Go ahead.
Mr. Skaff. On April 9 we went into court and got an injunction
against picketing, and against violence. Approximately April 12,
3 days after the injunction against violence, 6 of our trucks were
found with sugar in the gas tanks, and fortunately they were not
driven, and it ended up in what could have been a very expensive
proposition, but ended up with about a $400 cost to us and a loss of a
day's business, in direct violation of the injunction.
Now, late in April we made our first contact with Labor Relations
Associates because about that time we were beginning to think we were
pretty small and we couldn't do much against the teamsters. Labor
Relations Associates recommended that we sign the recognition paper
with the union.
The Chairman, Who was the representative ?
Mr. Skaff. At that time we talked to Mr. Scotty Fawkes.
The Chairman. You got in touch with Labor Relations ?
Mr, Skaff. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. Why?
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 6433
Mr. Skaff. We were told by a friend of mine that they could
possibly help us, that they represented other large firms such as J. L.
Hudson's, and Sears, Roebuck.
The Chairman. All right ; go ahead.
Mr. Skaff. We made our contact with Labor Relations, and they
recommended that we sign a recognition paper with the union, and
we still had a little fight left in us, and so we didn't sign. We went
on for 5 months, fighting with the union and finally we agreed that
we were much too small, and on July 12 we signed recognition papers
without a vote, and without a show of cards, and simply organization
from the top.
The Chairman. During that 5 months, was Labor Relations re-
tained by you?
Mr. Skaff. No, sir.
The Chairman. They were not retained by you when they gave that
advice ?
Mr. Skaff. Yes ; they were not retained, but we called on them, and
we got one bit of advice which we refused.
The Chairman. I know, but were you paying them ?
Mr. Skaff. We paid them for the one interview.
The Chairman. You paid them for the one interview ?
Mr. Skaff. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. When they advised you to go and sign up ?
Mr. Skaff. That is right.
The Chairman. Five months before you did sign up ?
Mr. Skaff. That is 3 months before we signed, and 2 months after
the beginning of the incident.
The Chairman. Two months after what ?
Mr. Skaff. The beginning of the incident, and approximately 3
months before we signed up. The whole incident took 5 months to
consummate.
Mr. Kennedy. So you signed this recognition agreement for the
carpetlayers ; is that correct ?
Mr. Skaff. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. When you just had this one conference with Labor
Relations Associates, did you hear from the union again regarding
any of your other employees ?
Mr. Skaff. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. When was that ?
Mr. Skaff. Three days later, or approximately 3 days later.
Mr. Kennedy. What day, approximately ?
Mr. Skaff. About July 15, 1956. We were informed, and I can't
recall whether it Avas officially or just verbally, that the teamsters
union intended to organize our carpet salesmen, that the demands
would be approximately 2i/^ times the commission rate paid to the
average salesman in the country. This, of course, we couldn't stand.
The Chairman. The demands would be 21^ times the average rate
paid in the country ?
Mr. Skaff. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. That was their demand ?
Mr. Skaff. That is what they indicated their demands would be,
and that is what they said they would be.
Senator Mundt. This was 3 days later than what ?
6434 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. Skaff. Three days following the recognition papers, signing
of the recognition paper for our carpetlayers.
Senator Mundt. Then they came back with another demand, 3
days after that ?
Mr. Skaff. Three days after that, for our carpet salesman, an en-
tirely different unit.
Mr. Kennedy. How many men are in the carpet salesmen's unit?
Mr. Skaff. In the neighborhood of 13 or 14.
Mr. Kennedy. Had there been an election there at any time ?
Mr. Skaff. No, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. TAHiat steps did you take then ?
Mr. Skaff. We contacted Labor Relations Associates, and asked
them to represent us.
Mr. Kennedy. Wlio did you talk to ?
Mr. Skaff. To George Kamenow.
Mr. Kennedy. Did he agree to represent you ?
Mr. Skaff. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Did he tell you at that time or subsequently what
his fee would be ?
Mr. Skaff. Yes; he told us at that time the fee would be $2,000
and approximately $75 or $100 per month.
Mr. Kennedy. $75 or $100 per month, plus $2,000 as a flat sum ?
Mr. Skaff. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Did he tell you at that time or later what that
$2,000 was to be for?
Mr. Skaff. At a later date, on August 12, he came and asked for
the $2,000, and he asked that it be made out in a check to Trans
World Airlines, which we did, and he told us that it was to be used
to take some people on a trip.
Mr. I^NNEDY. Did he indicate who the people were ?
Mr. Skaff. No, sir.
Mr. KJENNEDY. Did he call them "the boys," or say, "I want to take
the boys on a trip" ?
Mr. Skaff. "The people" was what he said.
Mr. Kennedy. Who did you assume he meant when he said he
needed the $2,000 to take some people on a trip ?
Mr. Skaff. I made no attempt to find out.
Senator Mundt. Was the check made out to TWA ?
Mr. Skaff. Trans World Airlines ; that is correct.
Senator Mundt. Was the check subsequently cashed ?
Mr. Skaff. Yes, sir.
Senator Mundt. Did you examine the endorsement? Was it en-
dorsed by TWA, or was that a front ?
Mr. Skaff. I have the check with me. The back of it says, "Iden-
tification known," and that is all it says.
The Chairman. I present to you what purports to be a photostatic
copy of the check, and will you examine it and state if it is?
(The document was handed to the witness.)
Mr. Skaff. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. That is a photostatic copy of the check ?
Mr, Skaff. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. It will be made exhibit No. 44.
(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 44" for refer-
ence and will be found in the appendix on p. 6583.)
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 6435
The Chairman. State to whom it is made payable.
Mr. Skaff. Trans World Airlines.
The Chairman. In what amount ?
Mr. Skaff. $1,998.80.
The Chairman, What is the date of it?
Mr. Skaff. August 15, 1956.
The Chairman. How did you arrive at that odd amount, $1,998.80?
Mr. Skaff. That was the figure submitted by Mr. Kamenow.
The Chairman. Is the assumption to be indulged that they used
that check to purchase airline tickets ?
Mr. Skaff. I wouldn't know.
Senator Mundt. Is there anything in the endorsement of the check
indicating that the money went elsewhere than to TWA ?
Mr. Skaff. Not as far as I know.
Senator Mundt. Is there a TWA endorsement stamp ?
Mr. Skaff. I can't tell, sir.
The Chairman. Do you have the original check also ?
Mr. Skaff. Yes, sir.
Senator Mundt. You have that in your pocket ?
Mr. Skaff. Yes, sir.
(The witness examined the original check.)
Mr. Skaff. It is Trans World Airlines' stamp on it.
Senator Mundt. And nobody else, indicating it went back to Kame-
now or a labor leader or anyone like that ? Apparently it went into
the bank account of TWA.
Mr. Skaff. As far as I know ; yes.
Senator Mundt. I am curious to know whether it really went to
TWA for airplane transportation, or whether they routed it through
that organization back to someone else. But there is nothing on the
endorsement, as I understand it from you, to indicate that it went
anyplace else than to TWA.
Mr. Skaff. That is right.
The Chairman. Have you any information, that is, subsequent
information, whether it was used to buy transportation?
Mr. Skaff. No, sir.
The Chairman. You have no information with respect to that?
Mr. Skaff. No, sir.
The Chairman. Do we have anything on that?
Mr. KJENNEDY. We are going to have Mr. Kamenow to testify.
The Chairman. All right.
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Skaff, who did you assume were these people
he was talking about ?
Mr. Skaff. I made no assumption on that.
Mr. Kennedy. You made no assumption at all as to who he was
referring to ?
Mr. Skaff. No ; I mean the inference is there.
Mr. Kennedy. Wliat was the inference? What was that to you?
Who did you assume that the trips were for ?
Mr. Skaff. I made no assumption, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. You say that the inference was there, and what
inference did you gather ?
Mr. Skaff. I do not know what it was used for.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you ever hear from the union again ?
6436 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. Skaff. No, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. You never did ?
Mr. Skaff. No, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. They never came back ?
Mr. Skaff. No, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. And they never signed up your carpet salesmen ?
Mr. Skaff. No, sir.
Mr. I^NNEDY. You never had any difficulty with them after this
payment ?
Mr. Skaff. Yes; we have had difficulty with them in our carpet-
laying.
Mr. Kennedy. But not as far as your other employees were con-
cerned ?
Mr. Skaff. No, sir.
The Chairman. In otlier words, did you regard that check as just
a payoff to keep them from pursuing their efforts to organize the
carpet salesmen ?
Mr. Skaff. No ; I regarded it as a payment to a professional labor
consultant.
The Chairman. That is the way you regarded it at the time, but
the results have been that it served, or at least it is coincidental, it
served to stop the drive to organize your carpet salesmen.
Mr. Skaff. Well, I think that since our commission rate is ap-
proximately 40 percent above the average commission in the country,
that the salesmen realized such demands would only result in a.
closed store, and lost jobs.
The Chairman. Well, the salesmen may have realized that, your
carpetlayers or laborers may have realized that, too, but that wasn't
a sufficient consequence to prevent them from insisting on organizing
the carpetlayers.
Mr. Skaff. I was to find that I think the union figured their goals
had been met, and went on.
The Chairman. This $1,998.80 was a part of their goal ?
Mr. Skaff. I don't know.
The Chairman. Well, 2 and 2 make 4.
Senator Mundt. Were these carpet salesmen in the same category
as carpetlayers in that they were not coming to you as salesmen asking
to be unionized, but that the union effort was coming from the out-
side ? Is that true of the carpet salesmen, too ?
Mr. Skaff. That is correct.
Senator Mtjndt. And did you indicate that you would be willing
to have an election, as you did in the case of the carpetlayers ?
Mr. Skaff. We made no move except to hire Labor Relations
Associates.
Senator Mundt. Subsequent to the settlement with this Labor
Relations Associates, did your carpet salesmen ever come to you and
say they wanted to go into a union or that they wanted to have a
union or an election ?
Mr. Skaff. No, sir.
Senator Mundt. Your only contact, as far as unionizing salesmen
was concerned, came from outside ?
Mr. Skaff. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Are you still paying the $75 or $100 a month ?
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 6437
Mr. Skaff. Yes, sir.
Mr. IvENNEDY. Do you have many conferences with Mr. Kamenow ?
Mr. Skaff. Very seldom.
Mr. IvENNEDY. Why do you continue to pay the $75 or $100, and
why did you pay the $2,000, and what was your reason for making
the arrangement?
Mr, Skaff, We wanted competent and professional people to rep-
resent us in a field tliat we were completely unfamiliar with, and in
a field that we had just been whipped badly at.
Mr. Kennedy. You didn't feel that $2,000 was rather a high figure
to be paying?
Mr. Skaff. I thought it was low at the time, because we were ready
to close the store.
The Chairman. You felt it was either do that or close the store?
Mr. Skaff. Yes ; and in fact, we stopped shipments.
The Chairman. You what ?
Mr, Skaff. We stopped shipments of our carpet, preparatory to
closing if the demands were pressed.
The Chairman. So, you were buying peace ; that is what you were
doing.
Mr, Skaff. We were hiring a professional labor-relations con-
sultant.
The Chairman. Yes, sir ; to buy peace for you.
Mr. Skaff. I can't answer that.
Tlie Chairman. I think it answers itself.
Mr. Skaff. Yes, sir.
Senator Mundt. It seems to me that 1 of 2 things must be true:
Either Mr. Kamenow, if that is his name, must have been in on this
from the beginning, working with tlie outsider organizers, and when
you hired his services he called off the dogs, or else he has some
strange connection with these outside unions and, when you paid
him the fee, ^^•hen you paid liim the $2,000, he was able to induce
them to lay off your salesmen and go someplace else. Do you have
any reason to believe that Mr. Kamenow was in on this all the way
through, that he was behind the people trying to organize you, and
tliat tliis was a sliakedown on liis part, or do you think he served as
a third party legitimately?
Mr. Skaff. I have no opinion on that. I do know that he repre-
sented large firms throughout the country, and that, for some reason,
the unions disliked having him across the table from them; that he
represented his clients in union, in labor trouble very well, and that
is why we hired him.
Senator Mundt. He had the reputation in the community of being
able to get results, do you mean, as far as companies having difficulty
with unions are concerned ?
Mr. Skaff. He had a reputation in the country.
Senator Mundt, But at least in the community. You did not know
much about the reputation in the country ?
Mr. Skaff. Yes ; I did.
Senator Mundt. When you talked to him, did you inquire as to his
procedures, or did you go in and say, "Look, you have a goood reputa-
tion for saving a person in trouble" ? Did you ask him what assur-
ance lie would give you that the $2,000 wouldn't be wasted, that the
$75 a month would not be wasted ?
6438 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. Skait. He gave us no assurances. You have to look at this
thing in the light of the brutal, vicious attacks that they made on us
in the last 5 months. We were grasping for straws. We were pre-
pared to close the store. They had almost killed a man of ours. They
had set fire to our store.
Senator Mundt. I can say that I am very sympathetic with your
position. I can understand that you might see the difference between
paying $2,000 in cash and going broke. The $2,000 was a bargain. I
can see you taking any recourse that you could take, if you had gone
to the mediation board, to the police, and the courts. You faced a
dismal choice of either going broke or paying $2,000. What I am
curious about is how Mr. Kamenow, if he wasn't part of the picture
to begin with, had such imusual authority with the union voices as
to call them off. From your standpoint, it looks as though this was
just $2,000 that you had to pay for the opportunity of doing business
as a small-business man in an American community.
I don't know what choice you had, if you had fought it that long.
But I can't understand how the third party, if he was a third party,
could exercise all of that authority. You don't know? You can't
shed any light on it ?
Mr. Skaff. It is not for me to say. No.
Senator Mundt. All right.
Mr. Kennedy. That is all.
The Chairman. I have one other question. You had 18 employees,
as I understand it, who were carpetlayers or laborers.
Mr, Skaff. In that end of the business.
The Chairman. That is the group that was organized ?
Mr. Skaff. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. And there were 13 or 14 carpet salesmen ?
Mr. Skaff. Right.
The Chairman. What percentage of all of your employees do the
18 represent ?
Mr, Skaff. Eighteen out of 45. It represents about 38 percent.
The Chairman. What is your annual gross volume of business ?
Mr. Skaff. $1 million.
The Chairman. $1 million ?
Mr. Skaff. Or a little over a million.
The Chairman. I believe that is all at the moment. All right.
Thank you very much. You may stand aside.
Call the next witness.
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Max Graff.
The Chairman. You do solemnly swear 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. Graff. I do.
TESTIMONY OF MAX H. GEAPF
The Chairman. State your name, your place of residence, and your
business or occupation.
Mr. Graff, My name is Max H, Graff, vice president of Otto P.
Graff, Inc., Ford dealer in Flint, Mich. I reside at 919 South
Franklin.
The Chairman. Do you waive counsel ?
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 6439
Mr. Graff. I do.
The Chairman. All right, Mr. Kennedy.
Mr. Kennedy. How many employees do you have ?
Mr. Graff. We have about about 90 employees altogether.
Mr. Kennedy. Ninety ?
Mr. Graff. Ninety.
Mr. Kennedy. How many of those are salesmen ?
Mr. GRiVFF. There are approximately 10 new-car salesmen. Ten
new-car salesmen.
Mr. Kennedy. Was there an effort in 1954 to have your employees
join a union ?
Mr. Graff. Yes ; there was.
Mr. Kennedy. An organizational drive by what union ?
Mr. Graff. We received a letter April 8, 1954, from the local union
No. 299, which is a teamster local in Detroit, signed by Henry Lower,
the business agent.
Mr. Kennedy. Local 299 ; that is the local that has as its president
Mr. James Hoffa ?
Mr. Graff. I guess that is right.
Mr. Kennedy. And this letter was signed by Henry Lower as busi-
ness agent of that local ?
Mr. Graff. Eight.
The Chairman. I present to you what purports to be a photostatic
copy of the letter. Will you please examine it and state if you iden-
tify it?
(Document handed to witness.)
Mr. Graff. Yes ; that is the letter.
The Chairman. It may be made exhibit No. 45.
(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 45" for refer-
ence and will be found in the appendix on p. 6584. )
Mr. Kennedy. What steps did you take after you received the letter
that they intended to organize you ?
Mr. Graff. Well, as soon as we received the letter, we were in a po-
sition of seeking counsel on labor-relations matters, something that
is quite a complicated field. So I went to Detroit, and I talked to a
fellow by the name of Dick Fritz, who is a partner in the legal firm
called Stringari, Ilommel & Fritz. At that time they were handling
the Ford dealers' labor-relations problems in Detroit. I talked with
Mr. Fritz for perhaps an hour. At that time they were having some
organizational problems in Detroit among the Ford dealers, and as a
result, they told me that they were pretty busy, and that I should try
to get somebody up in Flint who could perhaps take care of the prob-
lem and give us advice, and so on.
After that I went back to Flint. Of course, I had heard of Labor
Relations Associates from several respected small-business men in
Flint, and I talked to them about LE,A.
Mr. Kennedy. Is that Mr. Ken McGregor that you heard from ?
Mr. Graff. I talked with him and also George Spaulding from
Applegate Chevrolet Co.
Mr. Kennedy. Wlio is Ken McGregor?
Mr. Graft. The United States tire distributor in Flint.
Mr. Kennedy. Did they tell you about LRA ?
Mr. Graff. Yes. And I also talked with a representative from
Hubbards Hardware in Flint.
6440 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. Kennedy. Did they tell you that LEA had a close relationship
with certain union officials ?
Mr. Graff. "Would you state that again ?
Mr. Kennedy. Did Mr. McGregor or Mr. Spaulding or any of these
other people tell you that LKA had a close personal relationship with
any union officials.
Mr. Graff. I don't think I would put it exactly that way. They
did say that they had handled their labor relations problems and did it
by using entertainment of the officials and doing favors for them, by
getting things purchased at wholesale, and so on.
Mr. Kennedy. So did you make arrangements
Mr. Graff. Soon after that, we went ahead. As I say, I talked
with a fellow from Hubbards Hardware. They had retained tliem
for a couple of years and had had a union in their store, he had nego-
tiated a contract for them, and he said they did a very good job for
them, and that they also represented Sears, Roebuck, J. L. Hudson in
Detroit, and other reputable firms.
So after our investigating the thing and deciding that perhaps was
the outfit that should represent us and give us advice as to what to
do, I called George Kamenow in Detroit and he came up to Flint.
Mr. Kennedy. You had a meeting with liim there 'i
Mr. Graff. Right.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you discuss a fee at that time ?
Mr. Graff. Right.
Mr. Kennedy. T\niat did he say ?
Mr. Graff. He told us that it would cost us approximately $-1,800,
being broken down by $250 a month, plus not to run over $1,800 for
entertainment fees.
Mr. Kennedy. $250 a month that you would have to pay and a max-
imum of $1,800 for the entertainment?
Mr. Graff. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. Did he tell you about Avhat success he had had in the
past with his companies ?
Mr. Graff. He guaranteed us nothing. I mean, he said
Mr. Kennedy. Did he tell you that 60 percent
Mr. GriVFF. It seems to me that that was the figure he used, that
roughly 60 percent of the people that lie represented were not union-
ized; the other 40 percent were. Of course, we questioned at great
length whether or not his way of doing business was legal or not, and
he assured us that it was, or else we would not have retained him.
Mr. Kennedy. Subsequently, were arrangements made to shift the
organizational drive of 299 up to your local in Flint ?
Mr. Graff. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. Did he speak to you about that at all ?
Mr. Graff. He mentioned the fact that he imagined that it would
be shifted up to Flint.
Mr. Kennedy. And that was done ?
Mr. Graff. That was accomplished.
Mr. Kennedy. From 299 to local 332, in Flint, Mich. ?
Mr. Graff. Right.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you receive a letter informing you that now the
organizational drive would be handled by 322 ?
Mr. Graff. Right, on April 22.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 6441
Mr. Kennedy. And that letter was signed by Frank Kierdorf ?
Mr. Graff. Right.
The Chairman. I present to you a photostatic copy of the letter
to wliich you refer and ask you to identify it, please.
(Document handed to witness.)
Mr. Graff. Yes ; that is the letter.
The Chairman. That may be made exhibit No. 46.
(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 46" for refer-
ence and will be found in the appendix on pp. 6585-6586.)
Mr. Kennedy. This was shortly after you had the conversation
with Mr. Kamenow and had agreed to retain him ?
Mr. Graff. Right.
Mr. Kennedy. And then you received the letter ?
Mr. Graff. Right. That was April 24, 1 believe.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you ever hear from the union after that ?
Mr. Graff. Not directly. We wrote the union a letter 2 days later
at the suggestion of Mr. Kamenow, and said :
Please be advised that we have turned this matter over to our labor counselors,
who will get in touch with you shortly.
That is the last correspondence that we had with the union.
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Kamenow suggested you write that letter to
Mr. Kierdorf ?
Mr. Graff. Right.
Mr. Kennedy. And you never heard from the union again ?
Mr. Graff. No.
Mr. Kennedy. Your employees were not organized, is that right ?
Mr. Graff. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. Did Mr. Kamenow contact you afterward regarding
the money for the entertainment? Did he tell you anything about
how it was to be used ?
Mr. Graff. Well, I think it was in July of that year, he called and
he said that he needed to buy some tickets for a convention for some
of the fellows, for Seattle, as I recall, and wanted to know if it was
all right if it was billed to us on our statement. I said it would be
perfectly all right as long as the fee didn't amount to more than what
we had originally agreed on in April. In August he billed us for
the
Mr. Kennedy. This is 1954 still ?
Mr. Graff. Right. That was June 30 he billed us $1,644.13. which
we pa id.
Mr. Kennedy. And that was for six of these union officials and
tlieir families to Seattle ?
Mr. Graff. As I recall ; yes.
Mr. Kennedy. That was 1954 ?
Mr. Graff. Right.
Mr. Kennedy. In 1955, did he approach you again?
Mr. Graff. Well, yes ; that is riglit ; in April of 1955.
Mr. Kennedy. What did he say at that time ?
Mr. Graff. Well, we could have dropped him or we could have
retained him. It was strictly up to us. There was no coercion on his
part. We decided to retain him on the basis of $3,000 that year. It
was paid on the basis of $100 a month plus the, roughly, $1,800.
Mr. Kennedy. For entertainment ?
89380— 57— pt. 16 14
Q442 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. Graff. For entertainment, which was broken down in 4 dif-
ferent payments over 4 different months.
Mr. Kennedy. The $1,800 which you were paying for entertain-
ment was broken down in 4 payments ?
Mr. Graff. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. How was that ?
Mr. Graff. July, $500 ; August, $500 ; September, $500 ; and Octo-
ber, $300.
Mr. Kennedy. Did he tell you how he Avas going to use that money ?
Mr. Graff. No ; he didn't.
Mr. Kennedy. Did he tell you that he wanted to take some of the
boys on a fishing trip to Canada ?
Mr. Graff. He may have.
The Chairman. On the $1,800 and this $1,600, and other expenses,
was a bill submitted that was itemized showing to whom the money
was paid ?
Mr. Graff. No ; there was not.
The Chairman. And who was entertained and at what cost at a
given time ?
Mr. Graff. No. The way that they billed us was on a regular state-
ment like this [indicating] .
The Chairman. Just a blanket charge ?
Mr. Graff. Disbursements for the month of May 1954, $18.62. As
I said before, on the June 30 statement, retainer for the month of
July was $250, disbursements for the month of June $1,644.13.
The Chairman. In other words, you didn't know what the money
was going for ?
Mr. Graff. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. Yes ; he did know. They told him.
Mr. Graff. In June of 1954 ?
The Chairman. Yes.
Mr. Graff. Those were for the airline tickets to Seattle.
The Chairman. I am talking about the entertainment money.
"Wliat did they tell you that it was going for ?
Mr. Graff. I don't recall. In fact, as I said before, we made the
deal with them at the beginning of the year, and, whenever he called
and said he had some disbursements for the month, I said it was per-
fectly all right, as long as it didn't amount to more than what our
agreement was for the total charge for the year.
Mr. Kennedy. You filled out an affidavit and stated, "In the sum-
mer of 1955, he asked me to pay for a fishing trip to Canada for the
union officials and also for some other entertainment for him." So,
in answer to the chairman's question, you knew at that time or you were
told at that time that the money in 1955 was to be used to take these
union officials on a trip to Canada and for other entertainment ; is that
right?
Mr. Graff. Eight.
The Chairman. That isn't the only entertainment that you pro-
vided, was it ? That wasn't the only bill for entertainment, the trip to
Canada, was it?
Mr. Graffe. Well as I said, the total fee was $1,800. How he used
it, I don't know. Other than as I said in my affidavit, as I recall, he
mentioned something about going on a fishing trip. But whom he
entertained or whom he took,"l don't know. He billed me for it.
EVIPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 6443
The Chairman. I submit to you here a series of eight bills charged
against your firm by the Labor Relations Associates. I ask you to
examine them, and state if you identify them as being photostatic
copies of the original bills submitted both for fees and for disburse-
ments.
(Document handed to witness.)
Mr. Graff. Yes ; those are photostatic copies.
The Chairman. They may be made exhibits 47-A, B, C, D, and so
forth.
(The documents referred to were marked "Exhibits 47-A, B, C, D,
E, F, G, H" for reference, and will be found in the appendix on
pp. 6587-6594.)
Mr. Kennedy. Here are the checks, Mr. Chairman,
Tlie Chairman. I submit to you here a series of photostatic copies
of eight checks which, I assume, are payments for those bills. Will
you please examine those photostatic copies and state if you identify
them?
( Documents handed witness. )
Mr. Graff. These are the checks for those bills.
The Chairman. They may be marked exhibits 48-A, B, C, D, and
so forth, in order of their date.
(The documents referred to were marked "Exhibits 48-A, B, C, D,
E, F, G, H" for reference, and will be found in the appendix on
pp. 6595-6602.)
Mr, Kennedy. In December 1945, did he approach you for other
money ?
Mr. Graff. That is right. He said he wanted to buy Christmas
presents for people who, I assumed, were union officials.
The Chairman. Mr. Kamenow ?
Mr. Graff. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. He wanted you to donate two or three hundred
dollars for union officials ?
Mr. Graff. Right.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you give him $150 for those purchases ?
Mr. Graff. Right.
Mr. Kennedy. In 1956, were you billed for another $1,800?
Mr. Graff. Right.
Mr, Kennedy. How was that $1,800 used ?
Mr. Graff. It was the same in April 1955, We negotiated with him
again-
Mr, Kennedy, April 1955 or April 1956 ?
Mr, Graff, April 1955, for the ensuing 12 months, which would
bring it to April of 1956.
Mr. Kennedy. I see.
Mr. Graff. A monthly retainer was reduced to $75 a month and the
entertainment fee remained the same.
Mr. Kennedy. $1,800?
Mr. Graff. $1,800. That was broken down: $450 in May; June,
July, and August, $725.97; $1.21 in October, and $700 in January of
1956.
Mr. Kennedy. Has he had many conferences with you regarding
your labor troubles since the first time you met with him ?
Mr. Graff. I would say not too many.
6444 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. Kennedy. How many do you think? Three or four times a
year?
Mr. Graff. It would run more than that. He is up m Fhnt, I
imagine, about once a week. He doesn't stop to see us every time,
but, I would say, on the average of once a month or more often.
Mr. Kennedy. How long do vou talk to him ?
Mr. Graff. Sometimes a^half hour, or maybe 20 minutes. Of course,
there are times thr.t we have called him on the telephone, when we
wanted to make some pay changes in our salesmen's wages. We con-
ferred with him and he helped us decide which way to go.
Mr. Kennedy. But the teamsters never organized your employees?
Mr. Graft. They did not.
Mr. Kennedy. And you haven't seen them? They haven't put a
picket line around since that time ?
Mr. Graff. No, sir.
The Chairman. Do you mean in all of this time, with all of this
expense, there has been no drive on to organize your salesmen ?
Mr. Graff. That is right.
The Chairman. In other words, j^ou bought peace for this price, is
that it, labor peace ?
]Mr. Graff. "Well, as I originally said, Avhen we hired Labor Rela-
tions Associates, we investigated them through people that we knew,
and we found that tliey liad handled reputable firms locally and na-
tionally. We didn't have any idea whether ours would go to an elec-
tion. We had no idea as to wliat we could do, what we couldn't do.
As a result, we retained them on a basis of being able to give us advice
and so on.
The Chairman. I wanted to get this in the record, if you can give it
to us. When did vou first retain them ?
Mr. Graff. In April of 1954.
The Chairman. How long did their services continue ?
Mr. Graff. Well, we renegotiated with them each year.
The Chairman. I know, but their services have been continuous
since ?
Mr. Graff. Yes. Although Mr. Kamenow separated himself from
LRA — when was it, the 1st of August ?
Mr. Kennedy. June 1.
The Chairman. This year ?
Mr. Graff. This year.'
The Chairman. After these hearings ?
Mr, Graff. Right. We retained Mr. Kamenow as an individual.
The Chairman. You retain him now as an individual ?
Mr. Graff. Well, Personnel Relations Advisors is the name of it.
The Chairman. He is retained now as an individual ?
Mr. Graff. Right.
The Chairman. Since April 1954, how much have you paid out to
LRA m fees, and what is the total vou have paid out of them in
disbursements ?
Mr. Graff. Well, let's see
Mr. Kennedy. We have the figures by years. We can add it up.
The Chairman. I wanted to get it into the record at this point.
Maybe the staff member can place it in, if he made the check. Have
you been sworn ? Just a moment.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 6445
Will you be sworn, please ? Do you so solemnly swear 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. Langenbacher. I do.
TESTIMONY OF IRWIN LANGENBACHER
The Chairman. State your name, place of residence, and business
or occupation.
Mr. Langenbacher. My name is Erwin Langenbacher, assistant
counsel, Senate Select Committee To Investigate Improper Activities
in the Labor-Management Field. My residence is Hyattsville, Md.
The Chairman. Hav« you made a compilation of these expenditures
by Otto P. Graff, Inc., beginning from April 1, 1954, until June 1957 ?
Mr. Langenbacher. Yes. Through December of 1956.
The Chairman. Through December of 195G ? Have you the y ear-
by -year amounts of fees and expenditures ?
Mr. Langenbacher. I have.
The Chairman. And disbursements and the total of each ?
Mr. Langenbacher. I have ; yes, sir.
The Chairman. What is the year-by-year expenditures?
Mr. Langenbacher. For the last half of 1954, for retainer, it is
$150, and for disbursements it is $1,649.70.
For the year 1955, the retainer is $1,880, and the disbursements
are $1,950.
For the year 1956, the retainer is $975, and disbursements are
$1,807.19.
The Chairman. All right. That doesn't bring it down to date.
What are the totals for that period of time, the total fees?
Mr. Langenbacher. I will have to add them up.
The total retainer is $4,525.
The Chairman. And tlie total disbursements? $5,306.88; am I
correct ?
Mr. Langenbacher. No, sir. It is more than that. The disburse-
ments for the 3 years, adding dollars only, is $5,406.
The Chairman. I have 88 cents on that.
Mr. Langenbacher. I haven't written in the cents.
The Chairman. The two of them total how much ?
Mr. Graff. $9,931, 1 believe.
Mr. Langenbacher. That is correct.
The Chairman. $9,931?
Mr. Graff. Yes.
TESTIMONY OF MAX H. GRAFF— Resumed
The Chairman. Mr. Graff', this shows that you paid out in fees for
that period of time $4,525, and you paid out for disbursements $5,406.
Those are round figures. You paid out nearly $1,000 more in dis-
bursements, around $900 more for disbursements than you paid in
fees ; is that right ?
Mr. Graff. Eight.
The Chairman. Do you know to whom that money went, that dis-
bursement ?
Mr. Graff. No ; I do not.
6446 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
The Chairman. Well, you said part of it was to entertain union
officials.
Mr. Graff. That is right.
The Chairman. The point I want to raise here is this : Union offi-
cials were profiting out of this deal. The union workingman was
not getting anything out of it. Isn't that true ?
Mr. Graff. That is right.
The Chairman. Allri^ht.
Senator Mundt. Mr. Graff, what do you suppose would have hap-
pened had you not employed Mr. Kamenow or somebody else in this
field of endeavor, who had conducted himself along similar lines?
Suppose he had not made that trip to Detroit.
Mr. Graff. Well, as I say originally, we were confronted with a
field that is pretty intricate, and certainly has a lot of ramifications
which we are certainly not skilled in. When we are presented with
a problem, I think that anybody in our shoes would have done the same
thing, and that is to try to seek advice as to what to do. That is the
reason that I originally went down to talk with the attorneys who
were handling the Ford dealers' problems in Detroit, to find out from
them whether or not we could retain them, and knowing that they were
experienced in the field of labor relations. What would have hap-
pened if I had retained them, or if they had been available, I don't
know.
Senator Mtjndt. What would have happened if you had retained
nobody ? This cost you something over $3,000 a year.
Mr. Graff. I don't know.
Senator Mundt. Do you think you got your money's worth ? Did
you get value received ?
Mr. Graff. I think I would have done the same thing again; yes.
Senator Mundt. Would the alternative, do you think, have been
more expensive to your company ?
Mr. Graff. That I don't know ; that is hard to say.
Senator Mundt. You must have added it up. You were a business-
man, and you engaged in $3,500 a year expenditures. You must
have determined whether it was worth the expense.
Mr. Graff. We retain, for example, auditors who spend an hour or
two a month in our place of business. They are also available for
consultant purposes. We had not had any previous labor difficulties
for a good many years, and when this problem came up, naturally, we
were seeking counsel.
Senator Mundt. How many employees do you have ?
^ Mr. Graff. About 90, altogether. The ones involved in this situa-
tion were 10 new-car salesmen.
The Chairman. Only 10 ?
Mr. Graff. Yes, sir.
Senator Mundt. You could have given them $300 a year extra, and
it would not cost you any more, with just 10 people involved. That
would have been $3,000 a year.
Mr. Graff. Of course, you are probably familiar with the labor
problem for all small business today, since you are conducting these
hearings as you are. We are in the same position, realizing that the
unions are making attempts to organize all retail merchants, stores,
and so on, and they have been doing it, and they have become more
active in Flint in the last 5 or 7 to 8 years. I think it is advisable for
lAlPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR ITELD 6447
anybody in business today, with that fact in mind, to retain somebody
who can keep you advised and can help you in case j^ou do need help.
Senator Mundt, Well, our committee is, of course, very interested
primarily in two things : No. 1 is what, if any, new legislation is re-
quired to protect the workingman in and out of the union, and to
protect his employer, and to protect the general public ; No. 2, we are
interested in what improper practices may be prevailing in this coun-
try now, or may have prevailed in the relatively recent past which
should be eradicated in the future by legislation.
Now, in this particular case, the questions arise : No. 1 : Did you and
the Graff Motor Co. engage in any improper practices ? No. 2 : Did
Labor Kelations Associates as an intermediary engage in any im-
proper practices ? And, No. 3 : Did the union officials who were sup-
posed to be representing the needs and wants and desires of the men
engage in any improper practices ?
If so, what legislation is required to stop that kind of thing from
happening ? Also, what legislation is required to create an environ-
ment of employee and employer relationships which make the neces-
sity or desirability or need for hiring outside associates apparent to
one party or to the other ?
Now, speaking as you can only for yourself, did you feel or do you
now feel that you did anything which was improper as far as your
organization was concerned? Did you have a sense of guilt or a
sense of wrongdoing, or do you now have such a feeling ?
Mr. Graff. I don't believe so.
Senator Mundt. You feel you were forced into this circumstance
because of your inability as a small-business man to meet a labor
situation in the city of Flint; is that right?
Mr. Graff. Well, as I said before, a small-business man needs ad-
visers from his attorneys in legal matters and he needs advisers as
far as his labor problems are concerned, and we have retained Kame-
now on that basis.
Senator Mundt. In other words, you hired labor counsel for your-
self as you would hire lawyers if somebody brought a suit against
you ? It is out of your field of comprehension, and so you turned to
a labor adviser for assistance ?
Mr. Graff. That is right, and I think that it is the way it was.
Senator Mundt. Speaking from the standpoint of Labor Relations
associates, did you have a feeling that what they were doing was
proper or improper ? Were they engaging in improper practices in-
sofar as you knew ?
Mr. Graff. Well, as I said, before we retained them I checked with
people in Flint that had retained them, and they mentioned names such
as the J. L. Hudson Co. in Detroit, which is one of the largest depart-
ment stores in the world, and Sears, Roebuck, which is certainly one
of the biggest companies in the retail business. Having been retained
by a good many others in Flint who are reputable people, I assumed,
naturally, that it was a company that was operating strictly above-
board, because, after all, those large companies certainly have legal
advice that would tell them whether or not Labor Relations Associ-
ates was doing things illegally or not.
Second, when I talked with Kamenow, that is the first thing I said
to him. I said, "Look, if there is anything that is not proper or not
(5448 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
leg:al, that is an under-the-table situation, I want no part of it." I
said, "We don't do business that way."
Senator Mundt. "\\lien he replied or told yon that part of the
money was going to entertain labor officials and pay their expenses to
conventions, or to take a fishing trip to Canada, did that sound to
you like being a proper approach to make ?
Mr. Graff. Well, as I said, Avho am I to dispute what J. L. Hudson
Co. does, and what, recently it turns up, that the Mennen Co. has done.
Frankly, when I want to sell an automobile, if I have to take a fellow
out to play golf or something like that, and buy his dinner, certainly
I am going to do it. As to whether it is legal or illegal, I don't know.
Senator Mundt. Let me ask you about the union officials. Do you
think that they were engaging in proper or improper ]>ractices when
they were receiving these gifts or these concessions, or these considera-
tions, and thereby failing to press what were the demands or desires
or the needs of their workers ?
Mr. Graff. That I don't know.
Senator Mundt. I think there is a curious situation some place, is
there not, Mr. Graff, when a businessman just selling Fords has to
pay 3,000 bucks a year to be able to continue to sell Fords? There is
something wrong someplace; is there not I
Mr. Graff, By the same token, we spend probably nearly that much
for legal advice and help.
Senator Mundt. You are perfectly happy Avith this kind of cir-
cumstance ?
Mr. Graff. I think so.
Senator Mundt, A man has to pay $3,000 to maintain happy re-
lations ?
Mr, Graff. If there is trouble with our mechanics or anybody
else, I think so. Mr. Kamenow is available, and, of course, they
handle that problem, and it would be turned over to him.
Senator Mundt. Did your own employees know you were hiring
Labor Relations Associates ?
Mr, Graff. That I don't know.
Senator Mundt. Mr. Kierdorf did, because you wrote him a letter.
Mr, Graff, Yes; of course I didn't mention them in the letter, I
just said we turned it over to our labor counsel.
Senator Mundt. You did not mention who it was?
Mr. Graff. No.
The Chairman. What is your volume of business annually ?
Mr. Graff. We will sell about 1,000 new cars a year, and around
1,500 used cars. Our parts sales will run about $400,000 a year.
The Chairman. Give me the gross.
Mr. Graff. The gross sales ?
The Chairman, Your gross business.
Mr. Graff. The gross business will probably run $4 million a year.
It will fluctuate, depending upon the market, of course, and 1955
was up, and 1956 was down.
The Chairman, I am compelled to observe that I see nothing wrong
in seeking counsel and employing legal counsel, and employing even
experts in labor-management relations, and those things,' I think
that we have some more, but it looks to me like we are developing a
pattern of what amounts to a payoff to union officials to have them
disregard the rights of the workingmen or to be reluctant, if not to
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 6449
refuse, to press any drive for unionization. You did not even make
a contract witli them, did you, a labor contract?
Mr. Graft. No.
The Chairman. It is a practice that I cannot give my approval to.
it is too apparent on tlie face of it wliat they are em])loyed to do. You
could go into it iiniocently, and I can appreciate that. But I do not
think that you could remain in it very long knowing ho\y this money
is being handled and be completely innocent in it, and neither do I
think that the practice or general activities of Mr. Kamenow or the
LEA, or the union officials is conduct that can be approved by good
conscience or condoned. I just think it is reprehensible that these
practices are going on.
Senator Mundt. What is your average rate of turnover among
your employees ^ Is it greater or less than the average garage ?
Mr. Graff. It is considerably less.
Senator Mundt. In other words, they are apparently reasonably
happy with your conditions of employment?
Mr. Graff. That is right. Our w^ages are average wages for our
salesmen. For our mechanics and parts fellows, it will run about 15
percent higher than the average. Besides, we have other things.
Senator Mundt. As an automobile consumer and as a purchaser, I
hate to see a situation like this prevail, because I am confident I have
to pay the tax when I buy the car. That is where you get j^our money.
That is $3,000 there a year that has to come off the consumers of auto-
mobiles and purchasers of cars. It seems to me that some place in the
labor picture there should be a better w^ay of protecting the rights of
the workingmen, and the opportunities of management and owner-
ship, than to have to hire a third party of this kind to confer gifts on
labor officials. I certainly would think that there is something wrong
with the labor officials that take these gratuities. They are either in
a shakedown business, just shaking people down, or else they are fail-
ing to re])resent adequately the men who are members of the union.
Now, if the employees are happ}' and satisfied and not on strike and
there is no great turnover, then it would look as if this sets the stage
for a great shakedown business so that any labor official can just sort
of rattle the skeleton in the closet, and Mr. Kamenow can come along
to you and say, "You pay me $3,000 a year and I will take that skeleton
away." This thing can grow to be a pretty nasty situation, it seems
to me, if something is not done. I do not know what the answer is.
Mr. Kennedy. I have just a couple of questions, in connection with
the statement of Senator McClellan. As to the money that was paid
in 1955 and 1956, for instance, this $1,800 which was for the enter-
tainment of union officials, you did not have a union in your company
at that time, did you? That is $2,000, and you didn't have a union?
Mr. Graff. No.
Mr. Kennedy. This was just to entertain union officials and had
nothing to do with your company ?
Mr. Graff. Well, as I said before, wl^en we negotiated with them,
I made it on a yearly basis from April to April, and he said, "Well,
it will cost you $100 a month, plus $1,800, which is $3,000."
Mr. Kennedy. That was tlie first year ?
Mr. Graff. I knew that was what it was going to cost me for a year.
6450 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. Kennedy, Then the second year when he came around, you were
again paying out $2,000 to entertain union officials, when they had
nothing to do with your phmt ?
Mr. Graff. Well, of course, I looked on it as a basis of what it cost
me for the year, and with the advent of a great deal of effort being put
forth to unionize the retail clerks, it looked to me like it was a good
investment to keep informed as to w^hat to do and what not to do, and
if something happened, then you have an organization which you can
turn to.
Mr. Kennedy. And this payment was worth while to keep you from
bein,g unionized ?
Mr. Graff. Well, you can turn it around that way.
Mr. Kennedy. That is not turning it around very far. You were
paying $1,800 or $2 ,000
Mr. Graff. I paid Labor Relations Associates $3,000.
Mr. Kennedy. You can't blame this on Labor Relations Associates.
You are a grownup man, and you knew you w^ere paying $2,000 to
entertain union officials when you didn't have any union in your plant
to entertain. What other reason would there be, other than to keep
your plant or company from being unionized ? Don't say "Mr. Kame-
now told me," and you didn't know what to do. That is the reason.
You paid the money to keep the plant from being organized.
Mr. Graff. Well, I don't believe I would put it exactly like that,
Mr. Kennedy, and it is a fact that as I saicl before, I don't know.
Maybe
Mr. Kennedy. You paid $2,000.
Mr. Graff. Maybe there will be trouble in your parts department,
and maybe it will come out in your service department.
Mr. Kennedy. Then let us assume that for $75 or $100 you needed
that legitimate advice, but $2,000 of it you paid out each year to
entertain union officials, knowing it was going for that purpose.
Mr. Graff. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. Isn't that right ?
Mr. Graff. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. Then, it was obviously to keep the plant from being
unionized, and to entertain these people and keep these people happy
so that they wouldn't come near you and organize your plant. I don't
think it is funny, myself.
Mr. Graff. Well, I don't either. It is a serious problem with us,
believe me, that are in business.
Mr. Kennedy. But isn't that the reason you paid the money ?
Mr. Graff. As I said before, w^e paid the money on a yearly basis,
to be situated so that if it comes up again
The Chairman. Whether you paid it on a yearly basis or daily
basis, it makes no difference as to the purpose. What was the purpose ?
The purpose was to keep your plant from being unionized. Is that not
a cold fact ?
Mr. Graf. No, as I said before, I don't feel that way about it. The
inference might be there.
Senator Mundt. Would not the question be whether Mr. Graff was
paying this money to avert union trouble, rather than to prevent being
imionized? It seems to me that this letter states, unless it is false on
the face of it, that you had some union people in your plant, because it
said tliey were transferring the membership from new employees to
niPROPER ACTIVITIES EN THE LABOR FIELD 6451
others. I do not think that the question is stated quite correctly. What
you were payino^ was to avert union trouble.
Mr. Giiiirr. That is right.
Senator Mundt. Whether it was unionized or not unionized, you
were trying to avert trouble with labor relationships caused by the
union ?
Mr. Graff. That is right.
The Chairman. All right.
Mr. Kennedy. And the $2,000 to entertain the officials was used for
that purpose ?
Mr. Graff. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. To accomplish that ?
Mr. Graff. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. I cannot see the very thin line. If you pay union
officials $2,000 to avert trouble, using that word, I do not see where
the workingman, whether he is unionized or not, benefits from such a
transaction. It seems to me the only two who benefit from it are the
union officials who are taking the money for their own personal pleas-
ures and benefit, and the company that pays them. The poor work-
ingman, whether he is a union man or not, is benefiting nothing from
it. Do you agree with that?
Mr. Graff. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Is there anything further ?
Mr. Kennedy. That is all.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Mr. Graff. You are welcome.
The Chairman. Call the next witness.
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chester Schagane.
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. Schagane. I do.
TESTIMONY OF CHESTER SCHAGANE
The Chairman. State your name and your place of residence, your
business or occupation.
Mr. Schagane. Chester W. Schagane, 1120 Woodside Drive, a part-
ner in the Advance Electrical Supply Co., also of Flint.
The Chairman. You waive counsel, do you ?
Mr. Schagane. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Now, your name is Chester Schagane, S-c-h-a-
g-a-n-e ; is that how you spell it ?
Mr. Schagane. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. You are a partner in the Advance Electrical Sup-
ply Co.?
Mr. Schagane. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. Wliich is a wholesale distributor of Flint, Mich.;
is that correct ?
Mr. Schagane. That is right.
Mr. ICennedy. Then in the fall of 1954: you were picketed by cer-
tain teamster pickets ; is that right ?
Mr. Schagane. That is correct.
6452 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. Kennedy. Now, how many employees did you have at that time ?
Mr. ScHAGANE. Approximately 24.
Mr. Kennedy. Approximately 24 employees ?
Mr. Schagane. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Were the teamsters interested in signing all 24 em-
ployees, or did you know ?
Mr. Schagane. I don't know what they were interested in.
Mr. Kennedy. Had tliey notified you prior to the time they began
picketing ?
Mr. Schagane. No.
Mr, Kennedy. Just pickets arrived ; is that all ?
Mr. Schagane. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. Were they pickets from Teamster Local 332 of
Flint?
Mr. Schagane. I don't know the number, but they were teamsters.
Mr. Kennedy. And you had never heard about it before ?
Mr. Schagane. No, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. So what steps did you take when you found that
there were pickets outside this business ? What did you do ?
Mr. Schagane. We consulted with our attorney, to see if we could
get the pickets removed.
Mr. Kennedy. To see if you could get the pickets removed ?
Mr. Schagane. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. What did he say ?
Mr. Schagane. And also what the procedure was in a case like this.
He told us about injunctions and one thing and another, and approxi-
mately how long it would take, and what the possibility of a settle-
ment was, and it looked to us like it was going to stretch over a period
of months and the idea was that we get relief at that time.
Mr. Kennedy. Can you talk any louder?
Mr. Schagane. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. And he told you how long it would take ?
Mr. Schagane. Approximately.
Mr. Kennedy. How long would it take to get the pickets removed
and what did you decide to do ?
Mr. Schagane. Then my partner lieard of Labor Eelations Asso-
ciates.
Mr. Kennedy. T^^iere did he liear about them ?
Mr. Schagane. He heard from several local businessmen.
Mr. Kennedy. Did he hear that they could achieve certain desired
results with the teamsters union ?
Mr. Schagane. He heard that they might be able to help us with
our problem.
Mr, Kennedy. So did you make arrangements to contact a repre-
sentative of that firm ?
Mr. Schagane. Yes, sir, and we drove to Detroit and saw Mr.
Kamenow.
Mr. I^JENNEDY. Had you heard specifically Mr. Kamenow had l^een
very successful with the teamstei-s ?
Mr. Schagane. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. Did Mr. Kamenow inform you of that when you had
the conference with him, that he had beenVeiy successful with the
teamsters ?
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 6453
Mr. ScHAGANE, I believe that is correct.
Mr. Kexnedy. So you set up a meeting with liim back in the plant,
and you went down to Detroit and you met with him there, and then
you set up a meeting with him in Flint, did you not?
Mr. ScHAGANE. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you call in any other company at the tune you
met with him in Flint ?
Mr. Schagane. Yes, the rumors were around that Royalite Electric
Co. were going to be next to be picketed.
Mr. Kennedy. So you called them in ?
Mr. Schagane. He called him in and asked if they had heard any-
thing, and they wanted to sit down and talk about it, and at that time
we set up a meeting with Mr. Kamenow,
Mr. Kennedy. Kepresentatives of both companies met with him?
Mr. Schagane. Yes, sir, both were there.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you discuss with him at that time what fee
would be charged by Mr. Kamenow ?
Mr. Schagane. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. What did he tell you ?
Mr. Schagane. He told us it was going to cost $100 a month, each
company, and if he was successful in his negotiations with the teamsters
union, it would cost another $2,000 each.
Mr. Kennedy. If he could get the pickets removed ?
Mr. Schagane. And any other negotiations, primarily that the
pickets would be removed as soon as possible.
Mr. Kennedy. Did he tell vou at that time what the $2,000 would
be for?
Mr. Schagane. I believe he did.
Mr. Kennedy. What did he tell you ?
Mr. Schagane. He needed that monej' to take the boys to the Rose
Bowl game.
Mr. Kennedy. Shortly after the conference, or within 3 or 4 days
after the conference with Mr. Kamenow, did the picketing end ?
Mr. Schagane. There were some telephone conversations and one
thing and another after the meeting, but shortly after that the pickets
were removed.
Mr. Kennedy. Within about 3 or 4 days ?
Mr. Schagane. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you then enter into some negotiations with
Kamenow ?
Mr. Schagane. That is correct. He contacted the teamsters local
and then came back to us with the proposition.
Mr. Kennedy. What was his proposition, so that you could end any
problems or trouble with the union ?
Mr. Schagane. That they wanted union drivers on our trucks, and
they can do it 1 or 2 ways. We could hire our own drivers and they,
in turn, would belong to the union, or we could contract our trucking
out to some union truck company.
Mr. Kennedy. Did they suggest what company to make your
contract with ?
Mr. Schagane. At that time, Mr. Kamenow went in partnership
with William Hanson.
Mr. Kennedy. How do you spell his name ?
Mr. Schagane. I have it spelled here.
6454 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. Kennedy. H-a-n-s-o-n of the Hanson Delivery Service ?
Mr. ScHAGANE. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. And Mr. KamenoAv went into business with him?
Mr. Schagane. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. ^Miat did Mr. Kamenow come back and tell you as
to what arrangements you should make to avoid union difficulty, as
far as that Hanson Deliver}- Service was concerned?
Mr. Schagane. He asked us if we had any objection to using his
firm.
Mr. Kennedy. That was a business he was going in himself, Mr.
Kamenow, that is?
Mr. Schagane. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. So, did you agree to that?
Mr. Schagane. As long as the price was right, we said. We hired
it by the hour and if the price was fair we had no objections to doing
business with his trucking firm.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you have to make any arrangements as far as
selling him a truck ?
Mr. Schagane. When we decided to contract our trucking out, that
left us with 2 trucks to get rid of. He needed a truck, and he bought it
from us. The other truck, I guess, we sold to a used car lot.
Senator Mundt. Was his trucking companj^ a union trucking
company ?
Mr. Schagane. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. So the arrangements were made that your people
that had been handling j'our trucking were not to handle it any
longer, and that you were to make a contract with Mr. George
Kamenow, and a trucking company in which he had an interest, sell-
ing one of vour trucks, and 3'ou would have no more union difficulty ;
isthatriglit?
Mr. Schagane. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. As well as paying the $100 a month, and the $2,000
to take the union officials to the Rose Bowl game?
Mr. Schagane. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. And you agreed to all of that?
Mr. Schagane. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you give him the $2,000 in December of 1954 ?
Mr. Schagane. I believe that is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. That check was made out pereonally to George
Kamenow ; is that right ?
j\Ir. Schagane. Yes.
The Chairman. I hand you both the original and photostatic copy
for your comparison, and will you identify the original and also the
photostatic copy as such?
Mr. Schagane. They are correct.
The Chahiman. The photostatic copy may be made exhibit No. 49
and the original can be retained until returned to the witness.
(Document referred to was marked "Exhibit 49," for reference and
will be found in the appendix on p. 6603.)
The Chapman. What was this money actually paid for? Wliat
was tliis $2,000 to be used for ?
Mr. Schagane. He said he wanted to take the officials to the Rose
Bowl game.
The Chairman. The officials of the union?
IMPROPER ACTR'ITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 6455
Mr. ScHAGANE. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. That he was dealing with ?
Mr. ScHAGANE. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. Can you conceive that the workingmen whom the
union officials represented derived any benefit at all from this $2,000 ?
Mr. ScHAGANE. No.
Senator Mundt. Was the Royalite Co. a subsidiary of yours or a
competitor ?
Mr. ScHAGANE. A competitor.
Senator Mundt. You were the two main companies, were you, in
Flint, in this particular line of business ?
Mr. ScHAGANE. Not ueccssarily.
Senator Muxdt. How come the two of you were there ?
Mr. ScHAGANE. We were, I think, the only two independents.
Senator Mundt, You were the 2 independents, you were 2 of the
same category ?
Mr. ScHAGANE. Yes.
Senator Mundt. So it was obvious that if one of you were treated
one way, and the other one treated some way else, somebody could
get a competitive advantage ?
Mr. ScHAGANE. It is possible.
Senator Mundt. So you were driven to work together ?
Mr. ScHAGANE. I don't say we were driven to work together. It
sounded like a good idea.
Senator Mundt. You thought this was economically advisable, that
you work together ? Let's put it that way.
Mr. ScHAGANE. Yes.
The Chairman. Do you know if $1 of this money ever got to the
Rose Bowl game or paid any expense for anyone to go ?
Mr. ScHAGANE. No.
The Chairman. You have no information about that ?
Mr. ScHAGANE. No.
Senator Mundt. Have you any assurance that Mr. Kamenow didn't
keep the $2,000 himself ?
Mr. ScHAGANE. I have not.
Senator Mundt. All you do know is that the picket line was taken
off?
Mr. ScHAGANE. That is right.
Senator Mundt. That was your main interest ?
Mr. Schagane. Indeed.
The Chairman. As I understand, each company paid $2,000.
Mr. Schagane. That is my understanding.
The Chairman. You know you did ?
Mr. Schagane. That is correct.
The Chairman. You know your pickets were taken off ?
Mr. Schagane. That is correct.
The Chairman. And none were put on the other business ?
]Mr. Schagane. Not to my knowledge.
Mr. Kennedy. Did he approach you again in December 1955 for
another $2,000?
Mr. Schagane. He did.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you tell him at that time that the $2,000 had
been to take the pickets off, and that had been achieved, and you didn't
want to pay him again ?
6456 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. ScHAGANE. That is correct.
The Chairman. Who were the officers of this teamster local ?
Mr. ScHAGANE. I never saw them or heard from any of them. I
don't know them at all.
The Chairman. I guess we have the record on that ?
Mr. Kennedy. It is Frank Kierdorf , the same local.
Did Mr. Kamenow come to see you very often to give you advice ?
Mr. ScHAGANE. Whenever necessary.
Mr. Kennedy. How many times a year ?
Mr. ScHAGANE. Three or four times, perhaps.
Mr. Kennedy. For how long did he see you when he came up ?
Mr. ScHAGANE. From 5 minutes, perhaps, to a half hour.
Mr. Kennedy. You are still retaining him ; are you ?
Mr. ScHAGANE. I am.
Mr. Kennedy. How many employees of your company were in-
volved in this matter ?
Mr. Schagane. As I remember, approximately five.
Mr. Kennedy. Five emj)loyees ?
Mr. Schagane. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. And you thought it was worth while to pay $2,000
to keep those five employees from belonging to the union?
Mr. Schagane. No, that wasn't the idea at all. We had not been
approached in any manner or form by the union officials. All we had
was pickets.
Mr. Kennedy. You could have signed up with the union or they
could have voted to join the union ; could they not ?
Mr. Schagane. If they had the opportunity.
Mr. Kennedy. Were they interested in joining the union?
Mr. Schagane. Not to my knowledge.
Mr. Kennedy. "W^iat happened to those five employees? Are they
still with you ?
Mr. Schagane. I wouldn't say they are all with us at the time.
Mr. Kennedy. Were they all drivers ?
Mr. Schagane. No. There was a couple of drivers and, as I re-
member, three salesmen that were driving panel trucks and doing a
little delivering while calling on customers.
Mr. Kennedy. So you paid $2,000 to have the pickets removed?
Mr. Schagane. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. It had nothing to do with union difficulties that you
had with the union, but the $2,000 was paid to have the pickets" re-
moved ?
Mr. Schagane. That and any other negotiations that were neces-
sary to come.
Mr. Kennedy. But the $2,000 that was paid, and the original re-
tainer that was paid, was paid to get the pickets removed from out-
side your plant ? Is that right ?
Mr. Schagane. I would say primarily, but not entirelv.
Senator Mundt. How did the pickets get there in the first place?
"Wliat were they picketing about ?
Mr. Schagane. I don't understand.
Senator Mundt. Why were they there ?
Mr. Schagane. That is a good question. I don't know. Thev just
appeared. We never heard from nothing, from no one.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 6457
Senator Mundt. You just came out there one morning and there
were the pickets ?
Mr. ScHAGANE. That is correct.
Senator Mundt. You had no preliminary discussion ?
Mr. ScHAGANE. No, not before or after.
Senator Mundt. That is a little bit hard to accept.
Mr. ScHAGANE. It is.
Senator Mundt. You came down to work and here was a picket
line ?
Mr. ScHAGANE. That is right.
Senator Mundt. What did they say on the picket line, "Unfair to
organized labor" ?
Mr. ScHAGANE. Something to that effect.
Senator Mundt. And you had no discussions with any organizers
at all ?
Mr. ScHAGANE. None.
Senator Mundt. None of your men had been met by a unionman?
Mr. Schagane. No.
Senator Mundt, But here they were ?
Mr. Schagane. That is right.
Senator Mundt. And at that stage, you went to an attorney and
said, "How much does it cost to get rid of a picket line by injunction
and how long does it take," and so forth, and he said it was a long,
slow process. So you went to this other outfit ?
Mr. Schagane. That is right.
Senator Mundt. Would this be beyond the realm of possibility, that
Mr. Kamenow had gone to his good friend Mr. Kierdorf, and said,
"Look, Frank, old boy, there is an outfit by the name of Advance
Electric Co. Why don't you put some pickets up there. I think I
can shake them down for a couple of thousand bucks and then you take
the pickets off again." Do you suppose that is the way they got there ?
Would that be possible ?
Mr. Schagane. Anything is possible.
Senator Mundt. Can you think of any better reason why they would
be there ? Why would they be there 1 day and 4 days later after they
got the $2,000 be gone, if there was no labor dispute ? I am trying to
figure out how these things start. You can explain how you stop them,
but I want to know how they start. This is a pretty good deal. All
they have to do is bring in a picket line, get a check, and away they
go. There has been nobody hurt much. There were some people who
complained before, but they don't complain afterward. Nobody gets
much benefit, except to get rid of the picket line that you couldn't
understand in the first place.
Either Mr. Kierdorf and Mr. Kamenow have $2,000 to split between
or for some of their friends to be shipped to the Rose Bowl game.
Mr. Schagane. That is as it appears.
Senator Mundt. There is no reason at all ? There was no advance
notice that the picket line was coming ?
Mr. Schagane. Absolutely not. There is always rumors floating
around, of course.
Senator Mundt. Did any of them make any more sense tlian the one
I just injected ?
Mr. Schagane. No.
89330— 57— pt. 16 15
6458 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES UST THE LABOR FIELD
Senator Mundt. Do you think my speculation is as plausible as
any?
Mr. ScHAGANE. I presume it is as good as any, sir.
Senator Mundt. Have you any idea of any kind of legislation Con-
gress could enact that would make a racket like this less likely to
occur?
Mr. ScHAGNE. Do you call organizational picketing legal? I am
not an authority.
Senator Mundt. It is hard to know, if they don't tell you why they
are picketing, whether it is organizational picketing, or if they are
picketing because you are using sweatshop labor. It is hard to tell, as
long as they don't tell you. We are trying to create an economic
environment in which employees and management can live together
happily and share the fruits of private enterprise equitably without
having this kind of a supercharge imposed on somebody, and creating
a racket situation. While it may be within the law, it is certainly
outside the pale of proper economic procedure.
Mr. ScHAGANE. I agree with you.
Senator Mundt. Have you any suggestions for us ?
Mr. ScHAGANE. I wish I did.
Senator Mundt. Can you tell us how we can do something as Mem-
bers of Congress ?
Well, O.K.
Mr. Kennedy. Did any of these five employees that you discussed
join the union ?
Mr. ScHAGANE. No.
Mr. Kennedy. The iniion never came back to try to sign up these
people ?
Mr. ScHAGANE. No.
Mr. Kennedy. But the $2,000 was requested the following year ; is
that right?
Mr. Schagane. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. And you refused that ?
Mr. Schagane. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. Because you said the $2,000 was for the removal of
the pickets and that wasn't going to continue ; is that right ?
Mr. Schagane. That is correct.
Senator Mundt. What happened then ? Did the pickets come back ?
Mr. Schagane. No. Nothing happened.
Senator Mundt. You got a bargain rate from that point on ? You
were a steady customer and you got special rates ?
Mr. Schagane. Yes.
Senator ]\Iundt. Was Kamenow the one who asked for the $2,000
the second time ?
Mr. Schagane. I beg your pardon ?
Senator Mundt. Was it Kamenow who asked for the $2,000 the
second time ?
Mr. Schagane. Yes.
Senator Mundt. When you said "No," he said "We will settle for
less and keep the pickets off" ?
Mr. Schagane. There was no mention of pickets or anything else.
It was known and accepted as such.
The Chahiman. In the meantime, Kamenow had gotten your busi-
ness, your trucking business ; hadn't he ?
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE' LABOR FIELD 6459
Mr. ScHAGANE. Well, he did at the time ; yes.
The Chairman. He still has it?
Mr. ScHAGANE. No.
The CHAiRMAiSr, When did you get rid of him ?
Mr. ScHAGANE. He decided, evidently, that the venture wasn't pay-
ing off and he broke up the partnership.
The Cpiairman. When ? He still had it at the time that he asked
for the $2,000 and you didn't give it ?
Mr. ScuAGANE. I believe that is correct. I think that was after
that.
The Chairman. He was still in business Avith you at that time?
Mr. ScHAGANE. Yes.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Call the next witness.
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Abe Schreiber.
Mr. Schagane, let me ask you a question to complete the story. The
other company that met with you, were they also requested to pay
the $2,000?
Mr. Schagane. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. And that was tlie Royalite Electric Co. ?
Mr. Schagane. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. They were asked to pay. Do you know if they did
pay?
Mr. Schagane. I do not laiow.
Mr. Kennedy. He made tlie same terms, in other words, with both
of you ? Is that right ?
Mr. Schagane. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. And thev had agreed at that meeting to pay the
$2,000?
Mr. Schagane. I believe that is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. As well as retain Kamenow?
Mr. Schagane. I believe that is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. Do vou know if they ever had pickets outside their
plant?
Mr. Schagane. Xot to my knowledge they did not.
Mr. Kennedy. We can have the next witness explain what hapepned.
The Chairman. The committee will stand in recess until 2 o'clock.
(Committee members present at time of recess: Senators McClellan
andMundt.)
("V^niereupon, at 12: 15 p. m. the committee was recessed, to recon-
vene at 2 p. m. the same day.)
AFTERNOON SESSION
(Members of tlie committee present at time of reconvening: Sen-
ators McClellan and Mundt.)
The Chairman. The committee will come to order, please.
Abe Schreiber, please.
You do solemnly swear 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. Schreiber. I do.
6460 EMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD
TESTIMONY OF ABE SCHEEIBER, ACCOMPANIED BY HIS COUNSEL,
GILBERT Y. RUBENSTEIN
The Chairman. State your name, jour place of residence, and your
business or occupation.
Mr. ScHREiBER. My name is Abe Schreiber. I live at 1702 Linn-
wood Avenue, Flint, Mich. I am in the wholesale electrical supply.
Tre Chairman. You have counsel with you, Mr. Schreiber ?
Mr. Schreiber. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. Counsel, will you identify yourself for the record,
please ?
Mr. RuBENSTEiN. I am Gilbert Y. Rubenstein. I am an attorney
licensed to pi-actice in the State of Michigan. I have mv office at
1526 Mott Foundation Building, Flint, Mich.
The Chairman. Counsel, you may proceed.
Mr. Kennedy. I believe the witness has a statement, Mr. Chairman,
The Chairman. Do you have a prepared statement you would like
to read ?
Mr. Schreiber. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. Was it submitted within the time under the rules ?
Mr. Kennedy. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. Has the statement been examined by counsel ?
Mr. Kennedy. It was.
The Chairman. All right. You can proceed to read the statement.
Mr. Schreiber. Royalite Co., a wholesale electric supply business,
was organized in 1930 by Jack Shaprow and Abe Schreiber at Flint,
Mich. It began as a 2-man operation, and grew into its present organ-
ization of 30 people. The company was incorporated under the laws
of the State of Michigan during the fall of 1956, and its stock is still
held by the Shaprow and Schreiber families.
Royalite Co. experienced its growth as the result of many factors;
however, the management of the company does now and have always
believed that the close personal relationship which has always existed
between the company and its employees has been one of the most im-
portant factors in its continued progress and growth. The average
length of service of the employees of this company is approximately 8
years. The company believes and hereby declares, without any reser-
vation or fear of contradiction, that the working conditions, level of
wages, other benefits, and other factors of employees' rights are and
always have been higher than that which has prevailed in the same
industry in the same area.
The Royalite Co. declares, to the best of its information, knowledge,
and belief, that not one single employee has ever joined a union or
sought to join a union or is a member of a union. As before men-
tioned, the Royalite Co. has never had any labor difficulties whatsoever
during its entire existence, and the management of the company and
its employees enjoy nothing less than the highest regard and loyalty
toward each other.
Beginning some 4 or 5 years ago, and perhaps longer than that, the
management of Royalite Co. became aware that organizational drives
in various industries in the area of Flint, Mich., were effected by means
of a picket line being used to coerce the employer to place his employees
in a union without regard to a labor dispute or the desire of its
employees to belong to a union.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 6461
Further, it was known to the management of the Royalite Co. that,
if a company was involved in interstate commerce, then there could be
no immediate relief or remedy, inasmuch as the employer had to go
through Federal process with interminable and time-consuming delay ;
that it was commonly known in such cases the the employer or the
union seeking and finally securing Federal relief would and did suffer
severe and serious economic loss by such time-consuming delay.
The management of Royalite Co. realized, in view of the above, that
its business, being the movement of electrical supplies, would be dras-
tically curtailed and perhaps completely stopped by the placement of
a one-man picket line in front of its place of business, even though no
labor dispute existed. Accordingly, any employer, including this com-
pany, is constantly under threat of coercion in this manner described,
regardless as to whether or not a labor dispute exists of any complaint
could possibly be made as to standard of wages or working conditions of
its employees.
Sometime during the middle of 1954 it appeared that an organi-
zational drive was being made of this industry in the Flint area. At
said time, it was believed, and the management of Royalite Co. still
charges the truth to be, that not one of its employees were members
of a union or had sought to join a union; at said time, no labor
difficulty or dispute existed between Royalite Co. and its employees,
nor was there or could there be made any complaint as to the wages
or working conditions of the employees of Royalite Co.; that, as
hereinbefore indicated, the management of Royalite Co. believed and
still believe that if a one-man picket line were placed in front of its
place of business it would become a noose of economic strangulation;
that whatever relief could be afforded through Federal process would
be unduly delayed and cause serious economic loss, not alone to the
Royalite Co., but to its employees. Accordingly, altliough the Royal-
ite Co. had not yet been approached concerning the organization of its
employees, it still felt it imperative for its own protection and for
the protection of its employees that it secure a labor-relations service
to act in behalf of the Royalite Co. should the industry organiza-
tional drive reach this company, as was expected.
That it was at about this same time that the management of the
Royalite Co. became aware that a labor-relations firm in Detroit,
Mich., was representing some of the largest and most reputable na-
tional and local concerns, and thereafter the Royalite Co. did retain
the Labor Relations Associates of Chicago, which was represented
by a Mr. George Kamenow, of Detroit, Mich. The statements which
were received by Royalite Co. from Labor Relations Associates for its
fees and services, and the checks in payment thereof made by Royalite
Co., have been examined by the investigators for your committee.
The Royalite Co. has taken pride in its relationships with suppliers
and customers, in its efforts in behalf of the community where it is
located, and, in no small measure, for the high plane of mutual
confidence and respect which it enjoys with its employees.
The Royalite Co. has not and does not harbor any ill will toward
any union organization which may seek to organize its employees.
However, this company believes that corrective remedies must be
promulgated to prevent the placement of a picket line for the sole
purpose of coercing an employer to sign a union contract placing its
employees in a union against their wishes ; this company will, at any
6462 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
time, gladly abide by the majority vote of its employees with respect
to their representation by or without a union.
The Chairman. Proceed, Mr. Kennedy.
Mr. Kennedy. When you approached and had the conference with
Mr. Kamenow, of Labor Relations Associates, what financial ar-
rangements did he make at the time ?
Mr. ScHREiBER. At that time he told us the monthly fee would be
$100, plus a lump sum of $2,000.
Mr. Kennedy. What was the $2,000 to be for ?
Mr. ScHREiBER. At that time, I don't remember whether it was
stated, but at a later date he came in and stated that this was for
the purpose of taking the boys to the Rose Bowl game.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you agree to pay the $2,000 ?
Mr. ScHREiBER. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. And the Advance Electrical Co. also agreed to pay
the $2,000 ?
Mr. Schreiber. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. So you were going to take $4,000 worth of teamsters
union officials to the Rose Bowl game ?
Mr. Schreiber. I didn't know who was going. I didn't ask that
question of them, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Did he state at that time it was to take the teamsters
officials to the Rose Bowl game ?
Mr. Schreiber. Not to me, sir. He said the boys. Wliom he meant
by that, I do not know.
The Chairman. You were not willing to just give the $2,000 to see
somebody get to a football game without knowing who it was, were
you?
Mr. Schreiber. Those are things you can't very well ask in the
predicament you are put in.
The Chairman. You would like to have known ?
Mr. Schreiber. I certainly would have.
The Chairman. But you dared not ask?
Mr. Schreiber. That is the way I felt.
The Chairman. That is the way you felt ?
Mr. Schreiber. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. "Wlien you were first interviewed by Mr. Langen-
bacher, I was not there, but I believe you stated at that time that it was
teamsters officials to be taken to the Rose Bowl.
Mr. Schreiber. That I cannot remember. It was some time ago.
When Mr. Langenbacher was there, and he can verify this, the phones
in my office were ringing constantly, and I had to get up from time
to time and excuse myself to take care of the phones and people coming
into my office.
Mr. Kennedy. Do j^ou think it possible that you might have told
him at that time ?
Mr. Schreiber. I can't remember.
Mr. Kennedy. But now you remember he did mention teamsters
officials ?
Mr. Schreiber. I am not saying, because I don't know.
Mr. Kennedy. So you paid the $100 a month, and the $2,000 was
paid in 1954?
IMPROPER ACTrV'ITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 6463
Mr. ScHREiBER. It wasn't paid in 1954. I believe you have state-
ments there showing where it was prorated through the statements
over a period of time.
Mr. Kennedy. Over a period of 3 or 4 months ; is that right ?
Mr. ScHREiBER. I believe so.
Mr. Kennedy. And then did he approach you again in December
of 1955?
Mr. ScHREiBER. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. For another $2,000 ?
Mr. Sciireiber. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you pay that $2,000 ?
Mr. ScHREiBER. Yes, sir.
Mr. Ivennedy. Still to take the boys to the Rose Bowl game ?
Mr. ScHREiBER. That was the same story.
Mr. Ivennedy. That was the following year. So you paid the
$2,000 to take the boys in 1954 and you paid another $2,000 to take
the boys in 1955 ?
Mr. Schreiber. That is right, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. There were a lot of people going to the Rose Bowl
game, even if they weren't teamsters officials; is that right?
Mr. Schreiber. I don't know.
Mr. Kennedy. Well, he told you that he needed this money for
these boys to go to the Rose Bowl game ?
Mr. Schreiber. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. You didn't raise any question about it at that time ?
Mr. Schreiber. No, sir.
Mr. Ivennedy. You just paid it?
Mr. Schreiber. That is right.
Mr. Ivennedy. Then in 1956 did he approach you for another
$2,000?^
Mr. Schreiber. Yes, sir.
Mr. ICennedy. What did you say to him at that time ?
Mr. Schreiber. I told him then that I wouldn't give it to him. He
came back a second time and I said that I would only give him $500.
Mr. Kennedy. What did you say to him specifically ?
Mr. Schreiber. Well, I was in the middle of building a 60,000-
square-foot building. Financially I was being pressed very hard for
money because of the economic conditions becoming very bad. I said
to him, I says, "What do you want ? My blood ?"
Mr. Kennedy. So he agreed ultimately to take only $500 ?
Mr. Schreiber. That is right, sir.
Mr. Ivennedy. And you paid the $500 ?
Mr. Schreiber. Yes, sir. Feeling that
Mr. Ivennedy. Yes?
(The witness conferred with his counsel.)
Mr. Kennedy. Did you tell Mr. Kamenow that it was nothing but
blackmail ?
Mr. Schreiber. No, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Do you remember when you were interviewed by
Mr. Langenbacher, that you made that statement ?
Mr. Schreiber. No, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. You do not ?
Mr. Schreiber. No, sir.
6464 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. Kennedy. Do you denj^ making it to Mr. Langenbacher ?
Mr. ScHREiBER. No, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. You didn't say anything about blackmail ?
Mr. ScHREiBER. No, sir.
The Chairman, '^^^lat do you say about it now ?
Mr. ScHREiBER. That I can't say, sir.
The Chairman. Well, if you thought a fellow was after your blood,
what other way would you describe it ?
(The witness conferred with his counsel.)
Mr. ScHREiBER. We are retaining him at the present time, although
I haven't paid a bill since this investigation started.
The Chairman. I understand. But do you think that the $2,000
was for any legitimate purpose ?
Mr. Schreiber. I couldn't very well tell that, sir.
The Chairman. You could pretty well tell it wasn't, couldn't you ?
Mr. Schreiber. Well, it was — What did you say, sir? Illegitimate?
(The witness conferred with his counsel.)
The Chairman. Well, I didn't put it exactly that way.
(The witness conferred with his counsel.)
The Chairman. It was not for a legitimate purpose. I will put it
that way.
(The witness conferred with his counsel.)
The Chairman. Did you feel that the $2,000 was for a legitimate
purpose ?
(The witness conferred with his counsel.)
Mr. Schreiber. I was paying him for a service that was being
rendered at the time.
The Chairman. That doesn't answer the question. He might render
a service for a purpose that was legitimate or for one that was not
legitimate. Did you regard the $2,000 paj^ment as for a legitimate
purpose to take the union officials to the football game ?
Mr. Schreiber. I regarded the fee as legitimate inasf ar as the fee
in itself was concerned.
The Chairman. I am not talking about that. I am talking about the
$2,000 to carry a group of union officials to a football game. Do you
regard that as a legitimate purpose for paying the money ?
Mr. Schreiber. I don't know whether he took the union officials
or not. That was his statement to us.
The Chairman. That would even make it worse, if anything, if it
could be worse. You felt you were actually being blackmailed, didn't
you, that they were getting this money out of you to keep the union
away ; isn't that correct ?
Mr. Schreiber. No; he was rendering a service to us at the time.
The Chairman. That is pretty good service, keeping the union
away; isn't it? Isn't that what you thought?
(The witness conferred with his counsel.)
The Chairman. Wasn't that a part of the service he was providing,
keeping union away from your plant ?
Mr. Schreiber. Well, at that time I didn't know. What I was try-
ing to do was trying to keep my business open rather than have a
picket line come around.
The Chairman. Well, if you keep the picket line away, you keep
the union away, don't you ? The picket line is part of the union.
EMPROPER AGTIVITIKS IN THE LABOR FIELD 6465
Mr. ScHREiBER, As I say, the union has never approached us, and
we didn't know whether it was a part of that or not, sir.
The CiiAiRMAx. I can't understand you business people coming up
here and evading questions like that. It just doesn't have the right
sort of ring to it. You weren't paying $2,000 to carry some union
officials to a football game simply because you felt you owed it to them.
You expected something in return, and what you expected in return
was to keep a picket line away from j^our place of business, wasn't it?
Mr. ScHREiBER. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. All right. Why don't you say so ? I can under-
stand some people when they are in a tight place don't want to tell
any more than they have to. But here we are trying to do the country
a service and you people a service by finding out what these rackets
are and try to find some way to legislate to prevent them. When you
come in here, you are reluctant to give us the facts. We have to drag
them out of you. I think you ought to be more cooperative. I don't
want to put words in your mouth, but you present a case here that is
absolute on the face of it, and I don't see why you just simply don't be
frank about it.
Mr. Kennedy. Do you still retain Mr. Kamenow ?
Mr. ScHREiBER. He has been sending us bills, but we have ignored
them entirely.
Mr. Kennedy. Since when ?
Mr. Sciireiber. Since this investigation started. The last payment
was made
(The witness conferred with his counsel.)
Mr. Kennedy. While he is looking that up, let me ask you a
question.
Mr. ScHREiBER. February 18, 1957.
Mr. Kennedy. Up to that time, did Mr. Kamenow come around
very often to see you ?
Mr. ScHREiBER. Probably 4 or 5 times a year.
Mr. Kennedy. Did he perform any services for you ?
Mr. Schreiber. To the best of my knowledge, he used to come in
and ask how things were going, if everything was going all right, and
we told him yes.
Mr. Kennedy. Beyond that he did nothing ?
Mr. Schreiber. No.
Mr. Kennedy. And you have had no difficulties with the union ?
Mr. Schreiber. No, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. And none of your employees are unionized ?
Mr. Schreiber. No, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. And the teamsters have not come ; is that right ?
Mr. Schreiber. They never have been there.
Mr. Kennedy. That is all, Mr. Chairman.
Here are the statements and the checks.
Senator Mundt. Who told you that the picket line was going to
come ? You never really had a picket line ?
Mr. Schreiber . No.
Senator Mundt . Wliat made you think you were going to have one ?
Mr. Schreiber . Well, Mr. Schagane of the Advance Electric called
us and advised us that such was in progress. We knew what he was
going through at the time. Being in interstate commerce, there are
6466 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD
many trucks that bring merchandise in from other States, and
couldn't be unloaded at your place of business. Sooner or later, it
would retard and slow you up where you couldn't even do any business.
Senator Mundt. Did he tell you why the picket line was out in
front of his place ?
Mr. ScHREiBER . No, sir.
Senator Mundt . Had he been having labor trouble ?
Mr. ScHREiBER . Pardon ?
Senator Mundt . Had he been having labor trouble ?
Mr. ScHREiBER . Not that I know of.
Senator Mundt . He simply said "I have a picket line out in front
of my place, and it looks like you are going to be the next one in line ?"
Mr. ScHREiBER . That is right.
Senator Mundt. So together you went to see this man Kamenow
to get rid of picket lines ?
Mr. ScHREiBER . He came to Flint.
Senator Mundt. Did you ever give any money to anybody else
besides Kamenow ? Did you ever give it to any union oiRcials ?
Mr. ScHREiBER . No, sir.
Senator Mundt . Just to Kamenow ?
Mr. ScHREiBER . That is right.
Senator Mundt. Do you suppose Kamenow had anything to do
with establishing the picket line at the Advance Electrical Co.?
Mr. ScHREiBER . That I can't answer.
Senator Mundt . You are pretty sure he had something to do with
taking it away, but you are not sure whether he put it there first or
not, to set the stage for these $2,000 payments ? That you don't know ?
Mr. ScHREiBER. That is right, sir.
The Chairman. I present to you photostatic copies of 7 bills
rendered to you, and photostatic copies of 7 checks in payment of
these bills, rendered to you by Labor Relations Associates. I ask you
to examine them and state if you identify them.
(Documents handed to witness, who conferred with his counsel.)
The Chairman. State if you identify those as the bills rendered
to you by Labor Relations Associates.
(The witness conferred with his counsel.)
Mr. Schreiber. That is right, sir.
I The Chairman. Those are the bills, photostatic copies, and also
photostatic copies of the checks in payment thereof ?
Mr. Schreiber. That is right, sir.
The Chairman. The bills may be made exhibit No. 50-A, B, C, D,
and so forth, and the checks will be exhibit 51-A, B, C, and D, and
so forth.
(The documents referred to were marked respectively "Exhibit
50-A, B, C, D, E, F, G," and "Exhibits 51-A, B, C, D, E, F, G" and
will be found in the appendix on pp. 6604^6617.)
Senator Mundt. Mr. Schreiber, in your opening statement you said
it would take too long and would be too expensive for you to try to
seek recourse through the Federal processes in eliminating the picket
line and that is what drove you into the arms of Mr. Kamenow. As
the chairman said, one of the purposes of our hearing is to try and
find out what, if any, legislation is needed to develop a more whole-
some and healthful economic climate, not only from the standpoint
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 6467
of small-business men like yon, but from the standpoint of your
employees, from the standpoint of the members of labor unions,
the rank and file dues-paying members, and from the standpoint of
larger industries, too.
Do you assume or do you believe that you might have been pro-
tected against the kind of problem that drove you into the arms of
Mr. Kamenow if there were a law making it illegal for a picket line
to operate in front of a plant unless that picket line had the support
of a minimum number of the employees within the plant ?
Mr. SciiREiBER, Yes, sir.
Senator Mundt. You don't think your own employees would have
endorsed such a picket line ?
Mr. ScHREiBER. No, sir.
Senator Mundt. That might be hard on Mr. Kamenow's racket,
and cut down the attendance at the bowl games somewhat. But we
want to do something to protect not only the employees who don't
want to get into a union, but management that doesn't want to have
picket-line trouble, and to protect management against the ugly al-
ternative of going broke or having to make payments of this kind,
which are a disguised bribe, to protect themselves against some un-
defined menace which would wreck their economy.
Mr. ScHREiBER. That is right, sir.
The Chairmax. What is the gross business you do each year at
your place of business ?
Mr. ScHREiBER. Well, it would be an unfair question to reveal the
exact amount, but I will say over $2 million a year.
The Chairman. I am not trying to get any paiticular business
secrets. I am trying to relate it to this problem that we have.
Mr. ScHREiBER. In excess of $2 million a year.
The Chairman. I asked the other witness the same same question.
You have about 30 employees ?
Mr. ScHREiBER. That is right, sir.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Kennedy. How many of the employees were susceptible of
being organized by the teamsters ?
(The witness conferred with his counsel.)
Mr. Schreiber. Two drivers and warehousemen. There were
probably six people.
Mr. Kennedy. Six people?
Mr, Schreiber. That is right, sir.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Mr. Rubenstein. If the Chair please, and I yyirj be a little remiss
and presumptuous, I have made this effort to come to Washington
with Mr. Schreiber, and I do want to say one thing to the Senator
to your right. He has indicated that there might need to be some
remedial legislation. This is an opportunity for me to say some-
thing that is of importance at this time.
The Chairman. It will be regarded as a statement on the record,
but it is not testimony, unless you care to be sworn to express your
views.
Mr. RuBENSTEiN. It is for whatever the opinion is worth. I heard
laughter with reference to the last answer made about the fact that
there were six people and these kind of payments were made. I
6468 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
think Mr. Sclireiber in his statement indicated that the thing he was
trying to prevent was an immediate strangulation without having
any remedial relief.
This morning the Senator from South Dakota, I believe, men-
tioned that there is a twilight zone. I think our Supreme Court
has even called it a no-man's land. It does exist with reference to
the small-business people, where the jurisdictional requirements of
the NLRB are such that they don't quite reach them. The NLRB
therefore is not interested, and our Supreme Court, at least in its
latest decisions, has said that the State, whether it be the State courts
or the State labor mediation board and so forth, have no power.
You are then leaving that field wide open for the kind of — I don't
know what you want to call it, use the adjective yourself. But what-
ever you want to call these things that you are bringing out today is
being brought about in large measure by that. I think it has been
said before, first the no-man's zone has to be taken care of, and I
think quickly, and, secondl^'^, I think it has to do with when there is
a dispute, a legitimate labor dispute, and there is a majority of the
people in a plant, a firm or whatever it is, who have taken a determi-
nation or have taken a stand with reference to it, then I think the
right to the picket line is proper.
But I think otherwise it is improper because it is a method and
pressure that cannot be otherwise overturned, unless they look for
the so-called consultant that may not be operating in what you would
call a proper manner.
That is my statement for whatever it is worth.
The CnAiRMAiSr. Thank you very much. I don't know that I ^ould
supply the adjective. To me this sort of a practice is a racket. They
don't seek to organize the plant. They simply take this coercive
attitude to get money to go to football games, fisliing, and maybe to do
several other things. The money does not go to the worker. It goes
to an officer who has a position of trust and responsibility to the
worker. The worker gains nothing from it.
This sort of a practice is not legitimate organization, in my view.
The little-business man, under the circumstances, is caught, some-
times at least — not always, but sometimes, I am sure — have been
willing to go along with such an arrangement, but many times they
have no alternative. It is either to do that or have their business
greatly impaired, if not wrecked.
Mr. Rtjbenstein. I would say, sir, without being argumentative,
that it not only affects the employer, but sometimes it affects the em-
ployees. Wlien these firms are shut down, the employee suffers, too.
As you say, the workingman does not benefit, but he can suffer a
detriment. If he is forced to join a union that he doesn't want, it is
a cletriment. If his shop is closed against his will and he losses wages,
it is a detriment. So it is, in kind, a detriment to him.
The Chairman. I said they got no benefit. As you say, they can
suffer the loss of a job, or the loss of wages, and maybe other losses.
Mr. RuBENSTEiN. That is true.
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Emile Salay.
The CiTAiEMAN. Do you solemly 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. Salay. I do.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 6469
TESTIMONY OF EMILE SALAY, ACCOMPANIED BY HIS COUNSEL,
PAUL BRAINARL
The Chairman. State your name, your place of residence and your
business or occupation.
Mr. Salay. My name is Emile Salay. I live at 23 Craner Drive,
Davidson, Mich. I am the secretary of the Clinton Sausage Works,
Inc., in Flint, Mich.
The Chairman. Do you have counsel with you?
Mr. Salay. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. Mr. Counsel, will you identify yourself for the
record ?
Mr. Brain ARD. My name is Paul Brainard. I am authorized to
practice law in the State of Michigan. I have offices at 412 Stevens
Street, Flint.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Mr. Kennedy. You are secretary of the Flint Sausage Works?
Mr. Salay. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. How many employees do you have?
Mr. Salay. Approximately 55.
Mr. Kennedy. And they were nonunion up until April of 1956 ?
Mr. Salay. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. There was an attempt to organize, by the teamsters
local in Flint, Mich., your employees at that time?
Mr. Salay. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Was it recommended to you during tliat period
around April of 1956 that you retain the services of Labor Relations
Associates?
Mr. Salay. What date was that ?
Mr. Kennedy. Well, April of 1956; after the teamsters began an
organizational drive.
Mr. SaLx\y. No; we originally received a registered letter from
the teamsters stating they had been appointed bargaining agents.
Mr. Kennedy. They had been appointed. Do you have thafc
letter?
Mr. Salay. I don't have it.
Mr. Kennedy. Had there been an election of your employees up
to that time ?
Mr. Salay. No, sir. They advised me they represented our drivers
and salesmen as bargaining agents.
Mr. Kennedy. How many drivers and salesmen did you have?
Mr. Salay. Approximately 12 at that time.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you have any evidence or indication that thej
did represent them ?
Mr. Salay. They presented signed cards.
Mr. Kennedy. Of how many ?
Mr. Salay. Of approximately 10 of them.
Mr. Kennedy. Approximately 10 of them ?
Mr. Sal.\y. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. And you checked the cards, did you?
Mr. Salay. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you meet with them at that time, then ? What
was the date of the letter, first ? p ,,^,. : ^
6470 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. Salay. It was in the middle part of April, and I do not have
that letter with me ; I am sorry.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you meet with anybody from the union at that
time ?
Mr. Salay. They just came, about a week later they came to our
office, to set up a meeting for negotiations.
Mr. Kennedy. Who came to your office ?
Mr. Salay. Frank Kierdorf and Mr. Gorman.
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Gorman — what was his position in the local?
Mr. Salay. Frank Kierdorf is the business agent and what Gor-
man's position is I don't know.
Mr. Kennedy. So the}" came and they made aji appointment to
meet at a later date ?
Mr. Salay. That is right. They were to contact us in a few days,
approximately.
Mr. Kennedy. During that period of time did you contact Mr.
Kamenow ?
Mr. Salay. Xo, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you meet with the union official then?
Mr. Salay. On April 25, I have that date, there was a meeting
with our auditor, Harry Colbert, and Mr. Paul Brainard, our attor-
ney. Mr. Colbert suggested at that time that we contact a Mr.
Charles Cummings, an attorney in Lansing, Mich., who had written
many labor contracts.
We had this meeting with Mr. Cummings and he was retained.
He suggested that we demand an election l>e held. Then a few days
after April 26 Mr. Kierdorf came to our office and I told him that
we had been advised by counsel to demand an election. Mr. Kierdorf
said it was useless, because in addition to all of our driver-salesmen
being signed up, he also had our two supervisor-salesmen signed, and
he presented their signed cards.
In view of all of those signatures, our demand for an election was
waived.
Mr. Kennedy. So then did j^ou contact Mr. Kamenow?
INIr. Salay. Not at that time. On iSIay 9 there was a conference
at the Grand Hotel in Flint, INIich., between management and our
2 attorneys; Mr. Kierdorf was present, along with 3 of our company
driver-salesmen.
At that time the union proposed a contract which was gone ovei-,
and wasn't agreeable to the company.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you make some changes at that time?
Mr. Salay. Just a few, and it was more or less— that was the first
time a contract had been presented. Then we were given a few dajs
for a counterproposal.
Mr. Kennedy. Just go ahead, then.
Mr. Salay. That was on May 14 and 15. Then for the balance of
that week, management, Mr. Brainard
Mr. Kennedy. We don't have to go into all of the details. Did
you contact Mr. Kamenow during this period ?
Mr. Salay. No, sir. Mr. KamenoM' was contracted about May 17,
about that date, approximately.
^ Mr. Kennedy. IVliat was "the status of the negotiations at that
time?
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 6471
Mr. Sal AY. It was pretty much at a stalemate. Demands were too
great, we felt, and our counterproposals were not accepted, and we
were still bargaining.
Mr. Kennedy. Then did you learn that your brother learned that
Kamenow had performed some useful services for businessmen in
Flint, Mich.
Mr. Salay. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. With the teamsters union ?
Mr. Salay. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you get in touch with Mr. Kamenow?
Mr. Salay. We had a meeting with Mr. Kamenow the following
week of May 17 or thereabouts.
Mr. Kennedy. What did he state to you at that time?
Did he state that in view of the fact that the negotiations had
started, it would be too late to keep the union out altogether ?
Mr. Salay. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. But that he thought that he could get you a good
contract or a better contract ?
Mr. Salay. He thought that he could get us a good contract.
Mr. Kennedy. What did he say that his services would be? How
much was he going to charge ?
Mr. Salay. x\.t that time he didn't. Later on I asked him at an-
other meetings.
Mr. Kennedy. How much did he say you would have to pay;
a monthly fee of how much ?
Mr. Salay. We would have to pay between $2,500 and $3,000 a
year for his services.
Mr. Kennedy. Would that be a $50 monthly fee ?
Mr. Salay. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. And between $2,500 and $3,000 would be in addition
to that?
Mr. Salay. No, that would be included.
Mr. Kennedy. Well, about $2,500, that would have to be on top
of the $50 a month, making a total of between $2,500 and $3,000 ; is
that right?
Mr. Salay. Approximately; yes.
Mr. Kennedy. Approximately $2,500 or between $2,000 and $2,500,
was that to be used for entertainment of teamster union officials?
Mr. Salay. I understood that ; yes.
Mr. Kennedy. That is what he stated to you ?
Mr. Salay. Words to that effect.
Mr. Kennedy. Did he say he would have to take the boys on fish-
ing trips, to the Kose Bowl games, and hunting trijps and to the
horseraces ?
Mr. Salay. That was mentioned.
Mr. Kennedy. All of those four items ?
Mr. Salay. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. And that these payments would be for that pur-
pose ; is that right ?
Mr. Salay. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you agree to that ?
Mr. Salay. We agreed to his fee of $2,500 and $3,000 per year.
Mr. Kennedy. Did he suggest that you get in touch with Frank
Kierdorf and tell him that you had retained Kamenow ?
6472 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. Salat. No.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you get in touch with Kierdorf ?
Mr. Salay. No.
Mr. Kennedy. You got in touch with Kierdorf ?
Mr. Salay. No, he did.
Mr. Kennedy. Kamenow got in touch with him ?
Mr. Salay. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. They did the negotiating from then on, is that
right '?
Mr. Salay. That is right, and we had numerous meetings.
Mr. Kennedy. And you received or he was able to get a contract
that was acceptable to you ?
Mr. Salay. It was acceptable to us, and it was comparable to the
contracts in our area, which I had checked on in the meantime.
The Chairman. How did it compare with the contract that they
had submitted to you, their proposition in the beginning ?
Mr. Salay. Well, it was less. But it was an increase over what
we had been paying.
The Chairman. An increase over what you had paid, and it was
less than the union demand ?
Mr. Salay. Yes, the original demand.
The Chairman. Taking into account the union demands and what
you finally settled for, plus around $3,000 a year, you were to pay
out, did you come out better than you would have if you had signed
the original contract?
Mr. Salay. I have never figured that out, Senator McClellan.
The Chairman. You must have made some calculations about it at
the time.
Mr. Salay. I don't know.
The Chairman. You don't know ?
Mr. SalxYy. No.
Mr. KENNEDY^ The contract that had originally been presented to
you by the union which was not acceptable, you had made certain
notations on it as to what you desired ; is that right ?
Mr. Salay. Our attorney had.
Mr. Kennedy. And the changes that had been made by your attor-
ney in the contract were encompassed in the contract as it was finally
accepted in large part, isn't that right ?
(The witness conferred with his counsel.)
Mr. Salay. We are not sure. That was a contract; the first con-
tract was written on at that first meeting.
Mr. Kennedy. But I have here what I understand is the original
contract as it was prepared by the teamsters, and then there were
changes made in pencil above the various figures that they used.
For instance, base pay of $37.50 changed to $34.50. Four percent
commission changed to 3 percent, in pencil.
Mr. Salay. That is what we were paying.
Mr. Kennedy. And so on, and those changes seem to be generally
encompassed in this contract as it was finally written.
Mr. Salay. Yes, it was an increase for a 3-year contract, to increase
eacli year.
Mr. Kennedy. But he was able to obtain a very good contract for
you, in comparison with what the union originally wanted.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 6473
Mr. Salay. From the original contract we felt it was a fair contract.
Mr. Kennedy. Was there a raise immediately, or was there a raise
over a period of time that was i^iven to your employees ?
Mr. Salay. Etfective July 16, 1956.
Mr. Kennedy. When was the contract signed ?
Mr. Salay. The contract was signed May 15, 1957.
Mr. Kennedy. It was signed in May of 1957 ?
Mr. Salay. Yes, May of 1957. This contract was lived up to
orally.
Mr. Kennedy. When were the raises in pay or increases in wages to
start for the employees over what they had been getting ?
Mr. Salay. July 16, 1956, was when the first raise was started.
Senator Mundt. I thought you didn't sign the contract until 1957 ?
That is a year later.
Mr. Salay. That is right.
Senator Mundt. You baclc-dated the raise in pay, then ?
Mr. Salay. This contract had been worked on for some time, and
we were living up to the terms of our decision orally.
Senator Mundt. The effective date of the raise, back-dated about
a year, is July of 1956, even though you didn't sign it until 1957?
Mr. Salay. Actually we went along with our oral agreement, and
later on the contract was signed.
Senator Mundt. You actually started increasing the pay of the
men?
Mr. Salay. July 16, 1956.
Senator Mundt. It was an oral contract at that time or an oral
understanding ?
Mr. Salay. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Did the contract provide for an increase in wages for
your employees immediately ?
Mr. Salay. Yes.
Mr, Kennedy. It did ?
!Mr. Salay. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy'. But it was in accordance — or the wage increase, the
benefits were only as much as the attorneys had agreed to at the
regional meeting, isn't that right; that is, your own attorneys had
agreed to originally ?
(The witness conferred with his counsel.)
Mr. Kennedy. Why I say that is because of an examxination of this
contract with the penciled notations which you state were made by
your attorney at the first meeting, and comparing those penciled no-
tations it seems to be identical with the contract as it was ultimately
signed.
Mr. Salay. That isn't a complete contract. That is just the rate
atid the wage scale. That isn't a complete contract.
Mr. Kennedy'. As far as the wage scale is concerned and the rates
of pay, it is as you people wanted to sign originally; is that right?
You were able to get the union or Mr. Kamenow was able to get the
union to accept what your attorneys wanted to be accepted originally ;
isn't that right, with respect to wages and rates of pay ?
(The witness conferred with his counsel.)
Mr. Salay'. It would be very close to it. We must remember, too,
that these rates were originally based on a 6-day week and we Avent
S9330— 57— pt. 16 16
5474 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
onto a 5-day basis, which is a considerable raise, naturally, to our
men.
Mr. Kennedy. Now, did he speak to you specifically in June of
1956 about the payments that would have to be made for the yachting
and boating trip for the teamster officials ?
Mr. Salay. As I recall, he mentioned in June that we would re-
ceive a considerable charge the following month and it was for the
boys' entertainment for the Fourth of July.
Mr. IvENNEDY. Did he tell you specifically it was for a fishing and
yachting trip for them ?
Mr. Salay. I believe that is right.
Mr. Kennedy. That charge to you, that was to be over the Fourth
of July weekend ?
Mr. Salay. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. That was $2,177.42.
Mr. Salay. $2,177.42 ; yes, that is right.
Mr. Kennedy. Did he speak to you about what was going to
happen over Labor Day, if you were taking care of them on the
Fourth of July ?
Mr. Salay. He mentioned that McDonald Dairy would be billed
for Labor Day.
Mr. Kennedy. So, that had all been arranged. You were to take
care of them on the Fourth of July and McDonald Dairy was to
take care of them on Labor Day weekend.
Mr. Salay. Apparently so.
Mr. Kennedy. He told you that ?
Mr. Salay. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. They were in charge of the entertainment for Labor
Day weekend for the boys ?
Mr. Salay. That is right.
Mr. Chalrman. I present to you a photostatic copy of a bill, and
also a photostatic copy of a check. The bill is rendered July 31,
1956, for retainer fee for the month of August, $50, and disburse-
ments for the month of July, $2,177.42, making a total of $2,227.42,
the amount of the photostatic copy of the check here. Will you
examine those photostats and see if you identify them as such, and
whether it is accurate ?
Mr. Salay. Yes ; it is correct.
The Chairman. That document, the photostatic copy of the bill,
may be made exhibit No. 52.
(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 52" for
reference, and will be found in the appendix on p. 6618.)
Mr. KENNEDY. Did he ever tell you if they had enjoyed their hunt-
ing trip or their yachting trip ?
Mr. Salay. It seems to me that something was mentioned like that.
Mr. Kennedy. He wanted to tell you that they had enjoyed it?
Mr. Salay. Apparently so ; I am sure he did.
Mr. Kennedy. He reported that to you ?
Mr. Salay. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you see him in December of 1956? Did he
come by with an automobile ?
Mr. Salay. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Was tlie automobile filled with portable TV sets?
Mr. Salay. There were some in there.
IJVIPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 6475
Mr. Kennedy. What did he say they were for ?
Mr. Salay. As I recall, they were gifts for the boys.
Mr. Kennedy. All right. Thank you.
The Chairman. Did you pay for the TV sets ?
Mr. Salay. That I don't know.
The Chairman. Sir?
Mr. Salay. That I don't know.
The Chairman. You don't know who paid for them?
Mr. Salay. No.
The Chairman. You are not sure whether you paid for them or
you didn't?
Mr. Salay. No.
The Chairman. It could have been included in the $2,100.
Mr. Salay. That is right ; it could have been.
Senator Mundt. He used the phrase, "the boys." Who did you
think he meant — the people in your company ?
Mr. Salay. I beg your pardon ?
Senator Mundt. Did you think that he meant the men in your
plant ?
Mr. Salay. Apparently, not the men in my plant.
Senator Mundt. Whom did you think that he meant?
Mr. Salay. I would think he would be referring to the officials of
the union.
Senator Mundt. That was the inference you drew?
Mr. Salay. Yes.
The Chairman. All right. Thank you very much.
Who is the next one ?
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, we w^ould like to call Mr. Kent
MacGregor.
The Chairman. Do you 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. MacGregor. I do.
TESTIMONY OF KENT L. MacGREGOR
The Chairman. State your name, your place of residence, and your
business or occupation.
Mr. MacGregor. My name is Kent L. MacGregor, 1060 Lafayette
Street, Flint, Mich., and I am president of the MacGregor Tire Co.
The Chairman. How long have you had that business, Mr.
MacGregor ?
Mr. MacGregor. Since February of 1946.
The Chairman. You waive counsel, do you ?
Mr. MacGregor. I do.
The Chairman. How many employees have you?
Mr. MacGregor. Approximately 20 or 21.
The Chairman. All right, Mr. Kennedy, proceed.
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. ]NIacGregor, there was an attempt made to
organize your employees back in 1954 ?
Mr. MacGregor. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. That was by Mr. Frank Kierdorf , of the teamsters
local in Flint, Mich. ?
Mr. MacGregor. That is right.
6476 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. Kennedy. Did you, when that attempt was made to organize,
contact Mr. George Kamenow ?
Mr. MacGregor. Sometime after that attempt was made to organ-
ize, I contacted Mr. Kamenow ; yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Had he been recommended to you by other busi-
nessmen in Flint, Mich. ?
Mr. MacGregor. Yes, sir.
Senator Mundt. What do you mean, Mr. MacGregor, by an
"attempt to organize"? Would you tell us something about what
was done ? Did the men in your plant come to your office, and say,
"We want to have a union, Mr. MacGregor," or what do you mean?
Mr. MacGregor. The only attempt, from that standpoint, was IMr.
Kierdorf talked to me on several different occasions, personally,
about organizing our employees. That was the extent of the attempt
to organize.
Senator Mundt. Did he have any evidence that he presented to
you that he represented your employees ?
Mr. MacGregor. No, sir.
Senator Mundt. What reason did he give you to believe that he
represented the employees ?
Mr. MacGregor. He said that he represented, and had cards
signed by, several of our emploj^ees.
Senator Mundt. Did he show you the cards ?
Mr. MacGregor. No, sir.
Senator Mundt. Did he say how many he had ?
Mr. MacGregor. Yes, I believe he said that he had four.
Senator Mundt. Out of 20 ?
Mr. MacGregor. Yes.
Senator Mundt. You did not see the cards ?
Mr. MacGregor. No, sir.
Senator Mundt. Had any of the members of your plant come to
you from among those four, or any other group, to say "Mac, we
ought to have a union ?"
Mr. MacGregor. No, sir.
Senator Mundt. All you knew about their desire to have a union
was the fact that this man came in and said, "I have four cards in
my pocket," and that is all ?
Mr. MacGregor. That is about it.
Mr. Kennedy. So, you got in touch with George Kamenow?
Mr. MacGregor. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. And he said that he would be able to help you out
and assist you ?
Mr. MacGregor. No ; he never said that he could help me out too
much or assist me too much. We talked it over, and the circum-
stances surrounding it and the possibilities of what we could do, and
what I thought, how many of our men would actually want to join
a union, and we never discussed
Mr, Kennedy. You retained him, did you not?
Mr. MacGregor. I certainly did.
Mr. Kennedy. You must have thought he was going to be able
to assist you.
Mr. MacGregor. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. What was the arrangement made, financially, with
him ?
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 6477
Mr. MacGregor. The financial arrangement was $75 a month, and
if he had any expenses over and above that he had to clear them with
me first for my O. K.
Mr. Kennedy. Did he tell you there would be certain charges for
entertainment ?
Mr MacGregor. He said there would be some entertainment.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you tell him at that time how much maximum
he could use on entertainment ?
Mr. MacGregor. We had no agreed figure.
Mr. Kennedy. After you retained Mr. Kamenow, did you hear
again from Mr. Kierdorf ?
Mr. MacGregor. Not directly ; no.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you hear from him indirectly ?
Mr. MacGregor. You always have a grapevine.
Mr. Kennedy. Did he ever approach you ?
Mr. MacGregor. No, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. He never came back again ?
Mr. MacGregor. Not to discuss union aif airs.
Mr. Kennedy. He never attempted to organize, then?
Mr. MacGregor. Not that I Imow of.
Mr. Kennedy. Did Mr. Kamenow speak to you, subsequently
about any entertainment money that he would need ?
Mr. MacGregor. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. When was that?
Mr. MacGregor. At approximately 2 months after that, I believe
it would be, the figures there wdll show it exactly, he said he would
like to take a trip, I believe to Washington, D. C, and I O. K'd it.
Mr. Kennedy. Wliat is that?
Mr. MacGregor. I O. K.'d it.
Mr. Kennedy. How much did he say he wanted ?
Mr. MacGregor. About $500.
Mr. Kennedy. What was that for ?
Mr. MacGregor. Ostensibly to take a trip to Washington, D. C.
Mr. Kennedy. With whom ?
Mr. MacGregor. I don't know exactly with whom, and he never
said for whom.
Mr. Kennedy. What did he say, just "I want to take a trip to
Washington" ?
Mr. MacGregor. "I want to take some of the people down to
Washington."
Mr. Kennedy. Wlio are "some of the people" ?
Mr. MacGregor. I don't know.
Mr. Kennedy. Who did you assume they were?
]Mr. MacGregor. You could assume if you want.
Mr. Kennedy. Wlio did you think you were paying the $500 to to
take to Washington ?
Mr. McGregor. I didn't think at all.
Mr. Kennedy. You didn't think at all, you just paid $500 out?
Mr. MacGregor. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. Without knowing where it was going?
Mr. MacGregor. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. And it was for entertainment, and you didn't think
about it at all ?
6478 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES INT THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. MacGregor. No, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. That doesn't make any sense at all.
Mr. MacGregor. It makes a lot of sense.
Mr. Kennedy. Why ? Would you explain why you would pay the
$500?
Mr. MacGregor. There is nothing at all about entertainment.
Mr. Kennedy. Who was he entertainino; ?
Mr. MacGregor. It doesn't make any difference who he was enter-
taining.
Mr. Kennedy. What did that have to do with you that you pay
$500 to entertain whom ?
Mr. MacGregor. Wlioever he wanted to entertain, and I didn't care
whom he entertained.
Mr. Kennedy. I would think your paying $500, your $500, Mr.
JSIacGregor
Mr. MacGregor. Well, $500 isn't the only thing in the world.
There is more than $500 in the world.
Mr. Kennedy. You didn't care, then? For the $500, you didn't
care how he was using the money ?
Mr, MacGregor. No: that is not a large amount of money.
Mr. Kennedy. So you just gave him $500 ?
Mr. MacGregor. I would give $500 to you.
Mr. Kennedy. You would just hand it out, and if I said I wanted
to entertain somebody, it would be all right ?
Mr. MacGregor. If you wanted to entertain someone worth while,
I would probably give you $500.
The Chairman. Mr. MacGregor, you want to make these state-
ments that it made no difference to you, but I think it is pretty ap-
parent on the face of it, the whole purpose of it was to keep a union
out of your plant. Do you want to deny that ?
Mr. MacGregor. Yes; I would.
The Chairman. Then for what purpose was it paid ?
Mr. MacGregor. The only reason, as I reported to you, was simply
one fact. I felt that we could beat the union any day in the week,
and all we had to do was to arrive at some manner in which we could
have an election or some place that we could build on so that we could
get it out in the open so that we could have an election to see what
the employees wanted. If the employees want a union, there is no
reason not to have a union.
The Chairman. I understand, but in this instance you had no inti-
mation from your own employees that they wanted a union.
Mr. MacGreoor. Not a bit ; I didn't think they wanted one.
The Chairman. You did not think they wanted one ?
Mr. JSIacGregor. No, sir.
The Chairman. So what you were actually paying this money for,
the $500 for entertainment, was not to entertain Kamenow, but for
him to use to entertain union officials and keep them off of you ?
Mr. MacGregor. What he wanted to do with it was up to him.
The Chairman, Sure, it may have been up to him, but as a busi-
nessman you are not just throwing around $500 without having some
idea of what it is going to accomplish, or you ?
Mr. MacGregor. The only thing we really wanted to do was to get
the union permission to have an election.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 6479
The Chairman. Did you not succeed in it ?
Mr. MacGregor. No; they never agreed to an election, and they
never got any further witli it.
The Chairman. And they have not done anytliing to unionize you
since ; have they 'i
Mr. MacGregor. Because I think they know they couldn't win the
election.
The Chairman. And because they were getting $500 in payment,
too.
Mr. MacGregor. I don't think they are getting it.
The Chairman. They have been getting it.
Mr. MacGregor. Maybe they have. But nobody showed me that
tliat $500 went to the union.
The Chairman. ^Vliere did it go ?
Mr. MacGregor. I don't know.
Tlie Chairman. And you didn't care ?
Mr. MacGregor. That is right.
The Chairman. Do you expect us to believe that? That is your
attitude. We are finding some of them in the business circles, too.
If that is the way you want to leave the record, leave it that way.
Proceed.
Mr. Kennedy. I would like to say, Mr. Chairman, that he gave a
different answer when he filled out his affidavit.
The Chairman. Read the affidavit to him.
Mr. Kennedy. Paragraph 3.
The Chairman. Present it to the witness. Let me ask him if that
is his signature.
Mr. MacGregor. Yes.
The Chairman. You readily acknowledge it ?
Mr. MacGregor. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. I will read paragraph 3 :
After I retaiued Mr. Kamenow, there were no more contacts by Kierdorf or
other union organizers. To tlie best of my memory, Kamenow called me shortly
after he was retained, saying he wanted to take some people on a trip to Wash-
ington, D. C, saying he thought he could come to some favorable conclusion.
It was my understanding that they were union officials, but he did not say so.
Sometimes he referred to them as "the boys." I asked him the cost. He said
not over $500, and I agreed. The figure was added to my monthly statement
which totaled $631.99, plus the monthly fee. I do not know how much of this
was payment for the trip. He never mentioned the trip again or stated what
conclusions were reached.
Is that a correct statement ?
Mr. MacGregor. That is the statement I made there.
The Chairman. Is it correct ?
Mr. MacGregor. Yes, it is correct.
Tlie Chairman. All right.
Proceed.
Mr. Kennedy. Then it was your understanding that this entertain-
ment was for union officials.
Mr. M/vcGregor. No, it was not my understanding, and I don't say
that in my statement. I said it is an assumption.
Mr. Kennedy. Would you read that sentence to me?
Mr. INIacGregor. lam looking for it. I said :
I assumed the entertainment was for union officials, but I do not recall that
he said so. I asked for a figure as to what the entertainment would cost, and
he gave me one which was satisfactory.
6480 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
An assumption is not stating that I know it.
Mr. Kennedy. Could I see that, please ?
Mr. MacGregor. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. Where did you read from ?
Mr. MacGregor. I believe that second paragraph.
Mr. Kennedy. We are talking about the third paragraph. Would
you read that third paragraph that the chairman just read to you?
It is the third paragraph regarding the union officials.
Mr. MacGregor.
It was my understanding that they were union officials, but he did not say so.
Mr. Kennedy.
It was my understanding,
is that what you said ?
Mr. MacGregor. But he did not say so.
Mr. KJENNEDY. But it was your understanding, is that right, that
it was union officials ?
Mr. MacGregor. That was my guess.
Mr. Kennedy. That is a little different from what you have been
testifying to. You recommended other people to retain Mr. Kame-
now ; did you not ?
Mr. MacGregor. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. And you also said to some of these other people
that there would be payments or charges or expenses for entertain-
ment of union officials, but it was worthwhile.
Mr. MacGregor. I have told them that there would be entertain-
ment charges. That is what I paid.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you tell them that there would be entertain-
ment of teamster union officials ?
Mr. MacGregor. Not that I know of.
Mr. Kennedy. Do you deny ever saying that ?
Mr. MacGregor. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. You deny saying it ?
Mr. MacGregor. You say teamster officials ?
Mr. Kennedy. Let's put it first union officials. Didn't you tell
others of these individuals that Mr. Kamenow could achieve certain
results, but there would be certain charges for entertainment of
union officials.
Mr. MacGregor. I don't believe so. I said probably that there
would be entertainment charges for who would probably be union
officials.
The Chairman. Well, he is near enough.
Mr. Ejennedy. Did you ever arrange to make some purchases for
the boys before Christmas? Did Mr. Kamenow speak to you about
that?
Mr. MacGregor. Yes. On 2 different occasions, I believe, on 2
different year ends, he asked me for a donation toward a present.
Mr. Kennedy. How much did you give ?
Mr. MacGregor. $100 each year.
Mr. Kennedy. Who did you understand those presents were for?
Mr. MacGregor. He said the boys.
Mr. Kennedy. Wlio did you understand that to be ?
Mr. MacGregor. Anyone that he would be doing business with.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 6481
Mr. Kennedy. Just any of his friends ?
Mr. MacGregor. It could be.
Mr. Kennedy. They had nothing to do with you ?
Mr. MacGregor. I couldn't prove that they had anything to do
with me. But at the same time, I imagine it was.
Mr. Kennedy. That is why you paid it, isn't it ? Isn't that right ?
Mr. MacGregor. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you understand that the expenditures were for
the purpose of staying on good terms with the unions ?
Mr. MacGregor. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. And you haven't been organized; is that right?
Mr. MacGregor. No, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. So do you think the payments have been worth
while ?
Mr. MacGregor. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Do you still have Mr. Kamenow ?
Mr. MacGregor. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. Are you going to continue to have him ?
Mr. MacGregor. Unless something comes up that we should not.
Mr. Kennedy. But nothing has come up here all day ? You have
been very satisfied with him? You will continue to retain him?
Mr. MacGregor. Unless something comes up to show we shouldn't.
Mr. Kennedy'. And so far you are very satisfied ?
Mr. MacGregor. I wouldn't say I was very satisfied. I have
learned some things today.
The Chairman. Do you think this is legitimate ?
Mr. MacGregor. Yes. The use we have used him on during the
past, I think has been.
The Chairman. And should continue to be legitimate ?
Mr. MacGregor. That depends on what comes out of your hear-
ings.
The Chairman. From what has come out, from what you heard,
do you think this is a legitimate transaction and should continue to
have the sanction of law ?
Mr. MacGregor. The detail and some of the ramifications that are
coming out of this hearing we are all learning things that we have
never known before. I am not satisfied with some of the things that
I have heard this morning, no, which changes my viewpoint as you
go along.
The Chairman. I hope we will have your support, then, as we
proceed.
Senator Mundt. Mr. Macgregor, did it ever occur to you that joii
might have been victimized by a couple of high-powered confidence
men?
Mr. Macgregor. No, I never thought so.
Senator Mundt. These hearings have been described around the
countrj^ in the last week or so as a demonstration that there are dis-
honest unions, and that there have been dishonest management.
Maybe that is what happens. I don't know. I read about that in
the press while I was home. But on the basis of what I heard this
morning, I am not so sure that we are not dealing with either dis-
honest management or dishonest unions. At least, it occurs to me
that there may be a dishonest official by the name of Kierdorf and
6482 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD
maybe a dishonest businessman by the name of Kamenow, who may
have worked up a pretty slick racket in Flint, whereby they could
sit down and say "Here is the Macgregor Tire Co., here is the Ad-
vance Electric Co., here is another one. I will go in as the advance
man and I will either throw up a picket line for a couple of days or
go in and say 'I have a couple of union cards in my pocket, we are
going to unionize you, and I will rattle the sword, and they will fear
they will be f>ut out of business.' And then they will come to you
and say 'Mr. Kamenow, you have had some experience with these
propositions, maybe you can adjudicate these differences.' You make
whatever kind of proposition j^ou can. And stick in this $2,000 or
$5,000 for gratuities and Kose Bowl games, and we will get the
money and just cut it down the middle. I will take my part, you
take your part and we will let this fellow continue in business."
I think there can be a third hypothesis which is just as easy to
demonstrate by the testimony we have had thus far. This is no
reflection on management as being dishonest in general. This is
no reflection on unions as being dishonest in general. But it is a
dishonest fellow using a union title and a dishonest fellow setting
himself up as consultant who conceivably have a pretty good racket,
such as operated in Flint, and you might have been the victim of it.
Do you think that is out of the possibilities ?
Mr. jSIacgregor. It is not out of possibilities, no.
Senator Muxdt. It seems to me that it makes a good deal of sense
from what I have heard from some of the witnesses up to now. If
the laboring man is satisfied without a union, and management is
willing to give them a chance to vote if they wish it, they work out
this little triangle. This has been counting up pretty fast, and soon
you will have a lot of people at the Rose Bowl. Nobody else will be
able to get in. They will all be union officials.
Mr. Macgregor. My payments were so small, I thought it would
have no influence.
Senator Muxdt. I think you have to give the boys credit for
ingenuity. They didn't think about Rose Bowl games all the time.
They had fishing trips. Now they have a trip to Washington. That
is new in the business. But it is entirely conceivable to me that if
there were not so many trips, if this was not a subsidization for the
transportation industry, as it may appear, this was just a racket,
and a couple of boys, quite regardless of the unions and quite regard-
less of anybody else, were taking away loot for themselves. Maybe
I have been unjust to them. They will be called to testify and asked
to explain it. Maybe they can explain it.
On the basis of what I have heard so far, that looks like a pretty
plausible hypothesis.
Mr. Macgregor. I don't think any employer objects to a union
properly conducted and in a properly conducted election.
Senator Mundt. Apparently nobody wanted to have an election.
They just wanted a shakedown.
Mr. Kennedy. You hadn't even gotten that far, Mr. Macgregor,
you were paying $500 to make sure these people were happy and
entertained. You can't put yourself in that class.
Mr. Macgregor. I do.
The Chairman. I submit to you some 3 statements from Labor
Relations Associates, 3 original checks in payment of the statements —
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 6483
4 checks, I believe; 3 statements and 4 checks. I ask you to exam-
ine them and state if you identify them. They appear to be the
oi'icrinals.
( Documents handed to Avitness.)
Mr. jMacgregor. Yes, I identify them.
The Chairman. Those statements were rendered to you and those
are the checks in payment of the statements?
Mr. Macgregor. That is correct.
The Chairman. They may be made exhibit No. 5o-A, B, and C;
and the checks will be exhibit 54-A, B, C, and D.
(The documents referred to were marked respectively "Exhibits
53A, B, and C," and "Exhibits 54A, B, C, and D," for reference
and will be fomid in the appendix on pp. 6619-6625.)
The Chairman. What is your gross business ?
Mr. Macgregor. Around $650,000 a year.
The Chairman. $650,000?
Mr. Macgregor. Yes.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Call your next witness.
Mr. Kennedy. George Spaulding.
The Chairman. Mr. Spaulding, come forward, please. You do
solemnly swear 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. Spaulding. I do.
TESTIMONY OF GEORGE SPAULDING
The Chairman. State your name, your place of residence and
your business or occupation.
Mr. Spaulding. My name is George Spaulding. I live at 2922
Circle Drive, Flint. I am assistant general manager for Applegate
Chevrolet.
The Chairman. How long have you been assistant general man-
ager for that company ?
Mr. Spaulding. Six or seven years.
The Chairman. Do 3'ou own an interest in the company?
Mr. Spaulding. No.
The Chairman. You are just an employee?
Mr. Spaulding. Well, I should qualify that.
The Chairman. First, you waive counsel, do you?
Mr. Spaulding. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. All right.
Mr. Spaulding. Personally I don't have an interest in the com-
pany. I should say that.
Senator Mundt, Let's strip all the mystery off of it. What is your
relationship? This is kind of confusing. You do or you don't, or
your wife does or does not.
Mr. Spaulding. Well, it is my wife.
Senator Mundt. Tell us what it is. You are working for the
company and your wife has an interest in it ?
Mr. Spaulding. Yes. She has stock.
The Chairman. Proceed.
54S4 IMPBOPEE ACTIVITIES IX THE L-\BOPv FIELD
Mr. Kexxxdt. In 1951, did tou understand there -was a national
driTe being made by unions to organize auto company employees ?
'Sir. Stauldtsg. Yes.
ilr. KzN-xiDT. And specifically did you understand that the team-
sters were interested in doing so J
'Six. Stattldtsg. Yes.
!Mr. Ken-xzdt. Did the company approach !Mr. George Kamenow
of LEA to represent them ?
3Ir. SpAnj>i>rG. Yes.
Mr. KxxxEDT. "What financial arrangements were made at that
time ? Were you to pay him S300 a month ?
Mr. SPArxDTXG. We "established a contract with him for a year.
31r. EJEXXTDT. For S3<'J0 a month ?
Mr. SpAnx»ixG. The total would be so much for each year. It
would be so much per month and then a special disbursement or two
during the year.
Mr. Kexxzdy. A special disbursement or two during the year?
Mr. Spattldixg. Yes.
Mr. KzxxEDT. But the flat fee was to be $300 a month plus these
1 or 2 disbursements, is that right ?
Mr. Spattldixg. Yes.
Mr. KJEXxzDT. Did you understand the disbursements were to be
for expenditures for certain of these teamster union officials?
Mr. Spattldixg. Xot for teamster Tinion officials, no.
Mr. Kexxzdy. Did he originally say the boys ?
Mr. Spattldcsg. Yes.
'Sir. Ejexxzdt. Did you understand, then, was it your conclusion
that the boys were these teamster officials ?
^Ir. Spattldixg. Xo. that wasn't my conclusion, and it was not my
understanding. I don't know who the boys were, to tell you the
truth. I jiLst don't.
Mr. KJEXXEDT. "What did you assume it was ? Where did you as-
sume the money was going to ?
Mr. Spattldixg. I assumed that probably some of them would be
Tmion officials. But I am not assuming that they were all and that
all the travel and entertainment was for them. Whenever he called
about a special disbursement, my first question was "Is this within
our contract which we made for the year ?"
And the answer was "Yes." And it always was. It was never
over that contract.
Mr. Kexxedt. I understand that. Everybody has that. They
either pay 81,800 or 8500.
The Cha^irma-X. What was your total to be during the year?
Mr. Spattldixg. I believe it was 85,500 for the first year.
Tlie Cttatrmax. $500 ?
Mr. Spattlijixg. Yes.
The Chaie3iax. And 8300 a month that was fee, is that correct?
'Sir. Spattldixg. We considered the whole 85,500 as fee.
The Chaie:max. You didn't consider these extra disbursements as
fees, did you ?
Mr. Spattldixg. Yes, sir.
The Ciiatr3iax'. You referred to those specifically. The fee was
to be 8300 a month, is that correct ?
!Mr. Spattldixg. Yes, but the whole total fee
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 6485
The Chairman. I understand. You would have outside disburse-
ments over and beyond the fee up to a limit of the 2 of not to exceed
$5,600 a year. Is that correct ?
Mr. Spaulding. Well, what I mean is that I considered the whole
thino; as a fee.
Mr. Kennedy. It was $3,600 a year, and in addition to that, in
August of 1954 there was a special expense of $1,991.90; in May of
1955, it was $2,003.75; in May of 1956, $2,000. So it was $3,600 a
vear plus those 3 special expenditures bringing the total up to ap-
proximately $5,500 or $5,600.
The Chairman. That is what I want to ask the witness. He said
he regarded all of it as a fee. I want to know if you had a fee and
then had expenses in addition to it or not.
Mr. Spaulding. Well, we paid the $300 a month.
The Chairman. As a fee.
Mr. Spaulding. You asked me if we considered the whole thing a
fee, and I always have, Senator.
The Chairman. I know, you considered the whole thing, that you
were paying that much for whatever protection or service you were
getting, that you were obligated to get that mucli.
Mr. Spaulding. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. But you were paying $300 of this a month as a
fee, and so understood it and were so billed, were you not?
Mr. Spaulding. No, the original agreement was that the fee was
$5,500.
The Chairman. You paid the bills, didn't you ?
Mr. Spaulding. Our accountant did.
The Chairman. You approved them ?
Mr. Spaulding. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. You received the bill. Didn't it say on the face
of it "Retainer fee for the month," and so much ? Look at it.
Mr. Spaulding. That is right.
The Chairman. Then what does it say about disbursements ?
Mr. Spaulding. Well, it would give disbursements for the month.
The Chairman. All right. As between the two of you, your con-
tract and your whole operation, the bills reflected it and you paid them
accordingly?
Mr. Spaulding. That is right.
The Chairman. So it was a $300 a month fee, isn't that correct?
Anything above that was disbursements.
Mr. Spaulding. That is the way it is itemized here.
The Chairman. That is the way you paid it, isn't that correct ?
Mr. Spaulding. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. Why do you hesitate to say you paid a $300 a
month fee and then paid these other expenses ?
Mr. Spaulding. Well, I don't know the technical word for it, or
anything, but I did consider and still do, that that was our contract,
so much for the year.
The (Chairman. Sure it was a contract. It was a contract for $300
a month for a fee, and then the balance up to $5,500 for entertainment
and so forth. Is that correct ?
Mr. Spaulding. Yes.
The Chairman. And you were billed accordingly ?
6486 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. Spatjlding. Yes.
The Chairivian. Will 3' ou examine these photostatic copies of checks
and invoices or bills, 4 bills and 4 checks, and see if you identify them.
(Documents handed to witness.)
The Chairman. Those are the four bills you received ?
Mr. Spaulding. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. They may be made exhibits 55A, 55B, 55C, and
55D.
(The documents referred to were marked "Exhibits 55 A, 55B, 55C,
and 55D" for reference and will be found in the appendix on pp.
6626-6629.)
The Chairman. Are those the four checks in payment of those
bills?
Mr. Spaulding. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. They may be made exhibits 56A, 56B, 56C, and
56D.
(The documents referred to were marked "Exhibits 56A, 56B, 56C,
and 56D" for reference and will be found in the appendix on pp.
6631-6633.)
Senator Mundt. Mr. Spaulding, you said early in the procedure
you received a letter from the union addressed to your company, in-
dicating that they wanted to organize your salesmen ?
Mr. Spaulding. No, sir ; I didn't say that.
Senator Mundt. Let me ask you, then : Was an attempt made in
April 1952 by the local union to organize the salesmen of your com-
pany ?
Mr. Spaulding. In 1951 or 1952 ; yes.
Senator Mundt. ^Yhnt kind of an attempt was it? Was it in the
nature of a letter that the company received ? Was there a picket line
out in front ? Was there a meeting of protest by the salesmen ?
Mr. Spaulding. No ; we received a letter, as I recall.
Senator Mundt. Did Mr. Kierdorf sign that letter?
Mr. Spaulding. Yes.
Senator Mundt. The same man whose name we have had men-
tioned here. It fits into the pattern. The K & K boys, of Michi-
gan, were doing what the B & K boys, of Kussia, are doing, only they
are doing it on a little more limited scale.
Mr. Spaulding. Except tliat that was 3 years before we hired
Mr. Kamenow.
Senator Mundt. That is right. But the letter was the thing that
induced you to hire a labor consultant ?
Mr. Spaulding. No.
Senator Mundt. It was the bronze light, it was the only warning
that you had from the union, as I understand it, that you were aboul
to be organized.
Mr. Spaulding. Well, no. That was in 1951. We didn't make
our first contract with Labor Relations Associates until 1954.
Senator Mundt. That is true. In 1951 you got the letter from
Mr. Kierdorf. Did anything happen laborwise in 1952 ?
Mr. Spaulding. No, sir.
Senator Mundt. Did anything happen in 1953 ?
Mr. Spaulding. No, sir.
ScDator Mundt. By 1953 the rumor had gotten out that otlier
people were getting these letters, and in 1954 that the national drive
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 6487
was coming up to organize auto company employees in the citj^ of
Flint ; is that right ?
Mr. SrAULDiNG. Well, we were warned through various trade
organizations which we belong to that there has been an announced
drive nationally, and to do everything you could to get your house
in order, which we have done and which we did do. So we were
also advised through those associations to get competent legal advice,
which we did. I would like to say that every year when we made
our contract, I asked Mr. Kamenow 2 or 3 questions. One is: Is
there any bribery, and. No. 2, Is there any payotf'^
The answer was ''jSTo.-' The third one was, Is this legal? and he
said "Yes.-' As far as we could see, that is how we got into the
thing. It wasn't anything — we had no labor trouble at the time.
We hadn't had and we haven't had since.
Senator Mundt. Had you had any other indications from outside
your plant or inside your plant that they might be going to include
your particular Chevrolet garage other than that original letter
from Mr. Kierdorf ?
Mr. Spaulding. No, sir.
Senator Mundt. That was the onl}^ direct indication you had?
Mr. Spaulding. That is correct.
Senator Mundt. Either from outside the plant or inside the plant?
Mr. Spaulding. That is correct.
Senator Mundt. The rest of your concern grew out of what you
heard in your trade associations and your general knowledge?
Mr. Spaulding. That is right.
Senator Mundt. And you went to the lawyer and the lawyer
suggested that you get a labor consultant. You heard about this
particular concern fi'om other businessmen in Flint, I suppose, who
had been using them ?
Mr. Spaulding. Flint and Detroit both ; yes.
Mr. Kennedy. Has Mr. Kamenow been placed in charge of all
consciences and morality in the city of Flint, that you have to go
to him and ask him if something is wrong? You say Mr. Kamenow
said it was perfectly all right to spend $2,000 a year to entertain
union officials. That makes it all right, does it, because Mr. Kame-
now said it was all right ?
Mr. Spaulding. No. 1, in Michigan it is a little bit different than
automobile dealers in other States. We are not under interstate
commerce. The Michigan law, as you heard this morning, is a little
bit different than other states. It is a local thing. We hired him as
a labor counselor and adviser because that is a specialized field, and
we are not a specialist in that, any more than we are an attorney or
accountant in tax matters.
Senator Mundt. But you don't need somebody to tell you what is
ri^ht or wdiat is wrong when you spend $2,000 every year to entertain
union officials to avoid imionization. You don't have to have some
one around you to tell you whether that is right or wrong, or read
it in a lawbook. You don't have any thoughts on that?
Mr. Spaulding. Well, I do; yes. He has performed definite
services, as I stated, as a labor counselor and as adviser. He has
helped on such things as workmen's benefits and workmen's conditions,
cost-of-living adjustments.
Senator Mundt. I am not talking about that. That would be fine.
All I am talking about is the $2,000 that you spent every year for
6488 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD
this purpose. In explanation, you said Mr. Kamenow said it was all
right, that there was nothing wrong, it did not involve bribery, and
you were not doing anything illegal.
All I say is that you should have known or must have known your-
self whether that is right or wrong. You were spending $2,000 each
year in addition to the regular fee to avoid having any difficulty or
having any trouble with the union, to entertain union officials who
were not then even representing your employees.
Mr. Spaulding. I will say that perhaps we did rely on the judg-
ment of many firms who were well known to all of us, that have fine
reputations for honesty and integrity. They also, I am sure, would
not do anything wrong. I have not done anything knowingly wrong.
If there is something wrong with hiring labor counselors, we will be
the first ones to get out.
Senator Mundt. That is not the point. You know that.
The Chairman. Just a moment. There is nothing wrong in hiring
labor comisels, hiring lawyers, hiring accountants. There is nothing
in the world wrong with that. But I cannot conceive that anyone
can conclude that it is not wrong- to pay off union officials to get
them to lay off.
Do you think it is right or wrong to do that ?
Mr. Spaulding. I would say it would be wrong to pay off union
officials.
The Chairman. That is what is involved here.
Mr. KJENNEDY. Did he speak to you at all about getting any specific
gifts for these individuals ?
Mr. Spatilding. Well, there was that same instanae
Mr. Kennedy. Christmas of 1956 ?
Mr. Spaulding. That the previous witness brought up.
Mr. Kennedy. Do you mean when Mr. Kamenow oame by with
his car with a portable television set ?
Mr. Spaulding. He didn't come by. He called me and told me
about it.
Mr. Kennedy. "What did Mr. Kamenow say to you?
Mr. Spaulding. He said he was buying some Christmas presents.
I said, "Does the amount come under our contract for the year?"
Mr. Kennedy. So what gifts was he going to get ?
Mr. Spaulding. It did come under that blanket contract for the
year. He was getting television sets.
Mr. Kennedy. About 4 or 5 televisions sets ?
Mr. Spaui.ding. Yes.
Mr. I^nnedy. For Christmas of 1956; is that right?
Mr. Spaulding. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. Was that for these same individuals, for the boys ?
Mr. Spaulding. Yes.
Mr. KENNEDY. Did you understand at that time that it was for
these union officials?
Mr. Spaulding. No.
Mr. Kennedy. Wlio did you think he was giving the television sets
to at your expense?
Mr. Spaulding. I didn't give it that much thought.
Mr. Kennedy. My gosh. You didn't give it any thought? You
just got 4 or 5 television sets and paid for them for somebody that you
didn't know ?
IIVIPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 6489
Mr. Spaulding. Well, it isn't as bad as that. We had a certain
amount for the year that we paid.
Mr. Kennedy. I know. Don't keep saying that.
Mr. Spaulding. As long as it came under that, that is what I was
concerned with.
The. Chairman. You mean you didn't care what he did? If he
bribed someone with it, you didn't care ?
Mr. Spaulding. No, I always checked on that. I was informed
that there was no bribery and no payoff.
The. Chairman. Have you some word for it other than that? If
these things were being given to union officials to keep them from
organizing your plant, have you got any other word for it ?
The record remains silent. Proceed.
Mr. Kennedy. Did he tell you that these payments that he was
making, these disbursements, were to take the boys on a trip to the
west coast, to take them on a fishing trip to Canada and a trip to
New York ? Did he tell you all those things ?
Mr. Spaulding. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you understand that these were union officials
that he was taking on these trips?
Mr. Spaulding. I didn't understand that they were; no.
Mr. Ivennedy. Who did you think they were ?
Mr. Spaulding. I assumed some of them were, but as we said
earlier, I don't know that they all were.
Mr. Kennedy. Who else did you think he was taking on the trip ?
Mr. Spaulding. Well, running his ofiice, probably some of his own
help, for instance.
Mr. Kennedy. You wanted to entertain his own help ? Is that what
you were paying for, so that he could take his help on a fishing trip
to Canada?
Mr. Spaulding. I just point that out that that is who it could be.
Mr. Kennedy. I don't think it could be. How would he want to
take his help on a fishing trip to Canada and charge the Applegate
Chevrolet Co. ? The record remains silent on this, too ?
Mr. Spaulding. Well, I didn't think you asked me a question there.
I thought you made a statement. I am sorry.
Would you repeat it ?
Mr. Kennedy. I am trying to find out who he would be taking on
a trip to New York, a trip to the west coast, and a fishing trip to
Canada, if it wasn't union officials.
Mr. Spaulding. Well, I don't know. Actually, I am telling you
the truth when I say actually I don't know who went on those trips.
Mr. Kennedy. Don't you presume they were union officials?
Mr. Spaulding. Yes, I did admit I assumed some of them were.
Mr. Kennedy. And the purpose of the trip and taking them on
these trips and buying them portable television sets was to keep
them happy, was it not ?
Mr. Spaulding. Well, that was never discussed.
Mr, Kennedy. Wasn't that the purpose of it ?
Mr. Spaulding. That is a possibility.
Mr. Kennedy. Wasn't that the purpose of it ?
Mr. Spaulding. I think it would be far better relations ; yes.
89330-
6490 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. Kennedy. And the reason of keeping them happy, in view of
the fact that you didn't have a contract with them, was to keep them
out of your shop, was it not, so that they wouldn't organize (
Mr. Spaulding. Well, I don't know
Mr. Kennedy. Wasn't that the purpose ?
Mr. Spaulding. We hired Mr. Kamenow not to keep it out, but to
inform us and to keep us advised
Mr. Kennedy. I understand that. But the purpose of the ex-
penditures made was to keep the union officials happy, and the union
officials to be happy would be staying out of your shop, would they
not ? They never did come near your shop.
Mr. Spaulding. Well, they haven't been in our shop ; no.
Mr. Kennedy. Wasn't that the purpose ?
Mr. Spaulding. That was never discussed, as I said.
Mr. Kennedy. I don't care whether it was discussed. Wasn't that
the purpose ?
Mr. Spaulding. I couldn't say that it was the purpose, no, that
those trips were to keep them out of our shop. That might be the
result, but I don't know if that was the purpose.
The Chairman. Do you want to state what tlie purpose was?
Mr. Spaulding. We paid so much money per year.
The Chairman. We know that. For what purpose ?
Mr. Spaulding. To assist us in labor counseling and advice.
The Chairman. And i)art of that counseling and advice was to
entertain the union officials very lavishly ?
Mr. Spailding. We thouglit that to have this counseling advice,
it was a good investment to have it so that we would be doing the
right thing instead of waiting too long and having the employees
seek somebody else to have us do the right thing.
The Chairman. In other words, to keep the employees from seeking
someone else, you hired a labor consultant so that he could consult
with tliis particular union and entertain tlie employees so that you
wouldn't have a union ?
Mr. Spaulding. Xo. He could keep us abreast of the aflfairs,
Senator.
T]ie Chairman. What did he keep you abreast of?
Mr. Spaulding. Of things that happened in Lansing, of the bene-
fits, working conditions. We are an industrial town^ and to assist
on cost-of-living and that sort of thing, increases, fringe benefits.
The Chairman. Couldn't he find all that out without spending
$2,000 a year in entertaining union officials? That is what we are
talking about, not the $300 a month.
Mr. Spaulding. Well, it probably could have been done ; yes.
Senator Mundt. Let me ask you this : I would think one of the
tests of whether you were trying to keep unions out of your shop in
connection with this procedure is whether or not there was any de-
mand on the part of the men in your shop for a union. If they Vere
trying to get a union in, and you were paying Mr. Kamenow to keep
a union out, then I think you were engaged in a rather reprehensible
business if, in turn, he was going to the top members of the union and
givmg them trips or television sets or gratuities to sell out the people
m your shop.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IK THE LABOR FIELD 6491
AVliat kind of effort was made in this period of 3 or 4 years by the
men in your shop to bring in a union 'i What were you doing to try
to keep a union out ?
Mr. Spaulding. There was absolutely no attempt, to my kno\yledge.
Senator Mundt. You say under oath that in this whole period the
employees, about whom we are all expressing some concern this after-
noon, were making no effort whatsover to have a union?
Mr. Spaulding. That is right.
Senator Mundt. Any attempt to have a union in the shop was
completely an outside effort on the part of labor officials interested
in dues instead of laboring people interested in wages ?
Mr. Spaulding. Well, there was no attempt from any source of
unionization in our plant.
Senator Mundt. Just that one letter that you had ?
Mr. Spaulding. Yes, sir.
Senator Mundt. There was no attempt on the part of the men
working for you ?
Mr. Spaulding. No, sir.
Senator Mundt. No manifestations of dissatisfaction; no request
for a bargaining vote ; no request for a contract ; no request to bring
in outsiders to help them organize ?
Mr. Spaulding. No, sir.
Senator Mundt. No attempt made from the other side ?
Mr. Spaulding. Not to my Ivnowledge.
Senator Mundt. It is beginning to look to me like a racket some-
body is engaged in in Flint, Mich. I can't understand. The men
who work — if they have no interest in the union, I suppose you could
argue just as well that you are protecting them against a surcharge
in the form of a union tax or union dues which they would have
to pay which they didn't want to pay.
If you are going to accept the theory that they are happy without
being in a union, that the^- don't want a union, maybe you are spend-
ing this to keep them from having their pay envelopes cut by union
dues, or maybe you were just caught by the "K. & K.'' boys.
By the way, they let the competitor, the Ford agency, off a lot
cheaper than you. I don"t know if you are a big outfit or not.
Mr. Spaulding. I believe we sell a few more cars.
Senator Mundt. Maybe they adjusted it to the ability of tlie pa-
tron.
The Chairman. How many employees do you have ?
Mr. Spaulding. 155.
The (^iiAiKMAN. What is your annual gross business ?
Mr. Spaulding. Could I preface my remarks on our gross annual
business? We are in a peculiar industry in that we do a big volume
of sales, but not too much is retained as profit.
Our total sales in those 3 years — well, they fluctuated each year
from $9 million to $15 million.
The Chairman. $9 million to $15 million ?
Mr. Spaulding. Yes.
The Chairman. You were a little bigger game than some of the
others ?
Mr. Kennedy. And between April of 1954, Mr. Chairman, and
December 31, 1956, the company paid in fees $5,700, and for enter-
6492 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
tainment, $6,485.64, making a total of $12,185.64 as of December 31,
1956.
I understand you still have retained them, have you not ?
Mr. Spaulding. On an individual basis.
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Kamenow?
Mr. Spaulding. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Did Mr. Kamenow come and talk to you and say
he was breaking away from Mr. Sliellerman ?
Mr. Spaulding. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. For what reason did he tell you he was breaking
away from Mr. Shefferman ?
Mr. Spaulding. He said that some things had happened that he
did not approve and, therefore, he was withdrawing from LEA.
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Sheiferman was doing things that he didn't
approve of, so he was going to disassociate himself; is that right?
Mr. Spaulding. Did I say Mr. Shefferman when I read that? I
said he said there was testimony, and it came out in in front of the
Senate committee, of some things which had happened which he did
not approve and, therefore, he was withdrawing from LE-A. Could
I make one point on this expense ?
The Chairman. Yes.
Mr. Spaulding. That is a lot of money when you are talking about
$2,000 and so on. I agree with you. Of that figure, to give you an
idea of our total expenses, the total amount we paid for that year
compared to our total expenses, it is 0.001 percent of our total expenses.
The Chairman. That doesn't mean anything. The question is
whether $2,000, though you might have taken in $9 billion or $15
billion — the question is whether the $2,000 was a legitimate, honest
business expense, or if it was a bit shady.
Mr. Spaulding. I see that question. But I also would like to say
that it compared favorably with what we pay for accounting and
legal fees, for yearly fees.
The Chairman. You could pay that for legitimate labor relations ?
Mr. Spaulding. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. You could also pay it, as it appears to me that
you did, for some labor relations that were not of a very bright color.
Thank you very much. Call the next witness.
Mr. KJENNEDY. Could I ask you something before you leave?
Are you planning to continue the services of Mr. Kamenow ?
Mr. Spaulding. Well, for the time being. I would like to get back
and discuss it with the company. I couldn't answer that myself.
Mr. Kennedy. But so far there is nothing
Mr. Spaulding. No, I wouldn't say that. It is going to come up
for discussion. I would like to leave it that way.
The Chairman. Think about it on your way home.
Mr. Kennedy, call your next witness,
Mr. K[ennedy. Mr. Albert R. Thrower.
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 trutli, so help you God ?
Mr. Throaver. I do.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 6493
TESTIMONY OF ALBERT R. THROWER
The Chairman. State your name and place of residence and your
business or occupation.
Mr, TiiROWEK. Albert R. Thro^yer, of Albert R. Thrower, Inc., and
I live in Flint, Mich.
The Chairman. You waive counsel ?
Mr. TiiRO^VER. Yes ; I do.
Mr. Kennedy. You are president of Albert R. Thrower, Inc. ?
Mr. Thrower. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. That is a company that does residential building;
is that right ?
Mr. Thrower. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. You were, in the summer of 1954, vice president of
the Kelly Development Co. ?
Mr. Throv/er. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. That was also engaged in residential construction?
Mr. Thrower. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. You were doing some work in a housing develop-
ment in the summer of 1954?
Mr. Thrower. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. And you were using, as I understand it, nonunion
carpenters; is that right?
Mr. Thrower. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Did the carpenters begin to picket your work that
you were doing ?
Mr. TiiROw^ER. We were picketed, I believe, in June of 1954.
Mr. Kennedy. And did one of the officials or one of the individuals
who had an interest in your company suggest that you contact and
retain George Kamenow ?
Mr. Thrower. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you make a contact with Mr. Kamenow ?
Mr. Thrower. Yes, sir ; we did.
Mr. Kennedy. And you had a conference w^ith him ?
Mr. Thrower. We had several conferences with Mr. Kamenow.
Mr. Kennedy. You and who else ?
Mr. Thrower. Myself and Maynard Wimble and Madge Manley
and Ray Kelly, all officers of the corporation.
Mr. Kennedy. Did he tell you at that time that his retainer fee
would be $100 a month ?
Mr. Thrower. $100 a month.
Mr. Kennedy. And did he discuss with you the advisability of
getting the teamsters to come through the carpenters' picket line ?
Mr. Thrower. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Did he say the strike would be broken if he could
accomplish that ?
Mr. Thrower. We knew that the strike would be broken if we
could get materials into our project.
Mr. Kennedy. And did he indicate to you that he could accom-
plish that, and he could get the teamsters to come tlirough the car-
penters' picket line ?
Mr. Thrower. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Did he tell you that that would need a special fee, in
addition to the $100 a month ?
6494 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. Thrower. That there would be expenses in addition to the
$100 a month.
Mr. Kennedy. And did he tell you that he wanted $2,000 in cash,
as well as a $2,000 check to accomplish that?
Mr. Thrower. That is correct, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Did the officials of the company agree to make that
expenditure to Mr. Kamenow?
Mr. Thrower. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. For that purpose?
Mr. Thrower. Yes. sir.
Mr. Kennedy. And the $2,000 in cash was to be passed on to cer-
tain of the teamster union officials ?
Mr. Thrower. It was told to us that the $2,000 would be passed on
to teamster officials ; that is right.
Mr. Kennedy. You accepted liis terms, and he was subsequently
given an envelope with the $2,000 in cash ?
Mr. Thrower. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Did he subsequently re])ort to you that he had had
the conferences and the conversations with the teamster union offi-
cials, but that the rank-and-file members of the teamster organiza-
tion refused to go through the picket line?
Mr. Thrower. I gathered, from my conversations, that tlie rank-
and-file members would not go through the carpenters' picket line.
Mr. Kennp:dy. Although the officials agreed to make this arrano:e-
ment, the rank-and-file monbers refused to go through the picket
line ?
Mr. Thrower. That is correct.
Mr. I^nnedy. And so the strike continued; is that right?
Mr. Throaver. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. So, you made the expenditure to no avail ?
Mr. Thrower. To no avail that I could see.
Mr. Kennedy. You paid $100 a month plus the $4,000, and noth-
ing was accomplished because the rank-and-file members of the team-
sters union refused or wanted to honor the picket line?
Mr. Thrower. That is correct.
The Chairman. Did you get your money back ?
Mr. Throwtir. I didn't ask for the money back.
The Chairman. You just had an experience?
Mr. Thrower. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. Well, I don't know what the circumstances were,
but it is surely to the credit of the rank-and-file members. I am not
saying the strike was justified or not, but I say it is to their credit.
I don't know whether they laiew that their officials were getting
monev on the side or not, but, if they did, I think they were fully
justified, right to strike or no right to strike, when they refused to
honor it just simply because a few of their officials were paid off. I
certainly commend them.
Mr. Thrower. Well, I don't know that the teamster officials were
paid off.
The Chairman. Neither do I, but you gave the money for that
purpose ?
Mr. Thrower. That is correct.
The Chairman. I assume they got a little of it, maybe. I don't
know.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 6495
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Langenbacher has secured the
checks involved in this transaction.
The Chairman. I understand $2,000 of it was cash.
Mr. Langenbacher. I have the check used to obtain the money,
and one check made directly to Labor Relations Associates.
The Chairman. I present to you, Mr. Thrower, one statement from
Labor Relations Associates and ask you to examine it and state if you
recognize it. It is a photostatic copy of it, together with the check
No. 1223, which appears to have been issued in payment to Labor
Relations Associates.
I ask you to examine that photostatic copy of the check and state-
ment and see if you identify them. Then I present to you another
check in the amount of $2,000, apparently a check to get cash, made
to the Merchants & JNIechanics Bank, for $2,000. I ask you to examine
it and see if you identify it.
(The documents were handed to the witness.)
Mr. Thrower. I couldn't identify the checks. I have never seen
the checks before.
The Chairman. Can you identify the statement ?
Mr. Thrower. No, I didn't O. K. the statement, and I don't think
that I ever saw it, sir.
The Chairman. According to your own knowledge, do those docu-
ments reflect the trarxSaction about which you have been testifying?
Mr. Thrower. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. Then they may be made exhibits Nos. 5T-A, -B,
and -C.
(The documents referred to were marked "Exhibits Nos. 57-A,
57-B, and 57-C," inclusive, for i-eference and will be found in the
appendix on pp. 6634^6636.)
Mr. Kennedy. Now I have a couple of final questions.
Did it ever occur to you, Mr. Thrower, that there was anything
wrong in paying this money for this purpose ?
Mr. Thrower. Yes, sir ; it occurred to me that there was something
wrong in paying this money. I was not in charge of this trans-
action at the time, but I think imder the circumstances I might have
handled it the same way, however.
Our carpenters were not interested in being organized. There had
been pickets and goons that ran through our project and beat up the
carpenters, and we had had so much trouble that we were grasping
for straws and looking for a way out. We had no recourse through
the local authorities nor the courts. We would try anything at that
time.
The Chairman. That is the way I would like for you business-
men to talk, to come in here and tell the facts.
Mr. Thrower. That is exactly what happened.
The Chairman. You felt you were driven to a situation where you
had to do something.
Mr. Thrower. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. I might say about Mr. Thrower, not passing on the
merits as to what he did, that since the beginning Mr. Thrower has
cooperated with the investigators and he has told them a complete
story.
6496 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
The Chairman. Sometimes people are driven to do something-
wrong, that they know morally is wrong, but to do it is possibly the
less of two alternatives.
Mr. Thrower. When you have the alternative of going out of
business or doing something, you will do something before you go out
anyway, and you will attempt it.
The CHAHiMAN. I think that is the way to state it.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Kennedy. It doesn't, however, justify it, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. I don't say it justifies it, but one gets under pres-
sure and one does some things that are wrong sometimes. That isn't
justifying it, but I am saying that there are differences and degrees
in these things. Some folks go out and voluntarily make some ar-
rangements to keep a union out of their plant and they will pay off
officials, or anything else.
Another may do it when he gets desperate, when he is in a des-
perate situation, and it is tlie only way to save his business.
Mr. Thrower. I think that if we could have had an honest elec-
tion of our carpenters that they would not have gone into the union,
and they had no desire to go into the union. Because we finally
signed a contract with the union through our attorney and not through
Labor Relations, we had to pay the carpenters' fees, initiation fees, and
their dues in order to have them go into the union at the time.
The Chairman. Is there anything further ?
We didn't get your volume of business. May I get that first?
What volume of business were you doing ?
Mr. Thrower. When I was with Kelly Development, I think we
did about $2 million that year.
The Chairman. How many employees did you have ?
Mr. Thrower. Well directly, we would only have about five em-
ployees, and we operated under a subcontract basis.
TESTIMONY OF IRWIN LANGENBACHER— Resumed
Senator Mundt. I would like to ask our assistant counsel whether
he has examined the books of Mr. Kamenow, and whether there is
any indication that he paid this $2,000 to the teamster officials.
Mr. Langenbacher. The $2,000 does not appear on the books, and
that is the $2,000 that was paid in cash. K'ow, the other $2,000 was
paid to Labor Relations Associates, and charged as an expense by Mr.
Kamenow.
Senator Mundt. Is there any indication that he in turn tried to
bribe these teamster officials to go through the picket line ?
Mr. Langenbacher. No, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. We are going to have them testify.
Mr. Langenbacher, I thought you were speaking of this Kelly De-
velopment Co.
Senator Mundt. I wondered whether this $2,000 on the books was
transferred or charged to teamster officials as the evidence suggests.
Mr. Langenbacher. Not this particular $2,000. We do have some
other evidence on the subject, about the fishing trips to Canada and
such, which will be brought up later.
Senator Mundt. Not on this specific point ?
Mr. Langenbacher. Not on that specific point.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 6497
The Chairman. The books do not reflect the $2,000 in cash at all.
Mr. Langenbacher. No, sir ; not the books of Labor Relations As-
sociates, and tliey reflect the other $2,000.
The Chairman. The $2,000 even ?
Mr. Langenbacher. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. I think the check is for a little more than that.
Mr. Langenbacher. Each month there is some additional expense
for telephone calls and so on, and that is added to the $2,000 which
makes up the odd amomit.
The Chairman. I see.
Is there anything further ?
Mr. Kennedy. On this transaction, on the $2,000 transaction, as
well as some of these other transactions, we will go into in greater
detail, and whatever other information we have, when some of these
union officials testify themselves.
The Chairman. Thank you.
The committee will take a 5 -minute recess.
(A short recess was taken.)
The Chairman. We will proceed.
Mr. Wagner, will you come forward, please ?
Do you 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. Wagner. I do.
TESTIMONY OF GAEFIELD WAGNER, ACCOMPANIED BY HIS
COUNSEL, HOWARD KLEIN
The Chairman. State your name, your place of residence and your
business or occupation.
Mr. Wagner. Garfield Wagner. I live at 6136 South Belsey Eoad,
Grand Blanc, Mich. My occupation is McDonald Cooperative Dairy
and I am assistant general manager.
The Chairman. How long have you been m that capacity ?
Mr. Wagner. About 12 years.
The Chairman. You have counsel with you ?
Mr. Wagner. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. Identify yourself for the record, Mr. Counsel.
Mr, Klein. My name is Howard Klein, Michigan ; the office is 1006
Foundation Building, in Flint, Mich.
Mr. Kennedy. How many employees do you have at the McDonald
Cooperative Dairy ?
Mr. Wagner. You mean now ?
Mr. Kennedy. In 1956.
Mr. Wagner. Not quite 400.
Mr. Kennedy. Had they had since about 1946 or 1947 an inde-
pendent union in there ?
Mr. Wagner. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. Did that cover all of the employees ?
Mr. Wagner. No.
Mr. Kennedy. 'Wliat did it cover ?
Mr. Wagner. The two plants in Flint.
Mr. Kennedy. How many were in those two plants ?
6498 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. Wagner. Approximately 200.
Mr. Kennedy. That was an independent union established by
them ?
Mr. Wagner. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Now, near the close of 1955 did the CIO and AFL
begin an organizational drive ?
Mr. Wagner. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you hear from Mr. MacGregor and certain
other people that LEA could be helpful ?
Mr. Wagner. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. What did Mr. MacGregor tell you at that time?
Mr. Wagner. He just told me the man's name and that was all.
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. George Kamenow ?
Mr. Wagner. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you go to see Mr. Kamenow ?
Mr. Wagner. I think tliat I called him on the phone and he came
up to Flint.
Mr. Kennedy. You met with him ?
Mr. Wagner. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you discuss at that time what fees would be
paid, what his charges were ?
Mr. Wagner. I don't remember if that w\as the first visit or not.
Mr. Kennedy. Well, subsequently ?
Mr. Wagner. Yes, we did.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you arrange to pay a fee of $200 a month plus
expenses ?
Mr. Wagner. Not at that time ; no, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Originally was it per diem, and later changed to
$200 ?
Mr. Wagner. A per diem cost plus expenses, and later changed to
$200 a month and expenses.
Mr. Kennedy. From the latter part of 1955 to about June of 1956,
it was per diem, plus expenses, and from June 1956 on it was $200 per
month plus expenses ?
Mr. Wagner. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Now, did he explain that any of these expenses
would have to be used or any of these disbursements would be used
to entertain union officials ?
Mr. Wagner. No, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you ever hear anj^thing about that at all ?
Mr. Wagner. Not at that time ; no.
Mr. Kennedy. Now, an election was held in 1957 ?
Mr. Wagner. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. The day before that election the teamsters pulled
out ; is that correct ?
Mr. Wagner. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. They decided not to go ahead ?
Mr. Wagner. They asked the Labor Board to strike their name from
the ballot.
Senator Mundt. Who acted for the teamsters in that capacity ?
Mr. Wagner. I don't know.
Senator Mundt. How do you know it was done ?
Mr. Wagner. They sent me a telegram, the State labor board did.
The State labor board sent me a copy of the telegram.
IMPROPER ACTWITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 6499
The Chairman. I present to you the original telegram, I think,
to which you have referred. Will you please identify it ?
(The document was handed to the witness)
Mr. Wagner. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. Will you read it into the record, please ?
Mr. AVaoner (reading) :
Detroit, Mich., 4 p- m.
To : Manager McDonald Cooperative Dairy.
Please be advised that Teamster Local 332, AFL, has withdrawn from the
election to be conducted tomorrow, March 7, 1957, at McDonald Dairy. There-
fore, the following will appear on the ballot in rotation order : Independent
Dairy Workers Association, Retail Wholesale & Department Store Union, and
the United Dairy AVorkers Local 383, CIO, and no union.
Leonard Bennett,
Election Supervisor, State Mediation Board.
The Chairman. From the State mediation board ?
Mr. Wagner. Yes, we had had hearings with tlie State mediation
board on this.
The Chairman. In the meantime, the teamsters withdrew through
the State mediation board or did you get a separate telegram from
them?
Mr. Wagner. No, through the State labor mediation board.
The (^HAiRMAN. It ad^dsed you that the teamsters had withdrawn ?
Mr. Wagner. That is right.
The Chairman. And that its name would not appear on the ballot ?
Mr. Wagner. That is right.
The Chairman. Proceed.
That telegram may be made exhibit No. 58.
(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 58" for refer-
ence and may be found in the files of the select committee.)
Mr. Kennedy. What was the result of the election ?
Mr. Wagner. Just a minute, please.
Mr. Kennedy. Who won the election ?
Mr. Wagner. The independent union.
The Chairman. Is that the same union that had been there all the
time?
Mr. Wagner. Yes, sir. Well earlier in our history we did have
the teamsters, back in 1037 or 1941 ; somej^lace in there.
Mr. Kennedy. On the bills that Mr. Kamenow submitted, he has
items here for disbursements. For instance, starting November 30,
1955, the fee is $625, and disbursements are $141. Then in December
of 1955 the disbursements go up to $498.
In elanuary, disbursements are $331. What was he doing with those
disbursements ?
Mr. Wagner. I don't know.
Mr. Kennedy. Didn't you try to find out ?
Mr. Wagner. I don't now which one of those invoices I tried to find
out, but there is one that is much higher than that. The one that
was higher than that, I tried to find out and didn't.
Mr. Kennedy. Did he tell you how he was spending the money ?
Mr. Wagner. No. He showed me a photostatic copy of the ledger
out of either his office or Chicago. I don't know which.
Mr, Kennedy. You could find out from him quickly enough,
couldn't you.
6500 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. Wagner. What?
Mr. Kennedy. Just ask him how he was spending the money, where
the money was going ?
Mr. Wagner. I asked for the actual expense record. I just didn't
ask the general question. I said I wanted to see where it was going.
Mr. Kennedy. He didn't tell you ?
Mr. Wagner. I don't think I asked him to tell me. I asked him to
show me the record.
Mr. Kennedy. Did he show you the record ?
Mr. Wagner. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Were you satisfied ?
Mr. Wagner. Not completely, but I was satisfied that they kept very
detailed records, telephone calls, long-distance calls, mileage.
Mr. Kennedy. According to his records that we have examined,
the disbursements were for entertainment and gifts for union officials.
We have these records here. For instance : May 30, 1956, $205, enter-
tainment, fishing, union.
June 1, 2, and 3, entertainment, $525 for a trip for union officials ;
June 17, $51.70, baseball game, union officials; July 15, $125.50, enter-
tainment, union officials.
Mr. Wagner. Senator, I only asked that — the second invoice I re-
ceived from him, I asked him to show me the expenditures. After
that, I had a little better breakdown on the original statement that
he sent me, and at that time I deducted something that was on there.
I think he had a Christmas gift, and I didn't want any part of that,
and I deducted it. He didn't object.
Mr. Kennedy. Was that $150 ?
Mr. Wagner. Well, yes ; that was the deduction.
Mr. Kennedy. Then shortly after that for Christmas he has a
charge of $400.
Mr. Wagner. I didn't check all the statements like I did that one.
Mr. IvENNEDY. I don't miderstand. You continued to pay all of
the disbursements.
Mr. Wagner. That is true.
Mr. Kennedy. For instance, here in September of 1956, $673 for
disbursements. Do you know what he was doing with this money?
Mr. Wagner. Not specifically ; no.
Mr. Kennedy. Weren't you interested in finding out?
Mr. Wagner. Well, at the time I think I knew more than about
whether the bill was reasonable or not. We were making trips to
Detroit, we were making trips to Lansing. He hired an attorney
in front of the State labor mediation board. As the statements came
in, if they appeared reasonable, I paid them.
Mr. Kennedy. Disbursements in January 1957, $779.65. Didn't
this concern you at all that you were paying these very high bills
and didn't know how the money was being used ?
Mr. Wagnfr. Well, the per diem arrangements, Senator, were
$200 a day for his services and $100 a day for lesser personnel, and
if he had an attorney with him that was extra. At that rate, with
hearing in front of the labor board, and trips to my office and Detroit,
$700 didn't go very far.
Mr. Kennedy. He had it broken down in his records how he was
using the money, and the breakdown shows it was all for entertain-
ment of union officials.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD ()501
The records show that this was all for the purpose of entertain-
injr and buying- jrifts for union officials. The total fees for this period
of'^ime were $4^900, and the total disbursements were $4:,249.5o since
you retained him at the close of 1955, since the end of 1955 to the
end of 1956. ^ ,
You don't have any explanation of that large disbursement figure i
Mr. Wagner. No, sir ; I don't.
Mr. Kennedy. Did he tell you it was for union officials, entertain-
ment of union officials ?
Mr. AVagner. No. ^
Mr. IvENNEDY. You just continued to pay it even though he didn t
give you any explanation ?
Mr. Wagner. Well, I certainly have paid my bills; yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Didn't that original breakdown that he gave you
show some entertainment for union officials ?
Mr. Wagner. The original breakdown was a sheet of paper that
was completely covered with notations of expenditures. I was im-
pressed with the detail of 25- and 30-cent and $1.25 items. I actually
expected that he couldn't produce evidence of these expenditures. I
was amazed that they did have a record.
Exactly what was on there in the way of entertainment for union
officials, or trips to Flint, I don't recall. The thing that I do recall
is that I struck a $150 item because after that was the words
"Christmas gift."
Mr. Kennedy. As I say, then you had a $400 item that was for
Christmas.
Mr, Wagner. I never asked him to bring me photostatic copies
of the records after the original time because I was satisfied that
he kept records.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you have another LEA employee up there?
Mr. Wagner. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Herb Melnick ?
Mr. Wagner. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Did he use an alias while he was up there?
Mr. Wagner. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Did he use the name "Mellon" ?
Mr. Wagner. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Did he take a survey amongst the employees?
Mr. Wagner. Yes, sir ; some of the employees.
Mr. Kennedy. Some of the employees to find out what their com-
plaints were?
Mr. Wagner. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. To find out how they felt toward the company?
Mr. Wagner. Toward the company and toward the union.
Mr. Kennedy. Did he give you a report on that ?
Mr. Wagner. Yes, sir ; I have a written report.
Mr. Kennedy. Have you got the written report ?
Mr. Wagner. Yes, sir. I might say that we made changes based
on that report.
The Chairman. Does the report have any significance, particu-
larly?
I present to you 15 bills from Labor Kelations Associates. Examine
them and state if you identify them, please, sir.
C502 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
(The documents were handed to the witness.)
Mr. Wagner. Yes, sir ; those are the bills.
The Chairman. They may be made exhibits Nos. 59-A, -B, -C,
-D, and so forth.
(The documents referred to were marked "Exhibits Nos. 59-A
through 59-0, inclusive," for reference and may be found in the files
of the select committee.)
Mr. Wagner. Do you want the election results ? I have them.
The Chairman. Yes. Give us the election results.
Mr. Wagner. The election results, parties to said election agreed
Association, 122; for the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store
Union, United Dairy Workers, Local 388, CIO, 82; for no union, 2.
Challenged ballots were 3, and 17 not voting, for a total of 226, certi-
iied by Bennett Simms.
Mr. Kennedy. Do you know why the teamsters pulled out on the
last day?
Mr. Wagner. I don't know why, but I can make an assumption
on that. We had the teamsters, as I said, quite a while ago, and in a
previously conducted election by the State of Michigan Labor Board
the independent union won an election. They were ousted. Then
for a long ]:>eriod of time they have constantly been trying to iref back
in, either tlie CIO or AFL have, practically yearly, tried to raid the
independent union.
We finally got to the point of having this election, and the team-
sters felt they weren't going to win. This is where the assumption
comes in. They felt that they weren't going to win, and if they
withdrew, the independent union would win and later on they could
pick off an independent union a lot better than raiding wliat at top
level was supposed to be a merged CIO and AFL situation. They
would have had to raid the CIO. Tliat is wliat I think happened.
Mr. Kennedy. Did Mr. Kamenow tell you of his friendly islation-
ships with the teamster officials ?
Mr. Wagner. He admitted that he knew people pretty well : that
is right.
Mr. Kennedy. Did he discuss with these officials this mattei- of
their organizing your plant ?
Mr. Wagner. Well, I don't know. At the hearings, of course, we
were all there, and there was discussion.
Mr. Kennedy. But did you understand or know that he was having
these discussions and dinners with them on other occasions ?
Mr. Wagner. No.
Mr. Kennedy : Do you know why it would be so necessary to have
all of these disbursements and charges for entertaining these teamster
officials?
Mr. Wagner : Well, I don't know they are teamster officials, and I
wouldn't know why it was necessary.
Mr. Kennedy : What other union officials would there be that would
be involved?
Mr. Wagner : I recall while we were in Lansing that he, I think,
took myself and the independent union people. I think he picked up
the tab on that and I in turn probably have it on his expense sheet.
Mr. I^nnedy: He was doing a large amount of entertaining of
these union officials. Who did he tell you the $150 Christmas gift
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 6503
Mr. Wagner: He didn't mention any name at all. I didn't ask
liim. I said, "I am not buying a Christmas present," and I struck it.
He never argued about it.
Mr. Kennedy : You never discussed who it was for ?
Mr. Wagner : No, sir.
The Chairman : It seems like he put in one bill for $150 that you
struck, and then he slipped another one by you for $400.
Mr. Wagner : That is right.
The Chairman : Plus another one later for $150?
Mr. Wagner : I found some things when Mr. Langenbacher showed
me the records that got by me.
Mr. Kennedy: I don't understand if you found him doing it once,
that you would not ask for a breakdown of youi- bills each month,
especially when there were these large figures of (li!=))ursements.
Mr. Wagner: There was a lot of activity at our ])lace on unioniza-
tion. He was there quite often. We were making trips out of town
quite often.
As I say, they didn't seem quite so large in view of that. And they
were smaller than the one that I checked, by a great deal, I believe.
The one I checked was a $2,000 item and the rest of them ran six or
seven hundred dollars.
Mr. Kennedy: It was a considerable amount of the money, and I
would have thought that you would be interested in trying to find
out how the money was being spent. But this is all news to you, that
this is the way the money went?
Mr. Wagner : Do you mean right now ?
Mr. Kennedy: Well, since our investigation.
Mr. Wagner : Since I have been reading the newspapers and every-
thing, I think I am catching up.
Mr. Kennedy : That is all.
The Chairman : Thank you very much.
Mr. Kennedy : Mr. Chairman, I might put into the record the dis-
bursements for entertainment and for purchasing these trips for these
nine companies of Flint, Mich. It is a total of $27,770.47.
The Chairman : Plas the staff member checked that?
TESTIMONY OF IRWIN LANGENBACHER— Resumed
Mr. Langenbacher. I computed them, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. State what you have done.
Mr. Langenbacher. This tabulation is based both on the records
of Labor Relations Associates and the testimony we have had here
today, pertaining only to the nine companies who have been repre-
sented here today.
It shows through 1956, starting with 1954, the amount spent for
entertainment and gifts pertaining to these 9 companies is $27,770.47.
The Chairman. That is just for the disbursements, entertainments,
and gifts?
Mr. Langenbacher. Yes, sir. Made by these 9 companies only.
The Chairman. That doesn't include the fee, the retainer?
Mr. Langenbacher. No, sir. It does not include any of the fee, and
it does not include other businesses in Flint, Mich.
The Chairman. Just for these nine companies ?
Mr. Langenbacher. Just for these nine companies ; yes, sir.
6504 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
TESTIMONY OF GARFIELD WAGNER, ACCOMPANIED BY HIS
COUNSEL, HOWARD KLEIN— Resumed
Mr. Wagner. Mr. Chairman, because of the nature of the milk busi-
ness and because of the Labor atmosphere of Flint, I would just like
to say that we have been organized since about 1941 there. The A. F,
of L., the independent union, and the CIO have tried to come in. At
no tim.e have we done any labor baiting. I don't believe I have ever
dismissed a man for trying to organize us or to take the independent
union into another place. Our people — as you see, we even had some
that voted for no union. Our wage rates are good and our working
conditions are good. There is no endeavor on the part of management
at that company to do away with the union or to stop a switch in
unions.
Senator Mundt. What was it basically that induced you to employ
Mr. Kamenow ?
Mr. Wagner. I am glad you brought that out. I forgot it. Basic-
ally, I, at one time, thought that the teamsters were going to win, and
because they had lost an election, and because they had been outside
for 10 or 12 years, I knew that they would negotiate or would try to
negotiate, a very, very stiif contract.
In the milk business, with our close margins, and with the competi-
tive situation the way it is, we can't have higher costs than our com-
petitors. Mr. Kamenow furnished me with copies of other dairy
contracts. He was able to get me the competing dairy's contract in
Flint, which I hadn't been able to do. He rendered me some service.
I just didn't want to get stuck with a worse deal than a competitor.
Senator Mundt. I take it on the whole that you probably are the
first witness we have had here today who would say that you got value
received from what you paid Mr. Kamenow ; is that right ?
Mr. Wagner. Well, I am not going to say that, because I am just
finding out about some of these expenses. But I would say that he
did do some work.
Senator Mundt. Well, before these hearings began
Mr. Wagner. That is right. I would say that we worked effec-
tively together.
The Chairman. What is the volume of your business annually ?
Mr. Wagner. Just over $13 million.
The Chairman. Is there anything further?
Mr. Kennedy. And he was able to achieve the result for which you
hired him, was he not?
Mr. Wagner. It wasn't necessary, because we never had to face the
negotiations with the teamsters because the independent union won
the election.
Mr. Kennedy. And the teamsters withdrew from the election?
Mr. Wagner. That is not why I hired him.
Mr. Kennedy. But you didn't want to negotiate with the teamsters?
Mr. Wagner. I didn't care whether I negotiated with the teamsters,
but when I did, I didn't want to get stuck with a contract that had some
vengeance in it, due to being away for 10 years.
Mr. Kennedy. If that was your only purpose, it seems you would
have hired him after the teamsters were designated as the bargaining
agent, not a year before the election, if that was your only purpose.
You wanted to keep the teamsters out of the plant,* did you not?
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 6505
Mr. Wagner. No. No, that is not the case. I would say this : Mr.
Kamenow suggested some tactics that would do that. About 2 years
previous to this, we had a strike threat and a strike vote from our in-
dependent union. At that time, the company put out a lot of propa-
ganda and everything to avoid the strike. The men voted not to strike,
but later on a lot of the fellows came in to see me and said that if we
had let them alone we would have had a much better vote than what
we got. So tliis time when there was a question of the CIO, the A. F.
of L. and an independent, and if you do business with an independent
for 10 years, you will find out that that is a problem, too, after a while,
I didn't care whether they went CIO or A. F. of L. or stayed independ-
ent, but I did care about what kind of a contract I could get from the
A. F. of L. because I knew they were soreheads.
Mr. Kennedy. I can't understand why you can't admit this. If
that is the only reason you hired him, why didn't you hire him after
the teamsters were designated as the bargaining agent, not a year
before ?
Mr. Wagner. At one time I was sure the teamsters would win. That
is why I hired him.
Mr. Kennedy. All right. You wanted to keep
Mr. Wagner. I wanted to make certain that my contract didn't have
a lot of bitterness in it.
Mr. Kennedy. That doesn't make sense, because you would have
hired him after they were designated.
Mr. Wagner. I am sorry.
Senator Mundt. You have had a lot of experience as a labor-man-
agement fellow in a town in which labor is a pretty important factor.
Can you think of any legislative suggestions to offer this committee
which, if enacted into law, might eliminate the kind of problem that
we are wrestling with these days ?
Mr. Wagner. I certainly can. One suggestion is that I think busi-
ness should have quicker access to the courts rather than be forced to
go to labor boards. We had a case in a plant that we have up in
Saginaw, and this is a standing practice up there. They always start
organizing a plant on Monday afternoon, because the only time the
courts will grant an injunction is on Monday mornings. So it gives
them a full week to coerce and take care of you before you can get into
the courts. When you get there, you don't know what you got. So I
would say that if business could have access to the courts, rather than
be forced through NLRB or through a State labor board, it would
help.
Then, of course, you have just plain, common enforcement of laws
where they beat up people and things like that.
Senator Mundt. That is all.
Mr. Wagner. I might say this : In our business it is a very perish-
able product. I think certainly there ought to be a ban on secondary
boycott.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
The committee stands in recess until 10 o'clock in the morning.
(Committee members present at time of recess: Senators McClellan
and Mundt. )
( Wliereupon, at 4 :40 p. m. the committee was recessed, to reconvene
at 10 a. m. Tuesday, November 5, 1957.)
89330— 57— pt. 16 18
INVESTIGATION OF IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE
LABOR OR MANAGEMENT FIELD
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 5, 1957
United States Senate,
Select Committee on Improper Activities
IN the Labor or Management Field,
Washington, D. C .
The select committee met at 10 a.m., pursuant to Senate Resolu-
tion 74, agreed to January 30, 1957, in the caucus room, Senate
Office Building, Senator Jolm L. McClellan (chairman of the select
committee) presiding.
Pi-esent: Senator John L. McClellan, Democrat, Arkansas; Sena-
tor Karl E. Mundt, Republican, South Dakota.
Also present : Robert F. Kennedy, chief counsel ; P. Kenneth
O'Donnell, assistant counsel; Irwin Langenbacher, assistant counsel;
Pierre Salinger, investigator; Walter Sheridan, investigator; Car-
mine S. Bellino, accounting consultant; Ruth Young Watt, chief
clerk.
The Chaik:man. The connnittee will come to order.
(Members of the connnittee present at the convening of the session :
Senators McClellan and Mundt.)
The Chairman. Mr. Kamenow, w^ill 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. Kamenow. I do.
TESTIMONY OF GEORGE KAMENOW, ACCOMPANIED BY HIS
COUNSEL, PAUL J. WIESELBERG
The Chairman. State your name, your place of residence, and
your business or occupation.
Mr. Kamenow. George. Kamenow, 32040 Tarreytojj, Farmington,
Mich.
The Chairman. Will you give your business or occupation, please,
sir?
Mr. Kamenow. On advice of counsel, I respectfully decline at this
time to answer. Under the fifth amendment of the United States
Constitution and article 2, section 16, of the constitution of the State
of Michigan, I assert my privilege not to be a witness against myself.
The Chairman. You have coimsel present. Will you identify
yourself for the record ?
Mr. Wieselberg. Paul J. Wieselberg, W-i-e-s-e-1-b-e-r-g, of De-
troit, Mich.
6507
6508 IMPROPEiR ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
The Chairman. Will you submit to tlie Chair what you read there
just for a moment, please? I couldn't hear. Or will you ix'peat it?
May I see what you have read ?
(The document was handed to the chairman by the witness.)
The Chaieman. The Chair overrules that part of the witness'
answer where he states that under the constitution, article 2, section
16, of the constitution of the State of Michigan, that he asserts his
privilege not to be a witness against himself.
The constitution of the State of Michigan has no jurisdiction over
and is not a guide or direction nor a restriction upon this committee's
function or its inquiry. Thei-efore, that part of the statement of the
witness' response will be overruled.
The Chair again asks you the question, what is your present busi-
ness or occupation?
Mr. Kamenow. I honestly believe that if I am forced to answer
questions, I will be compelled to be a witness against myself, in vio-
lation of my privileges under the fifth amendment of the United
States Constitution, and under article 2, section 16, of the constitu-
tion of the State of Michigan.
The Chairmaist. Again, the Chair overrules that statement of the
Michigan constitution so far as it is superseding the authority and
jurisdiction of the Federal Government. I suggest to your counsel
that he advise you not to repeat it.
Of course, if counsel wants to insist, he can make that kind of a
record. It will not reflect upon the committee, I can assure him.
If he wants to make that kind of a record, that is your privilege.
But the Chair announces now that part of your answer will be over-
ruled. As I understand you, Mr. Kamenow, your statement is that,
under the fifth amendment to the Constiution, you assert that priv-
ilege and decline to be a witness against yourself; is that correct?
Mr. IvAMENOW. That is correct.
The Chairman. Do you honestly believe that, if you gave a truth-
ful answer to the question as to what is your present business or oc-
cupation, a truthful answer under oath might tend to incriminate
you?
Mr. Kamenqw. I honestly believe that, if I am forced to answer
the question, I will be compelled to be a witness against myself, in
violation of my privileges under the fifth amendment of the United
States Constitution.
The Chairman. Since you don't want to be a witness against your-
self, will you be a vritness for the committee and the union men of
this country that have been involved in your activities and, therefore,
give them some accounting of your stewardship, and also to the busi-
ness interests of this country ?
^ Mr. Kaimenow. On advice of counsel, I respectfully decline at this
time to answer, under the fifth amendment of the United States Con-
stitution, and I assert my privilege not to be a witness against myself.
The Chairman. Have you been in the hearing room here during
the testimony yesterday of witnesses from Flint, Mich ?
Mr. Kamenoav. Yes.
The Chairman. Then you heard the testimony, did you, of those
witnesses yesterday ?
Mr. Kamenow. For a short time that I was in here.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 6509
The Chairman. Did you hear something then that intimated to
you that it might be well for you not to answer questions today ?
Mr. Kamenow. On advice of counsel, I respectfully decline at this
time to answer. Under the fifth amendment to the United States
Constitution, I assert my privilege not to be a witness against myself.
The Chairman, Well, I want to be very fair to you. You, perhaps,
didn't hear all of the testimony yesterday, so I am going to ask
counsel to proceed to interrogate you about some of the revelations
that came to us in sworn testimony in our inquiry into this situation by
the witnesses who appeared here yesterday.
Mr. Counsel, proceed.
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, prior to that time, we have here a
subpena, or a copy of the subpena, served on Mr. Kamenow which
orders his production of all of his personal records and books. Will
you ask the witness to produce those records?
The Chairman. I present to the witness a copy of the subpena
served upon him, and ask him to examine it and identify it.
(The document was handed to the witness.)
Mr. WiESELBERG. He was served with that subpena.
The Chairman. The witness acknowledges he was served with that
subpena ?
Mr. Kamenow. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. Let me have the subpena, please.
(The document was handed to the chairman by the witness.)
The Chairman. This subpena may be printed in the record at this
point, the pertinent parts of it, about which I shall interrogate the
witness.
Mr. WiESELBERG. I would like to, Mr. Chairman, make a brief ob-
jection here. In the first place, we question the pertinency of his
personal records in this investigation. In the second place, the sub-
pena is of such a broad scope — in fact, I would say it would constitute
a fishing expedition — so that, under the decision of the Boioman Dairy
case (341 U. S. 214), the subpena is largely invalid, and we just want
to place that objection on the record.
The Chairman. That objection will be placed on the record, and
it is overruled by the committee. The Chair will proceed to read the
pertinent parts of the subpena.
You are hereby commanded to appear before the Senate Select Committee on
Improper Activities in the Labor or Management Field of the United States,
on August 12, 1957, at 10 a. m., at their committee room, 101 Senate Office
Building, and then and there to testify what you may know relative to the
subject matter under consideration by said committee, and produce, duces
tecum, all of your personal financial records and records maintained by you
and your wife and by others on your behalf for the years 1952 through 1957
pertaining to and including bankbooks, bank statements, canceled checks, check
stubs, savings accounts, stocks, bonds, debentures, and other securities, loans,
insurance policies, real estate, automobiles and trucks, interest in partnership
or joint ventures, and all other financial records, and pertaining to financial
transactions that you have had during the years 1952 through 1957 with com-
panies, corporations, labor imions, and officials of labor unions.
Mr. Kamenow, have you complied with this subpena, and have you
produced your records ?
Mr. Kamenow. I assert I have produced my personal records in
accordance with the subpena issued by this committee.
6510 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Tlie Chairman. I will have to ask you to suspend. It is froiup: to be
impossible for us to proceed here with this noise outside the hearing
room.
(A short recess was taken.)
The Chairman. On the basis of the report we have now received,
we are now hopeful that we can proceed without interruption, so we
will try ao-ain. The Chair again asks you the question, if you have
complied with the subpena, and do you have present your records ?
Mr. Kamenow. I luive with me my personal records, in accordance
with the subpena issued by this committee.
The Chairman. You have what ?
Mr. Kamenow. I have with me my personal records, in accordance
with the subpena issued by this committee. However, on advice of
counsel, I respectfully decline at this time to produce and turn over
my personal records under the fourth and fifth amendments of the
United States Constitution, and, under article 2, sections 15 and IT)
of the constitution of the State of Michigan, I assert my privilege
not to produce under compulsion evidence to be used against me and
of not being a witness against myself.
The Chairman. All of that part of your statement with respect to
the constitution of the State of Micliigan is overruled. I do under-
stand from your answer, hoM'ever, that you did bi-ing the recoi'ds and
you have them with you.
Mr. Kamenow. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. You have tliem present here ?
Mr. Kamenow. That is right.
The Chairman. All right. You are declining to turn them over on
the ground, as I understand you, that to produce them would be, in
effect, testifying against yourself, and you feel that if you did that the
records that you would produce and deliver to us under the order of
this subpena might tend to incriminate you ?
Mr. Kamenow. T stand by my statement.
The Chairman. Well, I am trying to clarify your statement. If
you want to leave it in that shape, you may. I am simply trying to
be very fair to you.
Mr. Kamenow. I don't quite understand your question. Senator.
The CriAiRMAN. I am trying to make the recoixl clear, and, if you
don't want to do it, that is all right with me. I am trying to clarify
your answer so that it can be understood. I undei'stand that you
have the records present, but your statement is that, if you produced
the records and made them available to the committee, the informa-
tion those records contain might tend to incriminate you.
Mr. Kamenow. I stand on my statement.
The Chairman. Proceed, Mr. Counsel, and ask him every question
that you have infoi-mation about here, and let him take the fifth
amendment, if that is his choice, but I want to give him an opportunity
to deny and to refute or expl ain .
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, it might be well to start off by point-
ing out that Mr. Kamenow came, according to our records, with Labor
Rel ations Associates, around 1 941.
The Chairman. Is that correct ?
Mr. Kamenow. On advice of council, I respectfully decline at this
time to answer, and under the fifth amendment of the United States
Constitution I assert my privilege not to be a witness against myself.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 6511
The Chairman. Do you honestly believe that if you stated when
you went to Labor Relations Associates that a truthful answer
thereto ini^ht tend to incrniininate you '^
Mr. Kamenow. I honestly believe that if I am forced to answer
the question I wmII be compelled to be a witness ajjjainst myslf, in
violation of my pi-ivileges under the fifth amendment of the United
States Constitution.
The Chairman. Proceed.
Mr. Kennedy. And that Mr. Kamenow has been in charf^e of the
Detroit office. About 8 or 4 months a^o, he broke off fi'om Mr. Shef-
ferman and set up an office of his own. He broke oil, accordin^: to
the information tliat we have, and accordiuf;: to what he told vari-
ous of the clients, because he was concerned about some of the thin<(s
that had been testified about Mr. Shert'erman, and tliat he didn't
know Mr. Shefferman was doin^ some of these improper acts, and
he didn't want to be associated with him.
The Chairman. One witness so testified yesterday, as the Chair
recalls. He testified to that in substance.
Mr. Kamenow, would you tell tlie committee what acts of Mr.
Shetferman's dis})leased you or you didn't want to be associated with,
tliat caused you to break away from that relationship ?
Mr. Kamenow. On advice of counsel, I respectfully decline at this
time to answer, and under the fifth amendment of the United States
Constitution I assert my privilege not to be a witness against
myself.
The Chairman. Are we to imply from that statement that you
were a party to some of those actions that you got disgusted wi(li,
and that is why you quit ?
Mr. Kamenow. On advice of counsel, I res])ect fully decline at this
time to answer, and under the fifth amendment of the United States
Constitution I assert my privilege not to be a witness against
myself.
'J'lie C/HAiRMAN. Proceed, Mr. Kennedy.
Mr. Kennedy. We do not have all of the figures for 1956, but I
have some of the figures for 1954 and 1955, which will give a picture
of the financial situation as far as Mr. Kamenow is concerned in
Labor Relations Associates.
In 1954, according to our records, he received a salary of $15,000,
and a bonus of $18,000, and travel and entertainment expenses of
$30,529.73.
The Chairman. That is for the year 1954 ?
Mr. Kennedy. Yes.
The Chairman. He received the salary from whom ?
Mr. Kennedy. From Labor Relations Associates.
The (yiiAiRMAN. And a bonus from them?
Mr. Kennedy. Yes, and this ti'avel and entei'tainment expense of
$30,529.73, which we expect to go into a little bit further.
The Chairman. What is the total ?
Mr. Kennedy. The total was $63,529.73 of money that went to
Mr. Kamenow.
The Chairman. Do you want to deny, refute, or admit, or explain
those fiffures ?
6512 IMPROPEK ACTIVITIES IN' THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. Kamenow. On ad\^ice of counsel, I respectfully decline at this
time to answer, and under the fifth amendment of the United States
Constitution, I assert my privilege not to be a witness against myself.
The Chairman. Is there something in those figures, some expendi-
ture or some transactions that they represent that you tliink might
tend to incriminate you if they were divulged, if you discussed them?
Mr. Kamenow. On advice of counsel, I respectfully decline at
this time to answer, and under the fifth amendment of the United
States Constitution, I assert my privilege not to be a witness against
myself.
The Chairman. How much of this $30,529.73 went to union
officials?
Mr. Kamenow. On advice of counsel, I respectfully decline at this
time to answer, and under the fifth amendment of the United States
Constitution, I assert my privilege not to be a witness against
myself.
The Chairman. How much of it was used to pay union officials
to get them to desist or to refrain from trying to organize different
companies ?
Mr. Kamenow. On advice of counsel, I respectfully decline at this
time to answer; under the fifth amendment of the United States
Constitution, I assert my privilege not to be a witness against
myself.
The Chairman. None of it was used improperly, I assume?
Mr. Kamenow. On advice of counsel I respectfully decline at this
time to answer and under the fifth amendment of the United States
Constitution I assert my privilege not to be a witness against
myself.
The Chairman. You don't think that it would tend to incrimi-
nate you to answer that and say "No", do you ?
_ Mr. Kamenow. On advice of counsel I respectfully decline at this
time t-o answer and under the fifth amendment of the United States
Constitution, I assert my privilege not to be a witness against
myself.
The Chairman. Is that just a bad year ?
Mr. IvAMENOw. On advice of counsel I respectfully decline at this
time to answer and under the fifth amendment of the Constitution of
the United States I assert my privilege not to be a witness against
myself.
The Chairman. Mr. Counsel, what did he have in the succeeding
year ?
Mr. Kennedy. 19.55, $15,000 salary, $18,000 bonus, and $30,937.04
for travel and entertainment expenses, making a total of $63,937.04.
That is 1955.
The Chairman. Did the same practice continue during 1955, in
your operation ?
_ Mr. Kamenow. On advice of counsel I respectfully decline at this
time to answer and under the fifth amendment of the Constitution I
assert my privilege not to be a witness against myself.
The Chairman. In other words, the same things prevailed, ob-
tained, during that year that might tend to incriminate you that
prevailed, occurred, during the preceding year ? Is that correct ?
(The witness conferred with his counsel.)
IMPROPER ACnVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 6513
Mr. Kamenow. On advice of counsel I respectfully decline at this
time to answer and under the fifth amendment of the United States
Constitution I assert my privilege not to be a witness against myself.
The Chairman. Do you represent business or labor?
Mr. I\A.MEN0W, On advice of counsel I respectfully decline at this
time to answer and under the fifth amendment of the United States
Constitution I assert my privilege not to be a witness against myself.
The Chairman. Is Labor Relations Associates a business enter-
prise or is it a labor organization ?
Mr. ICamenow. On advice of counsel I respectfully decline at this
time to answer and under the fifth amendment of the United States
Constitution I assert my privilege not to be a witness against myself.
The Chairman. Was it retained to represent labor organizations,
or were you retained, and did the LEA represent business interests?
Mr. Kamenow. On advice of counsel I respectfully decline at this
time to answer and under the fifth amendment of the United States
Constitution I assert my privilege not to be a witness against myself.
The Chairman. According to the evidence by a number of wit-
nesses that have previously appeared, and according to the infor-
mation we have as evidencetl by these figures that counsel has given,
it appears that you represented business, that is, you were employed
by a business enterprise or busines enterprises, paid by business enter-
prises, that the income of LEA was from small businesses and others,
and that you were paid by LRA. Do you want to make any expla-
nation of that, or do you want to deny it ? Tell us what the facts are.
Mr. Kamenow. On advice of counsel I respectfully decline at this
time to answer, and under the fifth amendment of the United States
Constitution I assert my privilege not to be a witness against myself.
The Chairman. If you were employed by business interests and
represented business interests, as their agent or as their counsel, or
whatever services you performed, then you do come in the category
of management or business interests rather than labor or labor organ-
izations ; is that not true ?
Mr. Kamenow\ On advice of counsel I respectfully decline at this
time to answer, and under the fifth amendment of the United States
Constitution I assert my privilege not to be a witness against myself.
The Chairman. It is a pretty sad commentary, in my view, on
business and management when they employ and use, make use of,
agents or representatives who, when called before a tribunal, such as
this committee, find themselves in such a situation by reason of their
past actions or conduct that they have to take the fifth amendment
because if they told the truth, the truth might tend to incriminate
them. The Chair has been pretty severe in his condemnation, and
it is personal, the way I feel about it, of labor leaders who owe a
duty, a trust, who are stewards, occupying positions of confidence,
and an obligation, a duty, resting upon them to take care of and
protect the interests of the working people of this country, who come
in here and say tliat their conduct has been such, or the truth is
such, that if they revealed it they would be testifying against them-
selves and such testimony might tend to incriminate them.
Now we find it appears that you represent business and management.
Now we find that on the side of m.anagement we have people who
are engaged in, on the surface, legitimate activities; but when we
interrogate as to what those activities are, the extent of them, and
6514 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN" THE' LABOR FIELD
the nature of them, we find that business representatives, or manage-
ment representatives, feel compelled to take the fifth amendment be-
cause if they told the truth it might tend to incriminate them.
On that score, I can see no difference in the labor leader or labor
representative who takes the fifth amendment, and those who repre-
sent business or manaoement, who find themselves in a situation where
they think it advisable, under advice of counsel, not to reveal the truth
and the facts as they know them to be.
All right, Mr. Kennedy, proceed.
Mr. Kennedy. Well, Mr. Chairman, this travel and entertainment
takes on particular significance when we make an examination of
the records of LEA and the i-ecords of Mr. George Kamenow. It
would appear that large sums of money were expended for the pur-
pose of union busting, either through subtle means, by entertainment
and small groups, to more obvious means of lai'ge sums of money.
We have broken down some of Mr. Kamenow's records. I would
like to have permission to ask him about some of these expenditures
that he has made.
We have here prepared a list, Mr. Chairman, taken from Mr.
Kamenow's records, of some of the charges that are made and charged
on his records to travel and entertainment. We will go into this,
and then also some other charges.
The Chairman. Mav I inquire who has made a compilation, this
compilation, on the staff ?
Mr. Kennedy. This was made by our accountants in Chicago, under
our direction.
The Chairman. All right, proceed.
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Kamenow, I would like to ask you first about
this, for instance, $150
The Chairman. Does the witness have one of these ?
Mr. Kamenow. I do not.
The Chairman. See that he has one so that he can follow the ques-
tion, please.
(Document handed to the witness.)
Mr. Kennedy. IVIr. Chairman, I would like to ask him about these
2 items from his daily report, $150 and $300 item, dated December
14, 1953. One charged to the Detroit Bolt & Nut Co., and one to the
Wolf Detroit Envelope Co.
The Chairman. Mr. Kamenow, I present to you a photostatic copy
of what appears to be your daily report on December 14, 1953. I
ask you to examine it and state if you identify it.
( Document handed to witness. )
(The witness conferred with his counsel.)
Mr. Kamenow. On advice of counsel, I respectfully decline at this
time to answer, and under the fifth amendment of the United States
Constitution, I assert my privilege not to be a witness against mvself .
The Chairman. Let the Chair ask you first if vou have examined
the document.
Mr. Kamenow. Yes.
The Chairman. You have examined it. After examining it, you
decline to tell us whether you identify it or not, on the advice of
counsel, and by invoking the fifth amendment; is that correct?
Mr. Kamenow. That is correct.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 6515
The Chairman. That may be made exhibit No. 60.
(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 60" for ref-
erence and will be found in the appendix on p. 6687. )
Mr. Kennedy. Here is another one, Mr. Chairman, Awrey Bakery,
$425.80 on December 18, 1953, for Christmas gifts.
The Chaikman. I present to you here another photostatic copy of
your daily report on December 18, 1953, showing an entry charged to
Audrey Bakery, an item of $425, marked ''Christmas gifts." Will
you examine that document and state if you identify it?
(Document handed to witness, who conferred with his counsel.)
Mr. Kamenow. On advice of counsel I respectfully decline at this
time to answer, and under the fifth amendment of the United States
Constitution I assert my privilege not to be a witness against myself.
The Chairman. You have examined the document?
Mr. Kamenow. I have examined it.
The Chairman. It may be made exhibit No. 61.
(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 61" for ref-
erence and will be found in the appendix on p. 6638.)
The Chairman. Can you give us or will you give us any informa-
tion about the use of that $425 marked or identified by the word
"Christmas," or the abbreviation for Christmas ?
Mr. Kamenow. On advice of counsel, I respectfully decline at this
time to answer, and under the fifth amendment of the United States
Constitution I assert my privilege not to be a witness against myself.
The Chairman. Is that a part, of the general policy and practice
of the LRA and of you as its representative ?
Mr. Kamenow, On advice of counsel I respectfully decline at this
time to answer, and under the fifth amendment of the United States
Constitution, I assert my privilege not to be a witness against myself.
The Chairman. Is that one of tlie devices used to make friends and
influence people favorable to management, to influence labor repre-
sentatives favorable to management or favorable to your clients?
Mr. Kamenow. On advice of counsel I respectfully decline at this
time to answer, and under the fifth amendment of tlie Constitution
I assert my privilege not to be a witness against myself.
The Chairman. The Cliair notes that you say you de^'line to answer
at this time under the advice of counsel. Would you think if we
recessed over until tomorrow, at that time you might change your
position and be willing to answer then ?
(The witness conferred with his counsel.)
Mr. Kamenow, No.
The Chairman. You don't think you would ?
Mr. Kamenow. I don't think so ; no, sir.
The Chairman. Proceed.
Mr. Kennedy. Well, Mr. Chairman, here is Otto Graff, travel,
$1,630.20, tickets to Seattle and return.
The Chairman. This is another daily report of yours.
Mr. Kennedy. 6-21-54.
The Chairman. It is as of June 21, 1954. It shows an item here
of travel. Otto Graff.
Mr. Kennedy. He testified yesterday.
The Chairman. It is termed "travel, tickets to Seattle and return,
$1,630.20." Will you examine that document, please, and state if
you identify it.
6516 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. WiESELBERG. Mr. Chairman, may I make an objection at this
time?
The Chairman. You may.
Mr. WiESELBERG. My objection here is that the subject matter of
yesterday's investigation involved nine business firms from Flint,
Mich., and that their testimony, that is, anything in regard to that
testimony is not pertinent to this investigation, and any question put
to my client arising out of this subject matter is objected to. I want
to call your attention to the case of Quinn v. United States (349 Mich-
igan 155), in which it says that the power to investigate, broad as it
may be, is also subject to recognized limitations. It cannot be used
to inquire into private affairs unrelated to a valid legislative purpose,
nor does it extend to an area in which Congress is forbidden to
legislate.
Similarly, the powers to investigate must not be confused with
any of the powers of law enforcement. Those powers are assigned
under our Constitution to the executive and the judiciary.
None of the business firms, as I understand it, that appeared here
yesterday, are in a business that affects commerce. They are gov-
erned by the Michigan law relating to labor, and Congress, even if it
would enact legislation, could not legislate insofar as they are con-
cerned, because they are not in interstate commerce.
Respectfully I say that in pursuing the examination of yesterday,
and insofar as questions arise as to this witness, this committee is
stepping beyond the limitations imposed upon it under the Quinn
decision.
The CHAiRMAisr. The Chair will overrule the objection. I don't
think there can be any question but what the subject matter under
inquiry and the evidence that the conmiittee has received is clearly
within the purview of its authority and jurisdiction. Certainly the
LRA was not an intrastate operation. It was very much interstate,
extending, I think, maybe from the Canadian boundary to the Gulf
of Mexico, and from the Atlantic on the east to the Pacific on the
west. I believe that would be interstate commerce.
Mr. WiESELBERG. May I have this objection applied to all these
matters, so I won't have to repeat it again ?
The Chairman. The record may reflect that counsel enters his
objection to all of these questions, and that they stand overruled in
each instance.
AU right, proceed, Mr. Kennedy.
Was that presented to the witness ? Have you examined the docu-
ment presented to you ?
Mr. Kamenow. I have.
The Chairman. Do you identify the document ?
_ Mr. Kamenow. On advice of counsel I respectfully decline at this
time to answer, and under the fifth amendment to the United States
Constitution I assert my privilege not to be a witness against myself.
The Chairman. Based on the figure in that of $1,630 for trans-
portation, it seems to me like a rather large sum for intrastate travel.
It would indicate by the very size of it that you must have crossed
some State lines in that journey to Seattle, or wherever it was, and
return. Would you tell us whether the point of origin of that trip
was m the State of— what is the name of that town? It was travel to
where ?
EVIPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 6517
Mr. Kennedy. To Seattle.
The Chairman. Did that travel, that trip, originate in the State of
Washington ?
(The witness conferred with his counsel.)
Mr. Kamenow. On advice of counsel I respectfully decline at this
time to answer, and under the fifth amendment of the United States
Constitution, I assert my privilege not to be a witness against myself.
The Chairman. Is it not true tliat it was interstate travel ?
Mr. Kamenow. On advice of counsel I respectfully decline at this
time to answer, and under the fifth amendment of the United States
Constitution I assert my privilege not to be a witness against myself.
The Chairman. That document may be made exhibit 62.
(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit 62" for reference
and will be found in the appendix on p. 6639.)
The Chairman. Who made that trip ?
Mr. Kamenow. On advice of counsel I respectfully decline at this
time to answer, and under the fifth amendment of the United States
Constitution I assert my privilege not to be a witness against myself.
The Chairman. All riglit, Mr. Kennedy.
Mr. Kennedy. ]Mr. Chairman, if this is all intrastate, we have rather
an interesting charge here of mileage cost, dated August 28, 1954, in
which, for that 1 day, Mr. Kamenow charged $1,991.90 for mileage
costs for driving his car at 10 cents a mile, which means on that par-
ticular day he must have gone 19,991 miles, because he has charges
before and after that date. So it is not an accumulation.
The Chairman. This is a bit intriguing. I present to you another
document dated August 28, 1954.
Mr. Kennedy. It is submitted the 30th, but the day for which it is
charged is the 28th.
The CiiAiRTtiAN. It is for August 28, 1954. It shows mileage costs
at 10 cents per mile, $1,991.90. I present to you a photostatic copy.
You may also see the original that the photostatic copy was made
from. You may examine both the original and the photostatic copy
and state if you recognize them or identify them.
(The document was handed to the witness, who conferred with his
counsel.)
Mr. Kamenow. I examined them, and I refuse on advice of counsel —
on advice of counsel, I respectfully decline at this time to answer, and
under the fifth amendment of the United States Constitution I assert
my privilege not to be a witness against myself.
The Chairman. The photostatic copy may be made exhibit 63.
(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit 63" for reference
and will be found in the appendix on p. 6640.)
The Chairman. You would not represent to this committee or to
anyone else that that is an accurate charge; would you?
Mr. Kamenow. On advice of counsel, I respectfully decline at this
time to answer under the fifth amendment of the United States Con-
stitution, and I assert my privilege not to be a witness against myself.
The Chairman. Of course, I assume that your boss, Mr. Shefferman,
understood it. I don't suppose that there were any differences which
a rose between you with your having submitted such a charge as that ?
Mr. Kamenow. On advice of counsel, I respectfully decline at this
time to answer under the fifth amendment of the United States Con-
stitution. I assert my privilege not to be a witness against myself.
6518 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES USH THE LABOR FIELD
The Chairman. I present to you a photostatic copy of a check dated
August 30, 1954, which I assume is in part payment at least of your
statement or your bill submitted at that time.
This exhibit that I have just presented to you shows a total charge
on your statement, includino: the $1,991.90, a total charge of $2,183.38.
This bill apparently, according- to the date on it, was submitted under
travel, and it appears to have your signature, and the date is August 30,
I present to you now a photostatic copy of the check dated August
30, 1954, made' payable to you and signed by Nathan Shefferman, of
tlie Labor Relations Associates of Chicago, Inc., in the amount of
$2,000.
I ask you to examine the photostatic copy of the check and see if
you identify it as such.
(The document was handed to the witness.)
Mr. Kamknow. I have examined the check.
The Chairman. Do you identify it?
Mr. Kamenow. I have examined the check.
Tlie Chairman. I asked if you identified the check ?
Mr. Kaimenow. On advice of counsel, I respectfully decline at this
time to answer ; under the fifth amendment of the United States Con-
stitution I assert my privilege not to be a witness against myself.
The Chairman. That check may be made exhibit No. 64.
(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No, 64" for ref-
erence and will be found in the appendix on p. 6641.)
Tlie Chairman. Was that check given to you in part ])ayment of
the bill you submitted on that date, August 30, 1954?
Mr. Kamenow. On advice of counsel, I respectfully decline at this
time to answer under the fifth amendment of the United States Con-
stitution. I assert my privilege not be a witness against myself.
Senator Mundt. You submit a bill for traveling 19,000 miles in
1 day, at 10 cents a mile ?
Mr. Kamenow. On advice of counsel, I respectfully decline at this
time to answer. Under the fifth amendment of the United States
Constitution, I assert my privilege not to be a witness au'ainst myself.
Senator Mundt. Did you submit that bill of $1,910 for 19,000
miles of travel in 1 day — wait a minute — in order to make a tax de-
duction ? Is that the purpose of it ? Are you trying to fool the tax
collector ?
Mr. Kamenow. On advice of counsel, I respectfully decline at
this time to answer and under the fifth amendment of the United
States Constitution I assert my privilege not to be a witness against
myself.
Senator Mundt. Where were you driving that day, the day you
were having that automobile race with Sputnik ?
Mr. Kamenow. On advice of counsel, I respectfully decline at this
time to answer and under the fifth amendment of the United States
Constitution, I assert my privilege not to be a witness against myself.
Senator Mundt. This gives rise to another question.
Have you accurately reported your financial transactions to the
Bureau^of Internal Revenue in connection with your operations ?
Mr. Kamenow. On advice of counsel
Senator Mundt. Or have you falsely reported them ?
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 6519
Mr. Kamenow. On advice of counsel, I respectfully decline at this
time to answer, and under the fifth amendment of the United States
Constitution, I assert my privilege not to be a witness against myself.
Senator Mundt. You are unwilling to testify today under oath
that your reports to the tax collector have been accurate?
Mr. Kamenow. On advice of counsel, I respectfully decline at this
time to answer, and under the fifth amendment of the United States
Constitution, I assert my privilege not to be a witness against myself.
Senator Mundt. Are your tax returns presently being examined
by the Internal Revenue Bureau ?
Mr. Kamenow. On advice of counsel, I respectfully decline at this
time to answer under the fifth amendment of the United States
Constitution, and I assert my privilege not to be a witness against
myself.
Senator Mundt. May I say that if they are not, the Internal Rev-
enue Bureau must be the sleepiest bureau in town.
The Chairman. I notice an endorsement on the reverse side of this
check, "George Kamenow." Is that your signature ?
Mr. IvAMENow. On advice of counsel, I respectfully decline at this
time to answer, and under the fifth amendment of the United States
Constitution, I assert my privilege not to be a witness against myself.
The CiiAiPvMAN. Who is Florence M. Ouska ?
Mr. Kamenow. On advice of counsel, I respectfully decline at this
time to answer, and under the fifth amendment of the United States
Constitution I assert my privilege not to be a witness against myself.
The Chairman. That name or signature appears to be an endorse-
ment under yours, on the check. Is she an employee of Mr. Sheffer-
man's ?
Mr. Kamenow. On advice of counsel, I respectfully decline at this
time to answer, and under the fifth amendment of the United States
Constitution I assert my privilege not to be a witness against myself.
The Chairman. Do you laiow her personally ?
Mr. Kamenow. On advice of counsel, I respectfully decline at this
time to answer, and under the fifth amendment of the United States
Constitution I assert my privilege not to be a witness against myself.
The Chairman. Did you have her cash this check for you ?
Mr. I^[j^MEN0w. On advice of counsel, I respectfully decline at this
time to answer, and under the fifth amendment of the United States
Constitution I assert my ]5rivilege not to be a witness against myself.
The Chairman. Did yon attend the Rose Bowl football game?
Mr. Kamenow. On advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to
answer at this time under the fifth amendment of the United States
Constitution, and I assert my privilege not to be a witness against
myself.
The Chairman. Did you go on a hunting trip to Alaska, or Can-
ada, or somewhere ?
Mr. Kamenow\ On advice of counsel, I respectfully decline at this
time to answer, and under the fifth amendment of the United States
Constitution I assert my privilege not to be a witness against myself.
The Chairman. Did you attend some labor conventions for which
you made charges against your clients ?
Mr. Kamenow. On advice of counsel, I respectfully decline at this
time to answer under the fifth amendment of the United States Con-
stitution, and I assert my privilege not to be a witness against myself.
6520 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, I have just a few more questions.
We won't go into all of them, but this is an interesting charge on
November 10, the week of November 10 to November 18, 1955, a charge
of $703,91 made to 6 different companies for a trip that Mr. Kamenow
took.
I would like to ask him who he went with, and what transpired"?
The Chairman. I submit to you 3 of your photostatic copies of
your daily reports, November 10 to November 18, 1955, sliowing
charges to Wolf, Detroit Envelope Co., $103.91 ; Morley Bros., $100 ;
Chamberlain, $350 ; Flint Home, $50 ; Gordon Baking, $50 ; and Moy-
nahan Bronze, $50 ; making a total of $703.91.
I present these documents to you, and photostatic copies of your
daily report, and ask you to examine them and state if you identify
them, please.
(The documents were handed to the witness.)
Mr. Kennedy. You can examine it afterward again, if you would
like.
The Chairman. Have you examined the documents ?
Mr. Kamenow. I have.
The Chairman. Do you wish to identify them ?
Mr. IOlMenow. On advice of counsel, I respectfully decline at this
time to answer, and under the fifth amendment of the United States
Constitution, I assert my privilege not to be a witness against myself.
The Chairman. Can you give us any information about those
charges to the six different companies, the total of what that money
was obtained for, and how it was used ?
Mr. IvAiviENOw. On advice of counsel, I respectfully decline at this
time to answer under the fifth amendment of the United States Con-
stitution, and I assert my privilege not to be a witness against myself.
T]ie Chairman. This document may be made exhibit No. 65. That
may be marked "A, B, and C."
(The documents referred to were marked "Exhibits Nos. 65-A, 65-
B, and 65-C" for reference and will be found in the appendix on pp.
6642-6644.)
Mr. Kennedy. These records show it was a so-called northern trip,
and then an examination of the records shows that the trip was taken
to Camp Buddie, Iron Mountain. Who did you visit at Camp
Buddie, in Iron Mountain ?
Mr. IOlmenow. On advice of counsel, I respectfully decline at this
time to answer, and imder the fifth amendment of the United States
Constitution I assert my privilege not to be a witness against myself ?
Mr. KJENNEDY. Isn't Camp Buddie owned and operated by Mr.
James Hoffa and Mr. Bert Brennan ?
Mr. Kamenow. On advice of counsel, I respectfully decline at
this time to answer, and under the fifth amendment of the United
States Constitution I assert my privilege not to be a witness against
myself.
Mr. Kennedy. Did this $703.91 charge have anything to do with
Mr. Hoffa or Mr. Brennan ?
Mr. IvENNEDY. On advice of counsel, I respectfully decline at this
time to answer and under the fifth amendment of the United States
Constitution I assert my privilege not to be a witness against myself.
Mr. KjiNNEDY. Who would you be entertaining up there that you
charged it to these six different companies.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 6521
Mr. IvAMENOW. On advice of counsel, I respectfully decline at this
time to answer, and under the fifth amendment of the United States
Constitution I assert my privilege not to be a witness against myself.
The Chairman. Mr. Kamenow, you said you wouldn't answer now.
I asked you if you would answer tomorrow, and you said "No."
Will you advise the committee as to what time will be convenient
for you to answer these questions ?
(The witness conferred with his counsel.)
Mr. Kamenow. On advice of counsel, I won't answer the questions.
The Chairman. You won't cooperate a little bit? You won't let
us have a little bit of luck ?
Mr. Kamenow. I am sorry.
The Chairman. You can't help us even that much ?
Mr. Kennedy. I have just one or two other matters here.
We have a charge here to the Cliamberlain Co. dated September 3,
1955 and he arrived at the Chamberlain Co., according to his report,
at 7 : 30 in the morning, and again, according to his report, he was
in conference all day. He left the Chamberlain Co. at 2 : 30 in the
afternoon, and returned home and he charged for entertainment,
$543.
The Chair]man. I present to you this daily report of August 3,
1955, reflecting the charges that counsel has stated.
Will you examine it and see if you identify your daily report?
(The document was handed to the Avitness.)
(The witness conferred with his counsel.)
Tlie Chairman. Have you examined the document?
Mr. Kamenow. I have examined the document.
The Chairman. Would you like to identify it, please ?
Mr. Kamenow. On advice of counsel, I respectfully decline at this
time to answer, and under the fiftli amendment of the United States
Constitution I assert my privilege not to be a witness against myself.
The Chairman. That document may be made exhibit No. 66.
(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 66" for ref-
erence and will be found in the appendix on p. 6645.)
Mr. Kennedy. Could you tell the committee how you were able to
spend $543 entertaining during a period from 7 : 30 in the morning
until 2 : 30 in the afternoon, when your records show you were in
conference all day ?
Mr. Kamenow. On advice of counsel, I respectfully decline and
under the fifth amendment I decline to answer
The Chairman. Do you want any of that erased from the record ?
Mr. Kamenow. I will start over again.
On advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer and under
the fifth amendment of the United States Constitution I assert my
privilege not to be a witness against myself.
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, according to our records, during
the period
The Chairman. That has been admitted.
Mr. Kennedy. December 20, 1955, to November 20, 1956, at that
Chamberlain Corp. alone, Mr. Kamenow spent $9,726.10 in similar
types of entertainment.
The Chairman. From what date ?
89330 — 57— pt. 1(
6522 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. IvENNEDT. For a period of approximately a year, December
20, 1955, to November 20, 1956. Those are the checks. He spent
$9,726.10.
The Chairman. Mr. Kamenow, I present to you 11 photostatic
copies of checks or photostatic copies of 11 separate checks from Labor
Relations Associates to you beginning November 20, 1956, and ex-
tending over a period to December 20, 1955, ranging in amounts up
to more than $2,000, and aggregating how much ?
Mr. Kennedy. $9,726.10.
The Chairman. I ask you to examine these checks and state if they
are reimbursements for bills you submitted against the Chamberlain
Corp. during that period of time as stated by the checks.
(The documents were handed to the witness.)
The Chairman. The Chamberlain Corp., of Waterloo, Iowa, to help
you identify these.
Mv. Kennedy. I might say, Mr. Chairman, that $3,000 of these
$9,000 in checks, or slightly over $9,000, were checks that were actually
cashed in Waterloo, Iowa, where the Chamberlain Corp. is.
Mr. Kamenow. I have examined the documents.
The Chairman. Do you identify those photostatic copies, Mr.
Kamenow ?
Mr. Kamenow. On advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to an-
swer and under the fifth amendment of the United States Constitu-
tion I assert my privilege not to be a witness against myself.
The Chairman. Those 11 checks may be made exhibits Nos. 67 A,
67B, 67C, 67D, and so on down to the end.
(The documents referred to were marked "Exhibits Nos. 67A
through 67K," inclusive, for reference.) and 67A, B, C, will be found
in the appendix on pp. 6646-6648, and D-K in the files of the select
committee. )
Mr. Kennedy. These are duplicates of those checks, but there were
three checks that were cashed all on the same day. May 16, 1956, for
$1,200, and May 16, 1956, for $900 and May 16, 1956, for $900, and
that cash was turned over to Mr. Kamenow on that day.
Maybe he would tell us what he had to do with $3,000 in cash in
Waterloo, Iowa, on May 16, 1956.
The Chairman. Those 3 checks that counsel has referred to were
in the group of 11 checks that you have just examined. Would you
like to be helpful and give us a little information about the use of this
money ?
Mr. Kamenow. On advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to an-
swer under the fifth amendment of the United States Constitution, and
I assert my privilege not to be a witness against myself.
Senator Mundt. Do you know Mr. Merle Wolfgang?
Mr. Kamenow. On advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to an-
swer under the fifth amendment of the United States Constitution,
and I assert my privilege not to be a witness against myself.
Senator ]\Iundt. Is there something about his background or rela-
tionships or activities which might be incriminating to you if you rec-
ognized association with him ?
Mr. Kamenow. On advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to an-
swer, and under the fifth amendment of the United States Constitu-
tion I assert my privilege not to be a witness against myself.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 6523
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, I would like to have permission to
call Mr. Bellino, who had this list prepared, or someone under his di-
rection prepared it, and also another list, a further breakdown just of
the Christmas gifts, and we can put those in the record.
The Chairman. I think the witness should be given the opportunity
to see the list of Christmas gifts. Do you have a copy of those before
you?
Mr. Kamenow. I don't.
The Chairman, Present the witness with a list of the Christmas
gifts so that he may follow the testimony.
Mr. Bellino, you may come around, please.
You do solemnly svv'ear 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. Belling. I do.
TESTIMONY OF CAHMINE S. BELLINO
The Chairman. State your name and place of residence and your
business or occupation.
Mr. Belling. Carmine S. Bellino; residence, Bethesda, Md. ; and
I am a certified public accountant.
The Chairman. How long have you been a certified public ac-
countant ?
Mr. Belling. Since 1932.
The Chairman. You have been employed by this committee in that
capacity since the committee was established ?
Mr. Belling. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. In the course of your work for the committee, have
you examined the books and records of Labor Relations Associates?
Mr. Belling. The records have ben examined by me, and by ac-
comitants under my supervision.
The Chairman. You have been in charge of the examination of
those records ?
Mr. Belling. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. Have you made a compilation of those records
with respect to amounts received by Mr. Kamenow from LRA and
also from clients of LRA ?
Mr. Belling. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. Do you have those compilations before you ?
Mr. Belling. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. I want to have them placed in the record.
The Chairman. What do you have before you and what do you
hold in your hand ?
]Mr. Belling. This one is the Christmas gifts charged to various
clients by George Kamenow through Labor Relations Associates.
The total amount is $23,274.93.
The Chairman. Over what period ?
Mr. Belling. From the period 1953 through 1956.
The Chairman. A period of 4 years ?
Mr. Belling. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. Does it have a breakdown of the amount for each
year ?
Mr. Belling. In 1953 it was $3,527.56; in 1954 it was $4,634.87; in
1955 it was $6,292.50 ; in 1956 it was $8,820.
6524 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD
The Chairman". It seems that Santa Clans was getting progres-
sively more prosperous these years. Do you think that may reflect
the general economic advance of the country ?
Mr. Bellino. It probably does.
The Chairman. This may be made exhibit No. 68.
(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 68" for ref-
erence and will be found in the appendix on p. 6649.)
Mr. Kennedy. Then you made a list of selected items.
Mr. Bellino. Charged to entertainment and transportation by
George Kamenow, against these various clients of Labor Relations
Associates.
The Chairman. Over a period of what time ?
Mr. Bellino. 1953 through 1956. The total was $33,710.22.
The Chairman. Did those charges progress each year and increase
comparable to the Christmas gifts ?
Mr. Belling. I don't have it broken down separately, but it appears
that way, also.
The Chairman. You don't have that broken down for the separate
vears ?
Mr. Bellino. No, sir.
The Chairman. But for the 4 years, the same period of the Christ-
mas gifts, the total is $33,710.22 ?
Mr. Bellino. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. All right. That may be made exhibit No. 69.
(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 69" for ref-
erence and will be fomid in the appendix on pp. 6650-6652.)
TESTIMONY OF GEOEGE KAMENOW, ACCOMPANIED BY HIS
COUNSEL, PAUL J. WIESELBEEG— Eesumed
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, these charges that we have been dis-
cussing take on significance in view of the testimony that we had
yesterday.
For instance, it was testified yesterday that in the fall of 1954,
Kierdorf, the business agent for local 332 in Flint, Mich., established
a picket line around the Advance Electric Co. in Flint, Mich., and
without previous notice; that that picket line was maintained for
about 4 weeks. Then Mr. George Kamenow was hired, and 4 days
after Kamenow was retained by Advance, the picket line was with-
drawn.
Mr. Kamenow. On advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to an-
swer, and under the fifth amendment of the United States Constitu-
tion I assert my privilege not to be a witness against myself.
Mr. Kennedy. The witness from Advance Electric Co. said that in
addition tx) the original charges, there was an additional charge of
$2,000 which was to be used according to Mr. Kamenow to take the
boys to the Rose Bowl game. This is the $2,000 check.
Tlie Chairman. I present to you a photostatic copy of the check,
which is now exhibit No. 49 in the record of these hearings, in the
amount of $2,000, dated December 20, 1954, made payable to you,
and drawn on the account of Advance Electric Co., the check being
signed by Mr. A. J. Crocker. Will you examine this check and the
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 6525
endorsement thereon and state if you received this money, Mr.
Kamenow ?
(Document handed to witness. )
(The witness conferred with his counseL)
The Chairman. Have you examined the check ?
Mr. Kamenow. I have examined the check. On advice of counsel,
I respectfully decline to answer, and under the fifth amendment of
the United States Constitution I assert my privilege not to be a wit-
ness against myself.
The Chairman. Do you recall the transaction, Mr. Kamenow ?
Mr. Kamenow. On advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to
answer, and under the fifth amendment of the United States Consti-
tution I assert my privilege not to be a witness against myself.
The Chairman. Who won the game ?
Mr. Kamenow. On advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to
answer, and under the fifth amendment of the United States Con-
stitution I assert my privilege not to be a witness against myself.
The Chairman. I think we can get that from the records, the
sports records. I will agree with your counsel that is not pertinent.
Proceed.
Senator INIundt. Yesterday, Mr. Kamenow, I was trying to analyze
3'our operations, and I found some of them very confusing and
curious. I suggested that one hypothesis was, perhaps, in that j^ou
and Mr. Sheiferman were really not engaged as labor consultants at
all, but that a reasonable hypothesis as to your operations in con-
nection with this Advance Electric Co. gentleman would be that your
friend, Mr. Kierdorf, would either instigate a strike, or a request for
a union, or a picket line, and tlien you would rush bravely in and
})rovide for a reasonable fee and Hose Bowl football tickets, giving
the magic touch to call it off. This might give you a chance at least
to explain whether you were engaged in what you considered to be
legitimate labor consulting activities, or whether you and Mr. Kier-
dorf just had a nice little Michigan shakedown.
Mr. Kamenow. On advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to
answer, and under the fifth amendment of the United States Consti-
tution I assert my privilege not to be a witness against myself.
Senator Mundt. I am trying to help you from getting incrimi-
nated. As I say, to me this has every semblance of a shakedown. I
said yesterday I Avould give you and Mr. Kierdorf a chance to deny
it or explain it. But if, in fact, you were simply setting up straw-
men and then knocking them down, and collecting exorbitant fees
from little-business men, that is one thing. If you were a labor con-
sultant who at times got a little bit extravagant with Christmas gifts
and engaged in improper practices, that is something else again.
And if you were running a legitimate operation, you should be proud
to tell us about it.
Certainly, you could answer this question without incriminating
yourself. If you can honestly answer it without incriniinating you,
were you and Mr. Kierdorf just running a shakedown?
Mr. Kamenow. On advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to
answer, and under the fifth amendment of the United States Consti-
tution I assert my privilege not to be a witness against myself.
Senator Mundt. Would you explain how saying no to me would
incriminate you, or would your able lawyer explain it to you? I
6526 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES ESF THE LABOR FIELD
Said were you running a shakedown ? If you say no, how does that
incriminate you?
Mr. Kamenow. On advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to an-
swer, and under the fifth amendment of the United States Con-
stitution I assert my privilege not to be a witness against myself.
Senator Mitndt. You want to let the record stand, then, with the
full implication that what you really were doing was rumiing a
shakedown in Flint, Mich., which was a town controlled by labor,
so that businessmen were easy to intimidate ? You could have your
friend Kierdorf rattle the sword, and you would come around and
collect the fee, and they would put the sword back in the sheath and
move down the block to the next company and start all over again.
Is that the way you want to let the record stand.
Mr. IvAMENOW. On advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to
answer, and under the fifth amendment of the Constitution I assert
the privilege of not being a witness against myself.
Senator Mundt. You are doing a pretty good job of incriminating
yourself if you can't answer that question. That is all.
Mr. Kennedy. As other samples, Mr. Chairman, of this type of
operation, where these Christmas gifts, travel, and entertainment
miglit have paid off, we have the situation at MacGregor Tire Co., in
which according to the testimony we had yesterday, early in 1954
Mr. Frank Kierdorf informed the MacGregor Tire Co. that he was
going to organize their employees. MacGregor stalled him off for
about a month, during which month there were a number of con-
tacts. But then Mr. MacGregor got in touch with Mr. Kamenow,
and after he did that he retained Mr. Kamenow, and he never heard
from the union again.
Mr. Kamenow said he would need some $5,000 to take the boys on
a trip to Washington, D. C.
Would you explain that to us ?
Mr. Kamenow. On advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to
answer, and under the fifth amendment of the United States Con-
stitution I assert my privilege not to be a witness against myself.
Mr. Kennedy. And then the Skaff Rug Co., the same type of
situation, where the employees had indicated, according to Frank
Kierdorf, a desire to join the union. Mr. Kamenow was contacted by
the employer, and they never heard again from the union. Do you
have any explanation of that? In other words, were certain pay-
ments of $2,000 made at tliat period of time ?
Mr. Kamenow. On advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to
answer, and under the fifth amendment of the United States Con-
stitution I assert my privilege not to be a witness against myself.
Mr. Kennedy. Those are some of the samples, Mr. Chairman. We
had the testimony from some 8 or 9 employers yesterday. They all
testified along the same line.
The Chairman. There, possibly, are a good many others. From
the testimony you have heard here, and from your best recollection,
could you suggest any item here we might ask you about that you
could give an answer to without its tending to incriminate you?
Mr. IOlMenow. On advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to
answer, and under the fifth amendment of the United States Con-
stitution I assert my privilege not to be a witness against myself.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 6527
The Chairman. Is there any question that you can suggest regard-
ing your relations and your employment, and your transactions and
relationships, with labor organizations and with business, with man-
agement, as a go-between, and Mr. Kierdorf, your relations with
him — is there any question that you could suggest that we might ask
that would not incriminate you, or tend to incriminate you, if you
gave a truthful answer to it ?
Mr. Kamenow. On advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to
answer, and under the fifth amendment of the United States Con-
stitution I assert my privilege not to be a witness against myself.
The Chairman". You appreciate, do you not, that we are trying to
be very fair ; we don't want to overlook something that you might be
willing to ask. You appreciate that, don't you ?
Mr. Kamenow. I appreciate that.
The Chairman. We have been fair. We have given you every
opportunity, miless there is some more here. There is no use to go
on. As I understand you, you would continue to read your little state-
ment there, would you, to all questions ?
Mr. Kamenow. That is correct.
The Chairman. I didn't want you to leave the stand and say you
were not asked this, and not asked that, because you would have been
glad to answer. If there is anything that you can suggest that we
can ask you that you can answer, the committee will take it under
consideration.
(The witness conferred with his counsel.)
Mr. Kamenow. No.
The Chairman. There is nothing you could suggest ?
Mr. Kamenow. Not — on advice of counsel, no.
The Chairman. We have dealt fairly with you, we have given you
every opportunity, haven't we ?
Mr. Kamenow. You certainly have.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Call the next witness.
Mr. IvENNEDY. Mr. Frank Kierdorf.
(Committee members present: Senators McClellan and Mundt.)
The Chairman. Will you be sworn, 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. Kierdorf. I do.
TESTIMONY OF FKANK H. KIEEDOEF, ACCOMPANIED BY HIS
COUNSEL, BENEDICT F. FitzGERALD
The Chairman. State your name, your place of residence and your
business or occupation.
Mr. Kierdorf. Frank H. Kierdorf, 613 West Stewart, Flint, Mich.
Business representative for local 332, Flint, Mich.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Do you have comisel present ?
Mr. Kierdorf. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. Counsel, identify yourself for the record, please.
6528 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES INi THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. FitzGerald. My name is Attorney Benedict F. FitzGerald,
Jr., attorney at law, with offices at suite 1152, National Press Build-
ing, Washington 4, D. C.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Counsel, proceed.
Mr. Kennedy. You are a business representative and organizer for
local 332, Mr. Kierdorf?
(The witness conferred with his counsel.)
Mr. KiERDORr. With all due respect to the two gentlemen consti-
tuting this committee, I respectfully decline to answer on the advice
of my counsel. In declining I am asserting my privilege under the
4th, the 5th, and the 8th amendments to the Constitution of the United
States.
The Chairman. I thought you had just stated that you were busi-
ness representative. Did you not? You can answer if you will. I
thought you had stated that.
(The witness conferred with his counsel.)
Mr. Kierdorf. With all due respect to the two gentlemen
The Chairman. You need not repeat it.
Mr. Reporter, would you read the answer he gave as to his business
or occupation, please, I may have misunderstood the witness. I want
to clear it up.
(The reporter read from his notes as requested.)
The Chairman. I will ask this question : Is that local
Mr. Fitzgerald. If I may interrupt, Mr. Chairman, may I make
a brief statement for the record ?
The Chairman. Let me ask just this one question. You have
given the number of a local. Is that a teamsters local?
(The witness conferred with his counsel.)
Mr. Kierdorf. With all due respect to the two gentlemen consti-
tuting this committee, I respectfully decline to ansvv'er on the advice
of my counsel. In declining, I am asserting my privilege under the
fourth, the fifth, and the eighth amendments to the Constitution of
the United States.
The Chairman. The fourth and eighth amendment objection will
be overruled. The fifth amendment, if the witness states that he
honestly believes that if he gave a truthful answer, a truthful answer
might tend to incriminate him, that is his privilege. The Chair asks
you the question : Do you honestly believe that if you gave a truthful
answer, that the truth might tend to incriminate you ?
Mr. Kierdorf. I respectfully decline to answer at this time upon
the advice of counsel, and I assert my privilege under the fifth amend-
ment to the United States Constitution. I assert my privilege not to
be a witness against myself.
The Chairman. With the approval of the committee, the Chair
orders you and directs you to answer whether you honestly believe
that a truthful answer might tend to incriminate j'ou.
(The witness conferred with his counsel.)
Mr. Kierdorf. I honestly believe that if I answer, the answer
might tend to incriminate me.
The Chairman. All right.
Counsel, the Chair will hear vou now.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 6529
Mr. FitzGerald. With utmost respect to the jjentleman from Ar-
kansas, and the other gentleman from South Dakota, who appear
to constitute this committee, I would like to make a general objection
to the appearance of my client before this committee at this time. I
first want to object to the fact that it appears to me that any hearings
held by only two members of this committee, of this distinguished
body, when the original resolution called for the setting up of an
8-man committee, I feel that that is violative of the Constitution, par-
ticularly the 5th, 8th, and 14th amendments.
I make this objection despite the rules that I am familiar with,
which you have drafted, particularly rule 3, or section 3, of your rules,
which provide that a two-man quorum is permissible. I don't believe
that is constitutional.
Second, with continued respect to the committee, I want to object
to the forceful summoning of my client to appear in this arena.
The Chairman. The what ?
Mr. FitzGerald. I want to object to the forceful summoning of my
client. My client appears today under a subpena duces tecum, and
the appearance in this particular arena, and the utilization by this
committee and its invitees of the various instruments that are being
displayed here, such as the television, the radio, the microphones, the
moving picture camera, photoflash bulbs, and the other instruments
which clearly, as far as my knowledge is concerned, violate the tenets
set down by the American Bar Association, and by other law-enforce-
ment officials, and are truly violative of the Constitution, and all the
protections available to any witness, particularly under the 5th, 8th,
and 14th amendments.
Notwithstanding your local provision, rule 8, which seems to sug-
gest that we request that a vote be taken of this committee, since there
are only 2 members of the committee here, I imagine the vote would
be 2 against my request, but I would like to have a vote anyway so
that the record will show that that is the situation.
Thirdly, I want to move to disqualify the distinguished gentleman
from Arkansas and the gentleman from Massachusetts because of what
I feel is bias and prejudice, as evidenced by public pronouncements to
the press, both in speeches throughout the country, about members of
the teamsters union.
This particular man I am representing today is a member of the
teamsters union, and I think that the legislative purpose of this in-
quiry has given way to a calculated, timed attempt to eliminate my
client and certain other members of the teamsters.
The Cpiairman". You said eliminate ; not liquidate ?
Mr. FitzGerald. Either one. They are synonymous, and by every
known artifice imaginable. Newspaper releases of a critical nature
with respect to these people have been coming from this committee, and
public pronouncements which I have just described, which are very
defamatory to my clients.
Most of these records that have been turned over voluntarily by
the teamsters, I understand, have been, in turn, turned over to compet-
ing members who have instituted litigation in the courts of Washing-
ton. The turning over of these confidential papers and documents
which were entrusted to the files of this comittee for your review and
study was clearly aimed at allowing the teamsters union to be wrecked.
6530 IINIPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
I object to that. I think it is an infringement not compatible with
any sound notion of due process of law. The very timing of this hear-
ing on the first day of a trial involving the president-elect of this imion
in New York, in the Federal court, I think is something that isn't
compatible with due process and the spirit of fair play.
I just want to object generally to that and announce to the commit-
tee that that is the reason I have advised my client to take the 4th
amendment, the 5th amendment, and the 14th, and the other amend-
ment dealing with cruel and unusual punishment.
The Chairmak. Has counsel concluded?
Mr. FitzGerald. I am through.
The Chairman. Thank you.
The resolution establishing this committee provides in section 2
that the committee shall adopt rules and procedures not inconsistent
with the rules of the Senate. These are the I'ules adopted by the
committee under the authority and direction of the resolution es-
tablishing the committee.
The rule adopted by the committee with respect to a quorum is
section 3, which saj^s :
For public sessions, any 2 members of tlie committee shall constitute a quo-
rum for the administering of oaths and the taliing of testimony. With the
permission of the chairman and vice chairman, 1 member of the committee
shall constitute a quorum for the administering of oaths and the taking of testi-
mony in executive sessions.
The authority of the committee, the resolution providing for es-
tablishing it, provided that the committee shall adopt rules not in-
consistent with the rules of the Senate. The committee has adopted
such a rule. The rule is not inconsistent with the rules of the Sen-
ate. There are two members present. The Chair holds there is a
quorum present, and, therefore, overrules that objection.
The objection as to disqualification because members of the com-
mittee may have expressed some opinion or given out some statement
commenting upon evidence will certainly be overruled, because a com-
mittee composed of men who didn't have intellect enough to have an
opinion after hearing testimony wouldn't constitute a very able com-
mittee, to say the least of it.
The right of free speech has not been denied to members of con-
gressional committees as yet. There are some other provisions of
the Constitution that counsel did not invoke for his client ; and those
provisions of the Constitution, I would say, protect the rights, not
only protect the rights, but impose a duty upon this committee, be-
cause it must make reports, as a part of its function, and we shall
continue the procedure we followed in the past.
Whatever statement a newspaper publishes or does not publish is
something this committee has no control over, no direct control. As
to television and radio, they are means of communication, just as
much so as is the press of this country.
I don't believe your objection extended to the presence of the press.
I think we would be charged with discriminating against 2 of the
3 important mediums of news and communication in this country if
we ruled out the presence or the right of the radio and television to
record the hearings, or to report the" hearings. That objection will be
overruled.
; IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 6531
Under the rules of the committee, if the witness claims that he is
distracted, or would be distracted, or made uncomfortable in the
course of his testimony by reason of lights, or flash pictures, or some-
thing on that order, the committee will take that under consideration.
In many instances we have granted the request.
I don't know whether counsel desires to make a specific request re-
garding that. I am not sure that he did in his objections. Unless a
specific request is made, we shall proceed.
Mr. FitzGerald. I want to just again reaffirm what I already
said. I think it speaks for itself. I want to say that in the develop-
ment of liberty an insistence on procedural regularity has beeri a large
factor, and I have different views, perhaps, than the honorable chair-
man, as to what constitutes a constitutional gathering.
The Chairman. I believe we have. Our arguing about it here will
not change the course of the committee. Unless you wish to make a
specific objection to the lights or something, we will proceed.
Mr. FitzGerald. I do make a specific objection to everything I
have already enumerated.
The Chairman. May I ask you one question ?
I think I heard you say that you were directing your client to take
the fifth amendment, or advising him to do so.
Am I correct?
Mr. FitzGerald. That is right.
The Chairman. The Chair, unless there is objection on the part
of the other member of the committee present, rules that it shouldn't
greatly disturb or inconvenience a witness if his only testimony is
to take the fifth amendment. That will be the ruling of the Chair.
Am I sustained ?
All right, Mr. Counsel ; proceed.
Mr. Kennedy. Specifically, Mr. Kierdorf, could you tell us how
long you have been a member of the teamsters miion ?
Mr. Kierdorf. I respectfully decline to answer at this time upon
the advice of counsel. I assert my privilege under the fifth amend-
ment to the United States Constitution.
Mr. Kennedy. Have you been in the teamsters for about 10 years?
Mr. Kierdorf. I assert my privilege not to be a witness against
myself.
Mr. Kennedy. You are nephew of Herman Kierdorf ?
Mr. Kierdorf. I respectfully decline to answer at this time ujDon
the advice of counsel, and I assert my privilege mider the fifth
amendment to the United States Constitution. I assert my privi-
lege not to be a witness against myself.
The Chairman. Mr. Witness, we will all get along better if you
will waij; until the question is asked and then assert your privilege.
Mr. Kennedy. He is also a business agent of the teamsters, is he
not, in Detroit ?
Mr. Kierdorf. I respectfully decline to answer at this time upon
the advice of counsel, and assert my privilege under the fifth amend-
ment to the United States Constitution, and assert my privilege not
to be a witness against myself.
Mr. Kennedy. He was the one that got you your job with the
teamsters imion ?
Mr. Kierdorf. I respectfully decline to answer at this time upon
the advice of counsel and I assert my privilege under the fifth amend-
6532 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES I^ THE LABOR FIELD
'ment to the United States Constitution and I assert my privilege not
to be a witness against myself .
Mr. Kennedy. And he spoke to Mr. Hoffa and Mr. Hoffa appointed
you in 332 in Flint?
Mr. KiERDOKF. I respectfully decline to answer at this time upon
advice of counsel and I assert my privilege under the fifth amend-
ment to the United States Constitution and assert my privilege not
to be a witness against myself.
Mr. Kennedy. You took that job after coming out of prison for
armed robbery, did you not ?
Mr. KiERDORF. I respectfully decline to answer at this time upon
the advice of counsel and I assert my privilege under the fifth amend-
ment to the United States Constitution, and I assert my privilege
not to be a witness against myself.
Mr. Kennedy. According to the testimony that we had here, you
were trying to organize the Advance Electric Co. and put pickets
out there without any advance notice ; is that right ?
Mr. KiERDORF. I respectfully decline to answer at this time upon
the advice of counsel, and I assert my privilege under the fifth amend-
ment to the United States Constitution, and I assert my privilege
not to be a witness against myself.
Mr. Kennedy. And those ]Dickets were maintained out there for a
period of 4 weeks, and then 3 or 4 days after Mr. Kamenow was re-
tained by Advance Electric, those pickets were removed.
Will you explain that to us?
Mr. KiERDORF. I respectfully decline to answer at this time upon
the advice of counsel, and I assert my privilege under the fifth amend-
ment to the United States Constitution and I assert my privilege not
to be a witness against myself.
Mr. Kennedy. And the Advance Electric Co. was told that they
would have to pay a sum of $2,000 to take certain of the teamster
officials to the Kose Bowl game. Will you tell us anything about
that?
Mr. KiERDORF. I respectfully decline to answer at this time upon
advice of counsel, and I assert my privilege under the fifth amend-
ment to the United States Constitution, and I assert my privilege
not to be a witness against myself.
Mr. Kennedy. Can you tell us why you removed the picket line
from the Advance Electric Co. ?
Mr. KiERDORF. I respectfully decline to answer at this time upon
the advice of counsel, and I assert my privilege under the fifth amend-
ment to the JJnited States Constitution and I assert my privilege
not to be a witness against myself.
Mr. Kennedy. And tlien the Royalite Electric Co. was also brought
in on the arrangement and they were told that they wouldn't have
any difficulty if they took the teamster officials to the Rose Bowl, and
they paid $2,000, I believe, in 1954. and then another $2,000 in 195.5.
Can you tell us anything about that?
Mr. KiERDORF. I respectfully decline to answer at this time upon
the advice of counsel, and I assert my privilege under the fifth amend-
ment to the United States Constitution, and I assert my privilege
not to be a witness against myself.
Mr. Kennedy. You never made any attempt to organize them;
have you ?
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 6533
Mr. KiERDORF. I respectfully decline to answer at this time upon
the advice of counsel, and I assert my privilege under the fifth amend-
ment to the United States Constitution, and I assert my privilege
not to be a witness against myself.
Mr. Kennedy. And then the MacGregor Tire Co.
Senator Mundt. Before we leave that, were you one of the officials
that Mr. Kamenow took to the Rose Bowl game ?
Mr. KiERDORT. I respectfully decline to answer at this time upon
the advice of counsel, and I assert my privilege under tlie fifth amend-
ment to the United States Constitution and I assert my privilege not
to be a witness against myself.
Senator Mundt. Let me ask you this : You are a union leader —
that much you admitted — with local 332, business manager. I would
assume that a business manager should be looking after the inter-
ests of his workers, the dues payers, in the matter of working condi-
tions, in the matter of wages, in the matter of benefits.
Were you guilty of selling out the best interests of the union men
in your union by taking money from Mr. Kamenow for your own
personal benefit?
Mr. KiERDORF. I respectfully decline to answer at this time upon
the advice of counsel, and I assert my privilege under tJie fifth amend-
ment to the United States Constitution and I assert my privilege
not to be a witness against myself.
Senator Mundt. Are you sure you want to leave that implica-
tion in the record, out across the country? If you take the iifth
amendment to a question like that, certainly the members of your
union would almost have to conclucle that this sordid storj^ that has
been painted here — that JNIr. Kamenow paj^s you oft' and then you sell
down the river the members of your union — is a true story.
This is your great opportunity to deny it, and honestly deny it.
Wouldn't you like to deny that, Mr. Kierdorf ?
Mr. KiERDORF. I am acting upon the advice of my counsel. I am
a layman with a limited education. I have no knoAvledge of legal
or constitutional matters. I prefer to accept the advice of my coun-
sel. Attorney Benedict FitzGerald, Jr. He is a former counsel to at
least two congressional committees and a trial attorney for the De-
partment of Justice. I have sought liis advice and I expect to
follow it.
Senator Mundt. Well, your education is probably good enough
so that you know the dift'erence between yes and no.
I will ask you a simple little question that you and I can discuss,
since neither one of us are lawyers. Were you and Mr. Kamenow
engaged in a shakedown racket ? Yes or no ?
Mr. KiERDORF. I respectfully decline to answer at this time upon
the advice of counsel, and I assert my privilege under the fifth
amendment to the United States Constitution, and I assert my privi-
lege not to be a witness against myself.
Senator Mundt. This you can answer: Do you consider yourself
an honest labor leader, trying to serve the interests of labor? Or
are you a i)hony, just acting as a front for Mr. Kamenow, using
your position to feather your own nest ?
Mr. KiERDORF. I respectfully decline to answer at this time upon
the advice of counsel, and I assert my privilege under the fifth amend-
6534 IMPROPEK ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
ment to the United States Constitution, and I assert my privilege
not to be a witness against myself.
Senator Mundt. I have tried to give you an opportunity, Mr. Kier-
dorf, to straighten out the record. It has been built pretty badly
in the last 2 days. I can't think of anyone else who can straighten
it out.
When you go back to Detroit — Flint, or wherever you live — Mr.
FitzGeraid is still going to be in his nice office in the National Press
Building, but you are going to be back there with the men who, I
assume, have looked to you as a business agent to represent them,
and who, by your own testimony, you now are going to convince that
you were selling them down the river.
If you want to do that, if you think that would be to your best
interests, that is your privilege. You are old enough to be mature
enough to have your own judgment, but I think this is a great oppor-
tunity for you, if you can, to say "Yes, I consider myself an honest
labor leader. I am not engaged in a shakedown racket. I am not
selling out the boys under me to feather my own nest. If I made any
mistakes, they were innocent mistakes, but I am not engaged in that
kind of racket."
Wouldn't you like to say that ?
Mr. KiERDORF. I respectfully decline to answer at this time upon
the advice of counsel, and I assert my privilege under the fifth amend-
ment to the United States Constitution, and I assert my privilege
not to be a witness against myself.
Senator Mundt. I don't want to get personal, but I just want to
suggest that I know a pretty good place where Jimmy Hoffa might
start in this great cleanup campaign in which he is about to engage.
The Chaikman". Proceed, Mr. Kennedy.
Mr. Kennedy. The MacGregor Tire Co. was approached by Mr.
Kierdof , and he told them that he wanted to organize the company.
They retained Mr. Kamenow and heard no more from Mr. Kierdorf
or local 332 of the teamsters.
Can you tell us anything about that ?
Mr. Kierdorf. I respectfully decline to answer at this time upon
the advice of counsel, and I assert my privilege mider the fifth amend-
ment to the United States Constitution, and I assert my privilege not
to be a witness against myself.
Mr. Kennedy. And for those services, there was a regular retainer
plus a sum of some $500 that Mr. Kamenow said was needed to take
some of these officials to Washington, D. C.
Did you come to Washington, D. C, at Mr. Kamenow's expense ?
Mr. Kierdorf. I respectfully decline to answer at this time upon
the advice of comisel and I assert my privilege under the fifth amend-
ment to the United States Constitution, and I assert my privilege
not to be a witness against myself.
Mr. Kennedy. And then'in the Skaff Rug Co., where there was a
great deal of violence, starting back in February 1956, and going on
for a period of 4 or 5 months, where there were bombs thrown, fire
bombs, places were put on fire, the people were beaten up, and one
man was almost killed, at which time Mr. Kierdorf 's car, or the car
that was assigned to him by the teamsters union was recognized at
gie area in which there was an attempt to run over this man in the
Skaff Rug Co.— can you tell us anything about that ?
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 6535
Mr. KiERDGRF. I respectfully decline to answer at this time upon
the advice of counsel, and I assert my privilege under the fifth amend-
ment to the United States Constitution, and I assert my privilege not
to be a witness against myself.
Mr. Kennedy. Some of the employees were signed up in the union,
but then Mr. Kierdorf, according to the testimony, came back to
sign up some more of the employees. With that, the Skaff Rug Co.
retained Mr. Kamenow and no longer heard from Mr. Kierdorf.
Can you tell us why you didn't go back and try to sign up the rest
of the employees 'i
Mr. Kierdorf. I respectfully decline to answer at this time upon
the advice of counsel and I assert my privilege under the fifth amend-
ment to the United States Constitution, and I assert my privilege not
to be a witness against myself.
Mr. Kennedy. And for that service, Mr. Kamenow said that there
would be several charges of $2,000 to take some of the boys on fishing
trips and trips to Canada, and trips to the west coast.
Can you tell us anything about that ?
Mr. Kierdorf. I respectfully decline to answer at this time upon
the advice of counsel, and I assert my privilege under the fifth amend-
ment to the United States Constitution, and I assert my privilege not
to be a witness against myself.
Mr. Kennedy. Were you taken on any fishing trips up to Canada ?
Mr. Kierdorf. I respectfully decline to answer at this time upon
the advice of counsel, and I assert my privilege under the fifth
amendment to the United States Constitution, and I assert my privi-
lege not to be a witness against myself.
Mr. Kennedy. And tlien the Otto P. Graff Co., the same type of
situation; McDonald Dairy, where there was an attempt to organize
it by the teamsters, and then Mr. Kamenow came into the picture and
nothing more was heard by these companies from Mr. Frank Kier-
dorf or local 332 of the teamsters.
Mr. Kamenow said that there would be several charges of a couple
of thousand dollars apiece to entertain these teamsters union
officials.
Can you tell us anything about that ?
Mr. Kierdorf. I respectfully decline to answer at this time upon
the advice of counsel and I assert my privilege under the fifth amend-
ment to the United States Constitution, and I assert my privilege not
to be a witness against myself.
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Kierdorf, when Mr. Langenbacher of the com-
mittee staff first interviewed you out in Detroit, you agreed to execute
an affidavit regarding your activities and your relationships with Mr.
Kamenow. You did execute that affidavit.
I would like to ask you now whether the affidavit is true and correct ?
Mr. Kierdorf. I respectfully decline to answer at this time upon
the advice of counsel, and I assert my privilege under the fifth amend-
ment to the United States Constitution, and I assert my privilege not
to be a witness against myself.
The Chairman. The Chair presents to you what purports to be
the original affidavit, signed by you on the 19th day of August 1957,
before Regina J. Lewis, notary public, talcen in the State of Michigan,
the citv of Detroit.
6536 IMPROPEE ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
I ask you to examine that affidavit and state if you identify it.
(The document was handed to the witness.)
(The witness conferred with his counseL)
Mr. FitzGerald. May I say, if I may, to the distinguished chair-
man, that this is the first time I have seen this six-page thing. We
might expedite matters if I could be furnished with a copy, and he
will take the fifth amendment on that question, too. This is the first
time I have seen it.
The Chairman. You may have a copy of it. There is no objec-
tion to that. Let me ask the Avitness a question.
Have the witness look at the signature.
(The witness conferred with his counsel.)
The Chairman. Examine your signature and examine the affidavit.
(The witness conferred with his counsel.)
Mr. Kierdorf. I respectfully decline to answer at this time upon
the advice of counsel, and I assert my privilege under the fifth amend-
ment to the United States Constitution and I assert my privilege not
to be a witness against myself.
The Chairman. Have you examined the document ?
Mr. KiERDORF. 1 respectfully decline to answer at this time upon
the advice of counsel, and I assert my privilege under the fifth am.end-
ment to tlie United States Constitution, and I assert my privilege not
to be a witness against myself.
The Chairman. I asked 3'ou if you had examined the docimient.
(The witness conferred witli his coimsel.)
Mr. KiERDORF. I respectfully decline to answer at this time upon
the advice of counsel and 1 assert my privilege under the fifth amend-
ment to the United States Constitution and I assert my privilege not
to be a witness against myself.
The Chairman. Put that document right under his face, right
under his eyes. Let the record show it is right before him.
Do you deny that you are looking at your signature, and the docu-
ment the Chair has referred to ?
(The witness conferred with his coimsel.)
Mr. KiERDORF. I respectfully decline to answer at this time upon
the advice of counsel, and I assert my privilege under the fifth amend-
ment to the United States Constitution, and I assert my privilege not
to be a witness against myself.
The Chairman. Let the record show that the document was before
him, that his signature was exhibited right under his eyes before he
made his answer.
r^et me have the document.
(The document was returned to the committee.)
TESTIMONY OF IRWIN LANGENBACHEE
The Chairman. Mr. Irwin Langenbacher, you have been pre-
viously sworn, have you ?
Mr. Langenbacher. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. I present to you here an affidavit signed by Frank
H. Kierdorf, dated this 19th day of August 19.57, signed in the pres-
ence of Regina J. Lewis, a notary public.
I ask you to examine that document and state if you identify it.
( The document was handed to the witness. )
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 6537
Mr. Langenbacher. Yes, sir, I identify the docuiueiit.
The Chairman. Were you present when the document was pre-
pared?
Mr. Langenbacher. Yes, sir. I dictated this affidavit in the presence
of Mr. Kierdorf in Detroit, and in the presence of the lawyer, George
FitzGerald, with the understanding that if I incorrectly dictated any
of the items, he was to interrupt and make changes. He made a few
changes, as it was dictated, and then after it was prepared he made
one minor change in ink in which he originally stated he made 4 fish-
ing trips, and he changed that to read 3. That was the only change he
made. Then it was returned to me, signed and notarized.
The Chairman. He was present when it was dictated?
Mr. Langenbacher. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. And counseled you with respect to any errors that
you conmiitted in dictating it at the time ?
Mr. Langenbacher. Yes, sir. I told him to interrupt me if I dic-
tated anything improper.
The Chairman. He did interrupt at the time ?
Mr. Langenbacher. A few times.
The Chairman. And corrections were made as he objected?
Mr. Langenbacher. Yes, sir. They were made by the stenographer.
The Chairman. Thereafter it was submitted to him for examina-
tion before signing ?
Mr. Langenbacher. It was.
The Chairman. And he made one change in it then.
Mr. Langenbacher. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. Does that change appear on it ?
Mr. Langenbacher. Yes, sir ; and initialed by him.
The Chairman. Initialed by him ?
Mr. Langenbacher. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. You were not present when the oath was admin-
istered to him ?
Mr. Langenbacher. No, sir.
The Chairman. But he brought it back to j^ou ?
Mr. Langenbacher. It was sent back to me.
The Chairman. It was sent back to you ?
Mr. Langenbacher. By his lawyer, George FitzGerald.
The Chairman, j'liat affidavit may be printed in the record in full
at this point.
(The affidavit referred to is as follows :)
State of Michigan.
City of Detroit:
Affidavit
I. Frank H. Kierdorf, business representative and organizer, Teamsters Local
332, Flint. Mitli., voluntarily make this statement to Irwin Langenbacher, who
has identified himself as assistant counsel, Senate Select Committee on Im-
pi-oi>er Activities in the Labor or Management Field. My home address is 613
West Stewart Avenue, Flint, Mich. I have been an organizer for local 332
during the past 8 years.
On three occasions, once each in 1953, 1954, and 1955, I accompanied George
K-unenow on fishing trips to Montreal River, Ontario. On each occasion we
were accompanied by Jack Thompson of local 332, and on 1 occasion we were
accompanied by 2 men who are unknown to me, except that one was called Joe.
These trips lasted from 5 to S days each. I paid my share of the expenses on
each occasion, except that Kamenow paid for rental of the boat and the pro-
89330— 57— pt. 16 — —20
5538 IMPEOPEE ACTIVITIES ESTi THE LABOR FIELD
visions. I do not know the cost of the boat or provisions. On no other oc-
casion has Kamenow ever paid, in whole or in part, for any pleasnre trip,
vacation trip, or business trip on my behalf. On two occasions, probably 1953
and 1954, Kamenow presented me with a $25 Christmas gift certificate. He
has never made me any other Christmas gift, money gift, or gift of any kind,
nor has any money ever passed from Kamenow to me for any purpose.
I have made purchases chargpd to the account of George Kamenow at Sears,
Roebuck in Flint, at Hubbard Hardware in Flint, and Kerns Department Store
in Detroit, in order to obtain a discount. I do not know the reason why Kame-
now made available this service, but it may have been for goodwill purposes.
Some of my friends, associates, and relatives have made similar purchases
through Kamenow's account after I had made the necessary arrangements. In
each occasion payment was made in full, sometimes by check, sometimes by
cash, sometimes the aforementioned relatives, associates, and friends paid
Kamenow directly and some of them paid through me. On no occasion did I
make a purchase on Kamenow's account as a gift from Kamenow.
About 1953 or 1954, I attempted to organize the salesmen and mechanics of
Applegate Chevrolet Co. but did not succeed in obtaining a majority of the
signatures necessary, and the attempt was dropped. I did not at any time dis-
cuss the organizational drive with Kamenow and he never attempted to induce
me to discontinue. If Applegate ever paid any money to Kamenow to be ex-
pended on union officials, it is not within my knowledge, and I was not a re-
cipient of any such money or of any form of entertainment for which it may
have been expended.
An attempt was made to organize Auto P. Graff, Inc., about 1954. At one
time we obtained the majority of salesmen's signatures, but before we could
obtain recognition they changed their mind and withdrew. Kamenow was
active in combating union influence, but did not discuss the matter with me.
If Graff made payments approximating $1,G00 to $1,800 to Kamenow in 1954,
19.55. and 1956 for entertainment or expenses of union officials it is not within
my knowledge and I have never heard anything of that natui'e. I was not the
recipient of any such favor or consideration.
From time to time we have attempted to organize McGregor Tire Co. but we
were never successful. I have no knowledge of any expenditures by Kamenow
on behalf of McGregor Tire in favor of union officials for any form of entertain-
ment, transportation, or for other reasons.
An attempt was made to organize Skaff Rug Co. probably about 1955 or 1956.
I read in the paper and was questioned by city detectives relative to certain
violence which occurred, such as assault and battery committed upon a Skaff
truckdriver and sugar placed in truck gasoline tanks. I have no personal
knowledge of these incidents. After the warehousemen and truckdrivers of the
Skaff Co. were organized, a brief attempt was made to organize SkafiE salesmen
but the attempt was dropped. Kamenow was retained by Skaff, but I do not
know at what time. We did not withdraw from the organizational attempt
because of anything that Kamenow may have said to us, may have promised
us, or may have given us. I have never heard that Skaff paid Kamenow or
anyone else approximately $2,000, or any other amount, for airline tickets
for the benefit of union officials. I have no knowledge of such an incident nor
was I a recipient of any airline tickets.
Flint Home Furnishing Co. and other furniture dealers in Flint have been
organized. I have no knowledge of any money which may have been given to
Kamenow or Labor Relations Associates by furniture dealers, or anyone else,
to be used in the purchase of Christmas gifts for union officials.
We have attempted to organize McDonald Dairy for the past 8 years. In
about 1955 we withdrew from an election upon request of certain McDonald
employees who stated that we would have a better chance of success at a later
time when the current contract between McDonald and the independent union
expired. We did not withdraw because of any promises or favors of considera-
tion from Kamenow or McDonald Dairy. I have no knowledge, nor have I
ever heard, that McDonald paid Kamenow or Labor Relations Associates any
moneys to be expended on behalf of union officials for fishing trips, baseball
games, other forms of entertainment, or Christmas gifts, and I have never been
the recipient of any such considerations.
I recall that Kelly Home Development Co. was picketed by carpenters a few
years ago. It was never suggested to me by Kamenow or anyone else that the
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 6539
teamsters cross the picket line of the carpenters, nor was any money offered
me for this purpose. Kamenow never mentioned to me anything of this nature.
A few years ago we made an attempt to organize Advance Electric Co. We
signed up two drivers but could not obtain a majority of the warehousemen.
Advance refused to sign a recognition agreement and the company was piclceted
about 4 weeks. During this period Kamenow was retained as consultant by
Advance, and he approached me on only one occasion at which he asked if we
would be satisfied with union drivers employed by Advance or an independent
trucking company who would do the hauling for them. The independent
trucking company would have to absorb the two Advance drivers who had
signed with our union. I agreed to this proposition. Kamenow never requested
that we withdraw our pickets or that we discontinue organizational attempts
in return for any favors that he might grant us such as a trijj to the Rose
Bowl game or consideration of any kind. Nor did we agree to discontinue pick-
eting or organizational attempts provided Advance would contract their truck-
ing to a firm in which Kamenow would have a part interest. Neither I, nor
anyone else to my knowledge, subsequently suggested to Kamenow that he
request money from Advance Electric for a trip to the Rose Bowl gan»e or for
other purposes.
Word was never sent out that we were to picket Royalite Electric Co., and
we never refrained from such picketing or organizational attempt because of
any consideration such as a trip to the Rose Bowl game or other favors. If
Royalite ever made payments to Kamenow to be expended on behalf of union
officials, it is not a matter within my knowledge and I was never a recipient
of any such consideration.
About 1955 we organized the employees of Flint Sausage Works. During
negotiations Kamenow was retained as a consultant by the Sausage Works. We
did not grant a soft contract or any other favors to the company in return
for any consideration or promises from Kamenow or from the company. Flint
Sausage Works did not to my knowledge advance $2,000 or any other money
to Kamenow to finance a fishing trip for me or for any other union oflScials. In
fact, I did not accompany Kamenow on a fishing trip during the summer of
1956. Kamenow never obtained, or attempted to obtain, to my knowledge, any
free meat products for me from the Flint Sausage Works. As required, the
proposed contract was submitted to the Michigan State Conference of Team-
sters for approval, and to my knowledge it was not submitted to James HofEa
personally and I do not know that he played any part in the preparation or
approval of the contract. The contract is a better one from the standpoint
of union members than others in the area.
We had signed 10 or 11 drivers and warehousemen employed by Lovegroves
Wholesale, Inc. and asked the company for a recognition agreement, and they
refused to sign, stating that they were going out of business. I then asked for
a recognition agreement to be delayed for a period of 6 months in order that
we could determine whether they were actually going out of business. They
refused to sign the recognition agreement and were picketed. The pickets were
withdrawn because no deliveries were being made in or out of the plant. Cal
Wooten was employed by Lovegroves and, in my opinion, he was discharged
for union activity. Lovegroves stated that he was discharged because he did
not have a driver's license and therefore could not work as a traveling salesman.
I am willing to submit for inspection by a representative of the Senate select
committee my personal financial records.
I have read the above statement and it is true to the best of my knowledge
and belief.
( Signed ) Frank H. Kieedokf.
Subscribed and sworn to before me, a notary public, this 19th day of August
1957.
[seal] (Signed) Regina J. Lewis, Notary Pullic.
My commission expires April 12, 1960.
Mr. FitzGerald. If the Chair please, would the record also demon-
strate that the Fitzgerald identified by Mr. Langenbacher is not the
FitzGerald who appears here today? I am Benedict FitzGerald. I
don't know anything about that six-page thing.
6540 IMPROPEK ACTIVITIES m THE LABOR FIELD
The Chairman, He said George Fitzgerald. The record will re-
flect that. It is not the counsel who appears here today.
Is there anything further ?
TESTIMONY OT FRANK H. lOEEDOEF, ACCOMPANIED BY COUNSEL,
BENEDICT E. FitzGEEALD, JE.
Mr. Kennedy. The important matter developed or explained in the
affidavit is the rea;jon why you abandoned these organizational drives
after they had begun on these various businesses in Flint, Mich.
Can you give us any explanation of any of that?
Mr. KiERDORE. I respectfully decline to answer at this time upon the
advice of counsel, and I assert my privilege under the fifth amendment
of the United States Constitution, and I assert my privilege not to be
a witness against myself.
Mr. Kennedy. Although some of these companies are mentioned in
the affidavit, I do not believe you w^ere able, even at that time, to give
any explanation as to why you abandoned the drive of the Advance
Electric Co. or the J^IacGregor Tire Co., or Otto P. Graff, Inc., and
some of these other companies.
Do you have any explanation ?
Mr. KiERDORF. I respectfully decline to answer at this time upon
the advice of counsel, and I assert my privilege under the fifth amend-
ment to the United States Constitution, and I assert my privilege not
to be a witness against myself.
Mr. Kennedy. There is one more matter.
According to the information that we have, Mr. Kamenow had
a charge account for Mr. Kierdorf and certain of the other union
officials at the Sears, Roebuck Co., at the Hubbard Hardware Co.,
which I understand is nonunion, and Kern's Department Store, which
I understand is also nonimion.
Can you tell us about those charge accounts that were kept by Mr.
Kamenow for you at those stores ?
Mr. Kierdorf. I respectfully decline to answer at this time upon
the advice of counsel, and I assert my privilege under the fifth amend-
ment to the United States Constitution, and I assert my privilege not
to be witness against myself.
The Chairman. Mr. Kierdorf, is there any question that we have
overlooked that we might ask you, that you w^ould answer?
Mr, Kierdorf. I respectfully decline to answer at this time upon
the advice of counsel, and I assert my privilege under the fifth amend-
ment to the United States Constitution, and I assert my privilege not
to be a witness against myself.
The Chairman. I didn't want you to be a witness against yourself.
Is there any question we can ask you where you can give an answer
and not be a witness against youreelf ?
Mr. Kierdorf. I respectfully decline to answer at this time upon
the advice of counsel, and I assert my privilege under the fifth
amendment of the United States Constitution, and I assert my priv-
ilege not to be a witness against myself.
The Chairman. Do you feel under any obligation or sense of
conscience at all to give an accomit of your stewardship in the posi-
tion you occupy in the union to those men and women who worked
and who pay the dues, whom you represent?
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 6541
Mr. KiERDORF. I respectfully decline to canswer at tliis time upon
the advice of counsel, and I assert my privilege under the fifth amend-
ment to the United States Constitution, and I assert my privilege not
to be a witness against myself.
The Chairman. Do you think one who occupies your position who
will not give an accounting of his stewardship with respect to his
position with a labor organization — do you think he is worthy of con-
tinued trust and confidence?
Mr. KiERDORF. I respectfully decline to answer at this time upon
the advice of counsel, and I assert my privilege under the fifth amend-
ment to the United States Constitution, and the first
The Chairman. Are there any further questions?
The committee will recess. We will have to take a little longer re-
cess period this time than usual.
The witness will stand aside.
The committee will stand in recess until 2 :30.
(Members of the select committee present at time of recess: Sena-
tors McClelland and Mundt.)
(Whereupon, at 12 :15 p.m. tlie select committee recessed, to recon-
vene at 2 :oO p.m. the same day.)
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 Mundt.)
The Chairman. Mr. Kennedy, call the next witness,
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Jack Thompson, please.
The Chairman. IMr. Jack Thompson, will you come forward ?
You do solemnly swear the evidence you 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. Thompson. I do.
TESTIMONY OF JACK D. THOMPSON, ACCOMPANIED BY COUNSEL,
BENEDICT F. FitzGEEALD, JR.
The Chairman. State your name and your place of residence and
your business or occupation.
Mr. Thompson. Jack Thompson, 321 Westmoreland Drive, Flint,
Mich.
The Chairman. I didn't get your address.
Mr. Thompson. 321 Westmoreland Drive, Flint, Mich.
The Chairman. Do you liave an occupation or business ?
Mr. Thompson. With all due respect to the gentlemen constituting
this committee, I respectfully decline to answer upon advice of
counsel. In declining, I am asserting my privileges under the fourth,
the fifth, the eighth amendments to the Constitution of the United
States.
The Chairman. The fourth and eighth amendment objection is
overruled. The committee, I believe, does not recognize that as
giving a witness a right not to answer. Tlie fifth amendment, if you
6542 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES m THE LABOR FIELD
invoke that, that is your privilege. The others, I do not think, are
applicable to this situation.
You have counsel present ?
Mr, Thompson. I do.
The Chairman. Counsel, you may identify yourself for the record.
Mr. FitzGerald, My name is Benedict F. FitzGerald, Jr., attorney
at law, with offices at suite 1152 National Press Building, Washing-
ton, D. C.
The Chairman. Do you honestly believe if you disclose your busi-
ness or your profession or occupation that such disclosure might tend
to incriminate you ?
Mr. Thompson. The answer is "Yes."
Mr. FitzGerald. May I make a statement for the record ?
The Chairman. A brief one.
Mr. FitzGerald. I just want to adopt by reference everything
that — every objection that I made when I appeared this morning
with the previous witness, Mr. Frank Kierdorf .
The Chairman. All right.
Mr. FitzGerald. I wish to adopt everything that I said there.
The Chairman. Counsel interposes by reference the same objec-
tions at the beginning of the interrogation of this witness that he
interposed this morning at the time when we were hearing the wit-
ness Mr. Kierdorf. The same rulings by the committee will be
noted in the record.
Senator Mundt. Mr. Chairman. Did you say, Mr. Thompson, that
you honestly believed that if 3^ou were to tell this committee what
your occupation is, it would tend to incriminate you?
Mr. Thompson. I am acting upon the advice of my counsel. I am
a layman w^ith limited education, and I have no knowledge of legal
or constitutional matters. I prefer to accept the advice of my coun-
sel, attorney Benedict F. Fitzgerald, Jr., who was a former counsel
to at least two congressional committees and an attorney with the
Department of Justice. I have sought his advice and I expect to
follow it.
Senator Mundt. That doesn't answer my question. You can ad-
vise with counsel, and you can read his biography as often as you
want to, but I want you to answer my question
Mr. Thompson. I respectfully
Senator Mtjndt. Whether you honestly believe that telling this
committee what your occupation is would tend to incriminate you on
the basis that that occupation was something which would be incrim-
inatory if we knew about it.
(The witness conferred with his counsel.)
Senator Mundt. I say that, Mr. Thompson, because I was not under
the impression that you were a criminal or a crook. If you are, that
is one thing. If you have a legitimate means of occupation, that is
another. But you cannot take recourse in the fifth amendment unless
you honestly believe that to answer the question truthfully would tend
to incriminate you, which obviously must mean that you*^are engaged
in some kind of illegal occupation.
If you are, I don't want you to confess to kidnapping or narcotics
trade, or bank robbery or anything else. If you are not, you should
be willing to tell us what your occupation is.
(The witness conferred^ with liis counsel.)
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 6543
Mr. Thompson. My attornej^ advises me that there may be a tech-
nical matter of waiving the privilege in answering that question.
Senator Mundt. Wliy would that be any more a technical matter
than telling us where you live?
Mr. Thompson. Ask the attorney ; I am taking his advice.
Senator Mundt. The attorney is doing a lot of voluntary testifying,
but he is not the witness and I would like to ask you. I wish the at-
torney would respond to his witness' inquiries, please, and not volun-
teer answers to every question that I ask.
Now, Mr. Thompson, just between the two of us, is there really
something about your occupation that would incriminate you? Do
you honestly think so ?
Mr. Thompson. My attorney advises me that there might be a tech-
nical matter of waiving the privilege if I answered the question.
Senator Mundt. Mr. Chairman, I think that you should order this
witness to answer that question ; if there is a pertinent question which
anybody could ask, that is it.
I think that we might want to have it for future reference in the
record.
The CnAHiMAN. I believe that he answered the question once ; yes.
Senator Mundt. Not with reference to taking honest recourse. He
has relied on some technicality.
The Chahiman. The Chair thought he asked him a similar question
and he answered "Yes," and that is what I thought he said. You are
just interrogating him further about it.
Senator Mundt. If you can find it in the record, I would like to have
it read back.
The Chairman. We will take a moment to do that.
(Whereupon, the reporter read the following question and answer :)
The Chairman. Do you honestly believe if you disclose your business or your
profession or occupation that such disclosure ight tend to incriminate you?
Mr. Thompson. The answer is "'Yes."
The Chairman. He has already answered that question and it is a
matter of record and under oath.
All right, Mr. Counsel ; proceed.
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Jack Thompson is the recording
secretary and business agent for teamster local 332 in Flint, Mich., and
he has been called before the committee to ascertain what information
he might have regarding the activities of the teamsters local in connec-
tion with the nine businesses about which were testified yesterday.
Those were the efforts by the teamsters to attempt to organize these bus-
inesses, and then the businessmen contacted Mr. George Kamenow, and
those organizational efforts were called off.
According to the testimony, Mr. Kamenow was paid several thou-
sand dollars in each case which he was to pass on to certain of these
union officials, either through gifts, entertainment, or for trips to Can-
ada, the Rose Bowl, and to the west coast and to New York.
I would like to ask Mr. Thompson just generally what information he
has regarding the activities of Mr. George Kamenow. Can we start
out with that ? Could you answer that, Mr. Thompson ?
Mr. Thompson. I respectfully decline to answer at this time, upon
the advice of counsel. I assert my privileges under the fif-th amendment
to the United States Constitution. I assert my privilege not to be a
witness against myself.
6544 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN? THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. Kenxedt. Well, Mr. Chairman, we have had testimony and we
have already gone into the matter with Mr. Kierdorf , but regarding the
Advance Electric Co., where there were pickets outside the company
for 4 weeks, and then Mr. Kamenow was retained and the pickets were
called off within 3 or 4 days, with the understanding a $2,000 payment
would be made to bring some of these union officials to the Rose Bowl.
I )o you know anything about that, Mr. Thompson ?
Mr. Thompson.^ I respectfully decline to answer at this time upon
the advice of counsel, and I assert my privilege under the fifth amend-
ment to tlie United States Constitution.
Mr. Kennedy. Then the same thing for the Royalite Electric Co.,
although there weren't pickets. There was an arrangement made with
Mr. Kamenow that if certain payments were made, $2,000 each year,
to bring these officials to the Rose Bowl game, that they would not be
organized. That company has not been organized and it is still non-
union.
Can you tell us anything about that ?
Mr. Thompson. I respectfully decline to answer the question at this
time based upon the advice of counsel and I assert my privilege under
the fifth amendment to the United States Constitution. I assert my
privilege not to be a witness against myself.
Mr. Kennedy. And then anotlier case was the MacGregor Tire Co.,
which was very similar to the Advance Electric Co. The Applegate
Chevrolet Co. and Kelly Development Co., the Skaff Rug Co., the
McDonald Dairy, Otto P. Graff — can you tell us anything about the
organizational drives against any of those companies and why they
were called off?
Mr. Thompson. I respectfully decline to answer the question at this
time upon the advice of counsel, and I assert my privilege under the
fifth amendment to the United States Constitution, and I assert my
privilege not to be a witness against myself.
Mr. Kennedy. Mr, Thompson was interviewed by Mr. Langen-
bacher of the staff, and admitted at that time that he had taken a num-
ber of trips with Mr. Kamenow, fishing trips up into Canada.
At that time he Avas requested and he agreed to furnish an affidavit,
a sworn affidavit, which we have, and I would like to ask you, Mr.
Thompson, whether tliis sworn affidavit is correct and true ?
Mr. Thompson. I respectfully decline to answer the question upon
the advice of counsel, and I assert my privileges under the fifth amend-
ment to the United States Constitution and I assert my privilege not
to be a witness against myself.
The Chairman. I present to you the original affidavit signed " Jaclc
Donnelly Thompson," dated the 19th day of August 1957, sworn to
before Regina J. Lewis, a notary public, and I will ask you to examine
this document and state if you identify it.
(The document was handed to the witness.)
(The witness conferred with his counsel.)
Mr. Thompson. I respectfully decline to answer at this time upon
the advice of counsel and I assert my privilege under the fifth amend-
ment to the United States Constitution, and assert my privilege not to
be a witness against myself.
The Chairman. Have you examined the document ?
Mr. Thompson. I have.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 6545
The Chairman. Is your signature on the document ?
Mr, Thompson. I respectfully decline to answer at this time upon
the advice of counsel, and I assert my privilege under the fifth amend-
ment to the United States Constitution, and I assert my privilege not
to be a witness against myself.
TESTIMONY OF IRWIN LANGENBACHER— Resumed
The Chairman. Mr. Langenbacher, did you secure this affidavit?
Mr. Langenbacher. I did.
The Chairman, Who was present when the affidavit was prepared ?
Mr. Langenbacher. My seci-etary and Mr. Thompson, and Mr.
Kierdorf ; and their lawyer, Mr. George Fitzgerald, of Detroit.
The Chairman. Was the witness given an opportunity to assist in
the preparation of the document?
Mr. Langenbacher. Yes, sir; we first discussed his testimony and
then I dictated it to the stenographer in his presence, with the under-
standing that he could interrupt at any time if I was preparing it
improperly.
He also had the opportunity to make any corrections after it was
written.
The Chairman. Did he make any corrections ?
Mr. Langenbacher. Yes, sir; he originally stated that he had ac-
companied George Kamenow on 4 fishing trips to Canada, and he
changed that to read 3 fishing trips to Canada. He made no other
corrections.
The Chairman. The affidavit may be printed in full in the record
at this point.
(The affidavit referred to is as follows :)
State of Michigan,
City of Detroit, ss:
Affidavit
I. Jack Donnelly Thompson, recording secretary and business agent, team-
sters local 332, Flint, Mich., voluntarily make this statement to Irwin Langen-
bacher, who has identified himself as assistant counsel, Senate Committee on
Improper Activities in the Labor-Management Field. My home address is 321
Westmoreland Drive, Flint. I have been an officer of the Flint local since about
1946. Claude Sutton is in charge of local 332 and is my immediate superior.
I have just heard the statement dictated for the signature of Frank Kierdoi'f
and, to the best of my memory, it is true in all respects. I accompanied George
Kamenovv' on 3 fishing trips to Montreal River, Ontario, which took place
once a summer from 1953 to 1955. Kamenow paid the rental on the boat and
I)aid for the food and provisions. All other expenses, including travel, were
shared equally.
On two occasions we traveled to Montreal River in Kamenow's car, and on the
other occasion we traveled in my car. I have never traveled with Kamenow by
air on any occasion. Kamenow has never asked anything in return, nor has
he ever on any time suggested or hinted any type of irregular deal, such as a
payoff in the form of money or favors in connection with the union's relation-
ship with Kamenow's clients.
On one occasion at the Chez Paree in Chicago and on one occasion at the
Elmwood Casino in Windsor, Ontario, Kamenow picked up the check covering
dinner parties for Claude Sutton, 1^'rank Kierdorf. and me. Our wives were
also present at the Elmwood. On no other occasion did he ever expend any money
on my behalf, except for such things as lunches during negotiations.
I do not handle contracts with any of tlie Flint companies that were discus.sed
with Mr. Kierdorf, and I took no part in the organizational attempts except that
on occasions I may have worked in the picket lines. To my knowledge, Kamenow
has never attempted any kind of payoff in money or other considerations in con-
nection with any of the Flint companies which have been mentioned.
6546 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES INI THE LABOR FIELD
I will make my personal financial records available for examination by a
representative of the Senate committee.
I have read the above statement and it is true to the best of my knowledge
and belief.
Jack Donnelly Thompson.
Subscribed and sworn to before me, a notary public, this — day of August
1957.
, Notary PuMic.
My commission expires .
Mr. FiTzGERiVLD. May the record show that the Fitzgerald that you
have identified, Mr. Chairman, is not the FitzGerald who is here today.
I am Benedict FitzGerald.
The Chairman. I think the witness testified it was Mr. George
Fitzgerald. The record will so reflect.
All right, Mr. Counsel.
TESTIMONY OF JACK D. THOMPSON, ACCOMPANIED BY COUNSEL,
BENEDICT P. FitzGEEALD, JR.— Resumed
Mr. Kennedy. If there are any questions in connection with Mr.
George Kamenow that you would be willing to answer
Mr. Thompson. I respectfully decline to answer at this time upon
the advice of counsel, and I assert my privilege under the fifth
amendment to the United States Constitution and I assert my privilege
not to be a witness against myself.
Mr. Kennedy. Or any questions you were asked regarding why
organizational drives were called off, organizational drives of local 332
of the teamsters ?
Mr. Thompson. I respectfully decline to answer at this time upon
the advice of counsel, and I assert my privilege under the fifth
amendment to the United States Constitution. I assert my privilege
not to be a witness against myself.
The Chairman. There has been a considerable amount of testimony
here regarding payments made for entertainment and other purposes
to Mr. Kamenow. That is through Labor Kelations Associates for
entertainment and for trips to football games, and Rose Bowl games,
and for fishing trips, and trips to Washington for which the clients
of LEA were billed and for which the clients paid, some 8 or 9 com-
panies here whose representatives have been interrogated at these
hearings.
I do not recall the exact amount, but if I am not mistaken it is some-
thing over $30,000 that comes within that category. Am I correct, Mr.
Counsel ?
Mr. Kennedy. $27,000, 1 believe.
The Chairman. All right, $27,000. Did you get any of that money ?
Mr. Thompson. I respectfully decline to answer at this time upon
the advice of my counsel, and I assert my privilege under the fifth
amendment to the United States Constitution and I assert my privilege
not to be a witness against myself.
The Chairman. As a labor union official, having a duty and re-
sponsibility to the membership that pay their dues and support you
and have you as their spokesman and representative, can you tell this
committee whether and if any laboring man who is a member of your
union benefited 1 dime from this $27,000 ?
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE L.\BOR FIELD 6547
Mr. Thompson. I respectfully decline to answer at this time upon
the advice of counsel, and I assert my privilege under the fifth
amendment to the United States Constitution and I assert my privilege
not to be a witness against myself.
The Chairman. Do you have any conception or conscience or
sense of obligation to the membership of your union, who work and
pay the dues to make an accounting to them for your stewardship in
the handling of their affairs ?
Mr. Thompson. I respectfully decline to answer the question at this
time, based on the advice of counsel, and I assert my privilege under
the fifth amendment to the United States Constitution.
The Chairman. Senator Mundt ?
Senator Mundt. In a more communicative mood, Mr. Thompson,
when you made this affidavit which you signed and swore to, you in-
cluded this statement :
I have just read the statement dictated for the signature of Frank Kierdorf,
and, to the best of my memory, it is true in all respects.
There was a statement in the affidavit in which Mr. Kierdorf ad-
mitted some of these trips — taking union officials on certain junkets.
You say in this affidavit, as I read it, that this was true in all respects.
Do you wish to deny it now ?
Mr. Thompson. I respectfully decline to answer the question at
this time based upon the advice of counsel, and I assert my privilege
under the fifth amendment of the United States Constitution, and I
assert my privilege not to be a witness against myself.
Senator Mundt. You also say that — •
Claude Sutton is in charge of local 332 and is my immediate superior.
May we conclude from that that Mr. Sutton was kept fully advised
of these various trips that you took at the generosity of George Kame-
now, and the various times that you were entertained in the Chez
Paree and other places? Did you keep your immediate superior
informed of that fact ?
Mr. Thoinipson. I respectfully decline to answer at this time upon
the advice of counsel, and I assert my privilege under the fifth amend-
ment to the United States Constitution. I assert my privilege not to
be a witness against myself.
Senator Mundt. Is it fair to conclude that when you were accepting
these gifts, or these manifestations of generosity, from Mr. Kame-
now, who w^as in the business of keeping unions out of plants, that
you were faithfully carrying out the instructions of Mr. Sutton, who,
presumably would be interested in having unions installed in plants,
and in having union labor employed rather than nonunion labor?
Mr. Tpiompson. I respectfully decline to answer the question at this
time upon the advice of counsel, and I assert my privileges under the
fifth amendment to the United States Constitution, and I assert my
privilege not to be a witness against myself.
Senator Mundt. Since you were a business manager of 332, and
Mr. Kierdorf was a business manager of 332, and since Mr. Claude
Suttpn is in charge of local 332, can you tell us that Mr. Sutton also
participated in this strange manifestation of consideration that this
union-busting Mr. Kamenow had for you fellows who were supposed
to be building up the union ?
6548 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. Thompson. I respectfully decline to answer the question at
this time based upon the advice of counsel, and I assert my privilege
under the fifth amendment to the United States Constitution, and
I assert my privilege not to be a witness against myself.
Senator Mundt." Is it considered good and acceptable labor union
practice in Flint, Mich,, for the men who are supposed to be repre-
senting the dues-paying members to accept gifts and considerations
from men who are working against the interests of the dues-paying
members, men like Mr. Kamenow ?
Mr. Thompson. I respectfully decline to answer the question at
this time upon the advice of counsel, and I assert my privilege under
the fifth amendment to the United States Constitution, and I assert
my privilege not to be a witness against myself.
Senator Mundt. Is there anything that you can say, Mr. Thomp-
son, in defense of yourself, to make yourself look a little better to the
union members up at Flint than your testimony has recently indi-
cated ?
I want to give you an opportunity to straighten out the record,
because if I were a dues-paying member up at Flint, I wouldn't like
what you have said now very well. I am not trying to get you in
any trouble with the boys who pay your salary, but you are just
parroting a phrase over and over again which may sound kind of
highfaluting here in Washington but may not set so well with the
people back in Flint. I want to give you every chance to say any-
thing you want to now in defense of yourself. Is there anything you
can think of?
Mr. Thompson. I respectfully decline to answer the question at
this time based upon the advice of counsel and I assert my privilege
under the fifth amendment to the United States Constitution.
Senator Mundt. You are perfectly content to leave the record
stand as it is ? The answer is "Yes" ?
Mr. Thompson. I respectfullj^ decline to answer the question at
this time based upon the advice of counsel and I assert my privilege
under the fifth amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
The Chairman. Do you support honest unionism ?
Mr. Thompson. I respectfully decline
The Chairman. Or do you support crooked unionism ?
Mr. Thompson. I respectfully decline to answer the question at
this time based upon the advice of counsel and I assert my privilege
under the fifth amendment.
Senator Mundt. Do you know a Mr. James R. Hoffa ?
Mr. Thompson. I respectfully decline to answer the question at
this time based upon the advice of counsel, and I assert my privileges
under the fifth amendment.
Senator Mundt. Is there something about his record which would
be incriminating if you were recognized as a fi'iend of his ?
Mr. Thompson. I respectfully decline to answer the question at
this time based upon the advice of counsel, and I assert my privileges
under the fifth amendment.
Tlie Chairman. Do you believe in crooked management ?
Mr. Thompson. I respectfully decline to answer the question at
this time based upon the advice of counsel, and I assert my privileges
under the fifth amendment to the United States Constitution.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 6549
The Chairman. Do you subscribe to the Ethical Practices Code of
theAFL-CIO?
Mr. Thompson. I respectfully decline to answer the question at this
time upon advice of counsel, and I assert my privilege under the fifth
amendment to the United States Constitution.
The Chairman. What kind of laws do you suggest be enacted to
deal with people like you ?
(The witness conferred with his counsel.)
Mr. Thompson. With all due respect to the two gentlemen, I decline
to answer upon advice of counsel. In declining, I assert my privi-
leges under the first, fourth, fifth, and eighth amendments of the
Constitution of the United States.
The Chairman. First, fourth, and eighth amendments ?
Mr. Thompson. Fifth and eighth.
The Chairman. I am saving eighth. Those three are overruled.
We will keep you on the fifth.
Proceed.
Senator Mundt. Mr. Thompson, are you a supporter of the Taft-
Hartley Act?
(The witness conferred with his counsel.)
Mr. Thompson. With all due respect to the two gentlemen consti-
tuting this committee, I respectfully decline to answer on the advice
of counsel. In declining, I assert my privileges under the first, the
fourth, the fifth, and the eighth amendments to the Constitution of
the United States.
Senator Mundt. Would you be in favor of a so-called national
right-to-work law?
Mr. Thompson. With all due respect to the two gentlemen consti-
tuting this committee, I respectfully decline to answer the question
upon advice of counsel. In declining, I assert my privilege under the
first, fourth, fifth, and eighth amendments to the United States Con-
stitution.
The Chairman. The first, fourth, fifth, and eighth are overruled —
the first, fourth, and eighth. The fifth you may stand on.
Is there anything further ?
If not, you may stand aside.
Call the next witness.
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Nathan and Shelton Shefferman, Mr. Chair-
man. May we call them both at the same time ?
The Chairman. All right.
(Committee members present at this point: Senators McClellan
and Mundt.)
The Chairman. You two witnesses, Mr. Nathan and Mr. Shelton
Shefferman, will be sworn.
Do you and each of 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. Nathan Shefferman. I do.
Mr. Shelton Shefferman. I do.
The Chairman. Be seated.
6550 IMPROPEIR ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
TESTIMONY OF NATHAN W. SHEFFERMAN AND SHELTON SHEFFER-
MAN, ACCOMPANIED BY COUNSEL, STANFORD CLINTON
Mr. Clinton. Mr. Chairman?
The Chairman. Let me identify the witnesses first.
Mr. Clinton. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. Mr. Nathan Shefferman, will you state your name,
your place of residence and your business or occupation?
Mr. Nathan Shefferman. Nathan W. Shefferman, 1000 Lake
Shore Drive, Chica^jo, labor relations and personnel consultant.
The Chairman, Thank you.
Mr. Shelton Sheffernian, will you state your name, your place of
residence, and your Inisiness or occupation ?
Mr. Shelton SHEFFBR:*rAN. Shelton Shefferman, 114S Slokie Ridge
Drive, Glencoe, 111. I am a labor-relations and personnel consultant.
Tlie Chairman. Gentlemen, you have counsel present ?
Mr. Shelton Shefferman. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. Counsel, you may identify yourself.
Mr. Clinton. My name is Stanford Clinton, 134 North LaSalle
Street, Chicago, 111. I should like to address you Avhen the time is
appropriate, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. All right, Mr. Clinton, j'ou may proceed.
Mr. Clinton. Mr. Chairman
The Chairman. I hope you will make it brief.
Mr. Clinton. I will try to be brief, sir.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Mr. Clinton. I respectfully request that the appearance of these
witnesses before your distinguished committee be continued generally
and, if I may, sir, I should like to state the reasons for the request.
The Chairman. You may do so.
Mr. Clinton. On June 13, 1957, a grand jury returned an indict-
ment in the United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington, Southern Division. It is a multiple-count indictment.
The principal defendant named in five substantive counts is identified
in the indictment as one David D. Beck, and the indictment also states
that he is sometimes or also known as Dave Beck.
The first five counts of that indictment, Mr. Chairman, charge
Mr. Beck with substantive violations against the revenue laws of the
United States. The sixth count of that indictment charges that these
two witnesses here today, namely Mr. Nathan W. Shefferman and
Mr. Shelton Shefferman, combined and conspired with Mr. Beck to
assist him in evading his income taxes for a period of some 10 years.
Mr. Chairman, I don't know about Mr. Beck, as to whether or not
he is guilty of the offenses charged, but I do state quite confidently
and quite positively that these witnesses in no wise and in no way
combined or conspired to assist Mr. Beck in evading his income taxes.
They are wholly innocent of those charges.
Not only that, Mr. Chairman, but I think you and your committee
shoiild know, because it may be relevant to your consideration of our
motion, that the return of the indictment '^ against the Sheftermans
constitutes a gross breach of faith by the Department of Justice,
because on two separate and distinct occasions they assured me that
the Sheffermans were not targets of an indictment, and, based on
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 6551
those representations, they testified before the grand jury in the city
of Taconia. Not only were they indicted, Mr. Chairman, but their
very appearan.ce before that grand jury was recited as overt acts, 23d
and 24th indictment.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I do think I should say that there is nobody
who has appeared before tliis committee who has been more wholly
cooperative than Mr. Nathan Sheli'erman. You will recall that he
testified at great length and in great detail some months ago before
your committee. I think you must know that he turned over without
limitation or restraint of any sort all of the records of his company
and of himself and of his son, for the use and assistance of this com-
mittee in the framing of new litigation and arriving, as the distin-
guished chairman has frequently said, at the facts surrounding the
present labor-relations situations in the United States.
Mr, Chairman, I represent to you, based on some 25 years of active
practice of the law, that to requii'e them to testify now, with the
impendency of this indictment, would deprive these men of their
right to a fair and impartial trial, as that concept is undeisrood in
our system of jurisprudence.
Since this committee lias been in session, Mr. Chairman, tiie busi-
ness of the Sheii'ermans is in ruins. The health of the senioi- Shefier-
man is seriously impaired. His reputation is besmircJied. ITe now
stands in the dock accused of violating the laws of the United States.
I don't want it to be tmderstood, Mr. Chairman, as asking for sym-
pathy for the SheiFermans. If the Sheffermans were to testify, Mr.
Chairman, they wotild do so honorably and honestly and respon-
sively, something that some of the witnesses who have testihed under
oath here have not done. The Sheffermans are, I grant you, expend-
able in the qttest of this committee, to frame legislation in this
delicate, highly dynamic, and highly explosive field of labor rela-
tions. But their right, may it please the Chair, to a fair, impartial
trial is not expendable. This, I would say, is a matter of paramount
concern anywhere, any place in this broad and beautiful land of ours.
This they would be deprived of, if compelled here to testify.
I simply want to add this : This is an inquiry, this is an investiga-
tion. It is not in any sense a trial. That vast system of safeguards
and protection which our law has developed for the protection of a
man accused of an offense, to insure him of a fair trial, are not
present here. He doesn't have the right of cross-examin;ition, he
doesn't have the right of confrontation, doesn't have the right to pre-
sent witnesses. He would be deprived, JMr. Chairman, of all of those
very invaluable rights that we pride ourselves of in dealing with a
criminal proceeding.
So, Mr. Chairman, with utmost deference and utmost respect, I
urge and respectfully request that the committee generally defer the
appearance of these two witnesses before your distinguished com-
mittee.
The Chaieman. Thank you very much, Mr. Clinton.
The Chair, in behalf of the committee, wishes to express npprecia-
tion for the courteous, the dignified and fair manner in which you
present the motion on behalf of your clients. The Chair once tried
to practice law a little himself, and understands the relatiojiship
between client and counsel, and also the relationship between the
court or any other tribunal and counsel who may appear before it.
6552 IMPROPEiR ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
I think if this committee should today go into any matter lliat is
involved in the indictment to which counsel referred, we would at
least incur the risk of being unfair to the witnesses before us. I
wouldn't want any question asked that might go into the matter of,
as I understand, 1 count in the indictment, count No. 6, if I <Udn't
misunderstand counsel, in the indictment of Mr. Beck, after he was
indicted on 5 counts for evading income taxes.
The charge in the sixth count against the Sheffermans, as I under-
stand counsel, charges them with a conspiracy or having conspired
with Mr. Beck for Mr. Beck to evade the payment of income tax. I see
no relation between that and the matters here before this committee,
about which we desire to interrogate these two witnesses today, and
will instruct counsel not to interrogate these witnesses regarding their
relationship with Mr. Beck insofar as it may have involved any of
Mr. Beck's finances. But we have heard considerable testimony here
the last 2 or 3 days regarding incidents out in Flint, Mich., and we
have a number of documents here that have been placed in the record,
growing out of this testimony and the conditions that surround Flint,
Mich.
To interrogate him about these particular incidents and the matters
that we have been inquiring into here, certainly have no direct, and
I can see no remote, relation to any act of theirs or alleged act of
theirs in conspiring with Mr. Dave Beck regarding Mr. Dave Beck's
income taxes.
I want to be fair. We have this situation : TVlien we had Mr. Hoffa
before the committee, he was under indictment for some acts at that
time; I believe only one indictment at that time. I believe he may
have been indicted subsequently on another charge. But I can see
no relation between the information the committee desired from him
and the charge of wrongdoing, or the offense charged in that indict-
ment.
In that instance, I ruled, and the committee sustained the Chair,
that we should proceed. It might take this committee a very long
time to do its work if we are to defer indefinitely the testim.ony of
witnesses where that testimony is desired and where that information
is pertinent just because they happen to be indicted on some other
offense. Wliere it is not related, I do not see how the committee can
conscientiously, in the performance of its duty, inconvenience itself
and the Congress of the United States by delaying its effort to get
that information that the Congress and tlie Senate, at least, expected
this committee to develop.
I would be very glad to hear from my colleague on the committee.
He says he is not a lawyer, but we think we have a sense of right
and wrong without knowing the technicalities of law, so I will be very
glad to hear from my colleague.
Senator Mundt. I would like to say this, Mr. Chairman, to Mr.
Clinton : First of all, I support wholeheartedly the position which has
just been announced to you by the chairman that we should not jeopar-
dize the interests of your client by seeking to interrogate on matters
relating to the specific indictment which you have recited.
We have consistently followed the practice in the past when cases
of this kind do come up, of not asking questions with respect to the
objection raised by counsel which place their clients in jeopardy in
connection with an impending indictment.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 6553
I would like to point this out, also: That we have had witnesses
who, while they may not have confronted Mr. Sheti'ernian or his son
directly, have appeared before the committee as a matter of public
record, and you could have been in the connnittee room to hear what
was said. It would seem to me that if, as you stated, the two Shetfer-
mans have been embarrassed and their business is in a shambles and
they have been placed in the dock of public opinion in an unfavor-
able light, and if they are as innocent as your presentation leads me
to believe you believe they are, they should welcome an opportunity
to answer certain questions which we have in mind, which are entirely
unrelated to Mr. Beck and his financial affairs.
Mr. Clinton. Mr. Chairman, I do not want to press my luck.
You have been most gracious. But I do think that I ought to call
to your attention that a very substantial portion of the inquiry by
the representatives of the Department of Justice before the grand
jury in Tacoma dealt with the previous inte rogations of this com-
mittee.
I can say to you, sir, that it is my considered judgment that any
questions put here with respect to the activities of these people would
be similarly used upon trial in the criminal case. I might say, sir,
that I think that it would deal with a matter of motive, and it would
deal with matters whicli would be clearly within the scope of the
Government's proof upon the criminal trial.
I just want to add this, sir: I have the primary responsibility of
defending two men who stand indicted. I think this is a very seri-
ous and sacred responsibility for a member of the bar. I must say
to you that I insist, as these men's counsel, that they must not testify,
and if you feel to the contrary, sir, I am now advising them in your
presence and in the presence of Senator Mundt, that they should and
ought to claim their privileges under the fifth amendment of the
Constitution, so that thev will not interfere with or prejudice their
right to a fair and impartial trial.
The Chairman. Counsel has been very fair to the committee, and
we appreciate that. They have that privilege, of course, and they
may exercise it. As counsel knows, committees can set precedents
just as well as courts, and I hope we can keep this committee oper-
ating without any great inconsistencies in its rulings and in its pro-
cedure with respect to all witnesses who may come before it.
The Chair having stated his ruling, which has been agreed to by
the other member of the committee present, we will have to proceed.
The objections or the motion will be overruled for the reasons that
the Chair has stated. Again the Chair will instruct counsel not to
ask questions regarding the matters that were brought before the com-
mittee at the time when Mr. Shefferman testified before, except as to
those matters that we have been hearing testimony about during this
series of hearings.
I do not want to ask any questions, and the Chair will be prepared
to rule if any are asked that might or that the Chair can see, at least,
have any direct bearing upon the issues involved in the pending
indictment.
All right, Mr. Counsel, proceed.
89330 — 57 — pt. 16 21
6554 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. Kennedy. I am wondering, Mr. Shefferman, if there is any
correction you want to make in your testimony that j^ou gave the last
time that you testified here^
Mr. Nathan Shefferman. I respectfully decline to answer on the
grounds that my answer might tend to incriminate me.
Mr. Kennedy. For instance, regarding the relationship of your
company with the teamsters union, you first answered a question from
a member of the committee that your firm did very little negotiating
and actually had very little to do with labor unions as such, and what
you did was to go in and promote morale surveys, and things of that
typ^- ...
Now, according to our investigation, that is not a complete or truth-
ful answer, and I wondered if you wanted to change that at all.
Mr. Nathan Shefferman. 1 respectfully decline to answer on the
ground that my answer might tend to incriminate me.
Mr. Kennedy. Then, you were asked about whether you had han-
dled any negotiating yourself with the teamsters union, and you said
those matters were handled by company lawyers and you never
touched them, or never even got near them.
Now, is that a direct or truthful answer?
Mr. Nathan Shefferman. I respectfully decline to answer on the
ground that my answer might tend to incriminate me.
Mr. Kennedy. We have here a number of contracts and here is just
one as an example, signed by you, Nathan Shefferman, a contract
with the teamsters union.
The Chairman. This appears to be a contract between Carbonated
Beverage's Sales-Drivers, Lake County, Ind., and General Drivers,
Warehousemen, and Helpers Union, Local No. 142, an affiliate of the
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, and so forth.
The contract appears to be dated the 3d of September 1955, and bears
the signature nndev the words "Approved as to form." of Nathan
Shefferman.
The Chair presents to you this contract and asks you to examine
it and state if you identify it.
(The document was handed to the witness.)
Mr. Kennedy. The testimony that I am referring to that you gave
before is on page 1601 of hearings, part 5, March 27, 1957.
Mr. Nathan Shefferman. I respectfully decline to answer on the
grounds that my answer might tend to incriminate me.
The Chairman. First answer if you have examined the document,
Mr. Shefferman. You have examined the document ?
Mr. Nathan Siieiterman. I respectfull} decline to answer on the
grounds that my answer might tend to incriminate me.
The Chairman. The question is, have you examined the document.
I think that you can state yes or no as to that. That won't incrimi-
nate you.
Mr. Nathan Shefferman. Yes.
The Chairman. All right. But you decline to identify it on the
grounds that it might tend to incriminate you ?
Mr. Nathan Shefferman. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. Proceed.
May I inquire of the staff now, which member of the staff procured
this document and from where was it procured ?
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 6555
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Sheridan.
The Chairman. Mr. Sheridan, have yon been previously sworn ?
Mr. Sheridan. No, sir ; I have not.
The Chairman. Will you sit there at that chair there? Do yon sol-
emnly 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. Sheridan, I do.
TESTIMONY OF WALTER SHERIDAN
The Chairman. State your name and place of residence and your
business or occupation.
Mr. Sheridan. Walter J. Sheridan, Chevy Chase, Md. I am an
investigator with this committee.
The Chairman. Did you in the course of the performance of your
duties and your employment with this committee procure the clocu-
ment which you liave before you ?
Mr. Sheridan. I did, sir.
The Chairman. The Chair will state for the record that this is the
same document just presented to the witness, Mr. Nathan Shelf erman.
From whose file or from whose records did you procure this
document ?
Mr. Sheridan. This was procured from the records of the Carbo-
nated Beverages Co. in Lake County, Ind.
The Chairman. That document may be made exhibit No. 70 for
reference.
(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. TO" for refer-
ence and may be found in the files of the select connnittee.)
Mr. Kennedy. We have several others, Mr. Chairman, and they are
just cumulative, rather than adding anything, particularly.
The Chairman. You may go ahead. We will put a fair sample of
the documents in the record.
Mr. Clinton. May I say, Mr. Chairman, that as I understand it, in
a personal interview with members of your staff, Mr. Shefferman made
some corrections of his memory on his testimony here. For the infor-
mation of the committee, Mr. Shefferman participated in 3 labor nego-
tiations, 1 in Dayton, 1 in Toledo, and 1 in Gary, Ind.
The Chairman. That is very nice, and we would be very glad Mr.
Sheff erman stated that.
Mr. Clinton. I have the problem of waiver, Mr. Chairman. I want
to say this: Tliat we are not reluctant to give the committee informa-
tion that they desire. I am reluctant to have him testify, sir.
The Chairman. I understand counsel's position, and I am not criti-
cizing counsel under the circumstances, but still we have to proceed
here to make this record.
Mr. Kennedy. These are the other contracts, Mr. Chairman,
The Chairman, Mr. Sheridan, I present to you a document which
is a memo agreement. This is a supplement to and part of the agree-
ment of November 18, 1953, copy of which is appended. This docu-
ment appears to have been signed by Mr. Nathan Shefferman, for the
association. It was made by and between the Retail Association, Inc.,
for and on behalf of LaSalle & Koch Co., with Lion Dry Goods, Inc.,
and Tiedkte's, Inc., and Lanson Bros., Toledo, Ohio, and for whom the
6556 IMPROPER AcnvrriES in the labor field
Retail Association, Inc., acted as bargaining agent. It is dated, I be-
lieve I stated, on November 18, 1953.
Where did you procure that document ?
Mr. Sheridan. I procured this from the files of the law firm of
LaSalle, Green, and I am not sure of the other name, in Toledo, Ohio.
The Chairman. That document may be made exhibit No. 71.
(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 71" for ref-
erence and will be found in the appendix on pp. 6653-6655.)
The Chairman. That refers to some 4 or 5 firms who were parties
to the contract.
Mr. Kennedy. Now, this document is signed by Nathan Sheffer-
man and Paul Styles on behalf of the Toledo stores. How long have
you known Paul Styles ?
TESTIMONY OF NATHAN W. SHEFFERMAN AND SHELTON SHEFFER-
MAN, ACCOMPANIED BY COUNSEL, STANFORD CLINTON— Resumed
Mr. Nathan Shefferman. I respectfully decline to answer on the
grounds my answer may tend to incriminate me.
Mr. Kennedy. According to the information we have, you were
instrumental in taking Paul Styles off the National Labor Relations
Board and getting him this job with the Toledo stores.
Mr. Nathan Shefferman. I respectfully decline to answer on the
grounds that my answer might tend to incriminate me.
Mr. Kennedy. You had felt prior to that and expressed yourself
to the effect that you felt that his decisions were too liberal and it
would be better to have him in private industry than to have him
on the Board.
Mr. Nathan Shefferman. I respectfully decline to answer on the
grounds that my answer might tend to incriminate me.
Mr. Kennedy. While he was on the Board, according to the records
we have, you purchased some $2,700.18 worth of goods for him.
Mr. Nathan Shefferman. I respectfully decline to answer on the
grounds that my answer might tend to incriminate me.
Mr. Kennedy. That is from 1948 through July of 1953, $2,700.18.
Mr. Chairman, Mr. Bellino will be able to put that into the record.
The Chairman. Let me make an inquiry here.
For my information, and the infonnation of Senator Mundt, Mr.
Styles was on what Board?
Mr. Kennedy. The National Labor Relations Board during this
period.
The Chairman. At the time these purchases were made?
Mr. I^JENNEDY. That is correct.
The Chairman. Do we have any record of his having repaid or
reimbursed Mr. Shefferman for them ?
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Salinger talked to Mr. Styles, and perhaps
he could give the answer.
TESTIMONY OF PIERRE SALINGER— Resumed
The Chairman. You have been previously sworn, Mr. Salinger.
Do you have any infonnation regarding these items as to whether
Mr. Shefferman was reimbursed for them by Mr. Styles ?
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 6557
Mr. Salinger. I contacted Mr. Styles and he told nie that he repaid
Mr. Shefferman for every item that he purchased, and he is digging up
the canceled checks and he is going to provide them to this committee.
The Chairman. All right.
Mr. Salinger. He has not as yet done so.
The Chairman. What does our information show as to when Mr.
Styles' services with the Board terminated 't
Mr. Salinger. They tenninated in August of 1953.
Senator Mundt. Is that statemnt by the staff member correct, Mr.
Shefferman? Did Mr. Styles repay you for the purchases you made?
TESTIMONY OF NATHAN W. SHEFFEEMAN AND SHELTON SHEF-
FERMAN, ACCOMPANIED BY COUNSEL, STANFORD CLINTON—
Resumed
Mr. Nathan Shefferman. I respectfully decline to answer on the
gi'ound that my answer may tend to incriminate me.
Senator Mundt. It seems to me that your answer would move in
just the opposite direction, and it would incriminate neither you nor
Mr. Styles if you could confirm what he has said.
Are you sure you want to leave it that way, that you can't answer
that question, whether or not the testimony — just a moment — whether
the testimony that you have heard is correct and whether, in fact, Mr.
Styles did reimburse you ? Can't you say yes or no to that ?
Mr. Nathan Shefferman. I respectfully decline to answer on the
grounds that my ansvv-er might tend to incriminate me.
Senator ]Mundt. The answer you have given tends to incriminate
him, and I don't know what it does to you.
Mr. Kennedy. Also, Mr. Shefferman, in your testimony when you
were here before, you stated that less than 10 percent of the clients
that you had had anything to do with labor or labor disputes.
According to our analysis, a far higher percentage involved labor
and the efforts to keep labor unions out of companies. I wonder if
you want to clarify that figure at all.
Mr. Natpian Shefferman. I respectfully decline to answer on the
grounds that my answer might tend to incrimiinite me.
Mr. Kennedy. I would like to ask you about some specific cases,
but before I do we had Mr. Bachman who was retained by you and
worked for you for a period of time, and he testified before the com-
mittee that this procedure of setting up a vote "no'' committee, and
the rotating committees, was taught by j^ou, and the reason or purpose
was to defeat and bust unions.
I wonder if you could tell us anything about that ?
Mr. Nathan Shefferman. I respectfully decline to answer on the
grounds that my answer might tend to incriminate me.
Mr. Kennedy. Is that the type of lessons that you taught your
employees; to go out and tell employers how to bust miions or keep
plants from being unionized ?
Mr. Nathan Shefferman. I respectfully decline to answer on the
grounds that my answer might tend to incriminate me.
Mr. Kennedy. He said that he told you at that time that these
procedures and practices were in violation of the Taft-Hartley Act.
Mr. Nathan Shefferman. I respectfully decline to answer on the
grounds that my answer might tend to incriminate me.
6558 IMPROPEiR ACTIVITIES IN THE' LABOR FIELD
Mr. Kennedy. I would like to ask Mr. Slielton Shefferman some
questions.
The Chairman. All right ; Mr. Shelton Shefferman.
Mr. Kennedy. I want to ask him about the Whirlpool Co., which
I believe he has some information about, and the arrangements made
in Whirlpool- Clyde to have Dr. Checov go to Whirlpool, and operate
a so-called human equation test.
What can you tell us about that ?
Mr. Shelton Shefferman. I respectfully decline to answer on the
grounds that my answer might tend to incriminate me.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you make arrangements for Dr. Checov to go
down there ?
Mr. Shelton Sheffer]vian. I respectfully decline to answer on the
grounds that my answer might tend to incriminate me.
Mr. Kennedy. Was Dr. Checov's purpose in going down there to
work to keep the union out of the plant ?
Mr. Shelton Shefferman. I respectfully decline to answer on the
grounds that my answer might tend to incriminate me.
Mr. Kennedy. Now, Mr. Walter Patterson, when he was w^orking
for Whirlpool, spent in a short period of time some $10,000 in expenses.
Could you tell the committee anything about that ?
Mr. Shelton Shefferman. I respectfully decline to answer on the
grounds that my answer might tend to incriminate me.
Mr. Kennedy. It was also suggested, as we understand it, by you
that Whirlpool institute a company union, and you gave them a plan
as to how they could go about that operation.
Would you tell us about that?
]Mr. Shelton Shefferman. I respectfully decline to answer on the
grounds that my answer might tend to incriminate me.
Mr. Kennedy. ^AHien there were some charges of unfair labor prac-
tices brought that would involve Dr. Checov, it was you, as we under-
stand it. who arranged for Dr. Checov to go up to Canada. Is that
correct ?
Mr. Shelton Shefferman. I respectfully decline to answer on the
grounds that my answer might tend to incriminate me.
Mr. Kennedy. You assured him at that time that his salary would
continue, and that his expenses would be paid while he was in Canada.
Mr. Shelton Shefferman. I respectfully decline to answer on the
grounds that my answer might tend to incriminate me.
Mr. Kennedy. Since our investigators have contacted Dr. Checov
in Canada, have you personally been in touch with him ?
Mr. Shelton Shefferman. I respectfully decline to answer on the
grounds that my answer might tend to incriminate me.
Mr. Kennedy. And when yon were in touch with him, didn't you
tell him that he should stay in Canada : that we couldn't touch him up
there?
Mr. Shei.ton Shefferman. I respectfully decline to answer on the
grounds that my answer might tend to incriminate me.
Senator Mundt. Are you in fact paying him a salary to hide out
in Canada now ?
Mr. Shelton Shefferman. I respectfully decline to answer on the
grounds that my answer might tend to incrirninate me.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 6559
Senator Mundt. Well, I listended with a lot of rapt attention to
the advice we received from Mr. Clinton, and not being a lawyer
I respect his judgment in that field because he has been in the law
business longer than I have.
I would like to be equally solicitous with you, sir, and to say that
while I respect your judgment in the field of law, I think that I have
had perhaps more experience in the field of committee investigations
and public reactions to them tlian you have. So in the same friendly
spirit of solicitude, may I say that if you are really interested, as I
am sure you are, in the impact of public opinion upon your clients, I
think they would be much better advised if they would answer some
of these questions directly instead of incriminating themselves over
and over and over again as they are doing this afternoon in the area
of public opinion by failing to answer questions where the reticence
indicates that were they to answer they would be incriminating them-
selves because of some illegal or improper practice,
Mr. Clinton. I would have to
Senator Mundt. I make that motion to you, as you made your
motion to us.
Mr. Clinton. I, of course, will have to defer to your judgment on
the matter of public relations. I am not a public relations expert.
However, I have the primary responsibility of defending men under
indictment.
The Supreme Court of the United States on many occasions has said
that the claim of the fifth amendment is a claim intended to shield
on many instances innocent men. My problem is to defend these men,
and I come from a long line of cowards. I don't want to sacrifice any
of their rights, or any of their benefits, that they are entitled to under
the law.
I cannot cope with public opinion, and I cannot control it, and I
cannot deal with it. If you sa}^ that it is bad public relations, sir,
I have to acquiesce in your judgment, sir.
The Chairman. All right, Mr. Counsel.
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Shefferman, I want to ask you about the arrange-
ments made at the Dayton warehouse, when those negotiations were
taking place. Do you know anything about that '?
Mr. Shelton Shefferman. I respectfully decline to answer on the
grounds that my answer might tend to incriminate me.
Mr. Kennedy. As I understand it, the Dayton warehouse was hav-
ing difficulty negotiating a contract with the teamsters union. Isn't
that right, and you people were representing the Dayton warehouse ?
Mr. Shelton Shi^^fferman. I respectfully decline to answer on the
ground that my answer might tend to incriminate me,
Mr. Kennedy. And the Dayton Warehouse Co. was struck by the
teamsters in Dayton, Ohio, is that right, and you arranged thi'ough
telephone calls to Mr. Larry Steinberg to have Mr. Larry Steinberg
come to Dayton, Ohio ?
Mr. Shelton Shefferman. I respectfully decline to answer on the
grounds that my answer might tend to incriminate me.
Mr. Kennedy. And while Larry Steinberg came to Dayton, Ohio,
he took over the negotiations ; did he not ?
Mr. Shelton Shefferman. I respectfully decline to answer on the
grounds that my answer might tend to incriminate me.
6560 IMPROPEK ACTIVITIES IN' THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. Kennedy. While Mr. Steinberg was in Dayton, Ohio, did you
make arrangements to have his hotel bill paid there?
Mr. Shelton Shefferman. I respectfully decline to answer on the
grounds that my answer might tend to incriminate me.
Mr. Kennedy. According to our information, the hotel bill of Mr.
Steinberg was paid by LRA ; isn't that correct ?
Mr. Shelton Shefferman. I respectfully decline to answer on the
grounds that my answer might tend to incriminate me.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you also have some further financial deals with
Mr. Steinberg ?
Mr. Shelton Shefferman. I respectfully decline to answer on the
grounds my answer might tend to incriminate me.
Mr. Kennedy. Would you look at this and tell us what this is ?
The Chairman. I hand you here a document, a photostatic copy of
a document bearing the signature of Shelton Shefferman, 75 East
Wacker Drive as the address. It says "To National Boulevard Bank
of Chicago," dated July 30, 1956, and its instruction says —
Buy and in my name and as agent for me, the following described securities
at the price and within the time stated for my account, $10,000 United States
Treasury bonds, 2i/4 percent, 6/15/72-67, at market.
I hand you here this document and it says —
And charge to account of Nathan Shefferman. Deliver to discount department.
I ask you to examine this photostatic copy and state if you iden-
tify it.
(The document was handed to the witness.)
Mr. Shelton Shefferman. I respectfully decline to answer on the
grounds that my answer might tend to incriminate me.
The Chairman. That document may be made exhibit No. 72.
(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 72" for ref-
erence and will be found in the appendix on p. 6656.)
The Chairman. I now hand you a photostatic copy of a notice of
maturity of note, dated January 31, 1957, a note in the amount of
$6,600, notice to L. N. Steinberg, 435 South Hawley, Toledo, Ohio,
showing that Mr. Steinberg had borrowed $6,600, and that there was
pledged for the security of this loan $10,000 in United States Treasury
bonds, 21/2 percent, 6/15/72-67. That is the date of the maturity.
I will ask you to examine that and state if you identify that document.
(Document handed to witness.)
Mr. Shelton Shefferman. I respectfully decline to answer on the
grounds that my answer might tend to incriminate me.
Tlie Chairman. That document may be made exhibit No. 73.
(The docimient referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 73" for identi-
fication and will be found in the appendix on p. 6657.)
The Chairman. I will ask you the question : Is it not true that
you bought the $10,000 in bonds and placed them as security for this
loan granted by the bank to Mr. Steinberg ?
Mr. Shelton Shefferman. I respectfully decline to answer on the
grounds that my answer might tend to incriminate me.
The Chairman. And was not Mr. Steinberg at that time — Wliat was
his position ?
Mr. Kennedy. I believe he is vice president of the Ohio Conference
of Teamsters and president of the Toledo Joint Council of Teamsters.
The Chairman. Did he not at that time occupy that position ?
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 6561
Mr. Shelton Shefferman. I respectfully decline to answer on the
grounds that my answer might tend to incriminate me.
The Chairman. If he did not occupy that specific position with a
labor organization, will you state what position he did ocupy ?
Mr. Shelton Shefferman. I respectfully decline to answer on the
grounds that my answer might tend to incriminate me.
The Chairman. Was that another favor that you were doing for
some labor leaders ?
Mr. Shelton Shefferman. I respectfully decline to answer on the
grounds that my answer might tend to incriminate me.
The Chairman. I now hand you a check made by the bank to Mr.
Steinberg on the date of June 3, 1956. The check is in the amount of
$6,448.20, apparently the amount of money Mr. Steinberg actually re-
ceived from the bank after the proper discounts were made in connec-
tion with that loan. I will ask you to examine that photostatic copy
of the check and see if you identify it.
( Document handed to witness. )
(The witness conferred with his counsel.)
Mr. Shelton Shefferman, I respectfully decline to answer on the
grounds that my answer might tend to incriminate me.
The Chairman. I think it may be observed, and you will agree, that
you have examined these documents as we have presented them to you ?
Mr. Shelton Shefferman. Yes, sir; I agree.
The Chairman. That may be made exhibit No. 74.
(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 74" for refer-
ence and will be found in the appendix on p. 6658.)
All right, Mr. Counsel.
Mr. Kennedy. I would like to ask Mr. Nathan Shefferman about the
Englander Co. You were retained by the Englander Co., Mr. Sheffer-
man?
Mr. Nathan Shefferman. I respectfully decline to answer on the
grounds that my answer might tend to incriminate me.
Mr. Kennedy. I understand, according to the testimony before the
committee, you made arangements to have Abe Lew bring in his union
into the Englander Co. prior to the time that the plant was opened
in Middlesex ?
Mr. Nathan Shefferman. I respectfully decline to answer on the
grounds that my answer might tend to incriminate me.
Mr. Kennedy. Can you give us any explanation for Mr. Louis Jack-
son's testimony regarding the bringing of the toy and novelty workers
into the Englander plant in Pittsburgh ?
Mr. Nathan Shefferman. I respectfully decline to answer on the
grounds that my answer might tend to incriminate me.
Mr. Kennedy. Then we had some interesting testimony here from
a Mr. Mike Katz regarding a $2,800 payment that he received from
you for standing outside the Englander plant in Brooklyn, N. Y., in
the morning and the afternoon to see if he could recognize any Com-
munists from the west coast going in or out of the plant. Can you
tell us anything about that ?
Mr. Nathan Shefferman. I respectfully decline to answer on the
grounds that my answer might tend to incriminate me.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you make any arrangements for Mr. Katz to
remove his pickets from the Englander plant out on the west coast?
6562 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. Nathan Shefferman. I respectfully decline to answer on the
grounds that my answer might tend to incriminate me.
The Chairman. Will you answer this question, Mr. Shefferman, for
our information : I had some serious doubts about the accuracy of the
testimony of the witness, Mr. Katz. There were two checks presented
to him which he identified, photostatic copies of checks, one dated
April 4, 1953, in the amount of $500, the other dated the same date,
April 4, 1953, in the amount of $2,300. He claimed that these checks
were given him, and that the only service he performed for them was
to go out to this plant on one morning and one afternoon and take a
look to see if he could identify any Communists there at that plant
that were from the west coast. It certainly sounded to me like it was a
most generous reward or compensation for such apparently slight
service.
The record remains that way, unless you are willing to correct it. I
can't conceive of you as a businessman paying out that much money
for that purpose, and for no more service than was rendered, because
he said he found no Communists.
Would you care to explain that and give us some information as to
what this money was really paid to him for, and what service he
rendered ?
Mr. Nathan Sifeffermax. I respectfully decline to answer on the
grounds that my answer might tend to incriminate me.
Tlie Chairman. Those checks, as I recall, have already been made
exhibits.
Mr. Kennedy. Yes.
Going on from that company to the INIorton Frozen Foods, do you
Imow ]Mr. George Faunce of the Continental Raking Co. ?
Mr. Nathan Shefferman. I respectfully decline to answer on the
grounds that my answer might tend to incriminate me.
Mr. Kennedy. Did yoti arrange for Mr. Faunce to have Mr. James
Cross send the bakery workers union into the plant in Webster City,
Iowa ?
Mr. Nathan Shefferman. I respectfully decline to answer on the
grounds that my answer might tend to incriminate me.
Mr. Kennedy. Do you know Mr. James Cross of the bakery union ?
Mr. Nathan Shefferman. I respectfully decline to answer on the
grounds that my answer might tend to incriminate me.
Mr. Kennedy. I understand that the contract involved there was
written in your office, according to testimony before the committee.
Is that correct ?
Mr. Nathan Shefferman. I res]iectfully decline to answer on the
grounds that my answer might tend to incriminate me.
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Shelton Shefferman, could I ask you about Sears
Roebuck Co., what information you have about the Sears Roebuck
drive up in Boston ?
Mr. Shelton Shefferman. I respectfully decline to answer on the
grounds that my answer might tend to incriminate me.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you know that a vote "no" committee was being
establislied there ?
Mr. Shelton Shefferman. I respectfully decline to answer on the
grounds that my answer might tend to incriminate me.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 6563
Mr. Kennedy. And payments were beiiio; made to the Sears Koebuck
Employees Council, which, according to Sears Roebuck, was the bar-
gaining; unit for the Sears Roebuck store ?
Mr. Shelton Shefferman. I respectfully decline to answer on the
grounds that my answer might tend to incriminate me.
Mr. Kennedy. And that the arrangements had been made to bring
the teamsters union in there also ?
Mr. Shelton Shefferman. I respectfully decline to answer on the
grounds that my answer might tend to incriminate me.
Mr. Kennedy. And that one of those who were interested in bringing
the teamsters union in had their car purposely wrecked so that it would
reflect on the Retail Clerks Union ?
Mr. Shelton Shefferman. I respectfully decline to answer on the
grounds that my answer might tend to incriminate me.
Mr. Kennedy. I understand that through Mr. Nathan Shefferman,
Mr. John Lind, who had been active for the retail clerks, received a job
with the Laundry Workers Union. Is that right, Mr. Shefferman?
Mr. Shelton Sih^fferman. I respectfully decline to answer on the
grounds that my answer might tend to incriminate me.
Mr. Kennedy. And that he then proceeded to work for the teamsters
union in this drive amongst the Sears Roebuck employees ?
Mr. Shelton Shefferman. I respectfully decline to answer on the
grounds that my answer might tend to incriminate me.
Mr. Kennedy. Would you tell us anything about the activities of
Mr. Louis Jackson in the New York area ?
(The witness conferred with his counsel.)
Mr. Shelton Shefferman. I respectfully decline to answer on the
grounds that my answer might tend to incriminate me.
Mr. Kennedy. Or Mr. George Kamenow in the Detroit, Mich., area ?
Mr. Shelton Shefferman. I respectfully decline to answer on the
grounds that my answer might tend to incriminate me.
Mr. Kennedy. We also had some slightly different testimony re-
garding the purchase of the land for the Teamsters Building over here,
Mr._ Shefferman, since you last appeared. The information that was
testified to before the committee was that the American Legion was
first asking $15 a square foot, and you made a suggestion that it be
increased to $18 a square foot, and then the money could be split be-
tween you and Shelton Shefferman and Mr. Beck and certain others —
if there is a correction in the testimony Mr. Shefferman can make it —
and these individuals refused to go along with this, and that ultimately
the building or the land was sold to the teamsters for $15 a square foot
rather than $18 a square foot, and then you approaclied the repre-
sentatives of the American Legion and asked them to tell the teamsters
that you were responsible for getting it down from $18 a square foot to
$15 a square foot, so that you would get a commission, and that you
thereby saved the teamsters $75,000, and, in fact, you did get a com-
mission of $12,000.
Can you tell us or give us any explanation of your activities in that
case, Mr. Shefferman ?
Mr. Clinton. Mr. Chairman, that transaction is directly involved
in the west coast indictment, sir.
The Chairman. The Chair can appreciate that it may be involved in
that and, of course, you will recall that there is testimony that Mr.
Beck actually received some of this money, and that could be in-
OotU IMPKOrb.K AOnViriKS in THK I.AKOH KIF.LD
YolvoJ in a oonspirnov Nvith Mr. Invk. rUoivfoio, tho C'hair will niKv
you do not havo to answer that question at this time,
Mr. Kknnvoy. The problem, of oourse. Mr. Chairman, is that Mr.
Shotlerman has testified when he appeared here before that he oave
$8.0tH^ to Mr. Heck shortly after this, withiit a month of the time that
he reoeived this 5^r2.000, and he stated at that rime that he eave it to
him just as a friend. Aoeordiuii' to what we developed before our
committee, theiv was some ditlerent reas^m for iiivino- it. 1 didn't
kttow whether he wanted to olarifv it at this time.
The Oii.viKMAN. If the w itness eloes not wattt to answer the question,
in view of the indietment that miiiht involve some of these funds as
a part of Mr. Invk's income, the C^hair will not insist on the witness
answeriitii-.
On that one. you may stale that you prefer not to answer it. if
you desiiv.
{ The witness conferivd with his counsel "I .
Mr, Kkxnki>v. I miirht ask ^[r. Sheltoii Shetl'ermai\ one other ques-
tiott: In counectioit with the Mennvl Co. in Ixiurel, Miss., accordinjr to
the iiiformation we have, some ^800 was spent bv you and others to
hire nonunion truckers to jro throtieh the picket lute tner a period of
a week or \0 days. Is that rijxht '.
Mr. SiiKi.TON SiiKFFV.KMAN. 1 rcspcctfuUy decline to answer on
the iirounds that my answer miijht tend to incriminate nte.
Mr. KriNXKin'. "We understand also that yon visited the Menneii
Co. duriniX li^.">o, is that riiiht t
Mr. SiiF.uivx SiiF.FFF.miAX. 1 respectftilly decline to answer on
the irrounds that n\y answer mioht tend to incriminate me.
^[r. lvF>sXKin". "What were you doina- there at that tiute. in that
companv t
^Ir. MiF.Livx SiiFFFF.KMAX. 1 rcspcctfully decline to answer on
the irromtds that my answer might tend to incrimiitate me.
Mr, IvEXNEin-. Mr. Chairman, there is another matter that I would
like to pttt into the record throuiih Mr, Bellino, and then ask Mr.
ShotTermait a couple of questions on it.
The CHAimt^vx. Mr. Bellino has been sworn. You may take the
stand, Mr. Bellino.
TESTIMONY OF CAEMINE S. BELLINO— Resumed
The CHATRAtAX. All riirht, Mr. Counsel.
^[r. IvFXXT.nY. Have yon made an examination of the i^ecords of
^fr. ShetTerman to determine the total amoiitu of purchases made by
^Ir. Shetferman, setiior, and junior, for certain individuals at cutrate
prices, wholes:\le prices ?
^Ir. Bfxuxo. Yes, sir. An examination has been made by myself
and othei^? on the statT.
Mr. IvFxxF.m-. Vnder your dii-eotion ?
Mr. Bfj.i,ixo. I'nder my diivction, yes. sir.
Mr. KFxxF-m\ Can yon tell the committee what the total amount
is for puivhases that were made by Mr. Nathan and Sheltoii Shetfer-
man for individuals t
^[r. Bf.i.i.ixo. Tlie total pnivhases for the peri^id fn^ni 104^ tluxiuirh
195t> aiTffreirated approximately ^78,451.70. Theiv were approxi-
mately 4-Jl various individnals'who puivhased ineivhandise through
IMPRIOPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 0505
Nathan SlKifrciTriaii. Of this imnihcr, af>i)roxirriat(',ly 05 have, been
i(leMtih(*(l as union oflicials, inchulin^ uni<jn attornc-ys.
Mr. Kknnkdy. What wouhl bo, af)proxiniately tFie discount rate that
Mr. ShoJfornian was able, to rw^cjvo?
Mr. Bkllino. We. understand tliat, he was ^iven in some cases 40
])(*rcent and in other cases less. W^', computed tliat if he had ^iveri a
discount of 40 percent from tlie actual retail cost, of the $178,4 51.71), it
would have been $770,419.05.
The CJiiAiH.MAN. r^et's see. You don't mean that tlie 40 percent was
on each item, do you ?
Mr. Bkllino. On that basis. ITsin^ a 20 percent fijj^ure, the total
retail cost would have been $508,004.74. In other words, usin^ the
lessei- figure, there is a savin<r of at least $1 10,01 2!. 05.
Mr. Kknneov. Split between these some 421 individuals?
Mr. Belli NO. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennkdy. 'Ilie greatest amount of number- and volume of pur-
chases were made by Mr. Dave Beck and his family ; is that right?
Mr. Bellino. Tliat is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. And we have already been into that matter.
Mr. Bellino. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. We Iiave selected, have we not, the purchases that
were made for individuals?
Mr. Bellino. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. And we have crjntacted a number of those individuals
to determine whether they in fact paid for these purf;hasfiS or whether
Mr, Shefferman paid for them ? Is that right ?
Mr. Bfxlino. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Would you tell the committee — on those on which we
could not get a complete explanation, would you tell the committee who
was the next highest after Mr. Dave lack's family ?
Mr. BfXLiNo. One of the next highest was John F. English, sex;re-
tary-treasurer of the international teamsters. The records shows that
for the period from 1048 through 1055, he purchased a total of
$10,611.50.
Mr. Kennedy. Have we spoken to Mr. English to try to obtain his
canceled cliecks for the purchases of these items ?
Mr. Bellino. Yes, sir. Mr. English has produced canceled checks
that he has available and they aggregate $14,221.75. On the balance
of $5,380.84 we have as yet no evidence for their actual payment.
However, Mr. English maintains, and he is willing to furnish an
affidavit to that effect, that he has paid for all merchandise which he
has obtained from Mr. Shefferrnan.
The Chairman. Were any of those payments made out of union
funds, those from Mr. English ?
Mr. Bellino. No, sir. One of the other large ones was Thomas
Flynn
Senator Mundt. Before we drop Mr. English, is he going to con-
tinue looking for other canceled checks and receipts for cash payments?
Mr. Bellino. Yes, sir. He is endeavoring to get the information
through his bank.
Senator Mundt. He contends he paid for everything?
Mr. Bellino. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. I thought in all fairness to Mr. English the record
should be made clear if it was not paid by union funds. I think in
80330 o— 57— pt. ic 22
6566 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN" THE LABOR FIELD
the case of Mr. Beck some large part if not all of the $95,000 was paid
in union funds.
Mr. Belling. That is right.
The Chairman. I didn't want to leave the record with any implica-
tion against Mr. English.
Senator Mundt. Did you find out from Mr. English how it hap-
pended that he had this extensive business relationship with Mr.
Shefferman ?
Mr. Belling. How it happened ?
Senator Mundt. Yes. What was his explanation? Do we have his
version in the record ?
Mr. Belling. As I understand it, it was a means where they could
buy merchandise at a discount, and every one was willing to take
advantage of Mr. Shefferman's generosity.
Senator Mundt. AVas Mr. Shefferman doing any favors for Mr.
English, or was it just a friendly relationship ?
Mr. Belling. Mr. English has indicated that he, has done no favors
for him, or either way.
Senator Mundt. Either way.
Mr. Kennedy. When did you first contact Mr. English regarding
this matter?
Mr. Belling. The first time we mentioned it to him was several
months ago, but we did not contact him again until, I believe, last
week.
Mr. Kennedy. And at that time he stated that he was turning over
all his canceled checks that he had in connection with this matter;
is that right ?
Mr. Belling. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. And he has turned over all that he has as of this
time ?
Mr. Belling. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. Now would you go on ?
Mr. Belling. Another one is Mr. Thomas Flynn. From 1948 —
1 might say Mr. Flynn is head of the Eastern Conference of Team-
sters. From 1948 through July 1955, with two additional purchases
in subsequent years, the total purchases amounted to $22,046.69. He
paid up to December 31, 1956, $18,593.35, and there was still owing at
the end of December 31, 1956, $3,453.34. From the time that this com-
mittee commenced its labor investigation until the present time, that
is, in 1957, Mr. Flynn has paid $3,058.44, leaving a balance still due
Shefferman of $394.90.
Mr. Flynn likewise claims — well, in this case he states the figures
are in accordance with his understanding, that the balance of approxi-
mately $400 is owed to Shefferman by one of his sons. He indicated
his son intends to pay the balance.
The Chairman, None of that was paid out of union funds?
Mr. Belling. None of this was paid out of union funds; that is
correct.
Mr. Kennedy. As I understand it, there was a charge account
arranged for Mr. Flynn at the Sears, Roebuck store in Indianapolis?
Mr. Belling. Yes, sir. I believe each month the bills that were in-
curred by Mr. Flynn at the Indianapolis store of Sears, Roebuck
would be sent to Shefferman for payment, and then Shefferman in
turn would bill Mr. Flynn.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 6567
Mr. Kennedy. On all the other charges that we have looked into,
we have received an explanation and an accounting that they have
been paid in full by the union official or union attorney involved;
is that right **
Mr. Belling. Those that we have received ; yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Or are of such a minor number or amount that we
didn't feel it was Worthwhile going into ?
Mr. Belling. That is right.
Senator Mundt. Mr, Bellino, all these names that you mentioned
so far have been teamster labor union officials. Do the records dis-
close the officials of any other unions ?
Mr. Belling. Yes, sir.
Senator Mundt. That is, who were using this means of purchasing?
Mr. Belling. There were a few from other unions, such as the
bakery union, and the carpenters union, various unions that were
using these services.
Senator Mundt. Were any of them in sizable amounts?
Mr. Belling. Not to this extent.
Senator Mundt. I don't think it is any better or any worse if it is
done by a teamster official, perhaps, than if it is done by the officials
of some other unions. The only evidence we have is that dealing
with teamster officials.
Mr. Kennedy. The others, I might say, were very minor amounts
in comparison with these. As w^e pointed out, there is some $470,000
of purchases.
Mr. Belling. With over 421 people.
Mr. Kennedy. We didn't feel it was right to bring in all of their
names. Some of them are very minor persons.
Senator Mundt. I understand, then, that there were no major
transactions, other than the ones you have mentioned ?
Mr. Belling. That is correct.
The Chairman. All right.
TESTIMONY OF NATHAN W. SHEFFERMAN AND SHELTON SHEF-
FERMAN, ACCOMPANIED BY COUNSEL, STANFORD CLINTON—
Resumed
The Chairman. Do you have anything further from these wit-
nesses ?
Senator Mundt. No, Mr. Chairman,
The Chairman. The Chair regrets very much that the circum-
stances are such that counsel representing the two witnesses before
us feels it is his duty to advise them as he has to invoke the fifth
amendment because of the indictment pending against him. It
would have been, I think, very helpful to this committee and very en-
lightening to the public, to the union members, and valuable informa-
tion to the Congress if we could have Mr. Shefferman's story, his full
story, at this time. I do not criticize counsel. I don't know what
I would do if I were in his place under the circumstances. But we
had hoped that the Sheffermans could come before the committee
and make a clean breast of the whole operation so that there wouldn't
be left any false implications as to what their practices have been.
6568 IMPROPER ACTIVmES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Under the circumstances, we will not pursue any further inter-
rogation. We have tried to give you ample opportunity, particularly
with respect to the testimony that has been developed here in the last
few days, and which we think has considerable significance, addresses
itself not only to the committee for its consideration, but possibly
even to the Congress for its action.
Is there anything further, Senator Mundt ?
Senator Mundt. Yes. I would like to ask Mr. Clinton whether the
date for the trial on this indictment has been set.
Mr. Clinton. Yes, sir. It has been set for April 14, 1958.
Senator Mundt. Would you care to advise the committee whether
it will be your position after the trial is out of the way. that you
think that Mr. Shefferman and Mr. Shetferman could then be honor-
ably advised by you to answer forthrightly the questions we have
asked them, or would the same position hold then ?
Mr. Clinton. May I say this. Senator Mundt: Prior to the indict-
ment, I don't think all the king's horses and all the king's men could
have prevented the SheflPermans from testifying. I am unable now
to answer your question categorically, because of the fact that the
situation is so dynamic and so fluid. If the situation after the trial
is as it is now, I would be of the opinion, sir, that they would testify.
Senator Mundt. Our committee is still going to be in being after
the 1st of April. So perhaps we can look forward to a return engage-
ment, but I hope not a repeat performance.
Mr. Clinton. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. You say that if it ha.d not been for the indictment,
Mr. Shefferman would have told what arrangements he made for
getting the $12,000, why he got the $10,000 from the teamsters and
only gave $15,000 to Mr. Pitzele. keeping $1,000, and the testimony
about these union-busting operations that he was teaching in his office
in Chicago?
Would you testify to all of that, Mr. Shefferman ?
Mr. Clinton. Mr. Kennedy, I can only tell you that in my confer-
ences with the Sheffermans, up to the date oif the indictment, their
plan was to appear before this committee and, under oath, answer
the ouestions responsively.
Mr. Kennedy. That was quite awhile affo, before we began the
investigation. Mr. Shefferman's testimonv before the committee was
less than frank. He didn't give the full accounting. We have it
documented here that he gave less than the full story regarding his
operations, in answers to Senator Ives and other members of the
committee. All the questions we have asked, with the exception of
one, have been on matters that have nothing to do with the indictment.
I question AA'hether Mr. Shefferman could come in here and answer
all these questions truthfully, even if he wasn't under indictment.
Mr. Clinton. Mr. Kennedy, may I say to you that some of the
answers that Mr. Shefferman gave at the first hearing were inaccurate.
They were not purposely inaccurate. They were lapses of memory.
The man was in a highly overwrought condition. I agree with you
that some of his answers were not accurate. However, he did intend
to tell the truth.
As you know, in private conferences with your staff, he gave correct-
ing answers. As you know, you have had complete custody and
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 6569
possession of his records for many months, most of which were re-
turned to us only a week or a month ago, and some of wliich you still
hold. You are entitled to your view, but I can only say to you that
that was his plan to come here — that wasn't necessarily my view of
what he should do — that was his plan, to come here and let the chips
fall where they may, and answer the questions of this distinguished
committee.
Mr. Kennedy. We would certainly appreciate it. But if he would
like to give an explanation of what happened in Whirlpool Clyde,
"Wliirlpool Marion, what happened in Sears, Roebuck, Boston, what
happened in Detroit, what happened in Flint, Mich., what Louis
Jackson was doing, all of these things, why he got the extra money
and kept it, all of these things would be revealing to me to get the
answers to. But to have him tell us "I would love to tell you, but I
am under indictment," doesn't make sense to me.
Mr. Clinton. I would like to say that I don't detect the problems
which perhaps you do, I don't detect the conclusions which you refer
to. The answers of the Sheffermans would be, I think, very reveal-
ing, and in many points in sharp conflict to other witnesses.
Mr. Kennedy. Don't you keep saying it. Let him say it.
Mr. Clinton. Mr. Kennedy, I am his counsel in a criminal case.
Until such time as that is disposed of, we are not free, as I see it, to
respond.
Mr. Kennedy. Then he refuses to answer these questions on the
grounds that a truthful answer might tend to incriminate him ?
Mr. Nathan Shefferman. I respectfully decline to answer on the
grounds that my answer might tend to incriminate me.
The Chairman. Is there anything further ?
This concludes this part of the hearing regarding activities of the
Sheifermans. I am going to make a statement, as has been our prac-
tice heretofore at the conclusion of a particular series of hearings.
However, following this statement, there are two other witnesses to
be heard this afternoon. This does not mean the immediate recessing
of the committee.
But I, in the past, have summed up the testimony that we have
heard, and have made some comments on it. This is a statement that
the Chair makes for the record today.
We have for the past 21^ weeks focused our attention on the activi-
ties of management. From the very inception of this committee it
has been one of our missions to look into the activities of manage-
ment as well as those of labor. We have developed testimony that
showed the effect of collusion between certain employers and certain
union officials on Puerto Rican workers in New York City. We have
considered the role of certain companies in the hearings that we have
held in connection with Dave Beck, Jimmie Hoffa, and James Cross
of the bakers union.
Representatives of Anheuser-Busch, Fruehauf Trailer Co., and the
Associated Transport Co., as well as smaller businesses, have ap-
peared before this committee.
In this particular series of hearings we have focused upon the
activities of Nathan W. Shefferman, a Chicago labor-relations man,
and his firm of labor-management experts who went about the coun-
try performing various tasks on behalf of management. In the
6570 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
course of our investigation, investigators for this committee person-
ally contacted, I am advised, some 92 clients of Labor Relations
Associates of Chicago. In addition, another 43 were contacted tele-
phonically. This represents a canvas of one-third of Shetferman's
clients. Our investigators report that of tlie 40 top-money clients of
Nathan Shefferman, 70 percent of them utilized tlie services of Labor
Relations Associates in fighting union organization. In at least 23
of the 40 cases, the work of Sliefferman's employees aided manage-
ment in keeping unions out of their plants or in installing friendly
unions. This contrasts sharply with the testimony given before this
committee last March by Mr. Shelferman liimself .
The activities disclosed before tliis connnittee reflect a great dis-
credit on some business firms in this country. They cannot adopt
the posture, as did some of the firms appearing here, that all this was
the doing of Mr. Shefferman and his agents. It is a fact tliat many
of these firms did not choose to repudiate or even frown on tlie activi-
ties of Mr. Shefferman until the public had been made aware of some
of his practices.
The evidence brought forth before tliis committee has clearly given
the Congress subject for study in the field of possible legislation.
There are questions raised from these hearings. Some of the questions
raised by these hearings are :
1. Are there present loopholes in the regulations covering the con-
duct of management and its agents during union organizing drives?
2. Are there sufficient laws currently on our books to deal with
businessmen who knowingly pay off sums of money to imion officials to
prevent or discourage unionization ?
3. Should there be new laws enacted to deal with the middlemen in
the labor-management profession, such as Mr. Shefferman?
One thing is made very clear by these hearings. When dishonest
management and dishonest labor-management consultants f^et to-
gether with dishonest labor leaders, it is the worker who suffers. The
signing of sweetheart contracts, or of top-down contracts, such as
those brought to light before this committee, result in poor working
conditions for the employees, and many times in their joining a union
not of their choice.
It has come as a profound shock to me to see men acting on behalf
of American business take the fiftli amendment before this committee.
I might say by way of interpolation that business is always harping
on the practices and activities of labor and labor officials in some areas,
and I had hoped and had expected that when we got into tlie area of
business activities, that business people would come before this com-
mittee and not hesitate to reveal what they knew. Rut we do find — I
think it has been illustrated or demonstrated by hearings tliat we are
now concluding — that there are instances in which some business
people are just as unscrupulous and engage in practices just as im-
proper as we have developed in some instances in labor.
It will be interesting to note whether business and management
deal with these men in the same manner in which the head labor
organization— the AFL-CIO— has indicated it Avill deal with those
within its ranks who have come before this committee and have taken
the fifth amendment or have been untruthful and have withheld the
full story.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 6571
In conclusion, I should like to say that it is elements of management,
some elements of management which must take the heavy blame for
the activities which have been unfolded before this committee. In
some instances it was the services which management desired which
created the need for Nathan Shetferman. It was management who
paid the bills for the activities of Nathan Shefferman, and it was
management which knowingly utilized the services of Nathan Sheffer-
man with no compunctions or regrets until the revelations in recent
months. They were aware of what they were doing and how^ their
money was being utilized. Tliese activities, as well as those of Nathan
and Shelton Shefferman, George Kamenow, Louis Jackson, and the
other employees of Labor Relations Associates, as well as those dis-
honest labor officials with whom they connived, should be strongly
condemned.
The Chair does not imply that all of Mr. Shefferman's clients are
to be reflected upon in any sense. I am sure he had clients who were
honest and reputable, decent American business people and members
of management, just as I have repeatedly said, one instance, or one or
a number of instances, maybe, where labor representatives and officials
of labor unions have gone astray and have done the wrong thing does
not reflect upon all of organized labor. So neither do the develop-
ments here reflect upon all businesses in the country. But there are
elements in both that are engaging in practices that should not be con-
doned. They should be prohibited and prevented. That, of course, is
the purpose of this committee, to develop the facts to get that infor-
mation so that the Congress may make use of it in arriving at the char-
acter and extent of remedial legislation that may be needed in this
field.
Thank you very much, gentlemen. You may stand aside.
In this connection, the Chair would like particularly to commend the
members of our staff, including the chief counsel, Mr. Kennedy, and
others who have worked so faithfully to help us get this information
so that it could be revealed in public hearings.
Other members of the staff are Mr. Walter Sheridan, Mr. Pierre
Salinger, Mr. Carmine Bellino, Mr. Irwin Langenbacher, and Mr. Carl
Schultz, Jack Thiede, Robert Bacchus, Wallace Stutz, and Bob Frew,
and George Meyers, and all of the GAO in Chicago and Mr. Edgar
Parkhurst of Hartford, Conn., who has splendidly cooperated with
the committee.
I do not offer indulgence in commending the committee staff. I
know that they w^ork hard, and I have found them to be conscientious,
but I would like for the public to realize and understand that except
for a good staff' and a devoted staff and a competent staff that go out
and dig up this information and get it in shape and coordinate it to
where it can be presented with some continuity so as to present the pic-
ture and the facts as they are, this committee and almost all other con-
gressional committees would not be able to perform their functions,
certainly not as thoroughly and as efficiently as we are sometimes able
to do by reason of their services.
Sometimes, it is the members of the committee that get the commen-
dation from the public, but I think staffs of committees who are faith-
ful in their services should have that recognition.
6572 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIEiLD
The committee will stand in recess until Tuesday morning next at
10 o'clock.
(Committee members present at time of recess: Senators McClellan
andMundt.)
(Whereupon, at 5 : 40 p. m., the committee was recessed, to reconvene
at 10 a. m. Tuesday, November 12, 1957.)
APPENDIX
Exhibit No. 33
•On •• * ♦
•••••%
3
43
^
cc
• •%:
t.
c:
i3
o
•«-«
TJ
b.
H-
^
3
CE
^S
O
ni
g
C
•if?
s
u
"/MU^ /-i*i^
p<'
• • •
6573
6574 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIEfLD
Exhibit No. 34
BX-CHiCAG)
J III Iwtui fciHliSiiili
CASHIER'S OCPT.
M iMfk CD«^ Cturif l«i
x-t 3 x-1
AP3 6 1953
.-> -^
Y
O
a:
^x -
en "^vto
cz "
a
c:
IMPR'OPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 6575
Exhibit No. 36
Ob** ^••^
MPnMfll Mt, 1191
On 9*r *iMit«r 5Ui iMt. all 1m«1 «■*(»■>■ la %lMi titlMrtw ^Mrf^i'tfl— Cvltk ««•
t.on c' tm fettcA local «nlet! tMroacli MW «14 w% VMi^vt (mUm cf %M» aMtltti
bt «•• <n«^li*d tefort MfsUsUaM •twr««l) ■»% la Ofctaf , IUImI*. Tivy *»«•<
v? «-e«|»t ut« c9ii<MMi7't erf*r of m Iimm— « ftf flw mmHm par ifeMr «a aMlUM «•
ribtting Into mtt*«\ vm iWMlon plM MiliaMl la Wm fMraaaHl agrwHaM%* flw a>ef
t«rv«, rMMwr, ««• ;ontfUio<Mid sa vMUmt Um ■wraay wmVi acaa^ a aaakar af 4»-
■sundt 11 t«d twl-w. k mmW e<n«MiitMi M»% vtlii tte* mmpimf r»or*a««tattvaa Um
r^ \am\n§ da/. T^ l<Hr«nd« fHrfarratf ta alwuw wd tiM aawfiaay'* aMwara follmi
'r Tn ';'«-.r*etton mth pi «o*<4tortar« i Uiara 1* • cmtaiMil ocHn:>laiitt taai Uw
<»»t-io<) of '^a'^wnt for «•«•• oA, bolidajni, aatni^ Um, •%«., has baaa eh«nfwi to
»n« l«ariTant«fa ^.f tn«M acrtvr*. Ttwy aalr tb«t »a|a«nt frr Ui« purpcM* ••*.
fort^ ba D«V(t '^n «iw baala of awrafa aaumlaf*, ^n ne avvnt laaa tMn Usa 4ail/
i^r i»»a»lj • Imup T'Tantaa.
UnwHir 'N» co«mn7 airraat. ?»• 9<wfmiig alao arrvaa t ■•• th« MMa •ttvxJ for
■ •/ ilr-»n . •i'»ll<l«T filla ofi • ^tvrday.
' "^'m t)r«-M^« '* ♦Mi cMoany It t^ apllt tha jrataf n par* r", ona part In
».,-«iwr »'** -5-i# '»<irt * I- i»^nt«r. Tha lorala tak Ihit ▼•-••' -^ns ha erlvan In Uia
<i„-tiM»r ' r, • -rat'ntt«»ta baala.
»r ^*»r "^ » "*-\y r^pofnlaaa that tha arllt va^a*. ♦ -n narlo' n-^^af'tt • rroHat*
^. •> €i> t.'»« ** rk^rt a-v* t-r tha C'*«»'>anjr. Th» <- .•-r«ny li'll ***»1> t^.♦ -attar thor-
.»4»".if ♦'^ f^nfi a «! Ivt'on tc tha arUt ^a-afin w'»h-r.,it surtln* ♦•» --tanya
«' • • *.■■• "i*"n»«'n pr»^ctton.
*»■•«♦ '.-laia ^artr^f tr« «k <r1»ara aak trwit tn* r rata >m r^i'.aad to U»a prava-
'"-• *'v*»'a rata ^n um araa.
Aru>w«r; A ■t.'ij vtU ba waaa* Ti la r«eefnlsad ^ Xtm '^'wpanjr tJiat thla danaai
n .' " - t •<,l*.lo« alU ha f,\k0ti at a latat- •lata.
Tf\m aantorlty elattaa tr ^ atapltrtatf tc thai la tha avant rf a proawiion,
•>. ?«' .< -Mn ka paralttarf te bi4 for thai poaiyoa, mmI that tt ha <)\tt1nrllf
uadarttriod that no ami awplo^aa aaa M4 for aaali >»b antil iw foaa nu tha tan orttjr
ll«t aftar «0 4a3«.
Annwri Tha o-
*n r-»r«rafio« i« pi*«« mr«Mrai It la nupaaiaa thai ihaf rmtat aan^ariijr in '><:
li/a a'K'. tiwrafora, «ra anililad ir iha falDf rata ai tt»t t:jia, ant not 120 dajra
after Mrlijf,
inswart Tha aoawmy «nll aeaaf% «^ grlavaaBa arlataf aai of «aia a^wA-la aa4
^.tl proiB|»U7 adjuat aay tnfalrtaaaa iat Mgr ipltfn .
6576 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Exhibit No. 36 — Continued
r«e«tiF« «IM Mgtar r«%i «l
UmI MiMa cute.
to—If* t*»
I««MM tii«lr vlMit Mi •«wr flaw t* 1H« «■■ talMMp t* Vvtr MM* ■■ •
J^ T^<l^^^^^ sm at^* thai • dtMly kt «•!• •# IMS
4MNmr t TIN •iii»wr ■prim te Im* iai* llifta
(2) TS« teUlb piMf rmimtt vm fw%t— «f • telr r««» fir «K« v-pm ■•«.
imwfrt T)w sow^qy will Uak Ifll* «M »»%■» tevav^l/.
^nd "«", and &1m potniai •■« «i*v« ar* ■• •aplav*** u«»w ***.
4n«wr( 1%* >owrmy «iU «ftfMlt MU a%— <iwi«
•nt trp«« of V>tt, %*• l«a«l Mka «M« %!»/ rmmiw fVll er*«i< t rrr wMl*a ••rnad,
•rvj iKat th«7 trMll Mt m.t9mr My raiMUo* la pay «tw?t tr«iMr«rT«i fVwi «w
or«rat*on to anotUvr.
^<^) ChlcAfo, lUlrwl*, r9^mw%a Wai% ftmj b* Amirlatotf vtth • wi»> imaBi Mart.
'^^ Rnrti^NB, ni>Ma, Miili Ui> iififblM U Mistataiag • »«pmc mm»U-
4«tMl IMllMI t* «M »1LM%«
(T) St. LokU,
Aw—r* tte II jMl «tU •«i% «M« #«Mlt(
'fl) In Am, IMm, wmM tttn • iwl<M «f «• AmmttUtmrnm U liiH
CUtM tMrt arc «*«■* rtwaflMll—.
^iSSi U alU fe» mm m tto !«•& ItMl.
(I)
<t«t« ta mtm U mmmmiMjf
twm— to «Mi
IMPRIOPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 6577
Exhibit No. 36 — Continued
k-mmt I TtM msmi>*tff ••?«•« -Mia* «M« will tai 4i»«.
ni) iMteii, HMMMlMMiM mm iM»i«t tyvt** i« iiiwtlwi «ft«li fi.ii— mti%»n t«
tot vcrHnc mXt Workvr* MHpUi* It U Imw M.(|M.
f-if^n Thr eo«|!i«R7 will cNwlt tlii* MfMrilatril*
'1?) ■'im'.nfiMM, UataM - tha '-^.tWfta^MHi Xm«1 ft*mXi r«a«lT« tli« mm m all
••■ -..• r^» rtt t»i# loral cn'rtiM •! tft* »«»»t!»f p»f»rr«i *« •h©** »«»jM »ii«ii1i.«io*i« Ijr
«,- ■ ■ . ■'♦^'«- r, V •(--•r* ~r r«-*et * tl b« «* tJi* b*iiia ef ?jw •»«i<^r'»7 o ' Urn \:srt,\
• 1 fir* nrr<cx»»*'' ""r w •'*'-\mmmi
a
tool ijp --" ■ ,"^*^' '*' "^ -T"' ' / »^"^^t ^9 %r ro^r 'imm>*r9^*'-\";*3~ *-r
l;^;;^^!^: vi^M^icnTrX ii !;tibw\ T'wg, ' ^ ~
V« »'«<t «o<l Vi*?. •< •* t(n«»# l»ipro*«p«»(Si* -^mf total fm'.n* »t ttA a fr", », %r> '.ha ?nd
|»*r - ' 'Na c.p'r*-?, ml < 1 •'^r^«l«iatai ?1#. Thla !• Bii-^'^nt pr-»^r»»» 'n '.^a : i »tit
^ - . . < . ♦ 1, .., . ■ .,,< ^^ ^,5 ♦^^l f1#l- , ^^ at: !••»» of . r .f— •: • --.■.» sift^i
-iKlia iotiDa^jr «1U Justify fi.r*„-»*>r '• «t.
• ' . t an<i«a 12 •ontJMi ^tmn^m .
3, « ftefa, *f»»'r*«an
C«fvfar»f»ea ^f t'i<l».».'ar Loral*
ial'-^fw.
L,>oai» •?, ?o«, >», jn, rm» *it. 6J*, 4»^» nb, ■%«, fs*. ««»•
6578 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIEtLD
Exhibit No. 37A
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 6579
Exhibit No. 37B
8
^. 8
— • .-»
i ^ '
.y^"
^^ '^t.
^^^.
_
6580 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Exhibit No. 38
I -»■
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 6581
Exhibit No. 39
6582 IIVTPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIEILD
Exhibit No. 43
H^
...^ ^ - c-pp^
John A Wyckoff '
t '
9 Burch Drive
Harris Flai2iti,^'^.J.
MO-14-6770-M
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Exhibit No. 44
6583
r .la^JJIj
■■K
•■'
u •- "'It.
• • • ••
• ••
• ; •
• • •
] X
-a-?«r'0"-^sis!r' q
6584 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Exhibit No. 45
nrrsuuiTiaMAL bbothirhood of TKAiersRs, chauffers,
WiLRSHOUS.'miJ kXD miFSRS OF AMERICA
v^ i. Affiliated with th« Ajwrlcan F»<l«r»tlari of Ubor
V X ^nd th« Detroit and Wigrne County F«d«r»Uon af Labor
WCkL UMIOH NO. 299
271il Trumbull ATsnuB Detroit 16, Michigan
UOCkL 376
10-1-767?
April 8, 195U
Otto OraXf, Inc.
Flint, mchi^an.
Oontik^iMni
Dear Sirt
Pleaee be advised that «c har» been designated
authorised bargaining Agents by your majority salusae:..
le apfpreciate an appointaent at your earliest con-
▼lanoe to discuss oonti'aot tents.
I thiak this will be Butualljr benefiaial.
8liKHnr«ljr fo^tn.
■enry Lover
BiM loess Ageot
vUkp
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 6585
Exhibit No. 46
(general cJUrlverA ijniony oLocal 332
international Brotherhood of T»amtt«rs, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen & Helpers of America
Affiliated with tha American fSum* « ttti
FederoHon ef Lobof , ,« ^ ,,..4^ *,..
♦ Him J. MICM.
ClAUOf SUTTON, S«cr«»«ry-Tr»a*ur«r and Buiineti Agent
April 22, 1964
Otte P. &raff , lao.
913 South Sa«ljiav
flint, Klchlgan
&entleBeni
Xindly be adrleed that the aajorlty of the ■atoBobila
■aleemeB eaployed by Otto P. Graff, Inc., are aov aeabera of
Local 332 of the International Brotheziiood of Teaaetere,
Chauffeurs, Warehoueeaen and Helpers of Aaerica and hare dee-
Ignated Local 5S2 aa their bargaining agent.
Mr. Henry Lover, Baeinees Agent for Local S76, haa
gr«ciouel7 bonoz<ed oar olaia to Jnriediction and hae trans*
f erred Local 376' • Beaberehipa of eoae of your aaleeaen to
Local 332.
loar eaployeee are within their legal rights la JoialBf
a labor union, and yoa are hereby eautioned to refrain fr<»
diaoharging or dlBoriainating against any eaployee beeause of
his union aotlTity.
To aroid ^1a| oited for unfair labor praetioes before
the National Labor Helatloaa Board, you are further eaationed
not to interfere with, question zvgarding, restrain, intimidate
or coerce any eaployee in the exeroiaiag of his right to Join,
a union.
7ou are vartied aot to atteapt to doainate or iaterfere
vith the formation or adaiaistration of this organisation and
you are further warned to oease and dssist in entsring into any
contract or agreement with any labor oxiaaitation or assooiatiom
other than Local 332, Oeaeral Brivars aad Helpers Uaion.
6586 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Exhibit No. 46 — Continued
Ljetteral cJUriuers i4niony rJLocul 332
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen & Helpers of America
Affillfrtcd with ih* Amvrkan Mma* «.$•«*
P«d*ratiofi of labor lu i. roM^M* *y>
HINT t. MICM
CLAUDf SUTTON, S«cr«tory-Tr«a»ur*r and KutinaM AganI
Otto P. drmtt, Ino. Page 2 April 22, 1964
If no retponse to this letter ie reoelTed hj the writer
within forty-eight (46) houre, it will be oonelderwd en erold-
aaoe of the ieeue, and a petition will be filed with the National
Labor Relation Board.
Thanking 70a in adranoe for your cooperation in this aatter,
I remain,
SlBoerely youra ,
OQ<ERAL DRIVERS UMION , LOQAL #352
C^^/ // /U4/u/^-f'
Frank H. Ilerdorf, Oenfrral Orgaalter
/ba
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 6587
Exhibit No. 47A
Labor Relations Associates
of Chioigo, Inc.
75 Emc Wicker Drive, Chicago 1, liUnoit
TlLErHOHE CSttnAi. 6-2160
Jaa« 50. 195*^
Ott« P. Oraff. lae.
913 S. SaciaMr Str««t
niat. Mloki«aa
Rtt&iatr f»« for th« aeatli of July. I95H $ 25O.OO
Dliburt«»oBti for tho aonth of Jtmo, 195^ 1.6^.13
$1,S9^.13
6588 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Exhibit No. 47B
Labor Relations Associates
oi Chicago, Inc.
75 East Wacker Drive, Chicago 1, Illinoi*
TELEPHONE CEhfTKAL 6-21^1
Joa* 30, 1955
Ott© p. Oraff, Inc.
913 8. 8««iaav Str««t
niat. Mlchlfan
l«t*lji«r f«* for Xhm aoath of July, 1955 $100.00
DisVar»«i«ntt for tlio Month of Joko. 1955 500.OO
$600.00
1.','
^IT^I
t)^
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
6589
Exhibit No. 47C
Labor Relations Associaies
of Chicago, Inc.
75 East Wacker Drive, Chicago 1, IllinoU
TELEPHONE CENTRAL 6-2160
July 31. 1955
Otto p. C^raff, inc.
313 S. SacloMr Str««t
rii&t, Michl«u
S«t*.ln«r tmm for tho aonth of Aoc^ui^f 1955 $100.00
BialmraMiMLto for tho aonth of July, 1955 500.OO
$600.00
I
V „ .
^1
cV' -'^ V V^'
6590 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Exhibit No. 47D
Labor Relations Associates
of Chicago, Inc.
75 East Wacker Drive, Chicago 1, Illinois
TELEPHONE CEntral 6.2160
in^«t 31, 1955
otto p. Oraff. Inc.
913 S. S««lnAW Street
Flint 3. Mlchi^can
Retainer fee for the Bonth of Serpteaber. 1955 $100.00
Diebxiree«enta for the aonth of lu^uet. 1955 500.00
$600.00
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 6591
Exhibit No. 47E
Labor Relations Associates
of Chicago, Inc.
75 Ea»t Wacker Drive, Chicago 1, IlUnots
TELEPHONE CEnthal 6.2J60
••pt»«^«r 30. 1955
Otto ?. Sr*ff, Inc.
913 Soatk S^lajiw Str««t
niat. Miahl£ma
H«t&la«r f«« for th« aonth of Octot«r. 1955 $100.00
Diebar««B«Bt« for the ■oath of S«pt«ib«r, I955 300-00
$itQ0.0O
1^
V
M
^ ^ ^ /
6592 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Exhibit No. 47F
Labor Relations Associates
of Chicago, Ir.
() c.i-i U'ackcr Drive, Chii^iit' i. l.ai.Di*
TELErHONE CEntkaL t-llr^
r»c-EbT 31. 1955
Otto p. Graff, Iacorporat»d
913 South Sa^aaw Str»<»t
niat. Mlehigaa
B«ttala«r f»e for th" Bonth of January, 1956
Dltburi««*nt« for tr.» aonth of D«c*«bT, 19^5
,6^'
A
$100.00
iy).00 </c /^
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 6593
Exhibit No. 47G
Labor Relations Associates
of Chicago, Inc.
75 E««t Wacker Drive, Chicago 1. IllinoU
TELEPHONE CEnthal 6-2160
ixaam 30, 1956
Otto P. draff, Ixw,
913 Sooth S«clAa» Str*«t
Fllat, Mlehlgan
R«t«in«r fM for tb« aonth of Jolj, 1956 $75*00
DUbttr«»»«nt« for th« «onth of June, 1956 450.OO
Balanc* du« od involco rendered May 31, 1956 72 ^a??
$1,250.97
^b/
6594 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Exhibit No. 47H
Labor Relations Associates
of Chicago, Inc.
75 East Wackcr Drive, Chicago 1, Illinois
TELEPHONE CENTRAL 6-2160
Uec'iiy '
91? South Saf-'naw Street
Flint, Micyiigan Jtr*=ret
■ ''.:.^ncr fee for the month of January, 1957 $75.00
Balance due m\ liwolce rendered November 30, 1956 70Q,0Q
$775.00
^
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 6595
Exhibit No. 48A
6596 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Exhibit No. 48B
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Exhibit No. 48C
6597
♦rm ■«»-.«- 1»
6598 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Exhibit No. 48D
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Exhibit No. 48E
6599
I. -
i
i.
'i
»
6600 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Exhibit No, 48F
Z* «,
— t>
- e"^
< t.s
<
a.
z * I
r - J
'/ i ^•
in ^>,
z ^1
N
U
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Exhibit No. 48G
6601
6602 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD
Exhibit No. 48H
•^-iii«3K2»
:«N
r
iin
.''r u
to
.W
1^ (
S^'
^
i
i
a
M in
CM
< CO
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Exhibit No. 49
6603
y
O
«a -
3 o
£c#5
Vt* 8
• * I
IB r* lAbor B«l«tioiui Ai«o«i«t«8f- a«or«s» I*fflwww
6604 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE' LABOR FIELD
Exhibit No. 50A
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 6605
Exhibit No. SOB
6606 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Exhibit No. 50C
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 6607
Exhibit No. SOD
6608 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Exhibit No. 50E
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 6609
Exhibit No. 50F
6610 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Exhibit No. 50G
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIETiD
Exhibit No. 41A
6611
'4 • • •
oc
•<c
«»
o
•u;
CD
4
l^^
X
-J
r
v_J
« •
• • •
«••••*
• • •
6612 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD
Exhibit No. 51B
• . • t'
> 3
* ^■ »
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 6613
Exhibit No. 51C
• *
» •
• • • •
• • »
m
• ♦ •
• «
» • •
6614 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Exhibit No. 51D
.• •
<
3 ■< »
• /J
i
• •••.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 6615
Exhibit No. 51E
» • »
• • •
• • •
, • • •
•• • •
• • •
• • <
^ 5c *■'
2 2 ii
6616 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE' LABOR FIELD
Exhibit No. 51F
o
5 6
• • • •
•
•
.-t:)^
» : :
fe •• •
•
• •• •
. • •
• • • •
3E '.
• *••
• • • .
• • • •
« «
5 » -
*!2
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 6617
Exhibit No. 51G
• «
• • •
♦ •
. • • •
• • • •
• • •
• • • •
• • • •
•• ••
• • •
•• • .
• « •
• • • .
• • •
• • • • • •
• • ,
6618 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Exhibit No. 52
S)
A7'i'*;
IMPR'OPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 6619
Exhibit No. 53A
Labor Relations Associates
of Chicago, Inc.
75 East Wacker Drive, Chicago 1, Illinois
TELEPHONE CEnTHAL 5-2160
April 30. 195^+
MacOregor Tire Company
725 Harrison Street
nint 3. .'Uchlgan
Retainar fee for the month of May, 195U $ 75.0(3
Dle'bdrseaientB for the month of April, 195^ 63I.99
$706.99
A^^
o^ir^V
6620 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE' LABOR FIEIiD
Exhibit No. 53B
Labor Relations Associates
of Chicago, Inc.
75 Ease Waclcer E>rive, Chicago 1, Hlinois
TELEPHONE CEntkai 6-2160
NoTwnber 30. I95H
^lac®or Tire Go.
725 Harrison St.
Flint. Kichigan
i-*'*'
1' t ^' J,'
Retainer fee for the month of Decenber, I95U $ 75,00 ''' t^ p^]^
520.08
$595.08
DlBtursementg for the month of November. I95U "^20.08 ^ lOHlj
'Wj^^
-lA
f
L^
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 6621
Exhibit No. 53C
Labor Relations Associates
of Chicago, Inc.
75 East Wacker Drive, Chicago 1, Illinois
TELEPHONE CENTRAL 6-2160
Septamter 30, 1955
M&cOregor Tlr* Company
725 Harrison Street
rilnt. Michigan
Retainer fee for the month of Octo"ber, 1955
DisburBements for the month of September, 1955
$ 50.00
300.00
$350.00
6622 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE' LABOR FIELD
Exhibit No. 54A
cn
A . J»«*«ii, ».*.
>
'>f
»•?• 2 5 •' t^A -
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 6623
Exhibit No. 546
^ <
1
Pajt t« nation;? m}usm bank
^ 0
i
!
•"^ ■■.;
■ -'-^' 59
C\J
X
*^ o
d
\
-
...i'FC'i.Am, i;;C
tH
1
u
N^
i
''^l
t/'
^V^^i
CI
C
t—
>
ij
Z
QC
"y
\
■^
8-
-^
i
i:
^
"^ O
%
^•:
v^ CD
<
. • •
• •
•
•
• •
Ui^^' -- ^-«-v
• • • •
• •
2-.
X. -
.lift
• •
• •
• •
•
•
• •••
i
• • • •
• •
• •
• • • ■ . r
• • ■ • * r .
A • • « • » «•'
■- fee
•
• •
•
• • •
z
<
1
J
•
• • • •
• •• ,,^
•• • • ., •<•«
• • • . <^
U'.:„ *• • • -^
C
• •••
•
ta
O
Z 2
<
• • • •
• •
• • • •
*
*'
^O
<
• . •
••• • •!••••
0
*i« ^
»A r
• • • •
^
':
z> z
O i
u
tA
Z
o
1
<
• • •
• • ••
•
• • ••
K
6624 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Exhibit No. 54C
ir>
CM
Q
5':
; u
I ^^^^
>■ LU 1-
' u
O
\\
\
i
r • 4-
' • * * *r iT^
^ • ^ o
• ■ • • '^^ • • • •
z* • ^ a;* • • •
>
"V- -
•
•
• # • •
•
» VJ.
• •
—
•• r*
•
• •
••••
• • •
• •
• •
•
• , •
•
•
• •
•
•
• • •
• • •
•
•
•
•
•
• •
•
i • *
*■»,
• • •
• • •
•
• ,
• ••
• • •
• ••
• •
• •
• • • •
•
• •
•
'X
.^
i
i
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 6625
ExHiiJiT No. 541)
a-
CO
lit
mX!) SANK
..n.oru.aer 59
c I
O
1.
•
• *
r0
•••
p • '
••.•
•
-, c;
1*0
•
•
rs?
*
. • _
o
•
1-
' ^.
0
i*
•^^
>/0 -x
o
< 9
Z ..
3 z
O £
6626 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE' LABOR FIELD
Exhibit No. 55A
Labor Relations Assooates
of C^iQngo, Inc.
TILEPMON* CENTaAL fr-Jl60
.-.•--.;•-'■•,« Chevrolft ^0,
S«taiuer fi»e for the :r,ontK of S«r.ttr,l5»r . I0=»H $ -^C-O.OO
IMPRiOPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIEIiD 6627
Exhibit No. 55B,
Labor Relations Associates
of Chicago, Inc.
75 East Wackct D4)i% Ciua.03 1. Ultoois
TELlPHONi CENTUM. WW
Mi^^ 3X. 1955
3637 S. Sacliutv Str««t
l*t»ln«r fa* for \h» arath of J«a«, 195^ $ 100.^
wrtwnwMHtB *Br tlw MortkidMMrr 1959 ^~ ™jL221fll""
|2, I05.W
i^ ,
1 >
i / '^ i '^ L ^
^ j^'
' t'^'
6628 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE' LABOR FIELD
Exhibit No. 55C
Labor Relations Associates
of Chkatgo, Inc.
75 EMt Wacker Drive. Chkj«o L Oltooto
TE'-EPHONf CEnteaL t-VtiO
2#o«ib%r 31. 1955
';^3? 6. Siisiuv Street
jrllnt, Mlchlg:aa
a«tain»r fee for the loouVi cf JamtAr> . 1956 $100.00
> V ■"
1
'' ^>C
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 6629
Exhibit No. oHD
Labor Relations Associates
of Chicago, Inc.
75 East Wackcr Drive, Chicago I, lUinoU
TELEPHONE CEKTRAt 6-2UiO
*'-ay 31, 1956
Flint, HJcM^fn
Petainerr *■*♦<» ^.^r tn#» mv'^nt.h of Jtuv, 19S6 il 00,00
Di«burs««ii*nt» for th« aoiith of May, I956 ^.CKXifffK?
$2,300.00
89330 O— 57— pt. 16 26
6630 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE' LABOR FIELD
Exhibit No. 56A
• ••
•••• • • '
• •♦
♦ * • «
« ♦
•I
« •«
• ••
• ♦ • •
• • •
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 6631
Exhibit No. 56B
6632 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE' LABOR FIELD
Exhibit No. 56C
• • • •
• « • •
• • •
•• • •
• • •
• • • • • • •
_ • • •
••••••
♦ • ♦ •
• «
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 6633
Exhibit No. 56D
* •
CI'".*
« *»«
*#
»
«
* • , • t^ii,
C^
2^ r • <^
>-
«
« * •
«
X ♦
•
•
• •
•
«
*
m
4 « *
»
•
* • *
i)
•
«r
s>
9
• ••.
• *
-
• ••
• •
urn }
n
.%••:
• •: *.
•••
6634 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Exhibit No. 57A
/
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 6635
Exhibit No. 57B
I» rt Uhox l«Uti<aM lt«Mii.Ui... iSte. SMMadw]
6636 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
ExHiHiT No. 57C
1
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE' LABOR FIELD 6637
Exhibit No. 60
Funu
From
r
TRAVEL
-%*^
MBTfO AlMIIVfD.
OCMMTCO AlM»rvlD_
EXf
Trrt Of "rtiAvfL *cca«cCATi
INC Tips)
^J&ljL*
F*K OK MiLWa €xnmt (JJ/f^,Jf'iiixmH_f'^ ToT*i. t
atSfiAflC CMAirsc Bas«*6C T.« /'. 1J Total j 7±.
Taxis: Fikm fVi<A To U>>^^«Y--<»ir >^Aitc JL.«->^
To (Z,-^^,,^^:^ F*i»e i <^>
f>o>. <^^^^Y^Lr^ To MHg^A. F*« ^Jg>
Fahc
Cost ^ST^T
Total _2jsLL
Total
Total
Total
OiMNca
¥SSi
Otheh Tips (Fkplaim).
TlLtSHAMS (ATTACH COflCSL
TcLCPHOMCS :
POSTA&£
To
PlACf
Cl tCI»T
Ommj«
Cmaii«c
CMARce
CkAMCC
OiAM«t
a*Aii«
OtARCC
b«AJ»«
Su«..fs (E^Pu...>)J^)#^i»^^'W,j!g:i_.*^-^€^3^g___
Total "^^TO ^
Gocst Expcnsc (Explain)
^^£o 9^l^(^
llfeMMIANOUM
Gaano Tot
x7^
-•^CL^
.' t
l^'-)
6638 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Exhibit No. 61
Ty^E or Tbavcl Accommodation
F»« on MlLtAG£ ExrCWSt ^1- ^^ PutLMAN
BaOGA&C C>4*R&f _ „
Taxis- From
Total 1 '^■^
Baggage t i ps /• <>"0
To
( Includ-
ing Tips)
f ROM
From
From
Hotel (t>teME)
Breakfast / ^ _
Valet
Ot>«r Tips (Fxpla in)
To.
To.
DiNNCR
JC
Telegrams (Attach Copies).
Te lcphones :
POSTAGC.
Total
/.^
Fare
Fare
Fare
Fare
Cost
Total
X-TT
Total
Total
Total
To
Place
Cl ItWT
Charge
Q<argc
Charge
04AII6E
Charge
Charge
Charge
CHARGE
Sundries (Explain)
GoesT Rxpf.
Memorandum
^^J^-Av^ ^^^
Total V^Jli^
Total
G«UN0 Total
lIMti
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 6639
Exhibit No. 62
TRAVEL
Fumt.
From
To.
To
OtPAHTIO
OCMRTCO
Aim I VCD.
AUBI VfD
FXPENSES
Ttn Of THAVCL AceO»»ipgATIOW
&60AtC ChAKM .
Taxis: Fhom.
( INCLUO*
INC Tifs)
FlIOM.
n»0M.
rnoM.
Hotel (N»i€)
BttCAKFAST
Valet
Bagga&c Ti^s,
To
To ... _.
To
To
LUNCM.
LAUNMrr_
OiNi«N
Ot»cr Tips (Fxplain).
TtLisnAm (Attach CoucsL
TfLt^MOWtS :
POSTaM.
SuwRiCS (Explain).
GbcsT ExriMSC (Ex
..... 4ft«^^T«. rlS
lUkMOIIANOUM
^^^i^f^^^f^
TOTAL t (Lh^.^^
Total
FaM
Fahe
Fahc
Fare
Cost
Total
Tot A L
Tot A L
Total
To
Place
Cl itm
Charge
CHARGE
Charge
CJ4ARGE 1
Charge
1
Charge |
Charge
0<AB&t
Total.
Total
IL
QUNO Total 1^6^'%
6640 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Exhibit No. 63
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Exhibit No. 64
6641
• • ••
•
• ••
si
'¥
o
C3
a
u
I
u
*
• • •!♦
t
c
• • 1) •
EC O
a
"■'
q:
«
cc
*
>
_J
UJ
-J
^s
T3
o
u
•o
CEJE
R
cz
X
3
o
u
0
<■•_•
e
CE
1
cz
■WIWL
6642 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Exhibit No. 65A
>
^
o
4t
3
o
z
y^
/
o
Jt*
«
/
"n
u.
Vo
o
1
a.
;;<>
«
;«'
f ^
i
^
V
O K
&
-1
3
W
a
>
s<
■J
<
a.
]
*
z =>
■ •
•. o
-<
' J
»- o
)
^
»-
K
O
u u.
O K
>■
• u
- w
^
<
o
u
tfl O
w Z
o <
»0
h
>
a.
4
i
i
i
%
-
n
Ik
i'
-J M
w •-
<J z
< <
a. a.
^
H
V-
,t
'^
o
IT
O
a.
tef
<
z
51
-J
Jt
o
>
o
a
&
<
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 6643
Exhibit No. 65B
Vl
<f>
%k
o
»-
3
I
*
O
>-
/
»- »
o
u.
a.
X
taJ
< ■
O K
h-UJ
>•
3
.
^
<n
<
'^
■c •
*•
■l O
M
. J
6
»- o
u u.
1
w
-« >■
o m
* <
>
a. M
M
W W
• <J
— w
(1
1
« Z
o
•» o
W C
o «
m
o
>
m.
1^
4
\
< «
0. ft.
f|
^
o
'>
^
0.
o
' I
^
1
>
o
■c
«.
'
/^
<
u_ .- -
6644 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Exhibit No. 65C
•
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 6645
Exhibit No. 66
fp.MW^^V"' '.
From
• To
^PA\.FL
J OtP»BTlD
(HPARTfD
ARRI VtO
Arri vro
rxprN<;rs
TYPf or TR*vfL AcrOMMOOAT ION
' /» ' -
F*Rf OR MlLEAGf fxPtN/t ^^ ' • ^' "'^'- • pj^^j^^ Qj *^ TqTAL S _!L:f5_
B»&G*Gf CHAR&f RA&uAof 'IPS c*- >-^ Total '^ J*^
Taxis- From >t^ '' ^' '' To /^^^icw^ F.t^f /- -'^'^
""''"''■ FROM — y-.r '.. .Y>^«'-
fr-v- To t:.^/ff:^r
iNG Tips)
From
From
Hotel (Na»«)_
BRf AKFAST_/' i I
Valet
"0
tiiNvH y Dinner ^■
Laundry ,
Ot>«r Tifs (F xpla in)
TfifGRAMs (Attach ("opiES)
Tf L FPMONE S :
Postage
f APf
y-YJ
f Aht
^'../-^
f ARf
Cost
/-^ -\.'
Total
■>7r
Total
Total
Total
•
To
Place
ri unt
fXAK'CF
(>(AHOE
CVlAROE
Chaboe
Charge
Charge
Charge
Charge
t ,
^" '
SuNORifs (F;(Plain) <t^
c\ C2>
ToTai
~r^s> ^j
r«jfsT E>PENsf (F»PL»is) ^
Memorandum
'./, '.T
T 0 r 4 i^ - / ■
«^ <; iJ
89330 O — 57— pt. 16 27
6646 IMPROPER AcnvrriES in" the' labor field
Exhibit No. 67 A
1*
<0
o
^
®
00
<v
f^
^
^
)$.
Oi
•
•^
u
1
55
1
¥
c
c
8
3
I ••%!
* * * ^
o
fit.
mO
o
o
mm *; m
I
• • •
'^d^'.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES
Exhibit
m THE LABOR FIELD
No. 67B
6647
«
i
s
• ••J
• • /»
••• •
^
6648 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN' THE LABOR FIELD
Exhibit No. 67C
2^1i-rVV^
c!
Cb^'Tl-
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 6649
Exhibit No. 68
*^u*aaJI
1953
1951*
195;
>
1956
Name of Client
Eate
Amount
Date
Amount
Date
Amount
Date
Amount
Acme Welding
$
$
$
12/11
$ 25.00
Albert '8 Inc.
12/6
100.00
11/8
100.00
Applegate Chev.
12/8
30s. 00
11/9
150.00
Arthur's Pontlac
12/19
50.00
Awrey Bakery
12/18
1*25.80
12/13
1*68.52
12/23
1*60.00
11/13
1*60.00
Ecston Shoe
11/12
100.00
Cbam^rlaln
12/12
350.00
12/17
350. re
12/16
550.00
11/3
12/11*
300.00
1*25.00
Charlie ' s
12/1I*
3 CO. 00
Chi sea Hotel
12/18
100.00
12/22
100.00
Cotharin'e
11/12
100.00
Cupples - Hesae
12/12
100.00
11/7
100.00
Detroit Bolt &lJut
12/11*
150.00
12/11*
103.00
12/12
11*0. CO
Electro Mfg.
12/15
150.00
FamcuB Fom.
12/21
100.00
Flint Home
12/16
15c. 00
12/15
250.00
12/8
150.00
11/6
11/9
150.00
50.00
(jjldman Machinery 12/17
200.00
12/17
30ft. on
11/8
250. ao
Ooldsmlth's
12/17
150.00
12/7
150.00
Qojd Haueekeeplng 12/22
50.00
12/17
50.00
12/9
50.00
Gordon Bakery
12/16
150. CO
12/13
150.00
12/12
200.00
11/9
250.00
Gridiron
12/18
300.PO
Otto Oroff
12/8
150.00
Hot Point
12/6
100.00
12/11
100.00
Kerns
12/28
100. CO
12/16
100. CO
12/22
xco.cc
King Cotton
12/18
25. fO
Kreoge-Hewark
12/21
250.00
12/1!*
35<^.00
12/16
250.00
12/6
350. CO
LRA-SaleB-(Carda) 12/22
9'^.30
LRA-to Clients &
Vnlcns & Accta.
& lawyers &
others
12/23
631.77
12/22
87G.35
12/18
967.50
12/8
1655.0©
LRA-to Clients
12/2'*
8U.2U
X-mas Party
12/21*
1*1.1*5
I2/2J*
16. QO
MacGregcr Tire
12/22
100.00
11/8
100.00
Mc^inald Dairy
11/6
12/1*
150.00
1*00.00
Marleya
11/9
100.00
Msynaban Bronse
12/22
ICO. CO
11/8
150.00
Nelsner's
12/6
100.0ft
Peahody
12/18
75.00
12/22
100.00
Plastray
11/1*
12/5
300.00
600.00
Re- Steel
12/9
100.00
Robinson Fum.
12/21
50.00
12/17
51.50
I2/1I*
100.00
11/16
150.00
Royallte
12/23
600.00
12/17
500.00
Service Parking
12/16
206.00
12/22
200.00
11/8
200.00
Slmms
12/16
103.00
12/19
50.00
Sam Stelcrov
12/18
103.00
12/11*
1*00.00
11/7
12/1*
100.00
300.00
Three Slstera
12/15
100. C^
12/17
103.00
12/13
100. ro
12/6
100.00
Toledo Heme Fum.
11/19
100.00
United Shirt
12/17
51.50
12/13
225. CO
11/13
225.00
Veatal
12/16
100.00
12/11*
100.00
Welngarden
12/8
150.00
Wolf Detroit
12/11*
300.00
12/15
206.00
12/9
3CO.GO
11/5
325.00
Envelope
11/9
105. f"0
Worth Clothes
12/17 150. CO
$ 3.527-56
12/20 103.00
$ l*,63l*.87
12/22 50. HO
$ 6,292.50
$(
TOTAL
3^820.00
Total Expenditure f-^r X-mao Gifts for Four-Tear Period $2 3,271*. 9 3
6650 IMPROPER ACrriVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD
Exhibit No. 69
GEORGE KAMENOW
1953 - K'56
Schedule of Selected Entertainisent and Transportation Expenses Shewn on
Daily Reports
DATE
AXOIJRT
PLACE
CLIENT
Chamberlin
E X FIL
A N A T I 0 N
2-8-53 $
110.00
Waterloo,
Icwa
Meals Co.& Union - Tickets to
Fight Union
2-17-53
I2I+.I7
Waterloo,
Icwa
Chamberlin
Meals Co.& Union
2-13-53
60.00
Waterloo,
Icwa
Chamberlin
Meals Co. & Union and Govt.
3-7-53
115.1+5
Detroit
3 Sisters
Baby Gifts
5-7-53
110.00
Flint
Flint Home
Entertainment -Co. & Union
12-10-53
52.00
Waterloo,
Icwa
Chamberlin
Din.-Ent. Co. & Union
12-12-53
89. CO
Waterloo,
Iowa
Chamberlin
Lunch - Dinner & Ent.
12-12-53
350.00
Waterloo,
Iowa
Chamberlin
Xmas Gift
12-1U-53
150. CO
Detroit
Detroit Bolt
& Nut Co.
Xmas Gift
12-1U-53
300.00
Detroit
V/olf Det. En-
velope Co.
Xmas Gift
12-15-53
150. CO
Detroit
Electro I'lfg.
Xmas Gift
12-15-53
ICO. 00
Detroit
3 Sisters
Xmas Gift
12-16-53
161+.10
Flint
Flint Ebme
Xmas Gift
12-16-53
150.00
Detroit
Gordon Baking
Xmas Gift
12-17-53
150.00
K.Y.C.,N.Y.
Worth Cloth.
Xmas Gift
12-17-53
200.00
Dearborn
Goldman Mach.
Xmas Gift
12-18-53
1+25.80
Detroit
Audrey Beikery
Xmas Gift
12-21-53
250.00
lievark, N
.J.
Kresge
Xmas Gift
U-16-5I+
392.01+
Flint
MacGregors
Tires
6 R.T.Fares;3 dbl. Rooms, Ent.
Union & Co. officialr
)+-i7-5it
107. CO
Flint
II IT
3 Rooms - Ditto
i^-22-3k
186.68
Waterloo,'
Ecwa
Chamberlin
Ent., etc. Co. & Union
U-25-30-5i^
573.41
Various
— —
Teams , Dinner -Ent . Union-Louis -
ville, Cinn., to N.Y.C.
5-2S-5lt
51.65
— —
LEA
Det. to Grayling with Union
5-29-5U
106.00
— —
"
Grayling to Benny Ont.w/Unlcn
5-30-5U
228.80
—
"
Benny to Blend River " "
5-31-5it
67.35
— —
"
Blend River to Det. " "
6-21-5U
1,630.20
Flint
Ctto Graff
6 Tickets to Seattle Sc Rettrn
7-IO-5U
114.13
_ ^ _
- -
Seed for Union Officials
8-7-5U
161.95
LRA
Sales Expenses "See Me"
lC-29-54
162.26
LRA
Expenses "See Me for Explfai."JK
II-19-5U
520. C8
Flint
MacGregors
8 Plane Tickets to NYC & Ret.
11-19-28-5U
2,011.00
Kelly Homes
Hotel Rooms $756. Meals $630.
Entertainment $625.
12-13-5^^
150.00
Detroit
Gordon Baking
Xmas Gifts
12-13-5i^
468.52
"
Avrey
Xmas Gifts
12-.1I+-54
350.00
Newark, N
J.
Kresge
Xmas Gifts
I2-1U-5I1
103.00
Detroit
Det. Bolt & Nut
"
12-15-52+
206.00
"
Wolf. Det. Env.
"
12-15-54
250. CO
Flint
Flint Eouse
" '
12-16-5U
103.00
Pontiac
Simms
" '
12-16-51+
206.00
Detroit
Service Parking "
12-16-51+
100.00
"
Kerns
" '
12-17-51+
350.00
Waterloo
Chamberlain
II 1
12-18-51+
103. CO
Pontiac
San Stalonov?
1
12-23-54
dCO.CO
Flint
Royalite
II 1
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD
6651
Exhibit No. 69 — Continued
page 2
06trge Kanencw 1953-1956
Schedule of Seleotsd Entertairiaent, Xinas and Tranaportaticn
Ei-periset Shovn on Et.llj Ruperts - (continued)
re.te
AEDunt
Place
Client
SorolBc-^tion
$ 12, 372. 59
1-15-55
193.68
Flint
LEA
Purchases from Sears
2-1-55
15.00
II
"
Union official in hospital
3-19 to
75.'V)
Ttetroit
Sanderc, Fred
Dine 4 Ent. Union officials
3-22-55
75.CO
"
Aurey's EaJig.
at Miami
75.00
II
Gordon Bakg.
' " " "
U9-55
166.75
—
LPA
Spcl. purchases at Sears,
5-2-55
153.33
—
"
Flint " " " " "
9-2 to 9-5
259.73
—
Foliday veek end with
union cfficisls
9-27-55
27.50
—
"
Ent. Sovt= official
9-30-55
260.31
Waterloo, la.
Chamberlain
Spr.. Gifts, Dinner & Ent.
ir-6-55
16.00
Detroit
Geo.C.iOiight
;ootD?il tickets for 'jnicn
lC-1^-55
77.00
—
Varir^us
Dinner- theatre tickets unlo;
10-15-55
80.10
Saginav
3 Sicters
i-'iu-Eiit. Unicn at cane
11- IC - 11-
18 703.91
—
Various
Travel to Iron Mcuntaln -
Ejraen<3e9
12-2-55
125. CO
—
"
Din. 8i Ent. uaion
12-5-55
122.00
—
II
>. <■ 1. >.
12-1^-55
96.50
—
II
II II II II
12-5-55
1^.25
—
"
Breakfast &. Lunch union
12-8-55
3CO.0O
150.00
Flint
AppJ.egete
'Chev.
otto Graff-
XtPB gifts
II
I5D.OO
"
Weingarilen
11 11
"
150.00
"
Flint Home
11 11
12-9-55
300.00
retroit
Wolf D^tenv
II 11
12-10-55
150.0c
Flint
He'Donald
II II
12-12-55
IC^.OO
Detroit
Cupples-Hcsse
12-13-55
225.00
"
United Shirt
11 II
"
100. oc
Saginaw
3 Sisters
" "
12-14-55
100.00
ICOifO
if CO. CO
Detroit
Charlie's
Pcbinscn Fum
Saa Stalsnow
II It
12-16-55
£50. CO
Ifevsrii,Tj,J.
!Cre3ge
II 11
"
55C.OO
Waterloo, la.
Chamberlain
II II
12-17-55
150.00
—
Goldsmiths
II II
"
500.00
Deartom
Harry GoldEan
II II
12-18-55
967. 50
—
LRA
" " Union & cllonts
12-22-55
200. CO
Tetrcit
Service Pkg
II II
"
ICO. CO
—
Peatcdy Hotel
II II
"
ICC. 00
Flinx
McC-regcr
II II
"
100,00
—
ClauES Hctel
II II
"
100.00
Detroit
Kerne
II II
15-23-55
460.00
"
Avroy. Bak.
II II
5-10-56
50.00
Flint
McDonald D.
Dinner Conf . union
5-12-56
84,00
"
"
" Ent, Co C: 'onicn
5-13-56
85.00
"
"
" Ent. union
5-15-56
151.50
"
"
Ent. union
5-19-56
123.00
$ 20,909.65
--
LPA
T^icatra tickets union
6652 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE' LABOR FIELD
Exhibit No. 69 — Continued
GEORGE KAMENOvv 1953-1956
J chedule Of Celected Entertainment, Xmas Gifts, Transportation, Etc.
Expenses £hovvn on Daily Repofts - (continued)
Date
5/23/56
5/26/56
5/30/56
6/1,2 & 3
6/19/56
6/20/56
6/21/56
7/4,5,6, 7,
7/15/56
7/17/56
7/18/56
7/19/56
7/20/56
7/21/56
7/24/56
8/28/56
8/30/56
8/31/56
9/1/56
9/2/56
9/3/56
9/28/56
10/31/56
11/2/56
11/5/56
11/3/56
il/4/56
11/6/56
11/6/56
11/7/56
11/7/56
11/8/56
11/13/56
It
12/4/56
12/5/56
12/6/56
12/8/56
12/14/56
12/17/56
Total
Amount
86.00
125.00
2 05.00
525.00
240. 85^.
205.50
140.00
8 2,000.00
1 25.50
344.25
306.40
203.25
13.50
107.50
207. 50
100.00
49.00
280.00
167.00
108.50
80,20
180.87
200.00
181.00
325.00
334.90
343.85
150.00
150.00
100.00
100.00
200.00
225.00
460.00
400,00
300.00
600.00
350.00
1, 655.00
425.00
500.00
$33, 710.22
Place
vVash. , D.C.
Flint
II
n
Waterloo
II
II
Flint
ti
v/aterloo
Client Explanation
LRA AC"W Canventioh-Eiit. Unions
McDonald Din. & Ent. Union
" Entertaining (Fishing) Union
" " Trip - Union
Chamberlain Lunch, Din. , Ent. , Co. & Union
Salay
McDonald
Chamberlain
Travel, Meals, Ent.
Ent.
Ent.
Union
& Dinner
Etc.
Detroit Wolf Deteny.
II II II
N. Y. Trip
LRA
Detroit Plas^ray Corp.
Waterloo Channberlain
Wolf Det.Env.
Chamberlain
Plastray
McDonald
Flint Home
Cupples-Hesse
S. Stolonow
Service Pky.
United Shirts
Aurey Baking
McDonald
S, Stolonow
Plastray Corp.
Newark, N. J. Kresge
LRA
V/aterloo Chamberlain
Flint Royalite
Detroit
Waterloo
Detroit
Flint
II
Detroit
Pontiac
Detroit
Flint
Pontiac
Detroit
Lunch Union
" Din. , Ent. Co. & Union
Lunch - Ent. Union
Dinner - Ent. - Union
" - Union
" - Theatre Tickets-Union
" - Lunch -Ent. Union
II II II II
" Lunch-Ent. Fees
Rifles - Union
Hunting Trip - Union
Lunch. Din. Ent, Etc. Co. &t Union
Xmas Gifts
Xmas Gifts-Tickets, Game, Etc.
" Din. Co. & Att.
" (See GK for List)
Total of all Xmas gifts - 1956
$8,120. 00
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIEI^D 6653
Exhibit No. 71
;emo of agreement
. t « atjreajiient of November 18th,
. ,, - .,f. append*!- .
Aii provisions of the ««rli«r agreisEnent contir -.orce and
effect except as mo4i£ied by this supplement.
Thia agreaaenc made and entere ^hih First day of October,
by and between the Retail Assoc ^aies , Inc. for an on behalf
jf the LaSalle & Koch Corapany , the Lion Dry Goods, Inc., Tiedkte'a,
Inc., Lamsort Brothers, Toledo, Ohio, for vhon the Betail Associates,
Inc. act AS bargaining agent, hereinafter called the EMPLOYER and
Local No. 20 of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chsuf-
feurs, VarehousenEien and Helpers of Aaerlca, A.F. of L. , hereinafter
called the ITNION.
The Union ani the above owntloned cocipanles agr»c as follows:
Union Security
■"■^ hours coristitate a guaranteed work week, »mm
.'a. T!t# Employer reserves the right to stagger his
- 'rehouseaen . sorae frcssa Monday through
.m l^jesd/. 'n Saturday.
6654 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Exhibit No. 71 — Continued
- 2 -
Lie regular hourly rate. Ajiy cima worked in excess
of 54^ hours in one week shall be pai4 for at double
tltaR. On August 1, 195o the guaranteed week shall
constitute 40 hours, saoM take horae pay. Any tliae
worked in excess of 52 hours in one week shall be
paid for at double time. It is understood that
there snail not be overtiiae or dally overtlxae
based on both weekly and daily overtiiae. In the
event that it becooMS necessary to re<i^ce the nunber
of eiaployees covered by this AgreeoHint, such reduction
shall be auule in order of seniority, provided, how-
ever, that the reaalning eB^>loyee8 shall be guaran*
teed a miniaaia of 42^ hours a ymmk ircm August I .
1955 to July 31, 195o. Beginning August 1, 1956
the guaranteed miniiaum %#ould then be 40 hours per
%Mek.
4. There shall be one Chief Steward in each of the
above mantloned stores and he shall receive 5C per
hour over and above his regular rate of pay.
5. Starting time shall remain as at present. Any change
in starting time shall be made upon giving two wveks
notice of such change to the Union.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 6655
Exhibit No. 71— Continued
- 3 -
5a. iLoned above ■hall
be one-hall hon-r .
'Hiera shaii '>« gritcvsnce an«- iion prcxradures.
for tim UnUra for Sim iMMOciACioo
fj i,Ui
^:/^i^./ .;v../v-'t>^^^^-
N -Z.
O
o
<
U ^ 5
-<
•J
y
■^
^^
-— «
z
<
z
<
>
0
s
-I
<
z
g
<
z
»
^
>
^
§ s
f » -5 J
«» < C
• §
E -9
isi
^
! r
2 •
^:5
"
•
II ^
•
i 1 \
3fPSC?£H Al-- -•' -^^^ '—-- - ■'— — I'OO^
6658 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN" THE LABOR FIELD
Exhibit No. 74
*::*
VV
S** ''^
BOSfON.
PUBUCUBB^Ji^^^\^|U\
9999
06352
021 5
^^H
k.
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11