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

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

K\AU\.\\3'^3l^ 




Given By 
S. SUi' T. or hOCClnLj^l^ 



L/LrV^<ifl I N^IXI 



INVESTIGATION OF IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE 
LABOR OR MANAGEMENT FIELD 



HEARINGS 

BEFORE THE 

SELECT COMMITTEE 

ON IMPROPER ACTIYITIES IN THE 

LABOR OR MANAGEMENT FIELD 

EIGHTY-FIFTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 
PURSUANT TO SENATE RESOLUTIONS 74 AND 221, 85TH CONGRESS 



MARCH 19, 20, 21, 24, AND 25, 1958 



PART 24 



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 

BEFQRB; THE,., ,, ,• 

select'''committee 

ON IMPROPER ACTmflES IN THE 
LABOR OR MANAGEMENT FIELD 

EIGHTY-FIFTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 
PURSUANT TO SENATE RESOLUTIONS 74 AND 221, 85TH CONGRESS 



MARCH 19, 20, 21, 24, AND 25, 1958 



PART 24 



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




UNITED STATES 

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

WASHINGTOGST : 1958 



Boston PuWic Libnirr 
Superintendent of Documents 

JUL 7 -1958 



SELECT CO.MMITTEE ON IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR OR 
MANAGEMENT FIELD 

JOHN' L. McCLELLAi'I, Arkansas, Chairman 
IRVIXO M. IVES, New York, Vice Chairman 
JOHN- F. KEXXEDY, Massachusetts KARL E. MUNDT, South Dakota 

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

PAT McXAMARA, Michigan CARL T. CURTIS. Xehraska 

Robert F. Kennedy, Chief Counsel 
Ruth Young Watt, Chief Clerk 

n 



CONTENTS 



United Automobile Workers, AFL-CIO, and the Kohler Co. of Sheboygan, 
Wis. (Boycott) 

Testimony of — Page 

Bellino, Carmine S 9539, 9543, 9553, 9600 

Brierather, Leo J 9607,9626,9645,9647,9675 

But zen, Arthur 9709 

Chase, Lucius P 9750, 9782 

Conger, Lyman C 9481, 9540, 

9543, 9552, 9553, 9555, 9606, 9620, 9641, 9644, 9749 

Deis, John 9871 

Desmond, Girard A 9778 

Grasskamp, Allan 9641 

Hammer, Edward J 9555, 9708 

Johnsen, Roy 9726 

King, Anthony J 9848 

Kuempel, Harold E 9825 

Link, Charles 9829 

Rabinovitz, David 9646, 9898 

Rand, Donald 9861 

Rauh, Joseph L 9807, 9845 

Schinabeck, Joseph 9720 

Sharp, Richard H 9817 

Taylor, Leroy 9698, 9706 

Vinson, Albert 9596 

EXHIBITS 

Introduced Appears 

on page on page 

88. Kohler Co. contract proposals 9510 (*) 

89. Kohler Co. strike settlement proposal, July 27, 1955 9517 (*) 

90. Summary of 1954 contract negotiations between Kohler 

Co., and Local 833, UAW-CIO as of February 26, 

1954 9517 (*) 

91. Points in dispute in 1954 contract negotiations between 

Kohler Co. and local 833, UAW-CIO as of March 8, 

1954 9517 (*) 

92. Summary of contract negotiations and tentative agree- 

ments between Kohler Co. and local 833, UAW-CIO 

as of June 20, 1954 9517 (*) 

93. Chronological record of the bargaining meetings, per- 

sonnel present 9518 (*) 

94. Postponement order of the Wisconsin Employment 

Relations Board, May 4, 1954 9518 (*) 

95. Union's proposed contract, Kohler local 833, UAW-CIO 

and Kohler Co., January 25, 1954 9521 (*; 

96. Strike settlement proposal of the Kohler Co., August 2, 

1955 9522 (*> 

97. Strike settlement proposal of the UAW-CIO, August 2, 

1955 9522 (*) 

98. Article in the Kohlerian, Thursday, March 25, 1954 

Strike Machine Ready to Start 9528 (*) 

99. Group of photographs showing mass picketing 9533 (*) 

100. Article from the Kohlerian, November 11, 1954, Thank 

God They're Xot All Like Max Wimmer 9534 (*) 

101. Reports from the Schindler Detective Agency in con- 

nection with the Kohler strike 9539 (*) 

III 



IV 



CONTENTS 



102. 
102A. 

102B. 
103. 

104. 
105. 

106. 

107. 
107A. 

108. 

109. 

110. 

111. 

IIIA. 

IIIB. 

lUC, 
D. 

112. 

112A. 

112B. 

113. 

113 A. 

114A- 
D. 
115. 

116. 

117. 
118. 
119. 
120. 

121. 
121A. 



Introduced Appears 
on page on page 

Copy of the Kohlerian, Thursday, February 20, 1953.. 9542 (*j 

Copy of a radio broadcast from station WHBL, Sheboy- 
gan, July 11, 195."), Kohlor strike 9542 (*) 

Copy of aradiol)roa(ic;ist,July 19, 1955, re Koliler strike. 9606 (*) 

Three folders containing copies of reports of the Madson 

Detective Agency re Kohler strike 9543 (*) 

Bills submitted by the detective agency to the Kohler Co- 9553 (*) 

Report of old employees who returned to work after the 

strike as of Jatuiary 15, 1958 9567 (*) 

A page from the Black Diamond, Paul Sifton Has Change 

of Heart and Viewpoint 9594 (*) 

Copy of a CIO radio broacast Thursday, March 11, 1954. 9607 (*) 

Copy of a CIO radio broadcast, Wednesday, March 10, 

1954 9607 (*) 

Group of photographs showing damage done to the home 

of Joseph Schinabeck by paint bombings 9722 (*) 

An article from the Labors Daily (a union paper) dated 
April 10, 1956, Husband-\\'ife Team Campaigns 
Nationwide for Kohler Boycot 9770 (*) 

Picture of boycott staff meeting which appeared in the 
UAW local 833 Reporter and Kohlerian of November 
29, 1957 9770 (*) 

Letter to Herman Schreiber from John Fanning, director 
of industrial relations. Office of the Assistant Secretary 
of Defense, dated December 28, 1954 9771 (*) 

Letter from Herman Schreiber dated January 3, 1954, to 

the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense 9771 (*) 

Letter dated January 17, 1955, from the Office of the 

Assistant Secretary John Fanning to Mr. Schreiber.. 9771 (*) 

Envelope addressed to Charles Wilson, Secretary of 
Defense, dated December 11, 1954, and a petition 
We Protest Using Our Tax Money for Strikebreaking 
at Kohler 9771 (*) 

Copy of a newspaper, the Labor World, Duluth, Minn., 
February 27, 1958, published by and for AFLr-CIO 
unions 9776 (*) 

Copy of a newspaper, the Labor World, Duluth, Minn., 
Thursday, March 6, 1955, published by and for 
AFI^CIO unions 9776 (*) 

Copy of a newspaper, the Labor World, Duluth, Minn., 
Thursday, March 13, 1955, published by and for 
AFI^CIO unions 9777 (*) 

Photograph taken on May 27, 1955, showing signs carried 

by pickets 9779 (*) 

Photograph taken May 27, 1955, showing picket and 

policemen around a truck 9779 (*) 

Photographs showing picketing in front of the Neis Co.. 9780 (*) 

Copy of the Michigan CIO News dated January 24, 

1957, Link Co. Still Sells Scab Wares 9788 (*) 

Letter dated December 6, 1957, addressed to Congress- 
man Peter F. Mack from R. A. Thomas, president. 
Booth & Thomas, Inc 9789 (*) 

Paper, Springfield UAW Broadcaster dated September 

1956, Kohler Boycott in Action 9789 (*) 

Letter dated August 27, 1956, to UAW men re boycott of 

Kohler products from Donald Rand 9793 (*) 

Mimeographed sheet distributed by UAW Local 833 

calling for boycott of Kohler products 9793 (*) 

Letter from Donald Rand re Kohler products printed 
in the Detroit Journevmen Plumbers' Local Union 
No. 98, Highland Park; Mich 9795 (*) 

Bulletin of local 75 dated September 1956 to members 

from Anthonv J. King, business manager 9796 (*) 

Bulletin of local 75 dated October 1957, To Their Be- 
reaved Families We Extend Our Heartfelt Sympathy. 9797 (*) 



CONTENTS 



Introduced Appears 
on page on page 



122. Article from the Milwaukee Sentinel, October 19, 1956, 

quoting Mr. King 9797 (*) 

123. Clipping from the Milwaukee Sentinel of November 13, 

1956, Hospital Picketing Witnesses Silent 9800 (*) 

124. Letter dated January 29, 1958, Dear Brother, from Leo 

J. Breirather, boycott coordinator 9801 (*) 

125. Newspaper advertisement in the Sheboygan (Wis.) Press, 

dated June 22, 1954 9855 (*) 

126. Affidavit of John Deis 9873 (*) 

127. Deposition of John Deis, State of Wisconsin, circuit 

court 9911 (*) 

Proceedings of — 

March 19, 1958 9481 

March 20, 1958 9605 

March 21, 1958 9675 

March 24, 1958 9749 

March 25, 1958 9837 



INVESTIGATION OF DIPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE 
LABOR OR MANAGEMENT FIELD 



WEDNESDAY, MARCH 19, 1958 

United States Senate, 
Select Committee on Impkoper Activities 

IN THE Labor or ]VLv.nagement Field, 

Washington^ D. C. 

The select committee met at 10 a. m., pursuant to Senate Resolution 
221, agreed to January 29, 1958, in room 357, Senate Office Building, 
Senator John L. McClellan (chairman of the select committee) pre- 
siding. 

Present . Senator John L. McClellan, Democrat, Arkansas ; Senator 
Sam J. Ervin, Jr., Democrat, North Carolina; Senator Pat McNa- 
mara, Democrat, Michigan; Senator Karl E. Mundt, Republican, 
South Dakota; Senator Carl T. Curtis, Republican, Nebraska. 

Present: Robert F. Kennedy, chief counsel; Jerome S. Adlerman, 
assistant chief counsel; John J. McGovern, assistant counsel; Ruth 
Young Watt, chief clerk. 

The Chairman. The committee will be in order. 

(Members of the committee present at the convening of the session 
were : Senators McClellan and Curtis.) 

The Chairman. The Chair apologizes for being a few minutes late 
this morning. I would have been 3 or 4 minutes late except for 
reasons of having a conference, but my part in this was extended by 
reason of the fact that I inadvertently went by the other committee 
room. 

So I hurried along and got here as quickly as I could. 

Anyway, we may proceed. Mr. Counsel, call the next witness. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Conger. 

The Chairman. You have been previously sworn, Mr. Conger. 

TESTIMONY OF LYMAN C. CONGER, ACCOMPANIED BY ELLISON D. 
SMITH AND WILLIAM F. HOWE, COUNSEL 

The Chairman. I believe, Mr. Conger, you have a prepared state- 
ment, did you ? 

Mr. Conger. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. That was submitted in due time, under the rules 
of the committee. May I inquire if you could simplify your statement 
and let it be printed in full in the record as your statement, and then 
discuss the highlights of it. 

I will ask you if you will do that to help expedite it and if not, the 
committee will hear you read the statement. 

Mr. Conger. That will be perfectly satisfactory, sir, to file it. 

9481 



9482 niPROPER ACllR'ITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. It may be printed in full in the record as if you 
read it, and I am not trying to delete any part of it. 

I am giving you the privilege of having it all printed in the record, 
but I thought then it would expedite things if you just took the high- 
lights and discussed it as you went along, any part you wish to take up. 

Mr. Conger. That will be perfectly satisfactory, sir, and I would 
like also to submit, if I may, some exhibits. 

The Chairman. Why don't you just go along and point those out 
in 3'our statement, and then w^e will make them exhibits as you refer 
to them. 

Mr. Conger. My name is Lyman C. Conger, and I reside at Koh- 
ler,Wis. 

I have been employed by Kohler Co. since May 8, 1922 — beginning 
work as an enamel scaler in the enamel shop. After that I was em- 
ployed successively in the chemical laboratory, the time study depart- 
ment, and the pottery. In 1928 I was admitted to the bar of the 
Wisconsin State Supreme Court and on December 10 of 1928 I became 
a member of the Kohler Co. legal department. 

Since becoming a member of tlie legal department I have been in 
contact with the labor relations of the company. 

On February 10, 1944, I became chairman of the Kohler Co. man- 
agement committee, which is the committee in charge of collective 
bargaining and labor relations. I have also acted as counsel for Koh- 
ler Co, in all litigation arising out of labor relations or the current 
strike. 

Kohler Co.'s principal products are plumbing fixtures and fittings — 
enameled iron plumbing fixtures such as bath tubs, kitchen sinks and 
lavatories, vitreous china plumbing fixtures such as lavatories, closet 
bowls, tanks and urinals, and brass plumbing fittings such as faucets, 
showers, and wastes. 

The company has also produced artillery shells, submarine torpedo 
tubes, aircraft piston rings, fuses, rotating bands, and other products 
for the military services. 

It also manufactures gasoline engines, gasoline engine driven elec- 
tric plants and precision controls. 

Its principal plant, and at the time the current strike started its 
only manufacturing plant, is located at Kohler, Wis., which is a vil- 
lage of approximately 1,700 population located about 60 miles north 
of Milwaukee and 4 miles west of Sheboygan, Wis., in Slieboygan 
County, Wis. Kohler is incorporated as a village under Wisconsin 
laws. 

Kohler Co. employees come mainly from the county of Sheboygan 
and municipalities in the county such as Sheboygan, Sheboygan Falls, 
Plymouth, Oostburg, Cedargrove, and Waldo, and from the neigh- 
boring counties of Fond du Lac, ManitoAvac, Calumet, and Ozaukee, 
as well as from the village of Kohler. 

Since April 5, 1954, Kohler Co., has been subjected to a planned at- 
tack using every coercive and illegal weapon that a powerful and 
ruthless union oligarchy could throw at it — as I will demonstrate 
and document hereafter. 

From the first day of the strike, when the union shut our plant down 
by an illegal mass picket line, the union has conducted its strike with 
complete contempt for law and for ordinary common decency. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIEiLD 9483 

The peaceful community of Sheboygan County has been subjected 
to a reign of terror one would have thought possible only behind the 
Iron Curtain. 

The union never voluntarily discontinued any type of illegal con- 
duct. Whenever we were able, by legal action, to compel the union to 
discontinue one type of unlawful conduct, they promptly switched to 
another equally illegal and coercive type of conduct. 

When they were compelled to discontinue the mass picketing, they 
promptly switched to vicious mob demonstrating at homes of non- 
striking employees, terrorizing their wives and children, and to 
assaults on employees and vandalism to their property. 

Employees who dared to exercise their legal right not to strike had 
their cars dynamited, their homes and cars wrecked with acids, and 
paint bombs thrown thorugh their windows, shotgun blasts through 
windows and every conceivable type of terrorism. 

This campaign of terrorism has not been limited to the more obvious 
acts of assault and intimidation. Anonymous telephone calls to work- 
ers at their homes, calling them at 5- or 10-minute intervals throughout 
the night so they could get no rest — publication of the names and 
addresses in union papers of men who tried to go to work — ostenta- 
tious noting of the license numbers of the cars of workers by pickets 
on the picket lines — are some of the other tactics which have been used 
to create fear. 

Any workman who dared to exercise his right as an American citizen 
to decide for himself whether or not his wages and working conditions 
were satisfactory found it impossible to lead anything approaching a 
normal life. There has not been a day since the strike began when a 
workman who wanted to go to work could do so without fear of 
violence to himself, his family, or his property 

Nonstrikers were compelled to forego their recreation activities lest 
they be set upon by a mob, as happened in the bowling alley riots; 
they could not attend church or their children attend school without 
being insulted, subjected to vile epithets, threatened with assault and 
actually assaulted. 

A nonstriker and his wife could not shop in the stores without being 
harassed and sometimes assaulted. The UAW-CIO by its every action 
has said to the community, the employees and the company — "We are 
the law. You must obey our dictates. Law enforcement officers and 
courts exist only to be subservient to our will." 

The picket lines have been moved to the churches, the homes, the 
schools, the recreation places, the stores, and the streets. 

In fact, we have seen the UAW almost completely take over the local 
law-enforcement agencies to a point where the sheriff announced that 
he would only escort nonstriking employees up to the picket line but 
would give them no assistance to get through it, to where a day long 
riot could occur at a clay boat in full view of the authorities without 
a single arrest being made. Where Mayor Ploetz of Sheboygan an- 
nounced that he had given the police orders not to permit Kohler Co. 
equipment on the dock area or the boat to be unloaded, thus making 
the police a picket Line to prevent unloading of a boat with legitimate 
cargo. 

The sheriff's deputies fraternized with the pickets, played cards 
with them and were served lunch from the union's lunch wagon. 



9484 niPROPER aci'ivities in the labor field 

Over 800 .acts of violence and vandalism have occurred against non- 
strikers with only a few arrests and those only where the perpetratoi-s 
of the crime made the jurisdictional error of getting outside the city 
of Sheboygan or out of the direct jurisdiction of the sheriff of She- 
boygan County. 

And whenever an arrest was made the union came to the defense, 
provided lawyers and bail bonds. In one case the perpetrators of 
the violence and vandalism committed the jurisdictional error of 
crossing into an adjoining county. They were caught and sent to 
jail. The union succeeded in getting them transferred to the Sheboy- 
gan County jail and paid them salaries while they were sei'ving their 
jail sentences. 

Not only that but they were released from jail and sat in the au- 
dience during the NLRB hearing, jeering at the intimidating non- 
strikers who were prospective witnesses until we had to call the at- 
tention of the trial examiner to their conduct and he twice had to 
order it discontinued. 

A UAW-CIO International representative by the name of William 
Vinson made an unprovoked assault on a nonstriker, crushing his 
chest and inflicting near fatal injuries. UAW lawyers defended him. 

"Wlien he was convicted by a jury of felonious assault. Emil Mazey, 
secretary-treasurer of the UAW-CIO, launched an intemperate at- 
tack on the judge who had dared to sentence him. This despite the 
fact that the sentence was less than the maximum for the offense — 
and the supreme court of Wisconsin later affirmed the sentence in no 
uncertain language. 

Mazey stated that the judge was unfit to serve the people of Sheboy- 
gan County and demanded a boycott of a grocery store in which the 
judge had inherited a financial interest. 

Fortunately the people of Sheboygan County resented this attempt 
by Mazey to take over the processes of justice and his arrogance in 
assuming to tell them who was and was not fit to serve them and 
came to the judge's defense with many resolutions supporting him. 

After Vinson was sent to prison, the union asked its members to 
send him Christmas cards because "he came here to help us." 

Another imported goon, John Gunaca, participated in another un- 
provoked assault on a nonstriker, breaking his neck and inflicting 
injuries from which he never fully recovered prior to his death some 
months later. 

Gunaca is now a fugitive from justice and for nearly 4 years Gov- 
ernor Williams of Michigan has refused to extradite him. 

Section 2 of the United States Constitution says that a governor 
shall upon demand deliver up a fugitive from justice. I call atten- 
tion to the fact the Constitution says "shall" not "may." 

It does not authorize a governor to pass on the guilt or innocence 
of a fugitive from justice or to pass his opinion upon the courts of 
another State. 

This country cannot long tolerate union leaders who have become 
so powerful that they can and do take over and control law enforce- 
ment and justice. This is a danger at least as great, and in my opin- 
ion, greater than any racketeering of union leaders. 

I call attention to this: This violence and coercion was not directed 
primarily at Kohler Co. It was exerted directly on nonstrikers — 
on employees who chose to exercise their rights as American citizens 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIEIS IN THE LABOR FIELD 9485 

to determine for themselves whether or not their wages and working 
conditions were satisfactory. 

Referring to nonstrikers, Emil Mazey said, "They've joined the 
ranks of the enemy and they ought to be treated as such. During 
the war when they join the enemy they're shot when convicted." 

And in the UAW official strike bulletin they said the "double cross- 
ing" activities of nonstrikers "should be dealt with just as one would 
deal with those who steal monej^ from a home or food from the pantry. 
There is no difference." 

This country cannot submit to the arrogant assumption that any 
workman who dares to disagi'ee with union leaders is a criminal and 
a legitimate target for any sort of violence. 

The National Labor Relations Act was passed to afford employees 
a free choice of what organization, if any, they chose to join. 

No one today questions the right of an employee to join a union 
or to go on strike if he chooses. But the law also establishes without 
question that no union has any right by violence and coercion to 
force an employee to join a union or to go on strike if he does not 
choose to do so. 

We firmly believe that a majority of our employees did not want to 
go on strike and did not voluntarily vote to do so. If they had de- 
sired to staj^ out voluntarily all this mass picketing and violence to 
keep them out would have been unnecessary. 

We also believe that a union which has been guilty of the most 
flagrant and continuous violence, in violation of both Federal and 
State law, denying emploj^ees their basic rights under the Federal 
Labor Management Relations Act should be denied recourse to the 
processes of the act, the same as Communists are now barred. 

Our bargaining with this union cannot be dissected from the con- 
text in which it occurred. 

The fact that we were sitting down with union representatives 
who were directing and controlling every sort of illegal coercion 
against us and the employees and were threatening more to come can- 
not be ignored. 

It is our firm conviction that to yield to this illegal coercion would 
be to reward it — that if it is a winning tactic it will be continued. 

We cannot tolerate any favored class in this country — a class that 
holds themselves above the law and entitled to use any methods legal 
or illegal to achieve their ends. 

We have refused to reward this violence and illegal conduct by buy- 
ing our peace. We will continue to refuse to do so. What has hap- 
pened at Kohler is significant not because it is unusual but because 
it is typical — these are the standard tactics of the UAW-CIO. 

They boast of being a "militant" union which means that they 
obtain their ends by violence and coercion. 

What has happened to this peaceful community will happen to any 
community that dares to disagi'ee with the dictates of this all-powerful 
oligarchy — which has been vested with great power but has not ac- 
cepted the responsibility until it is compelled by law to do so. 

Because the UAW-CIO has made false and misleadino- statements 
about the background of Kohler Co. labor relations, I think it is ad- 
visable to refer to that background briefly. 



9486 LMPROPEK ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Prior to 1933 employees of Kohler Co. were not represented by any 
labor union. Kohler Co. was a pioneer in nnmy industrial relations 
innovations which liave now become common practice. 

It has had group life insurance for its employees since 1917, group 
health and accident insurance since 1917, and an infonnal pension 
plan for so long that I have been unable to find out Avlien it first began. 

In 1949, before there were any pension plans in major companies 
represented by the UAW-CIO, tlie pension plan was formalized, 
funded and insured. This pension plan is unique in that it is fully 
paid for. 

Annuities have been bought from a large insurance company cover- 
ing every dollar of pension Avhich employees have earned for service, 
past or present, and have been fully paid for. Pension for all past 
service was fully paid for by Kohler Co.; future pensions are on a 
contributory basis similar to social security except that the company 
pays two-thirds of the cost. 

kohler Co. had a voluntary workmen's compensation plan in effect 
at its own cost 2 years before a workmen's compensation law was 
enacted by the State of Wisconsin, in 1911. Wisconsin was the second 
State in the United States to pass a workmen's compensation law. 

Over 1,100 people of the Kohler Co. organization have become 
members of the 25-Year Club, Avith nearly 600 still activel}^ working. 

In 1951 the UAW-CIO conducted an organizing campaign and 
]Detitioned for an election by the National Labor Kelations Board. 
The election, held March 27-28, 1951, resulted in victory for the Kohler 
AVorkers' Association, an independent union which had rei)resented 
Kohler emplo^yees since 1933. 

The National Labor Relations Board certified the Kohler Workers' 
Association as the bargaining agent, and Kohler Co. made another 
contract with it. 

The LTAW-CIO then changed its tactics and attempted to take over 
the leadership of the Kohler Workers' Association. In this attempt 
it was successful. 

In a meeting April 17, 1952, the general committee of the Kohh-r 
Workers' Association voted to affiliate with the UAW-CIO. 

Prior to this time it had been the practice of the Kohler Workers' 
Association to publish the minutes of the general committee meetings 
in their official newspaper and their constitution provided that the 
minutes of such meetings should be posted on the KWA bulletin 
boards. 

But after this affiliation vote was passed it was voted to expunge 
it from the minutes to keep it secret. It was not published. It was 
not ])osted on the bulletin boards. It was not made known to the 
membership. 

Ray Majerus, then a Kohler Workers' Association representative — 
now iin international representative for the UAW-CIO — testified that 
this was done because — 

We expunged these from the record because we wanted to be sure the affiliation 
went through a lot of people who were still sympathetic with the KWA and the 
company and we wanted to be sure the vote went through so we expunged this 
from the record so it wouldn't go in the paper * * * 

For this testimony I refer you to pages 521-522 of the transcript 
in NLRB case 18-CA-960, 1114, 1115. 



IMPROPEIR ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 9487 

Majerus also testified that he was a member of the UAW-CIO 
while purporting to act as a KWA representative and was doing 
everything possible to bring out an affiliation. 

On April 21 and 22 illegal work stoppages occurred in the enamel 
shop. In a dispute over a grievance, notice had been given to the 
company that the men would not complete their shift if they felt sick 
unless their grievance was satisfactorily adjusted. On April 21 and 
22, in accordance with the scheduled notice, many of the enamelers 
claimed illness and discontinued work. Strangely enough, all these 
men became "sick" at exactly the same time and in accordance with 
the scheduled notice to the company. 

They were examined by doctors and those fomid not to be sick 
were ordered back to work. Twelve who refused to return to work 
were discharged. 

This action was led by Eay Majerus, now an international repre- 
sentative of the UAW-CIO, but then purporting to act as a KWA 
representative. Actually he then was a member of the UAW-CIO 
and the KWA general committee had already voted secretly to affiliate 
with the UAW-CIO. 

The KWA — now the UAW-CIO — brought charges alleging that 
the discharge of the 12 enamelers was a violation of the National 
Labor Management Relations Act. On April 12, 1954, the National 
Labor Relations Board sustained the company's discharge of the 12 
enamelers. The case of 1 other employee who had been discharged 
on October 11, 1951, had been consolidated with the case of the 12 
enamelers and the Board ordered him reinstated. 

On April 27, 1952, a membership meeting of the KWA was called 
to vote on "strike and/or affiliation." Although the general commit- 
tee had already voted to affiliate with the UAW-CIO, the membership 
was not notified that the meeting was called to implement that action. 

A vote was taken at the meeting to affiliate with the UAW-CIO. 
Two days later, April 29-30, a ballot was taken which resulted in a 
vote for affiliation. 

The constitution of the Koliler Workers' Association provided that 
it should be an independent self-supporting union. But no attempt 
was made to amend the constitution in the manner provided for 
therein. That would have taken too long and, as Majerus put it, they 
"wanted to be sure the vote went through," so the matter was rushed 
through before the members had a chance to consider or opposition 
to voice itself. 

Kohler Co. refused to recognize the affiliation procured in such 
haste and by such methods and stated that it would not recognize any 
union unless it proved its majority status by an NLRB election. 

An election hearing was held by the NLRB. About 3 weeks before 
the election the UAW-AFL intervened and secured a place on the 
ballot. 

A gTOup that desired to keep the KWA as an independent also 
secured a place on the ballot. 

In an election, consented to by the company, held June 10-11, 1952 
by the NLRB, the UAW-CIO received 52.6 percent of the votes cast 
and was certified by the NLRB. 

Kohler Co. expressed its willingness to begin bargaining on a con- 
tract but the UAW stated that it was not ready to begin bargainino- 
until it had elected officers and drawn up its contract demands. 



9488 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

It was not until the end of July that the officers were elected and 
not until late in August that the UAW notified Kohler Co. that it 
was ready to begin bargaining. 

Bargaining was begun on August 21, 1952. The union submitted 
many demands including demands for a 26 cents per hour wage in- 
crease and a union shop. 

On February 14, 1953, a strike vote was taken by the UAW and the 
UAW made extensive strike preparations including setting up a strike 
headquarters and strike kitchen at a tavern and dance hall just out- 
side the village — the same place used as a strike headquarters and 
strike kitchen during the current strike. 

However, no strike resulted and on February 23, 1953, a contract 
was signed with the UAW-CIO Local 833 and the International 
Union UAW. 

p]mil Mazey, the secretary -treasurer of the International UAW, told 
the membership : 

We have made more progress in this single set of negotiations in improving 
the contract than you had made previously in 17 years of activity on the part 
of the old union. 

Harvey Kitzman, regional director of the international, told the 
membership that the contract contained the most "improvements" of 
any first contract he had ever hel^^ed to negotiate. 

Just in case there is any question, this is the same union that now 
charges that the company never accepted the union or was willing 
to bargain with them in good faith. 

Kohler Co. granted a wage increase of 12 cents per hour which the 
union characterized as "the greatest wage increase in all Kohler his- 
tory" and fringe benefit increases estimated by the union at 6 cents 
per hour. 

The contract also contained a provision allowing reopening every 
quarter on wages. On May 23, 1953, at the earliest opportunity, the 
union reopened on wages demanding a wage increase of 14 cents per 
hour. 

They explained this demand by stating that they liad asked for 
26 cents on the original negotiations but had accepted 12 cents, so the 
company still owed them 14 cents. 

At the same time the question of Avages and liours in the enamel 
shop, which had been left for later determination by the contract, was 
negotiated. 

The company offered a general wage increase of 3 cents per hour 
plus wage adjustments in the enamel shop. 

On July 25, 1953, a strike vote was taken at a union membership 
meeting and the result was announced as 91.8 percent voting to author- 
ize a strike and to reject the company's proposals. 

The company declined to make further concessions and another 
vote was taken at a membership meeting held August 16, 1953. The 
i-psult was announced as a vote of 88.2 percent in favor of acceptance 
of the same company proposal which the union had previously re- 
jected. 

On August 20, 1953, the UAW accepted the Kohler Co, proposal 
on the general wage increase and also accepted the company's pro- 
posals on wages and hours in the enamel shop. 

On December 12, 1953, Kohler Co. wrote the UAW, calling attention 
to the fact that the contract was expiring on March 1, 1954, and offer- 



lAIPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 9489 

ing to meet and confer for the purpose of negotiating a new contract. 

This was the 60-day notice required by section 8 (d) (1) of the 
National Labor Kelations Act to prevent a contract from automati- 
cally extending itself and it was given at this time in the hope that 
negotiations could be begun and a new contract arrived at before the 
old contract expired. 

Because the union has falsely claimed that the strike was brought 
about by the company's cancellation of the contract, I call attention 
to the fact that this notice stated that the contract would be continued 
in full force and effect until March 1, 1954, its expiration date. 

The union gave a similar notice to the company on December 14, 
1953, but accompanied it with a notice that it had advised the Federal 
and State Mediation Services of the existence of a labor dispute. Thus 
the union notified the Conciliation Service of the existence of a dispute 
before it had even made any proposals to the company or received 
any from it. 

This obviously was to clear the way for a strike. Under section 
8 (d) (3) of the act this notice was not required until 30 days after 
the 60-day notice and then only providing no agreement had been 
reached. 

On January 15 Kohler Co. wrote the UAW calling attention to the 
nearing expiration date of the contract, stating that the company 
was ready to exchange proposals and suggesting that negotiations 
begin so as to avoid the necessity of ''last minute" negotiations under 
the pressure of an imminent expiration date. 

On January 20, 1954, the union responded, stating that they did 
not have their contract proposals ready. 

On January 25, 1954, contract proposals were exchanged. 

I am submitting as an exhibit a copy of the company's initial con- 
tract proposal, together with later contract proposals. In all the 
company made four complete contract proposals as well as many 
written proposals on particular sections of the contract. 

The company at all times had on the table 1, and at most times 2, 
contract proposals which it was ready and willing to sign. 

I am also submitting as an exhibit a copy of the UAW-CIO's pro- 
posal. 

In summary the union asked for extensive changes, proposing 
changes in all except 3 out of the 18 articles of the contract and all 
except 30 out of the 78 sections. 

It demanded a union sliop, a general wage increase of 20 cents per 
hour plus an additional 10 cents per hour for so-called "skilled em- 
ployees," that the company discontinue its pension plan and sub- 
stitute the UAW standard plan, increases in group insurance, changes 
in the seniority provisions of the contract, and a paid lunch period in 
the enamel shop. 

The company proposed few changes in the contract. There had 
been frequent disagreements throughout the year on the interpretation 
of the arbitration provisions of the contract and, to some extent senior- 
ity, and the company proposed to clarify these provisions so that 
there could be no misunderstanding as to what they meant. 

In view of the fact that the company's position on arbitration has 
been widely misrepresented by the UAAV, I w^ould like to state briefly. 

We do not oppose all arbitration. The 1953 contract contained an 
arbitration provision and we were willing to have one in any contract. 



9490 EMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

We agreed to arbitrate the interpretation and application of any 
contract we might make — in other words, to give an arbitrator all the 
authority that a judge of a court of law would have. 

But we do not agree to arbitrate the terms of a contract — to let 
someone who has no knowledge of our business or interest in it write 
a contract for us to live under. Nor wnll we agree to turn over to 
any one not having any knowledge of the business or interest in its 
success the authority to make management decisions on matters vital 
to the conduct of the business while we remain responsible for the 
successful operation of the business. 

Negotiations were begun on February 2, 1954, and continued prac- 
tically daily, except Saturday and Sunday, until March 3. 

During this period the company made numerous concessions in 
contract provisions and incorporated changes made up to that date in 
a new contract proposal dated February 15, 1954. 

On February 23 the union proposed extension of the contract for 
1 month. 

On February 25 the company responded calling attention to its 
earlier efforts to get negotiations going so that they would not be 
under the pressure of an imminent expiration date and offering to 
extend the contract for a year w^ithout change. 

The company specifically stated that such an extension would in- 
clude the quarterly reopening on wages. Consequently, acceptance of 
that proposal would not have required the union to agree to freezing 
wages for a year. 

I mention this incident because the union has falsely stated that the 
company refused to renew the contract where the fact is that it offered 
to renew^ it for a whole year. 

This is also the conclusive answer to the union's charge that the 
company was trying to take away the gains it had previously made. 
Obviously those gains could not have been taken away if the contract 
was renewed for a year without change. 

On February 26, 1954, the company offered a 3 cents per hour wage 
increase, making a total of 18 cents granted or offered in a years time. 

On February 28, 1954, a UAW membership meeting autliorized the 
union officials to conduct a strike vote. 

On JSIarch 2, 1954, the company notified the union that its contract 
with the Government for the manufacture of artillery shells had been 
canceled by the Government effective June 30, and that temporary 
employees — tliat is, employees who were hired for that specific con- 
tract and had been notified when they were hired that their employ- 
ment would be only for the duration of that contract — would be re- 
leased on that date. 

Later during the strike we released 63 of these employees in ac- 
cordance with this notice which the union has charged was an unfair 
labor practice. 

On March 3, 1954, Federal Conciliator James Despins entered the 
negotiations. 

Despite the union's charg;e that Kohler Co. refused to mediate, 
the fact is that every negotiating meeting thereafter was with the 
participation of one or more Federal mediators. State and volunteer 
mediators also participated in some of the meetings. 

On JNIarch 14, 1954, a strike vote was taken at a UAW membership 
meeting. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 9491 

The result was announced as 88.1 percent in favor of a strike. No 
announcement was ever made of the number voting for a strike. 

On March 17, 1954, a three-man panel consisting of Federal medi- 
ators, Messrs. Fleshman, Burts, and Despins, entered the negotiations 
and a panel of Federal mediators participated in all subsequent nego- 
tiation meetings. 

The union began strike preparations, setting up a strike headquar- 
ters and strike kitchen at the same tavern and dance hall that they 
had engaged after the 1953 strike vote, importing personnel from 
Detroit and elsewhere, bringing in sound trucks and similar activity. 

The company also made strike preparations. It brought food, cots, 
etc., into the plant to house and feed the supervisory personnel neces- 
sary to protect the plant and to provide for the continuance of neces- 
sary functions in the event of a strike. 

The union has attempted to throw up a smokescreen about these 
preparations to try to divert attention from its sorry record of co- 
ercion and violence. 

We make no secret of the fact that we were prepared to protect 
the plant and the persons in it in the event of an attack on it, such as 
occurred at the Shakespeare plant in Kalamazoo, Mich, We were well 
aware of the record of the UAW for violence and the threats that they 
had made during the negotiating meetings. 

In view of what happened later no one can say that we were un- 
justified in apprehending that the UAW would conduct its strike by 
violence and illegal methods and that we could look for no protection 
from the sheriff. 

Everyone has the right to protect his person and property from a 
criminal attack — and this is particularly so where law enforcement 
officers are unable or unwilling to ati'ord such protection. 

We had several shotguns and some tear gas for this purpose. 

In view of the union smokescreen regarding this, I wish to call 
attention to the following facts : 

1. None of this material was ever used although we had a mass 
picket line completely blockading all entrances for 54 days. It was 
for the purpose of protection of the plant and people in it, and would 
have been used only if necessary for that purpose. 

2. No one was ever threatened with its use. It was never exhibited 
to any picket. 

The first public knowledge that we had this material was when the 
attorney for the union at the WERB hearing — in a fishing expedition 
for something that could be used as union propaganda to distract from 
the evidence of the union's illegal conduct — asked Mr. Herbert V. 
Kohler, president of Kohler Co., if the company had any tear gas and 
Mi\ Kohler replied that he did not know but thought that we might 
have. 

3. There was nothing illegal about Kohler Co.'s possession of this 
material. 

The union made strident demands of both the district attorney and 
the State attorney general that they prosecute Kohler Co. 

No law violation was involved and these officials did not allow their 
officers to be used as a tool for union propaganda. 



21243— 58— pt. 24- 



9492 LMPROPER ACTIA'ITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 

The tear f^as was at all times under the control of the plant manager, 
Mr. K. J. liiever, who was a duly appointed deputy sheriff and had 
Ijeeu for many years. 

On May ^1, at the lieight of the violence, the sherift' canceled Mr. 
Hiever's authorization as a deputy, as well as other deputy cards issued 
to members of the Kohler Co. organization. 

The tear gas which we had in our possession was then turned over 
to the chief of police of the village of Kohler. 

It is interesting to note that, althougli the sheriff canceled the deputy 
cards of members of the Kohler Co. organization, he took no similar 
action with regard to union members or strikers who were deputies— 
in fact, I am advised that he had one of the strikers acting as dis- 
patcher at his office during much of the strike. 

Also, since 1942, we have had uniformed and armed guards. These 
were originally requested by the Army security officers because of 
our war contracts and we have continued them since. 

The strike began on April 5, 1954. 

On xYpril 5, we put into effect the 3-cent wage offer which had been 
proposed to and rejected by the union. 

At this time we had engaged in '23 bargaining meetings including 
8 meetings with Federal mediators— a total of over 41 hours. We 
had submitted two complete contract proposals and had offered to 
renew the old contract for a year without change. 

From the first hour the UAW completely blockaded all entrances 
to the plant with a mass picket line. 

The pickets were led by outsiders imported from Detroit and else- 
where. Kobert Burkhart, a UAW-CIO international representative 
who had charge of the Kohler situation since the previous September, 
has testified that — 

We tried to make it a point to see to it that there would be at least one 
person, an international representative or someone with trade union exi>erience 
at each of the gates of the plant during the period of the strike. During the 
early period of the strike I should say (NLRB transcript, p. 4652). 

The first morning even some office employees were barred from en- 
trance but were finally allowed to enter after considerable delay. The 
union announced in its daily strike bulletin that it was "official policy'' 
not to interfere with office employees. 

Production employees who tried to enter the plant were blocked 
and refused entrance. 

Trucks attempting to enter the plant were blocked by the picket 
line and turned back. Whenever employees approached the lines the 
pickets, led by the outside goons, would leave the picket line and inter- 
cept them, blocking their passage and making it impossible to advance 
further. 

The union continued its mass picketing and no production workers 
were able to enter the plant except a few who got in at night through 
the back of the plant. 

The union barred even business visitors to the office and persons 
desiring to go to the Kohler Co. medical department for treatment 
unless they had a pass signed by a union official. One nonstriker 
who asked for such a pass to enter the medical department for treat- 
ment was refused it on the ground that he was a nonstriker. 

One employee. Dale Oostdyk, who attempted to enter the plant at 
night through a gate some distance from the highway, was captured 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 9493 

by pickets, beaten severely, dragged down to strike headquarters, 
and held incommunicado for half an hour while officials of the union 
tried to pressure him into joining the union. 

Because it was night he was unable to identify his actual captors. 

Because the sheriff was making no attempt to enforce law and 
order we hired a firm of private detectives to try to ascertain who 
was responsible for the kidnaping. We have hired other detectives 
to try to identify the perpetrators of the vandalism and to assist us 
in getting evidence to defend the miion's charges against us before 
the NLRB. 

We take the position that we have a right to employ a detective 
to catch a criminal, particularly when law enforcement officer's are 
tolerating an open reign of terror. And we have a right to use one 
to obtain evidence needed in the trial of a suit. 

On April 12 a group of nonstrikers made an attempt to enter the 
plant but were repulsed. 

Whenever any nonstrikers would approach the picket line to enter, 
the pickets — lecl by union officials and imported goons would go out 
to meet them and block their path while those who remained would 
lock a,rms, stop marching and completely blockade the entrance. 
Shouts of "hold that line," "nobody gets in," "we shall not be moved," 
"yellow scab," and similar epithets would arise from the picket line 
or be chanted in concert. 

Employees attempting to enter the plant were slugged, kneed in the 
groin, kicked, pushed, and threatened. No one except supervisory 
or office employees or those having a pass signed by a union official 
was able to pass through the picket line. 

Wlienever an attempt was made to enter a gate, cars would drive 
up with pickets wearing arm bands marked "flying squadron" to re- 
inforce the pickets at that gate. 

The village police ordered the picket line to open and permit the 
nonstrikers to enter but their orders were ignored and they were im- 
able to open the picket lines sufficiently to permit the nonstrikers to 
enter. 

Nonstrikers who asked the sheriff or his deputies for assistance to 
pass through the line were told that he would take them up to the 
line but would not make any attempt to help them get through. They 
were advised to go home and not make trouble. 

The union boasted that the pickets numbered more than 2,000. 

The regular village police force numbered four men and was mani- 
festly inadequate to cope with such a mob. 

Prior to the strike the village had deputized some additional — 
part-time policemen— they requested the company to give them a leave 
of absence for as long as they were needed during the strike. 

We did so. 

The union professes to find something reprehensible about this. It 
seems in their view that a small village invaded by a lawless mob may 
take no steps to protect itself. It may not deputize citizens and resi- 
dents of the village to protect persons and property in the village 
but must submit supinely to having a lawless mob take over. 

No one has yet pointed out — or can point out — anything that these 
special policemen did that they should not have done. 



9494 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Certainly they did not restrict any legal right of a striker or a picket. 

In fact they did not even prevent the illegal mass picket line which 
kept the plant in a state of seige for 54 days. 

This mass picketing proceeded according to plan. The strike com- 
mittee met every day to direct the strategy of the strike. 

Emil Mazey, secretary-treasurer and acting president of the Inter- 
national UAW-CIO, observed the character of the picketing, made 
speeches to the pickets and toured the picket lines. 

Other union officials who were present and participating in the mass 
picketing, some while nonstrikers were attempting to enter, were; 

Harvey Kitzman, regional director, UAW-CIO. 

Frank Sahorske, assistant regional director, UAW-CIO. 

Jess Ferrazza, administrative assistant to Emil Mazey. 

Kobert Burkart, international representative in charge for the in- 
ternational. 

Donald Rand, international representative, UAW-CIO. 

Ray Majerus, international representative, UAW-CIO. 

William Vinson, international representative, UAW-CIO. 

Charles Schultz, State president, UAW-CIO. 

Clayton Carpenter, assistant educational director, UAW-CIO. 

David Rabinovitz, attorney, UAW-CIO. 

John Gunaca, international man sent from Detroit. 

Joseph Burns, international man sent from Detroit. 

James Fiore, international man sent from Detroit. 

Boyce Land, international man sent from Detroit. 

Dan Prested, international man sent from Detroit. 

Frank Stallons, international man sent from Kenosha. 

Frank Wallick, local publicity director for the UAW-CIO, and 
many others whom we were unable to identify ; as well as local officials : 

Allan Graskamp, president. Local 833, UAW-CIO. 

Arthur Bauer, vice president, Local 833, UAW-CIO. 

Egbert Kohlhagen, secretary. Local 833, UAW-CIO. 

John Konec, chief picket captain. Local 833, UAW-CIO. 

Curtiss Nack, sergeant-at-arms, Local 833, UAW-CIO. 

William Rawling, chief steward. Local 833, UAW-CIO. 

Ed Kalupa, member strike committee, Local 833, UAW-CIO. 

Gordon Majerus, member strike committee. Local 833, UAW-CIO. 

Elmer Oskey, member strike committee, local 833, UAW-CIO. 

Among those who have testified to attempts to enter the plant and 
to being blocked by tlie pickets, are Harold Jacobs and Alice Tracey, 
Jerome Bersch, Rene Fedeswisch, and many others. 

These photographs, together with many others, have been in the 
hands of the committee's investigative staff for several months. 

International union officers and officials and local union officials are 
identified on those photographs. 

The movies of the mass picketing and the violence which occurred 
when nonstrikers attempted to enter the plant have been shown here. 

The strikers even threatened nonstrikers who were across the street 
from the picket line. 

My assistant, Mr. E. J. Hammer, was ordered off the street by Jess 
Ferrazza, administrative assistant to Emil Mazey, with some very vile 
and threatening language. 



lAIPROPBR ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 9495 

On April 12, a large group of nonstriking employees attempted to 
enter the plant but were repulsed by the mass picket line led by the 
outsiders imported from Detroit. 

Prominent in preventing nonstrikers from entering were Jess Fer- 
razza, administrative assistant to Emil Mazey, Harvey Kitzman, 
regional director of the UAW-CIO, William Vionson, international 
rei^resentative, UAW-CIO, later sentenced to a prison term for 
felonious assault, Donald Rand, international representative, UAW- 
CIO, Robert Burkart, international representative UAW-CIO, who 
liad been sent in the September previous to take charge of the Kohler 
union, Frank Sahorske, assistant regional director, UAW-CIO, James 
Fiore sent from Detroit. All these have been identified on the photo- 
graphs that I have submitted. 

Some of the nonstrikers who have tried to enter the plant have 
told me that they recognized few if any Kohler Co. employees among 
the group that stopped them, and I and others who have viewed the 
photographs have found that there were only a few actual Kohler 
employees in the groups which prevented nonstrikers from going to 
work. This was largely the work of outsiders. 

Nonstrikers who attempted to enter the plant on this date have 
testified before the Wisconsin Employment Relations Board and the 
NLRB and transcripts of such testimony are in the hands of the com- 
mittee staff. 

On April 15, 1954, we filed complaint with the Wisconsin Employ- 
ment Relations Board against the mass picketing, and other illegal 
acts. 

On April 19, another group of nonstriking employees made an 
attempt to enter the plant but were repulsed, again largely by out- 
siders who were not and never had been Kohler Co. employees. 

On April 26, a group of nonstrikers attempted to enter the plant 
in their cars. They were intercepted by the pickets, their path blocked 
by a solid mass of pickets and their forward progress stopped. 
Threats were made to overturn their cars. A union station wagon 
was moved across the driveway to block it and then disabled so that 
it could not be moved under its own power. Pickets resisted the at- 
tempts of the village police to move the station wagon out of the 
driveway. 

Again the outsiders were most prominent, Robert Burkart, inter- 
national representative, John Gunaca, who was sent from Detroit and 
is now a fugitive from justice on a charge of assault with intent to 
do great bodily harm, Frank Sahorske, assistant regional director, 
UAW-CIO, Ray Majerus, international representative, UAW-CIO, 
are shown by the photographs that I have submitted to have been in 
the forefront of this activity. Dan Prested, another outsider from 
Detroit was arrested for his activities on this occasion and found guilty 
of preventing persons from engaging in lawful work by violence and 
coercion. 

On April 27, 1954, the union petitioned the Federal district court 
for an injunction to prevent the Wisconsin Employment Relations 
Board and Kohler Co. from proceeding on Kohler Co.'s complaint. 
Their position was that the Federal statute had preempted all State 
statutes and that the State has no right to control violence and mob 
action within its borders if such breach of the peace was committed 
by a union. 



9496 LMPKOPEK ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 

It is interesting to note that this case was not decided until May 19, 
1955. This is a long time for an action for a temporary injunction 
to be pending. 

And all this time the union was advising its members that the Wis- 
consin Employment Relations Board had no jurisdiction and that its 
orders were a nullity. 

An argument was held on this petition on May 2, 1954. Judge Tehan 
allowed until JNIay 11 to file briefs. 

On May 4 the Wisconsin Employment Relations Board began 
liearing on the company's complaint. 

The union asked for a postponement stating that it needed time to 
prepare briefs in the Federal court action and that one of its attorneys 
was sick. 

The board granted the postponement on condition that the union 
conduct its piclceting legally under certain prescribed conditions, that 
is, not to interfere with entrance to or egress from the plant, limit the 
number of pickets at each gate and certain other conditions. 

The union asked time to consider whether or not to accept these 
conditions and asked what the company's position as to resumption of 
bargaining would be in case the union accepted them. 

The company, from the first day of the strike took the position that 
it would not bargain under illegal duress, that we would not negotiate 
while the union was shutting our plant down by an illegal mass picket 
line. 

We are willing to bargain with any union that represents our em- 
ployees, but we will not bargain with a gun at our head. 

Nor will we make any concessions merely to get the union to obey 
the law. 

To make such concessions would be to rewaicl illegal conduct and 
to encourage its repetition whenever the union wanted something that 
an employer was unwilling to grant. 

We stated that if the union lived up to the conditions prescribed by 
the board Ave would resume bargaining. 

The chairman of the board then asked if we would assume that the 
union would live up to the conditions if they agreed to them and we 
responded that we would. The date of Friday, May 7, was set for the 
resumption of negotiations. 

The union did open up the picket lines and employees who desired 
to return to work were able to do so, although not without some 
interference. 

We met with the union and the Federal mediators on May 7. At 
the conclusion of the day the union demanded that we meet again on 
Saturday and Sunday. 

There had been no previous negotiating meetings on Saturday or 
Sunday. 

We stated that we had to use Saturday and Sunday to prepare 
briefs in the Federal court action, the same reason that the union had 
given for asking postponement of the WERB hearing, but that we 
would be willing to resume negotiations on Monday. 

The union held a mass meeting on Sunday, May 9, and announced 
the decision of the union's executiA'e committee to close the lines and 
resume the former type of picketing. Graskamp, local union presi- 
dent announced that the "cloves are off." 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIEiLD 9497 

Burkart told the membership that if the company was successful 
in getting an injunction they would be compelled to change their 
tactics. He referred to nonstrikers as "germs" and in other deroga- 
tory terms and advised the members to "do everything possible to 
stop them before they get to the picket lines." 

The union made a tape recording of a portion of these proceedings 
and played it that night over their radio program. Burkart has 
testified here as to those statements. 

Right after this meeting the picket lines were again closed and the 
mass picketing resumed. 

If there can be any doubt that this mass picketing was planned 
and controlled by the union this episode should settle it. They 
clearly demonstrated their ability to turn the mass picketing on and 
off at will. 

Ostensibly the union took this action because of our refusal to ne- 
gotiate on Saturday and Sunday. Actually they took it because they 
were alarmed at the number of employees who returned to work as 
soon as they were able to do so. 

On May 10, a group of nonstrikers again attempted to enter the 
plant and were again repulsed. Prominent in the mass picket line 
which prevented the nonstrikers from entering were Jess Ferrazza, 
administrative assistant to Emil Mazey; Frank Sahorske, assistant 
regional director, UAW; Robert Burkart, international representa- 
tive assigned to the Kohler local ; William Vinson, international rep- 
resentative later convicted of assault with intent to do great bodily 
harm; and John Gunaca, now a fugitive from justice on a charge of 
assault with intent to do great bodily harm. 

These individuals are all identified on the photographs which I 
have submitted. 

Since the union had resumed its illegal mass picketing we refused 
to resume negotiations, and requested the "VAT^RB to resume hearings 
on our complaint. 

On May 12 and 13, the WERB held hearings and took testimony. 
The hearing was interrupted on May 14 by arguments in Federal 
Judge Tehan's court on the union's suit for an injunction. The hear- 
ing was resumed on May 14, and hearings were also held on May 18 
and 19. 

A transcript of the testimony taken in this case was made available 
to the staff of this committee several months ago. 

On May 17, 1954, another group of nonstrikers made an attempt 
to enter the plant and were again repulsed. Two Ux\W-international 
representatives, William Vinson and Joseph Burns, were arrested. 
Burns was found guilty of disorderly conduct and Vinson of dis- 
orderly conduct and use of force to prevent pursuit of lawful em- 
ployment. 

On May 21, 1954, the Wisconsin Employment Relations Board en- 
tered an interlocutory order ordering the union to cease and desist 
from mass picketing and other specified illegal acts. The board 
also limited the number of pickets per gate and specified that there 
should be no interference w^ith entrance and egress to the plant and 
specified that there should be a 30-foot area at each entrance to the 
plant over which picketing would not be permitted at any time. 



9498 IMPROPER ACTrVITLES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The union promptly announced tliat the WERB had no jurisdic- 
tion, basing their claim on the doctrine of Federal preemption and 
pointing to their injunction suit in Judge Tehan's court, and stated 
that they would ignore the order. Our opinion, later confirmed by 
the Supreme Court of the United States, was that the State had juris- 
diction as it is the natural guardian of the public against violence 
and breaches of the peace. On May 24, 1954, a large group of non- 
strikers, in reliance on the order of the WEKB, attempted to enter 
the plant, but were again repulsed. 

Again leading the action and identified on tlie photographs which 
I have submitted are Jess Ferrazza, administrative assistant to Emil 
Mazey; Robert Burkart, international representative assigned to the 
Kohler local; Frank Sahorske, assistant regional director, TTAW: 
Donald Rand, international representative, UAW; Joseph P)urns, 
international representative, UAW; William Vinson, international 
representative, UAW; Ray Majorus, international representative, 
UAW; Frank Stallons and James Fiori, international representatives, 
and also Local 833 UAW officials Allan Graskamp, president ; John 
Konec, chief picket captain; Curtis Nack, sergeant at arms, and 
Elmer Oskey, Ed Kalupa, and Gordon Majorus, members of the strike 
committee. 

As a result of this episode Stallons and a local union member, Gor- 
don Peryam, were arrested and found guilty of disorderly conduct. 

After the nonstrikers were repulsed the sheriff's deputies had lunch 
with the pickets. This is shown on one of the photographs that I have 
submitted. 

On May 25, another group of nonstrikers made an attempt to enter 
the plant but were again repulsed. 

The WERB brought an action in Sheboygan County Circuit Court 
for an injunction enforcing its order. 

When the matter came to a hearing on Mry 28, 1954, the union 
came in and promised to comply with the order, and on this promise 
the hearing was adjourned from day to day. 

The union did open the picket lines and employees began to return 
to work. This again showed the control of the union over the mass 
picketing and their ability to turn it off at will. 

On June 1, 1954, we resumed negotiations with the union with a 
panel of three Federal mediators participating and the chairman of 
the Wisconsin Employment Relations Board participating in some 
of the meetings. 

These negotiations continued without interruption until June 29. 

During this series of negotiations the company made important 
additional concessions in seniority — upon which agreement was 
reached at one time — an agreement which later became disagreement 
when the union insisted on a change in a clause of tlie old contract 
which they had formerly agreed to renew. The company also made 
concessions in group hospitalization insurance. It agreed to make the 
maximum under the union's proposed pension plan the minimum un- 
der the existing Kohler pension plan — at its own sole cost. It agreed 
to many other changes in contract language. 

In fact, of the issues testified by union representatives in the NLRB 
proceedings to be the seven major issues — namely, union security, 
seniority, pensions, insurance, arbitration, wages, and paid lunch time 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 9499 

in tlie enamel shop — the company made concessions on all of them 
except one — union security. 

We have been and we are opposed to compulsory unionism in any 
form. It is the right of every American citizen to determine for 
himself what organization he shall belong to and how he will bargain 
for the reward for his efforts. No one, union, management, or both 
together, has a right to take this decision away from him. 

During the June negotiations, assaults on nonstriking employees 
and vandalism to their property reached major proportions. 

When we protested to the union, Jess Ferrazza, an administrative 
assistant to Emil Mazey, stated, "We haven't gone into high gear 
yet" and Harvey Kitzman, regional director, stated "I hope you will 
never go the route of hiring new employees because then the trouble 
really will start." 

On June 18, International Representative William Vinson made an 
unprovoked assault on a nonstriker, James Van Owerkirk — a much 
smaller man — crushing his chest and inflicting injuries which resulted 
in near death and several weeks' hospitalization. 

Wlien Vinson was later tried for this offense the union came to his 
defense and provided lawyers to defend him. When he was con- 
victed by a jury of assault with intent to do great bodily harm and 
sentenced to a l-to-2-year term in prison, Emil Mazey made a vitu- 
perative verbal assault on the judge who had dared to sentence Vin- 
son, declaring that the judge was unfit to serve the people of Sheboy- 
gan County and demanding a boycott of a grocery store in which the 
judge had inherited a financial interest. 

The sentence imposed by the judge was less than the maximum for 
the offense, and was sustained by the Supreme Court of Wisconsin 
in a vigorous opinion. 

On June 23, we warned the union that if this type of conduct con- 
tinued, we would discontinue bargaining. We also told them that 
bargaining had reached an impasse and that we had reached the 
limit of our concessions. 

We told them that they could not disavow responsibility for Vin- 
son's actions since he was an international representative. 

We continued these warnings and on June 29, after a shotgmi blast 
through the window of a nonstriker, Harold Curtis, the night before 
we broke off negotiations. 

I have placed in the hands of the staff of this committee a chrono- 
logical list of the acts of violence and vandalism with dates and names 
of the victims. Aifidavits concerning these episodes also have been 
placed in the hands of the committee staff. 

There have been over 800 of these acts of violence and vandalism 
directed at nonstrikers. Some of our nonstriking employees have 
been subjected to repeated attacks of this nature. 

These acts include dynamiting of seven automobiles, paint bombings, 
assaults, smearing of automobiles with acid or paint remover, shotgun 
blasts through windows, slashing of tires and scattering of nails in 
company driveways and public roads to puncture tires, destroying the 
contents of a cottage with sulfuric acid, smashing windows of homes 
and automobiles with rocks, putting sand and sugar in the gasoline 
tanks of automobiles, smearing human excrement on the upholstery 
and steering wheels of automobiles, destroying flowers and shrubbery, 
and similar cowardly attacks under cover of darkness. 



9500 IMPROPER ACIIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

On July 4, 195-4, a nonstriking employee, William Berscli, Jr., who 
was working part time in a lilling station, was assaulted and knocked 
unconscious by three assailants. His father, William Bersch, Sr., 
Avho came to his rescue, was also assaulted and suffered a broken neck 
and other injuries from which he never fully recovered prior to his 
death some months later. 

William Bersch has identified two of his assailants as John Gunaca 
and William Vrcovic, a striker. He was unable to identify the third 
assailant. 

Gunaca fled to Michigan and Governor Williams still refuses to 
extradite him. 

The sheriff of Sheboygan County made no arrests and professed 
inability to apprehend the peipetrators of any of these acts. 

The only arrests made were made by law-enforcement officers of 
adjoining counties and in some of the small municipalities in the 
county which had their own police forces. However, when one non- 
striker, William Banonse, was driven by harassment to an act of 
retaliation, he was promptly apprehended and arrested. 

It is significant that the nuinicipalities of Kohler and Plymouth 
were free of these acts of vandalism and the city of Sheboygan Falls 
had only a few which ceased promptly where the perpetrators of one 
of these acts were arrested and convicted. 

These acts also have ceased in Sheboygan County since the election 
of a new sheriff who was elected despite the union's vigorous opposi- 
tion. The former sheriff was enthusiastically supported for reelection 
by the union. 

To lessen the intimidatory effect of this vandalism we announced 
that we would reimbuse nonstrikers for such vandalism damage which 
was not covered by insurance. We made reimbursement of such dam- 
age in the amount of over $21,000. How much more vandalism 
damage was covered by insurance we do not know. 

These acts also have ceased in the city of Sheboygan since the elec- 
tion of a new mayor. The former mayor, Ploetz, was elected by the 
union's support and enthusiastically supported for reelection by the 
union. 

On October 16, 1954, four strikers, Franklyn Schroeder, Charles 
Writz, William Retella, and Douglas Strebe, were arrested in the 
neighboring county of Calumet for assaulting a nonstriker and dam- 
aging his property. 

The union came to their defense, and provided bail bonds and 
lawyers. When they were convicted and sentenced to jail, the union 
lawyer arranged for their transfer to the Sheboygan County jail. The 
union paid them $50 a w^eek while they were in jail and arranged for 
their release during the daytime, ostensibly to do office work for the 
union. 

Actually they sat in the courtroom during the NLRB hearing jeer- 
ijig at and threatening nonstrikers wdio were prospective witnesses 
until we had to ask the trial examiner to intervene and put an end 
toit. 

Although there was no complete blocking of entrance to, the plant 
nonstriking employees were subjected to continual harassment wdien 
they entered. Their cars were scratched, Avindows broken with rocks, 
and cars defaced by having acid or paint remover thrown on them. 



LVIPROPER ACTIVrTIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 9501 

The sheriff's deputies in charge never seemed to be able to see any 
of these incidents although they were very zealous to spot any possible 
law violations by nonstrikers such as expired license plates, et cetera. 

The order of the WERB provided that a 30-foot space should be left 
in each driveway over which picketing should not occur. 

The UAW proceeded to interpret this order as depriving the com- 
pany of the use of all except 30 feet of its driveway. They placed 
barricades and cans filled with rocks so as to block all except 30 feet 
of the driveway. This 30 feet was placed at an angle to the driveway 
so that it was necessary for a car to come to practically a complete 
stop in order to negotiate the turn. 

The pickets ostentatiously noted the license numbers of the cars and 
took pictures of the occupants. 

Since the intimidatory effect of this may not be apparent, I refer to 
the November 11, 1954, issue of the Kohlerian, the union's official news- 
paper stating that Max Wimmer had returned to work and giving his 
address. 

Thereafter Max Wimmer was the victim of the following acts of 
vandalism : 

November 15, 1954 — Two glass jars thrown through the windows of 
his home. 

November 26, 1954 — Jar filled with paint thrown through the win- 
dow of his home. 

November 15, 1955 — His garage broken into, his car smeared with 
paint and scratched, and the interior smeared with human excrement. 

Photographs of the damage to the car are included in the photo- 
graphs that I have submitted and affidavits covering these incidents 
are m the hands of the committee staff. 

The climax, so far as the sheriff's deputies were concerned, came 
when the sheriff's deputies arrested a nonstriker for driving through 
the blockade illegally erected by the pickets. 

I wrote the sheriff demanding an end to such proceedings and 
warning him that we would take legal action to compel him to re- 
move his deputies if such actions continued. 

On July 12, 1954, the union filed charges against the company be- 
fore the NLRB. It is noteworthy that no such charges were filed 
until after the mass picketing had been prohibited and the cam- 
paign of violence and vandalism was obviously failing although 
the charges were based on the company's alleged failure to bargain 
before the strike and other matters that were well known to them 
before the strike. 

It was not until their illegal tactics had failed that they sought 
a legal remedy. 

The reason that they took such action at that time is also obvious. 
The union's publications reported that their "secret agents'' in the 
plant were handing in reports that a new independent union was be- 
ing formed and the union feared that this independent union would 
ask for an election. 

The pendency of an NLRB proceeding usually bars an election 
to determine a majority and after filing their charges the union an- 
nounced that any election to determine a majority was now barred. 

The proceeding was stalled and dragged out by the union as long 
as possible and every time it seemed about to conclude they filed new 



9502 LMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 

charges to keep it going. They filed five different sets of amended 
charges, all, in our opinion, to keep the proceeding pending as a 
bar to an election. 

The union loudly complains about the delay in the NLRB proceed- 
ings but tliey neglect to state that it was their own actions in repeat- 
edly amending and changing their complaint that was responsible for 
the delay. 

In late July the union wrote Mr. H. V. Kohler requesting resump- 
tion of negotiations. We agreed. 

Negotiations were begun on August 4 and continued until August 
13. Federal mediators suggested that the union submit its current 
demands in writing and they stated their demands in a letter to Mr. 
H. V. Kohler dated Augaist 10. 

This was the first written counterproposal submitted by the union 
since their original contract demands although the company had 
by that time submitted three separate conti-act proposals as well as 
offering to renew the contract for a year without change. 

In summary the union reduced their wage demands from 20 cents 
per hour plus an additional 10 cents per hour for so-called skilled 
workers to 10 cents per hour plus 5 cents per hour for skilled work- 
ers and their union security demand from a union shop to mainte- 
nance of membership. 

The company responded by Mr. Herbert V. Kohler's letter of 
August 13. 

Meanwhile mob demonstrations at the homes of nonstrikers had 
begun about August 4. Nonstriking workers returning home from 
work were met by mobs of 200 to 500 shouting epithets and threats 
and intimidating'them and their families. The union in its publica- 
tions did everything possible to stimulate these mob demonstrations 
and boasted that after these mob assaults the "scabs were no longer 
showing up for work." 

Photographs of some of these mobs are included in the photographs 
which I have submitted. 

When the company letter of August 13 was delivered to the union, 
union sjiokesmen stated that they would not accept a contract on 
that basis and Allan Grasskamp, president of the local union stated, 
"If that's all the company has to offer, the hinges on the door are in 
good working order." Company representatives then left the meeting. 

The mob demonstrations at the homes of nonstriking employees 
continued. 

On August 19 we submitted evidence of these violations of its order 
to the WERB and requested it to take action to enforce its order. 

The WERB petitioned the Sheboygan County Circuit Court for 
an injunction to enforce its order and the mob demonstrations stopped. 

On September 1, 1954, Jud<2;e Murphy, who had been called in to 
hear the case, granted the petition of the WERB and issued an in- 
junction enforcing the Board's order. 

After pronouncing his judgment Judge Murphy offered his services 
as a mediator and the offer was accepted by both parties. 

Several negotiating meetings were held in September with Judge 
Murphy, the Federal conciliator, and, at times, the chairman of the 
Wisconsin Emplo3'ment Relations Board participating, but no settle- 
ment resulted. 



IMPROPER ACTIVrTIES M THE LABOR FIELD 9503 

Beginning about October 1 and increasing in intensity thereafter, 
the union began a campaign to bar prospective job applicants from 
entering the company's employment office. 

Persons approaching the employment office had their progress 
blocked by a solid mass of pickets, were bumped, shoved, kicked, 
tripped, threatened, vilified, and spit upon with tobacco juice. 
(Photographs of this employment office picketing are included in the 
photographs which I have submitted. ) 

We demanded enforcement of the injunction and the WEKB com- 
menced a contempt action in Sheboygan County Circuit Court. 

On May 25, 1955, Judge Boileau, who had been called in to hear 
the case, found local 833, UAW-CIO, and 16 individual strikers in 
contempt of court for violation of the injunction. Later, on June 29, 
1956, the judge assessed fines against them and sent one to jail. 

All this while the union, in its publications and on its radio pro- 
gram, had been trying to inflame hatred against the nonstrikers 
callm^ them traitors, Judas', Benedict Arnolds, and using other 
scurrilous terms. 

Nonstrikers could not attend church, engage in customary recrea- 
tional activities, or shop in the stores without being subjected to 
harassment, epithets, threats, or actual assaults. 

The union boasted in its publication that clergymen had been com- 
pelled to call off church picnics because "they feared the fate of the 
scabs * * *." 

The union's publicity mediums even attacked the local clergymen 
because they had not spoken out in favor of the union and had not 
used their pulpits to support the strike. 

On February 6 and 7, 1956, several bowling teams from the com- 
pany's recreation department went to Sheboygan to bowl in a city 
tournament at Root's Bowling Alleys. They were harassed by a mob 
of strikers yelling threats and epithets such as scabs, slimy scabs, 
yellow scabs, and subjected to every kind of insult including asper- 
sions on the virtue of their wives. One nonstriker was assaulted and 
others were kicked. 

A Kohler Co. lawyer, Mr. J. A. Desmond, was told, "It's a good 
thing the lights don't go out or there'd be a dead lawyer around here." 

I personally had encountered a similar episode earlier when I went 
to Sheboygan to bowl in a tournament and was harassed for 2 hours 
by a gang of strikers shouting such epithets as slimy Conger, stinky 
Conger, Egghead, Old Crow, and many others of similar import. 

On February 8, 1955, hearings on the union's charges were begun. 
These hearings lasted only 3 days with Mr. Herbert V. Kohler, presi- 
dent of the company, called adversely, as the only witness. Attorneys 
for the NLRB then requested an adjournment to make amendments to 
their complaints. 

During his testimony Mr. Kohler had mentioned that the company 
would not reinstate persons guilty of illegal conduct in connection 
with the strike. This was no novel position since we had amiounced 
it before the strike and frequently during the negotiations. 

After the hearing adjourned, the union sent Mr. Kohler a letter 
demanding a list of those who would not be reinstated. 

On March 1 the company replied giving the union a list of 91 em- 
ployes who were discharged for violence and illegal conduct in con- 
nection with the strike. 



9504 IMPROPER ACI^JVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 

It was discovered tliat one man's name was included in the list by 
mistake, and his discharge was revoked, leaving 90 discharged. 

The list included the officers of the local union and its strike com- 
mittee wdio had o])enly directed and controlled the mass picketing 
and other unlawful activities. 

These men were clearly the most responsible for this illegal conduct 
for they planned^ directed, and controlled it. 

The company nnports nmch of the clay used in the manufacture of 
its vitreous chinaware from England by boat direct to Sheboygan 
harbor. 

On July 1, 1955, the union, in its daily radio broadcast, started pub- 
licizing the pending arrival of a clay boat and inducing large crowds 
to be on hand to meet it. 

Their purpose was obvious and we gave written notice to the sheriff 
and the chief of police of the city of Sheboygan of the arrival of the 
boat and demanded that adequate police protection be afforded. 

The clay boat, the Fossum, arrived July 2, 1955, and an attempt was 
made on July 5, 1955, to unload it. 

The independent contractor, Buteyn Bros., who had a contract to 
unload the clay and transport it to the Kohler plant, was unable to get 
equipment into the dock area or unload the boat because of the riotous 
mob which had assembled. 

Employees of the contractor who tried to move equipment into the 
area were kicked and beaten. 

Donald Kand, international representative, told the contractor that 
the imion was going to "pull out all stops" to prevent the clay from 
being delivered. 

Photographs showing this episode are included in the photographs 
that I have submitted and affidavits of the contractor and some of his 
men have been in the possession of the committee's staff' for several 
months. 

A riotous mob of thousands assembled. W^^^^^ Kohler Co. at- 
tempted to move some unloading equipment into the area, it was 
halted by the mob. The employees driving it were beaten and had to 
be rescued hj the police. 

WindoAvs in the home of a nonstriker, James Holsen, living nearby 
were broken and his car overturned. This was the same nonstriker 
who, on an earlier occasion, had had his car dynamited. 

Nonstrikers who by accident or through curiosity drove near the 
area w^ere assaulted and had the windows of their cars broken. 

A nonstriker, Grunewald, who happened into the area Avas beaten 
severely, suffering a broken nose and other injuries. 

Mayor Ploetz of the city of Sheboygan addressed the mob over a 
loudspeaker and promised that no attempt would be made to unload 
the boat. 

He issued orders to the police to prevent any Kohler Co. unloading 
equipment from being brought within three blocks of the dock area. 

There is no evidence that lie ever issued any orders to the police to 
interfere in any Avay with the rioters. 

Although this riot lasted all day and into the night and occurred 
in full vieAv of the authorities, to this day not one arrest has been made 
of anyone who participated in it. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 9505 

On July 6, the clay boat left Sheboygan harbor, still unloaded, and 
proceeded to Milwaukee, ^Yhere the owners of the clay had been as- 
sured by the harbormaster that it could be unloaded. 

The union established a r>icket line at the Milwaukee docks and the 
municipal dock workers refused to unload the cargo. 

Harvey Kitzman, regional director of the UAW announced that the 
boat would be picketed wherever it attempted to unload. 

Charles Schultz, State president of the UAW-CIO threatened to 
call a citywide general strike if any attempt was made to unload the 
boat. 

The boat then left Milwaukee harbor and, together with a sister 
ship, proceeded to Montreal, Canada, where authorities dispersed an 
attempted picket line and the boats unloaded without further incident. 

The clay was shipped from Montreal to Kohler by railroad. The 
union picketed the trains hauling the clay but we were successful in 
getting them into the plant. 

Kohler Co. has sued the city of Sheboygan for damages caused by 
its failure to provide protection for the unloading of the clay and the 
clay boatowners and owners of the clay have sued the city of Mil- 
waukee for damages due to its refusal to unload the clay. These suits 
are still pending. 

The owners of the clay also filed charges before the NLRB alleg- 
ing that the interference with the unloading of the clay was a viola- 
tion of the secondary-boycott provisions of the National Labor-Man- 
agement Relations Act. 

The union agreed to a consent decree and an enforcement order by 
the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. 

This enforcement order has been entered and subsequent clay boat 
shipments have entered Sheboygan harbor and been unloaded without 
incident. 

Late in July 1955, I received a telephone call from Mr. Finnegan, 
head of the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, asking if we 
would attend further negotiation meetings to be held in Chicago. I 
advised him that we would. 

Negotiating meetings were held, with the Federal conciliators par- 
ticipating, from July 27 to August 2, 1955. 

The company submitted a written settlement proposal which in- 
cluded an otfer of a general wage increase of 5 cents per hour for 
incentive paid employees and 10 cents per hour for hourly paid em- 
ployees in addition to the 3 cents per hour already granted. 

The union rejected the company's proposal and no settlement was 
reached. 

I have not gone into detail with respect to the specific bargaining 
issues because I do not believe them to be material to the question 
before this committee. 

What disagreements we may have had with this union over con- 
tract terms are hardly a matter of grave national concern. 

But this powerful union's belief that it is above the law, and en- 
titled to use coercion and violence to compel employer and employee 
alike to submit to its dictates is of national concern. 

What has happened at Kohler was not accident. This reign of 
terror proceeded according to plan, the standard plan of the UAW- 
CIO. 



9506 IMPROPER ACrnVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Kohler strike might be settled tomorrow but the question would 
still remain, "Is a union to be allowed by mass picketing, assaults, 
threats, attacks on their homes, and intimidation of their families to 
force men into union membership or on strike against their will?" 

We have taken our stand in the firm belief that if we are to retain 
representative, constitutional government in this country, union 
leaders must obey the law the same as everyone else. 

We cannot have peaceful communities invaded by lawless mobs 
led by imported hoodlums, law enforcement nuUilied, and the citizens 
subjected to a lawless reign of teiTor. 

We have said that we will do nothing to reward such conduct, and 
by rewarding it encourage its ref)etition in the future whenever any- 
one, Kohler Co. or anyone else, dares to disagree with the union 
leaders. 

This is and will continue to be our position. 

When it became apparent that the cruder forms of coercion were 
failing, the union switched to a new form of coercion, a boycott. 

They have sought to make Kohler Co. an object lesson that anyone 
who dared to disagree with them would be placed under sentence of 
economic death through a boycott. 

Donald Rand, international representative in charge of the UAW- 
CIO boycott, was quoted in the August 9, 1956, issue of the Wall 
Street Journal as saying : 

It seems to me that it is almost sinful to have any labor dispute degenerate 
to the point where this one has — where we actually have to wreck the company. 
That's what we're doing, wrecking the company. 

It was the intent of Congress that unions should be able to bargain 
on even terms with employers. 

But, I do not believe that Congress ever intended to put labor 
unions in a position to wreck any company that did not yield to their 
demands, whatever they might be. 

Like their efforts to get employees to join their vmion and support 
their strike, their boycott activity has not been confined to peaceful 
persuasion but has involved every possible type of coercion and in- 
timidation. 

The boycott began with a statement in late September of 1954 by 
Harvey Kitzman, regional director of the UAW-CIO, Charles M. 
Schultz, State president of the UAW-CIO, Ross Baum, State secre- 
tary-treasurer, and other officials of the UAW-CIO calling on all 
union members and the public to refrain from buying Kohler prod- 
ucts. 

This was followed by a resolution adopted at the State convention 
of the Wisconsin State Industrial Union Council, October 20 to 24, 
1954, calling upon workers and others "to refrain from buying or in- 
stalling any of the goods or wares produced by Kohler Co." 

Refusal to install is, of course, a secondary boycott. Pkmibing 
fixtures are customarily installed by union journeyman plumbers and 
this resolution to refrain from installing was obviously directed to 
them. 

In the middle of May 1955, UAW pickets commenced following 
trucks carrying Kohler material and setting up a picket line wherever 
the truck sought to unload. Some of the destinations where such 
picket lines were established were United Plumbing & Heating Sup- 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 9507 

ply Co., Milwaukee, Wis., Cordes Supply Co., Milwaukee, Wis., 
Keupert Plumbing & Appliance Co., Milwaukee, Wis., and F. R. 
Dengel Co., Milwaukee, Wis. 

UxVW-CIO representative, Ray Majerus, appeared at the latter 
scene and was obviously in charge of the picketing. "VVlien a com- 
pany photographer attempted to take a picture of the proceedings, 
Majerus tried to take the camera away from him. 

Donald Rand was another international representative of the UAW 
who directed the pickets and demanded that the customer refuse the 
shipment of Kohler ware. 

Trucks carrying Kohler material were followed as far as Sioux 
Falls, S. Dak., and Davenport, Iowa. 

Trucks of common carriers leaving the Kohler plant were followed 
and picket lines established at the unloading docks. 

For example^ trucks of the J. L. Scheffler Co. leaving Kohler were 
followed and shot at and the homes of some of the truckdrivers van- 
dalized. Picket lines were established at the J. L, Scheffler unload- 
ing docks in Chicago. 

The UAW has attempted to use its political influence to get govern- 
mental authorities to violate their duty to obtain materials for public 
works at the lowest possible cost and to support the boycott of Kohler 
materials. 

On June 4, 1956, the city of Waterbury, Conn,, passed an anti- 
Kohler resolution. It had been introduced by Alderman Ovid Gar- 
ceau, UAW-CIO international representative in charge of the Kohler 
boycott in that area. 

On September 10, 1956, the resolution was rescinded following a 
ruling of the corporation counsel that it was contrary to the city 
charter. 

Ansonia, Conn., Bristol, Conn., and New Britain, Conn., passed simi- 
lar resolutions. Those in Ansonia and Bristol were later rescinded. 

Similar resolutions were presented but failed to pass in Bridgeport, 
Norwalk, Norwich, Shelton, and Torrington, Conn. 

Parallel resolutions were passed in Boston, Mass., and Lynn and 
Worcester, Mass. An attempt was made to pass a similar resolution 
in New Bedford, Mass., but it was unsuccessful. 

Almost identical resolutions were passed in Lincoln Park, Mich., 
and River Rouge, Mich. 

The County Board of Los Angeles County passed a similar resolu- 
tion but later rescinded it after advice of county counsel that it was 
illegal. The action of the county board in passing this resolution was 
later strongly criticized by the Los Angeles County grand jury, 
although no indictment was returned. 

An unsuccessful attempt was made to pass such a resolution in the 
County Board of Milwaukee, Wis. 

The almost identical wording of these resolutions gives plain evi- 
dence that they were all drafted at the same place, the UAW boycott 
headquarters in Detroit. In fact, a UAW-CIO publicity man boasted 
on the union's radio program that this was one of their major 
accomplishments. 

It is also apparent that the resolutions which were passed or pro- 
moted in Connecticut and Massachusetts were the result of the activ- 

21243— 58— pt. 24 3 



9508 LMPROPER Acrrn-iTiES in the labor field 

ities of the UAW boycott representative in tliat area, Mr. Ovid 
Garceaii. 

The UAW has taken full advantage of the fact that tlie existing 
secondary boycott law prohibits only putting pressure on the employees 
of an employer to promote a boycott but does not forbid putting pres- 
sure on the employer himself. 

The UAW-CIO has set up an active boycott organization and has 
divided the country into boycott districts, each in charge of a full- 
time boycott representative. 

Prospective users of plumbing fixtures, plumbing contractors, and 
plumbing wholesalers have been importuned not to use Kohler mate- 
rials with covert and sometimes open threats of picket lines, labor 
trouble, slowdowns, or sabotage if they insisted on using Kohler 
material. 

These threats, implied or otherwise, are particularly effective where 
a plumbing contractor must obtain his employees through a union 
hiring hall. If the plumber's union business agent is sympathetic to 
the boycott the plumbing contractor may well fear that if he desires 
to use Kohler fixtures he will get no men assigned to him to install 
them or that the men assigned to him will be the poorest workmen 
or will slow down so that he will lose money on the job, or that a 
picket line may be established which will cause interruption on the 
job. 

One example of this occurred in September of 1956 when St. Luke's 
Hospital in Milwaukee, Wis., built a new addition and desired to use 
Kohler fixtures to match those in the building already erected. 

The business agent of the plumber's union, Anthony King, advised 
the plumbing contractor that he would prevent the use of Kohler ma- 
terial on the job. When the plumbing contractor requested men. 
King replied that none were available to set Kohler fixtures. 

On October 15 so-called citizen pickets claiming to have no con- 
nection with any union appeared at the job site. Building tradesmen 
refused to cross the picket line and work was halted. On October 19, 
a meeting of the citizen pickets was held at the Club Orlo, in Mil- 
waukee, with Ray Majerus, UAW international representative play- 
ing a prominent part. 

Attorneys for the hospital, testing the citizen pickets claim that 
they represented no union, began suit by calling some of the pickets as 
adverse witnesses. The pickets promptly took the State equivalent of 
the fifth amendment. 

Picketing stopped and the building was completed Avith Kohler 
fixtures. 

Another technique was illustrated in this case. The National Labor 
Relations Act, sec. 8 (b) (4) makes it a violation of the act to induce 
or encourage employees to refuse to install goods in support of a 
boycott. 

The UAW and some plumber's union business agents have advised 
plumbers that while they are unable to order them to refuse to install, 
union members have the right to refuse to install as individuals and 
that they would be acting as good union men if they did so. 

Such a suggestion, from a business agent who assigns men to jobs 
and has the power to assign them to the most.undesirable jobs or none 
at all obviouslv carries considerable weight. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 9509 

Whether or not these instructions to act "individually in concert"' 
are inducing and encouraging in violation of the act may not yet be 
definitely settled. The National Labor Relations Board has at least 
twice brushed aside this obvious subterfuge. 

I have not attempted to cover all of the boycott activities, nor to 
detail the tactics employed by the UAW-CIO. 

Fairness requires me to state that although the International 
Plumber's Union was importuned to pass a resolution instructing 
their members not to install Kohler goods, they refused to do so on 
the ground that it would be illegal and instead passed a resolution 
of sympathy for the strike. 

We have no evidence that the International Plumber's Union has 
been supporting a secondary boycott although some local business 
agents have done so. 

Despite the UAW's efforts the boycott has not hurt us seriously. 

Users of plumbing fixtures and the public have reacted to these 
unfair tactics in a typically American way and have insisted on 
Kohler material because of their resentment against the boycott. 

In our judgment the sales that we have lost because of the boycott 
have been more than offset by the sales that we have gained because 
of it. 

But some plumbing wholesalers, contractors, and others have been 
hurt by it. 

That is the vicious cliaracter of a boycott, that it involves and 
injures parties who had no part of the original dispute. 

Just as the violence and coercion was exerted directly on employees 
who sought only their right as American citizens to determine for 
themselves how they wanted to be represented, so the boycott is exerted 
directly on those who desire to determine for themselves how they will 
spend their own money and what products they will buy. 

The purpose of the National Labor Relations Act was to substitute 
the processes of law for trial by combat — to make violence, coercion, 
and illegality in connection with strikes unnecessary. 

The law safeguards the right of any employee to join any union 
he chooses and to bargain through a union if he chooses. 

But it does not contemplate that any employee shall be forced by 
violence, coercion or intimidation into joining or supporting any 
union against his will — nor that any consumer be forced to forego his 
right to spend his money and buy such products as he chooses. 

Mr. Conger. May I proceed ? 

The Chairman. Proceed. 

Mr. Conger. Mr. Chairman, I think that I have been identified on 
the record here. 

The Chairman. You have been previously sworn and fully iden- 
tified, and you may proceed. 

Mr. Conger. My prepared statement deals with the harassing and 
the violence and the vandalism that has gone on during this strike. 

I think that is pretty adequately before this committee, and I do 
not need to summarize that. 

I would like to point out that there has been considerable testimony 
here which is not based on any record, and so forth. 

I believe, Mr. Chairman, rather than summarizing my statement, 
if I may, I would like to introduce these exhibits and comment briefly 



9510 IMPROPER ACmVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 

on tliem. In checking through the statement, I believe most of the 
summai-y is in evidence. 

The Chairman. All right, you may offer your exhibits one at a 
time, and identify them, and the Chair will rule upon their relevancy 
and whether they should be placed in the record. 

Mr. Conger. The first exhibit that I have to present is a copy of 
a letter from the Kohler Co. to UAW-CIO, local 833, dated Decem- 
ber 12, 1953. That is being presented because there has been testi- 
mony here that the Kohler Co. canceled its contract with the union. 
This letter shows that not only did the company not cancel the 
contract but that it offered to continue it in full force and effect, 
and tliat all it did was to give the 60-day notice under the Taft-Hartley 
Act that it would ask for changes, and to propose the beginning of 
negotiations, even at that early date, in the hope that they might be 
completed before the contract expired. 

The Chairman. That letter is brief and it may be printed in the 
record at this point. 

(The letter is as follows :) 

December 12, 19,53. 
UAW-CIO, Local No. 833, 

Sheboygan, Wis. 
(Attention of E. M. Kohlhagen, recording secretary.) 
Gentlemen : In compliance with section S (d) of the Labor Management Re- 
lations Act, 1947, we hereby notify you that we propose to terminate our con- 
tract with you, executed the 23d day of February 1953, on the expiration date 
thereof, March 1, 1954. 

We hereby offer to meet with you and confer for the purpose of negotiating 
a new contract. 

The terms and conditions of the contract executed the 23d day of February 
1953 will be continued in full force and effect until March 1, 1954. 
Very truly yours, 

KoHLEE Co., 
L. C. Conger, 
Chairman, Management Committee. 

Mr. Conger. The next exhibit that I would like to submit is a copy 
of the Kohler Co. contract proposals. 

The Chairman. "What is that? 

Mr. Conger. Of the Kohler Co. contract proposals to the union 
during the bargaining. It starts out with a copy of the contract of 
February 23, 1953, which is in here. 

There is the company's first contract proposal which shows that we 
made four complete contract proposals to this union during the course 
of the bargaining. 

The Chairman. This is proposal No. 1, is it, or does it embody all 
of the proposals? 

Mr. Conger. It embodies proposals Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4. 

The Chairman. That volume embodying those proposals may be 
made exhibit No. 88 for reference. We will not print that in the 
record. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 88," for ref- 
erence and may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

Mr. Conger. The next exhibit I have is a letter. 

Senator Curtis. I may as well confess publicly here that I doubt 
if I will ever get to read that big exhibit. I ain again pointing out 
that we are not arbiters of what a good contract is to be. I just want 
to ask you this : 

In these four proposals could it be said that there were concessions 
made to the union in any or all of them ? 



mPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 9511 

Mr. Conger. Yes, sir. There were many concessions made, and 
they are drawn up to show the changes over the old contract, or over 
the preceding proposals. There were concessions made on seniority, 
back to the seven major issues which the union raised. 

We made concessions on all of them, with a possible exception of 
union security. That, I think, we could argue that we did make a 
slight concession, but it is arguable. 

Senator Curtis. Management regarded them as material conces- 
sions, or not ? 

Mr. Conger. In these actual contract proposals, they are not the 
wage proposals. We made the union an offer of 3 cents an hour on 
wages before the strike started in July and August of 1955, and we 
made them an offer of 5 cents for incentive-paid workers, and 10 cents 
for non-incentive-paid workers, and we made them substantial offers 
to increase the pension plan, and we made substantial offers of in- 
creases on the insurance. 

We made offers on the seniority proposals which at one time were 
satisfactory to the union, and that was settled, and then the union 
raised a question about the interpretation of a clause that they hadn't 
questioned before, and it was in the old contract, and insisted on a 
change in that, so that developed into finally no agreement over what 
had been agreed to. 

Senator Curtis. That is all I have to ask at this time. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could you tell us what the issues are at the present 
time between the company and the union. 

Mr. Conger. That is pretty hard to say, Counsel. As far as I 
know, there were the seven major issues, and the last offer the union 
made I think was to settle on the basis of the trial examiner's pro- 
posed findings, which in brief are that we should bargain in good 
faith, and after many meetings that we have had and the many con- 
cessions that we have made I frankly do not know if Ave did not bar- 
gain in good faith. I do not know how to do it. 

Mr. Kennedy. What are the issues now that separate the company 
and the union ? 

Mr. Conger. Again, as I say, I do not know. I will have to take 
the union's one big issue, which, of course, is the reinstatement of 
striking employees. 

I might say to you that with 1 exception, now 2 exceptions, we have 
not refused to reinstate any striking employee who applied for rein- 
statement. We have up to date reinstated those whom we have rein- 
stated with their full seniority rights. 

There are 2, 1 of whom we discharged, and another 1 who was a 
very active participant in the clay boat riot, who have applied for 
reinstatement and have been refused. But other than that, we have 
taken them back, but what Ave de refuse to do is to lay oft' our present 
employees in order to make room for returning strikers. 

Mr. Kennedy. What does the National Labor Eelations Board re- 
port hold on that matter? Where is the disagreement? 

Mr. Conger. There is no National Labor Relations Board report 
as yet. There is a trial examiner's recommendations. 

Mr. Kennedy. Where is the disagreement with him ? 



9512 IMPKOPER ACITV^ITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. CoNCJER. On that, I think he says that we should reinstate them 
upon application and so far we have done that with the exception of 
two individuals. 

Mr. Kenxedy, Would the company then be willing to reinstate all 
those individuals if they applied for reinstatement? 

Mr. Coxc.ER. If we have a job for them, yes. 

Mr. Kexxedy. What does the trial examiner say about that? 

Mr. Conger. Well, his recommendation 

■ Mr. Kexxedy. What is his recommendation? 

Mr. CoxoER. His recommendation is that Ave lay oft' other employees 
Avho have been promised permanent jobs, to make room for them. 
And may I say this, that Avhen Ave started hiring employees after the 
strike, AA-e made no promises or commitments to them of any kind 
AAhatever. We just hired them. 

Then the union came out Avith a publicity barrage and ads, "Don't 
go to Avork at Kohler. These jobs are only temporary. When the 
strike is over you Avill find yourself out on the street." 

That compelled us to issue an advertisement that the jobs at Kohler 
are permanent ; that Ave are not hiring these people as strike breakers, 
Ave are hiring them as permanent employees. They forced us to give 
our Avord to those people, and having given it, Ave intend to keep it, 
if it is at all possible. 

Mr. Kexxedy. But tlie company is Avilling, as I understand it, to 
reinstate all of these other employees Avhen the first opening occurs. 

Mr. Conger. We have done that so far, but I understand that with 
the present business conditions those openings are not occurring very 
frequently at the present time. And I Avant to also make the ex- 
ception, Ave are not Avilling to reinstate those whom Ave discharged for 
participating in illegal conduct. 

Mr, Kexxedy. How many of those are there? 

Mr. Coxger. Ninety. 

Mr. Kexxedy. Well, isn't there a question before the trial examiner 
about those 90 ? Isn't that one of the questions ? 

Mr. Coxger. Yes, that is one of the questions, and lie sustains our 
discharge on all except 33. 

Mr. Kexxedy. How many is that? 

Mr. Coxger. All except 33. 

Mr. Kexxedy. And he feels that those 33 should be reinstated ? 

Mr. Coxger. Yes. 

Mr. Kexxedy. Can I get an ansAver to the first question? Would 
the company be willing to reinstate all of the employees, when they 
ap]5ly for reinstatement as jobs open up, Avith the exception of these 
90? 

Mr. Coxger. As jobs open up, but understand that that may be a 
period of several years, or many years, and it maj' iieA'er come, 
possil>ly. 

Mr. Kexxedy. What is the position of the trial examiner on that 
question ? 

Mr. Coxger. His recommendation is that they be reinstated as they 
apply for reemployment. 

Mr. Kexxedy. So there is no conflict betAA-een them ? 

Mr. Coxger. Yes, there is conflict. 



IMPROPER ACTIVmES EST THE LABOR FIELD 9513 

Mr. Kennedy. He says that they should be reinstated when they 
apply for reinstatement ? 

Mr. Conger. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And yon say that the jobs have to be available first? 

Mr. Conger. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. So that is one of the issues that separates the union 
and the company at the present time ? 

Mr. Conger. I think so, yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. The other of the 90, which I understand is down to 
33 now 

Mr. Conger. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. The trial examiner feels that those 33 should be 
reinstated ? 

Mr. Conger. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you feel that they have committed acts of van- 
dalism or violence which do not entitle them to reinstatement, is that 
right? 

Mr. Conger. Violence or illegal conduct ; yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you refuse to — could that go to arbitration, 
to have some impartial body look into that and make a decision as to 
whether they had in fact been in any acts of vandalism ? 

Mr. Conger. We have an impartial body looking into it now, the 
National Labor Relations Board, and the body that the union chose 
to take it before. We are perfectly satisfied with that, and we are 
filing exceptions to the examiner's report in that, and we will await 
the outcome. It is now before an impartial body. 

Mr. Kennedy. Well, if the trial examiner has found that those 33 
out of the 90 should be reinstated, would you be willing to reinstate 
those 33 at the present time ? 

Mr. Conger. No. We have filed our exceptions with the NLRB, 
and the trial examiner's report, as I understand it, is not anything 
except recommendations, and it is not the action of the Board or 
anyone else. It has no force and effect unless and until it is approved 
by the Board itself. 

We have our exceptions pending, and we have filed our briefs on 
those individuals, and we are willing to await the outcome. 

Mr. Kennedy. I am just thinking in a step toward being concilia- 
tory, and trying to get the strike settled before there is a final deci- 
sion. Would you be willing to submit those 33 cases to an independ- 
ent arbitrator and have him decide if there is still a question about it? 

Mr. Conger. I don't see how many impartial bodies we have to 
submit these cases to. As I said, it is already before one impartial 
body, the impartial body that the union chose. They chose that body, 
and we are satisfied with it and it is the legally constituted body to 
pass on those things, and the cases there, and we are willing to abide 
the outcome. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, the trial examiner has felt that these 33 should 
be reinstated. 

Mr. Conger. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. But you disagree with that ? 

Mr. Conger. We do disagree with that finding ; yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. You are going to await an appeal before it goes 
before the National Labor Relations Board itself ? 



9514 LMPR'OPEK ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Conger. Strictly speaking, it is not an appeal. It is an excep- 
tion, and as I said, there is no real decision unless and until the Board 
adopts certain findings. 

I wouldn't call it an appeal. It is almost automatic that both 
sides file exceptions to a trial examiner's report on things that they 
think are adverse to them. 

(At this point, the following members were present: Senatoi-s Mc- 
Clellan and Curtis.) 

Mr. Kexnedv. So, certainly, a decision in this strike, as far as the 
company is concerned, is going to have to await a final result from 
the National Labor Relations Board, and whatever appeal can be 
taken from that to the courts, is that right ? 

Mr. CoxGEu. Xo, I don't think that necessarily follows. I will say 
to you frankly, Mr. Kennedy, that any time the union has a propo- 
sition or has had a proposition in the past, we have been willing to 
consider it, look it over, and think of it. 

But I cant sit here on the stand and explain possible hypothetical 
bargaining positions of the company. There is not one issue involved 
here. There are a great many, and a great many interrelated issues. 

Mr, Kennedy. I am talking now just about the 33. Assume that 
there aren't any other issues. Certainly on the 33, in order to get a 
settlement of the strike as far as the company is concerned, it is going 
to have to await an appeal to the National Labor Eelations Board 
itself, and then to any court after that before the strike is settled, 
unless there is some further concession on the part of the company 
or on the part of the union. 

Mr. Conger. If there were nothing left in this thing but the 33, 
I do not think that would prevent a possible settlement of the strike. 

Mr. Kex^nedy. What other issues are there, then? 

Mr. Conger. Well, there is the issue of wdiether or not we should 
break our word to the employees whom we hired, and said their jobs 
were permanent, and lay them ofT and give jobs to returning strikers. 
I don't know what the union's contract position is now. 

As I said before, they proposed acceptance of the examiner's report. 

Well, I don't know what they are going to demand in a contract 
proposal. One of the big issues here is union security. We refused 
that to the union. Do we have to offer it to the union to bargain in 
good faith? I don't believe so. I don't believe that is the law. It 
is the same Avith the other miions. 

Mr. Kennedy. Would you say that union security is an issue at 
the present time? 

Mr. Conger. To the best of mj^ knowledge, it is. 

]\Ir. Kennedy. What is the position of the union and what is your 
position on union security? 

Mr. Conger. The last position of the union was that thej' were 
asking for maintenance of membership. 

Mr. Kenxedy. What does that mean? 

Mr. Conger. That means that anyone who .loins a union at any 
time, whether as 1 — and at least 1 and possibly '2 of these witnesses 
have testified here — he joins it under pressure or coercion or not, nnist 
remain a member of the union. 

I will say to you that when I state that position, there is no question 
but what the union is going to disagree Avith that statement. They 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 9515 

have frequently announced in the paper that they have dropped that 
issue. We see that in press releases and on the radio, and then we 
would see it bob back on the table aagin. And in the trial examiner's 
report, he finds that whether or not that issue was dropped cannot 
be determined on this record. 

Mr. Kennedy. But as far as you are concerned, you feel that it is 
still an issue? 

Mr. Conger. As far as we are concerned, we do not agree with com- 
pulsory unionism in any form. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you say that is one of the issues or one of the 
points that the union is trying to get ? 

Mr. Conger. I don't know. I haven't had a statement of the union's 
position for manj^, many months. That has been one of the difficult 
things. We put our positions in writing, and they have made in 
this entire bargaining procedure only one contract proposal, the one 
that they laid down on the table the first day of the bargaining. 

Mr. Kennedy. So you don't know whether that is an issue or not, 
is that correct ? 

Mr. Conger. I don't know what is still in issue, as far as contract 
demands. I know that very often I have heard remarks made, and 
remarks made to conciliators, that their position was changed very 
much. Then when we sat down at the bargaining table, we found out 
they still wanted everything they asked for before. 

The Chairman. Proceed with your exhibits. 

Mr. Conger. The next exhibit I have to offer is a company letter 
dated February 25, 1954, in which we offered to extend the old contract 
for 1 year, and from that date on — I may say that at all times during 
this bargaining, we have had on the table a contract proposal which 
the company was willing and ready to sign. We have been accused 
of bargaining with intent to avoid a contract. I don't know how you 
can avoid one when you have one on the table that you are willing to 
sign. 

And we were also willing from February 

The Chairman. How long is that letter, Mr. Conger ? 

Mr. Conger. That letter is two pages. 

The Chairman. I am going to let these be printed in the record 
where they are brief so that we can have a clear picture of it in the 
record. 

That letter may be printed in the record. 

(The document referred to follows:) 

February 25, 1954. 
TTAW-CIO, LocAi No. 833, 
Sheioygan, Wisconsin, 

Gentlemen : This is in response to your suggestion made at our meeting 
February 23, 1954, that the present contract, which expires March 1, 19.54, be 
extended another month, to April 1, 1954. 

On December 12, 1953, Kohler Co. gave you notice of its intention to terminate 
the present contract and expressed willingness to negotiate the terms of u new 
contract. 

On January 15, 1954, we called your attention to the fact that the time when 
the contract would expire was fast approaching and suggested that conferences 
begin so as to avoid the necessity of last minute negotiations conducted under 
pressure of an imminent expiration date. 

On January 20, 1954, you advised that you did not have your contract proposal 
ready. 



9516 LMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

On January 25, 1{K)4, contract proposals were exchanged and we have been 
ueRutiating since Fehruary 2, 1954. 

To date wo have spent a total of 09 hours in bargaining and Kohler Co. has 
submitted 2 comph'te proposals for a new contract. 

Most of the time six^nt in bargaining so far has been on proposed clauses which 
would increase the power of the UAW-CIO over the individual employee and 
would grant special privileges and preferential treatment to union stewards and 
union officers. 

Your contract committee has been insisting that any agreement must uiolude 
the following : 

1. Compulsory union membership. 

2. Autduiatic renewal of dues checkoff deductions from payroll. . 

3. Special privileges for union officers and stewards. 

4. Three union officials to spend full time on union affairs and to be paid by 
the company. 

5. Transfer of authority from the company's supervisory personnel to the 
union on questions of operation which are necessarily the responsibility of 
management. 

6. Transfer of the authority to make binding decisions of major importance 
from the management of the plant to third persons not connected with the busi- 
ness or having any resjwnsibility for its oi)eratiou. 

7. Restrictions on job placement which would necessitate abandonment of the 
company's policy of avoiding layoffs by transferring men rather than laying them 
off and would necessitate frequent layoffs when business conditions are adverse. 

So long as your contract committee continues to insist on exorbitant and im- 
realistic demands which would jeopardize the future of the company and the 
jobs of its employees, a short-term extension of the present contract will not 
serve any useful purpose. 

We, therefore, do not agree that the present contract be extended for 1 month. 
We will agree to the extension of the contract for 1 year, to expire March 1, 
1955. This would include extension of the provision which allows x-eopening on 
the question of wages once each quarter. 
Very truly yours, 

KoHLEB Co., 
(S) L. C. Conger. 
Chairman, Management Committee. 

Mr. CoNGEK. So from that date on we had not 1 but 2 contract pro- 
posals on the table, 1 to renew the old contract for 1 year, without any 
change, without dotting an "i" or crossing a "t." And we also had the 
other proposal which contained improvements and concessions. 

The next exhibit I would like to submit would be the company 
letter to the union of February 26, 1954, which was before the strike, 
and offered a 3-cent-an-hour wage increase. That is a 1-page letter. 

The Chairman. That may be printed in the record at this point. 

(The document referred to follows :) 

KOHLER Co., 
Kolilcr, Wis., February 26, 195.'/. 
UAW-CIO, Local No. 833, 

530-A North Eighth Street, 

Sheboygan, Wis. 
Gentlemen : As an alternative to our offer yesterday, February 25, 1954, to 
extend the present contract for another year, we offer the following : 

1. A 3-cent-per-hour general wage increase, effective March 1, 1954. 

2. This increase is on condition that the company's last contract offer dated 
February 15, 1954, with the changes agreed upon to date, becomes the new 
contract, to be effective until March 1, 1955. 

3. The present pension and insurance plans to remain in effect. 

Very truly yours, 

KOHLER Co., 
(S) L. C. Cor^GEB, 
Chairman, Management Committee. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 9517 

Mr. Conger. The next exhibit I would like to introduce is the 
union's proposed contract, dated January 25, 1954. That was the 
union's contract proposal. 

The Chairman. Submitted when ? Submitted to you ? 

Mr. Conger. On January 25, 1954. 

The Chairman. Is that the union's original proposal to the com- 
pany? 

Mr. Conger. Yes, Senator ; tliat is correct. 

The Chairman. That may be made exhibit No. 89. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 89" for ref- 
erence and may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

The Chairman. Exhibit 89 is for reference. 

Mr. Conger. I may say that is the only complete contract pro- 
posal ever submitted by the union to the company. 

The next exhibit I would like to introduce is a summary of 1954 
contract negotiations as of February 26, 1954, prepared by the UAW- 
CIO and its affiliate, local 833. That was a summary that was pre- 
pared at the request of the Federal conciliators for a statement of 
position as of that date. That is a photostatic copy, and it has some 
of my handwritten notes on it, which I would suggest not be in- 
cluded in the formal offer. It just happens that is the only copy of 
it I had, and I do not intend, imless the committee would desire, to 
submit my handwritten notes. 

The Chairman. Wliat is the document ? 

Mr. Conger. At various times the conciliators asked the union for 
a statement of their position and a summary of the bargaining. This 
was the first time. This summary was requested, I believe, by Mr. 
Diskens, Federal concihator, and Mr. Burkhart, with the assistance 
of his people, drew this up and submitted a copy to the conciliator 
and to us. 

The Chairman. That may be made exhibit 90, for reference. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 90" for 
reference and may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

Mr. Conger. The next one is a similar summary prepared by the 
UAW-CIO, and that is dated March 8. It is the same thing except 
a summary as of a later date. 

The Chairman. That may be made exhibit 91, for reference. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 91" for 
reference and may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

Mr. Conger. The next proposed exhibit I have is a similar sum- 
mary dated June 20, 1954, and again pointing out the points that 
were then in issue and how far the bargaining had arrived, what 
concessions the company had made up to that date, and so forth. 

The Chairman. That may be made exhibit 92, for reference. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 92" for 
reference and may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

Mr. Conger. I would now like to comment in view of these union 
exhibits. 

The Chairman. Do we have all of your exhibits now ? 

Mr. Conger. No, you do not, Senator ; but I would like to comment 
on these few briefly. 

The Chairman. You may comment. 



9518 IMPROPER ACnVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 

INIr. Conger. I have introduced those for the purpose of showing 
that Mr, Allen Grasskamp's testimony that silicosis was an issue, a 
bargaining- issue, is absolutely untrue; that in none of those contract 
proposals or summaries will you find any mention whatever of sili- 
cosis as a bargaining issue. That was never a bargaining issue. 
That Avas simply a smear and propaganda issue. Also, as far as his 
testimony as far as the grievance troubles they had is concerned, an 
analysis of those documents will show that there was very little 
difference of opinion on the grievance procedure, and what difference 
there was was settled and agreed upon at a very early date m the 
negotiations. 

The next that I would like to submit is a chronological record of 
the bargaining meetings, the personnel that was present at them, who 
attended, and where they were held. 

The Chairmax. That may be made exhibit 0.3, for reference only ? 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit 93*' for reference 
and may be found in the files of the Select Committee.) 

Mr. CoxGER. That is complete up to August 2, 1955. It does not go 
beyond that date. The next exhibit that I would like to submit is a 
copy of tlie postponement order of the Wisconsin Employment Rela- 
tions Board on May 4, 1954. 

The Chairman. Copy of the postponement order ? 

Mr. CoxGER. Yes. 

The Chairman. What does that relate to ? 

Mr. CoxGER. We filed our complaint before the Wisconsin Employ- 
ment Relations Board. When they held the hearing on it, the union 
came in and asked for a postponement. That is when there has been 
testimony here that the company agreed to certain negotiating times, 
to negotiate at certain times. This order will show on its face, and it 
includes the statements in the open court of the Chairman of the 



The Chairman. That will be made exhibit No. 94 for reference. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit Xo. 94" for refer- 
ence and may be found in the files of the Select Committee.) 

The Chairman. If you wish to comment on any portion of it, you 
may do so. 

Mr. CoxGER. What I want to comment on is as found by the trial 
examiner. This document negates the claim that the company refused 
to bargain in good faith over the succeeding weekend thereafter : that 
there was no agreement; that all that happened there was the union 
came in and asked for a postponement, and the Wisconsin Employment 
Relations Board, after announcing in open court that no agreement 
could be arrived at, said they would set their own terms for the post- 
ponement. They postponed the case on condition that the union con- 
duct its picketing legally, reduce the number of pickets to a specified 
number at each gate, and to 200 all over, no interference with ingress 
and egress. 

In other words, that short-lived agreement of the union to discon- 
tinue the mass picketing was not the result of any agreement with the 
Kohler Co. It was the result of conditions laid down by the Wisconsin 
Employment Relations Board as conditions on which they could have a 
postponement of the hearing. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 9519 

The next one that I would like to enter as an exhibit is August 10, 
1954, a letter from the Kohler Local 833 to Mr. Herbert Kohler, presi- 
dent of the Kohler Co. It somewhat changes their demands. Their 
demand is changed from a union shop to maintenance of membership, 
and the wage demand is reduced from 20 and 10 cents an hour to 10 
and 5. 

The Chairmax. That may be printed in the record at this point. 

(The document referred to is as follows :) 

Kohler Local 833, UAW-CIO, 
Sheboygan, Wis., August 10, 1954. 
Mr. Herbert V. Kohler, 
President, Kohler Co., 

Kohler, Wis. 
Dear Sir : This is to advise you that the International Union, UAW-GIO Local 
833, hereby modifies its monetary and contractual demands on the company in 
an effort to arrive at a speedy and honorable settlement of the matters in dispute 
between the iinion and the company. 

1. General wage increases : 

( a) General wage increase of 10 cents an hour for all hourly rated workers 
retroactive to March 1, 1954. 

( & ) An additional 5 cents per hour wage adjustment for all skilled workers 
in the maintenance and tool and die departments retroactive to March 1, 1954. 

(c) Establishment of procedures to resolve any existing wage inequities 
inside the plant and to reduce the number of existing wage classifications. 
The company is to furnish the union with necessary wage and other data 
required to make an intelligent study of wage inequity problems. 

2. Noncontributory pension plan guaranteeing minimum standards equal to 
UAW-CIO pension benefits. 

3. Improvements in hospital-medical insurance to provide : 

(a) Increases in daily benefit for room and board from $6 to $8 per day. 
( & ) Increase the maximum days of hospitalization from 31 to 120 days. 

(c) A change of definition of dependents to include children from birth 
instead of 14 days after birth. 

(d) Provide maternity benefits of $8 per day for 10 days and surgical 
benefits of $60 or a total reimbursement of $140. The increased cost for 
these benefits which amount to approximately %o of 1 cent per hour to be 
paid for by the company. 

4. The continuation of present arbitration provisions in the contract with a 
clarification that the discharge or discipline of workers shall be subject to arbi- 
tration. 

The union is agreeable to provide an additional grievance step prior to arbi- 
tration which will be attended by the regional director of the UAW-CIO or his 
designated representative. 

5. An amendment to the seniority provisions to provide for layoffs according 
to seniority only. 

6. Maintenance of membership contract provisions with self-renewing check-off 
of union dues. 

7. A 4 percent lunch-time allowance for enamel shop and pottery dry finishers 
engaged in continuous three shift operations. 

The union is willing to negotiate on these matters still in dispute until satiS' 
factory agreements are reached. 
Sincerely yours, 

Emil Mazey, 
Secretary-Treasurer, UAW-CIO. 

Harvey Kitzman, 
Director, Region 10, UAW-CIO. 

Allan Grasskamp, 
President, UAW-CIO Local 833. 

Mr. Conger. The next one is a letter in reply to that letter, dated 
August 13, from Mr. Herbert V. Kohler to the union, in answer to 
their letter, and, I believe, is self-explanatory. 



9520 IMPROPER ACrrWITIE'S IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. That may be printed in the record. 
(The document referred to is as follows :) 

August 13, 1954. 
UAW-CIO Local No. 833, 

Sheboygan, Wis. 
(Attention Mr. Allan J. Grasskamp, president.) 
Gentlemen : This is in reply to your letter of August 10, 1954, containing 
what you term a modification of your demands. 

These are virtually the same demands which you made orally before negotia- 
tions were discontinued on June 29 and vary in terminology rather than in 
substance from your demands prior to the strike. 
They offer no basis for an assumption that agreement can be reached. 
The company's position on these demands is as follows : 

1. The company has offered a 3-cent-per-hour wage increase. This makes a 
total of 18 cents per hour granted in the last 2 years. 

In addition, the company has granted fringe benefits estimated by the union 
at 6 cents per hour. 

In view of the fact that earnings of Kohler Co. employees have always ex- 
ceeded the average for the industry, the State, and the locality, the company's 
wage offer is not only fair but generous. The company's wage offer remains at 
3 cents per hour, effective April 5, 1954. 

2. The wages of employees in maintenance work and tool and die work are 
generally in line with wages paid in other departments and we are not in accord 
with any additional blanket increase for these employees. 

3. In the contract last year the company agreed to a procedure intended to 
reduce the number of existing wage classifications and eliminate any inequities. 
This procedure did not function due to the union's insistence on another general 
wage increa.se thinly disguised as an inequity adjustment and on the union's 
insistence that the company compile data not available and not necessary for 
bargaining. Early in the negotiations, prior to the strike, the company expressed 
its willingness to establish procedures for bargaining to reduce the number of 
wage classifications and eliminate any intraplant inequities that may exist. 
Company representatives have advised you that this is still the company's 
position. 

4. Your objection to the present pension plan seems to stem mainly from 
the fact that it was in existence before your union became the bargaining agent 
and that the union therefore cannot claim credit for forcing it upon the 
company. 

The company has offered to supplement the present pension i>lan to yield 
retirement benefits at age 65 equivalent to the maximum benefit under the union's 
plan for the total years of credited service in any case where the present plan 
would yield les.s. It does not agree that the plan be made noncontributory. 

5. The company has offered to increase the daily benefits under the hospitali- 
zation insurance plan from .$6 to $8 per day ; to increase the maximum days 
from 31 to 120 days; to change the definition of dependent to include children 
from birth instead of 14 days after birth ; and to increase maternity benefits 
from the present fiat payment of $100 to a maximum benefit of $140. 

The company has also offered to continue to pay the full cost of ho.spitaliza- 
tion and surgical insurance for employees, including the increased benefits 
mentioned above. 

The company will continue to contribute 14 cents per month toward the cost 
of hospitalization insurance for the employee's dependents. 

6. The company has agreed to arbitration of the interpretation and applica- 
tion of the contract which is all the power a judge would have if the contract 
were before a court of law. 

The company does not agree that vital management decisions shall be subject 
to the review of an arbitrator. 

Many employees of the company presently working have been threatened 
with retaliation when the strikers return to work. 

If any such attempts are made the company will take prompt and adequate 
disciplinary action. It does not agree that its freedom in this respect shall 
he restricted by arbitration of discharges. 

7. The company does not agree that seniority shall be made the sole factor 
to be considered in the event of a layoff or for any other purpose. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 9521 

In order to be fair to all employees and to maintain an efficient operation, 
merit and efficiency of performance must continue to be given consideration as 
well as seniority. 

S. As you have been advised repeatedly, the company does not agree to any 
form of compulsory union membership. 

It will not require employees to join a union as a condition of employment 
nor will it require them to continue membership in a union which they do not 
believe is properly representing them. 

The company does not agree to maintenance of membership. 

It has oered the same checkoff provision to which it agreed in the last 
contract, the only change being to prevent deliberate misinterpretation by the 
union. 

9. Sufficient time is now available for lunching in the enamel shop, as shown 
by the fact that the men do eat their lunch. The demand for a 4 percent lunch- 
time allowance is a thinly disguised demand for a 4 percent increase in enamel 
shop rates in addition to the increase other employees receive. 

An additional wage increase in the enamel shop is not warranted. 

As you were advised prior to the strike, we intend to eliminate the third 
shift in the pottery dry finishing department. 

The demands made in your letter offer little prospect for a settlement of the 
strike by agreement. 

Company representatives will attend the meeting now scheduled by the Federal 
conciliators for Friday, August 13, 1954. 

If the situation appears to be still deadlocked and an impasse reached, further 
negotiations will be useless until such time as you are willing to take a more 
realistic view of the situation. 
Very truly yours, 

KoHLER Co., 

Herbert V. Kohler, President. 

Mr. Conger. The next one that I would like to submit is a super- 
visory bulletin, which is a bulletin that we issue to our supervisory 
employees, dated April 5, 1954. There has been some question and 
argument as to when we put the 3-cent wage increase in effect, the 
one that had been offered to the union before the strike, rejected by 
them. 

This will show that we put it into effect the first day of the strike. 

The Chairman. That may be printed in the record. 

(The document referred to is as follows :) 

Bulletin For Supervision Volume 3, No. 54, April 5, 1954 

FOR your information 

Effective today (April 5) all employees in the bargaining unit who report 
for work will receive the 3 cents per hour wage increase. 

Since negotiations with the union have reached an impasse, we are putting 
this increase into effect. 

The next document I would like to present as an exhibit is a Kohler 
Co. strike settlement proposal as of January 27, 1955. That was a 
result of Mr. Finnegan, Director of the Federal Mediation and Con- 
ciliation Service, calling and asking if we would agree to mediation 
meetings in the city of Chicago. 

We agreed, and we held those meetings and we submitted this 
written proposal the first day of the meeting. 

The Chairman. That may be made exhibit No. 95. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 95" for refer- 
ence, and may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

Mr. Conger. Counsel tells me I said January. It should be July 
1955. 



9522 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. I believe I made the other proposals exhibits for 
reference. I want to try to keej) the record straight. This document 
has been made exhibit 95 for reference, 

Mr. Conger. The next one is a proposal of August 2, 1955, made 
at that same series of meetings, and slightly modified over the original 
proposal. 

The Chairman. That may be made exhibit No. 96. 
(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 96" for refer- 
ence and may be found in the liles of the select committee.) 
The Chairman. Exhibit 96 is for reference. 

Mr. Conger. The next document is a proposiil made at that series of 
meetings by the UAW-CIO, a strike settlement proposal, dated August 
2, 1955. I would like to comment on that briefly, if I may. 

The Chairman. That will be made exhibit No. 97 for reference. 
(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 97" for refer- 
ence and may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

Mr. Conger. I M'ould like to comment that this shows very clearly, 
together with other evidence which can be submitted, that the union 
had not at that time dropped its pension demands, its insurance de- 
mands, its seniority demands, its hospital and surgical group demands, 
its lunch time enamel shop demands; in other words, even as late as 
August 2, 1955, it was not willing to settle for just a slight wage in- 
crease as it liad represented to Judge Murphy, 

Senator Curtis. What were those lunch demands in regard to the 
enamel shop ? I do not know that it is anything we can do anything 
about one way or another, but I would like to have your side of the 
statement of what that is. 

Mr. Conger. A lunchroom demand was a thinly disguised demand — ■ 
the lunch time demand was a thinly disguised demand for a 4-percent 
wage increase in the enamel shop. We quite early in June; Jmie 5, I 
think — I think the June 5 contract proposal there will show it — offered 
the union two 10-minute recess periods in the enamel shop, which they 
could use for eating lunch or anything else, despite the fact that there 
has been testimony here that no one else tliat runs an enamel shop ap- 
parently has such lunch periods, and we did not think that they were 
necessary. But, nevertheless, we did offer them to them. But we 
did not offer to pay them for those two 10-minute limch periods. They 
were to be unpaid. The union demanded that we add 4 percent to all 
the piece rates in that department to allow for a 20-minute lunch 
period, which we were very sure they would not utilize, because they 
have always eaten their lunch in the period between the time when the 
piece is heating up while it is in the furnace 

Senator Curtis. How is the o])eration with other employees out- 
side of this particular shop ? Do they have a lunch period ? 

Mr. Conger. They have an unpaid lunch period. 

Senator Curtis. An unpaid lunch period. 

Mr. Conger. There are a few, a relatively few employees, less than 
4 percent of our employees, who had a paid lunch period. Senator. 
Over 96 perc^int of our employees have a lunch period but they do not 
get paid for it. 

Senator Curtis. In other words, the contract is to work so many 
hours a day, and that is either worked before or after luncli, and the 
lunch period, you might say, is on the employees' time. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 9523 

Mr. Conger. That is right. In other words, the union's proposal, 
Senator, was that the men work 7 hours and 40 minutes, and be paid 
•for 8 hours. 

Senator Curtis. What is it that the management contends makes 
an operation of the enamel shop — is that what they call it, the enamel 
shop ? 

Mr. Conger. That is right. 

Senator Curtis. As different from the rest of the operation where 
a lunch period is taken off ? 

Mr. Conger. We do not grant any paid lunch period or, in fact, any 
lunch period otherwise, where the man can eat his lunch without 
interruption of production. In other words, where there is some 
waiting time in the cycle. Where we have granted it, for example, 
was in the brass machine shop, on a three-shift operation. There, if 
they were going to eat their lunch, they had to shut the machine down 
and they naturally lost that production. 

In the enamel shop — I don't want to go into a long detailed 
explanation, but 

Senator Curtis. Just what you contend is the difference. 

Mr, Conger. What happens is you put a piece in the furnace and 
you heat it up, and after it is heated enough, it is taken out and 
enameled. That heating time is waiting time. 

Senator Curtis. Roughly, how long is that heating time ? 

Mr. Conger. It is from 25 to 50 percent of the entire operation, 
depending on the size of the piece. 

Senator Curtis. The man who puts it in there and takes it out, 
what does he do in the meantime? 

Mr. Conger. He has very little duties in the meantime. He has to 
look at the next piece and see that that is ready to go. He has to 
truck away the piece that has already been enameled, but that is prac- 
tically waiting time, and that is the time when we say he can eat lunch. 

Senator Curtis. He has to give some attention to the next piece to 
go in, and get the other one out of the road, and the rest is sort of 
watching duty ? 

Mr. Conger. Yes; watching to see that the piece is taken out of the 
furnace when it gets hot enough. 

Senator Curtis. And that is the condition under which they eat 
their lunch ? 

Mr. Conger. Yes. They have eaten lunch that way for 36 years in 
that enamel shop. That happened to be the first department I worked 
in when I went there. 

Senator Curtis. If a lunch period is granted that the company 
didn't pay for, it would mean that the workers' day would be just that 
much longer, or is that a fair statement of your contention ? 

Mr. Conger. No ; in that department it couldn't be longer. Senator, 
because it is a 3-shif t operation, and you can have only three 8 -hour 
shifts. So it would mean that if they actually took a lunch period, 
and they were working at maximum ability, they would actually be 
working only 7 hours and 40 minutes ? 

Senator Curtis. Was the demand one that they shut down so that 
they could go to another point or another room for lunch, or one that 
they be paid something extra for eating their lunch right there? 

21243— 58— pt. 24 4 



9524 IMPROPER ACnVITIE'S IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Conger. Tlie primary demand was that 4 percent be added to all 
piece rates to account and allow for a 20-ininute lunch period, which 
we were positive they would not take, and which we pointed out to 
the union many times that they had over 20 minutes at the end of the 
shift. 

They quit lono; before they were supposed to. And I think some of 
the members of your staff who went out to see that operation — I was 
a little embarrassed by taking them out 25 minutes before the end of 
the shift and fmding nobody working. 

"We have to wait for the next shift to come on in order to show them 
the operation. "\Ye felt that if they needed to interrupt for lunch 
period, they could do that in the middle of the shift, and they wouldn't 
be losing any earnings by doing it. They could then work to the end 
of the shift. 

Mr. Kennedy. That would be an 8-hour shift, is that right ? 

Mr. CoNCxER. That is an 8-hour shift ; yes. 

Mr. Kennedy, What time do you come in in the morning; 6 o'clock? 

Mr. Conger. Well, let's see. The shifts there are, I think it is, 
7 to 3. 

Mr. Kennedy. 7 o'clock in the morning to 3 o'clock in the afternoon ? 

Mr. Conger. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. And it is piecework in there, is it ? 

Mr. Conger. Yes ; that is piecework. 

Mr. Kennedy, So that they are paid based on how many of these 
tubs that they handle, is that right ? 

Mr. Conger. They are paid based on the number of pieces they 
enamel ; yes. 

Mr. Kennedy, And it is arranged for an 8-hour shift. The piece- 
work is based on what they should be able to produce in an 8-liour 
shift ; is that right ? 

Mr. Conger, That is correct, 

Mr, Kennedy, What is the temperature in the enamel shop ? 

Mr, Conger. In some parts of it about the same as the temperature 
in this room. The piece itself, and there has been a great deal of 
propaganda about this, the piece itself is heated up to about 1,600 
to 1,700 degrees. But that is not the temperature in the enamel shop. 
The temperature in the enamel shop is a little higher. The main part 
of the enamel shop is probably not above the temperature in this 
room. Right near the furnaces, where you have a little spill of heat 
from the furnaces, and where you have the enameling operations 
going on when the piece is out, there is a little higher temperature. 
It will run 80 to 90 degrees and sometimes it will run as high as 100 
in the summertime. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you say that the temperature in the enamel shop 
doesn't get above 100 degrees ? 

Mr. Conger, I would say very rarely. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Conger, I was present in the enamel shop even 
when there wasn't work going on and it was very, very hot. 

Mr. Conger. Well, you didn't have a thermometer. 

Mr. Kennedy. I will tell you it was far, far hotter than in this 
room. Do the men wear any equipment in the enamel shop ? 

Mr. Conger. Yes, they wear equipment. They wear asbestos aprons 
and wear a face shield on the larger pieces to protect them from the 



EVIPROPER ACTrvrriES IN THE LABOR FIELD' 9525 

radiation of the heat from the piece. And if you are basing your 
idea on this fellow that hung the candy thermometer on the front 
of the apron, you will get that same reading if you put a thermometer 
out here on the hot pavement where the sun is shining on it on a 
hot summer day. You will get the same reading of over 200. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did the Wisconsin Labor Relations Board make 
a determination as to what the temperature was in there ? 

Mr. Conger. No, they did not. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. They didn't reach any conclusion about it ? 

Mr. Conger. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did they say anything about what the temperature 
was in the enamel shop ? 

Mr. Conger. No. There was no evidence on tliat. 

Mr, Kennedy. They did not ? 

Mr. Conger. No. 

Mr. I^NNEDY. They didn't make any statement of that kind? 

Mr. Conger. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. You say that the men can put the equipment in the 
oven, then they can step back and eat their lunch during that period 
of time. How much time is there then before they have to do some 
more work ? 

Mr. Conger. From 2 to 5 minutes, depending on the j)iece. 

Mr. Kennedy. So you feel they can step back from the oven and 
take off their mask and have their lunch in 2 to 5 minutes ? 

Mr, Conger. Mr. Kennedy, they have been doing it for 36 years, 
to my knowledge. I am sure they can do it. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you work in the enamel shop ? 

Mr. Conger. Yes, sir. That was my first job. 

Mr. I^NNEDY. And you feel as long as they were doing it 35 or 
36 years ago, they should still be able to do that ? 

Mr. Conger. I was not an enameler, but I worked in the enamel 
shop, and I know the conditions. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you feel that because they were doing it 35 and 36 
years ago, that they still should be able to do it? 

Mr. Conger. Not necessarily, but they are doing it. I don't think 
anybody can come along and say it is impossible to do what a man 
is doing. 

Mr. KJENNEDY. There have been, I guess, some improvements in 
working conditions in the United States in the last 35 years. 

Mr. Conger. Yes, and there have been some tremendous improve- 
ments in working conditions in the enamel shops since I was m there. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did they put fans in ? 

Mr. Conger. Yes, there are fans, ventilation. The furnaces are 
better. The furnaces do not throw out the amount of heat into the 
room. The temperature in the enamel shop is much lower than it 
used to be, the general temperature, because the furnaces are better 
insulated. There is better insulation there. 

Mr. Kennedy. When did they put the fans in ? 

Mr. Conger. They have been put in — well, they were not all put 
in at one time. That has been a progressive thing over the years. 
There is a ventilating system over the hood, over the place where the 
enameler operates, the hood over there, a suction system. There 
are monitor fans in the roof, ventilating fans. The ventilating sys- 



9526 IMPROPER ACTrVITIE-S IN THE LABOR FIELD 

t^^m ill that eiiaiiiel slioj) will remove the complete air, or the volume 
of air ill the eiiaiiiol shoi),oiice every 1% minutes. 

Mr. Kexxkdy. Was there a time when the fans in the enamel shop 
were turned ofl7 

Mr. CoNGEU. X(;; there Avas never a time when all the fans were 
turned otl'. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were some of the fans turned off? 

Mr. Conger. We have what is called a barrel fan, sort of a col- 
loquial expression. It is a large fan which simply circulates air, the 
same as a desk fan dot^s, only it is much bigger. Some of these 
furnaces were equii)ped with those. At the time we had the 12 
enamelers' case, some of those were turned off as an experiment. It 
was suspected that tliey were kicking up a lot of dirt that was 
getting into the enamel ware. 

Mr. Kennedy. When was this? 1952? 

Mr. Conger. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. The fans were turned off? 

Mr. Conger. They were turned off'. 

Mr. Kennedy. As an experiment? 

Mr. Conger. That is when we had the illegal strike in the enamel 
shop, conducted by Mr. Ray Majerus, who was discharged at that 
time, and the Board, the NLRB and circuit court of appeals, sus- 
tained the decision of the Board. 

Mr. Kennedy. What about the Wisconsin Labor Relations Board ? 
What did they do about the 12 enamelers ? 

Mr. Conger. They didn't do anything. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did they have an opinion or finding on it? 

Mr. Conger. It was never before them. It was never before the 
National Labor Relations Board. 

Mr. Kennedy. It was not before a Wisconsin group ? 

Mr. Conger. There was a Wisconsin unemployment compensation 
ca-se. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did they receive unemployment compensation? 

Mr. Conger. They received unemployment compensation, yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did the examiner state that when the fans were 
turned off, there was no evidence tliat any of these men were feigning 
illness, but that they were in fact ill ? 

Mr. Conger. I will have to disagree with that, because the evidence 
as it went to the NLRB and as it went to the circuit court, showed 
that four of these men who got ill when the fans were turned off had 
never had any fans to be turned off. 

Four of the twelve discharged who said they got sick because these 
barrel fans were turned off were working on furnaces that never had 
been equipped with a barrel fan. I don't see how that had anything 
to do with their illness. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did the Wisconsin board say that they were entitled 
to their unemployment compensation because of their improper dis- 
charge ? 

Mr. Conger. They held that they were entitled to their unemploy- 
ment comjjensation. But I want to again tell you that the NLRB and 
the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals held that they were properly 
discharged. 



IMPROPER ACTRITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 9527 

Mr. I^NNEDT. Did the examiner in that case assert that the men 
were working in temperatures of 100° to 250° Fahrenheit? 

Mr. CoNCxER. He made that assertion, but I would like to have you 
look in the record and find out where it is borne out by the testimony. 

Mr. KJENNEDY. But didn't the examiner make that assertion that 
these men in the enamel shop, where you say they are not entitled to 
a 20-minute lunch period at the present time, were working in tem- 
peratures of 100° to 250° ? 

Mr. Conger. ]Mr. Kennedy, he did. 

May I point out to you that 250° is above the boiling point of water 
and no man can live in that temperature, let alone work in it. 

Mr. I^nnedy. I think that they step back into the cooler tempera- 
ture, where it gets to about 100° to 125°, and then they have the 21/2 
minutes in which to eat their lunch, because they were doing it 35 
years ago. 

Mr. Conger.^ Mr. Kennedy, you saw that operation once. I have 
seen it many, many times, and I know what that operation is. 

They are not working in those temperatures. 

Mr. Kennedy. I say that in this country, the United States, at the 
present time, when somebody is working an 8-hour shift, they should 
be entitled to 20 minutes for lunch. It seems to me that that is very 
basic in the United States at the present time. 

Mr. Conger. We agree with j'OU thoroughly, Mr. Kennedy, and we 
offered them 20 minutes for lunch. 

Mr. Kennedy. But they would then have to be working 8 hours and 
getting paid 7 hours and 40 minutes. That is not offering a 20-minute 
lunch period. Did you offer them a 20-minute lunch period in the 
middle of their shift, so that they could eat lunch and then go back to 
work? 

Mr. Conger. They could take that lunch period off, and eat their 
lunch, and work 8 hours and get paid for the pieces they produce. 

Mr. Kennedy. But would they be working for the whole complete 
8 hours so they would be paid for 8 hours, or would they have to take 
the 20 minutes on their own time ? 

Mr. Conger. Yes, they would eat their lunch on their own time and 
take it on their own time. 

Mr. Kennedy. Therefore, they are supposed to be working and pro- 
ducing, in order to get the full 8 hours' production, they would have to 
work the full 8 hours. You are asking them to take 20 minutes of their 
own time and therefore cut down on production. That is completely 
unfair. 

Mr. Conger. That is not completely unfair, not to pay men for time 
they don't work. 

Mr. Kennedy. If you don't make allowance for them to have a 20- 
minute lunch period, I don't know of any other factory or shop in the 
country where they are not allowed to have 20 minutes to have their 
lunch. 

Mr. Conger. Mr. Kennedy, you don't know of very many shops, then, 
if you know of shops where they pay them for eating lunch. That is 
the whole issue here, a paid lunch time. It is not a lunch time. We 
offered them 20 minutes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Under your proposal, if they start to work at 7 
o'clock in the morning, for instance, could they take time off from 11 



9528 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 

to 11 : 20, and then come back to work at 11 : 20 and work 4 more hours, 
to3:20? 

Mr. Cong?:r. The proposal made was two 10-minute periods rather 
than one 20-minute period. Otherwise, yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Would they be paid during that 20-minute period? 

Mr. Conger. No, they would not. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is completely unsatisfactory. 

Mr. Conger. It may be unsatisfactory to you, but I don't see any 
reason why we should pay men for lunch. Almost no one else in the 
shop got it. Ninety-six percent of our people didn't get paid for eating 
lunch. 

Mr. KJENNEDY. All they are working during the period is the 7-hour- 
and-40-minute shift. They are not getting their full 8 hours. 

Mr. Conger. That is correct, 

Mr. Kennedy. Then that cuts down on their salary and pay. Sup- 
pose they all have families? 

Mr. Conger. It doesn't. Mr. Kennedy, you were there in that 
enamel shop, and saw that they finished up the shift half an hour 
beforehand, and in that time they proposed the 8-hour requirement 
and more than that, at tliis present time. 

So that they can take that 20 minutes out and not cut down. There 
is an allowance made in the rates, and every piece rate we set has an 
allowance for personal requirements, and it has an allowance for the 
lunch time, the same as anything else. 

(At this point the following members were present: Senators Mc- 
Clellan and Curtis.) 

Mr. Kennedy, You brought up the fact that I was there, and I 
would just say that I feel that I am very, very fortunate that I am 
not working in your enamel shop. 

Mr. Conger. I feel, Mr. Kennedy, that having had the experience 
in the enamel shop, in the foundry, and in the pottery of the Kohler 
Co., if I had to choose one of the tliree, I would choose the enamel shop, 
and I think it is a very good place to work, and so do the men that 
work there. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do they get hungry ? 

Mr. Conger. When they get hungiy, they eat. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. For 214 minutes ? All right. 

The Chairman. Is there anything else ? 

All right, Mr. Conger, proceed. 

Mr. Conger. The next exhibit that I would like to present is the 
Kohlerian of March 25, 1954, calling particular attention to the fact 
of the headlines, "Strike Machinery Keady to Start," and "Strike 
Machinery Was Taken Out of Mothballs This Week." 

The CHAntMAN. That may be made exhibit No. 98 for reference 
only. 

(Document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 98" for reference, 
and may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

The Chairman. You may testify regarding it. 

Mr. Conger. The article goes on : 

Strike machinery was taken out of mothballs this week at Saturday night's 
memlH'rship meeting at Sheboygan Armory prepared to set a zero hour for 
Kohler strike. 



lAIPROPER ACTIVITIE'S IN THE LABOR FIELD 9529 

Then further on in the article — 

Stoves, refrigerators, steam tables, dishwashing tubs, cups and saucers, and food 
supplies were reported in readiness at Petersons, on the Lower Falls Road, mid- 
way between Sheboygan and Kohler. These fixtures were installed a year ago 
when contract talks nearly reached the breaking point, and have been kept in 
mothballs in the event that a strike proves necessary. 

So we have been accused here of preparing for a strike when none 
was imminent, and I submit this to show that the union was openly 
preparing for a strike. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could I just ask you, what do the men get paid in 
the enamel shop ? 

Mr. Conger. At the time of the strike, about $2.50 an hour as an 
average, and at the present time it is $2.90 to $2.95 an hour. 

Mr. Kennedy. They were getting paid about $2.50 at the time of 
the strike ? 

Mr. Conger. Yes ; they were on piecework, and that would be close 
to their average earnings. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is in the enamel division ? 

Mr. Conger. No, that is not tlie enamel division. That is the 
enamelers, and the enamel division includes the foundry, the grinding 
department, the warehouse and shipping, and also some miscellaneous 
departments like maintenance that is tacked on to it. 

Mr. Ivennedy. How much do they get paid, or how much did they 
get paid at the time of the strike ? 

Mr. Conger. In the enamel division, I would have to give you an 
estimate of that. Perhaps I may have it. 

Mr. Ivennedy. What is the difference between the enamel shop and 
the enamel division ? 

Mr. Conger. The enamel shop is a part of the enamel division. The 
enamel shop is where the actual enamel is put on. The enamel divi- 
sion includes anything from the foundry on, where the piece is being 
made, wliich eventually will be enameled. 

Mr. Kennedy. Does that include the ground coat ? 

Mr. Conger. The ground coat would be a part of the ena,mel shop. 

Mr. Kennedy. That would not be a part of the enamel division ? 

Mr. Conger. Yes, sir, it is part of the enamel division and part of 
the enamel shop. 

Mr. Kennedy. What about the enamel small ware, is that part of 
the enamel shop ? 

Mr. Conger. That is part of the enamel shop. 

Mr. Kennedy. And the enamel combination sinks ? 

Mr. Conger. That is part of the enamel shop. 

Mr. Kennedy. And the enamel tubs ? 

Mr. Conger. That is part of the enamel shop. 

Mr. Kennedy. And the ground coating, that is a part of the enamel 
shop? 

Mr. Conger. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. How does that compare, that approximately $2.50, 
how did that compare to Eundle ? 

Mr. Conger. I think that you have those figures, as submitted to 
your staff. On one comparison, it compares very favorably to Emidle. 
Rimdle, on some of the operations, the men make, and they are always 
on piecework, more money per hour and produce more per hour, and if 



9530 impropb:r activitie.s ix the labor field 

our pO()i)lo. would produce uioi-e per hour, as tlie}' can, as shown by the 
fact that they quit half an hour l)efore tlie end of the sliift, their earn- 
ings would exceed Ivundle. 

Mr. IvENNEDv. The people in Kohler, are they slack in their work? 

Mr. Conger. I don't say they are being slack, but I say that we have 
always had a certain amount of controlled production in the enamel 
shop, particularly when the IT AW was veiy prominent there, and we 
had strictly controlled production there. 

They were asking for this additioiud 4 percent wdien we knew they 
could make much more than 4 percent simply by additional work to 
the end of the shift, and that is all they had to do. 

Senator Curtis. May I ask there, there has been some testimony 
here that the company didn't report their w^ages to the industrial 
commission or the Bureau of Labor Statistics. AYhat are the facts 
about that? 

Mr. Conger. The facts on that are that since the 1930's, I believe 
1936, we have reported our wages and our earnings to the Wisconsin 
Industrial Commission, which, in turn, passes them on to the Bureau 
of Labor Statistics. 

I would like to ask the committee not to take Mr. Grasskamp's 
word for that, or my word, but to inquire from the Industrial Com- 
mission of Wisconsin wdiether or not it is a fact that we refused. 
I am sure that they will give you the answ-er that since the 1930's 
Kohler Co. has reported its wages and its earnings to the industrial 
commission, which, as I say, passes them on to the Bureau of Labor 
Statistics, and that we report them on exactly the same basis as any 
other employer reports. 

Senator Curtis, Are you 40 or 50 cents an hour below your com- 
petitors ? 

Mr. Conger. No, we certainly are not, Senator, and I would like 
to call attention to Mr. Grasskamp's testimony which I believe is 
on page 87 of the record here, that wages were never an important 
issue in this strike. 

I submit to you. Senator, that if our wages were 40 to 50 cents an 
hour below our competitors, wages would have been a very important 
issue in this strike and in this bargaining. 

As to our Avages, we compare our wages every month, and it has 
been a part of my duty, as long as I have been chairman of the bar- 
gaining committee, the management committee, to report to our exec- 
utives every month how our w-ages compare wnth the industry: that 
is, plumbing and heating fixtures and fittings as reported by the 
Bureau of Labor Statistics nationally. 

Senator Curtis. How^ many job classifications do you have? 

Mr. Conger. I have to take a guess at that, Senator, I would say 
about 600, 

Senator Curtis, Well, is there anything in this job classification 
that gives room for comparison of competitors that ends up with a 
different conclusion by different parties? 

Mr, Conger. Yes, there is a great deal of chance for that. You 
can have a job Avhich has the same name in one shop as another shop 
and be an entirely different job. 

For example, in our foundry we use an entirely different molding 
method than any of our competitors. They are all molders, but they 



EMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 9531 

are working on an entirely different type of equipment, and entirely 
different type of job. 

In onr grinding operations, which is one of the things that Mr. 
Mazey pointed out and called a comparison to, if we would take the 
grinding operation that is comparable to the grinding operations he 
used as a basis for comparison, those earnings run from $3.50 to $3.70 
an hour in our shop. 

But he has taken a mechanical grinding operation, where the thing 
goes through on a mechanical grinder and the man just runs the 
machine, and compared that with a fellow grinding with a handstone, 
and they are not the same job. 

Senator Curtis. It is your contention, when you say that you are not 
behind in wages, that in truth and in fact, in an attempt to appraise 
comparable skills in your place and your competitors, you are not 
behind, or does it call for the resorting to classifications to prove you 
are not behind ? 

Mr. Conger. I think. Senator, the only accurate way of making any 
wage comparison, and it is not completely satisfactory, is to compare 
the overall averages. We compare our overall averages with the over- 
all average for the industry, as published by the Bureau of Labor 
Statistics, with the city of Sheboygan, and the State of Wisconsin, the 
county of Milwaukee, and various communities in the State of Wis- 
consin, and we deliberately set our wage pattern with relation to that. 

I will say that at one time we toyed a little bit with the idea of join- 
ing an employers' association down in Milwaukee, to exchange rates, 
and we found that that association does this : 

They will not allow anyone to exchange wage rates unless they send a 
job evaluation man into that fellow's plant and look that over, and say, 
"This is actually the same job in X plant as in Y plant," or "It is a 10- 
cent differential job in X plant and Y plant." 

You can get some of the most fantastic comparisons by comparing 
job names, when the jobs aren't actually the same. 

All of our competitors use slightly different methods than we do, 
and some of them use radically different methods. Briggs Manu- 
facturing Co. makes their articles out of steel, pressed, and they press 
the steel, and we make ours out of cast iron, and that is an entirely 
different operation. 

The only similarity is that Briggs Manufacturing Co. would be much 
more similar to an automobile company than to our operation. The 
only similarity is that we both end up with a bathtub. 

Senator Mundt. You have said, Mr. Conger, that wages at no time 
were the basis for the strike ? 

Mr. Conger. That is what the union has announced frequently 
and that is what Mr. Grasskamp testified here to, that they were 
never an important issue. 

Senator Mundt. Do you agree about that ? 

Mr. Conger. Yes, sir, I do, Senator. 

Senator Mundt. So that the union and management both agree that 
wages were not tlie dispute which precipitated the strike ? 

Mr. Conger. That is correct. 

Senator Mundt. Can you give us a thumbnail sketch of what, in 
your opinion, was the issue that caused the strike ? 



9532 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Conger. In my opinion, the issue tliat caused the strike, and 
the union will contest this, hut this is my opinion and the opinion of 
my associates — the bi^jgest issue was union security, the union shop. 

The union M'as very insistent on having the union shop, because 
they had gotten in by about a 2.G-percent majority, and in our esti- 
mation hadn't made the gains in membership that they thought they 
were going to make, and they Avere very anxious to have some way of 
forcing people into that union. 

In my opinion, we could have settled all of the difficulties quite 
readily had we been willing to concede a union shop. 

Senator Mundt, It is your position, and I presume therefore it is 
the position of the company, that the issue which precipitated the 
strike was the issue of the union shop. 

Mr. Conger. Yes, sir. 

Senator Mundt. I take it from that, that you do not have a State 
right-to-work law in Wisconsin ? 

Mr. Conger. No, we do not, Senator. We have, in Wisconsin, what 
has been called a right-to-work law, but it is not the type of law that 
is now referred to. That is section 347, P. 683, which prohibits inter- 
ference from going to employment, and in our statutes that is a right- 
to-work law, but it is not what is commonly known as a right-to- 
work law today. 

Senator Mundt. I do recall that witnesses representing the union 
have told the committee that the issue that continues the strike and 
prevents it from being settled is the issue of whether or not Kohler 
will rehire strikers. 

Do you agree about that ? 

Mr. Conger. That has become an increasingly important issue 
as we went along, certainlj^ Senator. As we have gone on these various 
meetings, at first there wasn't much of a replacement issue, and we 
could have probably settled the strike and taken back all of the 
strikers and had no trouble. 

Xow, since that time we have hired a great number of people, and 
we have kept our plant operating, and at the present time the plumb- 
ing industry is not in too good shape. Residential building has fallen 
off very greatly and that is a fact of the market to everyone, and at 
the present time our plant is just filled up. 

Except for those people w^ho quit and die or retire, we have no more 
job opportunities. There isn't an expansion. 

Senator Mundt. To pinpoint this, let me put it to you this w^ay : Is 
it the company's position now that you will not hire any of the strikers 
or that you will not hire strikers when hiring a striker means firing 
somebody who is now working there, or have you designated a list 
of the strikers whose activities you consider to be violence and con- 
sequently you have a black list. 

AVhich of those three attitudes is it, or if it isn't one of those, what 
is it? 

Mr. Conger. No. 2 comes closest to it. Senator, that we will and have 
taken back strikers who applied for reemployment when we have a 
job for them, and when it does not necessitate firing or lajdng off a 
present employee. 

There are 90 people whom we discharged, and those we will not 
reinstate unless we are compelled by law to do so, in which case, of 
course, we will. 



IMPROPER ACTIVrTIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 9533 

The other thing is that that discharge was made on March 1. There 
is a small group, and a relatively small gi'oup of people who probably 
would not be reinstated on application because of later acts, such as 
participation in the clay boat riot, and things of that type, and acts 
that we didn't know about at the time we made the discharges. 

Senator Mundt. Is this a fair way in which to define the razor- 
edge issue which keeps you from settling the strike between the union 
and the company ? . . . 

The company's position is that you will not hire strikers who re- 
place people presently employed by the plant and the union's position 
is that you should hire all of the strikers, and if that means firing 
some of the people now there, that you should disemploy them and 
employ the strikers. 

Is that the razor-edge issue ? 

Mr. Conger., That is it, I think, Senator. 

The Chairman. All right, proceed with the exhibits. Have you 
finished ? 

Mr. Conger. No, not quite, Mr. Chairman. I think I have two 
more exhibits. One is a compilation of pictures. 

Do you want to assign an exhibit number, or do you want me to 
explain it before you pass on it ? 

The Chairman. Identify it so I can tell what it is. 

Mr. Conger. This is a book of photographs taken under my direc- 
tion and control, and includes photographs of the mass picketing, 
of the clay boat riot, of the employment office mass picketing, a couple 
of photographs of the sheriff's deputies with the pickets, and some 
photographs of vandalism and property damage. 

The Chairman. Do you have identification on each photograph, so 
that he who looks may have information as to what it purports to 
reveal ? 

Mr. Conger. Each photograph has the identification of the date, 
the location it was taken, and the identification of certain individuals 
on it. 

The Chairman. All right. You have verified the remarks on the 
reverse side of each photograph ; have you ? 

Mr. Conger. Yes ; I have. 

The Chairman. To the best of your knowledge and belief, infor- 
mation contained thereon is true ? 

Mr. Conger. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. That book of photographs may be made exhibit 
No. 99. 

(Book of photographs referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 99" for 
reference.) 

The Chairman. That is for reference only. 

Mr. Conger. There are, in this book, 46 pictures of the mass picket- 
ing at the company, which I don't think I need to explain any further 
than to say that various international representatives and local union 
officials are shown on them and identified. 

There is one interesting picture of May 24, 1954, taken between 7 
and 8 : 30 a. m., which the Senators may recall was shortly after a 
group of nonstriker employees tried to get in the plant and were turned 
back, and this is a picture of the sheriff's deputies eating lunch with 
the pickets, and the lunch being furnished from the pickets' lunch 
wagon. 



9534 niPROPER activities in the labor field 

Tlu' next photograph is a picture on July 13, 1954, of the sheriff's 
deputies phiying cards Avith the jiickets. 

Tliere is also a group. There are two of those pictures of fraterniza- 
tion of slieriff's deputies. There are 17 pictures of the clay boat riot 
which I don't think I have to go into any more. 

There are 22 pictures of the home picketing. As an example, there 
are 5 photographs of the picketing at the employment office. That 
was mass picketing to keep employees out of the employment office, 
or prospective employees from applying at the employment office. 

As a result of that picketing, the local union and IC of its members 
were convicted of contempt of court, and given fines and/or jail 
sentences. 

The Chairman. What you have in mind with respect to those pic- 
tures where you referred to them as sheriff's deputies fraternizing 
with the strikers is to undertake to imply that they were there to sup- 
port the strike rather than to protect those who wanted to work ? 

Mr. Conger. That is correct, sir. 

The Chairman. That is the implication of it ? 

Mr. Conger. That is right. 

The Chairman. That is what you meant to show by that picture ? 

Mr. Conger. That is what I meant to show. 

The Chairman. All right, proceed. 

Mr. Conger. And my last exhibit I have to show is an issue from 
a portion of the issue of the Kohlarian of November 11, 1954. "Thank 
God they are not all like Max Wimmer," and then the fact that Max 
Wimmer has returned to work, and his address is given, and then 
immediately after that Max Wimmer has hit with three successive 
acts of vandalism. 

That is to show the connection between their publishing the names 
and addresses of these people and the acts of vandalism that occurred 
later. 

The Chairman. Did you give the date of that ? 

Mr. Conger. November 11, 1954. 

The Chairman. That may be made exhibit No. 100, for reference 
only. 

(Document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 100," for reference, 
and may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

Senator Mundt. Was there any evidence, Mr. Conger, that the acts 
of vandalism actually occurred at the homes of the people whose 
addresses were printed in the paper ? 

Mr. Conger. Oh, yes, many of them were hit, and this is just one 
typical example. 

Senator Mundt. After they were published ? 

Mr. Conger. Yes, after they were published, and published with 
the address. 

Senator Mundt. After that was done, then the acts of vandalism 
occurred on those premises ? 

Mr, Conger. That is correct. And usually there were repeated 
acts, and Max Wimmer has hit with three successive acts of van- 
dalism. 

And I would like, if I may, at this time, to make one brief com- 
ment about the Wisconsin law in this situation, which has been pretty 
badly misrepresented, and I don't think successfully, but has been 
badly misrepresented to the committee. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 9535 

Section 343.683 of the Wisconsin statutes, which prohibits any- 
one from interfering with a person's lawful right to go to work, 
are not a part of the Wisconsin Peace Act, and are not enforceable 
only by the Wisconsin Employment Eelations Board. It is a crim- 
inal statute, and it has criminal penalties connected with it. 

It is violated the first time you do it, and not when the board 
comes along and says "We have found an unfair labor practice." 
The only connection of this statute with the Wisconsin Peace Act, 
chapter 111 of the statutes, is that chapter 111 makes it an unfair 
labor practice on the part of either company or union to violate the 
law. 

Of course, if you violate this particular section, that is not only a 
criminal act but an unfair labor practice, and the board can take 
cognizance of it. 

(At this point, the following members were present: Senators 
McClellan, Curtis, and Mundt.) 

Senator Mundt. Mr. Conger, your testimony on that point is in 
direct conflict with some testimony we had from union officials. We 
asked them that question time after time. They left me certainly 
with the impression that the Wisconsin law is that it is not illegal to 
engage in mass picketing until the Wisconsin Employment Eelations 
Board, I believe it is called, issues a cease-and-desist order. 

Are you sure of your facts ? 

Mr. Conger. That is what I contest. That is absolutely incorrect. 
A review of the Wisconsin statutes will show that. This section 
343.683 is violated by mass picketing which keeps people out of the 
plant. It is violated the minute it is done. 

Senator Mundt. Wliether or not there has been a ruling by the 
board ? 

Mr. Conger. Wliether or not there has been a ruling by the board ; 
yes. Senator. 

Senator Mundt. Well, I suppose a matter of that kind is not debat- 
able. That is a matter of law. 

Kitzman, among others, and Mr. Mazey, I believe, the second one, 
specifically said in response to inquiries by me and in response to in- 
quiries by Senator Goldwater, that such was not the case. You tell 
us it is the case. That is one on each side. 

There are two points of view. Have you got any evidence that can 
be introduced so we can find out who is right about this ? 

Mr. Conger. Well, the evidence would be in the statutes them- 
selves, in this section 343683 ; that was in the Wisconsin statutes for 
years before the Wisconsin Peace Act was ever passed. 

It gets into the Wisconsin Peace Act or has a connection with the 
Wisconsin Peace Act only because the Wisconsin Peace Act has a 
catchall provision which makes any violation of any criminal statute 
an unfair labor practice. 

I might also mention. Senator, that 

Senator Mundt. Sometimes we pass laws in Congress and we say, 
"Notwithstanding the provisions of any other act." 

Is that phrase in the Wisconsin Peace Act, which would wash out 
the other one ? 

Mr. Conger. No. There is a similar phrase, that it does not wash 
out any other act. 



9536 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Mundt. It does not. 

Mr. Conger. And I might mention that there were at least 2, and 
I think 3, criminal prosecutions for violation of this 343683, in which 
the people were found guilty and fines assessed, before the WERB 
ever got into the picture. 

Senator Mundt. A prosecution which took place as a result of pick- 
eting held illegal before the board had ruled ? 

Mr. Conger. That is correct, Senator. 

Senator Mundt. Those cases, you say, have resulted in convictions? 

Mr. Conger. Yes, sir. 

Senator Mundt. And have not been upset by the Supreme Court ? 

Mr. Conger. No; I don't think they were ever carried up to the 
Supreme Court; some of them were carried up to the circuit court, 
but in those particular cases, a violation of this statute, I believe the 
appeals were dropped. 

I would also like to point out that it is not a fact, as the miion 
claimed, that the minute the board told them that this conduct was 
illegal they immediately ceased it. 

Senator Mundt. They did claim that. 

Mr. Conger. Yes, sir. 

Senator Mundt. I thought you said it was not a fact that they 
claimed it. 

Mr. Conger. I say that they claimed it, but it is not a fact, and the 
record will show that, an undeniable record there. 

Senator Mundt. What can you show in the record that the union's 
testimony on that one is wrong? 

Mr. Conger. We can show in the record that the Wisconsin Employ- 
ment Relations Board handed down its decision on May 21. The 
union immediately announced that they would pay no attention to it; 
it was not going to affect the picketing ; and on May 24 another group 
wiio tried to get in were repulsed. Tliat is very evident from the 
pictures that we have put in here, the testimony of witnesses, and the 
movies that we have put in. 

In fact, that May 24 was probably the most serious incident of vio- 
lence that we had on the picket line during the entire strike, and that 
was after the board's order and after the union well knew that it was 
illegal. 

I might also point out that the union carried that case all the way 
up to the Supreme Court of the United States, claiming that the 
Wisconsin Employment Relations Board had no jurisdiction w^hatever 
in this matter. 

I might also point out that they did not live up to this until they 
were faced with a probable enforcement order in Judge Schlichting's 
court. 

On May 28 the Wisconsin Employment Relations Board went in 
for an order from the court to enforce their order. Then they said 
they would live up to it; tliereafter, the home picketing started. 

Again the Wisconsin Employment Relations Board came in and 
said, "That is a violation of our order," because the order had pro- 
hibited any home picketing. Then the issue on an injunction on 
September' 1 by Judge Murphy. Thereafter they had this employ- 
ment office picketing, which resulted in the local union being found 
guilty of contempt, and IG of its members. 



lAlPROPE'R ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 9537 

So I say it is not a fact at all that the union lived up to these orders 
as soon as they found it was illegal, what they did. 

At no time did they ever cease their illegal conduct. When we got 
one type of it stopped by legal action, they promptly switched to 
another kind. 

The Chairman. Senator Mundt, would you yield to me for a ques- 
tion for clarification, please, sir ? 

Senator Mundt. I will yield. 

The Chairman. What is the date of the orders of the WERE ? 

Mr. Conger. May 21, 1954. 

The Chairman. May 21. And what is the date of the court order 
of enforcing? 

Mr. Conger. September 1, 1954. 

The Chairman. May 21, and the court order to enforce the WERE 
order against mass picketing was not until September what? 

Mr. Conger. First, 1954. 

The Chairman. Do you contend that all during that period of 
time, from Ma^ 21 to September 1, the order of the "WERE was vio- 
lated by the union during that period of time ? 

Mr. Conger. No. We contend that it was very — may I say this: 
There were technical violations all that period of time, but I wasn't 
too concerned, and we weren't too concerned, about some technical 
violation. If the order said 20 pickets at the gate and some morning 
they happened to have 21 while the shifts were changing, that didn't 
bother us at all as long as they weren't interfering, seriously inter- 
fering, with someone going in. 

The Chairman. If the Senator will pardon, I have another ques- 
tion. What prompted the securing of the court order on September 1 ? 

Mr. Conger. That was the home-picketing episode. 

The Chairman. The home picketing ? 

Mr. Conger. Yes. 

The Chairman. So the court order was not obtained with respect 
to mass picketing until the home picketing had broken out. Then 
who went to court to get the court order ? 

Mr. Conger. Under our procedure, under the WERE, which is 
considerably different than the procedure under the NLRE, the com- 
plainant files his complaint with the WERE and he prosecutes it 
before the WERE up until the point he gets an order. From that 
time on the complainant, the Kohler Co. in this case, passes officially 
ovit of the picture, and it is up to the board itself to go in and get court 
orders to enforce its order. 

The Chairman. So the Eoard itself went in to get the order to stop 
the mass picketing and the home picketing ? 

Mr. Conger. Yes, sir; they went in to get an order to stop the mass 
picketing, and the union came in on May 28 and said, "We will volun- 
tarily comply. There is no reason why we need an injunction." 

The Chairman. Then this May 28 — that is what I was getting 
at — was there a consent order made at that time by the union that it 
would comply with the WERE order ? 

Mr. Conger. It was not a consent order, Senator. It was a consent 
postponement from day to day. They came in and said, "We will 
comply." 

The Chairman. In other words, the petition for enforcement had 
been filed ? 



9538 LMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Conger. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. The union came in and said, "There is no use to 
make an order, we will comply with it." 

Is that in eil'ect what you mean ? 

Mr. Conger. That is it. 

The Chairman. Then it went on from time to time, and finally the 
home picketing was the cause or necessitated the Board going before 
the court hnally on September 1 and getting an order. 

Mr. Conger. That is it. 

The Chairman. Am I correct now ? 

Mr. Conger. That is correct, Senator. 

The Chairman. I thank the Senator. I was trying to get it clear. 

Senator Mundt. I think this will help the chairman, and it is impor- 
tant for the record, that associate counsel has just handed me a copy 
of the intermediary report, the examiner's report, of the National 
Labor Relations Board, and not the Wisconsin board. Item No. 20 
says this : 

In the meantime, WERB, the Wisconsin board, proceeded with its hearing, and 
on May 21 issued its order directing the union to cease and desist from certain 
specified conduct, including obstruction or interference with ingress and egress 
from the plant, hindering or preventing by mass piclieting, threats, intimidations, 
or coercion of any kind, the pursuit of work or employment by person or 
persons desirous thereof, the intimidation of the families of such persons or the 
picketing of their domicile. The union informed its membership that the order 
was not enforceable and would not change the picketing in any way. 

That is from the NLRB report. 

That indicates, perhaps, why 4 or 5 days after the WERB had made 
its cease-and-desist order the incident that you referred to of mass 
picketing occurred at the plant. 

Mr. Conger. Right. 

Senator Mundt. I am almost positive, Mr. Chairman, that we have 
direct testimony from the union that it did comply with the cease- 
and-desist order issued on May 21 at the time it was issued. I sug- 
gest that we have one of our staff members search through the testi- 
mony by union officials and see whether or not my memory is correct 
on that, because it will be some time before the hearings are printed 
and indexed. It is a pretty important question of fact. I would like 
to know whether or not the union did tell us a true report of what 
took place. 

We can find that only by an examination of the record. If we 
could have some member of the staff make that examination, I will 
appreciate it. 

The Chairman. The Chair recalls that they testified, I don't re- 
member which witness, that limmediately after the WERB order 
they complied with it. 

Senator Mundt. That was my understanding. We have here di- 
rect testimony, supported by motion pictures and supported by the 
date of this strike, by other witnesses, and most important of all, 
direct conflicting testimony from the NLRB report itself. 

So I think as a guidance to the Department of Justice, if we could 
have this survey made by one of our staff members and report to 
the committee, it would be very helpful. 

The Chairman. All right. I^t us proceed. 

Have you anything further, Mr. Conger ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 9539 

Mr. Conger. That is the end. 

The Chairman. Are there any questions ? 

Mr. Counsel? 

Mr. Kennedy. I would like to ask you something about the de- 
tective agency that you hired. 

Mr. Conger. All right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Are those the reports of the detective agency? 

Mr. Conger. Copies of the reports, yes. 

Mr. Kjennedy. How many different detective agencies did you 
hire? 

Mr. Conger. We hired two different detective agencies. 

Mr. Kennedy. ^Vliat were their names ? 

Mr. Conger. One was through the Schindler Agency, the other 
one was the Madison Agency which changed its name. When you 
ask me whether these were the reports, these are the reports of the 
Madison Agency. I have never been able to find the reports from the 
Schindler Agency. 

I do not believe that I threw them away, but it is one of these 
things that I am sure is in some file somewhere but I can't locate the 
file. I have never been able to find it. 

Mr. Kennedy. We were able to get copies of the Schindler Agency 
report. 

Do you have those, Mr. Bellino ? 

Mr. Belling. Yes, Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could we have those made exhibits ? 

TESTIMONY OF CARMINE S. BELLINO— Resumed 

The Chairman. Mr. Bellino, have you been previously sworn ? 

Mr. Belling. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. I will ask you to identify what you liohl in your 
hand. 

Mr. Bellino. These are photostatic copies of reports of operators 
371 and 487 who were used by the Schindler Agency in connection 
with the Kohler strike. 

The Chairman. Wliere did you procure them ? 

Mr. Bellino. These were obtained, some of them, from the Schind- 
ler Agency in New York, and most of the writen reports came from 
the Chicago Agency of the Inter-State Detective Agency, Inc., which 
is a company used by Schindler in getting these two men to Kohler. 

The Chairman. You have no doubt that you have the accurate 
reports ? 

Mr. Belling. I have no doubt about that ; no, sir. 

The Chairman. Did you obtain them in your capacity as a pro- 
fessional staff member of the committee ? 

Mr. Belling. They were obtained under my supervision by members 
of the staff. 

The Chairman. All right. Those may be made exhibit No. 101, for 
reference. 

(The documents referred to were marked "Exhibit No. 101" for 
reference and may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

The Chairman. They have been made an exhibit now. 

21243— 58— pt. 24 5 



9540 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX 'I'HE LABOR FIELD 

TESTIMONY OF LYMAN C. CONGER— Resumed 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Conger, this first group was retfiined in order 
to try to learn who had done the kidnapping of Oostdvk ? 

Mr. Conger. Of Oostdyk. 

Mr. Kennedy. Is that correct ^ 

Mr. Conger. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. And they were not able to successfully solve that ? 

INIr. Conger. No, they did not solve it. 

Mr. Kennedy. "Who referred you to this detective agency ? 

Mr. CoNGFJR. No one referred me to that detective agency. We 
have a very active Kohler Women's Club, which has a distinguished 
guest speaker program, and Mr. Kaymond Schindler appeared on that 
program as a speaker at one time. So I kind of thouglit of him. 

Mr. Kennedy. This not being successful, then you were referred 
to this other detective agency, is that right ? 

Mr. Conger. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is the Madson ? 

Mr. Conger. That is the Madson Detective Agency. I think they 
changed their name a couple of times here. I think the later ones 
were Investigators Associated, or something of that type. It is shown 
on their reports. 

Mr. Kennedy. Those are their reports that you have before you ? 

Mr. Conger. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. When did you first contact Madson Detective 
Agency ? 

Mr. Conger. About July 12, according to the report. 

Mr. KJENNEDY. That was when you hired tliem. Do you know when 
you first contacted them ? 

Mr. Conger. We first contacted them on July 12, after the charges 
had been filed against us in the NLRB proceeding. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is the first time you contacted them ? 

Mr. Conger. Yes. That is, contacted them to do any work. I don't 
know, I may have seen 1 or 2 of them, but it is the first time we re- 
tained them at any rate. 

Mr. KENNEDY. When did you first meet and discuss the matter with 
them. 

Mr. Conger. July 12. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is the first time you ever met them and dis- 
cussed it, was July 12, 1954? 

Mr. Conger. Yes. That is what Mr. Madson's records show and 
that is my recollection of it. 

I know that it was after the NLRB case charges were filed against 
us. 

Mr. I^NNEDY. You don't believe it was back in May, ]\Iay 22, 1954? 

Mr. Conger. I don't believe I ever contacted the Madson Detective 
Agency to do anything on May 24. I don't recall anytliing of that 
type. This is my recollection and that is what the report sliows. 

Mr. Kennedy. What was the purpose at that time ? 

Mr. Conger. Tlie purpose at that time was mainly to prepare infor- 
mation which we expected to need and present in our defense of the 
Nl JiR case, to investigate the backgi-ound of one Mr. Robert Burk- 
hart. We made the defense in the NLRB case tliat the union was not 
bargaining in good faith, because Mr. Burkhart had not filed an anti- 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 9541 

communist affidavit, and also the defense that we do not believe that 
when a union is represented by an individual whose real purpose is to 
destroy not only that company but all industry in the United States, 
that that union is bargaining in good faith. We were being accused 
of trying to bust this union, and we thought that shoe would fit the 
other foot, too, and that it might be a defense that the union, through 
its representative, was trying to bust the company and all other com- 
panies. 

Senator Mundt. On that point, were you trying to bust the union ? 

Mr. Conger. No, sir. I do not understand. Senator, how you can 
bust a union when you offer it a contract. The union has testified, 
and Mr. Burkhart has testified in the NLRB case, that he thought it 
would bust the union to accept the same contract they had the year 
before. Well, that isn't busting a union in my philosophy. 

I don't see how it is possible to bust a union when you offer to renew 
the contract Avith them, to make a contract with them. 

I don't see how you can bust them. 

Senator Mundt. Is that agreed to testimony by both sides, that you 
did offer to renew the contract, with the same UAW union for another 
year, or is that a matter of dispute ? 

Mr. Conger. I don't think that is a matter of dispute. I handed in 
the exhibit, a letter, that went to the NLRB, and it was accepted. I 
don't think the union ever contested the fact that we agi*eed to renew 
the contract for a year. 

There was one collateral matter before that. They asked us to re- 
new the contract for 1 month, and we called their attention to the fact 
that we had done everytliing possible to get this bargaining going at 
the time several months before when it could have been completed if 
they had been willing to come in and bargain, or we hoped it could be 
completed. 

The Chairman. My recollection is that the union agreed that you 
offered to continue the contract. I don't think that is in controversy. 

Mr. Conger. I don't think so. 

The Chairman. They took the position, however, that the original 
contract, the contract you wanted to renew, was actually a substandard 
contract and they were trying to make progress and bring it up to a 
higher standard. I think that is the record. 

Mr. Conger. May I make a comment on that, Senator ? 

The Chairman. Yes. 

Mr. Conger. At the time the contract was issued and signed by the 
union, Mr. Emil Mazey, and these are in the records of the NLRB case, 
made the statement that they made more progress in this contract 
than in 17 years of the old union. 

Mr. Harvey Kitzman stated that that contained more improvements 
than any first contract he had ever helped to negotiate. 

The Kohlerian came out with banner headlines, "We Have Won a 
Good Contract." I say to you now that their statements to this com- 
mittee are false, or their statements then to their membership were 
false. It is the old familiar pattern either they were deceiving their 
membership then or they are deceiving this committee now. 

Senator Mundt. Have those issues of the Kohlerian been placed 
in exhibit? 

Mr. Conger. I don't think so. Senator. We will be glad to pro- 
duce them. 



9542 LMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Mundt. Do you liavc them iivailable? 

Mr. Conger. I think we have. They are in as exhibits in the 
NLRB proceeding. But I think we have copies here and I think 
we can produce them. 

Senator MirxDT. 1 think they should be made exhibits if, in fact, 
they say what you say they are alleged to report. That certainly 
was not my impression of the kind of contract that you were offering 
the union. 

Mr. Conger. We will undertake to produce those. 

Senator Mundt, The Kohlerian is their official newspaper, and if 
they did say in fact that tliis would be a big improvement, I think 
it important that we know that. If the papers are not available to 
support your statement I think we ought to know that. 

Mr. Conger. I will undertake to produce those, Senator, but I 
would like a little time, a day or so, to do it. 

I think the only copies of those I have are copies of exhibits which 
went into the NLRB proceeding, and, of course, I would like to keep 
a copy of that since that proceeding is not over with. 

Senator Mundt. I imagine the committee would accept a photo- 
static copy, is that correct, Mr. Chairman ? 

The Chair^ian. Yes, indeed. If you have them and produce them 
within a reasonable time, the next 3 or 4 days, the Chair will direct 
that the clerk receive them and mark them collectively, such issues 
of the Kohlerian as you may produce, and make them exhibit No. 
102 for reference only. 

(Exhibit No. 102 was reserved for the documents referred to. for 
reference, and may found in the files of the select committee.) 

Mr. Conger. ]\Iay I amend one of my statements? I think one of 
these statements was made on a union program. It may be that one 
of them might be a radio program rather than the Kolilerian. 

The Chairman. Well, if a radio program was produced in addi- 
tion thereto, under your oath if you state it is a correct copy of the 
program, tliat may be made exhibit 102 A . 

Mr. Conger. Thank you. 

(Exhibit No. 102 A was reserved for the document referred to, and 
may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, could we also have the other reports 
of the other detective agency made an exhibit, which Mr. Conger has? 

The Chairman. Mr. Conger, you have the reports of which agency? 

Mr. Kennedy. Madson. 

Mr. Conger. The staff has a complete file of these. I would like 
to keep my copies. 

(At this point, Senator Mundt withdrew from the hearing room.) 

The Chairman, Do you have other copies of them ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Is that the only copy you have ? 

Mr. Conger. INIr, Bellino took copies and these are the same copies 
as Mr, Bellino took from my files. 

The Chairman. Do you have copies of them ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Have you any other copies of them, other than the 
ones you have there ? 

Mr. Conger. No, I have no other copies other than the ones I have 
now. 

The Chairman. That is all that the company has ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 9543 

Mr, Conger. That is all I have. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could we have ours made an exhibit ? 

The Chairman. You want to keep 1 copy of them, of course, and 
we have 1 copy. It was a matter that if we had extra copies, it would 
be a convenience to the staff. 

Mr. Conger. No. We made this copy in a hurry while Mr. Bellino 
was there, to give it to him before he left, and we made only one copy. 

TESTIMONY OF CARMINE S. BELLINO— Resumed 

The Chairman. Mr. Bellino, do you have copies of the reports of 
the Madson Detective Agency as provided you by the Kohler Co. ? 

Mr. Bellino. And a few from Madson. 

The Chairman. Some of them were secured from Madson agency, 
is that correct ? ' 

Mr. Bellino. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. You have them here in three folders, do you? 

Mr. Bellino. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Three separate folders. These three folders of 
copies of the reports of the Madson agency may be made exhibit No. 
103 for reference. 

(The documents referred to were marked "Exhibit No. 103" for 
reference, and may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

TESTIMONY OF LYMAN C. CONGER— Resuming 

(At this point the following members of the committee were present : 
Senators McClellan and Curtis.) 

Mr. Ivennedy. You say that you made an investigation of Mr. 
Burkhart? 

Mr. Conger. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. And this investigation went on over a period of time, 
did it? 

Mr. Conger. Quite a considerable period of time, yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Are you still retaining this Madson Detective 
Agency ? 

Are they still being retained by you ? 

Mr. Conger. I don't know quite how to answer that. He was not 
on a retainer basis. He was on a fee basis, charged for any services 
that he might perform. 

Mr. Kennedy. Is he still performing ? 

Mr. Conger. He is performing none at the present time. 

Mr. Kennedy. Has he, within the last several weeks ? 

Mr. Conger. No, not within the last several weeks. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wlien was the last time that you had him do work 
for you ? 

Mr. Conger. I think it was in January or February of tliis year, 
as I recall it. 

Mr. Kennedy. Have you been in touch with him since that time? 

Mr. Conger. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. But you haven't had him do any work for you ? 

Mr. Conger. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. It was just in connection with this investigation? 

Mr. Conger. Yes ; in fact, when Mr. Bellino went up there to look 



9544 IMPROPER ACnVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

at Jiis files, he called nie and asked if he had permission to show them 
to Inm, and I called attention to the fact that they had been turned 
■over to the committee statf months before. In fact, I am advised they 
Avei-e down here in Washington for 6 weeks, one of the first things 
turned over. 

Mr. Kennedy. In addition to Mr. Burkhart, who else did you in- 
vestigate? 

Mr. Conger. "We had him make some investigation of Mr. Emil 
Mazey, starting from some testimony that was given before a congres- 
sional committee, the Dies committee. "We had him look up some of 
those witnesses. 

I also received a 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you pay any of these witnesses to give you 
.■^latements about these people, for instance Burkhart ? 

Mr. Congeu. They were paid for information, some of them. I do 
not recall whether any of them were paid for statements or not. 

Mr. Kennedy. "Well, if they gave you 

Mr. Conger. It may have been possible. 

]\[r. Kennedy. If they gave you statements or information, then 
they received money, did they i 

Mr. (Longer. Some of them did. 

Mr. Kennedy. In addition to Mr. Emil Mazey and Mr. Burkhart, 
who else did you investigate ? 

JMr. Conger. I can't recollect any others; if the record shows, you 
can refresh my memory on it. 

Mr. Kennedy. You can't remember anybody else ? 

Mr. Conger. I can't remember anybody else now. Our purpose 
was to bolster our defense which, by the way, is still in the picture, 
that the mi ion was not bargaining in good faith because it was being 
represented by people wlio were trying to overthrow all industry, 
not only the Koliler Co. but all industry. 

Senator Curtis. "Would you yield for a question right there? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. 

Senator Curtis. On this investigation business, did you hire a 
detective agency to investigate any of your employees ? 

Mr. Conger. Xo. Unless we did hire tliem to catch people who 
were guilty of vandalism. If they had been employees, then 

Senator Curtis. No, I am talking about i^utting them on the trail 
of some individual to see what they could find out about them, their 
families or their past. 

Mr. Conger. No, sir. 

Senator Curtis. You did not use detective agencies to ferret out 
the past of your employees ? 

Mr. Conger. No. We did at a later time use this detective agency 
to make checks on people who were appl3'ing for emj^loyment, to see 
whether they had a police record, what their character was in their 
home community, and so forth. We made what you might call a 
trial run of that. 

We never had them check our emplo3'ees and their records and 
their past. I gave them strict instructions from the beginning as 
to what their activity should be, and that we were not wanting them 
to check legitimate union activities of anyone. We wanted them to 
check only illegal activities such as we sx^ecified. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 9545 

Senator Curtis. But the people who were checked upon as indi- 
viduals, and their pasts, were not your employees, but were the people 
from away from there, the outsiders who came in connection with 
this strike, is that correct ? 

Mr. Conger. That is correct, except in checking the vandalism 
there were some of our employees suspected, and in this dynamite 
cache there was three employees. They were checked in that regard. 

Senator Curtis. But that was to find out who had done a specific 
thing. 

Mr. Conger. That is correct. 

Senator Curtis. I am tallring about the question of looking up 
people's past, what had happened years before, and who they are, 
their previous employment, and so on. 

Mr. Conger. The only thing — and there was 1 occasion when 1 
of the Schraders, Franklin Schrader, and 3 others, were charged 
with assault with intent to do great bodily harm, and also assault, 
in Calumet County Court, and we did have them check from Mr. 
Franklin Schrader's past criminal record at that time. 

Senator Curtis. These personal investigations that have been com- 
plained of have been, by and large, the investigation of the outsiders 
who came in ? 

Mr. Conger. That is correct. 

Senator Curtis. What was the report on Emil Mazey ? 

Mr. Conger. I would say it was pretty much negative. At least, 
we never had enough that we felt we could use it in defense. As a 
matter of fact, we were prohibited from using the defense. 

Senator Curtis. Negative for the purposes that you set out to 
get it? 

Mr. Conger. That is correct. 

Senator Curtis. When you say later on you investigated the back- 
ground of applicants for jobs, were some of those applicants non- 
residents of the immediate area ? 

Mr. Conger. Yes. I don't think we ever had them investigate, to 
my knowledge, anybody who was a resident of the area. It was only 
when they came from some distance away. 

I might explain that the union was partially responsible for that 
one, too, because they published in their Kohlarian one time, through 
some inadvertence, that apparently we hired a fellow who had a 
criminal record, and they made a great to-do about it, so we started 
checking criminal records. 

Mr, Kennedy. So you investigated Robert Buckhart, his back- 
ground, and Emi] Mazey. Can you think of anyone else that you 
investigated ? 

Mr. Conger. I can't at the moment. There might have been. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you investigate Mr. Frank Wallich ? 

Mr. Conger. I think they did make a little spot check of him ; yes. 

Mr. KJENNEDY. An investigation of him. What was his position? 

Mr. Conger. He was the publicity man for the union. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you thought that you should have an investiga- 
tion made of him also ? 

Mr. Conger. That is right. He was telling people that we were 
murderers, and immoral, morally ii-responsible, making vicious per- 
sonal attacks on the officers, what we considered was a very Com- 



9546 IMPROPER ACTTVITIE6 IX THE LABOR FIELD 

munist type of propaganda, and we wanted to see what his back- 
ground was. 

Mr. Kennedy. So you made an investigation of him. Can you 
think of anybody other than Burkhart, Emil Mazey, Frank Wallich? 

Mr. Conger. I believe Mr. Treuer, the succeeding publicity man, 
was also checked. 

Mr. Kennedy. Robert Treuer? 

Mr. Conger. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. You made an investigation of him, is that right ? 

Mr. Conger. Yes, I think so. 

Mr. Kennedy. Why did you make an investigation of him ? 

Mr. Conger. For the same reason. 

Mr. I^[JENNEDY. What sort of information did you find out about 
him? 

Mr. Conger. I would say it was pretty much negative. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did they report that his wife worked for a Con- 
gressman, a Democratic Congressman, part of the report ? 

Mr. Conger. That was reported, but we didn't think that was an 
offense. 

Mr. Kennedy. But you wanted to have that kind of information, 
did you ? 

Mr. Conger. No. When anyone makes a report on anyone, they 
include certain background information on it. 

Mr. Kennedy. What sort of information were you looking for if 
they reported that the man's wife worked for a Democratic Congress- 
man ? What sort of information were you trying to find ? 

Mr. Conger. You are talking about Treuer. No, that report was 
not made with respect to Treuer, but it was made with respect to Mr. 
Wallich, and I think the report said that at that time Mr. Wallich 
was resigning his position and going to work for the same Democratic 
Congressman. 

Mr. Kennedy. That was the kind of information or the sort of 
information that you would want to have ? 

Mr. Conger. No, that was the sort of information that we got, 
along with the report. We didn't ask him to check as to whether 
or not he was connected with any Democratic Congressman, Republi- 
can Congressman, or any other Congressman. 

He gave us certain background information, the same as he might 
have given us his birthplace. 

Mr. Kennedy (reading) : 

Those informants further advised the writer that Mrs. Wallich had taken an 
active part in the Democratic campaign of 1954, and that as a reward she was 
named administrative assistant to her Congressman in Milwaukee. 

]VIr. Conger. That certainly was no news to us. 

Mr. Kennedy (reading) : 

Mr. Wallach was going to accompany his wife to Washington, possibly. 
That is another part. 

Mr. Conger. That, I think, was a little new to us, but the first part 
was no news to us, because Mr. Wallich was doing that quite openly 
and publicly, and we knew what has happening. 

Mr. Kennedy. You wanted to get whatever information you could 
on all of these people, is that right ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 9547 

Mr. Conger. We wanted to get, primarily, information about any 
subversive backgroimd or connection that we could vise as a defense 
in our NLRB case. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is the reason you were checking these people? 

Mr. Congee. That is correct. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. Was there anybody else you checked besides Treuer, 
Wallich, Mazey, and Burkhart? 

Mr. Conger. I don't remember any at the moment. If you have 
some more there, I may recall it. 

Mr. Kennedy. How about Dave Rabinovitz, the attorney for the 
union ? 

Mr. Conger. That came at a much later stage. 

Mr. Ivennedy. That refreshes your recollection, though? 

Mr. Conger. Yes, it does. I had forgotten that. That was quite 
recently, when Mr. Madson reported to me that he had information 
somewhere as to a David Rabinovitz who had been connected with the 
Communist Party in Philadelphia, and I told him I didn't think there 
was anything to that report because to the best of my knowledge Mr. 
Rabinovitz had never been in Philadelphia or Penns3dvania, but he 
asked permission to check it out. I gave it to him and the result 
of the report was that that was an individual with a somewhat similar 
name but an entirely different individual. 

Mr. Kennedy. And they made an investigation in Philadelphia, 
Pa., on him, is that right, on the union attorney. 

Mr. Conger. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. On your instructions ? 

Mr. Conger. That is right. On my approval. 

It was Mr. Madson's suggestion in the first place. I told him I 
didn't think he was going to get anything, but I was willing to let 
him try. 

Mr. Kennedy. Is there anybody else that you can think of? 

Mr. Conger. I can't think of anyone else. 

Mr. Kennedy. What about a Mr. Brown? Did you make an in- 
vestigation of Mr. Brown? 

Mr. Conger. Yes. He came — a very short one. One time we were 
notified that he was replacing Mr. Burkhart, and that was down at 
the Chicago meetings. We asked him to check his background and 
we found out in about 2 weeks that he wasn't replacing Mr. Burkhart 
at all. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did Mr. Brown appear on the scene at all ? 

Mr. Conger. He appeared at the Chicago negotiating meetings in 
July and August of 1955. 

Mr. Kennedy. He was listed to replace Mr. Robert Burkhart? 

Mr. Conger. That is what we were advised. 

Mr, KJENNEDY. So you started to make an investigation of him at 
that time? 

Mr. Conger. That is right. 

Mr. KJENNEDY. Just because he was listed to replace Mr. Burk- 
hart? 

Mr. Conger. Yes. Because he was an official of the union and we 
still had an NLRB proceedings going on at that time. That took 
place during an adjournment. 



9548 IMPROPER ACTIVITIDS IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. IvENNEDY. So jou felt that you should have a detective agenc}' 
investigate anybody associated with the union ? 

IVIr. Conger. We felt, Mr. Kennedy, that it was a very good de- 
fense to the NLRB charge that the people we were dealing with were 
actually subversive. That is what we wanted to find out. We did 
find out that with regard to Mr. Burkhart. 

]\Ir. Kennedy. WJiat do you mean you found that out with regard 
to Mr. Burkhart? 

Mr. Conger. We found out the same information that has come 
to light in that from this committee. I believe it came from those 
files that he was a member of the Socialist Workers Party, had been 
for many years. 

Mr. Kennedy. I don't remember any information that he is sub- 
versive now that came before the committee. 

Mr. Conger. I have a good deal of information that he is sub- 
versive now. That is how I happened to start checking him. I 
hadn't dealt with that man for more than 2 weeks before I realized 
the character of the individual that I was dealing with, and what 
his philosophy was. 

Mr. Kj:nnedy. You said we had developed before this committee 
the fact that he was subversive. The information developed before 
the committee was that he was a member of the Socialist Workers 
Party back in 1947. 

Mr. Conger. I call that subversive. 

Mr. Kennedy. You call that being subversive at the present time? 

Mr. Conger. I say to you that I do not believe a word of his testi- 
mony — let me put this this way : That he may have left the Socialist 
Workers Party, but my dealings with him showed very clearly that 
the Socialist Workers Party had never left him, that his attitude and 
approach to all these situations was the attitude and approach of a 
confirmed Communist, which I believe, whether he is an active party 
member or not today, he still is. 

Mr. Kennedy. The only thing is we are still dealing with facts, 
Mr. Conger, and not what you think of a particular person who is 
working on the other side. We have to deal with facts. 

The other situation, as far as Burkliart is concerned, the informa- 
tion tliat you got was on the payment of money to people to make 
statements about Mr. Burkhart. That is shown clearly. 

Mr. Conger. Is that reprehensible? 

IMr. Kennedy. I think it is highly- questionable. I think if some- 
body has information, he should be willing to supply it. But I don't 
think you should supply information and give an affidavit for $350. 
for instance. 

ISIr. Conger. Hasn't it been proven that the affidavits we were given 
wei-e correct ? 

There was no false information. Mr. Burkhart came here and 
admitted that what was in those affidavits was correct. I don't see 
anything wrong with it. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is not correct. 

The information that was developed before this committee was that 
he was a member of the Socialist Workers Party up to 1047 which I 
understand lie agreed to. 

Your affidavits go further than that. I think the point is, again, 
that you made a statement as to what j^ou think and made a state- 



lAIPROPEK ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 9549 

ment as to fact, and the second thing is that you got this information 
based on paying somebody $350 to make a statement about Robert 
Burkhart. 

Mr. Conger. Which statement was correct. 

Mr. KJENNEDY. Well, that is open to question. 

Mr. Conger. It is not open to question. 

Senator Curtis. On that point, I think it was brought out here 
that Mr. Mazey offered $25,000 of union money for information about 
some attack upon Walter Reuther. 

I don't know whether that is good or not, but $25,000 is a good size 
temptation. 

Mr. Kennedy. I think it is a reward for information. This is 
paying somebody money at the particular time in order to get infor- 
mation that he is supposed to have. That is the difference. 

Senator Curtis. I would like to ask something about what you 
said about the Socialist Workers Party. 

Are you talking about the ordinary Socialist Workers Party of 
the country headed by Norman Thomas, or is this another party. 

Mr. Conger. This is another party. It is a splinter Communist 
group which follows the teachings of Leon Trotsky, and which, I 
believe, is an even a more revolutionary group than the Russian- 
Communist type. 

Senator Curtis. Well, I don't know, but it is generally understood 
by writers and referred to as a Trotskyite group ? 

Mr. Conger. That is right. 

Senator Curtis. It is not to be confused with the general Socialist 
Party headed by Norman Thomas? 

Mr. Conger. Not at all. It is a different thing. 

Senator Curtis. I totally disagree with the Socialist Party, but I 
did not want this exchange here to give the impression that the 
Socialist Party of the United States, and everybody connected with 
it, that there was some derogatory information as to their character 
or loyalty or something like that. 

Mr. Conger. This is not the Socialist Party. It is the Socialist 
Workers Part}', an entirely different thing. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were you going to furnish the affidavits that you 
secured to the National Labor Relations Board? 

Mr. Conger. No. Our intent was to call Mr. Robert Burkhart 
before the National Labor Relations Board, and on that basis, question 
him. 

Mr. Kennedy. What were you going to do with the affidavits? 

Mr. Conger. I couldn't do anything with them. I got those just 
to be sure that my information was correct. My plan was to call Mr. 
Robert Burkhart before the National Labor Relations Board and 
ask him about these things, and then, if he defied them, to call some 
of these people as witnesses to prove the case, the same thing that any 
lawyer does in any case when he has a defense. 

Mr. Kennedy. It says on one of them. "No threats or promises of 
any kind were m.ade to me to secure this statement and it is purely 
voluntary on my part," when, in fact, this particular woman received 
$160 for making the statement, or $360 for making the statement. 

Mr. Conger. Well, I don't think that is necessarily a promise. I 
think they got it. They already got it. I won't quibble about that. 
I was never intending to use those affidavits. They came in to me. 



9550 IMPROPER ACTIVITIECS IX THE LABOR FIELD 

I doubt if I usked Mr. Madsoii even to get affidavits. An aflidavit 
you can't put in evidence in an NLRB proceeding. At least I don't 
think you can. We never tried. 

Mr. KF.NXKnY. Did you make an investigation of anybody else 
other than Burkhart, IVtazey, Rabinovitz, Treuer, and Brown? 

Mr. Conger. I can't recollect any. 

IVIr. Kennedy. Did you make any investigation of any Govei-nment 
official? 

Mr. CoNOER. No investigation of anj^ Government official. At one 
time, ]\Ir. Madson and Mr. Adams associated with him, and this was 
during the dynamite cache days, were sitting in Chief Walter Wag- 
ner's office. 

Mr. Kennedy. Just answer the question. Did you make any inves- 
tigation or study of anj'- Government official, of anybody having any- 
thing directly to do Avith the National Labor Relations Board? 

Mr. Conger. I was trying to explain that. I don't know whether 
you call that»an investigation or not. If you insist on a "yes" or "no" 
answer to that, I will say "No." 

Mr. Kennedy. You did not, is that right? 

Mr. Conger. If you insist on a "yes" or "no" answer and will not 
let me explain it. 

Mr. Kennedy. I am not insisting. 

The Chairman. You may explain it. 

Mr. Conger. At one time, Mr, Adams and Mr. INIadson were sitting 
in Chief Walter Wagner's office. This was just about the time of the 
discovery of the dynamite cache. Mr. Gore came into that office. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who is Mr. Gore? 

Mr. Conger. Mr. Gore is an attorney for the NLRB. 

Mr. Kennedy. What is his first name? 

Mr. Conger. Albei't Gore. He is no longer an attorney for the 
NLRB, but he was at that time. I understand he is now a laAvyer 
or associated with a firm of lawyers that does work for unions. 

But at that time he was with the NLRB. He made some statements 
to the chief that if this dynamite cache thing was solved or some of 
these vandalisms were solved, it would wreck his case. 

It was such a surprising statement that these detectives referred it 
to me and made affidavits on it which I did not ask them to do. Then 
at a later stage, we were being bedeviled with continual postpone- 
ments of this NLRB case. 

May I say at this point, that I think the only purpose that the 
NLRB case was ever brought, and it wasn't brought until 3 months 
after the strike had started and then we were accused of not having 
bargained in good faith before the strike — the reason it was brought 
at that time was to act as a bar to an}^ possible election, and it was op- 
erated in that way. 

There were continual ]:)Ostponements and postjionements after post- 
ponements, and a good many of them on the ground of health of 
NTjRB counsel or reliitives. 

.Vt one time Mr. Gore asked for an adjournment and a postpone- 
ment on the ground that one of his relatives, I believe a relative-in- 
law had had an o])eration. I was frankly a little bit suspicious, and 
I asked Mr. Madson, when he went down to Chicago, if he could stop 
by and see if that actually was the case. 



IMPROPE'R ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 9551 

It turned out that he had had a minor operation, and I don't think 
it was an awfully good excuse to postpone a hearing but I didn't 
make any point of it. 

Mr. Kenxedy. I just want to read the letter of Investigators, Inc., 
April 4, 1956 : 

Dear Al : I am not going to mention the name of the subject as no doubt 
you probably would rather have it handled that way. We found he was born in 
Chicago, 111., on July 9, 1922, and his father's name is Johannes Lewis, and his 
mother's name is Minnie Eisenberg. 

At the time of his birth, father's age was given as 28 and his mother at 29, 
and father's occupation was that of a butcher, and place of birth vi-as Russia. 

I did not attempt to get the exact dates that he has been with his> present 
connection but we know it has been at least since 1951. Using a suitable pretext, 
contact was had with his wife. She confirmed the fact that her father-in-law's 
first name was Lewis although she spelled it L-o-u-i-s. 

During this contact, she advised that her father-in-law was presently in the 
hospital and undergoing a minor operation during the past weekend. It was 
also learned that subject's father lived with them, apparently the parents are 
subject to being separated or divorced although this was not confirmed. 

After your talk with Bill Carroll, it was decided a second attempt would 
be made to contact the wife, using the pretext, as it was felt that the pretext 
was good enough to follow through. 

On the second call it was definitely learned that subject's father is in a local 
hospital, but we are unable to ascertain the name. We attempted to secure 
an address at which he could be reached, and we were informed his mailing 
address was subject's home. 

We also attempted to learn when subject's father was expected to be released 
from the hospital and the only reply we could get was maybe several weeks. 

In conversation the wife suggested her husband be contacted and she expected 
him Thursday or Friday of this week. In accordance with your instructions, 
the matter was dropped at this point. 

The attorney for the National Labor Relations Board is to present 
;v case, and when he is presenting a case before the National Labor 
lielations Board and the trial examiner, you have an investigation 
made of him, as well as the investigation made of all of these other 
peo])le, 

Mr. Cogger. I think that I had a perfect right to investigate 
whether his reason for asking for a postponement of that case was 
bona fide or a phony. 

The Chairman. Are there any other questions before recess ? 

Senator Curtis. Not necessarily before recess. 

Tlie Chairman. The committee will stand in recess until 2 o'clock. 

(Whereupon, at 12 : 20 p. m., the committee recessed, to reconvene 
at 2 p. m., Wednesday, March 19, 1958.) 

AFTERNOON SESSION 

(Members present at the convening of the session were Senators 
McClellan and Curtis.) 

The Chairman. The committee will come to order. 

If it is satisfactory to Senator Curtis, I will ask you gentlemen to 
stand aside for about 5 minutes until we hear another witness. 

I would like to ask the reporter to have the testimony of Mr. Vinson 
come at the conclusion of Mr. Conger's testimony in the permanent 
record. 

The Chairman. Come forward, Mr. Conger. 



9552 IMPKOPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 

TESTIMONY OF LYMAN C. CONGER— Resumed 

The CiiAiK.AiAx. Mr. Con<xer, you will resume the witness stand. 

Counsel, you may proceed. 

Mr. Cox(iER. May I have just a moment for a statement, Mr. Chair- 
man ? 

Tlie Chairman, All right. 

Mr. (^oNCKR. 1 was asked this morning to submit another exhibit 
with reference to the statements of the union as to the contract at the 
time they signed them and I thought I could produce it in 2 or 3 days. 
But with a very etticient secretary and the televising of this program, I 
am able to produce it now. 

The CiiAuniAx. That is all right. I already designated that it 
should be No. 102, I believe. I have already designated it as an ex- 
hibit number when produced. It may be received now and given the 
designation that the Chair gave it this morning. 

You may comment on it if you wish. 

Mr. Conger. This is the Kohlerian of February 26, 1953. 

I will call particular attention to page 11, entitled "We Won a Good 
Contract." 

In money, 12 cents an hour general wage increase, increased mini- 
mum rate for job from 75 percent of maximum to 80 percent of maxi- 
mum rate. Fifteen cents automatic progress in 20 weeks' span to 5 
cents over minimum, increased hiring rate from 87 cents to 10 cents 
below minimum, and then several plus values: Retroactivity, full 
arbitration, standard seniority system, checkoff of union dues, in- 
creased call-in pay, 3 months' wage reopener, revision of wages and 
hours in enamel shop, insurance for pensioners, 3 weeks' vacation after 
15 years of service, joint study to revise and simplifj' day-rate wage 
structure, joint study on skilled trades problem, joint study on im- 
provements in medical and insurance, and pensions. 

I would also like to call attention to the editorial on page 2. I will 
read just a portion of it : 

The more we look at this contract, the more we think it is a good contract and 
that we can have pride and that we have been very reasonable with the Kohler Co. 

Kohler Co. has made some key concessions, particularly in arl)itration and in 
union security. These were two thinjjs that the company fought very hard and 
I think it will encourage Kohler in future collective bargaining to know that we 
take a reasonable view of these things. 

Also I would like to refer to page 8, which is a report of a speecli 
by Emil Mazey and particularly to the provision entitled "Contract 
Reopener." 

They have agreed to a 3-month opening of the contract fur general wage 
increases, and I want to state that when this last item was originally given to 
us. we were a little skeptical about it, but the more we looked at it the better 
we liked it liecause it is one of the ways we have of making some more progress 

in v.m. 

And midei- the heading on that same page is "General Improve- 
ments." Mr. Mazey says — 

The general provisions of the contract were greatly improved. I think it was 
Chris Zittel who this morning stated that we have made more progress in this 
single set of negotiations in improving the contract than you had made previ- 
ously in 17 years of activity on the part of the old union. 

The CiiAiRiMAN. I would also like to refer to the picture and the 
caption on i)age (i, entitled "All Smiles," in which appears the pic- 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 9553 

tures, among others, of Emil Mazey, Jesse Ferrazza, and Harvey 
Kitzman. It says — 

Members of the bargaining committee are mingled with staff; glad a good 
contract was won. 

The Chairman. All right, we will proceed. 

Senator Curtis. A^liich contract is that, that all of this is expressed 
about ? That is the contract that expired. 

Mr. Conger. The one of February 23, 1953, that expired on March 1, 
1954. 

Senator Curtis. You had another exhibit where you made an offer 
in writing to extend it ? 

Mr. Conger. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Conger, we were discussing this morning about 
some of these individuals that you were having the detective agency 
investigate, and about the fact that some of the individuals that were 
I'eporting to you, the informants were being paid. 

Could you tell the committee how many paid informants you had 
during this period of time 'f 

Mr. Conger. I had none other than the detectives, and I don't know 
how many they had. 

Mr. Kennedy. How many did the detective agency liave? 

Mr. Conger. I don't know. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did they not make a report to you? 

Mr. Conger. They made no report to me on that. There were 
items in their bills for information, 

Mr. Kennedy. How many did they list in their bills, as far as paid 
informants ? 

Mr. Conger. I could not tell you that, I haven't checked that. 

Mr. Kennedy. Are these the bills that were submitted ? Would you 
check these ? 

The Chairman. I will have to ask Mr. Bellino, did you secure from 
either the Kohler Co. or its detective agency photostatic copies of bills 
submitted by the agency to the Kohler Co. ? 

TESTIMONY OF CARMINE S. BELLINO— Resumed 

Mr. Belling. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Are these the bills which you secured ? 
Mr. Belling. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. These are photostatic copies of them ? 
Mr. Belling. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. They may be made exhibit No. 104. 
(Documents referred to were marked "Exhibit No. 104", for refer- 
ence.) 
The Chairman. Those are for reference only. 

TESTIMONY OF LYMAN C. CONGER— Resumed 

Mr. Kennedy. There were quite a number of them, were there ]iot 
Mr. Conger? 

Mr. Conger. I think over the period of about 4 years, and an in- 
vestigation covering quite a bit of the country, there were quite a 
number of them, and I don't know how many there were. 



9554 IMPROPER ACn^IYITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 

JMr. Kexxedy. Probably a dozen or 15 paid informants, that you had, 
througliout the country, Avould that be about right ? 

Mr, (.-(JNGEK. If you include everyone from whom they gave a 
gratuity or paid for any information, I presume it might be a dozen 
or 15. 

Mr. Kennedy. This is listed as informants and the money paid to 
them. There were at least a dozen. 

]\rr. Conger, I would think that that is a fair estimate, 

]Mr, Kexxedy. Is that correct, and that is throughout the country 
and during this period ? 

^Ir. CoxGER. Yes. 

Mr. Kexxedy. We spoke this morning about the checking on em- 
ployees and in reply to a letter or a question of Senator Curtis, you 
did have some method of checking on the activities of the employees, 
did you not? 

Mi: CoxGER. Their activities on the picket line, yes, and we check, 
and we took photographs, and we kept a record of what was going on, 
on the picket line day by day, and we took a good many photographs, 
many of which have been introduced here. 

Mr. Kexxedy, And then you had these reports that we discussed 
a week or so ago, about the activities of some 000 strikers, 

Mr, Coxger. Yes, those reports were originally gotten for the pur- 
pose of providing evidence in our WERB proceeding, and later on in 
the contempt proceeding, and the NLRB proceeding. 

We kept activities, and I may say to you very frankly, that it was 
no surprise to me to have Mr. Burkhart come down here and testify 
that he had seen more violence on a New York subway than he ever 
saw on the picket line, because he gave that same testimony in the 
WERB, only there I think that he compared it to a bargain sale, or a 
basement bargain sale. 

We knew that when we went into the WERB, we were going to be 
faced with that kind of testimony, and so we prepared to have the 
evidence to prove our case. 

Mr. Kennedy. Well, we had some question about the correctness 
of these reports when we submitted them before, and I believe that 
a representative of your company has checked through them, and has 
found that they were accurate. 

Mr. Conger. I believe there is an index in the front of them, that 
is not a ])art of our making, and I think from the tab A they are 
cori-ect, and of course the designation, the tab that was stuck on 
them, certainly did not represent our opinion. 

Mr, Kennedy. There was a question raised about them before. 

The Chairman, What is that ? 

Mr, Kexxedy. These are the reports on the employees. 

The Chairman. All right, Mr. Conger, you clid keep a report or a 
record on reports of information you got on some of your employees? 

Mr. Coxger. That is correct, during the strike; yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Have you examined these documents, the four 
books or documents that I have before me here to determine whether 
they are correct ? 

Mr. (^)XGi:r. ]May I have Mr. Hammer, who made the examination, 
come u]> here a moment ? 

The CHAHniAN. Has this witness been sworn ? 

Mr. Hammer. Yes, sir. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 9555 

TESTIMONY OF EDWAED J. HAMMER— Resumed 

The Chairman. All right. 

Will you step up here, please, and make an examination sufficient 
to satisfy yourself, and state whether you can identify these as records 
reflecting the reports kept or photostatic copies of the reports kept 
and received by the Kohler Co. regarding its employees ? 

Mr. Hammer. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. They are ? 

Mr. Hammer. Yes, sir; with the exception of these pages right 
here. Senator, these are not ours. 

The Chairman. Does that occur in each one of the books ? 

Mr. Hammer. Just this book. 

The Chairman. Only one in that book, what is its number? 

Mr. Hammer. A through F. 

The Chairman. And the book A through F, in that book, the sheets 
held there may be stamped as indicating they are not part of the 
exhibit, and the other four books have been made exhibit 44, for 
reference only. 

Thank you very much. 

Senator Curtis. May I ask the witness a question ? 

You have gone through this, have you ? 

Mr. Hammer. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. To determine that substance ? 

Mr. Hammer. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. These reports or records on the employees, does 
that concern things that happened during the duration of the 
strike? 

Mr. Hammer. Yes, sir; and I might add that certain items that 
are not exactly picket line activities are activities relating to unlawful 
conduct, and they were items which were picked out of union publi- 
cations or out of newspapers. 

Senator Curtis. But it was a record of things that were happening 
more or less currently during the strike ? 

Mr. Hammer. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. When this matter arose this morning, there were 
questions about employing detectives to go back into the record of 
years before, of individuals, and their names, and their relatives, and 
their private lives, and their domestic lives. 

Is that what that sort of record is ? 

Mr. Hammer. No, sir. 

Senator Curtis. But it is a record of happenings during the dura- 
tion of the strike ? 

Mr. Hammer. That is correct. 

The Chairman. All right, we will proceed. 

TESTIMONY OF LYMAN C. CONGER— Resumed 

Mr. Kennedy. Was there a plan submitted by the Madson Detec- 
tive Agency to deal with the employees and deal with your security 
within the plant ? 

Mr. Conger. Well, I wouldn't say to deal with the employees. At 
one time they suggested to us that they could improve our plant 

21243— 58— pt. 24 6 



9556 IMPROPER ACl^IVITIEfi IX THE LABOR FIELD 

-irurity and would like to have the opportunity to make a check, and 
make some recommendations. 

They did that, and Hiey went through the plant, and I believe they 
• lid make some reconnnendations. 

Mr. Kkxxedv. Did you put any of the recommendations into effect? 

Mr. CoxGER. I don't believe that we did, and I can't recall any 
-peci lie ones that we put into effect. 

Mr. Kenxedy. They had a recommendation dated February 23, 
1955, about the plant police or guard force, and how it was selected 
and t he duties of the guards at the gate. 

Do you have that report there ? 

]\Ir. CoxGER. What date is that, i\Ir. Kennedy ? 

Mr. Kenxedy. February 23, 1955. 

^Ir. Conger. Yes, I have it. 

Mr. Kexxeuy. Did you put that plan Xo. 1, of tlie plant police and 
guard force, did you put that into effect ? 

Mr. Coxger. 1 am not certain, not completely, I may say that much 
of it I think already was in effect. 

The part "A," complete investigation of all applicants by security 
officer and staff', was never placed in eifect. The guards at the gate we 
had, and the patrol inside the plant area we already had and the fire 
and industrial hazards were already being checked, periodic check of 
safety equipment was already, in my opinion, being done, and they may 
have thought it should have been done more adequately. 

The periodic check of employees for theft or pilferage was never 
done to my knowledge. 

Mr. Kexxedy. What about section 2, on the next page, that is plant 
informants? 

Mr. Conger. Nothing was ever done on that. 

Mr. Kenxedy. The selection by the security officer, duties to report 
on theft and pilferage. 

Mr. Conger. In the first place we never had a security officer, and 
we never put any of that into effect. 

Mr. Kennedy. You did not have any arrangements on that. One of 
the sections to report on labor movement, infiltration or problems, and 
you did not have any arrangements such as that ? 

Mr. Conger. I tliink, Mr. Kennedy, the fact that this recommenda- 
tion was made shows that we did not have at that time, and we did 
not put any in effect. 

Mr. Kennedy. You did not put anything in such as they suggested 
in this section ? 

Mr. Conger. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you ever write them or inform them that you 
w^ere not going to or did you have any discussions with them about it? 

Mr. Conger. I had some discussions with INIr. Elmer Madson about 
it, and told him that in my opinion that recommendation would be a 
rather dangerous one because it was almost bound to lead to informa- 
tion on legitimate union activities, which I thought was not a proper 
subject of investigation, and we did not w^ant to get close to that area. 

Mr. Kennedy. Of course, in these reports that you have here, there 
are certainly reports on legitimate union activities, are they not, Mr. 
Conger? 

Mr. Conger. Those reports, you mean ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIE'S IN THE LABOR FIELD 9557 

Mr. Kennedy. You hwxe reports about what tlie people's children 
are doing, and where tlie people are working (• 

Mr. Conger. Well, if you are referring to one person's children 
harassing another person's child, I think that is not a legitimate union 
activity. 

Mr. I^NNEDY. Well, it is a question of a discussion or conversation 
between a 13-year-old child and a 7-year-old child. 

Mr. Conger. And there is some little bad languag-e used, as I recall 
it, and there is a threat. In other words, what was happening there, 
Mr. Kennedy, is that this gospel of hate that was being preached 
through the union organism was going right into the schools, and 
where nonstrikers' children were being harassed by strikers' children, 
and having their lives made miserable. 

Yes, that was of interest to us, very much interest to us. 

Mr. Kennedy. And where the various strikers might set up other 
businesses, where they were going to work, that was of interest ? 

Mr. Conger. That was of interest, yes, sir; and if there had been 
any finding, or if we had finally*decided to discharge one of those 
persons, and he had applied for back compensation and been success- 
ful, that would have been very much of interest to know that he had 
had another job in the meantime, or another income. 

Mr. Kennedy, And dressing up as Abraham Lincoln? 

Mr, Conger. That was just something that was copied out of their 
newspaper, Mr, Kennedy. 

May I explain, as I did before, that I gave several people instruc- 
tions to keep anything that they thought might be of interest to me. 
I told them not to try to make themselves into labor lawyers, but to 
put down anything that they thought might be of interest to me, and 
I would do the culling and I would do the evaluating, and I would 
do the separating afterwards. 

The young lady who is now my secretary took over that job and 
■did a very remarkable job on it. She was not a labor lawyer, and she 
put in the things that she thought might be of interest to me, and that 
one particular one was not of great interest to me, but it did appear in a 
union newspaper and I don't think that there is any great espionage 
in copying down something that appears in a public newspaper. 

Senator Curtis. Will the counsel yield there ? 

Coming back not to this one about someone dressing up as Abraham 
Ijincoln, but in reference to a notation of someone else's employment 
or income, you said that might be of interest if that employee would 
be one who would be let go or discharged and ordered taken back ; were 
his wages retroactive ? 

You said that might be of interest. What I want to know is does it 
become a material fact in how much such a person might have coming 
to him. 

Mr. Conger. Yes; if there is a back pay award, the back pay 
awarded is the difference between the money that he did earn during 
that period, and the money that he might have earned had he been 
working at the Kohler Co. 

Senator Curtis. As a matter of law, that is true ? 

Mr. Conger. Yes. 

Senator Curtis. I did not understand what you said, when you said 
you might be interested. 



9558 IMPROPER ACTTVITIE-S IX THE LABOR FIELD 

;Mr. CoxGER. I iiiiiy say that in tliis case, tliat particular gentleman 
I know was not discharged, and so that issue never arose. 

We take the position, and I think it would be a very sound one, that 
we would have had a legal right to discharge every one who has ever 
appeared on that mass picket line during the mass picketing days. 

We didn't choose to exercise that right to the fullest, and we exer- 
cised it to discharge those who in our opinion were the leaders and 
directors of this illegal conduct, and who had been the most flagrant, 
shall we call it, participants in it. 

Mr. Kennedy. 1 could understand certainly the checking on people 
and keeping a report on those who engaged in illegal or improper 
activities and that you would have to have some liles such as this to 
insure that that information was available. 

The only question 1 am raising is the point that you have files there 
on over 900 emjjloyees, and that much of the information in there 
has nothing to do or would appear to have nothing to do with anything 
improper or illegal activities, such as somebody's child getting into a 
fight with somebody else's child, delaying baseball and the ball goes 
on the Kohler Co.'s property twice, and he comes in to retrieve the ball. 
It does not seem to me that that is something that is worth noting 
in someljocly's dossier. 

Mr. Conger. As to the first one I think it is worth noting in some- 
body's dossier when you have this doctrine of hating going into the 
children and affecting children. I think that is one of the most 
vicious, that could possibly happen, to be trying to harass children, 
innocent children because their father chooses to exercise his right as 
an American citizen to work. 

As to the other one, I will say this : You have a certain number of 
sea laAr^'ers around any place. When that ball went on to the Kohler 
Co. property, that was a trespass. Now to me that w^asn't anything 
serious at all. It wasn't the kind of a trespass I would take note of. 
But apparently whoever made that report thought that the fact 
that this man had trespassed on Kohler property w^as something that 
I would like to know about. 

I had instructed them not to try to be labor lawyers, and not to 
try to evaluate this thing, but to report anything that they thought 
I might be interested in, and I would do the culling out later on as 
I did in cooperation with my other associates. 

(At this point, the following members were present: Senators 
McClellan, McNamara, Mundt, and Curtis.) 
The Chairman. Did you ever cull anything out ? 
Mr. Conger. Nothing was ever removed from these books. Senator. 

We had other lists 

The Chairman. Are these the complete files ? 

Mr. Conger. Those are complete files. Then from those files other 

lists were made of people and those 

The Chairman. This is the original. This is all that was reported 
to you and documented and filed away ? 

Mr. ( 'oNGER. Yes. As a matter of fact, Senator, that particular thing 
was never reported to me. I never saw those books until they ap- 
peared, or shortly before they appeared, as an exhibit in the NLRB 
case. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 9559 

Mr. Desmond made excerpts of some of the fellows who appeared 
to be the prime candidates and the leading spirits in there. That is all 
I ever saw. These were the original documents. What I worked 
with, even at the time that we made the discharges, was not these 
books, but what Mr. Desmond had reported to me on a list, and 
those lists 

The Chairman. Did he get his information out of these books ? 

Mr. Conger. He got his information out of those books, yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. We had some discussion here regarding the surveil- 
lance of the headquarters of the union. Were there any attempts to 
have a stake out or watchmen over the union lieadquarters or the 
hotel rooms of the union ? 

Mr. Conger. Yes ; there was an attempt to put a watcli over there, 
and it was watched. We wanted to see whether that was the source 
of the vandalism, wliether people could be traced from there to the 
acts of vandalism. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And who did you have doing that, watching? 

Mr. Conger. That was Mr. Ma'dson and Mr. Adams. 

Mr. Ivennedy. Is that in addition to the informant that they had 
working in the strike kitchen ? 

Mr, Conger. Yes. They also conducted a stake out, I guess that is 
tlie police term for it, on the homes of a couple of individuals who 
had been reported to me by a rumor as prime suspects in tlie vandal- 
ism. I know they watched for a while at the home of one individual 
who was suspected of being the manufacturer of these paint bombs. 

Nothing ever came of it. But they did check. 

Mr. Kennedy. In addition to the union headquarters, did they 
have a surveillance on tlie hotel room of the strike leaders at the 
Grand Hotel? 

Mr. Conger. I think they were in and out of tlie Grand Hotel, 
where most of the outsiders were staying, from time to time. They 
wanted to know whether they were coming and going in such a way 
that they might be identified. I will say that those individuals were 
prime suspects in the vandalism. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was there discussion with you about putting a mike 
in tlie union headquarters ? 

Mr. Conger. Not in the union headquarters. I don't recall any 
discussion about the union headquarters. There was discussion about 
the possibility of putting a mike in a room next to one of the rooms 
that the unions had in the Grand Hotel. The discussion was had, and 
I vetoed the suggestion and I don't think — I am positive it was never 
done. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was there also discussion about tapping the tele- 
phone wires? 

Mr. Conger. I recall no discussion about tapping the telephone 
wires, although you will find that in one of these Avritten reports, a 
suggestion of that, but I don't recall any discussion of that. 

Mr. Kennedy. Why did you veto the idea of putting a mike in 
the room of the union ? 

Mr. Conger. Well, let me say this first, Mr. Kennedy, that I don't 
know of any law that would make that illegal. The reason I vetoed 
it was that my instructions to these detectives were that they were 
not to report ordinary union activities, ordinary strike activities, 



9560 IMPROPER ACT1\ITIE6 IN THE LABOR FIELD 

anytliin<i- of tlu» type thiit mi<j.ht be le<riliinate union iiclivities. I 
wanted them to report and investigate on the violence and the van- 
dalism that was ^oin<r on. I was very sure if this bu<r had been put 
there, that it would have gotten information on leiritimate union 
activities that I was not concerned witli and didn't want reported. 

]\Ir. Ivj^xxEDY. Is tliat why you said that you didn't want the bug 
put in the room, because you felt tliat you might get information 
that would be just on union activity ? 

Mr. Conger. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. It wasn't because of the fact that you thought that 
it should just be postponed temporarily ? 

Mr. Conger. No, it Avasn't. That is a little misreading of that one 
report, INIr. Kennedy. 

Mr. Kennedy. Why don't I read the reports in this connection? 

Mr. Conger. I want to say that one time during the XLRB pro- 
ceedings, Mr. Madson came to me and I told him I wouldn't have 
much time to talk to him until tliose Avere over. It was not the idea 
that it was going to be postponed, it was just tlie idea that I wasn't 
going to agree with it and didn't have time at that time to discuss 
it with him. 

]Mr. Kennedy. This is report No. 3, page 5 : 

A pliysioal surveillance was conducted of the UAW-CIO headciuarter.s in down- 
town Sheboygan with the possible idea of putting in a mike. But this place 
does not lend itself physically to such a setup; moreover, there had been no 
night activity in this headquarters. Efforts can be made with a confidential 
informant to determine whether a telephone tap on the Grand Hotel is feasible. 
These matters will be discussed with Mr. Conger and a future course of action 
will be outlined. 

Then later on, report No. 12, page 8 : 

While in Sheboygan, the writer also made contact with informants who ad- 
vised that they have not yet been able to ascertain where Burkhart is living 
at the present time. It is also determined by these informants that when they 
receive any information they will immediately conmiunicate with the writer. 
Further it was determined that it might be possible to rent room No. 31, the 
room next to that room commonly occupied by individuals of the staff of the 
UAW-CIO striking group. 

It was felt that this could be possibly utilized during the week of the NLRB 
hearings in Sheboygan. Further discussion of this will be had with Mr. Conger 
during the coming week. 

What was decided on that ? 

Mr. Conger. It was decided not to do it. In the hrst jdace, let me 
call your attention to the first one, that ''will be discussed," that is with 
reference to the possible telephone tap. To the best of my recollection 
and belief that never was discussed. 

The other one was discussed and I vetoed it for the reason, and 
instructed Mr. Madson not to do it, for the reason that I gave 
previously. 

Mr. Kennedy. '*It was felt that this could be possibly utilized dur- 
ing the week of the NLRB hearings,"' and then about renting room 
No. 31. Did they rent room No. 31 ? 

Mr. Conger. Not to my knowledge. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did they rent a room at the Grand Hotel ? 

Mr. Conger. They may have rented a room overnight. I do not 
know what the number was. I know they didn't rent a room contin- 
uously there. I wouldn't say they didn't stay there overnight. They 
may or may not. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 9561 

Mr. Kexnedy. Did they rent a room to conduct physical surveil- 
lance? 

Mr. Conger. I don't know whether they did that or not, for sure. 
I don't know whether they did or not. I know they had some physical 
surveillance of people coming and going, particularly outsiders at 
night, when the vandalism was taking place. 

Mr. Kennedy (reading) : 

February 1, 1955, on this date, Mr. Madson conferred with Mr. Conger and Mr. 
William Howell, regarding the investigation conducted previously and possible 
future investigation necessary to ascertain information required by the Kohler 
Co. 

Mr. Madson also discussed the issue regarding the Grand Hotel, which informa- 
tion is not being set out in this report, inasmuch as Mr. Conger is aware of this 
conversation. 

Wliat was that conversation ? 

Mr. Conger. I dont recall what it was. 

Mr. Kennedy. You don't remember that at all ? 

Mr. Conger. I don't remember that. 

Mr. Kennedy. The issue regarding the Grand Hotel ? 

Mr. Conger. I don't remember anything coming up with regard to 
the Grand Hotel. It probably was that they had been there and seen 
something. 

Mr. Kennedy. And report No. 4, page 2, it says : 

2 a. m. This night a check was made of the situation at the Grand Hotel 
regarding room 30, which check was facilitated through the fact that the writer 
and Mr. Madson rented a room in the general vicinity of the Grand Hotel through 
Chief of Police "Wagner, of the Sheboygan Police Department. 

Mr. Madson and the writer determined that the situation was one which could 
be physically covered, however. Upon recontacting Mr. Conger, no further action 
is being taken at this time regarding this matter, which is not being explained 
fully here, inasmuch as Mr. Conger is aware of the same and has requested 
that we hold this line of investigation in abeyance pending the outcome of the 
NLRB hearing in Sheboygan during the week of February 7 through February 12. 

Mr. Conger. Yes. That is not very good language in that report. 
Wliat actually happened Vvas that I was busy with a hearing, and 
told them not to do it, and that we might discuss the matter fully 
later. I don't know that we ever did discuss it. At any rate, in- 
structions were always not to place the microphone there, and it 
never was placed there. 

I am very confident of that. At least, I never received any reports 
from it or any reports that might indicate that they came from any 
microphone or any source of that type. 

Mr. Kennedy. Is this statement correct, then, that — 

Mr. Conger has requested that we hold this line of investigation in abeyance, 
pending the outcome of the NLRB hearing in Sheboygan during the week of 
February 7 through February 12. 

Mr. Conger. It is not correct if you are trying to read into it an 
inference. 

Mr. Ivennedy. I am just reading it. 

Mr. Conger. That at a later time it was done, that is not correct, 
or that at a later time I seriously discussed it, or if I entertained 
the idea at that moment, it is not correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you tell them that you wanted to postpone 
taking this form of action until after the NLRB hearing? 



9562 LMPROPER ACTIVlTIEt^ ].\ PHE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Conger. No. I just simply told them tluit I was busy with 
an NLRB hearing, and I didn't have too much time to discuss it at 
that time, and I didn't want it done. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then I would think that this statement is somewhat 
misleading, then, if those are the facts. It says merely that you 
will hold this line of investigation until 

Mr. Conger. I think it is poorly phrased. Mr. Kennedy, may I 
say that I never read these reports from the standpoint of a pleading 
in a lawsuit. As a matter of fact, I didn't do any more than scan 
them. 

I think there are some of them that I never read completely before 
this hearing came up. Everything that was in these reports had 
been discussed with me orally by Mr. JMadson, and all I ever did 
with these reports was to check through them and see if there was 
something new he reported that he hadn't reported to me orally. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did 3^ou ever put a bug in the headquarters or any 
place else ? 

Mr. Conger. No. None whatever was placed there to my knowl- 
edge, and I am very sure that I would have had knowledge of it had 
it been done. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you use a mike at all in any of your activities? 

Mr. Conger. We used a mike, as I have testified previously, on the 
employment office, when we were trying to get evidence, from which 
we later convicted 16 individuals of contempt of court,. There was 
also a microphone installed on the premises of the St. Luke's Plospital, 
during this picketing down there, which we called a secondary boy- 
cott, and when they were trying to claim that that was a citizens' 
picket line, which had no connection with the union, and I think as a 
partial result of that when some of them were brought up on an 
adverse examination on a suit by the hospital, at least 3 of them, 
and I think 4, went into court and took the equivalent, the State 
equivalent, of the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Kennedy. Where did you put the mike at that time ? 

Mr. Conger. I don't Imow the exact location. It was on the 
grounds of the St. Luke's Hospital and with their consent. I don't 
know the exact location of it. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was it put near the picket line ? 

Mr. Conger. It was put near the picket line, yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. So you could determine what the pickets were 
saying ? 

Mr. Conger. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did the detective agency use a minif on at all ? 

Mr. Conger. Yes, there was. 

Mr. Kennedy. It says on one of these reports that there was a pur- 
chase of a minif on. 

Mr. Conger. Yes, there was a minif on used. We had a report 
from one of our guards that Mr. Donald Rand had tried to bribe him 
to tuiTi information over to him on what was going on in the plant, 
and also a strong suspicion that he was to be bribed to commit some 
sabotage in the plant. 

We equipped that guard, and when I say "we," I mean th6 detective 
agency equipped that guard, with a minifon, and the conversation 
with Mr. Rand, purportedly with Mr. Rand, was reported to me 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 9563 

The minifon didn't work very well, and the conversation was pretty 
sketchy. After we had thoroughly checked it out I came to the con- 
clusion that there wasn't too much to it and we never did anything 
about it. 

Mr. KJENNEDY. Did you arrange to determine or find out the letters 
that Mr. Burkhart w^as receiving, for instance, who he was receiving 
mail from ? 

Mr. Conger. I think the agency did in trying to trace his where- 
abouts, to determine the original location of his wife, where she came 
from and her possible connection with subversive activities, did do 
that, yes. 

Mr, Kennedy. Checked the mail that he received ? 

Mr. Conger. I think so. 

Mr. Ejennedy. Do you know whether that is illegal, to interfere 
with the mails ? 

Mr. Conger. There was no interference with the mail. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wasn't your agency making reports and finding 
out what mail he was receiving ? 

Mr. Conger. They were doing it, as I understand, in cooperation 
with the police department, wliicli, at that time, was checking his 
standing. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know anything about tlie statute covering 
that? 

Mr. Conger. I don't think 

Mr. Kennedy. That is, making it illegal to interfere with the 
mails ? 

Mr. Conger. I don't think there was anything illegal down there. 

Mr. Kennedy, If you tamper with the mails or take informa- 
tion 

Mr. Conger. That was not tampering with the mails as I know of. 

Mr. Kennedy. Interference or tampering is explained to be any 
taking of confidential information off a letter or from the. contents 
of a letter. Do you know anytliing about that ? 

Mr. Conger. No, sir, I do not. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you disapprove of this mail checking ? 

Mr. Conger. It was all done before I ever got notice of it. 

I did not disapprove of it, no. This particular lady was very 
active in strike affairs, and as has been testified here, was the lady 
who fingered Mr. Van Ouwerkerk for the assault on him later by 
Vinson. We were quite interested in that lady, where she came 
from, and what her background was. 

Mr. I^NNEDY, You were taking information on all the letters that 
he received ; were you not ? 

Mr. Conger. I don't believe it was taken on all. 

Mr. Kennedy. When he had correspondence from the union, those 
notations were made and you were informed what letters he was 
receiving, were you not, Mr. Conger ? 

Mr. Conger, I don't recall any note in there about letters from the 
union. 

Mr. Kennedy. You say you were making reports only where he 
was receiving letters from a woman, is that right? Your reports 
tell of letters that he was receiving from others, from the union. 

Mr. Conger. I don't recall that. That may be true. But what we 



9564 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

were interested in was, at that time, determining; Mrs. Rurkhart, or 
the alleged Mrs. Burkhart's status, where she came from and whether 
she, too, had been a former or present member of a subversive organi- 
zation. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is the mail that he was receiving. How about 
the telephone, the long distance telephone calls he was making? Did 
you arrange to cheek up on the long distance phone calls ? 

Mr. Conger. I believe that any police oflicer can check what long 
distance calls are made by anyone. This was not a matter of tapping. 
This was a matter of checking the records of what calls had been 
made. 

Mr. Kennedy. We are not talking about the police. We are talking 
about you and your detective agency. 

Mr.' Conger. I am talking about a detective agency that was work- 
ing in cooperation with the police at that time, as has been testified 
to here. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were reports made to the Kohler Co. on the tele- 
phone calls that were being made by Mr. Burkhart wdiile he was up 
there representing the union ? 

Mr. Conger. Not on the contents of the telephone calls, but there 
were reports as to what positions had been called, what spots had been 
called, quite the same as I am confident that some of my telephone 
calls have been checked, not too long ago. 

]Mr. Kennedy. These telephone calls were being checked as a private 
individual or a private citizen or a report was being made to you as a 
private citizen, is that correct ? 

Mr. Conger. As I said before, Mr. Kennedy, these detectives, with 
our approval, were w^orking in cooperation with the police depart- 
ment, with the FBI, with any law^ enforcement agency that would ap- 
pear to be at all interested in law enforcement, and the same thing 
is true here. 

The moment Ave found this investigation was underway, those re- 
])ovts were turned over to j^our staff. There isn't anything in those 
re]>orts that we tried to conceal, or have ever tried to conceal. We 
wanted the staff to have them, and this committee to have them. We 
turned them over voluntarily. 

Mr. Kennedy. It says here on the mail cover, report 3, page 3: 

Arrangements were made for a confidential informant to put a mail cover on 
the Burkharts in an effort to determine tlie mail sent and received by them, and 
any addresses that may be noted on them. 

The Chairman. How was that operation carried out, this mail 
covert It might be a little confusing. Just how w^as the operation 
carried out, for a mail cover? 

]Mr. Conger. I never checked completely, but it was my under- 
standing that it was through the cooperation of the police department. 

The Chairman. What is a mail cover? To go to the office and find 
out Avliat mail (liey have, and check it and (hen leave it there? 

Mr. Conger. No mail is read. It is just a question of seeing what 
the addresses are on the envelope, as I understand it. 

Tlie Chairman. I understand, but I don't understand how they get 
access to the mail. 

Mr. Conger. Well, I think the police had access to it. Whether 
they checked that from his landlady or from whom, I do not know. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 9565 

The Chairman. I just didn't think they would have a right to go 
to the Post Office and say, "Let me see" so and so's maiL 

Mr. Conger. I have never thought so either. 

The Chairman, I am just asking if that is the way this operation 
was carried on. 

Mr. Conger. I don't know how it was carried on. As I understand 
it, it was carried on in cooperation with the police department. 

Mr. Kennedy. It says in the reports : 

Arrangements were made for a confidential informant to put a mail cover on 
the Burkharts in an effort to detei'mine the mail sent and received by them 
and any addresses that may be noted on them. 

There is a possibility that it might have been througli the police 
department, but even there, if it was through the police department, 
they violated their trust by turning the information over to a private 
individual. 

Mr. Conger. No, they did not violate their trust. We were co- 
operating with the police department to try to solve these things, and 
those individuals in the police department who were sincerely trying 
to solve these crimes. As Mr. Wagner testified the other day, he was 
the one that recommended this private detective agency to me, and 
assured me that they would cooperate fully and he would cooperate 
fully with them. 

And this detective agency at all times worked in complete coopera- 
tion with any law enforcement officer that seemed to be interested in 
actually finding these criminals instead of covering them up. 

Mr. Kennedy. You can make information available to them, but 
when they receive confidential information, then, of course, it is an- 
other thing as far as their making the infonnation available to you, 
if they do receive it properly. 

Mr. Conger. Mr. Kennedy, it seems to me that there has been a 
great deal of to-do made about possible breaches of ethics by police 
officers who were sincerely trying to do their duty and quell this vio- 
lence and this reign of terror, and that you don't seem to be much 
•concerned about the actual criminal acts themselves. 

We were very concerned about tliose. 

The Chahiman. We have gone into those pretty thoroughly. I 
think we have gone into them with everybody who has been here, 
haven't we ? 

Mr. Conger. I think so. I was not addressing that to the Chair. 

The Chairman. You were addressing it to the Chair? Well, the 
•Chair tells you we have. 

Mr. Conger. I was not addressing it to the Chair. 

The Chairman. Well, the Chair has full responsibility for the 
committee. 

Proceed, Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. Kennedy. How much did you pay the detective agency? 

Mr. Conger. I think over the 3-year period, or the 4-year period, 
somewhere around $39,000. 

Mr. Kennedy. $39,000 ? 

Mr. Conger. Fees and expenses. 

Mr. Kennedy. Is that the Madson Detective Agency ? 

Mr. Conger. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. How much did you pay the Schiudler Detective 



9566 lAfPROPEU ACTRITIES IX THE L.\BOR FIELD 

Mr. (Longer. I think it was around $3,700. 

Mr. Kennedy. I believe the record shows for the Madson Detective 
Agency it is $40,114.23. Would that be correct, approximately ? 

Mr. Conger. Well, it is close. 

I thought it was the figure of thirty-nine-something, but I wouldn't 
argue with that figure. 

Air. Kennedy. Did you feel that the strike during this period of 
time was supported bv the employees, at least initially, the employees 
of the Kohler Co. « 

Mr. Conger. We knew that some of the employees were in favor 
of striking. It was our opinion from the very beginning, we stated 
it in ads, the first few days of the strike it was our opinion that a 
majority of our employees did not want to strike, and would not 
have struck, would not have stayed out of work, had they not been 
physically kept from getting to work. 

That has been my opinion, and that has been confirmed by the testi- 
mony before this committee, that only about one-third of our em- 
ployees ever voted for that strike. 

INIr. Kennedy. How many employees did you have? 

Mr. Conger. At that time — well, I will give you two figures. Ac- 
cording to our count 3,818 and according to the union's count, I be- 
lieve, 3,347. The difference is whether you include American Club 
employees who never did go out on strike or whether you take them 
out. 

Mr. Kennedy\ So you had about 3,300 employees, and you feel that 
probably about at least 1,700 of them were not in favor of the strike? 

Mr. Conger. Well, I wouldn't want to give the numbers, because 
we were never able to determine the number. 

Mr. Kennedy. You said a majority. 

Mr. Conger. I am sorry. That is a majority. We felt that this 
was not a majority strike from the inception, and that had it been a 
majority strike, there would have been no necessity to keep these peo- 
ple out by physical means and by terrorism. 

JNIr. Kennedy. How many of the 3,300, approximately, of those 
have come back to work ? 

Mr. Conger. I would like to give you that figure exactly if I may. 

I tliought I had made a report of it in the notebook, but I guess 
I didn't. 

I will have to estimate. I think there are somewhere around 1,300. 
However, Mr. Bellino did take from my files a report from Mr. Ire- 
land. If I could see that report, I could give you that figure more 
accurately. 

Tlie Chairman. I hand you here what purports to be photostatic 
copies, I believe, of that report. Will you examine it and state if you 
identify it as such? 

(Document handed witness.) 

Mr. Conger. Yes ; I do identify it. 

The Chairman. All right. From that can you testify accurately? 

Mr, Conger. Fairly accurately, Mr. Chairman. This report is a 
report of old employees working, 1,230; that is more of an attendance 
report. 

The Chairman. More of a what? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 9567 

Mr. CoNCxER. An attendance report rather than enroHment. In 
other words, there would have been more than 1,230 who had returned 
to work and maybe quit or went on pension or died. 

The Chairman. What is the date of that? 

Mr. Conger. This is January 15, 1958. 

The Chairman, January 15, 1958? 

Mr. Conger, Yes. 

The Chairman. About 2 months ago ? 

Mr. Conger. Yes. 

The Chairman. And that shows the number of the employees that 
were back at work as of that date ? 

Mr. Conger. Yes. 

The Chairman. But it does not account for those who may have 
come back to work, who may have since died, or who may have since 
left your employment ? 

JNIr. Conger. That is correct. 

Senator Mundt. Do you have in your records any place, Mr. Con- 
ger, a list of the total numbers of employees who came back to work? 

You have given us the number as of the 15th day of January of 
this year. As you say, some of them may have come back to work 
and then retired or died. 

Have you kept a record in the company of those who have come 
back, so that you can give us the aggregate total ? 

Mr, Conger, I can do that. I thought I had it with me down 
here, in this book that I made some notes on. I don't think I have 
it here with me, but it will be possible to produce such a list. 

The Chairman. If you can obtain it, 3^011 may submit it, and it 
will go along with that, which I am making exhibit 105. It may be 
attached as a part of exhibit 105. If you secure it, submit it for 
attachment to this exhibit. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 105" for 
reference, and may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

Senator Mundt. While we are on that subject, Mr. Chairman, 
I would like to get from Mr. Conger his analysis of the meetings 
which were held wliich called the strike. I asked a lot of questions 
of union officials who seemed to have firsthand information. If I 
remember their testimony correctly it was to the effect that at the 
time the strike vote was taken, about a third of the employees of the 
Kohler plant were then in attendance and voted, and that of those 
that voted, the vast majority voted to strike, but that substantially 
about a third of the Kohler employees were all that participated in 
the voting, either aye or no. I would like to get from Mr. Conger 
under oath his best information on the report of. No. 1, what kind of 
meeting was this? Was it advertised as a meeting to determine 
whether you were going to strike or not strike ? 

Do you know anything about that, firsthand ? 

And, if it was, how many were there when the voting was taken, 
and about what majority was the vote to strike? 

Mr. Conger. In the first place, it was advertised as a meeting not 
definitely to strike. It was advertised as a meeting "Please give us 
a strike vote which will strengthen our hand in our bargaining with 
the company." 



9568 L\rpR'OPER activities in the labor field 

This does not necessarily mean tliat there is goin^^ to be a strike. 
You are just authorizing your officers to call a strike, so that the 
bargaining conunittee's hands will be strengthened by having that 
weapon. 

Senator Mindt. Do T understand from that that the proposition 
on which the members voted was not specifically to strike, as of 
some given date, l)ut was, instead, to authorize the bargaining com- 
mittee to strike unless they got certain concessions from the company? 

Mr. CoxGER. That is right. 

Senator Mundt. The latter of those two. 

Mr. CoxGER. The latter of the two. 

Senator Mundt. The latter of the two ? 

Mr. Conger. Yes, Senator. 

Senator Curtis. Will you yield briefly? 

Have you any documentary evidence on that I 

Mr. Conger. I believe we can produce some. I know it was on 
their broadcast. I know it was in their papers. I believe we can 
produce documentary evidence of that. 

Senator Ci'Rtis. But you are referring to somewhat j'ou believe tO' 
be inducement for them to vote that way, and not about the exact 
ballot that they marked in the union hall ? 

Mr. Conger. I have no knowledge, Senatoi', of what was on the 
exact ballot that they marked. It was a common understanding, I 
believe, from the radio broadcasts and the Kohlarian, at least it was 
my understanding, that this vote was taken Avas simply as a vote tO' 
authorize the officials to call a strike if in their opinion they deemed it 
necessary. 

There was no date set for the thing or anything else. In other 
words, they weren't definitely going down there and saying "On April 
5 we are going out on strike, or we are going out on strike if we don't 
have certain demands met." 

Senator Mundt. How about the ninnber ? Plave you any informa- 
tion on that ? 

Mr. Conger. I have no information as to the number that attended 
that meeting, but I was at the time, and still am, very highly suspicious 
of the union's estimate, of the number at the meeting. If there had 
been 

Senator Mundt. By your own estimate there was only a third of 
the members voted. Do you think that is a fair estimate? Do you 
think it is a low estimate or a higli estimate? 

Mr. Conger. I presume there, their estimate or their knowledge of 
how many voted is correct, it ought to be. "What I am questioning 
is the numbei- that were there at the meeting, their estimate of that. 
I seems to me that if Kohler Co. was such a terrible company, that 
these men had been so browbeaten and misused as we have been told 
here, it is inconceivable to me that they would go down to a strike 
meeting, firmly resolved to get even with the company and to vote for 
a strike and then to walk out without voting. 

Senator Mundt. I don't think it makes one iota of difference how 
many attended the meeting. It makes a lot of difference how many 
voted. I don't think it is pertinent at all Avhether there were 10,000, 
20,000 or :)0,000 who attended the meeting, but it does make a differ- 
ence as to hoAA- many were serious enough about this business to vote 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 9569 

one way or another. A lot of us have talked at political meetings, and 
many people have walked out during the meeting. You can't tell 
Avhether they are for you or against you. You are kind of interested 
in the people who stick around to hear the story. They are the ones 
that go to the polling places and vote. You do the best you can with 
those that are there. 

I presume a strike vote is no different. One of the union members 
said that they assumed that those who had gone home would all have 
voted to strike. He is entitled to that guess. 

It is just as logical to guess tliat all of those who went home felt "I 
don't want any part of this dirty business. I don't want to get in- 
volved." 

You can't tell. But it seems pretty clear that as far as the third that 
voted, I think 9U percent of them voted to strike. 

Mr. CoxGER. I tliink that is right of the ones that did vote. The 
committee, of course, has as much information on that as I have, and 
more until I sat here in the liearing room. 

Senator Muxdt. I wanted to find out if you had any other informa- 
tion that you wanted to throw into that picture, or whether that 
would stand pretty well accepted by all sides, that of those who voted., 
it was 90 percent of them, and it was a third who voted. 

Mr. Kennedy. On exhibit 105, there is a statement up at the top 
"Returned to work April 5, 1954 through January 15, 1958", and then 
it gives a figure of 1,380. 

Would that be the figure that you were looking for, that figure of 
people who returned to work ? That is not the old employees working. 
That is 1,230. But the employees returned to work is 1,380. 

Mr. Conger. Could I see that now ? It would be quicker than find- 
ing it. 

Mr. ICennedy. Yes. 

Mr. Conger. I was quite sure that figure was on there. I was un- 
able to find it. 

(Document handed to the witness.) 

Mr. Conger. Yes, the top figure of 1,380, that is correct. That 
would be the number who had returned to work prior to that time. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is the old employees who were employed prior 
to the strike, who returned to work after the strike, is that it? 

Mr. Conger. Yes, that is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is 1,380 out of approximately 3,300? 

Mr. Conger. About 3,318, 1 think. 

Mr. Kjinnedy. Wouldn't that indicate the fact that you had far 
less than 50 percent who actually returned to work when the mass 
picketing ended, and even up until 1958, that this strike was supported 
by the people working at the plant ? 

Mr. Conger. ISTo. It would indicate that this campaign of terror 
that they ran through the whole community there had a very appre- 
ciable effect. It indicated to us that there were many, many people 
who wanted to come to work but who just didn't dare to. They didn't 
dare take the risk of having their honies paint bombed, and their 
cars dynamited, their children harassed in school, and being physically 
assaulted. We know positively there were a great many people who 
wanted to return to work, but just didn't dare to do so. 



9570 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kexnkdy. Mr. Conger, there hasn't been a great deal of vio- 
lence and vandalism since 1956. Certainly the people could return 
after 1956 and feel that they were reasonably safe. 

Mr. Conger. Some of those people liave moved out of the town. 
They have jobs other places. They just didn't dare come back, and 
some of them after being out tluit long didn't want to come back. We 
were willing, Mr. Kennedy, at any time, and we asked at that time 
"Open up that picket line", and I think one of our executives ex- 
pressed it ''Let them vote with their feet. Let anybody who wants 
to come back to work, come back to work and do so". 

But you can't have a mass picket line, mass picketing for 54 days, 
and you can't have these things going on in the community without 
that hangover of fear having its effect, and it doesn't stop when the 
last paint bomb is thrown. 

Mr. Kennedy. I don't Imow whether you talked about this your- 
self, but was there a great deal of violence on the picket line, other 
than keeping the employees who wanted to work out of their jobs, 
keeping them away from the plant, and keeping them out improperly, 
which we liave seen pictures of and we have had great testimony 
about? 

Beyond that, was there a great deal of violence on the picket line ? 

Mr. Conger. Yes, there was. There was violence on the picket 
line any time anyone tried to get in. 

Mr. Ivennedy. Beyond the fact that people were pushed and shoved 
back, which I am certainly not condoning, was there violence on 
the picket line ? 

For instance, were there any windows broken in the Kohler Co.? 

Mr. Conger. There were no windows broken at the Kohler Co. I 
wouldn't say that was violence on the picket line. But there were 
people elbowed, slugged, kicked, kneed. I have seen some people who 
came off of tliat picket line after they tried to get through, and their 
shins were bloodied and bruised from the kicking they received. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you have somebody reporting each day as to 
what was going on in the picket line ? 

Mr. Conger. We had several people reporting each day as to what 
was going on in the picket line ; yes, sir. We wanted to get it stopped. 

Mr. Kennedy. We had some discussion from one of tlie detectives 
that he was on the picket line. But beyond that did you liave some 
individuals who were making reports each day on observations as to 
how the picket line was behaving ? 

Mr. Congkk. We liad several people reporting that. Mr. Ireland, 
for one. These people that we had in the observation tours were 
reporting any incidents on the picket line that might be considered 
illegal. I was, if you want to put it that way, reporting it myself. 
I was getting up every morning and going to see that picket line 
before 6 o'clock to see what was going to happen. 

Mr. Kennedy. We have a report here, general observations. It is 
a report on the picket line; I believe it is from Mr. Ireland. 

Just generally going through it, most of the remarks in this gen- 
eral report are that there was a great deal of singing and yelling 
about Mr. C^)nger and Mr. Biever. 

But as far as actual reports on violence or vandalism, there is very 
little, in your omu rej)ort. 

Mr. (^ox(ii-:H. That is not my own report. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 9571 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Ireland's report. 

Mr. Conger. Mr. Ireland's report. 

Mr. Kennedy. When I said yours, I meant the Kohler Co. 

Mr. Conger. And which I never saw until Mr. Bellino took it out 
of Ireland's file. I will say the reason there isn't more on that is the 
reports that he would make of something that would be more drastic, 
you might say, would be in the books that you have up there. 

Mr. Kennedy. For instance, on the report on May 18, 1954, "5 
o'clock to 5 : 30, the American flag which the pickets usually had 
hoisted on a stick at the office parking lot entrance was carried up 
the street to the main gate." Then you have a report on who was 
present. 

Mr. Conger. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Very little, actually, as far as vandalism. 

Mr. Conger. I don't see anything sinister in keeping those reports. 

Mr. Kennedy. I don't see anything wrong with it. I just say that 
the reports that your people were making show very little as far 
as actual violence and vandalism. 

Mr. Conger. I am afraid you haven't looked at the four books. 

(At this point. Senator Ervin entered the hearing room. 

(At this point, the following members were present : Senators Mc- 
Clellan, McNamara, Ervin, Mundt, and Curtis.) 

Senator MoNamara. Mr. Chairman, before we get too far away from 
this employment of private detectives, did I understand the witness to 
say that he assigned these private detectives to some sort of surveil- 
lance on the union hall ? 

Mr. Conger. No ; not on the union hall per se. We assigned them 
to try to find out who was committing this vandalism and the other 
acts of violence, and we were very sure then, and we are very sure now, 
that the union people, and particularly the union people that came 
in from outside, were at the bottom of it. 

Senator McNamara. I understood from your testimony here today, 
just within the last 30 minutes, that you did say that these private 
detectives were conducting some sort of surveillance on the union hall. 

You say now that I have got the wrong impression from your 
testimony ? 

Mr. Conger. In the course of that, I have no doubt that they did 
watch the comings and goings at the union hall, particularly after 
dark, and I know they collected some license numbers of some cars 
around some of the union hangouts, and tried to get whether those 
same license numbers were going to appear some place in connection 
with vandalism. 

Senator McNamara. Don't you think that this is at least verging on 
the employment of labor spies and is that not an illegal act under the 
Taft-Hartley Act? 

Mr. Conger. No ; I believe it isn't even close to it. Senator. I be- 
lieve that we have a right to hire private detectives to catch a criminal 
at any time, whether he be a union member or a nonunion member. 

Senator McNamara. Then does this imply that all of these people 
around the union hall were criminals, and therefore it was legal i 

Mr. Conger. No ; it implies that they were logical suspects. If we 
had found someone who was guilty of this vandalism who was not a 
union man, we would have been just as anxious and just as glad to 
prosecute him as we would have been if he happened to belong to a 
union. 

21243— 58— pt. 24 7 



9572 lmpkopp:r activitie.s in the labor field 

What we were interested in was getting this reign of terror stopped, 
and we weren't getting any cooperation from some of the hiw-enforce- 
ment officers in that community that should have been giving it to us. 

Senator McXamaha. This morning, Mr. Conger, you made a pretty 
good point by putting documents into the record that you liad been 
barganiing in good faith, and 1 thought you did a real go(jd job with 
the <-orresp()n(lence aiul the copies of otlers tliat you had made to indi- 
cate your desire for collective bargaining and bargaining in good faith. 
But I think that this employment of private detectives to check up on 
individuals, and to conduct surveillance of the union head(juarters to 
get car numbers and things that you talked about, hardly squares with 
your position of bargaining in good faith. 

These are more Gestapo methods than are generally accepted as the 
American way, and I question if that was an indication that you were 
bargaining in good faith. 

What is your answer to that 'i 

Mr. Conger, ]My answer to this is that I do not think criminal acts 
are a part of the bargaining procedure at all. 

We have taken the position that we wouldn't yield to criminal acts. 
Criminal acts and this act of terrorism and violence w^ere not legitimate 
bargaining weapons. I don't think that that had anything to do with 
the bargaining at all. 

What we were interested in was getting these criminal acts stopped. 
Some of them were felonies, and all of them were very serious acts 
carrying a reign of terror all through the wdiole community. We were 
sincerely interested in getting that stopped, and I don't think that the 
answer is that we should have come in and given the union what they 
demanded and reward that sort of thing. 

To me that is an entirely separate thing from the bargaining. It is 
not legitimate bargaining, and it is not connected Avith it. 

Senator McNamara. Did this employment of the private detectives 
and their surveillance of the union headquarters bring about the dis- 
covery of any criminals ? 

Mr. Conger. No, I think they came very close a couple of times. 

Senator McNamara. Close enough ? 

Mr. Conger. They never did actually succeed in getting anyone, or 
at least anyone that we could prosecute. 

Senator McNamara. What is your justification for continuing to 
say that you hired these people to check up on criminals, even though 
the result of their surveillance was that they didn't find any criminals? 

Mr. Conger. Senator, there were certainly criminal acts being com- 
mitted, and dynamiting of automobiles, and shotgun blasts through 
window^s. Certainly there was some criminal committing those acts. 
We didn't happen to catch them, and we weren't fortunate enough to 
catch them, but there were criminals, and serious criminals involved in 
this thing. 

Senator McNamara. Was anybody convicted of these acts of vio- 
lence t 

Mr. Conger. Yes, some of them are. Four were convicted up in the 
Chilton court and they made a jurisdictional error by getting into 
another county and the sheriff arrested them. 

They were given jail sentences, for them, and then they were trans- 
ferred down to the county jail, and the union gave them a job and 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 9573 

paid them salaries while they were supposed to be serving their jail 
sentence. 

Senator McNamara. What were they convicted of, sir ? 

Mr. Conger. They were convicted of assault. I think the original 
charge, if I am not mistaken, was assault with intent to do great 
bodily harm, but they w^ere convicted of assault. 

In fact, they were convicted twice, and they were convicted in a 
justice court of an assault and battery on the man's wife, and they 
were convicted in the circuit court for the more serious assault on the 
husband. And there was also some vandalism, and they smashed some 
of liis property there, too. 

Senator McNamara. They w^ere turned up by your private detec- 
tives ? 

Mr. Conger. No; they were not. They got caught by a sheriff 
who was on the job. 

Senator McNamara. Did the private detectives find any criminals 
at all ? 

Mr. Conger. No ; they did not. 

Senator McNamara. They didn't do a very good job ? 

Mr. Conger. I think that they did a good job, but in any police 
investigation I think Mr. Heimke testified here the other day that 99 
percent of police work is getting information from individuals, and 
I think that they got about all of the physical clues they could, and 
then it got to the point where somebody had to call these people in 
and question them, and they didn't always get some of the cooperation 
in my opinion that they could have or that some of tlie law enforce- 
ment officers could have given. Not all of them. 

The CiiAiRaiAN. All right. 

Senator Mundt. Before we get too far away from the arithmetic 
on this strike, I would like to review the figures for whatever signifi- 
cance they may have. 

You start out with a body of laboring men of roughly 3,300, of whom 
1,100 voted to strike, and 100 voted not to strike, and the rest do not 
vote at all. 

Now, I think that you testified that 1,380 men have gone back to 
work since the strike began. 

Mr. Conger. Yes. 

Senator Mundt. Which would indicate that 280 more workers went 
back to the plant than originally voted to strike, if I understand those 
figures correctly. 

Mr. Conger. I think that that is right. 

Senator Mundt. What you call voting with your feet, Avalking into 
the plant, there were 280 more of those than voted with the ballot to 
walk out ? 

Mr. Conger. That is right. 

Senator Mundt. But I think more significant than tliat would be, 
if we can establish it, how many of the 3,300 or how many of the 1,100 
are still on strike and are still unwilling to work, even though they 
may be in the Sheboygan vicinity, or close enough so that they could 
go to work if they sought to go to work provided the company would 
employ them. 

Have you any idea about how many of the 1,100 are still what 
should be called on strike ? 



9574 IMPROPER AcrnqTiEis ix the labor field 

Mr. Conger. I have no idea, Senator, and I don't believe anyone 
lias. 

If this strike were settled tomorrow, and announcement was made 
that everybody could go back to work, I don't know wliether it would 
be 200 or 1,000, or more. There is just no way of determining that 
that I know of. 

Senator Mundt. May I inquire of counsel whether our staff has 
investigated the books of the union to the point of finding out how 
many peope in Sheboygan are still drawing strike benefits, and that 
would give us a pretty good answer to that question. 

Mr. Kennedy. I believe Mr. Worrath has that. He is not here at 
the moment. 

The Chairman. He has been here every day, but I don't see him now. 

Senator Mundt. I suggest, and I don't want to call a staff member 
off an assignment 

Mr. Kennedy. Oh, no, he is working on this. 

Senator Mundt. I suggest that we have him if he has this informa- 
tion, and swear him in, and I think that would be a rather significant 
figure to include in this aritlimetical analysis of what is taking place 
in Sheboygan. 

The Chairman. That can be done. 

;Mr. CoNGFJi. I have seen statements by the union that they had 300 
or -±00 on their relief rolls, but I have no way of verifying them, and 
I am sure your counsel would have more accurate information. 

Senator Mundt. We will get it in the form of sw(un testimony and 
I think that we should wait until we see what that is, and 1 am getting 
educated on what testimony is and what evidence is. 

Mr. Kennedy. On this point, there is this newspaper clipping that 
was brought in, I believe, by Mr. Mazey, in the Sheboygan Press, 
which said, "Kohler Strike Continuation Voted 1,571 to 21." That 
is dated November 18, 1954. 

Do you know anything about that meeting ? 

Mr. Conger. I don't know anything about that meeting, and I don't 
know whether that vote was taken by ballot or by show of hands, or 
how it was taken. 

I may say at that time probably some people went down to the meet- 
ing and voted to continue in order to get strike relief they were getting 
from the union. That was a factor. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wliat about this: Was there an attempt to form 
another union after the strike occurred, to form a new independent 
union within the plant ? 

Mr. Conger. No, I wouldn't say that there was an attempt to form 
a union. I think some of the boys in the shop talked about it. 

Mr. Kennedy. AVliat was it going to be called I 

Mr. Conger. I haven't any idea what it was going to be called, and I 
didn't have anything to do with it, and I was going to say that some 
of them came out and started wearing buttons and I don't know where 
they got them from, and I think it said, "Independent Union" or soine- 
thing like that, and that was just preceding the time when this union 
filed the NLRI^ charges, which, as I said, were not filed until long 
after the alleged acts that were supposed to have been committed that 
were unfair labor practices. 

Mr. Kennedy. You had nothing to do with the formation of that? 

Mr. Conger. No. 



IMPROPER ACTWITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 9575 

Mr. Kennedy. Did they ever discuss that ? 

Mr. Conger. Somebody sent me over one of the buttons in an en- 
velope and he didn't put his name on it or who it was, and I still have 
it in my desk, I think. 

Mr. Kennedy. Nobody discussed the matter with you ? 

Mr. Conger. Nobody discussed the matter with me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did they discuss it with any officials of the com- 
pany ? 

Mr. Conger. Not to my knowledge. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did they have an attorney, the new union ? 

Mr. Conger. I don't think that there was enough of a new union to 
have an attorney, and I never heard of it. 

There was a group at the time the strike started tliat wanted to go 
to work, a group of about 25, I believe, and they filed an action for 
injunction in this Sheboygan County Circuit Court. I assume prob- 
ably that some of those may have been the people who were at least 
tliinking of forming a new union. However, that injunction action 
never came to trial. We intervened in it as a party plaintiff, so we 
could help kind of keep control of it. 

Mr. Kennedy. AVho was the attorney of that ? 

Mr. Conger. Mr. Humke was the attorney for those people. 

Mr. Kennedy. For the nonstrikers ? 

Mr. Conger. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. He was an attorney for them ? 

Mr. Conger. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did he represent other nonstrikers ? 

Mr. Conger. I don't know what you mean by "others." 

Mr. Kennedy. When any of them were arrested for violence, or 
improper activities, did he represent them ? 

Mr. Conger. Oh, yes, there were quite a number that he did repre- 
sent on that occasion. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did the company pay him any money ? 

Mr. Conger. We paid him for that service on some of them, yes, 
where we checked every case, and where we felt that this was pure 
harassment by law officials, we protected them. 

For example, one case that I know he defended, and we paid his 
fees, which was included in this bill, was a case of Keno Federwisch, 
who was kneed in the groin on the picket line by Jesse Ferrazza, and 
after he was kneed he hit him in the face, and he was the one who was 
arrested. 

We told him to go down and see Mr. Humke and Mr. Humke de- 
fended him, and he was found not guilty, and we paid Mr. Humke's 
fees for that and for several of these other cases. 

We also paid Mr. Humke's fees for defending the man who drove 
through. After the WERB came out with its cease-and-desist order, 
they said that there should always be a 20-foot space in the picket line, 
in which there were no pickets, and no trespass at any time, and imme- 
diately the pickets, proceeded to block off all alleyways and all en- 
trances to the, plant, with rocks, and stones, and concrete cans, and 
left only a 20-foot opening, and it was at such an angle that a man 
had to practically stop his car to drive through. He was getting 
harassed and shouted at, and spit tobacco juice at, and one day he drove 
through across these rocks, and the sheriff's deputies arrested him for 
violating a traffic ordinance. We defended him. 



9576 LMPR'OPER ACTTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Keknedv. Did you defoiul any of those wlio were found 
jjuilty ? 

Mr. CoxGEK. I l)elieve there -was one man in the <;^roup that was 
found <ruilty of not. liavin^ a })roj)Pr automobile license, and was fined 
$10, ami 1 think we paid Ids attorneys fees but we didn't buy him the 
license. 

Mr. Kennedv. Did he also represent Mr. Biever in some action? 

Mr. Conger. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. What was Mr. Biever charged with ? 

Mr. Conger. Thei-e were two actions against Mr. Biever. One was 
for failure to yield the right-of-way to a pedestrian, and a pedestrian 
in this case being a mass picketer blocking the highway. And the 
other case was an assault and battery case, when Mr. Biever walked on 
the picket line, and the picket bumped him and he was an-ested for 
assault and battery. That case was dismissed. 

Mr. Kennedy. How much altogether did you pay Mr. Humke for 
representing these individuals? 

Mr. Conger. I believe it was in the neighborhood of $3,000, and I 
have the exact bill here somewhere. 

ISIr. Kennedy. And Mr. Humke represented the actions of some of 
these nonstrikers against the union, also, did he not ? 

Mr. Conger. I don't understand the actions of nonstrikers against 
the union. 

Mr. KJENNEDY. Yes. 

Mr. Conger. You mean the injunction action? 

Mr Kennedy. Well, any legal actions, and were there not various 
kinds of legal actions by the nonstrikers against the union ? 

Mr. Conger. The only legal action by the nonstrikers against the 
union that I know of, or I can think of, was that injunction suit which 
Avas never brought to trial. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did he represent them at that time ? 

Mr. Conger. Pie represented 25 Kohler employees, and I do not 
know offhand without seeing his bill, whether any of that 25 were the 
same ones who filed the injunction action, and in fact I know most of 
them were not. I have the bill now here, and I fomid it, and it is 
exactly $3,000. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did that cover any work that he did in this injimc- 
tion proceeding? 

Mr. Conger. No, it did not. 

Mr. Kennedy. That was just these individual actions, and did 
that include the action against Mr. Biever? 

Mr. Conger. That included the two actions against Mr. Biever; 
yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And it included some of these actions against these 
nonstrikers who were charged with various offenses? 

Mr. Conger. Yes. It included an action against Adam Gulan who 
was harassed by a bunch of strikers, and he chased them off' his prop- 
etry with a shotgun. He was arrested for defending his property. 

That case was dismissed. It included a case against Mr. Gilbert 
Loersch, who was subject to very vile and intemperate language and 
abuse going through the picket line, and one day he replied in kind, 
and strangely enough the deputy sheriffs could not hear the language 
directed against him, but they could hear his reply, and they arrested 
him. We defended him. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 9577 

We defended one man who, I was advised, was arrested by the 
deputy sheriff for driving in a reckless manner, and I was advised that 
all that happened there was the pickets yelled, "Arrest that guy, he 
just drove through here." And he arrested him and he found out he 
arrested the wrong individual and they did not even know who he was. 

There was another man who was arrested who was followed ap- 
proximately a mile and a half and harrassed by three strikers, and 
forced into the curb with his automobile, and when they came up to 
the car he drew a knife, and he drove them off. He was arrested for 
earring a concealed weapon and that case was dismissed. 

In those cases we paid Mr. Humke's fees. We thought this was 
a part of the harassment to keep these people from working and it 
would not have happened to them had they not been working, and 
we felt that that was in the same category as reimbursing them for 
damage to their property. 

Senator Mundt. So we can get the whole picture at one place in 
the record, I wonder whether we can get in the record at this place 
the total amomit of legal fees that the union paid to its lawyers in 
connection with the same type of cases. 

I recall that we had testimony that the law3^ers of the union, repre- 
senting Mr. Vinson for example, and Mr. Gunaca, and several other 
witnesses, and I think it would be pertinent to get the w^hole picture 
that we have the total amount of the fees from the union. 

I wonder whether our investigation has been complete enough so 
that we could put that in at this point. 

Mr. Kennedy. We can put it in now or we can put it in after Mr. 
Conger leaves the witness stand. We will have to get it from Mr. 
Bellino. We have it. 

Senator Mundt. I think we should get it this afternoon, so it would 
appear in the same place. 

The Chairman. Are we going to question the union officials with 
respect to it, or have we taken this from the union records ? 

Mr. Kennedy. We have taken it in the course of our investigation, 
and Mr. Bellino went through the books and records of the local 212 
from which Mr. Gunaca and Mr. Vinson came. He ascertained at 
that time the payments that had been made to Mr. Gunaca and Mr. 
Vinson, and also the legal fees that had been charged to local 212 on 
their behalf. We have those records. 

The Chairman. That would not include what the union may have 
paid from local 833, or from the international ? 

Mr. Kennedy. I suppose that Mr. Worrath has that. 

Mr. McGo\^RN. I don't have that. As I understood, Mr. Mazey 
testified here on that. 

Mr. Kennedy. We have the Gunaca and the Vinson charges from 
the international and the local in Detroit. 

Senator Mtjndt. Some of the witnesses testified that they presumed, 
and I guess they did not say they knew, but they presumed that their 
legal fees and their fines were paid by the international. Some testi- 
fied that they thought they were paid by this Detroit union to which 
they belonged, and some may have been paid by local 833. But I 
think that we should have this evidence at this point, so that we can 
get the whole picture at one place in the record. 

The Chairman. The Chair is apprised 



9578 IMPROPER ACTTVITIDS IX THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Mundt. I tliink Mr. Bellino lias that. 

The Chairman. The Chair is advised that Mr. Bellino has checked 
the records of local 212, of 833, and of the international. 

Mr, KENNi'n)Y. We checked local 212 and the international, and I 
understood it was IVIr. Worrath who was going to check local 833. 
We checked what had not been done. 

The Cbl\irman. Has he reported that 833 had paid out some fees? 

Mr. McGovERN. I don't believe so. 

The Chairman. Let us move along, and Mr. Bellino, you get your 
records, what you have of it, and I don't believe it will be complete 
unless we have all of it. 

IVIr. Kennedy. We will have it as far as Mr. Gunaca and Mr. Vinson 
are concerned. 

The Chairman. Proceed with the interrogation of this witness, and 
Mr. Bellino as early as you can, get these records from your office. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, Judge Murphy appeared before the committee, 
Mr. Conger, and he made a statement that you stated that the 1934 
strike had brought 20 years of labor peace, and that you hoped that 
this strike would bring the same thing. 

Mr. Conger. I did not quite recollect the judge's testimony quite to 
that effect. The statement that I made to Judge Murphy was this : 
He made a remark which I correctly or incorrectly, I don't know which, 
assumed to mean that there must he something wrong with our labor 
relations policy because we had had a strike, and I asked him if he 
could point to many companies in the country that had 20 years of 
labor peace without a strike, and 20 years without a strike. 

That is the reference I made to the 20 yeare of labor peace. 

Mr. Kennedy. He also said that you were going to make a state- 
ment that you were going to teach the union a lesson. 

Mr. Conger. I made a statement to them that they had to learn the 
lesson that we were not going to reward violence and illegal conduct, 
and that we were not going to yield to that sort of pressure. 

Mr. KJENNEDY. And he stated that as far as he learned from his 
contact with you and the Kohler Co., although you showed up physi- 
cally at bargaining meetings, there was no wish really to bargain with 
the union. 

Mr. Conger. That sword cuts both ways, Mr. Kennedy. The record 
will show very clearly that Judge Murphy came in and made a pro- 
posal of settlement which was not acceptable either to the company 
or to the union, as Mr. Mazey's testimony to that effect shows, and 
there are many documents to the effect later than that, that the union 
was still insisting on the same things that they had given Judge 
Murphy an impression that they were willing to drop. 

But they are still back in the picture and they were, and they were 
as late as the time that Mr. Burkhart testified in June of 1955, before 
the NLRB, that these are the seven issues still on the table. There 
are seven of them, and not just wages. 

Mr. Kennedy. Would you be willing to furnish the committee with 
a memorandum, and I have spoken to you about this before, as to 
what you feel are the issues between the union and the Kohler Co. at 
the present time ? 

Mr. Conger. I have stated to you before 

Mr. Kennedy. Between the Kohler Co. and the union. 



IIVIPROPE'R ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 9579 

Mr. Conger. I have stated to you before that I don't know how I 
can do that. I don't know what the present demand is, and I have 
submitted the last written demand that the union made of us. 

They have never advised me officially that they have changed that 
position, and we did get a telegram from Mr, Keuther asking to bar- 
gain on the basis of the examiner's decision, and as I have already 
explained, I don't know what that means. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could you tell us what the company's position is on 
these various issues, if you can't tell us what the union's position is ? 

Mr. Conger. I can't tell you what the company's position is. I can't 
state our bargaining positions on hypothetical basis. 

The company's position would always depend on what the union's 
position was. 

Mr. Kennedy. How about giving us a memorandum of what you 
believe the union's position is, and what the company's position is on 
the same manner. We have been discussing this strike now for some 3 
weeks, and I think it would be helpful to the committee if they knew 
what the issues were. 

Mr. Conger. I believe that if we went back into bargaining tomor- 
row, that we would be faced with the same thing that we have been 
faced with many times before, that the union would have made public 
statements that they are willing to drop a great deal of or a good 
many of their demands and then would come in and insist on the same 
bunch all over again. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who seemed to be making all of the decisions, the 
local man on advice of the UAW man from Detroit, or the outside 
representative ? 

Mr. Conger. No ; I would say that Burkhart did most of the talking 
for the union, except when Mr. Kitzman or Mr. Mazey was there, and 
then usually they would do most of the talking. 

Senator Mundt. Mr. Kitzman was a local man ; was he not ? 

Mr. Conger. No. Mr. Kitzman was an international man, the 
regional director of the UAW-CIO, and a member of their national 
executive board. 

Senator Mundt. Well, that is very interesting evidence in con- 
nection with one of the points we are trying to resolve, whether this 
strike was run in the main by the local people or the outside ])eople. 
It is entirely possible the union when they come to testify will have a 
different version of that, but I did think we should find out at this time 
what your observations were. 

Mr. Conger. Might I suggest an interesting answer to that, Senator? 
That T think the boys that paid the bill ran the show, and I think it has 
already been testified here, Mr. Mazey has said many times, that the 
international spent about $10 million on this strike and I don't think 
they spent that $10 million for a purely autonomous strike over which 
they had no control. 

Senator Mtindt. I have been somewhat interested, Mr. Conger, in 
the melodramatic aspects of this business, the stories of spies and 
counterspies, and detective agents, and informants. I have inter- 
rogated a number of witnesses on the union, Mr. Rand, Mr. Mazey, 
T believe, and others, about their reports in the Kohlarian, and in 
the strike bulletins, and in the Vicker interview with Mr. Rand in 
the Wall Street Journal, all of which indicated that they were main- 



9580 liMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

taiiniio: spies in your plant, as you have told the connnittee you were 
hirin<z; (letet-tive agencies to try to find out what was going on from 
tlie standpoint of some of the activities of members of the union. 

Did you have any feeling or any knowledge that there were these 
spies in your plant or informants in your plant who were carrying 
out information about the boycott or about woriving conditions, or 
about wliat the officials of the plant were doing during the course of 
this strike? 

Or do you agree with the second version that we have gotten about 
these spies, which was just a device for fooling the workers, that 
they really didn't have them but they would tell the workers that 
they had them because it would make kind of interesting reading? 

Mr. Conger. No, there were definitely such informants, and some 
of the information passed out was accurate. For example, at one 
time, and I don't think that has come before the committee, they 
passed out the information on how many copies of a booklet we were 

foing to put out on this strike, before they had ever been received 
rom the printer. 

The information that they passed out on the number of copies of 
it certain booklet and the postage bill was surprisingly accurate. 
Some of their other information was not nearly so accurate, and I 
think probably was distorted for membership consumption. 

There is no question in my mind that they had informants in the 
plant, or that they had people, for example, who were telling them 
w^hat the supply of clay was, and how badly we needed the clay boat 
to come in, and whether they could affect our operation seriously by 
blocking that. 

There is no question in my mind that they had actual informants. 
We were never able to identify who they were. 

Senator Mtindt. So it is your best opinion that these articles that 
they were publishing in the strike bulletin and in the Kohlarian and 
in the Wall Street Journal, and republishing in the Kohlarian, were 
actually based on fact and were not just an effort to deceive the 
workers ? 

Mr. CoNCxER. Yes. I would say that in my opinion the only dif- 
ference between their activities in that respect and ours was thai they 
had these agents reporting on legal activities, investigating legal ac- 
tivities of the company, while ours were confining their efforts to 
illegal activities of the union. 

Senator Mundt. It has been testified also, I believe by Mr. Rand, 
and I don't think he made it as a positive statement, but he developed 
the hyi)othesis, anyhow, and created the impression, that the Kohler 
Co. had sponsored some of these home demonstrations, 

I want to ask you under oath : Did the Kohler Co. at any time, in 
any way, sponsor or encourage these home demonstrations ? 

Mr. Conger. No, Senator, we certainly did not. I will say the same 
thing for the vandalism. We were not interested in scaring people 
from coming to work. We were interested in having them come to 
work. We weren't interested in doing things to scare our workers 
from coming back to work. 

That would have been exactly the opposite thing of what we hoped 
to accomplish. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 9581 

Senator Mundt. I have a few questions about tlie clay boat incident. 
Were you there personally ? 

Mr. Conger. I was not there personally. Senator. 

Senator Mundt. You have no personal information, then, about how 
large the picket line was or how tightly packed it was ? 

Mr. Conger. No personal information on that that I can testify 
to direct. 

Senator Mundt. I don't want any secondhand information, so I 
wouldn't ask you any questions about that place. 

Did you hear or have you any transcripts or have you any evidence 
as to whether or not the union broadcasts tended to create the big 
crowd down there and to bring a lot of strikers out for the purpose of 
preventing the unloading of the clay boat, or were the union broad- 
casts limited to the fact that "this is a Fourth of July holiday season, 
and there is going to be a clay boat coming down there, and it might 
be an interesting sight to come down and watch" ? 

Mr. Conger. I think that broadcast — and you will not get the full 
implication of the broadcast from the printed record of it, you had to 
hear it — when I heard that broadcast, I immediately assumed that the 
purpose of the broadcast was to start an interference with the unload- 
ing of clay, and I immediately called Mr. Desmond and asked him to 
write the mayor and the chief of police and the sheriff and give the 
statutory notice. You see, under our law. Senator, a county or mu- 
nicipality is responsible for riot damage, if they do not quell or keep 
the riot under control. 

There are 2 defenses and 2 exceptions to that. One is if the person 
who is suing for the riot damage really caused it and was to blame 
himself. The other is if they do not promptly notify the law-enforce- 
ment officials as soon as they know that there is a threat of that action. 

I considered the moment I heard tliat broadcast that it was a threat 
of exactly what did happen, and that is why I instructed Mr. Desmond 
to write those law enforcement officials. 

Senator Mundt. I have in my hand what purports to be a copy of 
the broadcast of July 11, 1955. I want to read it to you and ask you 
whether you have any transcript or any evidence which can demon- 
strate whether or not this is, in fact, a true and accurate report of 
Mr. Treuer's broadcast on the CIO program of July 11, 1955 : 

Kitzman announced that Kohler Local 833 will put up a picketline at any 
and every dock, pier, and port where boats loadetl with hot clay for the Kohler 
pigeons make an attempt to unload their unwanted cargo. 

Mr. Conger. Yes, sir ; I think that is an accurate report. I remem- 
ber it, and I remember that Mr. Kitzman did make that statement and 
that threat — that the boat would be picketed wherever it appeared. 

Senator Mundt. Have you any better evidence than your recol- 
lection to bear out that this was an accurate report of the broadcast? 

Mr. Conger. Yes, we have transcripts of all their broadcasts. 
First we took a tape recording of them, and then we have had them 
transcribed. I am sure we have both the tape recording and the 
transcription of that July 11 broadcast. 

(At this point Senator McClellan left the hearing room.) 

Senator Mundt. Mr. Chairman, I think it would be better evidence 
if we could have the witness go through these transcriptions and 
supply us, imder oath, an accurate report, rather than their recol- 
lection. 



9582 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Ekmn. That is a pretty good legal position. As lawyei-s say, 
that Avoiild be the best evidence. 

Senator Mundt. Thank you. So much for that broadcast. I want 
to read another statement in the same transcript : 

This is Bob Treuer with today's Kohler report, and some very good news. 
The Fossuni carrying clay for the Kohler Co. has been chased out of Wisconsin 
waters by the pressure of public opinion and the solidarity of labor. 

;Mr. CoxGER. Yes, I recall that statement. 

Senator Muxdt. Can you find a transcript of that and insert it into 
the record ? 

^Ir. Con(;ek. I am sure we can. 

( The material to be supplied follows :) 

The following is the 6 : 30 p. m. CIO broadcast from station WHBL July 11, 
195.-, : 

"This is Bob Treuer with today's Kohler strike report and some very good 
news. The Fossuin, carrying clay for the Kohler Co., has been chased out of 
Wisconsin waters by the pressure of public opinion and the solidarity of labor. 
The boat left Milwaukee just as it had come, loaded, and was last seen this 
afternoon sailing down the Detroit River near Solidarity House — the UAW- 
CIO's headquarters. At last report, the Fosstim was headed for Montreal, 
Canada. 

"Meanwhile, another vessel, the M. 8. Divina, also loaded with hot clay for 
Kohler, is reported to be heading for the port of Milwaukee. In this connection, 
we would like to call attention to a statement issued today by Harvey Kitzman, 
director the UAW-CIO's region 10. Kitzman announced that Kohler Local 833 
will put up a picket line at any and every dock, pier, and port where boats 
loaded with hot clay for the Kohler pigeons make an attempt to unload their 
unwanted cargo. An aroused public fed up with the shenanigans of the Kohler 
Co. and their so-called spokesman and the company's repeated refusal to bargain 
with its workers, has chased one hot cargo boat out of the State. We don't think 
the second boat will fare any better. More about this later on the program. 

"Here now are Carl Kotnik, Leo Breirather, and Jerry Dale to discuss an- 
other development in the Kohler strike. Carl, take it away." 

Carl Kotnik: "For the past 15 months, the Kohler Co.'s stubborn refusal 
to talk to its workers about working conditions, its capriciousness, its callous- 
ness, its lack of humanity, and its repeated attempts to prolong the strike, have 
caused hardship and suffering, not only among the large number of Kohler work- 
ers on strike, but also among the City and County of Sheboygan. Now, the com- 
pany-caused dissension and strife have spread to Milwaukee and upset the 
citizens of that town and the company's attempts to unload its hot cargo of clay 
has brought headlines in every newspaper in the country. More and more the 
people of this great country of ours are learning about the backwardness, the 
stubborness, and the downright cussedness of those who control the Kohler Co." 

Leo Breirather : "That's right, Carl. While the papers are full of stories 
about unions and companies agreeing to new 1J).^>5 contracts — in steel, in auto, in 
the automotive parts industries, companies large or small and medium — signing 
contracts without strikes, without disputes, without bitterness, while all this is 
going on, the Kohler Co. and its bath tub barony still treads the same shopworn 
path — a path of hatred for its workers and contempt for the community. So 
it won't surpri.se anyone that leading citizens of other communities are beginning 
to take part in attempts to talk .sense to the Kohler Co., if such a thing is 
possible. For example. Mayor Frank P. Zeidler of Milwaukee has called on 
President Eisenhower to start a Federal investigation of the Kohler strike — 
a factfinding inquiry designed to end the dispute. Now here is Jerry Dale with 
a summary of Zeidler's statement." 

Jerry Dale : "Thank you, Leo. Mayor Zeidler's weekend statement blew like 
a fresii breeze over the ocean of crocodile tears which have been shed by the 
Kohler Co. during the past months. In 800 well-chosen words, the mayor of 
Milwaukee told the President of the United States that his intervention in the 
Kohler strike might help bring the dispute to an end. and he asked the Pi-esident 
to give the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service 'whatever additional 
help or prestige it needs to continue its efforts to effect a settlement.' Here in 
part is what the mayor wrote to the President : 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 9583 

" 'I respectfully call your attention to a labor dispute at Kohler, Wis. This 
dispute has been underway for 15 months and at present is in a stalemate. 
Great bitterness about this dispute has risen through all of the State. Members 
of both the CIO and AFL deeply resent actions of the company in the present 
strike, and it appears that the normal collective bargaining processes either are 
not functioning or cannot function in the present atmosphere. 

" 'As a result, serious community problems have occurred in Sheboygan and 
now in Milwaukee. The latest problem was the attempt of a Norwegian ship 
to unload a cargo of clay destined for the Kohler Co. After the owners of the 
cargo decided not to unload in Sheboygan because of community resentment 
toward the company, the ship proceeded to Milwaukee. At Milwaukee Harbor, 
AFL dockworkers in the employ of the city, refused to handle the cargo. The 
owners and charterers of this cargo now have made a demand for the unloading 
of another cargo of clay bound for the Kohler plant and have again put the 
Milwaukee Harbor in the midst of a dispute between the Kohler management 
and its employees. 

" 'If the city of Milwaukee must seek to force organized dock employees to 
handle this cargo against their will, and if they refuse, it will be compelled to 
discharge them. This will put the port in a nonoperating position for weeks or 
months, to the great detriment of all shippers and business and labor hereabout, 
and to the detriment of the interstate and foreign commerce of the United 
States. 

'"It is apparent that the only remedy for ending the dilemma of Milwaukee 
and Sheboygan is the settlement of the Kohler dispute. The length of time 
which this dispute has persisted indicates that only a special effort on the part 
of the Federal Government can terminate it. I, therefore, request you give the 
Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service whatever additional help or prestige 
it needs to continue its efforts to effect a settlement, and I further believe that 
a special Federal factfinding inquiry into this protracted dispute is necessary.' 
"What you have just heard were excerpts of a letter by Mayor Zeidler of 
Milwaukee to President Eisenhower. As might have been expected, the Kohler 
Co.'s reaction to Mayor Zeidler's letter was to insult the mayor. On the other 
hand, local 833 has welcomed the mayor's suggestion, as Local President Allan 
Graskamp made clear in a statement issued over the weekend. Now here again 
with more news is Bob Treuer." 

Bob Treuer : "Big news and good news. The Fossum is on the run nearing 
Montreal. AFL dockworkers in Milwaukee say they will not touch the clay 
cargoes for Kohler Co., the Fossum, the Devina, or others, and the Milwaukee 
AFL Federated Trades Council, as well as the State CIO, again announced their 
official sanction of the Kohler strike. There is only one place where clay boats 
are likely to appear tonight and that is in the Sheboygan city hall where the 
common council meets as a committee of the whole, starting at 7 : 30 p. m. This 
meeting, as all such meetings, is open to the public. 

"Here is what happened today in the story of the hot and unwanted cargo of 
clay. UAW-CIO Region 10 Director Harvey Kitzman said that all clay unload- 
ings would be picketed by local 833. Here is his statement, and we quote: 

" 'The position of the UAW-CIO and local 833 is that we are going to picket 
every single clay boat that comes into the city of Milwaukee or any place else, to 
point out to the general public that this is clay that is being shipped into a strike- 
bound plant. We feel the general public has a right to know this. If the 
Kohler Co. were desirous of settling this strike and would give up the idea of 
smashing this union, the same as they did in 1934, they could reasonably expect 
that the union might take a different look.' 

"Charles M. Schultz, State CIO president, also made a statement today and 
here in part is what he said : 'Wisconsin State CIO felt until learning of Lyman 
Conger's statement to the press, that there was some opportunity of a peaceful 
settlement of the Kohler strike. It was for that reason that it agreed to the 
unloading of the Divina and supported the plea of Mayor Zeidler to the White 
House. However,' Schultz went on to say, 'the statement of Conger without a 
shadow of a doubt indicated that Kohler does not intend to bargain in good faith. 
In view of these facts, Wisconsin CIO changes its position on unloading of the 
clay. Conger's statement and the point of view advanced by Joseph F. Fiunegan, 
Director of the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, dispels any present 
ray of hope that it has for intervention in the dispute. Therefore, Wisconsin 
CIO reiterates its pledge of complete support of the membership of local 833 la 
their attempt to win a fair and equitable settlement of the strike.' 
Jerry Dale: "Leo, how are we coming along on the boycott front?" 



9584 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 

Leo Breirather : "Well, Jerry, there are so many irons in the fire that I 
don't really know where to start. Another lioycott on wheels is schetluled for 
next Friday, July 15. This time it is heading north to Manitowoc and Two 
Rivers. A caravan of 25 cars is heing lined up for this assignment and is 
scheduled to leave the strike kitchen at 5 o'clock next Friday afternoon. The 
caravan will be divided into two sections — one to take the lake road through 
Hika and then on to Manitowoc and the other takes Highway 141 through 
Cleveland on its way to Manitowoc. The first section will continue on to Two 
Rivers, while the second will concentrate its advertising on the Kohler boycott 
in Manitowoc. Incidentally, all the drivers of cars who carry the Kohler boy- 
cott car top signs should sign up immediately with Dispatcher Bob Winterberg 
at the strike kitchen if they want to join the caravan." 

Bob Treuer : "Well, that's next Friday evening, Leo, July 15, at 5 at the 
strike kitchen. Incidentally, those who wish to sign up with Bob Winterberg 
can do so between 1 in the afternoon and 9 in the evening, tomorrow, that's 
Tuesday. All of the cars that are scheduled to go should make it a point to 
be there promptly as in the past and all drivers should be sure to carry a full 
load of i)assengers for the trip. 

Carl Kotnik : "According to all the requests for more information being re- 
ceived after everyone of these boycott on wheels excursions, the caravans are 
turning out to be highly successful." 

Bob Treuer : "That's right, Carl. As I understand it, the Sheboygan County 
Win the Strike Committee is coming up with another angle in support of the 
strike. Isn't that right, LeoV" 

Leo Breirather : "It sure is, Bob. This is another case of a resolution in 
support of the Kohler strike becoming more than just lipservice. The Sheboy- 
gan County Win the Strike Committee, as you know, decided to expand and 
invite unions of all affiliations in the nearby communities to join in the win 
the strike efforts. This invitation has been accepted by the meeting of repre- 
sentatives of all of organized labor in the Port Washington, Fond du Lac, 
Oshkosh, New Holstein, Manitowoc, Kewaskum, and Campbellsport areas, has 
now been set up. This meeting is scheduled for next Monday, July 18, in the 
Fond du Lac Labor Temple at 7 o'clock in the evening." 

Jerry Dale : "Although the Kohler strikers have received continuous support 
from oi'ganized lal)or in these areas, this marks the first time that a meeting 
of representatives from the entire area has been held to consolidate the efforts 
of them all. This meeting of all groups would have been held much sooner; 
however, the vacation schedules in many of the shops during the first two weeks 
of July would have offered too much interference. 

Carl Kotnik : "Incidentally, this activity on the part of organized labor in 
the vicinity of Sheboygan County is merely a forefront of a statewide organiza- 
tion for the same purpose. Much work has already been done in that regard 
and the consolidation of those efforts is also not too far off. While this ac- 
complishment is a tremendous task, the recent publicity given the Kohler strike 
through the clay boat situation, has given the entire program a shot in the 
arm as organized labor everywhere is rallying to the cause of the Kohler 
strikers. The willingness of everyone to lend a hand has certainly given us a 
lift in morale and incidentally, has kept us busier than Edmund J. Biever dodging 
a National Labor Relations Board subpena. However, none of us mind the 
increased activity and work ; in fact, we would like to find time to express 
our thanks for all the support and interest given to the Kohler strikers." 

Bob Treuer : "Saturday, July 30, will also be a big day for the Kohler 
strikers. We have just received notice that the A. O. Smith workers from 
Milwaukee will bring a large caravan carrying canned goods and cash for 
the strikers. A caravan of 75 to 100 Cars is expected to make the trip." 

Leo Breirather : "Yes, Bob, the Smith steelworkers make up Federal Union 
19S0() of the AFL and this is but another indication of the real lalx»r unity that 
is developing in the State of Wisconsin. In setting up the caravan, the plea 
went out as follows and I quote: "As you undoubtedly realize these loyal union 
people — meaning the Kohler strikers — are in desperate need of material financial 
and moral building assistance. The success or failure of the Kohler strikers 
will reflect on the progress of the entire labor movement and since the entire 
labor movement will benefit from the sacrifices these Kohler workers; we 
strongly urge and plead with our members to join in this caravan and to give 
either canned goods or money to this most worthwhile and needy cause." 

Bob Treuer : "Thanks, Leo. You have just heard highlights of today's Kohler 
strike news. Milwaukee unions rally in renewed display of support for the 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIEiS IN THE LABOR FIELD 9585 

Kohler strikers. AFL dockworkers say they will not unload the next Kohler 
clay cargo. CIO and AFL central bodies also give their renewed official sanction 
to the Kohler strikers. 

"Listen again tomorrow and every day to your daily Kohler strike report. 
This has been Jerry Dale, Leo Breirather, Carl Kotnik, and Bob Treuer." 

Senator Mundt. I call your attention to another CIO broadcast, 
July 11, 1955, Gerry Dale : 

This morning local 833's executive board issued a news release expressing 
its gratitude for the solid support which has resulted in the return of Kohler 
clay ships to Montreal, Canada. At this time, the controversial clay is still 
a long way from the Kohler bin. 

Is that an accurate statement ? 

Mr. Conger. Yes, that is an accurate statement. 

May I observe that when the clay finally did come in in railroad 
cars, the clay was picketed, the clay cars were picketed, and were held 
up for a while, although they were supervisory employees taking them 
through, and the pickets disposed themselves across the railroad 
tracks. At that time. Chief Wagner was sick and not on duty, and 
Captain Hemke had taken over charge of the thing and proceeded 
down there — in fact, he had his plans made — and he moved the pickets 
off the railroad tracks and the clay came through. 

Senator Mundt. This was after the failure to unload at Sheboygan 
and the failure to unload at Milwaukee, as I understand it, that it 
came in by railroad. 

Mr. Conger. Yes. The boat proceeded from Sheboygan to Mil- 
waukee. Because of a threat of a citywide strike down there, they 
did not unload there. I think one of them actually docked in Mil- 
waukee. I am not sure that the other one actually did dock. 

Also, the union, I recall, made references in either its broadcast 
or its strike bulletin to the Norwegian Flying Dutchman, which was 
the clay boat without a port to land at, and the boat finally went back 
to Montreal. 

(At this point Senator McClellan returned to the hearing room.) 

Senator Mundt. And the clay came in by rail from Montreal ? 

Mr. Conger. The clay came in by rail from Montreal. 

Senator Mundt. And you say the railroad trains were picketed ? 

Mr. Conger. Yes, the railroad trains were picketed. 

Senator Mundt. Did the Kohler Co. have an union — I think the 
proper term is a company union — before you had this other union? 

Mr. Conger. Well, that is a little bit of a fighting term, a company 
union, to me, Senator. We would not call it a union. I would like 
to call it an independent union, if I may. 

The Independent Kohler Workers Association ; yes. 

Senator Mundt. The Kohler Workers Association. It was testi- 
fied in the early part of these hearings that this was company domi- 
nated. Is that correct ? 

Mr. Conger. It was testified to that, that is correct. It was testi- 
fied, but the testimony is absolutely incorrect. It was not a com- 
pany-dominated union, and I would point out that 

Senator Mundt. How do you clistinguish between a company- 
dominated union and an independent union which is noncompany 
dominated ? 

Mr. Conger. On the question of who finances it and who controls 
it. And how does the company bargain with it. 



95S6 EMPROPER ACTIVITIE'S IN THE LABOR FIELD 

I might, say I think probably the best way of distinguishing would 
be tluit in 1946 the AFL made another attempt to secure bargaining 
rights. The KWA defeated the AFL in that election. 

In 1951 the UAW made an unsuccessful attempt through an NLRB 
election to obtain bargaining rights, and in none of those cases was 
there even a charge filed that this was a company-dominated union, 
although for it to ha\^e been a company-dominated union would have 
been a violation of the National Labor Relations Act. But no charge 
was ever filed. 

Senator Mundt. During this so-called period of 20 years of peace 
between the two strikes, was this the time in which the Kohler 
Workers Association was in operation, or did the KWA precede this 
first strike of 1934? 

Mr. Conger. The KWA preceded the fii-st strike of 1934, and that 
was the issue in that strike, as to whether either of them had a 
majority right. It was a strike for recognition at that time, which 
the present one was not. Then there was an election in September, 
I believe, of 1934 KWA won the election and were certified by the 
National Labor Relations Board, the predecessor of the present board. 
That was })efore the Wagner Act. It was under 7 (a) of the National 
Recovery Act. 

Then the KWA continued as a bargaining agent from that time 
on. As I said before, they were successful in retaining their bargain- 
ing rights in the 1946 election. They were successfuT again in 1951, 
and in 1952, after the union succeeded in persuading the officials— — 

Senator Mundt. That sounds like a long answer in the affirmative. 
I will ask mv question again. I said : 

Was the KWA the union in charge during this period of 20 years 
of peace between the two strikes? 

Mr. Conger. Yes, sir. LTp until the last year. From June of 1952 
on it was the UAW. 

Senator Mundt. Up until June ? 

Mr. Conger. Yes. 

Senator Mundt. I would like to read a paragraph from the decision 
of the National Labor Relations Board, page 75 : 

Thus it is clear that the company participated in forming and engaging actively 
in promoting the new organization, that the workers had no opportunity of 
expressing an unfettered choice as to whether or not they wished to belong to 
it, and that the company not only indicated its favorable attitude toward the 
organization but stood ready to finance its existence. 

Under such circumstances, the organization could not have that independence 
which is essential to a true collective-bargaining agency, and the sudden and 
expensive promotion of the plan at the time when an outside union was just 
being formed, can only be presumed as a deliberate design to influence the 
allegiance of the employees and the interference of their free and unhampered 
self-organization which section 7 guaranties. The wrong done by the company, 
however, can be remedied by an election. 

What have you to say about that situation ? 

Mr. Conger. Yes ; the board entered that order. Then the election 
was held. KWA won the election, and the board said : 

Well, it is obvious that a majority, a vast majority of the employees has chosen 
this union by a free and voluntary choice — 

and the company was directed to bargain with it. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 9587 

Senator Mundt. It is your testimony, then, that you subsequently 
complied with this order which says "the wrong done by the company 
can, however, be remedied by an election" ? 

Mr. Conger, Well, I don't know that there was anything to comply 
with there. The election was held, and the wrong, if any, was com- 
plied with. I will say that that was back before the days of the 
Wagner Act, and some things, frankly, were done then that would 
now be a violation of the Wagner Act. But we didn't have the Wagner 
Act then. The board that we had in existence said, well, although 
they didn't agree with those things, they thought that they may have 
interfered with the free choice. When they found out that the em- 
ployees, given a free choice, chose that union, they said "Well, this is 
it." 

Senator Mundt. You would agree, would you not, with the part of 
the finding that says that a union in a company which is financed 
by the company could not be a free bargaining agency and give the 
laborers an unfettered right to bargain at arm's length with their 
employers. 

Mr. Conger. We didn't agree at that time. Senator. But we cer- 
tainly would have to agree today. Ever since the Wagner Act we 
would have to agree with it. 

Mr. Ervin. Pardon me a minute. I believe you used the term 
Wagner Act when you meant Taft-Hartley. 

Mr. Conger. Xo, Judge, I meant to go back to the Wagner Act. 
You see, this whole controversy in 1934 was before even the Wagner 
Act. As I say, some of the things that we did at that time would 
today be considered a violation of the Wagner Act and also the Taft- 
Hartley Act today. But we have not done them since. 

Senator Mundt. The Wagner Act was passed when ? 1933 ? 

Mr. Conger. 1935. 

Senator Mundt. Between 1935 and the time the UAW was certified 
as a bargaining agent, during that interval, were any charges of im- 
proper practices filed against the company because of the KWA ? 

Mr. Conger. No; I have a vague recollection of one charge being 
filed that was withdrawn shortly after, but there was no charge that 
ever proceeded to any hearing. 

Senator Mundt. During that period, there was no official action 
taken against the company because this was a company-dominated 
union ? 

Mr. Conger. No, Senator ; there was not. 

Senator Mundt. One other question : 

Mr. Kitzman testified — I believe it was Mr. Kitzman — that the union 
was carrying full page advertisements, urging strikebreakers to come 
into the plant. Do you consider that a fair labor practice? 

Mr. Conger. I would consider that perfectly legitimate labor prac- 
tice, but we didn't do it. 

Senator Mundt. You say you did not do it ? 

Mr. Conger. Yes. My position is that it would have been perfectly 
legal for us to have done it, but that we chose not to do it. As a 
matter of fact, we never solicited any striker to return to work, or any 
new employee to come there. People that came there we wanted to 
come on a voluntary basis, and they did so. I take the position that 

21243— &8—pt. 24 8 



9588 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 

we had a U'^^al ri^lit to advertise to ask them to come back to ^vol■k, 
or we hatl a le<»;ai rij^ht to advertise for new employees, but that we 
actually did neither. 

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

Senator Mundt. Quite apart from the fact that you contend it is 
leoal and a proper practice, and I am not a lawyer so I wdll not get into 
an arguuuMit about that, Mr. Kitzman, if he is the witness that I have 
in mind, but some union official I am positive, testified at these hearings, 
said oue of the reasons that they had to continue the mass picketing, 
one of the reasons, I suppose, eventually they resorted to what I call, 
improperly, I guess, a secondary boycott, but Avhich they call a primary 
boycott against consumers products, I think that is right. 

Anyhow, one of the reasons that motivated the boycott, motivated 
the mass picketing, the violence and the hot tempers was the fact that 
you had been advevrtising not only for your own employees to come back 
to the plant, but for strikebreakers to come in from the outside. Are 
you prepared to deny that under oath ? 

Mr. CoNGEU. Yes, Senator ; categorically. We did not do that. I 
will submit that on the face of it that testimony is completely in- 
credible. I can't think of a more senseless proceeding than for us to 
advertise for new employees when the old employees we had couldn't 
get through the line to get to work. I don't know how we would have 
expected to get new employees into the plant ^vhen we couldn't even 
get the old ones back who wanted to work. 

Senator Mundt. The company just relied upon people wanting to 
come in, who wanted to go back to work for their own jobs, and did 
not solicit them? 

Mr. Conger. We did not go out to solicit them, but we did, after 
the lines were opened up, if we had openings, continue our old prac- 
tice of hiring those who came. We did not just rely on the ones 
coming back. 

Senator Mundt. The union testified — and I do not want this to 
have an evil connotation — had agents, representatives, call them what 
you will, employees, associates, friends, going around among the 
strikers, urging them to stay out, shoring up their opposition, en- 
couraging their resistance. 

Did you have people on your payroll nmning around Sheboygan 
and Kohler Village urging the people who were strikers, or who were 
kept out by picket lines, to keep on trying to get back, "Don't be dis- 
couraged, keep on trying every morning and eventually you will get 
through." 

Mr. Conger. No; we did not. While it is possible for an employer 
to have some solicitation or some — it is not utterly illegal for him to 
ask a striker to come back to w^ork — he is cei-tainly under a great deal 
more handicap in that respect than the union is in asking him to stay 
out. The union can go to him and say "Stay out, don't come back to 
work, and w^e Avill give you strike benefits," but if we go to him and 
say "Come back in, we will give you a couple more cents per liour 
than we did before," we would be guilty of an unfair labor practice. 

Senator Mundt. Under the Taft-Hartley Act? 

Mr. Conger. Under the Taft-Hartley Act; yes. Senator. 

Senator Mundt. That looks to uie like it puts a rather curious in- 
balance into a picture of that kind, if you are going to have a one- 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 9589 

sided debate. I thought Taft-Hartley, in part, straightened that out 
by giving the employers the right to talk to their employees, just as it 
permitted union officials to come on company premises to talk to 
their's. 

Mr. Conger. It did not that completely. Senator. 

Senator Mundt. Not as far as strikes are concerned ? 

Mr. Conger. No. 

Senator Mundt. I am through, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Curtis. I have a few questions, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Conger, I want to ask you under oath did the Kohler Co. di- 
rectly or indirectly commit acts of violence or vandalism or promote 
them in any way ? 

Mr. Conger. No, we did not. I think Senator Mundt asked that 
same question, or a similar one, and I want to give the same answer. 
First, it is definitely and categorically "No," and we would have had no 
reason to do that because we were not interested in scaring people 
from coming back to work at the Kohler plant. We were interested 
in having them free to come back without being scared. 

Senator Curtis. I forgot to ask Mr. Biever when he was here the 
other day, but there was testimony that he was subpenaed seven times 
and the process server couldn't find him. \Miat do you know about 
that? 

Mr. Conger. I know quite a bit of it, and I know probably more 
than Mr. Biever does because I was there when it started. In the 
NLKB case, or the Government part of it, the prosecution part of it 
was drawing to a close and they announced in the papers that they 
intended to end the case that day. In order to end the case, it was 
decided to hold an evening session, wdiicli we hadn't held up to that 
time. At approximately 5 : 10 p. m., the attorney for the NLRB turned 
to me and said, "Will you produce Mr. Biever by 7 o'clock this eve- 
ning?" And I said, "No, I won't. I can't." I had known that Mr. 
Biever had been out of town quite a bit in connection with our Spartan- 
burg plant, and I knew he had been out of town, and I didn't know 
whether he was back or not or what had happened. 

I was, frankly, a little provoked. We had produced witness after 
witness after witness when they had been asked for, and to be given 
a sudden summons to produce a witness on less than 2 hours' notice 
frankly burned me up a little bit. I said we wouldn't do it. 

Nevertheless, as soon as I got out of there I went home and I called 
Mr. Biever, and I found out he was not home. He had left on a short 
vacation. 

Then they started serving subpenas. They served 7 subpenas within 
a period of 2 days, and I am quite sure within a period of about 24 
hours. Three subpenas w^ere put through his mail slot, 2 were dropped 
off at his office, and I think 1 was dropped off at the gate, and then 
there was a great furor about Mr. Biever having ducked 7 subpenas. 

I will say, frankly, I can't see any reason why seven subpenas should 
have been issued for a man that they knew was out of town. 

We had some hassle about the thing when he got back, and I prom- 
ised that when the next hearing was held, which would be in about 2 
weeks, I think, we anticipated at that time, and I think it was longer 
than that in the interim, but when the next hearing was held I would 



9590 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 

produce Mr. Biever voluntarily. And we did produce him and he did 
tCvStify in the NLRB case. 

Senator Curtis. The subpenas in question were within a period of 
2 days? 

Mr. Conger. Yes, sir. One of them was dated June 29, and I know 
that it could not have been issued before 5 o'clock m the evening that 
day. The other six were dated June 30. 

Senator Curtis. What were those dates again ? 

Mr. Conger. June 29 for 1 and 6 for June 30. I think I have the 
right dates. 

Senator Curtis. They were consecutive dates, that is what I wanted 
to know. 

Ml". Conger. They were consecutive days ; yes. 

Senator Curtis. Now, has the Kohler Co. perpetrated hoaxes that 
were testified to here ? I think one was called a Joyce incident, and 
a Frank Collins incident, and something about cows. 

Mr. Conger. No, sir, I cannot add too much to the testimony of Mr. 
Desmond on the Joyce incident, except that I was in on it. Mi\ 
Desmond and one of these private detectives went out there and came 
back and reported to me that they were rather suspicious of the thing. 
I said to them, "Well, certainly I know enough about a shotgun to 
know if it is fired at that range, and a man coming out of a garage 
door, there ought to be some pellets somewhere around the wood out 
there." 

Tliey went out there again and looked it over and found no pellets, 
and so they moved over on a different side of the building and fired 
against the building to assure themselves that the spread of the shot- 
gun would be enough so that had there been a gun fired at an intruder 
there would be some evidence of it on the building. There was no 
attempt ever made by anyone to represent that that shot fired in there 
was the same shot that Joyce claimed he fired. 

Senator Curtis. On that Joyce incident, were those shots fired to 
test the accuracy of a report or to manufacture evidence? 

Mr. Conger. They were fired to test the accuracy of a report which 
we doubted, and, in my opinion, the test showed that the shot had not 
been fired. That is why we got the man to go up and take a lie-detector 
test, and which he flunked, and he admitted that he had fabricated 
the whole story. 

Incidentally, I will say that we did not publicize that stoiy, and 
that publicity on that came from the sheriff's department. 

Senator Curtis. How about the other instance ? 

Mr. Conger. The other incident was a fellow, and this happened 
quite late in the strike, a fellow got quite drunk and he slipped in his 
drunken condition and hit his head against the curbstone and came 
out to our medical department with a story that he had been assaulted. 

Our company doctor reported to us — incidentally, he was a little 
bit wrathy about being gotten out of bed in the morning, about 3 
o'clock, that he thought the incident was a hoax, and the injuries did 
not appear to have been caused the way it was, and the man was in 
a hiffhly intoxicated condition. He said he didn't think there was 
anything to it. 

Well, somehow or other the man got in touch with the police 
department, and we didn't play a part in that, and he confessed to the 



lAIPROPER ACTWITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 9591 

police that he had not been attacked, that he had just made up that 
story to explam the injuries to his head, which he was afraid might 
cause him a little trouble. Also, he wanted to get some free medical 
attention out of the Kohler Co., which he got, incidentally, but he 
didn't get any free legal services nor did we pay the fine which he 
later — I think he was fined for that. 

The other one, that was referred to Mr. Mazey's testimony as a 
hoax, was not a hoax. That was a case of slashing udders on cows, 
and the sheriff went out there and made a very superficial investiga- 
tion and said, "Oh, this looks like barbed wire." 

"We have in our possession affidavits from a veterinarian that in 
his opinion that injury could not have been caused by barbed wire, 
and it was caused by a sharp instrument. I am not sure whether 
he made the suggestion but somebody said they thought it was a 
straight-edged razor. 

Both of the farmers came out after the sheriff announced that, with 
very indignant denials in the Sheboygan Press and pointed out that 
the sheriff had made no investigation, and that he didn't even go 
around to the field to see whether there was blood and hair on the 
fences as there would have been had the injury been caused by barbed 
wire, and stated that again in their opinion that this was the type 
of injury which would not have been caused by barbed wire, because 
barbed wire leaves a very jagged womid, and it is not very sharp 
naturally, while this was something that was done with a very sharp 
instrument. 

If there was any hoax in that one it was a hoax of the sheriff' on 
the public. 

Senator Curtis. Now, I have asked you about vandalism and vio- 
lence, and what do you say as to Mr. Band's testimony about home 
demonstrations and picketing, and crowds in front of a home ? Did 
the company sponsor these tilings or promote them ? 

Mr. Conger. No, we did not sponsor them or promote them, and 
we had no way of doing so. We had no way of getting a bunch 
of strikers and strike sympathizers out to harrass one of our em- 
ployees. There, again, we were not intei-ested in having those em- 
ployees scared from coming to work, and many of them were after 
they had these home demonstrations, and they would let us know or 
call up and say, "Well, I can take this, I can take the harassment 
that I have got going through, but my wife and family just can't 
stand this and I am going to have to stay home until these things 
stop." 

Now, we weren't interested in scaring people away from work and 
we were interested in having them come to work. 

Senator Curtis. I have one other inquiry, and then I am through. 
Figures were discussed here as to how many of your original workers, 
and by that I mean workers before the strike was called, came back 
to work. In your opinion do you think that the home demonstra- 
tions and the home picketing, or however you describe it, plus the 
vandalism that occurred at nonstrikers' homes, was a factor as to 
whether or not people would come back to work ? 

Mr. Conger. There was no question. Senator, but what it was a 
factor, and a very great factor. There were a great many people tliat 
we know, and many more that we would think wanted to come back 



9592 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

to work. We would <ret reports all of the time from some neighbor 
of so and so who said he would like to come back to work but he just 
didn't dare. He was hearing these things going on. They were 
factors even beyond the time when they pretty much abated and 
discontinued. 

But when you build up a reign of terror like that in a community, 
where people are even afraid to go to the police with their complaints, 
you don't wipe that out overnight. 

Senator Cuirns. That is all. 

The Chairman. Senator Ervin, do you have any questions? 

Senator ER^^N. Mr. Conger, I am interested not so much in the 
evidence as what we should do as a result of the evidence, or what can 
be done, but do you have any suggestions as to how it would be 
possible to prevent violence in industrial disputes? 

Mr. Conger. Yes, Senator, I had one. I w\qs thinking, perhaps, 
that I would postpone that to some later date, but I would like to say 
now that I think there is one very eft'ective thing that could be done. 
I think a union which openly and flagrantly violates the Taft-Hart- 
ley Act by this kind of conduct should be deprived of any remedy 
under the Taft-Hartley Act and any rights under it. If there is a 
point and I said before I didn't want to argue the examiner's deci- 
sion, and I don't want to, but I just want to say this: That it is abso- 
lutely impossible, whether it be the National Labor Relations Board 
or whether it be Judge JVIurphy, to say that here is a situation where 
there is all kinds of illegal conduct and illegal coercion going on, and 
tlien the employers conduct can be considered over here in a vacuum, 
and say, "Well, he wasn't bargaining in good faith, and we are going 
to consider this and not consider all of this other stutf going on." 

I think that a union which openl}' and flagrantly violates the act 
as this one has done should be deprived of any remedy under the act. 

Senator Ervin. I have been concerned, and historically the pres- 
ervation of law and order is a state function in the United States, 
and, of coui*se, where you have violence it is crime under the old 
statutory law or common law in practically all of the States of the 
country, either to commit an assault or battery, or even to engage in 
mass picketing which keeps a man from going where he desires to 
go. At least it is under all of the law I know of. If you prevent 
a man from going where he desires to go under our law that is an 
assault, even though you do not touch him. I am very reluctant to 
see any law passed in which the Federal Government itself would 
step in and start to supplant the position of the State in the enforce- 
ment of criminal laws in violence in industrial disputes or any other 
matter. 

Your suggestion is that there should be an amendment to the Taft- 
Hartley law to penalize a union which, as you express it, flagrantly 
engages or encourages violence in its dispute ? 

Mr. Conger. Yes. I couldn't agree with anyone more strongly 
than I agree with you. Senator, that the preservation of the populace 
against violence and vandalism is a State function, and I am quite 

Sroud of the part that I played in getting that determination from the 
. . upreme Court of the United States that it was. 

I think the reason that we have violence and vandalism in these 
strikes is that it usually pays off and one of the ways it pays off, of 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 9593 

course, is through the fact that in spite of that they can still go to 
tlie NLRB and possibly get relief. 

Here is a case where we were accused of unfair labor practices 
going back before the strike. The examiner has not found us guilty 
of that, but if that were true, Senator, they knew about it before the 
strike. 

But they chose to have this ordeal of combat first, and this illegal 
conduct first, and then when that was obviously failing then they 
first turned to the legal remedy. 

We think that is all wrong, and we think they ought to turn to the 
legal remedy first, and if we did not bargain in good faith before the 
strike they ought to have filed those charges before the strike and not 
wait until we had gotten an injunction or cease and desist order to 
prevent this mass picketing and then say, "Well, now, we are going 
to try our lega;l remedy." 

Senator Ervin. That is all. 

The Chairman. Are there any other questions ? 

The Chair would ask you one or two questions. 

With respect to Mr. Biever avoiding subpenas, I believe you said 
you went and called him up immediately around 5 o'clock or after- 
wards when the first request was made of you ? 

Mr. Conger. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. You found out he was out of town ? 

Mr, Conger. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman, Did you learn where he was ? 

Mr. Conger. I didn't until some time later. He had left on a 
short vacation trip, and I am sorry I didn't finish that story and I 
wdll finish it now. He had left on a short vacation trip, and I may 
say that both Mr. Biever and I were under instructions from Mr, 
Herbert V, Kohler, we had spent many hours and many long hours, 
and Mr. Kohler had given us both instructions "at any time you get 
a chance to get away for a few days just up and go." 

Mr, Biever and I are both in the position where the only way we 
will get any vacation is to go and not leave the telephone number 
behind us. 

The Chairman, I don't want to get into all of the details. 

Did you know where he was ? 

Mr. Conger. I didn't know where he was, and I tried to locate him 
in three Madison hotels. I thought he might be down there, and 
eventually he heard over the radio that he was being looked for and 
he cut short his vacation and he came back, and by that time the 
hearing had adjourned. 

The Chairman, How soon afterwards did he appear before the 
National Labor Relations Board ? 

Mr, Conger, I think it was about, as I recall it. Senator, I think 
the hearing adjourned for 2 weeks, and then I think some other 
things came up and I think it was about a month or 2 months before 
he actually testified, and I would have to check the record on it. 

The Chairman, When he appeared, did he appear in response to a 
subpena or upon his direction from his company ? 

Mr. Conger. He appeared in response to my promise to produce 
him. 

The Chairman, Is there anything further ? 



9594 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Conger. I have the exact dates, Senator. 

The hearing resumed on July 20, and this was June 30. 

The Chairman. It was about 20 days or 3 weeks later ? 

Mr. Conger. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. If there is nothing further before excusing the 
witness, the Chair would like to instruct the reporter at the beginning 
of this witness' testimony today, to let the record show tliat Mr. Smith, 
Ellison I). Smith, an attorney of South Carolina, appears here, and 
Mr. William F. Howe, of Washington, D. C. 

We will show that at the beginning of the testimony. 

Mr. Smith, Are you through with us ? 

The Chairman. As far as I know. 

Mr. Howe. You mentioned us producing an itemization of the peo- 
ple, of the number of people who had returned to work. I sort of 
think that was clarified with Mr. Kennedy's 1,380. 

The Chairman. I think that has been cleared up. 

I would like to have Mr. Conger provide us in the morning with 
the memorandum that has been requested. 

I believe that will clear up all the unfinished business as of now. 

ISIr. Ellison Smith. The Chair wants based upon Mr. Conger's best 
knowledge, the issues w^hich are presently in dispute between the com- 
pany and the union. Is that basically it ? 

The Chairman. That have not been resolved, and would have yet 
to be resolved if the strike were to be settled, in his opinion. 

]\rr. Ellison Smith. That is all right. 

The Chairman. Now, Mr. Eauh has requested that an affidavit from 
Mr. I*aul Sifton be placed in the record, and that a document or publi- 
cation to which it refers be made an exhibit in the record. 

I have shown a copy of this affidavit to Senator Mundt, and I believe 
he is away now. It referred to some testimony that Senator Mundt 
elicited from a witness regarding Mr. Paul Sifton, and some statement 
or publication he had made some 25 years ago. 

The puipose of this affidavit is to establish by Mr. Sifton that some 
17 years ago he repudiated the statement that he had made 25 years 
ago. That is the substance of it, and we will not take time to read 
it, and w^ithout objection the affidavit will be placed in tlie record at 
this point, and the document attached, an article in the Black Diamond 
of November 11, and I don't have the year, will be made exhibit No. 
106 for reference only. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 106'' for refer- 
ence and may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

(The affidavit is as follows :) 

Affidavit 

Paul Sifton, being duly sworn, deposes and says : 

(1) On Monday, March 10, 1958, Senator Mundt referred to an article by me 
published in 1!);«. 

(2) I did in fact write this article 25 years ago; I repudiated it as invalid 
more than 17 years ago. 

(.'}) My repudiation of the article as invalid was contained in a statement by 
me which appeared in the semimonthly magazine Black Diamond, a coal- 
industry publication, in November 1940. 

I stated then, as set forth in the magazine, my reasons for saying of the 
193;^ article. "Today that article, which had some validity when written, is 
invalid." The attached photostat is a true and correct copy of the page in the 
Black Diamond containing my statement. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 9595 

(4) As set forth above, I stated 17 years ago that the article referred to by- 
Senator Mundt was invalid ; it is invalid today. 

(5) Had Senator Mundt inquired of me or engaged in any research, he 
would have found that I had long ago repudiated this article as invalid. 

(6) It is requested, in accordance with the permission granted by the chair- 
man, that this affidavit be inserted in the record at the point where Senator 
Mundt referred to my article and that the attachment either be inserted in 
the record at that point or made an exhibit. 

Paul Sifton. 
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 14th day of March 1958. 

Mary C. Asay, Notary Public. 
My commission expires December 31, 1962. 

Senator Curtis. I shall not object to that. It is Senator Mundt's 
development, and I don't know the details. But Mr. Kauh, who is 
Mr. Sifton, and where does he reside and would he be available on 
this or any other matter for testimony. 

Mr. Rauh. He is available on any matter at any time. In order 
to expedite the hearing and at the request, I thought it was the chair- 
man's idea that we would speed it up, we produced an affidavit say- 
ing that he said this 25 years ago, and he repudiated it 17 years ago, 
and we really thought Senator Mmidt should have known that. 

(Members of the Select Committee present at this point were Sen- 
ators McClellan, Ervin, and Curtis.) 

Senator Curtis. I am not going into the merit of it. I do not know 
any tiling about it. For the record, who is he and where does he live ? 

Mr. Rauh. It is in the record, but he is the legislative representative 
of the United Automobile Workers, and he lives on Highland Place, 
Washington, D. C. 

The Chaerman. Where? 

Mr. Rauh. Here. 

The Chairman. He lives here? 

Mr. Rauh. Yes, sir. You can have him anytune you want him. 
We were trying to speed it up. 

The CHAiR]MA]sr. I did not know he lived here. 

The Chair has already ruled on it. 

Senator Curtis. I have no objections. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Mr. Rauh. Mr. Chairman, on a different matter, sir, I was under 
the impression that you had asked us if we were going to supply in 
the morning not only our understanding of the different issues that 
were still open, but the statement of our position on those issues. 

As Mr. Smith stated, he did not put in the second half. We in- 
tended to present both what we understood to be the open issues, and 
our position. 

The Chairman. Is Mr. Conger still here ? 

Mr. Conger. I am. 

The Chairman. You gentlemen do the same. Maybe inadvertently 
the Chair failed to state it. What I wanted was so that this com- 
mittee could get immediately the present picture of the situation. 

Mr. Conger. We will do that in the morning, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Howe. We will do that to the best of our ability. 

The Chairman. Mr. Vinson, you may be sworn in. 

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. Vinson. I do. 



9596 IMPROPER ACTRITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 

STATEMENT OF ALBERT VINSON 

The Chairman. Mi: Vinson, state your luune, your place of resi- 
dence and your business or occupation. 

Mr. Vinson. Albert Vinson, 728 Grand Avenue, Sheboygan, Wis. I 
am the editor of a weekly publication called "The Pitch." 

The Chairman. Thank you very much. You are testifying by re- 
quest, I believe. 

Mr. Vinson. Yes, sir, I am. 

The Chairman. You have submitted a prepared statement that you 
desire to read? 

Mr. Vinson. Yes, sir, I do. 

Could I just ask if someone would hand my glasses to me over there, 
please. 

The Chairman. You submitted a statement. The Chair, together 
with Senator Curtis who is present, has examined the statement wliich 
you have submitted and it is our view that there is nothing in it of 
substance in the way of evidence, so far as this committee is concerned, 
with respect to what it is investigating. 

However, since you state in your statement that some business in- 
terests or community interests of Sheboygan, I believe it is 

Mr. Vinson. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Sent you here, I am going to permit you to read 
your statement at this time and then submit your statement to the 
full committee to determine whether they feel that it should be made 
a part of the record. 

I have read your statement. It is very commendable insofar as you 
want to state the position and attitude of the community. But, after 
all, we are trying to get into questions of what is and what is not an 
improper practice in the labor-management relations. 

So I am going to let him read his statement at this time and then 
I will submit the statement to the full committee and the}' may de- 
termine whether it shall become a matter of record. 

Proceed with your statement. 

Is that satisfactory. Senator? 

Senator Curtis. That is all right. 

Mr. Vinson. Honorable Mr. Chairman and members of this Senate 
investigating committee, Mr. Robert Kennedy, and all persons as- 
sembled in this hearing room, Senator McClellan and members of the 
committee, you are most gracious in allowing me a few minutes here 
to speak on behalf of the Sheboygan, Wis., community. 

The statements I am about to make are prepared ones, so no one 
in this room is going to be treated to either a street-corner harangue 
or a great flow of hifalutin oratory. You've doubtless had plenty 
of both already during these hearings. 

The grou]), which is responsible for my presence here todaj^, are 
some 70 builders and traders of tlie Sheboygan County Contractors' 
Association. They are paying my expenses to the extent of $250 
for the 5, I will have to say 6, days I will have been in Washington. 

No other organization or pei-son has advanced me any funds. And 
there are no strings attached or ''special interest'' obligations involved 
in my acceptance of the $250 to perform the service I am now doing 
at this moment. My one and only instruction from the Sheboygan 



IMPROPE'R ACTIVITIEIS IN THE LABOR FIELD 9597 

County Contractors' Association was for me to represent here the 
best interests of the entire Sheboygan comniimity. 

This group of builders and traders from Sheboygan County are 
truly representative of the industry and integrity of the majority of 
individuals who reside and work in that community. These men are 
heads of small businesses, which they have worked hard to build up 
over the past 35 to 40 years. Time, effort, money, skill, and good 
faith have gone into the dealings with their clients. 

These conscientious practices of hard work and the keen sense of 
human values are integral parts of the deliberate habits and outlook 
of the Sheboygan community. 

We in Sheboygan believe that the basic interests of our community 
are at stake in what has been coming out of the committee's probe 
into the Kohler strike situation. The findings are old and disrepu- 
table history to the residents of Sheboygan, but the testimony is "new" 
and "ugly fresh" to most of the rest of the Nation. 

We believe that the impressions now being created in the minds of 
millions of persons across the United States should not be the only 
measure of Sheboygan, as a community. We deplore the effects of 
the bitter strike influence on our families. The dispute between the 
UAW-CIO and the Kohler Co. was not of our making, and we will 
resist with all the strength of our combined spirit and God-given 
power any continued invasion of our rights by those who seek to 
disrupt peace and disregard law and order. 

We believe that the natural interests of our community have been 
lost in the shuffle and crossfire of charges and countercharges between 
the two parties to the dispute. 

There are about 80,000 men, women, and children living in She- 
boygan County. Little more than 3 percent are directly associated 
with either the Kohler Co. or the UAW-CIO unit, local 833. Then 
why should the 97 percent of the people, totally unrelated to the 4-year 
struggle, be swept into a "No Man's Land" of confusion and conflict ? 

The answer, although miserable, is relatively simple. 

The black and white approach to the labor-management impasse 
has been thrust into the foreground by two narrow channels of special 
interest. The cry of both sides has been, "If you're not for us, you 
must be against us ! " Many persons, who are in a position to adopt 
an objective outlook, have failed to do so, and hence the community 
has been split in many ways: in church groups, in experiences at 
school, in neighborhoods, and, worst of all, in family relations. There 
have been several individual emotional cave-ins stemming from these 
severe mental tensions. 

There are persons in Sheboygan who do not subscribe to the idea 
that "you must be for us or else you're against us." These particular 
folks react in different ways. Some are just plain indifferent, but 
there are few of those. Others subject themselves to the gloomy, neg- 
ative outlook. Still others want to deny or ignore the social pressures 
which have been brought to bear on the community by strife and 
"angled" propaganda. They say in effect, "We're tired of it all. 
Let's forget it." 

Then there are those individuals, akin to the men who are members 
of the Sheboygan County Contractors' Association. They believe 
firmly in the community where they carry on their respective busi- 



9598 IMPROPER ACTIVITIBS IX THE LABOR FIELD 

nesses, which they have so earnestly worked at in order to make them 
paying operations. They are qnite aware of the many difficulties now 
confronting those persons who live in Sheboygan. But they also 
believe that Sheboygan has been good to them and their families, 
because they, in turn, have tried to give their best elt'orts and service 
to the community. 

In short, as loyal and decent citizens, their personal lives have been 
guided by a respect for their neighbors rights, likes, and dislikes. 
Their neighbors respect law and order, go about the business of mak- 
ing a living on the basis of an "honest day's work for a fair day's 
wages" and pride themselves in having neatly kept and comfortable 
homes. Therefore, it is little wonder that they are angry about an 
outside influence, which bullies its Avay into their lives and is bent o]i 
upsetting peaceful and friendly relations among families and 
neighbors. 

The fear in the lives of too many Sheboygan residents has come 
about through two main causes: (1) Actual acts of violence and 
threats against person and property; and (2) a woeful lack of com- 
munication among gi-oups and persons within the community, thereby 
blocking off ways for bringing about an understanding of the grievous 
problem affecting all men, women, and children in varying degrees 
of intensity. 

Unfortunately, in Sheboygan today there is no media which is 
interpreting the real meaning of what has happened, and is happen- 
ing, to the outlook and attitudes of the people. Sheboygan is chang- 
ing, and it is not all for the worst, but it is difficult to assess the com- 
parative gains and losses without accurate information on which to 
base valid opinion. 

In the March 17 issue of Time magazine some bright j^oung writer 
has gone hog wild with a little piece entitled "The 'Almost Sinful' 
Strike." One statement, among others, is at variance with the cur- 
rent facts, as they concern the Sheboygan area. 

Here is the statement : 

Sheboygan's hate reaches even to the children; an everyday sight is a tight- 
lipped child followed by other children shrilly jeering, "Your father's a dirty 
scab." 

The term, "Sheboygan's hate," is misleading and inaccurate. She- 
boygan is not some Robie, the Robot, controlled from outer space. On 
the contrary, the community is made up of staunch German and Dutch 
residents, for the most part, and these persons are intensely loyal to 
their friends and considerate of their neighbors. 

Their trusting nature does not include the know-how for meeting 
and solving the problem of a harsh, driving outside force. This influ- 
ence is totally foreign to their concept of what Sheboygan has been 
in the past and should be now. They feel they are caiight in a vise, 
and they do not know how to loosen the pressure. 

It is true that 7, 8, and 9-year-old children, now 11, 12, and 13 
years of age, were indoctrinated with the "scab" password of hate on 
a strikerwide scale in 1954, 1955, and 1956. This is perhaps the most 
tragic aspect of the picture, apart from the pei-sons who were harmed 
physically. The effect was as though a dose of epidemic propaganda 
had been injected into the community's bloodstream. 



IMPROPER ACTTV^ITIDS IN THE LABOR FIELD 9599 

However, this "scab calling" abated in 1957 and today it is not an 
everyday occurrence on anything like a widespread scale. Rather, the 
parents who taught their children to call other boys and girls "scabs" 
began to become weary from sheer bitterness and their feelings veered 
into a smoldering resentment. Hence, the lessening of this brand of 
name calling among the children, and several of the families in whose 
homes "scab" was a household word, moved out of the community when 
the father took a job elsewhere. 

An accurate and truly understanding account of the many in- 
fluences of the strike on the Sheboygan community has yet to be 
written for a newspaper or magazine, and a book does not exist that 
tells the true story. Apparently, mass production newspaper and 
magazine office procedures, and deadlines "yesterday." preclude this 
possibility. 

The pastors and priests in Sheboygan have done a heroic job in 
their efforts to lessen tension and to try to heal emotional wounds 
caused by differences riled by the strike influence. Sheboygan clergy- 
men have been subjected to unfair criticism and even vilification from 
outside the community, but they have not i)ermitted these assaults on 
their s])i ritual leadership to interfere with their earnest work to bring 
understanding into the lives of troubled men, women, and children. 

There must always be leeway for intelligent disagreement, because 
then there can be the hope and opportunity to come to some sensible 
agi-eement on enough points to resolve the problem. 

Abraham Lincoln, even as a Congressman from Springfield, 111., 
sought out those, whom he knew disagreed with some of his thinking. 
This he did, not to pick a bitter fight, but rather to get the other man s 
view})oint so that he could more carefully weigh his own ideas and 
thoughts. 

This approach by Lincoln in resolving a problem and bringing about 
changes in a give-and-take way served the Nation's best interests when 
he became President. 

There is always a way to resolve man-made problems, if men will let 
God's will prevail in human relations. 

We in Sheboygan care deeply about what happens in our commu- 
nity, and we also care about what others think of us. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

( At this point. Senator Mundt entered the hearing room.) 

The Chairman. Thank you. 

The Chair again will advise the witness that that testimony or state- 
ment will be submitted to the full committee as to its covering any 
particular issue involved here in which the committee is interested 
officially and under the charge of responsibility and the resolution 
creating it. 

I doubt seriously that your statement goes to anything of substance. 
It may speak the sentiment of the people of your community and that 
is all right. So we will determine whether it goes into the record or 
whether it is merely filed as an exhibit. 

Thank you very much. 

Mr. Vinson. Thank you very much, sir. 

The Chairman. All right. 



9600 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

TESTIMONY OF CARMINE S. BELLINO— Resumed 

The Chairman. Go aliead, Mr. Counsel. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Bellino, you have made an investigation and 
study of the books of the local from where Mr. AVilliam Vinson and 
Ml'. Gunaca came when they came to Kohler, Wisconsin? 

Mr. Belling. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is local 212 in Detroit? 

Mr, Belling. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. You went out there and studied these books ap- 
proximately when ? 

ISIr. Belling. Some time in February, I believe it was. 

]\Ir. Kennedy. And at approximately the same time that you looked 
through the books of the Kohler Co. ; is that right? 

Mr. Belling. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you also studied the books and records of the 
international ? 

Mr, Belling. Yes, sir. 

]Mr. Kennedy. Would you tell the committee what you found as 
far as the payments on Vinson and Gunaca, their attorney fees, and 
what they got paid while they were in Sheboygan, Wis. ? 

Mr. Belling. Yes, sir. The total amount of payments to William 
Vinson or on behalf of William Vinson, amounted to $10,079.70. 

Mr. Kennedy. What period was that? 

Mr. Belling. That is from April 8, 1954, through Januarv 11. 
1956. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was that payment just to him, or are there also 
payments to his wife ? 

Mr. Belling. That includes payments to his wife from about No- 
vember 1954 through January 11, 1956. 

Mr. Kennedy. Is that the period in wdiich he was incarcerated? 

Mr. Belling. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. In jail? 

Mr. Belling. Yes, sir, I believe so. Yes, sir, 

Mr. Kennedy. How much were those payments to his wife while 
he was in jail? 

Mr. Belling. The payments to Anne Vinson amounted to $6,737.46. 

Mr. Kennedy. At the rate of how much ? 

Mr. Belling, Around $100 a week, I believe it was, 

Mr, Kennedy. Does that include the payments that he got from 
the international ? 

Mr. Belling. Those were payments made from the international 
to Mrs. Vinson. William Vinson received $177 from the interna- 
tional, plus $2,881.99 from local 212. It makes a total for Anne Vin- 
son from the international and local of $8,796.45. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is to Anne Vinson ? 

Mr. Belling. Anne Vinson and William Vinson. 

Mr. Ivennedy. Anne Vinson and William Vinson, during what 
period ? 

Mr. Belling. During the period from April 8, 1954, through Jan- 
uary 11, 1956. 

Mr. Kennedy. And that is payments from the international and 
from the local ? 



IMPROPEIR ACTIVITIEIS IN THE LABOR FIELD 9601 

Mr. Belling. Yes, sir. 

Mr, Kennedy. I thought we had a $10,000 figure. 
Mr. Belling. The additional payments are bail bond payments 
of $60 ; fines paid, $33.25 ; and fees to attorney of $190, which makes 
a total of $10,079.70. 

Mr. Kennedy. How much of that was during the period of time 
in which he was in jail? How much of the salary was paid? 

Mr. Belling. Most of what was paid to Anne Vinson was during 
the time that he was in jail. That would be $6,737.46. There was 
paid to John Gunaca, or on his behalf, a total of $7,931.33, of which 
he received salary from local 212 of $2,883.40. 

There was payments on his renewal bond of $450, and attorneys' 
fees of $4,597.93, or a total of $7,831.33. 

Mr. Kennedy. What period was it that he was receiving moneys 
from the international ? 

Mr. Belling. That was from April 8, 1954, to the period ending 
July 16, 1954. 

Mr. Kennedy. And the legal fees have been since what time ? 

Mr. Belling. Since then. 

Mr. Kennedy. And they amount to over $4,000 ? Is that right ? 

Mr. Belling. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. He has received a total of how much altogether ? 

Mr. Belling. Altogether, $7,931.33. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you have payments to other individuals that 
came out of local 212? 

Mr. Belling. Yes, sir. Boisland was paid a total of $2,896.15; 
James Connor, $409.80; Frank Kay received $110 in cash, or at least 
I understand, was used for expenses given to Gunaca and Vinson when 
they went to Sheboygan. 

Then there was a $10 cash payment which merely indicated it was 
cash, but I do not know what the actual $10 went for. It is a total 
of $21,936.98. 

Mr. I^NNEDY. For these individuals ? 

Mr. Belling. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Payments to and on behalf of these individuals 
whose names you mentioned, is that right ? 

Mr. Belling. Yes, sir. 

Senator Cuktis. By whom ? 

Mr. Belling. Both local 212 and the international. 

Mr. E^ennedy. With the vast majority of it going to Gunaca and 
Vinson, is that correct ? 

Mr. Belling. Yes. 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Chairman ? 

The Chairman. Senator Curtis. 

Senator Curtis. During the time Mr. Vinson was in jail, were there 
any payments made to him, or were they all to Mrs. Vinson ? 

Mr. Belling. They were all to Mrs. Vinson, Mrs. Anne Vinson. 

Senator Curtis. I believe you gave the total figure for Gunaca 
as $7,931.33. 

Mr. Belling. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Over how long a time ? 

Mr. Belling. That is over a period from April 8, 1954, to July 16, 
1954, which is salary, and then, the attorney fees cover up to the 
end of December 31, 1957, 1 believe. 



9602 IMPROPER ACTWITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Curtis. But those expenditures arise out of about 3 
mouths' service down in the Kohk^r area ? 

Mr. Belling. Well, from April — yes, sir, that is right. From 
April 8, 1954, to July IG, 1954. 

Senator Curtis. Three months and eight days, about? 

Mr. Belling. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. And of that $7,931.33, how much did you say 
came from the local and how much from the international? 

Mr. Belling. From the local was $2,883.40. I might say, these 
are the payments that were made to them. The local paid one-half, 
and the international paid one-half, but the payments were made by 
the international. The local was responsible for one-half of it. 

Senator Curtis. And after the reckoning, the exchange of checks 
was completed, this figure that you gave me that is the net amount 
that the local paid ? 

Mr. Belling. The net amount that Gunaca received was $2,883.40. 

Senator Curtis. From whom? 

Mr. Belling. Well, one-half of that would have come from the 
local, but it all came from the international originally, and then the 
local reimbursed the international. 

Senator Curtis. ^Yhsit do you mean by $2,883.40 being the net 
amount ? The balance was for attorneys' fees and costs of that kind ? 

Mr. Belling. Yes, sir; that came from the international. In other 
words, the bills were submitted to the international for the renewal 
bond and the attorneys fees and they were paid by the international. 

Senator Curtis. Have either the international or local paid Gunaca 
any money after he left Wisconsin other than attorneys fees and 
related expenses of that kind ? 

JSIr. Belling. Not as far as I could observe. Senator. 

Senator Curtis. Do you happen to know whether or not the mem- 
bership of local 212 specifically authorized these expenditures for 
"Vinson and for his wife 5 

Mr. Belling. I did not find anything where they were specifically 
authorized. However, there was in the minutes of local 212 a state- 
ment along the lines as to why they were sending four men to She- 
boygan. In other words, there was authority given to them to send 
the four initial men to Sheboygan. But I do not recall seeing any 
authorization with respect to the subsequent payments. 

Senator Curtis. In other words, what you did see was notice to the 
members that they were authorized to go down there because it re- 
cited the reason for them going ? 

Mr. Belling. Yes, sir. In fact, I have the minutes here. 

Senator Curtis. What does it say ? 

Mr. Bellino. These are the minutes of the local 212, dated April 
14,1954: 

The board was then informed of the situation that presently exists in the 
Kohler plant in Wisconsin. The people in this plant have been on strike for 
about the last week and a half, and are maintaining pood, solid picket lines. 
Brothers Emile Mazey, Jess Ferraza, and Jim Fiore, who are actively participat- 
ing in the strike were sent to jail for violation of a city ordinance, which states 
that a person may not project his views over a distance of 100 feet. 

They were released on bail and their case will come up shortly and undoubt- 
edly will be carried to the Supreme Court on the basis of violation of freedom 
of speech. Although the members of our own union who are participating In 
this strike are very militant and aggressive people, they lack a certain amount 
of seasoned leadership. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 9603 

Realizing this, and wishing to be of some assistance the officers of local 212 
sent four of our own local 212 members to Wisconsin to help out in the strike. 
The company has tried a back-to-work movement twice, and both times it has 
failed. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is Ken Morris, the president. 
Mr. Belling (reading) : 

Recommended that the executive board concur in the action that the officers 
took in sending four members from our local union to assist in the Kohler strike 
and at the same time stated that Brother Emile Mazey, secretary-treasurer, said 
it would be O. K. if the expenses of these people were paid from the local 212 
strike fund. 

Senator Curtis. And that is the record that you found that would 
relate to all of these men mentioned that came from 212 ? 

Mr. Belling. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Did you find anything that indicated notice tx) the 
members of 212 that payments were being made to maintain family 
income for the Vinsons in the event that he was convicted of a crime 
not at the scene of the picket line nor on the job, nor in connection 
with any collective bargaining activity ? 

Mr. Belling. No, sir ; I did not find anything of that nature. How- 
ever, this union follows a practice of publishing all payments that 
are made, and I cannot say that I have examined that to see if any of 
these payments are listed in the publication that they put out each 
year. 

It is possible that there may be some notation, but I do not recall 
actually looking for it to see if it was in there. 

Senator Curtis. According to Vinson's testimony, as I recall it, he 
became involved because of two things : He was intoxicated, or he had 
been drinking and, secondly, there were things said, from his state- 
ment, there were things said in the tavern that he resented. 

But they were quite removed from the conduct of the strike, even 
if the local members had authorized payments while somebody was 
in jail for those activities. 

That is all, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Is there anything further? 

If not, thank you very much. 

Is there anything further before we recess ? 

Mr. Kennedy. No, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. The committee will stand in recess until 10 o'clock 
in the morning, at which tune we will resume hearings in room 318. 

(Whereupon, at 5 :30 p. m., the hearing in the above-entitled matter 
■was recessed, to reconvene at 10 a. m., on the following day.) 

(Members of the select committee present at the taking of the re- 
cess were Senators McClellan, Ervin, and Curtis.) 



21243— 58— pt. 24- 



INVESTIGATION OF IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE 
LABOR OR MANAGEMENT FIELD 



THURSDAY, MARCH 20, 1958 

United States Senate, 
Select Committee on Improper Activities 

IN THE Labor or Management Field, 

Washington, D. G, 

The select committee met at 10 a. m., pursuant to Senate Resolution 
221, agreed to January 29, 1958, 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 
Sam J. Ervin, Jr., Democrat, North Carolina; Senator Barry Gold- 
water, Republican, Arizona; Senator Karl E. Mundt, Republican, 
South Dakota; Senator Carl T. Curtis, Republican, Nebraska. 

Also present : Robert F. Kennedy, chief counsel ; Jerome S. Adler- 
man, assistant chief counsel; John J. McGovern, assistant counsel; 
Ruth Young Watt, chief clerk. 

The Chairman. The committee will come to order. 

(Members of the committee present at the convening of the session 
were: Senators McClellan, Goldwater, and Curtis.) 

The Chairman. On yesterday during the course of the hearings it 
was suggested, and the Chair requested each side of this controversy, 
a representative of the company and also a representative of the union, 
to prepare memoranda of their position with respect to the unresolved 
issues involved in the collective Dargaining negotiations. 

Mr. Conger, on the part of the Kohler Co., agreed to provide a 
memorandum of the unresolved issues according to his best judgment, 
and I believe Mr. Grasskamp, on behalf of the union, also agreed to 
comply. 

Are you gentlemen present this morning? Is Mr. Grasskamp 
present 'I 

Mr. Rauh. I regret Mr. Grasskamp is over in the room still working 
on the document. I am terribly sorry about this. I don't know 
whether it was the weather or what, but I understand that they are 
still working on it. They did one, and I think they wanted to make a 
change in it, and this is most embarrassing. 

Could you postpone this, sir, for a few minutes ? 

The Chairman. The Chair will be very glad to postpone it. 

Mr. Rauh. To 2 o'clock or something like that ? 

The Chairman. We will postpone it until 2 o'clock. 

Mr. Rauh. Thank you very much. 

The Chairman. Maybe you want to further revise yourself. 

9605 



9606 IMPROPER ACTR-ITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Conger. We are prepared, Mr. Chairman, but I liave a couple 
of exhibits that I was asked to produce yesterday, and I have them 
here now. 

The CiiAiRMAX. You have some exhibits. All right, you maj- be 
seated, Mr. Conger. 

TESTIMANY OF LYMAN C. CONGER (Resumed), ACCOMPANIED BY 
ELLISON D. SMITH AND WILLIAM E. HOWE, OF WASHINGTON. 
COUNSEL 

The Chairman. You have some exhibits you were asked to produce 
yesterday ? 

Mr. Conger. Yes ; Senator Curtis, I believe it was, asked me to pro- 
duce exhibits, and I believe at an earlier time, exhibits on what had 
happened to this clay boat after it left the Sheboygan Harbor. 

I am, therefore, submitting the transcript of the 6 : 30 broadcast, 
from station WHBL, on Tuesday, July 19, calling attention to it 
jiarticularly to the first page : 

Canadian longshoremen refuse to unload Kobler clay cargoes from the Fos- 
sum, in Montreal, when they saw CIO advertising the clay was for the strike- 
bound Kohler Co. In the afternoon Montreal police who have a reputation 
for being antilabor dispersed the pickets, and the unloading was supposed to 
have gotten underway. That Kohler clay is still a long, long way from the 
strike-bound Kohler Co.'s bins, a long way. 

The Chairman. That may be made exhibit 104. Is that the one 
we agreed might be placed in the record if you found it, the radio 
broadcast ? 

Mr. Conger. I believe so. 

The Chairman. Then that becomes a part of exhibit 102, and will 
be made exhibit 102 A. 

Mr. Conger. I have another copy of a transcript of a broadcast, 
union broadcast over WHBL of July 11, 1955, that I would like to 
submit, and particularly the first page. 

"This is Bob Treuer with today's Kohler strike report." 

The Chairman. Does it relate to the same matter? 

Mr. Congee. Yes, sir ; the clay boat. 

The Chairman. All right, it will be made exhibit No. 102 B. 

Mr. Conger. 

This is Bob Treuer with today's Kohler strike report and some very good 
news. The Fossnm, carrying clay for the Kohler Co., has been chased out of 
Wisconsin waters by the pressure of public opinion and the solidarity of labor. 

Then skipping a part : 

Kitzman annoimced that Kohler local 833 will put up a picket line at any 
and every dock, pier, and port where boats loaded with hot clay for the 
Kohler pigeons make an attempt to unload their unwanted cargo. 

I believe yesterday Senator Curtis asked me to produce, if I could, 
statements of the union indicating that this strike vote was on the 
basis that it was just a threat to enforce the hands of the bargaining 
committee. I have two broadcasts here which I would like to sub- 
mit as exhibits. 

The fii-st one is a CIO radio broadcast of Thursday, March 11, 

1954 

The Chairman. It may be made exhibit 107, and the next one if 
it relates to the same subject-matter will be made exhibit 107 A. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 9607 * 

(Documents referred to were marked "exhibits Nos. 107 and 107 A," 
respectively, for reference and may be found in the files of the select 
committee.) 

The Chairman. They will be made exhibits accordingly. 

Mr. Conger. I would like to call particular attention to page 7 
of the first exhibit. 

I think we have been patient long enough, and I for one am in favor of taking 
this company on. But a strike vote on Sunday doesn't mean a strike, and our 
negotiating committee is going to work today and tonight until the last second 
before a strike deadline to see if we can't iron these issues out. I think that 
the Kohler Co. is bluflBng. They don't want a strike. 

Then on page 4 of that same broadcast, the same transcript : 

It is unfortunate but it is true that the only language which Kohler Co. 
apparently understands in labor relations is a threat of force, the strike weapon. 

From the second broadcast, I would like to quote from page 2 : 

This is but one of the reasons why local 833 executive board voted last night 
to recommend a strike vote. A year ago we failed to make any progi-ess beyond 
a few gestures until that overwhelming strike vote carried by such a huge 
percentage. It seems very clear to me that this is what we need to do this year, 
demonstrate to the Kohler Co. that Kohler workers want the kind of security 
and working conditions which other American workers have. 

Everybody seems to be out of step but the Kohler Co., but there is one 
language that Kohler Co. understands, and that is the threat of a strike. 

The Chairman. Are there any (]|uestions ? 

Senator Curtis. I have no questions. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Brierather, will you come around, please ? 

The Chairman. Will you be sworn ? 

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. Brierather. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF LEO J. BEIERATHER, ACCOMPANIED BY HIS 
COUNSEL, JOSEPH L. RAUH, JR. 

The Chairman. Be seated, and state your name and your place of 
residence and your business or occupation. 

Mr. Brierather. My name is Leo J. Brierather, and I live at 2019 
North 32d Street, Sheboygan, Wis., and I am a Kohler striker. 

The Chairman. You are a Kohler striker ? 

Mr. Brierather. Yes, sir. I am the chief steward in local 833, 
chief steward of group 1 which represents the foundry group in the 
Kohler Co. 

The Chairman. "^Yliich represents what group ? 

Mr. Brierather. Group 1, which represents the foundry group in 
the Kohler Co. 

The Chairman. The foundry workers ? 

Mr. Brierather. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Of the Kohler Co. ? 

Mr. Brierather. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. You have counsel, Mr. Rauh representing you ? 

Mr. Brierather. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Let the record so show. 



9608 IMPROPER ACTTA'ITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 

Is there any statement yon wish to make before we proceed with 
interro<iation? 

Mr. Brieilvther. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. You do not have a prepared statement ? 

Mr. Brierather. An oral statement, Senator. 

The Chairman. All right, you may proceed with it. 

Mr. BRIER.VTHER. I began working at the Kohler Co. November 14, 
1934. I began working in the north foundry, reheater core depart- 
ment. This job was obtained for me by my father who was a Kohler 
Co. supervisor at the time, and I understand that I was the first new 
man hired by the Kohler Co. after the 1934 strike. 

I had no idea as to the implication of my starting to work in the 
Kohler Co., despite the fact that workers were on strike at the 
Kohler Co. 

The Chairman. Would you be called a scab or strikebreaker at 
that time ? 

Mr. Brierather. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman, All right, so you be^an working for the Kohler 
Co, under the environment or whatever it is. 

Mr. Brierather. That is correct, sir, 

I wasn't particularly, and I am not particularly proud of that fact. 
I worked 1 day on the day shift and for the next 3 years I was on the 
night shift, what we term the "graveyard" shift, and I was practically 
out of contact with the rest of the workers. 

I worked 1 year in the crate-nailing department after those 3 years 
and then I was transferred back to the core department, and during 
the war I worked in the torpedo tube department and the shell de- 
partments, and then once again back to the foundry. 

So I have had quite a bit of experience in the foundry, and I cer- 
tainly had enough experience to know that I was a part of the Kohler 
Co.'s so-called 20 years of labor peace as expressed by Judge Murphy 
Jiere in these hearing. 

I would like to in my own words tell just how the Kohler Co, 
earned that 20 years of labor peace. 

In 1934 an AFL union tried to obtain recognition for its union at 
Kohler and failed. Their efforts were met by the company with the 
same attitude, and almost the same attitude as we have been met with 
in 1954, in that the Kohler Co. would not bargain in good faith, and 
they went through the pretenses, and they attended the meetings, but 
as far as trying to give anything for the benefit of the workers, this 
just was not done. 

The AFL union began its strike on July 17, 1934, and the following 
9 days were passed by with peaceful picketing of the plant. The 
Kohler Co. at that time was only working about 2 days a week, and 
many men wore working less. With the beginning of the strike, 
the Kohler Co. began organizing a police force in the plant, in the 
village. 

They had concentrations of police forces in the American Club, 
and the recreation club, and in the carpenter shop in the village, and 
also within the plant. 

Now, this sounded very familiar to us in 1954, There was very 
little show of force on the part of anything until July 26 when the 
Kohler Co. obtained armored trucks which I understand were de- 



IMPROPEIR ACTIVITIEIS IN THE LABOR FIELD 9609 

livered from Janes ville. Company F of the National Guard returned 
from camp and had its equipment stored within the plant. 

Senator Curtis, Mr. Chairman, what year are you talking about? 

Mr. Brterather. 1934, sir. 

Senator Curtis. All right. Were you working there at the time? 

Mr. Brierather. No, sir. 

Senator Curtis. How old are you ? 

Mr. Brierather. I am 42, sir ; and I began working at the Kohler 
Co. when I was 19. 

Senator Curtis. In what year ? 

Mr. Brierather. November 14, 1934. 

Senator Curtis. You began after the strike ? 

Mr. Brierather. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Would you say you were hired as a strikebreaker ? 

Mr. Brierather. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. You started as a strikebreaker, and I am talking 
about in the general acceptation of the term. 

Mr. Brierather. Yes, sir; at the time we had the depression and 
jobs were scarce, and I had been working part time on a farm before, 
and any job looked good to me at the time. However, I had no idea 
of what I was doing to the people who were fighting for their benefits 
at Kohler. 

The Chairman. Since you have gotten in, you have been converted? 

Mr. Brierather. Very definitely, sir. 

The Chairman. All right ; proceed. 

Mr. Brierather. On July 26, the village deputies appeared in force 
and they made a pretense or they actually did clean out what they 
called cleaning out the picket line and they confiscated clubs and 
they confiscated a lean-to which was erected by the pickets to provide 
some shade from the sun, and also provide protection from the rain. 

In their own terms, they claimed they flushed out the field of 
pickets on the east end of the plant, and after this had been done they 
continued to patrol the picket lines and there was much exchange of 
words between the pickets and the deputies. 

On July 27 a statement was issued by officials of the village which 
was heard over the air, and in the papers telling people to stay away 
from the Kohler Village, that the situation was tense. 

Senator Curtis. Now, what year are you talking about now? 

Mr. Brierather. Still 1934, July 27 ; sir. 

This had just exactly the opposite effect of what it was meant for, 
or seemed to mean, and in fact everybody was interested to see what 
was going on, and instead of people staying away they all came to 
see what was happening. 

In the afternoon there was quite a display of eviction of 2 strikers 
from the American Club, which was similar to what happened in 
1954. However, this was done much more physically and there was 
a much greater show of physical force in evicting them, and they 
had their luggage thrown out on the sidewalk and there were a lot 
of words exchanged and people that were there became angry at 
the type of treatment being issued by people from the Kohler Co. 

In other words, it might seem to anyone that this entire thing was 
stage-managed by the Kohler Co. 



9610 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The armored trucks paraded through the streets practically all 
day, until approximately 4 o'clock in the afternoon, as I understand it, 
when practically all of law enforcement officials disappeared from 
the village, despite the fact that the village was filling up with people. 
At 8 o'clock in the evening, approximately, there were reports of 
from 5,000 to 10,000 people in that village. 

The stone throwing to break the windows in the plant began at 
the south end of the plant. Eyewitnesses there said it was started 
by children who at first had been throwing 

Senator Curtis. I would like to ask the witness a question. You 
have used the expressions such as "eyewitnesses said," and "I under- 
stand," and so on. "WHiere were you during the month of July 1934. 

Mr. BrierxVtiier. I was working on a farm at the Holstein, which is 
about 20 miles away from Kohler. 

Senator Curtis. About 20 miles away ? 

Mr. Brierather. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Wliat is the name of the farm, or the farmer? 

Mr. Brierather. I believe it was a farmer by the name of Arthur 
Weber. 

Senator Curtis. AMien did you start to work for him ? 

Mr. Brierather. Foi 

Senator Curtis. Yes. 

Mr. Brierather. Oh, I only worked on his farm probably about a 
month to help with the harvest. 

Senator Curtis. When did you start to work for him ? 

Mr. Brierather. It could have been the end of June, of 1934, or the 
beginning of July. 

Senator Curtis. And so you were out there all during the month 
of July? 

Mr. Brierather. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. These things that you have described, they hap- 
pened in July ? 

Mr. Brierather. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. You base your infonnation upon conversations 
since then, and printed accounts, and that sort of thing? 

Mr. Brierather. Yes, sir. I obtained this information as a result 
of just plain curiosity, sir. When the UAW began organizing the 
Kohler plant, and the Kohler Co. in its campaign against the UAW, 
mentioned the word that it was possible to strike, that the UAW was 
a strike-happy union, the people in the plant when they heard the 
word "strike" naturally started talking about the 1934 strike, and they 
were fearful. 

In the 1934 strike, it represented to those people the same thing 
that it represented to me, without actually having been there, that 
people were shot and they were injured, and there was a riot, and two 
people were killed, and naturally we were fearful of anything like 
that ever happening again. 

(At this point, tiie following membei*s were present: Senators Mc- 
Clellan, Curtis and Goldwater.) 

The Kohler Co. at times has given its version of the 1934 strike and 
I was anxious to find out just what did happen on that day. 

As a result, not only myself but a number of people started talking 
to individuals who were inside the plant that day, Avho were outside 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 9611 

as spectators, who were membei*s of the sheriff's deputies, who were 
people on the picket line, and who were actually members of the vil- 
lage police. 

I doubt that any one individual could tell the entire story of the 1934 
strike, because there were so many, many people involved. 

The estimates were from 5,000 to 10,000 people. Things were hap- 

gening all over. Any one individual can only tell us just exactly what 
appened in his own immediate area. And unless you talk to hmi- 
dreds of people you don't begin to see what the relationship was be- 
tween the different happenings of that day. 

I have talked to many people in conjunction with 2 and 3 other 
people, and we have tried to recapitulate the accounts and the happen- 
ings of July 27, 1934. That is why I am in a position to tell this story, 
sir. 

I have some affidavits here, which I don't believe I would read, but 
they are in support of my argument. I would like to read certain 
parts of them as I get tlirough them and submit them for any further 
information you would desire to get from them, sir. 

The Chairman. What is the subject matter of the affidavits? 

Mr. Brierather. Well, I have some on the 1934 Kohler strike, eye 
witness accounts of their own individual experience of that date, sir. 

The Chairman. We usually accept affidavits only to contradict 
something that may have been said and testified to here at these hear- 
ings. The Chair will permit you to file those affidavits. Since we are 
permitting you to testify largely from hearsay up to this time, I will 
let you state what the affidavits which you have may state. But put- 
ting the whole affidavits in I have some doubt about. 

Mr. Rauh. Mr. Chairman, I am not appealing for that. I would 
like to explain how Mr. Brierather's testimony came about, if I may, 
for a moment. I went to Mr. Kennedy and asked him if we could 
have a day to put on our side of this, by bringing in a lot of people. 
Mr. Kennedy indicated to me that the committee was trying to do 
this as expeditiously as possible and asked our cooperation in not 
doing that, and suggested possibly a witness could pull it together. 
That is how Mr. Brierather's idea of pulling this together came about, 
sir. 

The Chairman. I can appreciate that. The Chair is very anxious 
to be a little liberal and generous in stretching the rules of testimony, 
if we can get facts even from hearsay without having to go to the 
expense of bringing so many witnesses here. 

I just don't like the idea of saying, "Yes, file your affidavits," until 
we have had a chance to see them. 

Anything that you wish to state and then say you have an affidavit 
from somebody saying this is the fact, the Chair will permit you to 
say it. But the affidavits I will not accept until the staff has had an 
opportunity to examine them. I think I am right in that position. 

AH right. You may proceed. 

Mr. Brierather. I believe I left off with the beginning of the stone 
throwing on the south end of the plant. "Wlien this began, many 
people started taking up this activity and this continued until just 
about every window in the south foundry and the employment office 
and all the way down the street had been broken. 

The Chairman. Are you saying that the children broke the win- 
dows? 



9612 LMPROPER ACTWITIES ITs^ THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Brierather. As I understand it, sir, they started the stone 
tlirowing. 

The Chairman. You understand, then, the import of what you are 
saying is that the first window is broken by some child who threw a 
rock ? 

Mr. Brierather. There were many children in that area. 

The Chairman. What? 

Mr. Brieil\tiier. There were many children in that area. 

The Chairman. It wouldn't take many children to throw one rock. 
You think it all started by one child throwing a rock, is that right? 

Mr. Brierather. That is right. 

The Chairman. There may have been other children joining in, 
but at that time you thought it was by one child throwing a rock. 

Mr. BrieRvVther. At that time, they had streetcar tracks going by 
one side, and the people in that area started to dig up stones w-Tiich 
were used as ballast and the bricks from that place, and that is where 
most of the ammunition that they got, I understand, came from. 

The Chairman. Senator Curtis. 

Senator Curtis. When was this stone throwing that you are talking 
about? 

Mr. Brierather. Approximately at dusk, as close as we can deter- 
mine. It was about 8 o'clock in the evening, sir. 

Senator Curtis. What date ? 

Mr. Brierather. July 27, 1934. 

Senator Curtis. That is while you were working out on the farm 20 
miles from there ? 

Mr. Brierather. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Chairman, in the history of this committee I 
have never objected to anybody who wanted to come in here and tes- 
tify. I haven't objected to any witness. But I do wish the witness, 
as he talks about these things, would constantly make clear in the 
record when he is talking about, and where he gets the information. 

Mr. Brierather. All right, sir. 

The Chairman. I thought he had identified it as the day that the 
windows and so forth were broken out in the plant in 1934, and he 
said it started about dusk, as I remember, or just about dark that 
afternoon. 

Be as specific as you can. A lot of your testimony is absolutely 
hearsay. It can be weighed accordingly. Each Senator can give such 
credence to it as he thinks it merits. But, of course, a lot of your tes- 
timony up to now, certainly, is hearsay. You say you have affidavits 
supporting it, and I am going to permit j'ou to file the affidavits for 
the inspection of the committee and analysis of them, and so forth, 
by the staff, in their examination. 

But I am trying to expedite it now and let you get your story across 
I think you want to get to something else, ultimately, don't you ? 

Mr. Brierather. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. And what you actually know yourself ? 

Mr. Brier.\ther. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could I suggest that you maybe might summarize 
what happened in 1934 and get on to what you know personally? 

The Chairman. Let's try to get on to what you know yourself. 

Senator Gold water? 



IMPROPER ACTRITIElS IN THE LABOR FIELD 9613 

Senator Goldwater. Mr. Chairman, may I make a suggestion? I 
think the union is perfectly right in asking that their side of the 1934 
strike be presented, I suggest, therefore, that we let the union obtain 
a man who was actually at the strike and participated — either par- 
ticipated in or witnessed it. All of this is hearsay. It can be given 
by anybody who has read newspaper accounts of the episode. I 
think it would be much better, and I think the union comisel would 
agree it would be better, if he were allowed to bring a man down here 
who was an actual eyewitness to the occasion. 

The Chairman. It is something like what this witness said. If 
you are going to get a picture of it, you are either going to take hear- 
say or you are going to bring many witnesses. One would be at one 
place and one would be at another and would see different things. 

The Chair is trying to expedite it. I don't want to deny the union 
its right to present its viewpoint and its side of the case. 

Senator Goldwater. I don't want to prevent them, either. 

The Chairman. Let's move along now starting with what you know, 
beginning with what you know, and submit your affidavites, let the 
staff examine them, and then if we need to we can come back to some 
of this. 

Mr. Brierather. My only purpose in telling about this, sir, is that 
the committee may have the benefit of knowing just what was in the 
minds of the Kohler workers during the 20 years of labor peace, 
and also what was in their minds even when they voted to strike in 
1953 and 1954, sir. 

The Chairman. Well, you began working there in November 1934. 

Mr. Brierather. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. From that time on, I think you would be a very 
competent witness to testify as to what happened up until the time 
the strike was called in 1954. Is that right ? 

Mr. Brierather. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. You worked there all that time ? 

Mr. Brierather. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Then you may testify fully about that. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Eauh. Mr. Brierather just asked me if that was a direction 
to go on and leave the strike. 

The Chairman. How much more have you got of this ? 

Mr. Brierather. I can summarize this quickly. 

Mr. Rauh. Could he have about 2 or 3 minutes ? 

The Chairman. All right. 

Mr. Brierather, I have made the claim that this was more or less 
staged or managed by the Kohler Co. I have the affidavit from 
John J. Stieber, who is presently the financial secretary of UAW 
local 833, and who at that time had acted as temporary chairman 
of the independent union, KWA. 

The Chairman. "VVliat is the date of the affidavit ? 

Mr. Brierather, The affidavit's date is March 10, 1958, 

The Chairman, That affidavit may be filed for inspection. We will 
rule later whether it may be made an exhibit, 

Mr. Brierather. I would like to tell the substance of the affidavit. 
Mr. Stieber was in the company of Mr. Walter J. Kohler, Sr., the 
president of the Kohler Co., just prior to the stone throwing at the 



9614 EvrpROPER Acrn'iTiES ix the labor field 

Koliler Co. plant. He had walked from the south foundry lunch- 
room to an area in the immediate vicinity where the stone throwing 
beoran. It seemed to Mr. Stieber as though Mr. Kohler was expect- 
ing what was about to happen. Quoting from the affidavit, Mr. 
Stieber says that in liis opinion, "Mr. Koliler was waiting expectantly 
for something to happen in that area, because when the first windows 
were broken, Mr. Kohler stated 'Now, here it comes.' " 

The Chairman. It seems to me fi'om that affidavit, from that state- 
ment, you are clearly confirming the company's position that they had 
every reason to be afraid that mob violence was going to take place. 

Mr. Brieratiier. With that amount of people, I imagine that you 
are right. But I mentioned before that law-enforcement officials 
were notably absent during the time that the mob was collecting, sir. 

The Chairman. All right ; go ahead. 

Mr. Brieratiier. I have another affidavit from John Stieber, who 
reported as the crowd moved north, that tear gas was hurled from 
the plant. The affidavit was signed ^larch 10, 1958, an affidavit from 
Mr. John Stieber. 

The Chairman. That tear gas was throAvn from within the plaiit? 

Mr. Brieratiier. From within the plant, from the immediate 
vicinity of the employment office. 

The Chairman. I think that has been admittexl by the company. 

Mr. Brieratiier. He has told me that the Kohler Co. supervisors 
who are presently supervisors, Mr, Joe Herwatin and Marty Ertel 
were the persons he had seen throw it. 

The Chairman. That affidavit may be filed. 

Senator Curtis. I would like to ask you about the fii"st affidavit 
that relates to a conversation with Mr. Kohler. When was the 
conversation ? 

Mr. Brieratiier. Approximately 8 o'clock, July 27, 1934. 

The Chairman. Have you any more like this you want to file? 

Mr. Brierather. Yes. I have another affidavit by John Deis, 
made out on March 12, 1958. 

John Deis was an eye witness in the Kohler riot. I would like to 
quote from that affidavit that across the road, and this was while this 
thing was actively going on — 

On the sidewalk in front of the American Club he saw a group of four deputies 
carrying guns ; that he recognized them as Ed Biever, Lyman Conger, William 
Runge, and John Rami ; that these four shouted over for the pickets to get out, 
and followed along on the sidewalk as the pickets headed north across the street ; 
that as they passed the Brass Road, which is the road leading out from the 
brass foundry building from the Kohler plant, Deis heard a single shot and a 
woman scream something about "They shot Bugelmann" ; that he thinks the 
shot came from the direction of the group of four deputies that Biever was in ; 
that it was dark and he could not make them out clearly in the confusion ; that 
he had first seen the Biever group near the water bubbler in front of the American 
Club ; that when he was out on High Street, near Badura's shoe store, he was 
once again confronted by the same four deputies ; that he says one of the four 
shouted at them "What for you want to murder somebody" ; that there was an 
exchange of words, and then he states that he pulled off his coat, rolled up his 
sleeves, and shouted at them "You guys, when you want to fight, come out and 
fight with your bare hands" ; that one of the four deputies, he does not know 
which one, shouted back, "You wait" (unprintable) "We'll show you something" ; 
that he went down to pick up his coat and received sliotgim blasts in his head 
and leg ; that some 45 to 50 pellets were later dug out of his head and legs ; that 
his work cap was shot to pieces and that he was taken to the clinic ; that he 
says he is positive that he was shot by the four deputies, Biever, Conger, 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 9615 

Ruuge, and Rami, and that he caught sight of them shooting him as he bent 
over for his coat, but could not say which ones, or whether all four, were shooting 
at him, except that they did shoot him. 

Senator Curtis. What is that man's name? 

Mr. Brierather. John Deis. 

Senator Curtis. Where does he live ? 

Mr. Brierather. 1429 Erie Avenue, Sheboygan, Wis. 

Senator Curtis. Does he live there now ? 

Mr. Brierather. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. That affidavit may be filed like the others. 

Do you know whether he ever swore out a warrant for these men 
and had them arrested for shooting him ? 

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

The Chairman. If his affidavit is correct, that is, if he actually 
saw them shoot at him, and he got hit, I can't understand why he 
wouldn't go and have them arrested. 

Mr. Brierather. Sir, I assume that under oath and affidavit that 
this would be the truth, and I would like to point out that this con- 
tradicts Mr. Biever's testimony of the other day, and Mr. Conger. 

Senator Curtis. Wliat I would like to ask is this : Who are those 
four men he said shot him ? 

Mr. Brierather. Mr. Biever, Mr. Conger, Mr. Kami, and Mr. 
Runge. 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Biever and Mr. Conger have testified here. 

Mr. Brierather. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. The other two men haven't ? 

Mr. Brierather. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Have all four of them testified ? 

Mr. Brierather. No, sir ; Just Mr. Biever and Mr. Conger. 

Senator Curtis. And you have a witness that will testify that he was 
shot by two of the witnesses who appeared here ? 

Mr. Brierather. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Wouldn't you think that you ought to do something 
about it than just have his affidavit? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Brierather. Well, sir, it is up to Mr. Deis or members of this 
committee, I would say, sir. 

The Chairman, This committee can't prosecute anyone. It is up 
to Mr. Deis. He is the fellow that ^ot shot. 

Mr. Brierather. Well, ordinarily, sir, working people are not apt 
to process lawsuits. They would much sooner have decent working 
conditions and live a peaceful life, sir. 

The Chairman. But I think he should prosecute. I think if he was 
shot out there, and he knows who shot him, who is responsible for it, 
it is a violation of law to shoot people, I think the law should be 
enforced. 

I don't know whether the statute of limitations has run or not, but 
if it hasn't, certainly there is still some responsibility upon him. He 
may have let the statute of limitations run in taking no action. 

Of course, there are always some extenuating circumstances that 
have to be taken into account, but on the face of it you would think he 
should appeal to the law-enforcement officers whose duty it was to 
prosecute people for such offenses. 



9616 IMPROPER ACrriVITIES IN TIIE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kauii. Sir, the law enforcement, if I may point out, were the 
very people who did the shooting. They were the law-enforcement 
officers at that time. Conger and Biever were the deputies, so it is a 
little hard to appeal to them. I don't say he should or shouldn't have 
taken any action, but it is a little hard to appeal to these men. 

Senator Curtis. ]\Ir. Chairman, Mr. Rauh said the people who did 
the shooting. IVliat evidence do you have to that ? 

Mr. Rauh. The Deis affidavit that was just read. 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Deis ought to be brought in. I am willing to 
be just as liberal as we can go to get this full story in here, but when it 
reaches the point that witnesses who have appeared here are accused of 
shooting other human beings, I think it is just so elementary in our 
system of justice that the accuser come in here and fails to face the 
committee and state his case and answer a few questions. 

I just can't believe the witness here is reciting all of these things 
from memory. It is my understanding that if anyone wants to come m 
here and read a paper, they should submit it ahead of time. I haven't 
seen any statement of this witness. 

The Chairman. The witness did not submit a statement. The wit- 
ness is presumably making an oral statement by referring to some 
notes which he has, which is quite proper. The Chair would hold that 
he would have a right to do that. 

I at one time tried to observe whether he was actually reading a 
prepared statement or whether he was actually referring to notes to 
refresh his memory. 

The Chair is not the keenest observer that may be around, but I 
have watched witnesses testify many times. I observed the witness 
to determine whether he was actually reading a prepared statement 
or simply referring to notes. 

I detected he was referring to notes, according to my judgment. 

Mr. Rauh. Sir, we have the notes and I am sending them up, so 
we can show them. 

The Chairman. All right. 

(Document handed to the committee.) 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Chairman, in light of the fact our our liber- 
ality, and I agree with it, permitting this witness to go ahead, he 
has made a charge of shooting another human being by affidavit, Mr. 
Rauh has testified similarly, I think in view of that, before we go 
on to any other point, we take a moment or two to permit any of 
the witnesses referred to that are in the hearing room to make a 
statement at this time. 

The Chairman. To do what. Senator? 

Senator Curtis. I think Mr. Conger and Mr. Biever — I see Mr. 
Conger, I don't know if Mr. Biever is here — ought to be permitted 
to make a statement at this time. 

The Chairman. Just a moment. I think as soon as this witness 
has finislied this part of his preliminary, it would be proper, but 
I don't think we ought to interrupt him just tlie minute lie says 
something. If they will stand by, as soon as this witness finishes his 
preliminary, they will be given the opportunity. I think that is the 
proper way. 

Senator Goldwater. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the wit- 
ness in connection with his recent testimony this question: Would 



EVIPROPEIR ACTIVITTES EN THE LABOR FIELD 9617 

you read that part of your last affidavit that contained the names 
of the people who allegedly shot another person ? 

Mr. Brierather. I gave that affidavit in. 

Senator Curtis. The names that he mentioned are Ed Biever, 
Lyman Conger, William Runge, and John Rami : 

That these 4 shouted over for the pickets to get out and followed along the 
sidewalk as the pickets headed north across the street ; that as they passed the 
Brass Road, he heard a single shot and a woman screamed something about 
they shot Englemann; that he thinks the shot came from the direction of the 
group of 4 deputies that Biever was in. 

Then further down in this affidavit of John Deis, I quote from it : 

That he says he is positive that he was shot by the 4 deputies, Biever, Conger, 
Runge, and Rami, and he caught sight of them shooting him as he bent over 
for his coat but could not say which ones or whether all 4 were shooting him, 
except that they did shoot him. 

Mr. Chairman, I want to join Senator Curtis in demanding that 
these men who have been accused of shooting another person be allowed 
to testify to that effect when this witness has finished with this par- 
ticular phase of his testimony. 

Mr. Rauh. I think he has finished, sir. 

The Chairman. The Chair will say I don't think a demand was 
necessary. The Chair had already ruled that he would immediately, 
when this witness has finished this part of his testimony. I asked the 
witnesses to stand by. I hope that since the Chair ruled, you will not 
feel it necessary to make a demand on him. 

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

Senator Curtis. Mr. Chairman ? 

The Chairman. Senator Curtis. 

Senator Curtis. I would like to ask the witness : Is this document 
that you passed up here, consisting of six pages, the notes from which 
you were speaking ? 

Mr. Brierather. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Who prepared them? 

Mr. Brierather. T did, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Did you do the typing? 

Mr. Brierather. No, sir. I wrote it out in longhand and I had a 
typist type it. 

Senator Curtis. Wlio typed it? 

Mr. Brierather. Mrs. Esther Prothro. 

Senator Curtis. Where does she work ? 

Mr. Brierather. She works for the UAW, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Whereabouts ? 

Mr. Brierather. Well, she works in the international union office, 
sir. 

Senator Curtis. Here in Washington ? 

Mr. Brierather. She is here, sir ; yes. 

Senator Curtis. Where were you when you wrote out your notes in 
longhand? 

Mr. Brierather. I was in several places. Mainly in the bedroom, 
sir. 

Senator Curtis. You wrote them out after you got to Washington ? 

Mr. Brierather. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Was anybody around while you were writing them 
out? 



9618 IMPROPER ACTWITIE'S IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. ]5iaEKATiiER. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Whom did you confer with while you wrote out 
your notes? 

Mr. Brierather. With many people, sir. With Allan Graskamp, 
for instance, who is president of our local union ; with Mr. H. Kohl- 
hagen, Edward Kohlhagen, who is recording secretary of our union; 
with Mr. Arthur Baur who is vice president of our local union ; with 
Mr. Rand. 

Senator Curtis. But you wrote this out in full in longhand just like 
this? 

Mr. l^RiERATiiER. Ycs, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Is this you r writ ing here in ink ? 

Mr. Brier^vtiier. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. I think, Mr. Chairman, it is pretty much of a pre- 
pared statement. I submit that to the chairman for his consideration. 

The CiiAiRMAX. Let's see it a moment. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

The Chairmax. Well, the Chair rules it is halfway in between. I 
think it should have been submitted. It is a little more than just notes. 
I am going to permit the witness to proceed to testify unless there is 
objection. I think a statement as full as this one — and I had seen 
you referring to Mhat looked like notes — I think a statement possibly 
as full as this one should have been submitted. But I will let you 
proceed, unless tliere is objection. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Brierather. Sir, I am finishetl with the part about the 1934 
Kohler strike. I would like to point out that it was not my intention 
to make accusations, sir. I was trying to tell the committee what was 
in the minds of the workers during the 20-year period and also in the 
minds of the people working out at Kohler at the time that they took 
the strike vote in 1953 and in 1954, and subsequently when they went 
out on strike. 

The Ciiairmax. In other words, you have made no accusation. You 
are simply re])orting to the committee the result of the investigation 
which you made, which you said was largely out of curiosity to find 
out just what the state of mind of the people was, and what might 
throw some light on this 20 years of peace, labor peace? 

Mr. Brierather. That is correct, sir. 

The Chairman. And this information that you have submitted is 
tlie background for the conclusions you reached ? 

Mr. Brierather. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Is that the way you mean it ? 

Mr. Brierather. Yes, sir. I might point out that the Kohler Co. 
may have been cleared in the courts of that day, but I also would like to 
point out that they were not cleared in the court of public opinion, 
sir. 

The Chairman. Well, that is, again, a matter of opinion. May I 
say this : The affidavit with respect to the charge of Mr. Conger, Mr. 
Biever, and the other two men shooting this man, is a charge made by 
the man wlio made the affidavit, who claims he got shot, and not a 
cliarge made by you. 

Mr. Brierather. That is correct, sir. 

The CiiAiR^iAN. All right. Now the record is straight. 



IMPROPEIR ACTIYITIEIS IN THE LABOR FIELD 9619 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Chairman ? 

The Chairman. Senator Curtis. 

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

Senator Curtis. Do you affirm or deny the charge ? 

Mr. Brierather. I would affirm it, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Then you do make the charge. You come in here 
and you give hearsay evidence. You bring in the sworn statement 
of a man. Let's just look at this man Deis, and notice the words he 
used here — 

That as they passed the Brass Road, Deis heard a siugle shot and a woman 
screamed something about "They shot Englemann." 

that he thinks the shot came from the direction of the group of the 
four deputies that Biever was in ; that it was dark ; that he could not 
make them out clearly in the confusion; that he had first seen the 
Biever group near the water bubbler in front of the xVmerican Club ; 
that when he was on High Street, near Badura's shoestore, he was 
once again confronted by the same 4 deputies; that he says 1 of the 
4 shouted at them — 
What for you to want to murder somebody? 

that there was an exchange of words, and then he states that he 
pulled off his coat, rolled up his sleeves and shouted at them — 

You guys, when you want to fight, come out here and fight with your bare 
hands — 

that 1 of the 4 deputies, he does not know which one, shouted back — 

You wait — 

and then something miprintable — 

We'll show you something — 

that he bent down to pick up his coat and received shotgun blasts 

in his head and legs; that some 45 to 50 pellets were later dug out 

of his head and legs ; that his work cap was shot to pieces and he was 

taken to the clinic. 

In presenting this affidavit, is it your intention to tell the committee 
that these 4 men, 2 of whom were Mr. Biever and Mr. Conger, shot 
Mr. Deis. 

Mr. Brierather. Well, sir, I believe Mr. Deis is telling the truth. 
He made this affidavit under oath. 

Senator Curtis. And you believe him ? 

Mr. Brierather. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. And you presented it here to the committee so 
that they might have the information that you believe ? 

Mr. Brierather. That is correct, sir. 

Senator Curtis. I submit that that is a rather serious matter. I 
cannot pass on the truth or falsity of it. 

But it is quite a departure from 

The Chairman. Excuse me, Senator. May I ask the union counsel 
whether this witness who gave the affidavit can be produced here? 

Mr. Rauh. Just one moment, sir. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Rauh. He said sure. I just don't know myself. But Mr. 
Brierather says sure, and we would be happy to produce any witness 

21243—58 — pt. 24 10 



9620 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

the committee asks. I am sure Mr. Kennedy will confirm that we 
have produced everybody who has been mentioned. 

The Chairman. Plave him come in at the earliest date and we will 
get this thing settled. Move on to something else. 

Senator Curtis. I think at this time, at this stage of the hearing, 
while the same people have heard and watched the witness' statement, 
that Mr. Conger should be heard. 

Mr. Raith. Mr. Chairman, I am informed that Mr. Deis is not a 
member of our union. Possibly it would be best for Mr. Kennedy to 
have him subpenaed. But we will tell him so he is alerted. 

The Chairman. He is not a member of the union ? 

Mr. Rauh. No, sir. 

The Chairman. I thought he was. 

Mr. Rauh. I am sorry, sir. I did, too. 

The Chairman. It is my error. I just assumed he was. Anyway, 
we will give further consideration to a subpena for him if the com- 
mittee feels he should be subpenaed. We can take that action. 

All right. 

Is there anything further, now, about the 1934 strike ? 

Mr. Brier^vther. No, sir. 

The Chairman. You have concluded with your remarks about 
that? 

Mr. Brierather. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. I understand now you want to start after the 
1934 strike and talk about conditions that obtained in the plant up 
until the 1954 strike came on ? 

Mr. Brierather. That is correct, sir. 

The Chairman. All right. Stand aside for a moment. 

Mr. Conger, you can make a statement there, if you want to, briefly. 

TESTIMONY OF LYMAN C. CONGER— Resumed ; ACCOMPANIED BY 
ELLISON D. SMITH AND WILLIAM E. HOWE, COUNSEL 

Mr. Conger. Mr. Chairman, I want to make this statement under 
oath : That the affidavit read by Mr. John Deis here is a complete and 
utter fabrication, and if it is made under oath and submitted to this 
committee, it is perjury. I will make that statement under oath. I 
was not outside of the limits of the plant that night. I was not on 
the American Club lawn or in the streets at any time carrying a gun. 
Mr. Biever, I am assured — I am sorry that Mr. Biever has left, but 
we will get him back if it is necessary — he will testify as he did before, 
that he was not carrying any gun that night other than a gas gun, and 
that he didn't shoot anybody. 

At the conclusion of my testimony the other day, Mr. Rauh made 
the threat through newsmen that if I would repeat my testimony out- 
side of this committee, he would have me sued for libel. I promptly 
repeated that. And I don't think I am going to be sued for libel, 
according to what I read in the newspapers. 

The Chairman. That will be a matter for the courts to handle. 

Mr. Conger. But I will now say that if anybody will make the 
statement that I was carrying a gun, doing any shooting that night 
or shot anybody outside of this committee room, I will sue him for 
libel, and I wouldn't back down on the threat. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 9621 

Senator Mundt. Mr. Chairman ? I would like to find out from Mr. 
Conger one thing. If I undei^tood you correctly, you said Mr. 
Rauh — was it ? 

Mr. Conger. Yes. 

Senator Mundt. Challenged you to make a statement outside the 
committee room or inside the committee room to the press, on which 
he was going to sue you for libel. I didn't get it. Maybe you said it, 
or maybe I didn't hear it. What statement were you referring to that 
you promptly made and challenged him to sue you on ? 

Mr. Conger. That was the statement that Mr. Burkhart's attitude 
at the bargaining table was that of a confirmed Communist, and I re- 
peated that to the press immediately. 

Senator Mundt. Very well. I have had a little experience in a com- 
mittee room about challenges about libel. I remember one time when 
Mr. Alger Hiss challenged Whitaker Chambers to make a statement 
on which he was going to sue him for libel. Mr. Chambers made it 
outside of the committee room, outside of the area of immunity. A 
long time elapsed before Mr. Hiss sued him for libel. Finally our 
committee succeeded in getting enough people to comment about it, 
and needled him enough so he was forced to sue for libel. He sued 
for libel and went to jail for perjury. I am always curious, conse- 
quently, out of that experience, when I find this kind of exchange. 

I favor as many of our witnesses as possible making statements out 
where they can be sued for libel, and I favor getting it into the courts, 
because the courts can adjudicate these things with much more em- 
phasis and much more effectiveness than we are able to do here in 
our committee room. 

I don't wish you trouble, but if Mr. Rauh made the challenge, I 
hope he goes through and sues you and gets the thing in court. 

Senator Curtis. He challenged you, too; you might get sued, be- 
cause Mr. Rauh seems to be in the habit of intimidating witnesses 
and members of the committee by throwing challenges around. 

Senator Mundt. He challeiiged me after I challenged him to sue the 
Detroit paper for the editorial. I am waiting for him to instigate 
that suit. I have been reading the papers carefully. I haven't seen 
that the UAW has as yet brought suit against the Detroit newspapers. 
If he makes good on that, then I will give seriovis consideration to 
his challenge to me. 

The Chairman. The Chair announces that he is not challenging 
anyone. I am just hoping that we can proceed. 

Senator Ervin. Mr. Chairman, I would challenge the committee to 
proceed to conduct this hearing in a judicial manner and salt down 
the testimony, and let our speeches keep until after the testimony is 
salted down. 

Mr. Conger. I would be heartily in accord with that, but there 
have been some speeches made here, some vei-y serious allegations 
against the Kohler Co., and individuals, made entirely on hearsay, 
second, third, and fourth hand. There has not been a witness that 
dared appear here and give that testimony under his own oath so 
far. It has all been, "I heard from this one," "I heard from that 
one," or "I think it might be so." 

I think I have a right to demand and now request that now that we 
have been given the names of these two individuals, that they be 



9622 IMPROPER ACTTVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

produced here at the committee, that they testify under oath, and 
that I have a chance to come up and testify to the contrary, and then 
let's see who is perjuring themselves. 

Senator Curtis. I would like to ask the witness a question. 

The Chairman. The Senator from Kansas is recognized. 

Senator Curtis. Well, now that 

The Ch.\ir]viax. Nebraska, I am sorry. 

Senator Curtis. My fondness for the chairman certainly allows me 
to overlook that. Mr. Conger, how did you receive this statement 
from Mr. Rauh, by word of mouth or by writing ? 

Mr. Conger. No. I received it by newspaper reporters asking me 
about it. They came to me and said he had made the statement that 
if I would repeat what I had said in this committee room outside of 
the committee room I would be sued for libel, and I gave them an 
accurate report of what I testified here, and told them that I would re- 
peat it outside this committee room; then I understand from the 
papei^ that Mr. Rauh announced he was not going to sue. 

Senator Curtis. Did all of that happen here in the hearing room? 

Mr. Conger. No, sir ; it happened outside the doors of the hearing- 
room. 

Senator Curtis. That is all I have. 

The Chairman. Gentlemen, the Chair will state I don't believe 
this committee has any great interest in who sues whom for libel. 
That is a matter that might be of interest to attorneys w^ho expect 
prospective employment and of interest to the individuals who might 
hope to recover. So let's get down to the issue. There is an affidavit 
here that has not been received in evidence from a man who charges 
that you, Mr. Biever, and two other men, shot the man who made the 
affidavit. Wliat is his name ? 

Mr. Conger. Mr. Deis is the correct pronunciation, Deis. 

The Chairman. You testify that you didn't ? 

Mr. Conger. Yes. 

The Chairman. That as far as you are concerned, as against you. 
it is false ? 

Mr. Conger. Yes, and I would like to add some more. I may later. 

(Members of the committee present at this point were: Senators 
McClellan, Ervin, Goldwater, Mundt, and Curtis.) 

The Chairman. And so far as you know, you believe you can testify' 
that as against Mr. Biever it is false? 

Mr. Conger. Yes. I have heard Mr. Biever testify, and on the 
basis of his testimony 

The Chairman. You were with him that night ? 

Mr. Conger. I was not with him that night. I was not in the pres- 
ence of Mr. Biever, or Mr. Runge, or Mr. Rami at all that night. 

The Chairman. He would have to answer for himself then. As to 
the other 2, you do not know, or as to the other 3 you do not know of 
your own knowledge, and you just know that you yourself didn't? 

Mr. Conger. I have considerable more information than Mr. Brie- 
rather had on it because I have heard Mr, Biever testify in this hear- 
ing room that he didn't fire any shot. 

The Chairman. I have heard him testify, too, but I don't have any 
personal knowledge, and I have his word, and you have his word. 

You were not with the other three, that is the point I am trying 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIEM) 9623 

to make, and therefore you cannot testify from your personal ob- 
servation from being present as to what occurred. 

Mr. Conger. I was not with the other 3 and I would request that 
the 1 who is living of the other 3 be called, Mr. Runge. I am quite 
sure, and I cannot testify positively under oath, but to the best of 
my information and belief both Mr. Runge and Mr. Rami were in 
the plant that night, and did not go outside. 

Now, I can't testify to that positively, but that is the best of my 
information. Mr. Rami unfortunately is dead, but I think Mr. Runge 
is still living, and I believe he can be called as a witness, and I believe 
he would want to answer that charge. 

The Chairman. All right, the Chair has let the affidavit be filed, 
just for the infonnation of the committee. I have not permitted it 
to be made an exhibit, or to go into the record as of yet. 

I think this is a matter the committee will want to discuss and try 
to resolve what procedure to follow on it. I am not attempting to 
rule on it at this moment. 

Senator Mundt. I think that we should have in the record at this 
point the fact that Mr. Biever did testify on this point. In the course 
of some 11 questions that I asked Mr. Biever, I asked some questions 
about whether he was carrying firearms, and he said that the only 
gun he carried was a tear gas gmi, and he said that imder oath. 

He also said, under oath, that these people with whom he was walk- 
ing that night, one of them fired a shot at his request but that he shot 
into a railroad bank, where none of those shots could hit. I thought 
we ought to have that much of the sworn testimony recalled at that 
point. 

Senator ER^^N. I believe, Mr. Conger, you stated that while you 
^ere not with Mr. Biever all of the time on that particular day, that 
the times you saw him, the only weapon he had was a gas gun, or a 
tear gas gun ? 

Mr. Conger. No. As a matter of fact, I never saw Biever at all 
that evening. I may have seen him out the window in the afternoon 
of the day, during the time when it was daylight. I don't remember 
that I did, but that is possible. But I did not see Mr. Biever at all 
that evening. 

Senator Ervin. I didn't know whether I understood, or whether 
it was referred to that particular day, but did I understand you to 
say that the only time you ever saw Mr. Biever armed with anything 
was a gas gun ? 

Mr. Conger. No, I was summarizing his testimony on that. 

Senator Ervin. Excuse me, then. 

IMr. Conger. I was not stating that of my own knowledge. I was 
stating what he had said in this committee room. 

The Chairman. Are there any further questions of this witness? 

Mr. Conger. I have a couple of other things I would like to add, 
if I may, Senator. 

The Chairman. You may, if it relates to the present subject matter. 

Mr. Conger. It relates to this. I have to rely a little on my meni- 
ory on this, but if my memory serves me correctly, Mr. John Deis 
was one of the plaintiffs in the suit brought against the Kohler Co. 
and Mr. Biever, and I think the record will show that he was. 



9624 IMPROPER ACXrV'ITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

I tliink, also, liis testimonj' Jippeai-s in the coroner's inquest and it 
is a little strange to me that if Lj^man Conger was one of the ones 
that shot him that night or participated in it^ Lyman Conger wasn't 
joined as a defendant in that action, and still stranger that it was 
dropped as soon as it was forced to trial. 

I also believe, and again this is in the possession of the committee, 
I believe Mr. Deis testified at the coroner's inquest, and as I recall, 
I don't think his testimony is anything like this affidavit here. 

I also want to make the statement that in this courtroom there is a 
witness, or in this hearing room, who can testify and corroborate my 
testimony that I was not out of the plant that evening. 

I suggest that perhaps he might be called. Then I would like to 
make one general statement on this whole thing: I think the 1934 
strike and those acts have absolutely nothing to do with the 1954 
strike, or any issue that is before this committee. 

I just can't understand this theory that we say, "Well, we thought 
so and so was trigger happy, so we took a mob up on to his lawn 
because we were afraid of being shot." 

I think if I thought my neighbor was trigger happy, and I want 
on to his lawn or near his premises, I would be pretty circumspect to 
see that my conduct justified and was completely in accordance with 
the law so that I wouldn't give him any excuse for teeing off on me. 

I would suggest that Mr. Chase be called to corroborate my testi- 
mony, and I would ask that Mr. Runge be called, and I will aiTange 
for that myself. I will see if he can be gotten here. 

The Chairman. We will set aside an hour some day to finish this 
up. We will get the witnesses lined up, and I don't think it is im- 
portant, and I don't think it is very relevant or pertinent to what this 
committee is trying to do now. 

But a charge has been made here and someone is not telling the 
truth to the committee as the record stands now. You have nothing 
but an affidavit here that I have not admitted as evidence, but I think 
the committee should consider how it would pursue this matter, and 
I don't want to spend all morning here with just part of the witnesses 
present. 

If we are going into it, let us set a time and get the witnesses here 
and actually thresh it out. 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Chairman, this is certainly not in criticism of 
what the Chair has stated, but I want to make the record very clear 
that I think when we are as liberal with witnesses as we are and let 
them relate what they want to relate and bring in affidavits, certainly 
they are taking advantage of the committee when they bring in by 
an affidavit where the affiant says, "I think," instead of what he knows 
but makes a public charge at a time that these hearings are being 
televised with tlie knowledge and consent of the committee. 

He makes a charge that implies that two men who have appeared 
before this committee shot him. Now, I just believe that that is 
taking advantage of the committee to resort to that sort of a pub- 
licity stunt. 

I think that if they believe those facts are true, that Mr. Deis 
should be here in the first instance. 

Senator Ervin. Mr. Chairman, I would like to say I agree with 
Senator Curtis on Mr. Deis, and I think we ought to bring him before 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 9625 

the committee as a witness so we can see him and observe his de- 
meanor, because I do think it is a serious thing to make a charge of 
this nature. 

The Chairman. Gentlemen, the Chair cannot produce Mr. Deis 
this morning. That is why 1 have indicated I would like to set a 
time and get them all here and thresh it out. 

Senator Goldwater. Mr. Chairman, I agree with the chairman, 
that we cannot do it this morning. I also agree that he is right in 
suggesting that it be done at some future date. 

But I can't quite agree that this is not an important thing. Mr. 
Chairman, this has been a pattern all through these hearings, the fact 
that we have not heard the whole truth, and we have not heard the 
facts. 

Just yesterday, as we were about to conclude the hearings on these 
particular acts of violence, we heard from a staff member that there 
were minutes in the records of local 212 to the effect that Mazey, 
Ferrazza, and Fiore were authorized to go over there, and yet those 
witnesses sat here on the witness stand day after day after day and 
told us that they didn't know why they were sent over there, and that 
they were just sent there. 

I think it is time that we decide how truthful these people are in 
coming before us. I think it behooves the dignity of the Senate to 
require a little more adherence to the sworn truth. I think it is time 
that we found out who is telling it. 

The Chairman. Well, I think. Senator, from my experience in the 
practice of law, that each Senator, and each juror, and each judge 
has to come to his own decision as to what the truth is, or the truth 
is not. 

I am trying to give both sides here the opportunity, as best I know 
how, to present whatever evidence there is pertinent or relevant or 
that the committee may be interested in. 

I am Sony that we can't conclude this matter today. If the wit- 
nesses were here, I would proceed accordingly, but we can't, and I 
will be glad to consult with the committee with respect to further 
procedure on this issue. 

When the Chair said it wasn't important, I do not mean that the 
shooting of individuals is unimportant or that the charge of having 
committed a crime is unimportant in that sense. But in trying to 
find out what improper practices prevailed in labor management 
relations today, this would seem a little bit remote unless it can be 
established as a part of a pattern that has prevailed for many years. 

In that respect, it would have some weight or some probative force 
in any proper decision I think the committee might reach with respect 
to remedial legislation. 

All right, is there anything further? 

Thank you very much. 

The other witness, Mr. Brierather, will you take the stand again, 
please, and resume. 



9626 IMPROPKIl ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 

TESTIMONY OF LEO J. BRIERATHER, ACCOMPANIED BY HIS 
COUNSEL, JOSEPH L. RAUH, JR.— Resumed 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Chairman, I have a question. 

Mr. Brierather, you are a member of the local 833 strike committee, 
are you not ? 

Mr, Brierather. Yes, sir. 

Senator CuRiis. You were chief steward of 833 ? 

Mr. Brierather. One of them, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Also you were editor of the daily strike bulletin ? 

Mr. Brierather. At one time, sir. 

Senator Curtis. How long a time were you editor ? 

Mr. Brierather. Maybe a little over a year, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Excuse me, does he have something more he want6 
to say? 

The Chairman. He hasn't concluded his statement, and I don't 
know whether the Senator wanted to permit him to or not. 

Now, the Chair is going to ask you to start after the 1934 strike, 
and now let us not get back to that and get bogged down, and you 
talk about conditions in the plant since then. 

You have been in the plant since November of 1934, and you start 
from November of 1934, and tell about conditions that you think are 
important for this committee to know about, that you know of your 
firsthand knowledge from working in the plant. 

Mr. BRiERiVTHER. Yes, sir. When I began working at the Kohler 
Co., I joined the KWA. The KWA was formed by the Kohler Co. 
and the president of the Kohler Co. formed the union and called the 
first meetings and handed over the constitution, and I would like to 
present to you, again, an affidavit by John Stieber, telling the entire 
story. 

The Chairmax. It may be filed for the committee's examination. 

Did I understand you to say that the company organized the KWA ? 

Mr. Brierather. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. I thought I understood you. All right, go aliead. 

Mr. Brierai-her. The first nominees for the first president were 
three foremen, sir, and at that time someone told in a meeting that it 
probably wouldn't be right and so they held another nomination, and 
John Stieber was named the first temporary chairman, and he was 
afforded office space within the Kohler plant for the purpose of organ- 
izing the plant, and also for the purpose of obtaining enough signa- 
tures to appeal for an election by the NLRB, or the agency which 
conducted those elections at that time. 

I joined the KWA but I was unable to get any service from them. 

Mr. Conger. Mr. Chairman, may I be heard ? We have another 
charge on hearsay charging an illegal act of the Kohler Co. We have 
a witness testifying entirely by hearsay, and I think it is an abuse of 
this committee to try to present that sort of evidence to them. 

If Mr. Steiber knows about this, he ought to api)ear here and be 
sworn, and testify under oath. As to some of the things in this affi- 
davit, I will appear and deny under oath. 

The Chairman. Well, the Chair has not admitted the affidavit. 
This witness is testifying now as to facts within his knowledge sinc« 
the strike of 1934 and since he was employed in the plant. 



IMPROPEIR ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIEL.D 9627 

I haven't read the affidavit, and I haven't admitted it into evidence, 
and as we go along the Chair will give both sides, if the committee 
sustains him, an opportunity to refute any derogatory testimony. 

Mr. Conger. The Chair's rulings so far m my opinion have been 
perfectly proper and correct, but I think by this stage we all realize 
that this sort of testimony is not being directed at this committee but 
at the television and the newspapers, and it is a publicity gag and that 
is all it is. 

The Chairman. Well, that may be your opinion, and the Chair 
is not going to permit anything just for that purpose. I can assure 
you of that. 

I don't think that the committee would permit it just for that pur- 
pose. The fact that the newspapers and the cameras are here is also 
a tradition that we will continue to observe. They are welcome. 

We all make little speeches sometimes, and I guess we think maybe 
someone is listening to us, both here and on the air, and sometimes 
we hope the pre^s might take notice of what we say and make some 
reference to it. 

But let us all do our best to get down to business here and move 
along. 

Will you proceed, Mr. Witness ? 

Mr. Brierather. During the time that I worked in the foundry, 
the Kohler Co. granted a so-called across-the-board wage increase. 
At the time these were granted, I was passed up, and all of the people 
in my department were passed up in the wage increase, because they 
thought we were making too much money. 

We tried to get some action from the KWA, and I was personally 
told by Karl Susz, who was at the time supposed to be representing 
my department, that it was not his job to fight for the workei-s, and 
his job was as the operator of a sand muller in the foundry, and there- 
fore he could do little or nothing for us. 

The Chairman. The effect of your testimony on that point is that 
tliis KIVA was definitely a company union or a company organization?^ 

Mr. Brierather. That is right. 

The Chairman. All right, and now proceed. 

Mr. Brierather. There was no attempt made to find out whether 
we were actually earning enough or how we were working, and I 
would like to cite my own case in this particular instance. 

The job that I had was supposed to be one of the easier ones in the 
plant, and they called it "playing in the sand." My normal weight 
at the time when I started working at the Kohler Co., and still is 
about 142 pounds. 

During the time that I worked in there, my weight was 128 pounds, 
and during the hot season in the summer, I would go down to 118 
by Friday night, and I would gain the 10 pounds over the 2-day 
weekend. 

Now, I am sure that can tell better than any way else at what speed 
we had to work to earn the money, and we thought we had a justified 
claim but were unable to get anything. 

This was not only true in my department but in many other ways 
within the plant. Working conditions were never ideal. Whenever 
the KWA appeared to be able to do something for the workers, the 
company did something in order to make the KWA ineffective. 



9628 LMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 

At one time tlie KAVA had a safety comniittee, which was supposed 
to operate in conjunction with tlie Kolder Co.'s safety committer, and 
make some recommen(hitions to see tluit something couhl be done. 

When it ap])eai-ed tluit it could be efiWtive, its actions were re- 
stricted, and particuhirly at the time Avhen Edmund Biever became a 
plant manajrer. 

I would like to submit to you an affidavit by Arthur Bauer, who 
has had considerable experience along those lines, and the affidavit 
tells about 

Senator Mundt. Is Mr. Bauer living today ? 

IMr. Brieratiier. lie is living, sir. 

Senator Muxdt. Why don't we have these people come in as wit- 
nesses, and I can't understand this long series of affidavits suddenly. 

Mr. Rauh, maybe you can explain there is some reason why he can't 
come. 

Mr. Eauh. He can. Let me explain as I don't think you were in 
the room when I said this this morning, I went to Robert Kennedy, 
chief counsel, about 2 weeks ago, and I said, "May we have a day when 
we would present some of these instances and put on a lot of witnesses, 
about 20 or so, to tell about these instances ?" 

Mr. Kennedy said, "It is the committee's desire to speed things up. 
Isn't there some quicker way you can do this ?" 

And he said, "Isn't there one of your witnesses who will be here who 
could speed it up this way?" And I said, "I want to cooperate with 
the committee, and I would like to speed it up." 

I had thought this was being helpful. Now if the committee would 
rather have it the other way, my original proposal was the other way. 
You may be right, and I have no argument with anybody here. I was 
trying to speed this thing up. I am sorry if it has not had that effect. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could I make a statement there? I thought that 
some of these points might have been of some interest; however, I 
did not think that they were of overriding interest, where they were 
just supporting a general point of view. 

And I thought it was expensive and time-wasting to have a lot of 
witnesses on the 1934 strike, and a lot of witnesses to cover the situation 
in the plant from 1934 to 1954. 

For that I must take the responsibilty. I did not know exactly what 
was going to be in the affidavits, but I understood this witness could 
testify generally as to what the conditions were and would some sup- 
port from other statements from other people. 

Certainly tliese things are being submitted to the committee for their 
determination ; and where he says that his testimony is hearsay, it is 
being taken on that basis. 

Senator Mundt. I am sure the counsel did not have any idea of what 
was in the affidavits and did not know one of them was going to accuse 
somebody of being shot, and probably did not know that the affidavits 
are in direct conflict with sworn testimony we have had from witnesses 
before the committee. 

Since it is quite apparent that this whole hearing is going to have 
to be sent to the Department of Justice for what appears to be perjury 
on the part of somebody or other, and I am not saying who it is because 
I don't know, but we have had some flagrant conflicts over and over 
again, and now we are having one. 



IIVIPROPEK ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 9629 

The testimony yesterday was that this was not a company- dominated 
union, and that the NLRB said that they held an election to determine 
whether it was or not, and they had an election. Now I don't know 
where the facts are, but it seems to me that on something as important 
as this, my only suggestion is that we have witnesses on one side and 
I don't like to have just a collection of papers on the other side. 

If it is important to take up at all, I think it is important to take up 
properly. 

The Chairman. May the Chair say then, I am permitting these 
affidavits simply to be filed with the committee for the committee's 
information. I am not accepting them as exhibits nor as testimony. 
I thought it was better procedure to let them simply be filed and let 
the committee evaluate them, and then determine what should be done 
with them, and in such evaluation they might determine which of the 
affiants they would like to have here personally as witnesses. 

I am trying to proceed. 

Senator Mundt. That is perfectly proper up to that point, but then 
if the witness, after submitting the affidavit, and we take it for future 
consultation and determination, then proceeds to talk about what is in 
it, it seems to me that by indirection he achieves the same purpose that 
the Chair is trying to prevent him from doing directly. 

Senator Curtis. He read substantial parts of it. 

The Chairman. He read excerpts from it, and that is what we have 
been permitting all of the way through. It is not direct testimony 
and we let in a lot of hearsay testimony. I suggest that you simply 
do this and let me see if we can straighten it out this way : You simply 
file here now at this moment all of the affidavits you have for the com- 
mittee's information, and thereafter testify just from your own 
statement. 

If you want to you can say in the course of it, without reading it, 
you have filed an affidavit that would support your testimony. 

We will get that much of it in. These affidavits are simply being 
filed for the information and future disposition of the committee, in 
its discretion. 

Do I have all of the affidavits now that you wish to file ? 

Mr. Rauh. I believe so. We have just handed up another batch. 
I would like to say this, if I may, that this concern by Senator Mundt 
and Senator Curtis about our affidavits is rather strange. They have 
not only allowed Kohler to put in about 800 affidavits, but they have 
themselves used editorials and letters and it just seems to me some- 
what strange now that we should be prevented from putting in sworn 
affidavits in view of the things that have happened today. 

However, we accept your ruling, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Curtis. We have not objected to any affidavits that you 
want to put in. I have not objected to anything going into this hear- 
ing since I have been a member of this committee. I have had my 
own challenged a time or two, but I pointed out the substance that I 
objected to in this proceeding. 

Mr. Kennedy. I would like to say again that I feel the position 
Senator Ervin has taken during the past year on affidavits is the cor- 
rect one. I understood, and I have not looked over these affidavits as 
yet, that this witness was going to testify as to certain facts, and that 
these affidavits were being brought in, in support of his testimony. 



9630 IMPROPER ACTR-ITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 

For that reason I thought tliey at least should be submitted to the 
committee for its hel^ or assistance. 

Mr. Rauh. I conhrm that, and I also would like to say that Mr. 
Kennedy did not know about the substance of Deis' affidavit, and if 
there was anything wrong about it, it is our fault and he is not at 
fault in any way. 

The CiiAiRMAX. Now, can you proceed and testify from your own 
knowledge from November of 1934? The affidavits will remain on 
file, and the committee can confer about them, and we can determine 
what disposition to make. 

If the committee majority feels they should be made exhibits, they 
will be, and if the majority feels that the witnesses should be called, 
they will be called. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. BRIE11.VTIIER. Silicosis was one of the problems within the 
Kohler plant. The KWA, while recognizing the problem, never 
undertook any kind of activity to try and obtain any remedy for the 
situation because it felt that they never had any kind of power. 

The people or the representatives would shy awny from any com- 
plaints on the part of the men. The workers in turn then felt it was 
simply no use to file any kind of a grievance and, certainly, it seemed 
to them and it seemed to me that the union leaders were just merely 
company stooges and that you could not get them to consider your 
problem. 

Men complained many times of hazards within the plant. For 
instance, in the north foundry, after I had become a steward or a 
KWA representative in 1951 after the first UAW election, that was 
at the time that I became interested in representing the people and 
trying to take an active part in the union, I took this part, not on 
behalf of the UAW but for the KWA. 

I was thorouglily convinced that if we could put the same type of 
efforts in an independent union and the same type of dues and money 
and back up the leadership with the Kohler Co., and the Kohler Co. 
supervisors referred to it as "sticking their necks out," I felt that we 
could do a job. 

During this time that I became a representative of the workers in 
my area, I found out many things which astounded me and which I 
had no knowledge of before. 

For instance, there were many safety hazards in the north foundry 
and most lifting mechanisms were suspended off the ceiling and, when 
the foundry was in operation, it seemed like the entire foundry was 
moving. 

The Chairman. I wonder where you would suspend it from if it 
was not suspended from up high ? 

Mr. Brieratiier. Well, the idea was that it was not placed up there 
adequately and the people on the bottom w^ere fearful because, nat- 
urally, if you were to work underneath 

The Chairman, What you mean is that it was not made adequately 
secure and I think with hoisting machinery you have to have some- 
thing up high to get it hoisted. 

Mr. Brier.\ther. That is correct. 

The Chairman. All right. 



IMPROPEIR ACTIVITiBS IN THE LABOR FlfeLD 9631 

Mr. Brierather. But whenever complaints were made the manage- 
ment or Mr. Biever minimized this whole deal and he said, "Well, 
this is O. K. We have approved it and it is all right." 

However, a hoist fell off the track, a large hoist, and fortunately 
nobody was injured ; and hand coppers came off the ceiling, and for- 
tunately nobody was injured. However, a wheel came off a hoist and 
killed a man, Mr. Donald Nickerson, in June of 1951. 

In another instance on our floor called Sand-handling 3, the men 
complained bitterly about the working conditions, that they did not 
have enough room to work and they were presenting hazards to each 
other merely by working and the machinery was crammed so closely 
together. 

The Chairman. Now, you proceed and try to expedite this as much 
as you can. Just take it point by point. In tlie first place, it was a 
company-dominated union; and the next point was that you had no 
recourse from the standpoint of grievances and they would not pay 
any attention to that, and then move along from point to point and let 
us try to expedite it. 

Mr. Brierather. Well, on this particular floor, one of the men 
complained to the supervisor of the foundry and they were told, "If 
you don't like it, you know what you can do." 

He would not recognize the problem and it was not until two men 
broke their legs on the floor that any recognition was given to the 
problem and anything was done about it. 

One man stuck his foot in between a roller conveyor designed to 
move heavy flasks down to the casing area and, while doing so, some- 
body pushed the mechanism which was designed to push it down and 
he had his leg crushed between the flask and his pushing mechanism. 

The supervisor of the night shift, Mr. Theibald, in an attempt to 
extricate this man, stuck his leg into a similar situation and had the 
same thing happen to him and it was then that we first received ac- 
knowledgement from the company in regard to the problem. 

Now, we have been accused of many things, of fomenting or trying 
to get people excited in that plant, that we were responsible for the 
strike, that we were a bunch of liars and agitators and so forth. And 
I would like to point out that the problems within the plant had more 
to do with that then we did and, in fact, the Kohler Co. was the best 
• organizer that you would want in those terms. We could not equal 
that if we wanted to. 

The union at one time tried to get help from the industrial com- 
mission and registered some complaints with the Wisconsin Industrial 
' Commission in order to take care of the hazards. However, when the 
examiner came around, the company refused to allow our representa- 
tives to accompany the person so we could show him exactly what was 
going on. The company would not allow it and they said, "Well, 
we will show him," and then they conducted him on a guided tour 
through the plant and we rarely every heard of what happened and 
how the deal came out. 

Certainly this did not satisfy the people in the plant. It was one 
of the determining factors of why they voted for a stronger union 
and eventually to strike. 

In the enamel shop there was a good instance and we liad quite a 
bit of testimony here on that yesterday. However, people out there 



9632 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 

were convinced tliat the 12 <ruys fired by tlie company were not fired 
for insulxirdination and it was because they were active in tlie union 
activity and this was merely an excuse on the part of tlie company for 
firinoj them. 

The enamel shop was particularly active in union organization over 
there and they felt that they became the whipping post and the Kohler 
Co. was trying to punish them for trying to stand uj) on their own feet. 
This was anotlier serious problem in the minds of the men and it con- 
tributed greatly towards the affiliation with the UAW, for the strike 
votes that they had taken and, subsequently, for the strike. 

The Kohler Co. must bear responsibility for the strike. Certainly, 
I, as a leader among the guys out there, never wanted to strike and 
I would much sooner try to work out our problems as other plants do 
through a decent collective bargaining contract. 

This was the so-called labor peace that the Kohler Co. won for 20 
years and it seemed to be in danger and that is why it became more 
interested in trying to subdue the people once more. This was not a 
peace that was based on friendship by any means and it was based 
on fear. 

The people w^ere simply fearful of acting concertedly and trying to 
take care of their problems because they remembered what happened 
before and they certainly did not want a strike. They only took a 
strike because they were finally forced to strike and, once for all, they 
had to determine a method of trying to gain what they thought was 
theirs. Certainly they did not want to be treated like dogs any longer. 

It is the same thing. You can whip a dog into submission but you 
whip him long enough and he is going to turn around and bite and 
this is similar to what happened out there. 

The KWA had a reconstruction period and the former leadership 
or Clyde Roop, who became a company supervisor, when he stepped 
out as the chairman of the KWA, was replaced by Chris Sittel of the 
foundry. 

Over in pottery, for instance. Speedy Supeto became a foreman 
supervisor and he was replaced by Allen Grasskamp. In many other 
places throughout the plant there was a change of leadership for 
people that finally wanted to do something for the workers and they 
accepted these positions of responsibility. 

They could not get anywhere either but these people in turn were 
not afraid to come back to the workers and tell them how they were 
making out. They did not want to be in a position of going up to 
top management or to the superintendent and getting into a terrific 
battle there and coming out much the worst for wear and then again 
coming back to the men and again getting a kick in the rear. 

They were pretty sick of this and they began to report just what 
was going on. 

(At this point, the following members were present: Senators 
McClellan, Ervin, Mundt, Curtis.) 

As a result, the workers themselves had to decide once and for all 
whether they were going to act as individuals and betray each other 
and to inform on one another, in order so that they could better their 
own position. They found out that this didn't w^ork and they decided 
once and for all that they had to stick togetlier. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 9633 

This was the result of the KWA affiliation, and the subsequent vote 
to get into an international union. We have heard quite a bit about 
the UAW-CIO only won by some 52 percent, but I would like to point 
out that the people in there voted for an international union, that 
many of the votes went over to the UAW-A. F. of L., that they were 
sick of an independent union, that they voted for an international 
union. 

In 1950, the KTVVi^ under its new leadership, received its last con- 
tract but was unable to negotiate another one, because for the first 
time they were asking for benefits and privileges, and what they 
thought was right according to what the workers in the plants of 
their competitors and elsewhere were getting. 

They were unable to reach another agreement. In 1951, as I stated 
before, the UAW lost its first election. That was only because the 
workers in the plant felt that they ought to get one more try and try 
to reorganize their organization and see if something could be done. 
But it certainly was proven otherwise. The union was still unable 
to function. The company made it harder for them to function. 
Where before the union representatives were afforded space in the 
offices, drawer space, to keep their records, the space was taken away 
from them. Even the financial resources of the independent union 
were in the form of candy and coke machines within the plant. 

The company took that away from them in order to weaken it. 
This represented a real challenge to the people, too. They were won- 
dering just what was going on. Here we were for the first time trying 
to get something that we felt we were entitled to, and the Kohler Co. 
was turning around and instead of bargaining and granting some of 
them, they were turning around to punish them. 

In 1952 the KWA affiliated and the UAW won a subsequent elec- 
tion. Another independent organization was formed, similar to the 
one that was in 1934, and that certainly brought some memories back 
to many of the people. In fact, from that period on, we have spent 
the majority of the time in the courts, and this has been a real prob- 
lem and a source of — well, people certainly took exception to this: 
that the Kohler Co., and particularly Lyman Conger, who is an at- 
torney, would put his feet underneath the bargaining table and yet 
had his head up in the courts. In other words, for that period on 
there, it took us a great deal of money, something that the Kohler 
workers could never have afforded alone, in order to fight all of the 
various litigations, including the one that the so-called independent 
union began. 

With the new organization, we attempted to set up a far more dem- 
ocratic organization than we ever had before. We felt that if the 
workers in the plant wanted to have leadership there had to be a re- 
lationship between that leadership and the workers in the plant. In 
other words, they would determine what they wanted once and for 
all, and they would have to be prepared to back up anything that they 
did want. It was not a case of sending someone in who was kind 
enough or maybe even stupid enough to accept a position of respon- 
sibility, and expect him to stick their neck out, and once it is chopped 
off to wash their hands entirely of the responsibility. 

As a result, we organized committees in order to get people inter- 
ested in participating in the local union. We had 8 months of nego- 



9634 LVIPROPER ACTTV'ITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 

tiatioiis before we obtained our first contract. We thought at the 
time that the first contract could at least spell some relief from the 
problems that were in tlie plant. 

Wo certainly said so, because we thought tliat we had something. 
But from the very beginning, the grievances started to pile up. We 
found out that the Kohler Co.'s interpretation of that contract wtis 
very much ditl'erent than tlie way we had interpreted it, and, as a 
result, we couldn't settle any grievances. 

Subsequently, the international union sent in an international rep- 
resentative, Kobert Burkhart, to aid us with it, because we were no 
match for Lyman Conger and his legal mind. AVe never were and we 
never pretend that we could be. This is one of the reasons why we 
affiliated with the IJAW, so that a guy could sit across from the 
bargaining table and have some chance of getting through to him. 

The piled up grievances certainly had their eti'ect within the Kohler 
plant. We still had to find out some way to figure out how to take 
care of the problems presented by the workers. As a result, we estab- 
lished a contract committee, which was formed of all of the chief 
stewards, and I was a member of that contract committee, and we 
held many, many meetings, departmental meetings, and larger group 
meetings, and we heard all the problems, all of the complaints in 
the plant, and then we obtained contracts which were found in plants 
of the competitors and elsewhere, from other unions, and we tried 
to formulate contract language which could possibly take care of 
this problem. 

Before we presented the final contract proposal, we submitted it 
again to the membership, and let them pass on it once more to be 
absolutely sure that this was not our demands, but that these were the 
demands and the proposals of the actual membership. 

This proposal was presented to the Kohler Co. and the Kohler Co. 
termed this proposal as "over 100 sensational demands." It might 
have been sensational to the Kohler Co., but eveiy one of these de- 
mands certainly reflected some guy's problem witliin the shop, and 
they didn't seem sensational to us at all because we had at no place 
exceeded the conti'act language which we had found in some of the 
others. Meanwhile, within the plant, tilings were getting from bad 
to worse. The Kohler Co. had a surveillance program going of any 
kind of union activity. I was informed by my foreman at one time 
that he had to record if I left the floor, or what I was doin^. At one 
time he even gave me a so-called good conduct pass. He said, "Well, 
we have been watching you for a long time, and I have orders now 
that you can go anywhere you please," inasmuch as to say that they 
would trust me. This was not true with some of the otliere. The 
other stewards and I'epresentatives of the workers many times would 
step up to a worker and it didn't take a minute before he was tapped 
on the shoulder by a foreman or supervisor who said, "Hey, don't 
inteiTupt production." 

Tliis was in contrast to many years of so-called freedom of the plant 
before, when the union was ineft'ective. Some of the demands that we 
made upon the Kohler Co. were a substantial increase in wages, espe- 
cially in 1954:. We felt that we were still far behind what they were 
paying in the plants of the competitors, and we didn't think that the 
proposal of 10 cents an hour for all employees and 20 cents an hour 
for skilled trades employees was at all unreasonable. 



lAIPROPEiR ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 9635 

We asked for arbitration of the grievances. We had what we 
thought was an arbitration, a good clause, in the 1953 contract, but 
we found out that our interpretation and the company's were not 
always the same. As a result, there is even pending now a suit for 
a declaratory judgment to find out exactly what that arbitration 
proposal means. 

However, we wanted to have a method, some machinery, in order 
so we could take care of some problems which you couldn't resolve, 
which you couldn't finally agree on, have some third party take a 
position on it, and it would be binding on the parties, and you would 
have the problem out of the way. 

It wouldn't be a constant source of infection within the plant. Peo- 
ple will accept the decision of someone. If they are wrong, they are 
wrong, and if they are right — well, they have won. But you have 
to put a probleiji out of the wjiy so it is out of the way for all time. 
That is what we were trying to obtain. In the enamel shop, even 
though the first contract was signed and it was agreed upon to let 
the company get away with putting the work hours to an 8-hour day 
from a 6-hour day, which had been a longstanding procedure, we 
merely turned down these demands to a paid lunch period, which cer- 
tainly was reasonable in light of what the company had taken away 
from them. The company said, "Well, we never gave anything." 

Well, we certainly gave away a heck of a lot in that particular 
plant. The enamel workers were not happy with it. We had to do 
some selling in order to get the demands down to this. It wasn't easy 
to bargain with Conger 

The Chairman. May the Chair interrupt? How long before you 
think you can conclude with your general statement ? 

Mr. Brierather. Another 10 minutes, sir. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel. ) 

The Chairman. All right. Proceed for 10 minutes. Go ahead. 

Mr. Brierather. It wasn't easy to bargain with Conger at any 
time. He would ridicule our proposals, he was rude, snarling, and 
vulgar. I would like to call your attention, if you have it before you, 
to an affidavit by Mr. Kohlhagen and Mr. Graskamp, who were mem- 
bers of the bargaining committee. 

This affidavit was signed on March 17, 1958. Have you got that, 
sir? 

Mr. Kennedy. Is that the affidavit that was furnished about 3 or 
4 days ago ? 

Mr. Rauh. Yes. 

(The document was handed to the committee.) 

Mr. Brierather. One of the demands was for a maternity leave 
of absence for the women employees. We had a real stout grievance 
in the 1953 contract by a woman by the name of Marie Voelker, who 
worked until 2 days before her confinement, and when she returned, 
she was refused her job. We wanted to get something to have ma- 
ternity cases 

The Chairman. The Chair will announce that this affidavit will 
be placed with the others, filed with the others, for the connnittee's 
attention. Go ahead. 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Chairman? 

The Chairman. Senator Curtis. 

21243 — 58— pt. 24 11 



9636 LMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Curtis. This case that you are talking about, were there 
any NLTIB charges filed ? 

Mr. Brieratiier. No, sir. 

Senator CntTis. AVere there charges filed on any of these others? 

Mr. Brieratiier. In what respect, sir ? 

Senator Curtis. You have conii)lained about the treatment of the 
company. I wondered in how many of these instances charges were 
filed before the NLIIB, these specific ones that you have testified 
about. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Brieratiier. Well, as I understand it, the problems such as I 
related them were not things that could be filed before the NLRB. 
These were matters of collective bargaining, sir. 

Senator Curtis. I was referring to the treatment of individual 
workers. You spoke of this maternity case, and she was hired. Wliat 
was the lady's name? 

Mr. Brier.\tiier. Marie Voelker. 

Senator Curtis. Was her case sent to the NLRB ? 

Mr. Brieratiier. I beg your pardon, sir ? 

Senator Curtis. Was there a complaint filed before the NLRB in 
her case ? 

Mr. Brieratiier. No, sir. As I understand it 

Senator Ervin. I don't believe the Taft-Hartley la^y would cover 
that kind of a case unless you have a contract to cover it. 

Mr. Rauh. I think Judge Ervin is correct on that. The complaint 
here was that a lady had worked up to 2 days of giving birth. They 
wouldn't give her her job back after she gave birtli. They tried to 
send this to arbitration. The company refuses. That, I don't be- 
lieve, is an unfair labor practice. It is a question of a determination 
of the arbitration clause. That is now in the courts. I think Judge 
Ervin is quite right. 

The Chairman. In other words, the union contended that it should 
come within the arbitration clause of the contract ? 

Mr. Rauh. All of these things. I can't speak about a particular 
one, sir. But generally we are always doing that. The company 
would say "Tliey don't fall within it, that doesn't make an unfair 
labor practice." 

The CiiAiRMAX. In other words, the great controversy was with re- 
gard to what did come Avitliin tlie purview of arbitration and what 
did not? 

Mr. Rauh. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. The company placed one interpretation on the con- 
tract clause and the union placed another. 

Mr. Rauh. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. That they were never able to resolve. 

Mr. Raub. It is not resolved. It is in the courts at this particular 
moment, still. 

The Chairman. All right. Proceed. 

Mr. Brieratiier. As I pointed out, it wasn't easy to negotiate any- 
thing with tlie Kohler Co. In this particular instance, or the nego- 
tiations which revolved around this ])articular clause, which we 
thought was certainly one tliat the people in tlie plant were deserving 
of, we considered that maternity was certainly a liumau element which 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 9637 

should be considered and should be considered the same way as any 
other siclvness and a leave of absence. 

I would like to quote from this affidavit of Allan Graskamp. How- 
ever, I will leave out some of it, because I wouldn't care to mention 
it particularly on TV. The affidavit says 

The Chairman. Is that the affidavit that you jSled here ? 

Mr. Brierather. Yes. 

The Chairman. Well, quote from it briefly. The Chair is going 
pretty far in that direction now. 

Mr. Brierather. "During a discussion of maternity leave" 

The Chairman. Just summarize whatever he may have said. 

Mr. Brierather. The affidavit says in effect that Conger said 

Women should learn to take care of themselves, and the trouble with most 
women around here is that they want their fun and blank at home and have 
their jobs, too. 

This was an attitude. 

The Chairman. Well, let's don't get into that. 

Mr. Brierather. This is the type of thing we were faced with. It 
wasn't easy to negotiate anything across the bargaining table as long 
as Mr. Conger was there. 

(At this point. Senator Gold water entered the hearing room.) 

The Chairman. I think I have read that affidavit. I think it goes 
a little far. 

Proceed. 

I think it can be said this way : The company took a position that if 
a woman got pregnant, that wasn't their responsibility, and after the 
baby came, they didn't have to hire her back. Isn't that the fact ? 

Mr. Brierather. That is correct. 

The Chairman. Let's say it that way, and move on. 

Mr. Brier^vther. The Kohler workers worked 5 weeks without a 
contract. We had proposed to extend the existing contract for a 
period of a month and maybe even longer for the purpose of good 
faith collective bargaining in an effort to settle the issues in dispute 
in a peaceful way. 

The company, in turn, offered to extend the contract for a period of 
1 year, which we knew we couldn't accept and sell to the membership. 
As an alternative, they gave us another proposal of taking the Kohler 
Co.'s proposal, which had deleted many of the things or benefits, I will 
say, of the 1953 contract, and offered us 3 cents in return. 

The company must have known that we couldn't sell this at any 
time to the membership with the type of pressure that they were put- 
ting on to the bargaining committee. 

They must have known that the workers themselves wanted the 
stuff or the different benefits and demands that we were working on, 
that we had in our proposal. The union voted to strike on March 14, 
and all this while, instead of negotiating in good faith, the people in 
the plant were aware of the fact that the company, instead of negoti- 
ating in good faith, were preparing for war. The display of putting 
cots into the plant and erecting shanties on the roof, the establishment 
of an arsenal — I was personally aware of Kohler Co. supervision 
holding pistol practice in the south foundry, shooting at silhouettes. 

This all didn't have the best effect upon the workers within the 
plant. This, more tlian anything else, reminded them of the 1934 



9638 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 

strike. Believe you me, we were afraid of this whole deal. You 
just don't want to <iet into a situation like that again. 

On the outside of the plant, we were aware of the village making 
substantial preparations, even as far back as 1952. There were new 
deputies, gun and tear gas practice, even with machineguns under 
the guise of civil defense. 

Some of our own people had joined this organization, figuring that 
they were joining civil defense. 

1 Mould like to call your attention to an affidavit of Lee Blandin, 
which you have in your possession, which tells the entire story of 
one man. 

The Chairmax, Has that affidavit been tiled ? 

Mr. Briekather. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. All right. Make reference to it. 

Mr. Breerathei?. In our opinion, and in the opinion of the workers, 
this was not law enforcement, but it was just another arm of the 
Kohler (]o. Special police were made up of company supervision and 
scabs, people that we knew were not with us. They were not acting 
as independent or neutral people, in law enforcement, no more than 
if the special police would have been our own strikers. 

That wouldn't have been neutral either. The Kohler Village is 
made up of members of supervision mostly. There are very few of 
the workers within the plant that live out there. 

The village officials are members of company supervision and from 
the office. So we certainly were fearful of anything. We remembered 
what the 1934 strike had produced, and we were fearful of doing 
anything that would produce the same results in 1954. 

One of the very interesting things that we had noted even after 
the strike began is if there was a court case in the Kolder Village, the 
squad car would go right into the Kohler plant and bring out the 
justice of the peace to sit on the case. Certainly that didn't give us 
much confidence in the type of justice you might be able to get. 

In another case we tried to get a jury trial out there, and the person 
that was ordered to form the jury was one of the guys that processed 
or headed up tlie IKAVA case, or the independent union case against us. 

He later turned out to be a scab. Certainly we weren't or couldn't 
have any confidence in that either. This is the story of the Kohler 
strike, sir. We have been charged with fomenting this thing. We 
have been charged with many things. But you have to understand tlie 
feelings of the men in the plant. There was a transition from a period 
where one guy didn't trust another within the plant. The foreman 
would try to keep the guys apart, try to inform on one another. 

They were fearful of eacli other. When tlie strike began, and they 
turned out en masse, on April 5, they not only proved to the Kohler 
Co. that the demands were the demands of the workers, but they were 
proving to themselves, sir, to themselves, tliat once tliey were going 
to stick together, that there will be no betrayal of each other. 

They remembered how the company obtained this 20 years of labor 
peace, and they were not going to put themselves in the position of 
doing this again. 

That labor peace was never based on friendsliip, by no stretch of the 
imagination, but by fear and a memory of 1934. 

The fear or the feeling against the Kohler (^o. can possibly be ex- 
pressed better in one way than I know of any other way, sir. I would 



lAIPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 9639 

like to show you something. I cannot offer you an exhibit. It is not 
mine to offer. I would like to show you an item I picked up during 
contacting many people, something that I Avas not aware of at any 
time before this time. 

The Chairman. What is it ? What is that ? 

Mr. Brierather. Sir, this is a shirt. 

The Chairman. How is is related to this ? 

Mr. Brierather. This is a shirt that might look like hundreds of 
thousands of other sliirts, with the exception it has three holes in it. 

The Chairman. It has what i 

Mr. Brierather. Three holes in it. Two in the arm, and one in the 
breast. This is the shirt, sir, that Lee Wakefield wore the night he 
was shot in 1934. 

The Chairman. Were you there ? 

Mr. Brierather. No, sir. 

The Chairman. Do you know anything about it ? 

Mr. Brierather. This is the shirt that was given to me by Margaret 
Wakefield, who was the sister of Lee Wakefield. I would like to point 
out just one thing. 

The Chairman. Let the Chair point out a little. I am not going 
to accept that shirt as an exhibit. If we are going to do that, we are 
going to run all over the country and bring everybody in here that 
had a little bruise or something. That isn't in my book, in my judg- 
ment — and I may be wrong, but the committee can overrule me on it — 
in my judgment, that hasn't any place in here. You say a fellow 
got shot, period. O. K. You didn't see him shot. Somebody gave 
you a shirt, and you want to bring it up here for us to receive. I 
am not going to receive it. 

Senator Curtis. Who did you say the man was who got shot? 

Mr. Brierather. Lee Wakefield. 

Senator Curtis. What was the date ? 

Mr. Brierather. July 27, IdM. 

Senator Curtis. This is, again, during the month that you were 
working on a farm 20 miles from there ? 

Mr. Brierather. That is correct, sir. 

Senator Curtis. I am not critical of you, Mr. Brierather, but I re- 
sent the way that others have engineered your testimony here in that 
you have to drag in all of these things in this manner. I am not 
going to object to your going on. I just don't believe it is being 
proper or fair with the committee. 

The Chairman. The Chair has tried to be as lenient as I think I 
could possibly be justified in doing. I am not trying to suppress 
anything that might be hel):)ful to this committee, or that might re- 
veal a fact that this committee should consider in the performance 
of its duty. 

But I just don't think that bringing in a shirt that some sister 
gave for this purpose — I just think that is carrying it a little too 
far. That is my conclusion about it. I want to be fair, but I 
don't think that adds anything to it. 

You can say people got shot. We have testimony here that so many 
were shot, and so many were injured, and a lot of them shot in the 
back. We have all of that testimony. The waving of a shirt out here 
with bullet holes in it is not very impressive to me. 



9640 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator ^Iundt. I think if the witness lias any personal observa- 
tions there as to who shot this man, that is one thing. But bringing 
in a shirt with some holes in it is a curious kind of testimony. I 
certainly support the Chair in his ruling. 

The CiTAiRMAx. I want to be as fair to one side as the other one, 
gentlemen, and I think I have a pretty open mind in this thing. All 
I want to do is get the truth and get the facts. But we have had the 
testimony that people have been shot in 1934, and we have had 
further testimony that nobody was shot in 1954, thank goodness for 
that. 

I think conditions may have improved some over that period of 20 
years. I only wish they would continue to improve until you get this 
matter settled. 

But that is a wish and a hope that I cannot actually control the 
destiny of. All right. Is there anything further before we recess ? 

You have concluded, have you ? 

Mr. Brieratiier. I am about to conclude, sir. 

The CiiAiRMAisr. I will give you the time to finish up. 

Mr. Brieratiier. I ,only wish to point out, sir, God knows how 
many other of these relics and remembrances are in Sheboygan. 

I have nothing else to prove by that. But we have been charged 
with trying to foment a campaign of hatred and fear. I would like 
to say that we had nothing to do with this type of stuff. 

The Chairman. Don't you think w^hen you go out and call people 
scabs and parade around their homes, picket their homes, that you are 
engendering and inciting a feeling of hatred and resentment? 

Mr. Brierather. Sir, we never incited anything, sir. 

The Chairman. You mean nothing like that happened ? 

Mr. Brierather. It did happen, sir, but I 

The Chairman. It did happen. Don't you think that is calculated 
to incite further resentment and feeling of hate and contempt among 
the people themselves, their neighbors and friends ? 

Mr. Brierather. I believe it is a direct result of the helpless feel- 
ing, sir. 

The Chairman. I am not talking about what it is the result of, but 
isn't it calculated to do the very thing that you say here should not 
be done? I have sat here and listened to testimony from witnesses, 
and referring to somebody wanting to go to work, they take the line 
and refer to him here in public, even, as a scab. I think if I wanted 
to work I would feel a little resentment to being called names like 
that. 

I don't think the blame is altogether on one side or the other, up to 
now in this hearing. 

ISIr. Brierather. I agree with you on that. Senator. I would like 
to point out that we certainly don't approve of those things. We de- 
plore them, sir. 

The Chairman. I hope you don't approve. Is there anything fur- 
ther before we recess ? 

The committee will stand in recess until 2 o'clock. 

May I ask Mr. Conger and Mr. Graskamp, if you can, to have your 
memorandums read at that time. 

(Whereupon, at 12 : 17 p. m. the committee recessed, to reconvene 
at 2 p. m. of the same day, with the following members present: 
Senators McClellan, Ervin, Goldwater, Mundt, and Curtis.) 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 9641 

AFTERNOON SESSION 

The Chairman. The committee will be in order. 
(Members of the committee present at the convening of the ses- 
sion were : Senators McClellan and Goldwater.) 

TESTIMONY OF ALLAN GRASKAMP AND LYMAN C. CONGER— 
Resumed 

The Chairman. Mr. Grasskamp and Mr. Conger will you come 
around, please ? 

Mr. Conger, this morning you submitted to the Chair a memoran- 
dum in conformity with the committee's request as of yesterday, re- 
garding the unresolved issues between the company and the union. 

Mr. Conger. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. I don't know whether you formally submitted it, 
but you handed me one, and are you prepared now to formally sub- 
mit to the committee the memorandum you prepared ? 

Mr. Conger. Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. All right, it may be submitted. Do you have extra 
copies ? 

Mr. Conger. I have some. 

The Chairman. If you have such copies for each member of the 
committee, I would like for them to have it, please. 

And Mr. Grasskamp, you have supplied the Chair with several 
copies here of the memorandum which you have submitted in response 
to the Chair's request. 

Mr. Grasskamp. I have the original here yet and I want to say at 
this time, Mr. Chairman, that I sincerely want to apologize and I am 
sorry that I didn't have it ready at 10 o'clock this morning, but in- 
advertently had left something out that I did not want to mislead 
the committee on, and therefore I wanted to include it and it wasn't 
ready at 10 o'clock. 

The Chairman. That is all right, and the committee has not been 
inconvenienced any by the delay. 

The Chair with the approval of the members of the committee, is 
going to order the two memorandums printed in the record at this 
point. 

Is there objection? 

Senator Curtis. Are there memorandums for both sides ? 

The Chairman, Both sides have filed their memorandums in com- 
pliance with the Chair's request of yesterday. Without objection, then, 
they will be printed in the record at this point. 

(Memorandum of unresolved issues prepared by Kohler Co. :) 

Reinstatement : The union has demanded that the company discharge or lay 
off present employees to make jobs available for returning strikers. 

The company is not willing to discharge or lay off present employees to create 
jobs for strikers who desire to return to work. Nor is it willing to reinstate 
strikers who have been guilty of serious or illegal conduct in connection with 
the strike. 

Under existing conditions, the company cannot guarantee when, if ever, jobs 
will become available for strikers who desire to return to work. 

Union fsecurity: The union's original demand was for a union shop which 
would have required every employee to join this union whether he desired to 
or not. On August 10, 1954, they changed this demand to maintenance of mem- 
bership. 



9642 IMPKOPLK ACTIVITIES I.\ THE LABOR FIELD 

In the latter sta.nes of the bargaining, the union has taken inconsistent posi- 
tions, announcing publicly that they had dropped their union security demands 
while still arguing for them at the bargaining sessions. 

nie NLUB trial examiner, after hearing all the evidence, commented that 
whether the union had dropped its maintenance of membership demands was 
"left uncertain on the entire record." 

Seniority: During June of 1954 agreement was reached on this subject due to 
company (Concessions. 

Then the union raised a question of interpretation of a contract provision re- 
lating to layoffs which had been in the old c<mtract and which the union had 
previously accepted. This was despite the fact that there had been no layoff of 
any Kohler employee for 17 years. 

Insurance : The union demanded increased hospitalization benefits. The com- 
pany offered increased benefits which were acceptable to the union. 

The remaining issue was who should pay for the increased benefits. The com- 
pany offered to pay the entire increased cost of the benefits for employees. 

The union insisted that the company also pay the entire increased cost for 
dependents of employees as well as for the employees themselves. 

Wages : The union's original demand was for a general wage increase of 20 
cents per hour plus 10 cents per hour for so-called skilled workers. On August 
10, 1955, it changed this demand to 10 cents per hour general wage increase plus 
5 cents per hour for so-<'alled skilled workers. 

Prior to the strike tl;e company had offered a wage increase of 3 cents per 
hour. An additional 5 cents per hour for incentive workers and 10 cents per 
hour for hourly paid workers was offered in July of 1955. These increa.ses were 
put into effect after their rejection by the union. 

The company also put into effect a wage increase of 8 cents to 12 cents per 
hoxir January 1, 1957. 

We have no information as to the union's present wage demands. 

Pensions : The union demanded a noncontributory pension plan. The com- 
pany's pension plan is contributory, like social security, although the employee's 
contribution is less than under social security. 

The company offered to make the minimum pension benefits under its existing 
contributory pension plan equal to the maximum pension benefits under the 
union's proposed plan. 

This issue is still unresolved so far as we know. 

Arbitration : The union proposed practically unlimited arbitration which would 
have given a party having no knowledge of their business or responsibility for its 
succes.sful operation the authority to make vital management decisions affecting 
the welfare of the company. 

The company offered arbitration of the interpretation and application of the 
contract, i. e.. all the power that a court of law would have. 

Paid lunch time in the enamel shop : The union demanded a 4 percent increase 
in the piece rates in the enamel shop to provide pay for eating lunch. 

The company's position was tliat the union's deand was a thinly disguised 
demand for a 4 percent wage increase. The company offered two 10-minute 
lunch periods without pay. 

Major status: This strike was not a strike for recognition. At the outset 
and for a considerable time the company did not formally- challenge the union's 
majority status. 

However, as of February 10. 1955, after one of the several amendments to the 
NLRR complaint, the company amended its answer to deny that the UAW still 
represented a majority of its employees. This issue is still unresolved. 

The company is willing to enter into a contract with any union which rep- 
resents a majority of its employee.s. The company cannot lawfully deal with 
a minority union. 

This union has coerced and intimidated employees who have clearly indi- 
cated that they do not want to be represented by it and has subjected them to 
a vicious reign of terror. 

The company cannot in good conscience tell these employees that, resrarrlless 
of their desires, the company will enter into a contract which means thnt if in 
the future they desire a wage increase or the settlement of a grievance, they 
must deal exclusively through a union which they do not want. 



IMPROPEK ACTIVITIES IN JHE LABOR FIELD 9643 

Hon. John McClellan, 

Chairman, Senate Select Committee on Improper Activities in the Labor 
and Management Field, Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. 
Dear Senator : In keeping with your request made to me as president of local 
833 during the afternoon session, March 19, 1958, I am submitting a complete 
list of all of the remaining issues in dispute between the Kohler Co. and local 
833 of the UAW together with the union's position with respect to each of these 
unresolved issues. 

contract issues 

1. Final step of the grievance procedure Involving arbitration of grievances. 

2. Seniority (10 percent deviation on layoff). 

3. Lunch period in the enamel shop. 

The union has proposed to settle these remaining contract issues on the basis 
of the language contained in the contract between the Kohler Co. and the UAW 
dated February 23, 1953. 

This together with all other changes in contract lanuguage previously agreed 
upon and incorporated in the company's July 26, 1955, proposal and the wage 
standards and classifications presently in existence at the Kohler Co. plant 
would constitute the basis for a new contract between the parties. 

4. Pensions : The union has withdrawn its demand for noncontributory pen- 
sion plan and will agree to the present company contributory pension plan pro- 
vided that the company will meet the minimum benefit of $2.25 per year of 
service. Arrangements should be made to apply this minimum benefit to those 
workers who have already retired during the course of the strike. 

Arrangements should also be made to permit employees who have withdrawn 
their contribution to the existing pension plan during the course of the strike 
to reinstate themselves under the plan. 

5. Reinstatement of strikers and rescinding of discharges : The union has pro- 
posed to settle this entire matter on the basis of the findings of the trial ex- 
aminer of the NLRB dated October 9, 1957, as set forth in detail in the trial 
examiner's intermediary report. The company has refused this offer of the 
union and has appealed the entire trial examiner's report to the full Board, and, 
as a result, the union has appealed to the NLRB those parts of the examiner's 
report with which the union did not agree. 

Items 1, 2, 3, and 4 are based upon the settlement proposal made by the 
union in the meeting of April 26, 1957 held in Sheboygan, Wis., at the request 
of the three nationally prominent clergymen, the Reverend Cameron Hall, of the 
National Council of Churches ; Rabbi Eugene Lipman, of the Union of American 
Hebrew Congregations ; and the Reverend John F. Cronin, S. S., of the National 
Catholic Welfare Conference. 

Item No. 5 is based on the findings of the trial examiner of the National 
Labor Relations Board, and is consistent with the proposal made by President 
Walter P. Reuther in a telegram, dated October 14, 1957, sent to Herbert V. 
Kohler, president of the company, shortly after the trial examiner's report was 
issued. 

While we recognize, as you have pointed out on many occasions, that it is 
not the function of this committee to settle this dispute, we in the UAW are 
most appreciative of your request for this information from both the union and 
the company. We feel your request is a constructive effort to bring into sharper 
focus the issues still in dispute. 

We are hopeful that such outlines by both the union and the company will 
point out clearly that these duties are not insoluble and that they can be settled, 
given an honest desire to do so on the part of both parties. On behalf of the 
striking members of the UAW Local 833, I can assure you that we will do 
everything possible to conclude a prompt, honorable, and just settlement of all 
these matters. 

This letter is being countersigned by Art Bauer, vice president of local 833, 
and E. H. Kohlhagen. recording secretary, who, with myself, constitute the 
bargaining committee of local 833. which has complete authority from the mem- 
bership of local 833 to negotiate a settlement of this long and bitter strike. 

Allan Grasskamp. 
President, Local 833, UAW. 

Art Ratter. 
President, Local 833. UAW. 

E. H. KOHLHAGGEN. 

Recording Secretary, Local 833. 



9644 LMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. Tlie Chair has hiu-riedly read both, and I think they 
require some study, and so the Chair at least will withhold any com- 
ment on them for tlie present, but we will have an analysis of them 
made, in the hope that we can see just how narrow or how broad the 
diil'erences are that still remain. 

I am hopeful that they will afford a basis of study, and, again, I 
don't want anyone to get the impression this committee is charged with 
the duty of settling strikes. But at least the Chair, if he felt he could 
make some constructive suggestion, would feel free to do so, and I 
think other members of the committee would feel the same way. 

Thank 3'ou, gentlemen, very much. Does counsel wish to ask one 
of you a question ? 

TESTIMONY OF LYMAN C. CONGER— Eesmned 

Mr. Kexxedt. Mr. Conger, on the last page, is it your feeling that 
the UAW is not the majority union any more ? 

Mr. CoxGER. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And the company is willing to enter into a contract 
with any union which represents a majority of its employees? 

Mr. Conger. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. And the company cannot lawfully deal with a minor- 
ity union? 

Mr. Conger. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you feel the UAW is a minority union? 

Mr. Conger. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. So, would it be your feeling that under no circum- 
stances would you sign a contract with the UAW at the present time ? 

Mr. Conger. Not under no circumstances. If they establish' that 
they are a majority union, we would deal with them ; yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Prior to an election, or another election, is it your 
position that you would not deal with the UAW at the present time? 

Mr. Conger. An election or some other reasonable means of deter- 
mining that they actually do represent a majority of the emploj^ees. 

The Chairman. Is that an issue now before the National Labor 
Relations Board ? 

Mr. Conger. Yes, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. That is one of your pleadings ? 

Mr. Conger. That is in that. 

The Chairman. That is covered by your pleadings, and that ques- 
tion of whether they are now a majority representation or not is at 
issue before the National Labor Relations Board at present? 

Mr. Conger. Yes, and it has been since February 10, 1955. 

The Chairman. All right. Thank you very much. We have extra 
copies here, gentlemen, if you didn't get them. 

Mr. Conger. May I be heard at this time? Again, repeatedly this 
morning, some charges were made, and some serious charges, against 
the Kohler Co. on what I think is largely hearsay evidence, and I 
would ask permission at this time to reply to them, some of them, and 
not all of them, and I won't take more than 10 or 15 minutes to do it. 

But I do want to call the committee's attention to some facts and 
figures that are documented. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 9645 

The Chairman. The Chair has been very lenient in these matters 
and I would like to proceed with this witness now until we can get 
through with him. I didn't hear anything so bad here this morning. 

Mr. Conger. Well, I did, in my opmion. 

The Chairman. I heard one man's opinion of several things. 

Mr. Conger. I heard ourselves charged with some serious offenses; 
firing people because they belonged to the union, disregard for peo- 
ple's health and safety, and things of that type. 

The Chairman. Just a moment, now. Those things are being 
charged all of the time, and you will have an opportunity to answer 
those. I cannot, just every time a witness makes one statement, then 
call the other side and let him refute it. 

Mr. Conger. Thank you. 

The Chairman. We will give jon the opportunity later. 

All right, come around, Mr. Brierather. 

TESTIMONY OF LEO J. BRIERATHER— Resumed 

The Chairman. Now, I believe you had finished your statement 
this morning with respect to that 20-year period of labor peace in the 
Kohler plant ; is that correct ? 

Mr. Brierather. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. And that was the statement that you had desired 
to make before being interrogated by the committee ? 

Mr. Brierather. That is correct, sir. 

The Chairman. All right, Mr. Counsel. 

Mr. Brierather. I would like to make a statement. 

I understand that Senator Goldwater, after the hearings today, 
made a statement over television that my testimony this morning does 
not appear to be my own, and that it was a product of the publicity 
department, and it was a fabrication that I understand was made. 

I would like to state right here that my testimony this morning was 
my own, and it was only mine. 

I lived the 20 years of labor peace, and I lived 4 years of strike, and 
I think that that statement was unfair, not only to me, sir, but to my 
family and to my wife and three children who have supported me. 

I have lived in a goldfish bowl ever since I have become active in 
this affair, and I am sure that I have tried to the best of my ability to 
create an impression, my own impression within that plant, and I am 
trying to tell a true and accurate story in the shortest amount of time 
possible. 

The Chairman. Senator Goldwater, do you wish to make any com- 
ment? 

Senator Goldwater. No, but I am glad someone was listening to the 
television. 

The Chairman. Any Senator, of course, may make comment when- 
ever he feels like it with respect to any testimony he hears, as to how 
much credence he gives to it, or how much weight he gives to it. 

Of course, a witness when he testifies presumably is testifying for 
himself, and those who hear the witness testify and hear the statement 
of the Senators can judge accordingly. 

All right ; proceed, Mr. Counsel. 

Senator Curtis. May I ask a question at this point ? 

Who secured Mr. John Deis' affidavit ? 



9646 IMPROPER Acrrv'iTiEft ix the labor field 

Mr. liRiERATHER. Do vou mean who asked for the affidavit ( 

Senator Curtis. Yes. 

Mr. Brikrather. We did. I did. 

Senator Curtis. Who got in toncli with him and got it typed up and 
arranged for it ? 

Mr. Brierather. I did, sir. 

Senator Curtis. You typed it up? 

Mr. ]5rierather. Oh, no, sir. 

Senator Curtis. I see it has tlie name of David Rabinovitz, attor- 
ney at law of Sheboygan, Wis. Did he assist in making this affidavit ? 

Mr. Brierather. I had called his office. 

Senator Curtis. Did his office have anything to do with the prepara- 
tion of this affidavit ? 

Mr. Brierather, Possibly they did ; yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Do you know where it was typed ? 

Mr. Brierather. Xo, sir; most likely by the notary public, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Do you think the notary typed it i 

Mr. Brierather. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Who is the notary ? 

Mr. Brierather. Well, sir, you liave tlie affidavit. 

Senator Curtis. Mona Methfissel. Who is that? 

Mr. Brierather, She is a notary public in Sheboygan, and she 
works in David Rabinovitz' office. 

Senator Curtis. I wonder if I could ask Mr. Rabinovitz a question 
about tliis ? He has been sworn, I believe. 

The Chairman. Mr. Rabinovitz, will you come around, please. 

He doesn't seem to be present. 

Mr. Rauii. He is in the phone booth. 

The Chairman. Mr. Rabinovitz, will you come around in front of 
the committee, as your presence has been requested. 

Senator Curtis wishes to ask you a question. 

TESTIMONY OF DAVID RABINOVITZ— Eesumed 

Senator Curits. You have been sworn, sir ? 

Mr. RABIN0^^Tz. I have, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Did you assist in the preparation of this affidavit of 
John Deis — is that the way they pronounce it ? 

Mr. Rabino\t[tz. I did not. 

Senator Curtis, Was it prepared in your office ? 

Mr, Rabinovitz, I understand it was. 

Senator Curtis. Have you read it ? 

Mr. RABINo^^Tz. I did. 

Senator Curits. Is there any variation of material fact in this affi- 
davit, and the testimony including depositions that were given by John 
Deis in the suit against the Kohler Co. ? 

Mr. Rabinovitz. I am not at this moment familiar with any testi- 
mony given by John Deis, sir. 

Senator Cinrns. Thei-e was a deposition taken, was there not? 

Mr. Rabinovitz. My recollection is, and I made that .recollection 
just this afternoon, that there was an adverse examination held in the 
matter, but I haven't seen the testimony for 22 or 23 years, and I am 
not acquainted with it at the present time. 

Senator Curits, You were his lawver back at the time ? 



IMPROPER ACTR'ITIE'S IX THE LABOR FIELD 9647 

Mr. Rabinovitz. Xo, I was not. 

Senator Curtis. When he sued the Kohler Co. ? 

Mr. Eabinovitz. No. Joseph Padway of Milwaukee was his lawyer. 

Senator Curtis. Were you associated at all in the trial in the cause? 

Mr. Eabinovitz. I don't believe my name appeared on the pleadings 
although I did make a thorough investigation at the time; and I 
am sure that I interviewed probably 200 or 300 people, and I did 
gather affidavits, but I do not believe that I was a lawyer representing 
the plaintiflPs. 

Senator Curtis. You were not a lawyer of record but you did 
work on it ? 

Mr. RABINO^^ITz. Yes, I assisted Mr. Padway, I am sure, at that 
time, in the preparation, and I believe the pleading had just Joe 
Pad way's name on it. but I am not too sure of that. 

Senator Curtis. But at that time you knew John Deis ? 

Mr. Rabinovitz. I have no recollection of John Deis at all, and 
I wouldn't know him if I saw him today. 

Senator CuiiTis. But you did talk to him then in the course of 
working on the case ? 

Mr. Rabinovitz. I probably did. 

Senator Curtis. And you do not know whether or not there is a 
variation of any material fact in his present statement and his deposi- 
tion taken? 

Mr. Rabinovitz. I do not. 

Senator Curtis. That is all with this witness. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much. 

Proceed, Mr. Counsel, with Mr. Brierather. 

TESTIMONY OF LEO J. BRIERATHER— Resumed 

Mr. Kennedy. You went out on strike on April 5, 1954? 

Mr. Brierather. I did, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you were chief steward at the time? 

Mr. Brierather. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. When the union began its boycott, you had a posi- 
tion in the operations of the boycott? 

Mr. ]3rierather. Well, not from the very beginning, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. When did you first take on a position? 

Mr. Brierather. Approximately the middle of June of 1955. 

Mr. Kennedy. When did the boycott begin? 

Mr. Brierather. Well, there were certain movements toward the 
boycott which may have started when four labor leaders in the city 
of Milwaukee issued a statement asking people to boycott Kohler 
products; and, subsequently, the State CIO organization passed a 
resolution asking for the same thing. The international union took 
a few steps toward that, and it wasn't until a membership meeting 
sometime in March of 1955 when the local union actually began talk- 
ing about pursuing a boycott campaign. 

(At this point, the following members were present: Senators Mc- 
Clellan, Mundt, Curtis, and Goldwater.) 

Mr. Kennedy. Were you the first official head of the boycott cam- 
paign ? 

Mr. Brierather. Yes ; I would say so. 



9648 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. And you assumed your duties and responsibilties in 
about June of 1955 ? 

Mr. Brieratiier. Yes, sir. 

ISIr. Kennedy. What compensation do you receive from the union 
for the work that you do ? 

Mr. Brierather. I receive strike assistance, the same as anyone 
else. 

Mr. Kennedy. How much does that amount to? 

Mr. Brieratiier. $60 a week, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. $60 a week you receive ? 

Mr. Brierather. Yes, sir. 

Mr, Kennedy. Do you receive anything else extra from the union ? 

Iklr. Bmeratiier. Well, if I am sent out of town, I get my expenses 
paid, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Your actual expenses, or do you get a certain amount 
of expenses ? 

Mr. Brierather. Well, for the greatest amount of time, I receive 
the actual expenses. However, I do receive an expense allowance. 

Mr. Kennedy. How much is the expense allowance, if you are sent 
out of town ? 

Mr. Brierather. $13 per day, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. $13 a day ? 

Mr. Brierather. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you receive $60 a week from the union in strike 
assistance ? 

Mr. Brierather. That is correct, sir. 

ISIr. Kennedy. How many of you are there still on strike who re- 
ceive strike assistance, approximately ? 

Mr. Brierather. There are approximately somewhere between 200 
and 250, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you have been receiving this strike assistance 
for this period of 4 years, now ? 

Mr. Brierather. Well, yes. I received my first strike assistance, 
probably, in June of 1954. 

Mr. Kennedy. So, it is about 31^ years that you have been receiv- 
ing $60 a week? 

Mr. Brierather. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you^ have any other outside compensation ? 

Mr. Brierather. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. You are getthig by on the $60 a week ? 

Mr. Brierather. Well, just; yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. As head of the boycott campaign, you do not receive 
any extra money for that? 

Mr. Brierather. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. What are your responsibilities and duties as head 
of the boycott campaign, and what steps are you taking, what are you 
attem])ting to achieve from the boycott? Would you tell the commit- 
tee that? 

Mr. Brierather. At the present time, sir ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Well, at the beginning, and trace it through, if you 
can do it briefly. 

Mr. Brierather. I would say when I was appointed as the head of 
the bovcott, I was called the 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 9649 

Mr. Kennedy. Who appointed you, first ? 

Mr. Brierather. Well, the local-union strike committee, and, of 
course, this was after some discussion between them and the interna- 
tional union, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Between them and who ? 

Mr. Kennedy. The international union. 

Mr. Brierather. I was instructed to organize a nationwide boycott 
campaign. I might say right here, sir, that I was really at a loss on 
how to proceed to it. The first efforts were feeble, and the method of 
trial and error rather than anything else. The first efforts toward 
a boycott campaign came when we established a committee for fol- 
lowing trucks. This really was a big flop, and it didn't take very long 
and we discontinued it. 

Mr. Kennedy., What were you doing following the trucks? Wliat 
does that mean ? 

Mr. Brierather. First of all, we didn't know exactly where Kohler 
products would be going to, and we thought this woulcl be one method 
so we could find out and start a publicity campaign in that particular 
area. 

Mr. Kennedy. What would you do; assign people to follow the 
trucks of the Kohler Co. ? 

Mr. Brierather. Yes. They went with literature and a few signs, 
and were told to distribute the literature when they got there, if there 
was anybody there to take it. 

Mr. Kennedy. When the trucks stopped, would they get out and 
start to picket the place ? 

Mr. Brierather. I suppose in a few instances it did, but it was very 
ineffective. We discontinued it. This whole thing lasted probably 60 
days, and then we stopped it. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was there some effort to induce the drivers of the 
trucks to turn back and not to carry the products of the Kohler Co. ? 

Mr. Brierather. I think that was an impossibility. We couldn't 
induce them to stop crossing our picket lines at the Kohler plant, and 
it was highly unlikely that they wouldn't cross the picket line there 
if we would set one up. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you ever make any effort or your drivers make 
any efforts to force the trucks off the side of the road so they wouldn't 
carry the products ? 

Mr. Brierather. Not to my knowledge. 

Mr. Kennedy. Have you heard any reports on that ? 

Mr. Brierather. Not from our people. 

Mr. Ej:nnedy. Did you hear reports from other people ? 

Mr. Brierather. I understand there were reports made to the press 
about that. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wlien it was reported to the press, did you take any 
steps to investigate and find out if this was being done ? 

Mr. Brierather. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. What did you find out ? 

Mr. Brierather. We were told they made no attempt to do this. 
They were instructed not to. Their instructions were merely to fol- 
low these trucks. In fact, on several occasions they were followed by 
squad cars, and actually escorted. They were told to maintain a dif- 
ferent distance. 



9650 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. If the purpose was not to intimidate the drivers, and 
you did not intend to picket tlie establishments that took Kohler 
products, wliat was tlie purpose of following the trucks ? 

Mr. liiuERATHEK. Well, mainly to find out where the Kohler products 
Mere going; and attempt to pass out leaflets at the time to advertise 
the fact that Kohler products are sold here and we asked them not to — 
asked everyone not to buy the products. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you mean just to hand out leaflets at the place 
of business which was buying these products ? 

Mr. Brierather. That was our purpose, yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Doesn't that amount to the same thing as a picket 
line or trying to stop people from using a place of business which 
handles Kohler products ? 

Doesn't that amount to a picket line ? 

(At this point. Senator Gold water withdrew from the hearing 
room. ) 

Mr. Brierather. Well, I wouldn't know, sir. We only had prob- 
ably 2 or 8 people, and I wouldn't consider that really a picket line. 
We tried to use it as a form of advertising. 

Mr. Kennedy. Your purpose was to try to keep people out of the 
businesses that were handling Kohler products, was it not ? That was 
the reason. You didn't want to just find out where the Kohler Co. 
was selling their products. You wanted to keep the people out of the 
companies that were buying the products. 

Mr. Brierather. No, sir, we wanted the people, whether they went 
in or out, not to buy Kohler products. 

Mr. Kennedy. AVhat do you care where they sold the products if 
you M-eren't going to try to keep the people from going into those 
companies ( 

W^liy did you want that information ? 

Mr. Brierather. So we knew where to conduct an advertising cam- 
paign. We really didn't know exactly what we were looking for. We 
found out it was useless and discontinued it. The purpose was faulty 
to begin with, and it didn't pay off. It w\as much too expensive. 

Mr. Kennedy. I think that the record shows, at least from what 
we understand, and I expect to have some evidence and information 
on it, that, No. 1, there was some attempt at least to intimidate the 
drivers, and No. 2, once they followed the trucks to these establish- 
ments, to maintain a boycott of the establishment that was buying the 
Kohler products by establishing either a picket line or handing out 
these pamphlets at the place of business. 

Mr. Brierather. Well, sir, if we were intending to do that, we 
would have maintained a picket line at these places. 

Mr. Kennedy. O.K. Well, continue. 

Beyond the foUow-the-truck campaign, what else did you do? 

Mr. P)KiERATHER. Well, when that flopped, we thought of another 
gimmick, so to speak, of organizing boycott caravans. We made a 
bunch of three-cornered carton signs and devised a sign "Don't buy 
Koliler. It is made by scabs and strike breakers." 

AVe would fill up about 25 carloads full of people and we would 
travel to the various communities, leading communities, like Mil- 
waukee, Racine, Kenosha, Appleton, Manitowoc, and a few others, and 
we tried to get this boycott caravan to enter the town at the key shop- 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 9651 

ping liours when there were as many people as we could possibly reach 
who would be there in the shopping centers. 

We would parade down Main Street with the car top caravans car- 
rying the signs, and as they would be doing that, the strikers would 
be out on the streets handing out speacial leaflets and handbills, urg- 
ing people not to buy Kohler products. We designed one specific 
leaflet entitled "Please help my Daddy win the strike,'' and there was 
a picture of a striker's little girl in front, and it was a plea to the 
people not to buy Kohler products on the back. 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Chairman ? 

The Chairman. Senator Curtis. 

Senator Curtis. About how many people would make up one of 
these caravans ? 

Mr. Brierather. Well, we tried to get as many people in the 20 or 
25 cars as we could possibly round up. In some instances 

Senator Curtis. Twenty or twenty-five cars ? 

Mr. Brierather. Yes. 

Senator Curtis. Who provided the cars ? 

Mr. Brierather. Well, the strikers themselves, sir. 

Senator Curtis. They were expected to pay that out of their $60 
a week strike allowance ? 

Mr. Brierather. We provided the gasoline, and by "we" I mean 
the international union for driving purposes. 

Senator Curtis. Where did you go with the caravan of 20 or 25 
cars? 

Mr. Brierather. Well, the largest caravan, I believe, went to Mi\- 
waukee. 

Senator Curtis. Where did you go in Milwaukee ? 

Mr. Brierather. Down Wisconsin Avenue and a few other shopping 
centers down there, Wisconsin Avenue being the Main Street of Mil- 
waukee. 

Senator Curtis, Did you go near any particular business in Mil- 
waukee ? 

Mr. Brierather. No, not with the boycott caravan, no. Not to my 
knowledge. 

Senator Curtis. Did you do any picketing ? 

Mr. Brierather. No, sir. 

Senator Curtis. You never have done any picketing in this boycott 
campaign ? 

Mr. Brierather. Not with the boycott caravan, no. 

Senator Curtis. I mean any other way. 

Mr. Brierather. There were a few instances, yes. For instance, 
we had established for a while some pickets in front of the Kohler 
Co. showrooms, which were actually owned by the Kohler Co., such 
as New York and Chicago, but we have made no going effort on that 
either. 

Senator Curtis. Did you ever picket any place else ? 

Mr. Brierather. Yes. We picketed the Koepsell plant in Sheboy- 
gan. 

Senator Curtis. What plant ? 

Mr. Brierather. Koepsell Co., a distributor of Kohler products, one 
or two times, that is about all. 

Senator Curtis. Where else ? 

21243— 58— pt. 24 12 



9652 LM PROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Briehather. Down in IMJhvaukee I nnderstand we picketed 
one or two places. 

Senator Curiis. It was your business to organize the picketing and 
the caravans and provide the placards and banners and things, wasn't 
it? 

Mr. Brterather. Well, sir, most of this — the cartop caravans were 
organized just about as my first effort. The following of trucks was 
done before I was there. But the main duty that I had at the begin- 
ning was to set up an office in Sheboygan. I did so and we set up a 
large mailing list, and formulated 

Senator Curtis. My question is : Your title was the boycott coordi- 
nator, wasn't it ? 

Mr. Brterather. Yes. 

Senator Curtis. Wasn't it your responsibility to organize the boy- 
cott activities? 

Mr. Brierather. More or less so, yes. 

Senator Curtis. Who was your immediate superior? 

Mr. Brierather. Well, I would say that I had tw^o superiors. The 
strike committee was one and I am also responsible to Donald Rand 
at the present time. I wasn't at that time. 

Senator Curtis. To Donald Rand, who has already testified here? 

Mr. Brierather. Yes, sir. I wasn't at that time. He did not en- 
ter the picture in Sheboygan until November of 1955, sir, in regard 
to this. 

Senator Curtis. You became boycott coordinator before he came in ? 

Mr. Brierather. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Why did he come in? Wasn't it going pretty 
good? 

Mr. Brierather. Well, sir, as I explained, we set up a terrific mail- 
ing program. We tried to obtain as many mailing lists from labor 
organizations as we possibly could. We obtained a mailing list from 
all A. F. of L. central labor councils, from all UAW locals, from the 
steel union locals, and as many as we could possibly reach. We began 
an extensive mailing program. As a result of this type of publicity, 
the international union decided that they ought to use personal con- 
tact to support the publicity and that is when they assigned Donald 
Rand as my superior and also to head up the boycott campaign, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Now, when you would go some place with a cara- 
van or any other means, who w^ould be the people riding m those 
cars? 

Mr. Brierather. Kohler strikers, sir, and their families, often. 

Senator Curtis. Anybody else? 

Mr. Brierather. No, sir, not to my knowledge. Occasionally may- 
be an international representative hight have gone along, but ne- 

Senator Curtis. Who were some of the international representatives 
that went along? 

Mr. Brierather. Donald Rand might have went along with one of 
those. 

Senator Curtis. Well, did he ? 

Mr. Brierather. I couldn't say really yes or no, sir. 

Senator Curtis. "WHio else of the international representatives? 

Mr. l^RTERATHER. Well, Robert Treuer, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Robert Treuer and Donald Rand. Who else? 



IMPROPEIR ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 9653 

Mr. Brierather. Well, I would only be guessing from here on in. 
These are the two people that I would say went on one or more of 
these trips. 

Senator Curtis. No other international representatives? 

Mr. Brierather. Not to my knowledge, sir. 

Senator Mundt. Will the Senator yield for one question? 

Senator Curtis. Yes. 

Senator Mundt. When you would go into a town with these cara- 
vans, there would be about 20 or 25 cars, you vv^ould do what, drive 
up and down the business thoroughfares and around the industrial 
areas with your cars, and would you have loud-speaking equipment ? 

Mr. Brierather. No, we never had loud-speaking equipment. Gen- 
erally we had to make arrangements with the law enforcement of- 
ficials of the community and they would provide for us to actually 
parade down the streets. They would give us the proper right of 
way, sir. 

Senator Mundt. The point I was leading to was simply a matter 
of curiosity, whether or not you ever ran into any places where they 
might have city ordinances where you have to have a license to have 
a parade. Sometimes even out campaigning, when you are out on 
a political "squawkbox" campaigning, you run into some communities 
where you either have to have a permit to set up to give your speech 
or parade or you can't do it at all. 

I wondered whether in your experience in these caravans you ever 
ran into that type of situation. 

Mr. Brierather. By and large we always received the cooperation 
of the city officials. We had no trouble at all along these lines. There 
may have been one or two cases. Maybe over in Appelton — as I re- 
member, one of these cities over on Lake Winnebago, they objected 
to us coming in to town in that manner, although I believe that they 
allowed us to distribute literature but didn't allow us to parade with 
the cars. 

But other than that, generally we received their cooperation and 
had their help. 

Senator Curtis. Who provided the literature ? 

Mr. Brierather. The international union, sir. 

We have no money to. 

Senator Curtis. Who provided the signs that the men get? 

Mr. Brierather. They did, sir. They paid for it. 

Senator Curtis. Now, when you go on a caravan, would that be 
just a 1-day trip ? 

Mr. Brierather. Yes. 

Senator Curtis. So not very much picketing was done in connection 
with the caravans ? 

Mr. Brierather. No, sir. 

Senator Curtis. When you did picket it would be longer than a 
day's duration, wouldn't it? 

Mr. Brierather. I don't believe so, sir. 

Senator Curtis. You don't think so ? 

Mr. Brierather. No, with the exception of where we picketed the 
Kohler showrooms, like, say, in New York and down at the Tribune 
Building in Chicago. That wasn't really done under my direction. 



9654 IMPROPER activitip:^; in the labor field 

Senator Ciirris. How long did that picket line run, down in 
Cliica<ro ( 

Mr. Hhiehatiieh. For quite some time, sir. 

Senator Curtis. About how lonf; ? 

Mr. Brikrathkh. It could be a year. I would be guessing at that, 
Senator. 

Senator Curtis. Who marched in that picket line ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. l^RiERATHER. I beg your pardon, sir ? 

Senator Curtis. Who marched in that picket line ? 

Mr. Brikrather. AVe generally got two unemployed UAW work- 
ers, or any one that was unemployed. 

They were paid pickets, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Who paid for that ? 

Mr. Brierather. The international union, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Where else did you have paid pickets besides in 
Chicago ? 

Mr. Brierather. In New York and Los Angeles, sir. 

Senator Curtis. In New York? Where did you picket in New 
York? 

Mr. Brierather. The Kohler showrooms on Park Avenue, I believe. 

Senator Curtis. Who did you picket in Los Angeles ? 

Mr. Brierather. The Kohler showrooms out there, but I wouldn't 
know what street it v/as on. 

Sentor Curtis. Did you ever picket any business other than the 
Kohler showrooms ? 

Mr. Brierather. Yes, sir. We picketed the Hartshorn Bros. Co. 

Senator Curtis. The what? 

Mr. Brierather. Hartshorn somewhere in the Los Angeles area. 

Senator Curtis. Hartshorn Bros.? What is their business? 

Mr. Brierather. They are a plumbing supplier, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Where are they located in Los Angeles? 

Mr. Brierather. Well, sir, I couldn't provide that information. I 
believe this is one of the cases where we consented to a cease and desist 
order wnth the NLRB. 

Senator Curtis. Were you ever out to Los Angeles in connection 
with the boycott ? 

Mr. Brierather. No, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Or any phase of it ? 

Mr. Brierather. No, sir. 

Senator Curtis. They were merchants not connected with Kohler 
Co., is that right? 

Mr. Brierather. I believe that is right, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Hid they have any labor trouble of their own ? 

Mr. Brierather. I couldn't answer that, sir. 

(At this point. Senator Goldwater entered the hearing room.) 

Senator Mundt. Will the Senator yield? 

Senator Curtis. Yes, sir. 

Senator Mundt. Mr. Brierather, did you have anything to do with 
the picketing of that paper company in Milwaukee that' has been the 
subject of some discussion between our counsel and me in these hear- 
ings ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 9655 

Mr. Brieratiier. No, sir. This was not a part of our boycott pro- 
gram, even though it was interpreted as such. It wasn't a part of the 
boycott program such as I tried to organize, sir. 

Senator Mundt. It was not under your jurisdiction, that particular 
strike ? 

Mr. Brierather. No, sir. 

Senator Muxdt. Mr. Chairman, during the past few days, I have 
been going over this testimony concerning this particular element of 
discussion. 

You will recall that Mr. Eauh, I think it was last Thursday, went 
into this in some detail and submitted some items for the record, in- 
cluding, I believe, a discussion of the NLRB cease and desist order 
and the entering of a consent decree by the 7th Circuit Court of Ap- 
peals against the UAW. After rereading the testimony, I am inclined 
to believe tliat JNIr, Rauh's statements did not clarify the particular 
point at issue that I had in mind. 

In order to get that clarified, I would like to suggest to the chair- 
man that he write a letter to the Chairman of the National Labor Re- 
lations Board, requesting him or some qualified representative of the 
NLRB who has firsthand information on this subject, to appear before 
our committee and to bring with him the relevant public NLRB docu- 
ments and records involved in this particular case, which is identified 
as "No 13 CC 110118, NLRB 267." _ 

I would suggest that not immediately but at the conclusion of what- 
ever testimony we are going to take on this subject of boycotts, that 
we ask the NLRB representative to appear before the committee with 
those documents and see if we can't finalize that phase of the dis- 
cussion. 

Would that be agreeable? 

The Chairman. Senator Mundt, if you will prepare the letter, you 
are familiar with the details and information which you want, and 
submit it to the Chair, I will be very ijlad to cooperate with you. 

Is there any further questioning ? Senator Curtis. 

Senator Curtis. This Hartshorn Bros, at Bellflower, Calif., how 
long did that picketing last ? 

Mr. Brierather. I understand a week or two, sir. I wasn't too 
familiar with it at the time. In fact, I heard about it after the 
fact, so to speak. 

Senator CtntTis. Representatives of the international were doing 
part of this? You weren't running the whole show^ all over the 
Nation, were you ? 

Mr. Brierather. No, sir. 

Senator Cltrtis. There was a great deal of boycotting going on be- 
sides what you were doing ? 

Mr. Brierather. Yes, sir. 

Senator Cuktis. Thos pickets at Hartshorn, were they 833 strikers? 

Mr. Brierather. No, they were not, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Who were they ? 

Mr. Brierather. Well, to the best of my knowledge they were 
unemployed workers. They may have been members of the IFAW, sir. 

Senator Curtis. They were paid by UAW ? 

Mr. Brierather. Yes, sir, to my knowledge. 



9656 LMPR'OPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Curtis. Isn't it a fact that Koliler strikers did picket several 
businesses other than Kohler around Wisconsin ? Isn't that right? 

Mr. Brieratiier. They might have, sir. I don't recall. 

Senator Curtis. All right. But you were the coordinator of this 
whole program, weren't you ? 

Mr. BRIER.VTIIER, Yes, but under my direction no one ever picketed 
any one of these. It was not part of my function, sir. 

Senator Curtis. But you would get reports back as to how the boy- 
cott was going, wouldn't you ? 

JMr. Brierather. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Well, now, isn't it a fact that Kohler strikers pick- 
eted the United Plumbing & Heating Supply Co. in Milwaukee, Wis. ? 

Mr. Brierather. Yes. This I mentioned before, that there may 
have been a few establishments in Milwaukee that were picketed. 

Senator Curtis. They did picket there ? 

Mr. Brierather. Yes, sir, but we gave it up as a bad job. It had 
no effect on anyone. 

Senator Curtis. All right. The Kohler strikers picket the Cordes 
Supply Co. in Mihvaukee, Wis. ? 

Mr. Brierather. I assume they did. I couldn't say "yes" or "no" 
from my own information. 

Senator Curtis. You mean by that you didn't see them ? 

Mr. Brierather. That is correct. 

Senator Curtis. But you did get some reports back that they did ? 

Mr. Brierather. Yes, I got reports back. Wliether it was the 
Cordes Co., I don't know, but that they picketed. 

Senator Curtis. Did Kohler strikers picket the Unique Polishing 
Co., atSaukville, Wis.? 

Mr. Brierather. I couldn't say "yes" or "no" to that. They could 
have. 

Senator Curtis. They could have ? 

Mr. Brierather. Yes. I don't recall. 

Senator Curtis. Actually, you mean you didn't see them? 

Mr. Brierather. That is right, and this is the first time I heard 
about it. 

Senator Curtis. Did you hear anything about it ? 

Mr. Brierather. No, sir. 

Senator Curtis. You didn't get any reports about it ? 

Mr. Brierather. Xo, sir. 

Senator Curtis. How many people did you have organizing picket- 
ing in Wisconsin, if you were the coordinator and you didn't know 
about it ? 

Mr. Brierather. At the beginning, I don't believe that anybody 
was actually -organizing. I became the first organizer of the boy- 
cott, and before it was just a hit and miss affair. 

Everybody was trying to do 

Senator Citrtis. After you got going, how many people did you 
have working on it ? 

Mr. Brierather. We had no pickets, as far as Kohler strikers were 
concerned. 

Senator Ctt^tts. No, I mean how many people did you have work- 
ing on the boycott ? 

Mr. Brierather. Well, it gradually got to maybe about 25 of them, 
which were in and out of our office. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 9657 

Senator Curtis. You had an office of about 25 people ? 

Mr. Brierather. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. By that number, you do not mean the number that 
went out and did the picketing or follow trucks, but the people who 
were in your office, is that correct ? 

Mr. Brierather. Yes, they worked in and out. They actually went 
out for contact work, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Now, did or did not the strikers or the UAW picket 
the Eupert Plumbing & Appliance Co. in Milwaukee ? 

Mr. Brierather. They may have, sir. I have no knowledge of it. 

Senator Curtis. Again, do you mean 

Mr. Brierather. It might help by stating when this was supposed to 
have happened, sir. If it was before July 1, 1955, I would have no 
record. 

Senator Curtis. Any time during the time that you were coordi- 
nator ? 

Mr. Brierather. I have no knowledge of it, sir. 

Senator Curtis. I notice you are very careful about not testifying 
about things you don't have any knowledge about. 

Mr. Brierather. I really don't know, sir. They may have. I 
don't think we have picketed 

Senator Curtis. 1l ou testified with considerable clarity this morn- 
ing about happenings 24 years ago when you weren't even in the com- 
munity, you were working 20 miles from there. Do you have any 
information at all 

The Chairman. That is a rollcall vote. The committee will have to 
be in recess until the Senators can go to the Chamber and vote and 
return. 

(Whereupon, at 3 : 07 p. m. a recess was taken, with the following 
members present: Senators McClellan, Mundt, Curtis, and Gold- 
water.) 

The Chairman. The committee will come to order. 

(Members of the committee present at the convening of the session 
were : Senators McClellan, Mundt, and Curtis.) 

Senator Curtis. Now, in reference to your duties as strike coordi- 
nator, did you have authority to hire help ? 

Mr. Brierather. No, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Did you have anything to do with okaying bills for 
payment ? 

Mr. Brierather.. "Well, only to the extent that my okay would mean 
to whoever was paying or making out the checks of the international 
union, that the expenditure was justified. 

Senator Curtis. Would this office, you say you had sometimes 25 
people in and out of there, would they okay the bills that were in- 
curred all over in these boycott efforts or just locally ? 

Mr. Brierather. I would okay only what was incurred in the office 
and locally, sir. 

Senator Curtis. So whatever expense was incurred in some other 
State, you wouldn't be okaying that bill ? 

Mr. Brierather. No, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Who did that, do you know ? 

Mr. Brierather. Well, I assume, or I believe that Don Rand did. 
He was the guy that authorized the expenditures, and of course he had 
to justify that to his superiors. 



9658 I.MPHOPKK ACT1V1TIK8 IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Seiuitoi- Cruris. Now, wheie did he operate from in liis oktiy of bills 
incurred in the boycott i Woidd he handle that out of the office that 
you were connected witli ? 

Mr. Briehatiiku. Well, he was in Sheboym\n from about Novem- 
ber 1955, November 1, or within a few days oi that, and he was there 
approximately for 1 year working actually out of that office. 

Senator Ciktis. So while he was there, that is where he would okay 
the expenditures? 

Mr. l^RiEKATiiER. Oil, yes. 

Senator Curtis. Now, did they pay you anything besides your strike 
assistance when you were not out of town i 

Mr. BRiEiiATHER. No, sir. Well, yes, sir. They provided gasoline 
for me to go back and forth to the office and they provided for me 
insurance coverage, which they do for everyone on strike assistance. 
TJiis was in addition to the $60 a week. 

Senator Curtis. Now, did you have any pickets at the Rupert 
Plumbing & Appliance Co. in Milwaukee, Wis. i 

Mr. Brierather. We most likely had, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Although you didn't see them, you know that they 
Tvere there ? 

Mr. Brierather. That is correct. There weren't too many of these 
instances. It was so ineffective that we dropped it so quickly that 
it just didn't pay off to have those pickets. 

Senator Curtis. How long did you tiy it ? 

Mr. Brierather. I would say a period of a month or two, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Did you have any pickets at the F. R. Dingle Co. 
in Milwaukee ( 

Mr. Brierather. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. How many pickets did you have there ? 

Mr. Brierather. I wouldn't know^, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Do you know over how long a time ? 

Mr. Brierather. It wasn't very long, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Well, now, when you w^ould have pickets there, is 
a union member belonging to any union anywdiere supposed to go in 
and out of that place of business ( 

Mr. Brierather. Well, we expected them not to, sir. 

Senator Curtis. You expected them not to ? 

Mr. Brierather. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Well, you say it didn't become effective, but if it 
did, what would happen to the jobs of the people working inside? 

Mr. Brierather. What would happen to the jobs, sir ? 

Senator Curtis. Yes. Now, suppose one of these plumbing houses 
that I have mentioned, that you are picketing there had been success- 
ful, what would happen to the employees of that company ? 

]SIr. Brierather. They most likely would have l^een out of a job, sir, 
but this is not what happened. The picketing was not effective. 

Senator Curtis. But that is what you were trying to do, was to make 
it successful ? 

Mr. BrieRxVther. I imagine we were, sir. 

Senator Curtis. They wouldn't have gotten any strike assistance, 
would they ? 

Mr. Brierather. Well, tliey wouldn't belong to a union in the first 
place. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIEIS IN THE LABOR FIELD 9659 

Senator Curtis. If they didn't, or suppose tliey did, if they belonged 
to some union other than yours, you wouldn't pay them any strike 
assistance, would you ? 

Mr. Briekather. They wouldn't be out on strike. We wouldn't 
know. 

Senator Curtis. Strike assistance is something they get when they 
are out on strike, and these people would be just out of a job. 

If your picketing and your boycotting were successful of one of these 
business houses, what would happen to the owner of the business'^ 
Would it close the business out ''( 

Mr. Brierather. There are many good union-made brands on the 
market, sir, and it wasn't that we were picketing the entire plumbing- 
ware industry. We were only asking and trying to persuade people 
not to buy Kohler products. 

Tliere are Crane products and American Standard, which are all 
union made, and all very good. 

Senator Curtis. But some of these small-business men no doubt 
have money invested in Kohler inventory, and if you wouldn't let them 
sell it, their property becomes worthless if they can't sell it, and it be- 
comes outdated and it would be of lesser value if they could sell it at a 
later time. 

Tliere may be some of these businesses and some of them may be 
good size, but many of the people afl'ected by this were small- or 
medium-sized businesses, and some of them may have advertised 
Koliler products for years, and all of their assets and their future, as 
well as that of their'employees, was tied up in the distribution that 
they luid built up. 

Your objective was to stop them from selling Kohler products, is 
that right? 

Mr. Brierather. Our objective was to persuade him to switch to 
another brand and stop selling Kohler products, yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. But not to sell Kohler products, and if he sold 
Kohler products, you had some pickets out there that in effect said at 
least to a lot of people in the country, ''Don't go in there and buv," is 
that right? 

Mr. Brierather. Don't go in there and everywhere else either to buy 
Kohler products, and so we were advertising in effect that Kohler 
products were unfair, and that by purchasing Kohler products they 
were aiding the Kohler Co. in its fight against its workers.^ 

Senator Curtis. I am very much interested in this subject of boy- 
cotts, because by your testimony you are taking this conflict to peo- 
ple far removeci from Kohler. They are not stockholders in Kohler, 
and the workers are not Kohler employees. They are citizens of 
these various communities, and they are made the victim of this pro- 
gram you carry on. 

Did you have any pickets at the Neis Co. in West Alice, Wis.? 

Mr. Brierather. I imagine we did, sir, and I don't know for sure. 

As I stated before, that was only for a short period of time, and I 
believe that this was being conducted before I became the boycott co- 
ordinator, and it flopped miserably. 

Senator Curtis. But is this a fair interpretation of your answer, 
that you were not there and you did not see it but it is your under- 
standing that they did? 



9660 LMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Brierather. They mi<?ht have, and I could not say one way 
or the other, sir. 

Senator Curtts. How about this : Did you have pickets at the Plum- 
mers' Supply Co., at Fond du Lac, Wis.^ 

Mr. Bhierathkr. I don't recall that one at all, sir. That is Plum- 
mers' Suppl v, in Fond du Lac ? 

Senator Curtis. Yes. 

Mr. Brierather. I don't recall. 

Senator Curtis. Do you recall having any pickets in Fond du Lac, 
Wis., in connection with the boycott? 

Mr. Brierather. No, sir. 

Senator Curtis. How about the Southside Hardware Co., in She- 
boyjjan ? That was right there in Sheboygan. 

Mr. Brierather. No, I don't believe we ever had pickets at the 
Southside Hardware. 

Senator Curtis. You are quite sure about that ? 

Mr. Brierather. I am quite sure about that, I know that we pick- 
eted the Koepsell Co., the distributor of the Kohler Co., in Sheboygan, 
but I don't believe that we picketed the Southside Hardware Co. 

Senator Curtis. Did you ever have pickets at the George ^Y. ^Vhite 
Co., Inc., in Oshkosh, Wis. ? 

Mr. Brierather. I wouldn't know, not to my knowledge, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Would you deny that there were pickets ? 

Mr. Brierather. Oh, no ; no, I wouldn't. 

Senator Curtis. You would not deny that there might have been 
pickets at the Southside Hardware, in Sheboygan ? 

Mr. Brierather. I could supply that information, and I could not 
categorically deny it, that we clidn't, or did not have pickets at 
Southside Hardware. 

Senator Curtis. Would you have any records to ascertain where 
you had pickets ? 

Mr. Brierather. No, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Who would know ? 

Mr. Brierather. Well, probably some member of the strike com- 
mittee. 

Senator Curtis. You were a member of the strike conmiittee? 

Mr. Brierather. Yes, but even at that I could not answer these 
questions. 

Senator Curtis. Now all of these international representatives at- 
tended the strike committee meetings, if they were in town? 

Mr. Brierather. I don't know if there was any in town during 
1955, and maybe Bob Burkhart was there occasionally, and Don Rand 
would come in occasionally, and if they were in town and we had a 
strike committee meeting, invariably they would drop in ; sir. 

Senator Curtis. But your superior after he came in was Donald 
Band ? 

Mr. Brierather. Donald Rand, and the strike committee, and I 
would like to think that we were all working together as a team, and 
he rarely gave me orders, and it was generally by agreement that we 
proceeded with our campaign, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Did you ever have any pickets at the A. Y. Mc- 
Donald Manufacturing Co., in Sioux Falls* S. Dak. ? 

Mr. Brierather. Not that I know of, sir. 



liVIPROPEIR ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 9661 

Senator Curtis. Well, what do you mean by that? Do you deny 
that you had some there ? 

Mr. Brierather. I believe that I could deny we had pickets at A. 
Y. McDonald, yes. I have never received a report on the fact we 
had pickets there, and I know that we did not order it out of Sheboy- 
gan, nor was such an order ever given within my hearing. 

Senator Curtis. Now I think some of these questions we will have 
to ask Mr. Rand, because according to your testimony he was your 
superior, and he O. K.'d the bills. 

Senator Mundt. Would the Senator yield ? 

Senator Curtes. Briefly. 

Senator Mundt, Since the name of my fair State has been brought 
into the hearings, is it not correct that this A. Y. McDonald Co. is one 
of the places where you sent these followers, or whatever you called 
them, these people who followed the delivery trucks, and I believe 
the record shows that you followed them to Sioux Falls, S. Dak., with 
some literature. 

They attempted to distribute the literature there and did not find 
many takers and went back. 

Mr. Brierather. I was under the impression that the farthest our 
guys went was to Fort Dodge, Iowa, on one occasion. I thought that 
was the largest radius they ever covered. 

Senator Muxdt. I am not sure that Sioux Falls, S. Dak., would be 
any further from Sheboygan than Fort Dodge, Iowa. It is about the 
same general periphery, but I believe that is the record as far as South 
Dakota is concerned. 

Mr. Brierather. It is possible. 

Senator Curtis. Now part of your functions as boycott coordinator 
included the tracing of shipments of Kohlerware from the Kohler 
plant to its designation, is that not true? 

Mr. Brierather. If we could, sir. 

(At this point the following members were present: Senators Mc- 
Clellan, Mundt, Curtis, and Gold water.) 

Senator Curtis. What would these signs say that the international 
union would provide? That is, these signs that people carried, the 
placards ? 

Mr. Brierather. This is the sign that we generally used. It is the 
sign that was made by the Kohler strikers themselves through a silk 
screen process. It is "Buy union for quality and craf tmanship. Boy- 
cott Kohler. Plumbing ware and engines made by strikebreakers." 

Senator Curtis. Did you ever have any that referred to the workers 
there as scabs ? 

Mr. Brierather. Scabs and strikebreakers ? I believe that was in- 
cluded on the signs of the boycott caravans. 

Senator Curtis. Did you carry placards of that type when you 
picketed third parties ? 

Mr, Brierather. Third parties, sir? 

Senator Curtis. Yes, like a distributor or a plumbing house. 

Mr. Brierather. I know that we did have some signs. I don't re- 
call what was on them, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Peter Gasser and Elmer Gross are Kohler 
strikers, aren't they ? 

Mr. Brierather. That is true, sir. 



9662 LMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Cuhtis. They were active in the boycott program in the 
Chicago area, weren't tliey ? 

Mr. Bkieiutiier. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Do Casser and Gross work on the boycott program 
under your supervision ? 

Mr. Brierather. Yes, sir ; more or less so. 

Senator Curtis. "\Vliat instructions have you given them rehitive 
to promoting the boycott ? 

Mr. l^RiERATHER. Well, the instructions that I gave, or that we 
gave to all of the boycott '"reps" was to personally contact as many 
people as possible among the ranks of organized labor and also in 
the building industry, and also owners of building projects around 
in their area. 

Senator Curtis. In other words, you directed them to make a per- 
sonal contact with contractors 

Mr. Brierather. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. With plumbers ? 

Mr. Brierather. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Plumbing contractors ? 

Mr. Brierather. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. And the person who was building the building? 

Mr. Brierather. Yes, sir ; and architects. 

Senator Curtis. Was that effective? 

Mr. Brierather. I believe it was ; sir. 

Senator Curtis. If someone was building a home, and if these 
people under your directions said, ''I would suggest you not use Kohler 
products," they probably wouldn't do it, w^ould they ? 

Mr. Brierather. Well, we didn't quite put it that way, sir. We 
tried to get them to sympathize with us so that they wouldn't pur- 
chase Kohler products. 

Senator Curtis. But you let them know you didn't want them to 
purchase Kohler products, didn't you ? 

Mr. Brierather. We let them know that we would like them not 
to purchase Kohler products ; yes. 

Senator Curtis. And I think most of these people read the papers 
over the past years, and they knew that there was sometimes violence 
and trouble, clelays, when these industrial disputes arise. I can un- 
derstand when you say they were quite etfective. 

The purpose of the boycott was to either stop or at least decrease 
the sales of Kohler products, is that right ? 

Mr. Brierather. That is correct, sir. 

Senator Curtis. And you wanted to do that not only by the sale 
b}^ Kohler Co. to its distributors, but your efforts extended to stopping 
the sales by all other people, didn't they ? 

Mr. Brierather. Yes, sir. We tried to reach the broadest amount 
of people possible, anybody that might be a consumer and a pur- 
chaser of Kohler products. 

Senator Curtis. You seem like an individual of good intentions. 
How do you feel about carrying this boycott to neutral persons? 

(At this point. Senator McClellan withdrew from the hearing 
room.) 

Mr. Brierather. I feel very badly about the entire idea of a boy- 
cott, sir, I was among those that Avas not in favor of a boycott until 
well over a year had passed before the strike 



IMPROPER ACTrV'ITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 9663 

Senator Cuktis. Who convinced you that that ought to be done? 

Mr. Brierather. Well, the Kohler Co. actually convinced us. 

Senator Curtis. No. Who were some of the people of your strike 
committee that argued for a boycott ? 

Mr. Brierather. There was no one that really argued for it. We 
were all in the same boat, sir. 

But we finally decided that the Kohler Co. had left us no other 
choice. 

Senator Curtis. Who were some of the people that urged it first ? 

Mr. Brierather. Urged it, sir ? 

Senator Curtis. Yes. 

Mr. Brierather. Well, the State CIO organization, for instance, 
passing a resolution ; the four labor leaders that made the statement, 
and others, too. A boycott, in some respects, becomes an automatic 
weapon of organized labor at the very beginning of a strike, sir. 
As soon as a strike is bound, the products become unfair, and there 
is a certain amount of automatic boycott with the beginning of each 
strike, sir. 

Senator Curtis. "WHio were the four leaders that you referred to ? 

Mr. Brierather. Well, I believe it was Charles Schultz and Ross 
Baum 

Senator Cuetis. Where did Charles Schultz live ? 

Mr. Brierather. In Milwaukee, sir. 

Senator Curtis. He is a State director of the CIO ? 

Mr. Brierather. The president, I believe. 

Senator Curtis. Who was the next one ? 

Mr. Brierather. Ross Baum, secretary-treasurer of the CIO. 

Senator Curtis. That is two of them. Who are the others ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Brierather. I couldn't say offhand, sir. I could find out here. 

Senator Mundt. You may supply them for the record. 

Mr. Brierather. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. When Mr. Rand was testifying, he made reference 
to a letter addressed to you from Ray Vicker, a writer for the Wall 
Street Journal. Have you the copy of your letter to Vicker which he 
replied to ? 

Mr. Brierather. No, sir, I haven't got the copy. This was a per- 
sonal letter from me to him. I was in attendance at the time that 
Ray Vicker interviewed Donald Rand, and I was there when he talked 
about this situation. 

Senator Curtis. But you don't have a copy of the letter ? 

Mr. Brierather. No, sir. I am sorry I can't j)rovide one. 

Senator Curtis. Did you make a copy at the time ? 

Mr. Brierather. I may have. I wrote this at home. I may have 
made a copy. I don't know. 

Senator Curtis. You do your own typing, do you ? 

Mr. Brierather. Well, I can, yes. 

(At this point. Senator McClellan entered the hearing room.) 

Senator Curtis. You have participated in policy meetings and de- 
cisions relative to the boycott in Detroit, have you not? 

Mr. Brierather. I was present at a few of those meetings. 

Senator Curtis. Was Rand and Ray Majerus, and other boycott 
representatives present ? 



9664 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr, Brieratiiio?. Well, the entire paid boycott staff was there, yes. 

Senator Curtis. About how many were there? 

Mr. BRiEitATHKR. I woulcl Say 14 or 15, sir. 

Senator Curtis. 14 or 15. 

Name as many of them as you can remember. I have mentioned 
Rand and Majerus. They were there. 

Mr. Brierather. Fred Askoff, John Archambault, Rex Mainard, 
Tom Starlin<>:, Cecil Londo, Elmer Gross, Peter Gasser, Allan Gras- 
kamp, Emil Mazey was there for a short time, and myself. 

Senator Curtis. How lon^'did it last? 

Mr. Brierather. Two days, sir. 

Senator Curtis. You have had communications by letter or tele- 
phone with Mr. Rand in Detroit relative to the boycott success there, 
have you not ? 

Mr. Brierather. Not too many of them, sir. We usually converse 
by telephone almost daily. 
" Senator Curtis. What did he tell you ? 

Mr. l^RiERATHETt. Ill what respect, sir ? In what respect ? 

Senator Curtis. As to how successful the boycott was in Detroit. 

Mr. Brierather. Do you mean him reporting to me ? Do you mean 
him reporting to me as to how 

Senator Curtis. Yes. 

Mr. Brierather. Well, sir, I don't recall him ever reporting to me 
on how successful the boycott campaign was in Detroit. 

Senator Curtis. Did he ever say anything just in conversation ? 

Mr. Brierather. About Detroit, sir ? 

Senator Curtis. Yes. 

Mr. Brierather. Or generally. 

Senator Curtis. No, about Detroit. 

Mr. Brierather. Well, he told me that he had occasion to meet our 
boycott representative in that area very often, and that they work out 
of the same office, out of the same building I would say. 

Senator Curtis. It was your understanding that the boycott in De- 
troit was quite successful ? 

Mr. Brierather. Well, it was my understanding that it could be 
quite more successful, sir. 

Senator Curtis. To what extent was it successful ? 

Mr. Brierather. Well, that we had received the sympathy and co- 
operation of many of the contractors. 

Senator Citrtis. No, I am talking about in terms of sales and places 
of business that you got to change. To what extent was it success- 
ful? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Brierather. Well, I couldn't isolate Detroit alone on a report 
of that type, sir. I have no knowledge of exactly how the Detroit 
boycott is going. I know that it isn't going well enough, that we still 
need an active boycott representative in there. That much I know. 

Senator Curtis. If any orders were entered, court orders or other- 
wise, or even consent orders, to stop the picketing of third parties, who 
would pay the court expenses in reference to that ? Do you know ? 

Mr. Brierather. Well, it has been our policy to agree to cease and 
resist orders if there is any question of us breaking the law, and if 
the case directly involved either local 833 or the UAW, the inter- 
national union would pay the expenses, the legal expenses. 



IMPROPEIR ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 9665 

Senator Curtis. The Jackson County CIO Industrial Council of 
Jackson, Mich., I believe, was involved in picketing of the Luik Co. 

Mr. Brier ATHER. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. And they were represented by Harold Cranefield 
and Kurt Hanslow. 

Mr. Brieratiier. Who was, sir? 

Senator Curtis. The picketers. I believe they were. Is that cor- 
rect ? Are they the legal counsel of the UAW-CIO '? 

Mr. Brieratiier. They are, sir. 

Senator Curtis. The Kolilerian, which seems to be quoted quite a 
little these days, on April 5, 1957, has this headline: 

"Can Plumbers Boycott", and the following statement appears : 

If the plumbers union were to refuse to install, it would be a violation of the 
Taft-Hartley's secondary boycott provisions. A plumber as an individual can 
refuse to install KOhler. If he gets fired for it, there is nothing his union can 
do for him. 

What did that statement mean ? 

Mr. Brierather. Well, it just means to me what it says, that any 
individual is free to act as an individual, not only in these matters but 
in anything else, and that no union can refuse to install or handle any 
products. That doesn't, j ust because 

Senator Curtis. A union can't ? 

Mr. Brierather. A union, no. 

Senator Curtis. That is my understanding. Now, if they can't re- 
fuse to install, how can they picket somebody else to prevent them 
from selling so it can be installed ? 

Mr. Brierather. That wasn't the purpose, to prevent installation. 
We have never tried to prevent installation. 

Senator Curtis. Isn't the first step in installation buying the stuflf ? 
I think it is. 

Mr. Brierather. The installation is being done by a party that 
hasn't purchased it, for instance. 

Senator Curtis. They can't install it until they buy it, can they ? 
That is a simple question. 

Mr, Brierather. A plumber can install plumbing fixtures and he 
does not buy it. The owner of the building buys it. That is how I 
undei-stand it. 

Senator Curtis. But somebody has to buy it before it can be in- 
stalled? 

Mr. Brierather. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. When you prevent them from buying it, you are 
preventing them from installing it, aren't you ? 

I couldn't hear you, Mr. Rauh ? 

Mr. Rauh. I didn't say anything. 

Mr. Brierather. If they didn't buy it they can't install it ? 

Senator Curtis. That is right. So when you prevent them from 
buying it, you are preventing them from installing it, aren't you ? 

Mr. Brierather. Well, if the guy didn't buy anything, he isn't pre- 
pared to install anything ; yes. 

Senator Curtis. That is right. And that was the business the 
UAW was engaged in ? 

Mr. Brierather. Well, that is a matter of speculation, sir, or in- 
terpretation. 



9666 IMPROPER ACTRITIE6 IX THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Curtis. But a concerted effort by plumbers to refuse to in- 
stall Kohler products would be unlawful ; is that your understanding? 

Mr. Brieratuek. That is my uuderstandinor, yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. You also reco^iinize and advise plumbers, however, 
that they can do it individually ; is that correct ? 

Mr. Brierather. Anyone can act individually. Plumbers or any- 
one else, sir. 

(At this point. Senator Goldwater withdrew from the hearing 
room.) 

Senator Curtis. Can you advise them, can you advise each one of 
them, that they can refuse to install, and they all carry out your ad- 
vice at once ? Would that be lawful ? 

Mr. Brierather. If they would all carry out this advice at once? 
Well, sir, I am no attorney, and I believe that needs a legal interpre- 
tation, sir. 

Senator CintTis. Were there any situations where you told all the 
plumbers working on a particular job or about to work on it, not to 
buy Kohler ? 

Mr. Brierather. No, sir. No, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Did you get some information from inside the 
plant as to how the boycott was working ? 

Mr. Brierather. We received some information from it. 

Senator Curtis. Did you have anything to do with the strike 
bulletin? 

Mr. Brierather. I was editor on the strike bulletin for a little over 
a year, sir. 

Senator Curtis. On May 2, 1956, the strike bulletin contains this 
statement : 

Bathtubs are still being piled 3 feet high in shuckshed. When this gets filled, 
a reliable source has informed us that so-called equipment shed, located next 
to and north of shuckshed will be used next for storing the customerless tubs. 

On June 6, 1956: 

There still is an insatiable demand for vitreous china plumbing fixtures, 
but Kohler's products are piling up, even though the total salable production 
is only nO percent of the prestrike figures. Shipments are way off. Strike break- 
ers haven't been hired for months. The volume of incoming new orders is on 
a definite decline and cancellation of old orders are coming in daily. 

Again on August 24, 1956 : 

We have it on good inside authority that the scabs and strikebreakers are so 
thoroughly disgusted with the working conditions at the Kohler plant that the 
place is commonly referred to in conversations as the madhouse. 

Did you get information from any of these cities as to how the boy- 
cott was going? 

Mr. BRiERA'rHER. Some of the information, yes. Occasionally. 

Senator Curtis. Who would make those reports ? 

Mr. Brierather. Well, the reports would come in by one of our 
reps or some other member of organized labor in the area who had 
talked to a contractor, who was sympathetic to our cause. 

Senator Curtis. Wlien did the boycott start? 

Mr. Brierather. The boycott started around — well, my efforts, and 
the real boycott started around June of 1955, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Is it still going on ? 

Mr. Brierather. Yes. sir. 



IMPROPEK ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOE FIELD 9667 

Senator Citrtis. In how many States are you operating now ? 

Mr. Brierather. We try to operate in all of them, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Do you know how much money has been spent on 
the boycott ? 

Mr. Brierather. No, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Who would know that ? 

Mr. Brierather. Mr. Emil Mazey. 

Senator Curtis. You are familiar with the testimony of Mr Mazey 
before this committee ? 

Mr. Brierather. I was here, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Do you agree with all the views expressed by Mr. 
Mazey in that testimony ? 

Mr. Brierather. With all of the views, sir ? 

Senator Curtis, Yes. i 

Mr. Brierather. Well, it is pretty hard to agree 100 percent with 
anyone's views, sir. I have a mind of my own the same like anyone 
else. 

Senator Curtis. Do you agree with Mr. Mazey that in a strike all 
who are not for the strikers are against them; that in other words, 
even though people are trying to be neutral, they must be regarded 
as enemies of the union ? 

Mr. BRiERiVTHER. That people who are trying to be neutral must be 
regarded as enemies, sir? 

Senator Curtis. Yes. 

Mr. Brierather. AVell, in this strike, in any strike, not alone the 
Kohler strike, the support of public opinion and the support of any- 
one that is affected certainly plays a direct part in the length of the 
strike. Actually, it is very hard to be neutral, to sit on the fence 
and just watch the time go by. And if you will thoroughly, in my 
opinion, inspect the views of anyone that is so-called sitting on the 
sidelines, you will find that he does have an opinion one way or an- 
other. I think it is unfair for anybody that has anything to contribute 
toward stopping or settling a struggle such as this type, that it is 
unfair on his part if he doesn't do so. 

The Chairman. Will you yield at that point for one question? 

Senator Curtis. Surely. 

The Chairman. Why isn't it unfair to the individual who wants 
peace, who wants no quarrel, and who wants to get along, why isn't it 
unfair to him for two people like a union and a company to get at log- 
gerheads and force a strike ? 

Why isn't it unfair to the citizen who wants peace and quiet? 

Mr. Brierather. Are you talking about people who would also be 
working in the plant ? 

The Chairman. No. You are talking about anybody. I think there 
is a third party to these things. 

Mr. Brierather. I don't believe anyone wants a strike. I certainly 
didn't want a strike, sir. 

The Chairman. I know. The other fellow didn't, either. So it is 
not his making. He is on the outside. There I am, on the outside com- 
pletely. Every member of this committee is on the outside comjjletely. 
Thousands and millions of other people are on the outside in this 
country with respect to the strike. 

21243— 58— pt. 24 13 



9668 niPROPER activities in the labor field 

Why must they take sides and either be your friend or your enemy? 
They didn't produce the strike, they had nothin<r to do with it. They 
hoped you folks wouldn't be at loggerheads as to call one on both sides. 
Why should we be blamed ? 

Mr. Brierathp:h. I wouldn't say you will be blamed, sir. 

The Chairman. Thank you. Go ahead. 

Senator Curtis. But you do a^^ree with the viewpoint expressed that 
you either have to be for the union or against the union, is that right? 

Mr. Brierather. Not altogether, no, sir. 

Senator Curtis. You would disagree with Mazey ? 

Mr. Brierather. I respect someone else's opinion, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Do you agree with Mr. Mazey's view that Judge 
Schlichting was prejudiced and unfair in the trial and sentencing of 
William Vinson ? 

Mr, Brierather. I personally feel that this was a very unfortunate 
situation. The only reason that I might have any sympathy for Wil- 
liam Vinson is that I believe that his actions were a direct result of 
trying to help the Kohler w^orkers. 

Senator Curtis. You said you believed that it was an unfortunate 
incident. My question is : Do you agree with the view of Emil Maze}^ 
that Judge Schlicting was unfair and wrong, that he should be 
attacked ? 

Mr. Brierather. I didn't think that he should be attacked. How- 
ever, I thought that he could have had just a little bit of mercy in ex- 
tending the justice. 

Senator Curtis. Were you present when Emil Mazey did attack him 
in that speech ? 

Mr. Brierather. I was in the meeting, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Did you protest ? 

Mr. Brierather. No, sir. It was far too late to protest by that time. 

Senator Curtis. You were editor of the strike bulletin. 

Mr. Brierather. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Did you ever repudiate Emil Mazey for his attack 
upon the judge? 

Mr. Brierather. No, sir. There was nothing to be gained at that 
point. 

Senator Curtis. Did you ever publicly condemn William Vinson 
for his unlawful act? 

Mr. Brierather. No, sir. I felt sorry for William Vinson. 

Senator Curtis. You felt sorry for him ? 

Mr. Brierather. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. And the little fellow beat him up, so you felt sorry 
for him, is that what you mean ? 

Mr. Brierather. Well, sir, I can't entirely take the blame away 
from the little fellow, to step into the type of an atmosphere as 
he did. I am sure that I would never have taken the same. 

Senator Curtis. Didn't he have a right to go into that tavern? 

Mr. Brierather. Absolutely, sir. He had a right. 

But it is like a Democrat going into a Republican convention. 

Senator Curtis. We w^ould be delighted to have them. That would 
be a chance to spread the light. We would be glad to have him. Do 
you agree with Mr. INIazey's view originally expressed to the com- 
mittee that many of the clergy of the Sheboygan area were under the 
control or influence of the Kohler Co. ? 



IMPROPER ACTRITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 9669 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Brierather. Did you say if I agreed with his views ? 

Senator Curtis. Yes. 

Mr. Brierather. No, sir, I don't agree with his views. 

Senator Curtis. With Emil Mazey's views on that ? 

Mr. Brierather. Not the way they were put, no. 

Senator Curtis. Do you agree with the context at all that the 
churches and clergy in that area are under the influence of the Kohler 
Co.? 

Mr. Brierather. No, sir. I don't agree with that. However, I 
would say that the clergy and the churches could have done just a little 
bit more in this situation and use some of their influences in order to 
help settle this dispute, sir. 

Senator Curtis. That fits in with your idea that they shouldn't be 
neutral ? 

Mr. Brierather. Well, clergy are leaders in a community, and, 
as such, I believe that they have some responsibility. If we are 
wrong, sir, they should have stepped out and told us we were wrong. 

Senator Curtis. They did. 

Mr. Brierather. Only after this attack was made on them. This 
here certainly smokescreened what the Kohler strike was all about. 

Senator Curtis. Who smokescreened it ? 

Mr. Brierather. No, sir, this attack hid the real issues within 
what the Kohler strikers were fighting for. 

It was a result of a situation, sir. We had hoped that these people 
would probably use their influence in trying to get at the source of the 
trouble, in preventing a continuation of acts on behalf of both parties, 
for that matter, in order to create and to split the people still more 
in Slifiboygan, sir. 

I am a resident in Sheboygan. I would like to see this coimnunity 
work together. I Avould like to see the Kohler workers and the Kohler 
Co. work together. I deplore tlie fact that we have to fight when 
that same energy could be used for the common purpose. Those are 
my feelings, sir. 

Senator Curtis. All right. Now, you have worked for Kohler for 
about 20 years, haven't you ? 

]Mr. Brierather. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Has this strike been a loss to you ? 

Mr. BRiERATHiat. I believe this strike has been a loss to everyone. 
It is like war. Nobody really wins. 

Senator Curtis. Has it been a financial loss to you ? 

Mr. Brierather. Very definitely, and I have be«n fired as a result 
of this strike, sir. 

Senator Curtis. This $60 a week that you get, that is really all you 
get, what else you get has to be spent out in connection with your 
duties; is that right? 

Mr. Brierather. That is right. 

Senator Curtis. Do you think it was a proper expenditure of union 
funds for the union to pay Vinson's wife $100 a week while he was 
in prison for beating up that man. Van Ouwerkerk? 

Mr. Brierather. Sir, I do not condone or approve of Vinson's con- 
duct. But his wife was an innocent victim of a situation whereby 
William Vinson was sent to prison, and he was actually sent to prison 



9670 IMPROPER ACTR^ITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

ill trying: to do something for the Kohler workers. It was wrong when 
he was doing it, but, nevertheless, he was doing it for the Kohler 
workers. 

I believe that the UAW stepped up to a responsibility in this case. 
I certainly approve of it. 

Senator Curtis. Your wife and children are innocent victims, too, 
aren't they ? 

Mr. Brikhatiier. They certainl}'^ are, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Yes. And you have worked there 20 years and 
you get $60 a week. Vinson was an outsider. 

Mr. Brierather. He was a member of the UAW, sir. 

Senator Curtis. ^Vliat is that ? 

Mr. Brierather. Outside is your term. He was a member of our 
union, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Yes, we know, now. We had in the record yester- 
day some minutes from 212, and some other facts. But when he was 
on the stand and for several days here, all the UAW fellows gave the 
impression that everybody just happened to come down to the Kohler 
area. 

He got in that fight, brutally beat a man up. As a UAW member, 
do you approve of the $100 a week for his wife ? 

Mr. Brierather. Yes, sir. I didn't approve of the actions of Bill 
Vinson, but I approve of the help to his wife, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Did you ever condemn his actions, prior to this 
hearing ? 

Mr. Brierather. Condemn them ? 

Senator Curtis. Yes. 

Mr. Brierather. We did in Sheboygan in talking among ourselves, 
yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Who did you condemn Vinson's actions for as- 
saulting Van Ouwerkerk to ? 

Mr. Brierather. All of us strikers talked very much about what 
Vinson had done. There was nobody who really approved his actions. 

Senator Curtis. Did any of them tell Emil Mazey that before he 
attacked the judge? 

Mr. Brierather. Most likely not, sir. Wliy should we? 

Senator Curtis. I say did you ? 

Mr. Brierather. I don't know. They may have. I don't know. 
But why should we tell Emil Mazey that? 

Senator Curtis. And you are a citizen there, raising children in 
that community, and Emil Mazey makes this gross attack upon our 
duly constituted courts of law, which shocks the whole community, 
and you never protested. You are one of the leader's. You are the 
editor of the strike bulletin, on the strike committee, coordinator of 
the boycott. 

Mr. Brierather. I recognized his right to do what he did. 

Senator Curtis. Well, now, he did that after the case was all com- 
pleted, didn't he? 

Mr. Brierather. Which case are you talking about? 

Senator Curtis. Vinson's case. 

Mr. Brierather. Yes, sir. 

Senator Citetis. It was notice to any other judge, police judge, or 
justice of tlie peace, of the power and the methods and the manner 
of the UAW, if they administered justice as they saw it. 



IMPROPEiR ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 9671 

You have testified somewliat at length here about the plight of 
the small-business men and their employees when you boycott them. 

I have a complaint coming to me here. In the language of the 
chairman, I will not read it for evidence, but to present a viewpoint 
in this for the purpose of asking a question. 

This is a supply company in Chicago that has handled Kohler prod- 
ucts for many years. They point out this : 

The plumber can buy Crane Co., American Standard, Reim, Universal-Rundle, 
United States or Humphrey's enamelware. The plumber can survive without 
Kohler. I believe the jobber is suffering more than the manufacturer or the 
plumber due to this strike. 

The union has large billboards all around Chicago land telling the public 
to buy union-made plumbing fixtures. 

You find the owners of homes who are union men refusing to buy Kohler 
products. How long can we carry on selling Kohler products? 

I have spent thousands of dollars over the years advertising Kohler fixtures, 
and do hate to change — 

and then he named a couple of others, which I think in all fairness 
should not go into the record. 

"The big reason I am staying loyal," meaning loyal to Kohler, "is 
because they do not compete against their jobbers like" and he men- 
tioned two other companies. 

I am leaving that out because there may be perfectly good reasons 
why some people adhere to a manner of distribution more than others. 
What they are doing is lawful. 

He ends up by saying, "It is the Kohler jobbers who are hurting 
right now." 

In other words, here is the case of an individual, and, as he says, 
he spent years advertising Kohler products. He has preferred to stay 
with that company because of their method of distribution. They 
do not own any jobbing houses, and they do not compete with jobbers. 
Do you think that it is right to attempt or to put such a man out of 
business, or to put him out of business by means of the boycott that 
you are directing throughout the United States ? 

Mr. Brierather. Well, I believe that this, whoever it is, has the right 
to switch to another one, even if only temporarily. This man is put 
in the same position as the Kohler worker who has invested 20 years 
of his life making Kohler products, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Yes, he has that right, but he has to give up con- 
siderable property to do it. He has established a business, run ads, 
and told the people this is the type of ware that he sells, and that they 
ought to buy it. He has that goodwill of his clients. 

He says that he doesn't want to switch to two other well-known 
companies, because he doesn't like to shift to someone who competes 
in the jobbing business. 

Do you think such a boycott is right ? 

Mr. Brierather. Well, it is no more right than, as I stated before — 
this guy is in the same position. It is not right to have a worker in 
a plant invest his lifetime. You might say that he has a choice of 
going somewhere else. I would like to call to your attention that we 
have about 200 men on the strike assistance rolls right now that can- 
not get a job anywhere else because of incapabilities which have been 
received as a result of working at Kohler, sir. 

There is no way of justifying all of the actions. I can appreciate 
this guy 



9672 LMPROPER ACnVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Curtis. I would agree with you. People have been dam- 
aged right in the Kohler community. All we are trying to do is to 
get the facts here. If they hurt the company, they will have to face 
the music and if hurts the union they will have to face it. 

It is a very wasteful thing which is of great economic loss to every- 
body. But at least there is a contest going on there. 

Wlien you carry this economic war over to neutral persons, little 
businessmen, homeowners, and people who work for a jobbing house 
and so on, I want to know whether you approve of that. 

Mr. Brieratiier. I believe that is the result of a situation. The 
Kohler strikers that can't find jobs elsewhere are not expendable, sir, 
I don't believe so. 

Senator Curtis. Well, do you approve of it ? 

Mr. Brierather. In that situation, yes, I approve of it. 

Senator Curtis. All right. 

Mr. Brierather. I think it is deplorable that a struggle like this 
gets this far. I would strongly recommend any kind of procedure — 
I have no answer for this thing — that could bring about a settlement 
or something like this that appears unresolvable. This is the answer 
to something like this. A boycott is an extensive proposition. It takes 
a lot of effort. You never know whether you are making progress or 
not. As I stated, some people get hurt that have no business in getting 
hurt. But all the same, sir, the strikers that invested their lifetime, are 
they expendable ? 

There is no other choice, sir. We have tried to go to the courts. 
We have been in an NLRB hearing that will be 4 years old. The 
liearing is not that long, but how much longer before a final decision, 
sir. 

Senator Curtis. Well, you stated you approve of it. I cannot agree 
with you that you have no other choice. You were not compelled 
to carry this fight to neutral third persons. 

The Chairman. Senator Mundt ? 

Senator Mundt. I have one question in connection with the boy- 
cott, Mr. Chairman. I have some other questions for the witness I 
will defer until tomorrow morning. 

The Chairman. The Chair will announce that for reasons personal 
to himself, as much as to accommodate some members of the staff 
in view of the weather conditions and so forth, we are going to recess 
a little early. 

I do not think anyone will object under the circumstances. But 
we cannot conclude with this witness this afternoon, which is ap- 
parent, and he will have to be back tomorrow. So when we recess, 
we will recess until 10 o'clock in the morning. 

Senator Mundt had some question he wished to ask this afternoon. 

Senator Mundt. I am going to ask you some questions tomorrow on 
a different subject than boycotting, but I have one question in con- 
nection with the line of inquiry Senator Curtis has been engaging in. 
You would agree, I presume, that a boycott ma}' be carried to an ex- 
cess, would you not? 

There are certain excessive acts that even a boycott, in your opinion, 
you would not be able to justify ? 

Mr. Brierather. Well, we have always tried to stay within the law 
as much as humanly possible ; sir. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 9673 

Senator Muxdt. I am thinking not so much now in terms of law as 
in terms of human decency. 

I read into the record some time ago the fact that one of your boy- 
cott activities had gone so far as to boycott the Community Chest of 
Duhith, Minn. I would like to know from you as coordinator of the 
boycott whether you consider that to be a defensible boycott activity? 

iVIr. Brierather. Well, sir, I don't believe that the UAW was in- 
volved. However, in other similar situations I believe that the UAW 
took the position that the help that the Community Chest provides to 
the people who it was set up to help is more important than help in 
this situation, sir. 

Senator Mundt. I am simply asking you now, and I haven't said 
that the boycott at Duluth, Minn., was necessarily a UAW boycott ; I 
am asking you whether you feel that the boycotting of a Community 
Chest is a defensible union activity. 

Mr. Brierather. I don't believe that the Community Chest should 
be boycotted, sir. But I am not opposed to going to the Community 
Chest and telling them our story and trying to win their sympathy, 
sir. 

Senator Mundt. I think you would be perfectly within your rights 
to do that. But you do not feel they should go to the excess that they 
did in Duluth, Minn., and boycott the Community Chest. 

Mr, Brierather. I understand that community services representa- 
tives from the AFL-CIO, if they have not already arrived, they are 
going to go there and try to get that situation straightened out as soon 
as possible. 

Senator Mundt. Let me ask you about this: On March 18, which 
is comparatively current, of the Duluth AFL-CIO central labor coun- 
cil, which was responsible for that boycott, the AP story says : 

The Duluth AFL-CIO central labor council has renewed an earlier demand 
that St. Mary's Hospital be dropped from the Duluth Community Chest. 

The demand was first made last month after the hospital planned to install 
some $6,000 worth of plumbing fixtures from the strikebound Kohler Co., at 
Kohler, Wis. 

A hospital spokesman at that time reported that the labor protest was made 
after contracts for remodeling work had been let and that they could not be 
changed. 

At a meeting Friday, dominated by building trades union, the council gave 
a unanimous voice vote favoring a resolution calling for ouster of St. Mary's 
as a chest beneficiary. 

I presume that since you disavowed the first as an indefensible union 
practice, you would also disavow this. This does not involve, as I 
understand it, the particular operation, but we are curious to know 
what your position is, because as coordinator of the most important 
boycott activity now going on in the country, it is important that we 
get your answer. 

Mr. Brierather. I wasn't aware of what you are talking about 
there now. My last information was that the community services de- 
partment of the national AFL-CIO would go there to correct the 
situation, as they have done in the past. In other words, urge them 
to support the Community Chest. 

Senator Mundt. I am not trying to condemn your union, I am not 
trying to condemn any union. I am simply pointing out, and I read 
you the article so you know what it says. I am trying to find out 
whether you defend or disavow that kind of activity. 



9674 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Brierather. Well, I would want everyone to support the Com- 
munity Chest, sir, everyone. 

Senator Mundt. You would not favor, then, I take it, saying a 
hospital has to be boycotted simply because it uses a certain kind of 
plumbing fixtures, is that right ? 

Mr. BRIER.VTIIER. That is right. 

Senator Mundt. O.K. 

The Chairman. The committee will stand in recess until 10 o'clock 
in the morning. 

("Wliereupon, at 4: 20 p. m. the committee adjourned, to reconvene 
at 10 a. m. Friday, March 21, 1958, with the following members pres- 
ent : Senators McClellan, Curtis, and Mundt.) 



INVESTIGATION OF IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE 
LABOR OR MANAGEMENT FIELD 



FRIDAY, MARCH 21, 1958 

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 Resolution 
221, agreed to January 29, 1958, in the caucus room. Senate Office 
Building, Senator John L. McClellan, chairman of the select com- 
mittee, presiding. 

Present: Senators John L. McClellan, Democrat, Arkansas; Sam 
J. Ervin, Democrat, North Carolina; Barry Goldwater, Republican, 
Arizona ; Karl E. Mundt, Republican, South Dakota ; Carl T. Curtis, 
Republican, Nebraska. 

Also present: Robert F. Kennedy, chief counsel; Jerome S. Adler- 
man, assistant chief counsel; John J. McGovern, assistant counsel; 
Ruth Young Watt, chief clerk. 

The Chairman. We will proceed. 

(Members of the committee present at the convening of the session 
were Senators McClellan and Curtis.) 

The Chairman. The committee will come to order. 

Mr. Brierather, will you come around, please ? 

TESTIMONY OF LEO J. BRIERATHER— Eesumed 

The Chairman. I think Senator Mundt has some questions, and I 
think he announced yesterday before we adjourned that he wished to 
ask this witness some questions. In the meantime while we are wait- 
ing for Senator Mundt, the Chair will ask you a few questions. 

Do you consider this boycott that you have carried on for this last 
year or two has been effective ? 

Mr. Brierather. Well, yes ; I would say that the boycott has been 
effective, and it has not been successful. 

The Chairman. It has not been successful but it has been effective? 

Mr. Brierather. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. You mean then in some places where you have 
applied it, it has been effective? 

Mr. Brierather. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. But in the overall, it has not been successful ? 

Mr. Brierather. Well, I would like to point out, by success we 
mean that we have established enough economic pressure upon the 
Kohler Co. to induce them to come to the bargaining table and nego- 
tiate and bargain in good faith and try to get this strike settled. 

9675 



9676 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 

This is what success in the boycott means to me, sir. 

The Chairman. In other words, the force of the boycott, the eco- 
nomic force and pressure that you have been able to apply by the use 
of it has not been successful in that it has not achieved its purpose. 

It has not compelled and forced the company to surrender to the 
will of the union ? 

Mr. Brier ATiiER. Well, it isn't quite surrendering to the will of the 
union. 

The Chairman. You use any other word you want to. 

Mr. Brierather. It is to bargain in good faith, and by no means 
surrender. 

The Chairman. It goes beyond bargaining in good faith. AVliether 
they bargain or did not bargain, it has not had the effect of closing 
down the operation of the company, has it ? 

Mr. Brierather. Oh ; no, sn\ 

The Chairman. And that is one of the pui'poses of a boycott, is it 
not? 

Mr. Brierather. Well, that is probable 

The Chairman. You either close it down or so reduce its business 
that it will feel the effect of it to the extent that it must yield or else 
suffer the consequences. 

Mr. Brierather. Well, sir, that is the decision that the Kohler Co. 
must make. 

The Chairman. I understand, and it has made a decision not to 
yield? 

Mr. Brierather, Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. And to fight your boycott? 

Mr. Brierather. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. And it is still fighting ? 

Mr. Brierather. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. And according to you it is fighting it successfully, 
because you haven't been successful with it, according to your state- 
ment; is that correct? 

Mr. Brierather. Yes, sir; the battle is still in doubt, so to speak. 

The Chairman. I know the battle is still going on. Now, a smaller 
company with less financial resources against a large union with its 
great resources, such as the UAW, would be helpless and defenseless 
practically against such economic pressure, would it not ? 

Mr. Brierather. Yes, sir. Similarly a smaller union would be 
helpless against the Kohler Co., too. 

The Chairman. In other words, if the Kohler Co. had been a 
smaller company or much weaker financially than it is, it would not 
have been able to have withstood the pressure that has been applied 
through this boycott; is that correct? 

Mr. Brierather. There are many things that enter into this, Sen- 
ator McClellan. We are trying to conduct this as a sales campaign, 
and we are trying to get economic pressure on the basis of telling 
our story to the people. 

The Chairman. I understand that. 

Mr. Brierather. If a smaller company would have the same exist- 
ing circumstances, and the union could tell the same story in regard 
to the labor relations, there are many things which enter into the 
picture. 



IMPROPEiR ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 9677 

The Chairman. I understand that, but the reason primarily that 
the Kohler Co. has been able to survive the boycott has been because 
of its financial resources which enabled it to resist and put up the 
fight ; isn't that true ? 

Mr. Brierather. That is very true. 

The Chairman. You agree with me on that ? 

Mr. Brierather. It is very rich, yes. 

The Chairman. Now, some companies or some manufacturer, or 
some business with less financial resources would have much greater 
difficulty withstanding the impact of such a boycott that the Kohler 
Co. has experienced, you will agree with that ? 

Mr. Brierather. That is a matter of speculation, and I would agree 
to some extent with that. 

The Chairman. You agree to that. Then the question before us, 
and should be before the Congress, is to what extent and to what degree 
or in what way is it proper to apply an economic boycott in a labor- 
management dispute. 

Don't you think that that question is posed by reason of tliis demon- 
stration of how extensive a boycott can be, and the necessary resources 
that it takes to oppose and to fight it ? 

Mr. Brierather. Well, that certainly is the question, but as I would 
see it, it is not the entire question. 

The Chairman. There may be other questions? 

Mr. Brierather. If this weapon is taken away 

The Chairman. But that is one question ? 

Mr. Brierather. That is one question. 

The Chairman. Here is a company now that has demonstrated pos- 
sibly by reason of its financial worth and strength, it has been able to 
successfully resist its own destruction by a boycott or to resist yielding 
to demands that it feels it should not yield to by reason of the fact 
it did have the financial strength to fight it. 

Now, to take the same situation with a company that does not have 
those resources, some small business enterprise, is it not put at a ter- 
rific disadvantage unless there is some law defining clearly and pre- 
cisely what kind of a boycott can be carried on, and what kind of a 
boycott is a proper labor practice, and the kind that is not. 

(At this point, Senators Mundt and Goldwater entered the hearing 
room.) 

Mr. Brierather. As I see it, sir, the boycott is very little difference 
from a strike itself. Whenever workers go out on strike it is for the 
purpose of applying economic pressure upon the Kohler Co. or any 
company. 

The Chairman. That is correct. 

Mr. Brierather. This is against the Kohler Co. 

The Chairman. And the point I am making, and you are giving an 
illustration, is that when you go out on strike that is applying eco- 
nomic pressure, and that is correct. Wlien you boycott, that is apply- 
ing economic pressure ? 

Mr. Brierather. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. But we come to this then: When you go out on 
strike, is it proper, or a proper practice, and should it be sanctioned by 
law that you could put so many pickets in front of an entrance to a 
plant that no one else could enter, and should you be able by that means 



9678 IMPROPER ACTR'ITmS m THE LABOR FIELD 

t-o keep people away from work by sheer force, physical force ? And 
that is what it amounts to. 

That is another tiling that I think the Congress should consider. 

Mr. Briekather. In conjunction with that, sir, I don't entirely disa- 
gree with you, but in connection with that the Congress also should 
see to it that a strike is not a means of the workers going out on strike 
and giving them a rope to liang themselves. You have to give them 
something whereby they can help themselves. 

The Chairman. What do you want? Suppose the company said, 
"If you are not going to work for these wages, we want to shut down 
our plant, and we can't afford to pay it." 

Then do you want the Congress to make them operate the plant 
in spite of that fact ? 

Mr. Brierather. Well, sir, I would think that a great amount of 
the difficulties, and the situation which arose out of the Kohler strike 
could have been straightened if the Kohler Co. would not have avail- 
able to them people who had not worked at the Kohler plant. 

I feel kind of proud, and I think that this certainly is a direct chal- 
lenge to the Kohler Co., that even today the Kohler Co. could not 
operate its plant with its original workers. I think the Kohler work- 
ers stuck together like no other group did before. 

The Chairman. You may see something to be proud of in this 
affair, but I don't see anything on either side for anyone to be proud 
of. I think the whole thing from beginning to end is most regrettable. 
I think the Congress should search, and that should be the purpose of 
this inquiry that we are conducting now, to search for the facts and 
then undertake to find some legislation that will do justice to both sides 
and protect both interests, and yet be calculated to prevent a recurrence 
of what has happened in this figlit between the Kohler Co. and its em- 
ployees. 

I say that not in condemnation of anybody but in search of a remedy, 
something that will do justice for both sides, and at the same time not 
have these things occurring. Because you did have a riot out there in 
1934, according to all of the testimony, and you barely escaped one 
in 1954. 

Although you escaped the riot you had practices going on out there, 
vandalism and other conduct that is most reprehensible, and it has 
done irreparable harm, in my judgment, in that community. 

Mr. Brierather. I agree with you. Senator. I think that the strike 
is the worse thing that can happen to any worker and to liis family, and 
certainly to the company. But I would like to state that when Con- 
gress does try to take corrective measures, it should also try not to give 
a company another strike-breaking weapon. 

I would like to see something done whereby a strike such as this 
could be conducted with everything above board, and when we feel 
helpless, that is when tliis stuff happens. 

The Chairman. Jjet me ask you something. Do you think that the 
company, and I am not talking about Kohler as such, but do you think 
a company or an employer should have no weapon with which to op- 
pose what lie regards as an unjust strike ? 

Mr. Brierather. They have plenty of weapons. 

The Chairman. Woiild you take all of the weapons away from 
them, and what weapon would you let them have to oppose what they 



IMPROPER ACTIYITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 9679 

would regard as unjust demands upon tliem? What weapon would 
you let them retain ? 

Mr. Brierather. I am not opposed to any of the weapons that they 
have at the present time, with the exception that they can use a strike 
to destroy a union. 

The Chairman. With the exception that you don't want them to go 
out and employ other people ? 

Mr. Brierather. Other people imder those circumstances 

The Chairman. Of course that means complete surrender, doesn't 
it? 

Mr. Brierather. Oh, no, sir. The company stated, and I believe it 
is on the record that the majority of the Kohler workers did not want 
to strike, sir, and that it was the miion and its leadership that wanted 
to strike. This is not true, sir. 

Even 4 years later nobody can tell me and convince me that by force 
I or anyone of the officials of the union could keep these people out of 
the plant. This is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. 

The Chairman. That you could keep people out of the plant? 

Mr. Brierather. By force, yes, our own people. 

The Chairman. Well, you did keep people out by mass picketing 
for quite a while. 

Mr. Brierather. We didn't attempt to keep our own people out of 
the plant. If they would have wanted to go into that plant, they 
could have gone in at any time. 

The Chairman. You attempted to keep workers out of that plant 
and succeeded. You say your own people, and you are talking about 
union members. 

Mr. Brierather. The company eventually succeeded in getting new 
people into that plant, and Mr. McClellan, I might say to you right 
now, that those people that were working at the Kohler Co. prior 
to the strike, and some of them our own union members who even- 
tually went into work, did not do so because they saw the Kohler Co.'s 
point of view but because they felt that they had to protect their 
jobs and because somebody else was taking it away from them. 

The Chairman. That is economic pressure from the other side, 
isn't it? 

Mr. Brierather. Well, the very fact that a striker returns 

The Chairman. You use economic pressure on one side, and the 
other side uses economic pressure and you object to it ? 

Mr. Brierather. The very fact that a striker is out on strike and 
not earning his wages is plenty of economic pressure. Believe you 
me, I know. 

The Chairman. I am sure it is. 

Senator Mundt, do you have some questions ? 

Mr. Rauh. Mr. Chairman, may I be permitted one opinion on the 
boycott situation. 

The Chairman. Briefly. 

Mr. Rauh. It will be very brief. Our union takes the position that 
the consumer boycott is only an extension of the basic principle shown 
in the union label program of trade unionism to the effect that union 
members and those who believe in the union movement would support 
the union against an employer, and would support union-made goods 
against non-union-made goods. And really the consumer boycott we 



IR/IPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

have carried on is a very little extension of the union label program, 
which I think the American Federation of Labor has had for prob- 
ably 100 years. 

For Congi'ess to tamper with the consumer boycott, we would feel, 
would be a mistake. As far as the secondary boycott, we agree that 
that is a problem, and we ti-y to avoid it and we are still trying to 
avoid it. 

The Chairman. Mr. Rauh, the point I am raising is simply this: 
A man's right to boycott is certainly an individual right. It may 
become a collective right in management-labor relations, where your 
union says, "Well, we won't buy, and we will tell our members not 
to buy." I think that is freedom of speech, and freedom of persuasion, 
and it is perfectly legitimate. 

But when tliey go beyond that and go out and maybe picket the 
innocent and threaten his business, where he has no quarrel, then I 
think it may be going too far. 

In other words, what I want to do is get as much as the facts on 
this before this committee and before the Congress so that the Con- 
gress can evaluate and weigh it, and see where legislation may be 
needed and where it may not be. 

I am not necessarily condemning at the moment anything that the 
union has done, and t am not necessarily condemning anything that 
the company has done. It appears to me that you both started out 
pretty obstinate, and remained the same as of now. 

Proceed, Senator Mundt. 

Senator Mundt. First of all, I would like to second what the chair- 
man has said about this boycott. I am a little bit surprised that Mr. 
Rauh would present the argument he did. I admire his ability and his 
agility, but I don't think that he is quite up to par this morning when 
he tries to tell us that there isn't any difference between a voluntary 
movement to buy union label goods, and the kind of boycott that these 
hearings have been discussing. 

The difference is simply the difference between voluntary and invol- 
untary. It is a difference between black and white, and yes or no. 
It is a pretty vast difference where you educate people to buy union 
goods, and t think that is fine, and that is proper. That is part of 
the standards of union practice. 

There is a vast difference between that and exerting coercion, and 
pressures and picket lines, and boycotting of community chests and 
hospitals, to say, "Unless you do it you are in trouble. It is against 
this second thing, Mr. Rauh, that we are thinking in terms of legis- 
lative terms, and not against the first one. 

Mr. Ratjh. Senator, just let me say on that point, you interrupted 
Mr. Brierather yesterday when he was trying to tell you and to explain 
that this was an educational boycott, and that the picketing was a 
negligible part of it, and would you let Mr. Brierather now go 
through the boycott and explain how its works? As soon as he got 
started explaining it, you and Senator Curtis went right into 
picketing. 

Senator :Mundt. You said "you," and then "Senator, Curtis." _ 

Mr. Rauh. It was one or the other, and I never remember which 
one asks the question, and they are very often quite similar, but I 
can't remember. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIBS IN THE LABOR FIELD 9681 

Senator Mundt. Part of your job as counsel is to keep those things 
firmly in mind so you can quote us correctly, because you were 100 
percent wrong when you said I interrupted, because I didn't. 

I wasn't talking about boycott, and I was talking about the 
hospital. 

Mr. Kauh. Perhaps it is Senator Curtis. 

Senator Muxdt. At that time, when Senator Curtis is asking ques- 
tions this morning, I suggest that you let Senator Curtis and your 
witness discuss that point, if something was left dangling in midair, 
and I don't know. 

Now, Mr. Brierather, when you and I were discussing this at the 
end of the day yesterday, something about this boycott business, I 
was happy and pleased to hear you say that you disavowed the 
hospital strike, and the community chest strike in Duluth, and that 
you disapproved of it. 

I think that is proper, and I certainly hope that the international 
union which pays your wages as coordinator, if that is the proper 
title, of the boycott program, will make that position clear to the union 
forces in Duluth, and to the country generally. Because it certainly 
is pretty hard for anybody to justify labor strife being taken out on 
the people who are in the community chest and the sick, and the 
dying in a hospital. 

I am glad that you did place your stamp of disapproval on what 
I think is a pretty ghastly, grim, and disgraceful situation up in 
Duluth, Minn., where this thing has been taking place, and I did 
understand you, did I not, to say you disapproved of that ? 

Mr. Bkierather. Well, sir, organized labor 

(At this point, the following members were present: Senators 
McClellan, Mundt, Curtis, and Gold water.) 

Senator Mundt. Do you disapprove of that ? 

Mr. Brierather. Yes, it is against the principles 

Senator Mundt. You and I will go along and I will let you say 
everything you want to. But I think counsel will agree that first you 
should answer the question, and then elaborate. When I say, "Do 
you disapprove?" you say "yes" or "no" and then if you want to 
amplify it, you can. That would be fair and proper. 

Mr. Brierather. I disapprove of that, certainly, because the UAW 
and organized labor in general have fought to have such things as 
community chests to take care of the problems of those unfortunate 
people that couldn't help themselves. 

It was one of the things that they fought for for years. Now to 
deny the community chest the help of the public and certainly of 
people of organized labor is certainly against our principles, sir. 

Senator Mundt. I am happy to have you say that. I don't think it 
has happened too many places, but I do happen to know about 
Duluth, Minn., because 1 went to school in Minnesota. I know some- 
thing about Minnesota, it is close to South Dakota, and the people 
there are just very much disturbed about labor strife being fought 
out in the corridors of hospitals were babies are being born and people 
are dying. 

I hope you will use your influence. I want to find out a little more 
from you this morning, Mr. Brierather 

Mr. Brierather. Call me Leo. 



9682 IMPROPER ACTIVITIE.S IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Mundt. Call you Leo, all right. You and I are just a 
couple of country boys and we will work on that basis. Leo, I am 
trying to find out from you how important in this boycott movement 
you are. I don't want you to assume responsibilities for things that 
are outside the reahn of your authority, and I know you are not going 
to duck any responsibility for things that you do. Your title, I under- 
stand, is coordinator of the UAW boycott program, is that correct? 

Mr. Bkierather. That is correct, sir. 

Senator Mundt. That is correct. In that capacity, do you have 
other people devoting full time to it besides you and Mr. Eand ? 

Mr. BiUERATHER. Yes. 

Senator Mundt. Plow many ? 

Mr. Brier^vther. We have a committee, special committee set up 
from the local union. 

Senator Mundt. How many ? 

Mr. Brierather. I would say about 15 right now. 

Senator Mundt. 15 at the local level ? 

Mr. Brierather. Probably. We had more at one time. 

Senator Mundt. From 15 to 25 ? 

Mr. BrieRz^ther. Yes, we had 25. 

Senator Mundt. Sometimes more than that ? 

Mr. Brierather. Yes. Although the special committee and full- 
time committee had other duties, too, but they weren't to devote as 
much time and helping along with setting up this boycott progi'am. 

Senator Mundt. Did your committee ever get larger than 25 ? 

Mr. Brierather. I don't think so, no. 

Senator Mundt. Between 15 and 25 members, former Kohler em- 
ployees, now devoting full time to the boycott movement ? 

Mr. Brierather. Yes. 

Senator Mundt. And then Mr. Rand, who is not a former Kohler 
employee makes one additional from the outside. Are there any other 
additional people from the outside ? 

How about Mr. Burkhart ? 

Mr. Brierather. Mr. Burkhart is no longer assigned to this pro- 
gram. He is working at some other job now. 

Senator Mundt. Anybody else besides Mr. Rand ? 

Mr. Brierather. Yes. I listed all of the boycott representatives 
yesterday. If you will recall, we had a meeting in Detroit. 

Senator Mundt. If you got them in the record once, once is enough. 
How many of them are there to add to your committee of 15 to 25? 

Mr. Brierather. Right now, 1 believe there are 11. There could 
be 12 of them. I would have to list them again , 

Senator IMundt. 12 international representatives out of the Detroit 
office and 15 to 25 out of the Sheboygan office? 

Mr. Brierather. Yes, sir. 

Senator Mundt. Either office, at times, sends people, I think you 
said, to Los Angeles or anv place ? 

Mr. Brh-rather. Yes, sir. 

Senator Mundt. All right. The only time you need a boycott, I 
presume, from the standpoint of the union, is when your strike itself, 
for one reason or another, has failed to either achieve the union pur- 
pose or achieve enough of them so that j'oii can write a new contract, is 
that right? 



I.MPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 9683 

Mr. Brierather. Yes, sir, that is about it. 

Senator Mundt. So that wherever a strike is embraced sufficiently 
by the local labor group, you don't need a boycott ; it is only when you 
have part of the laboring force wanting to strike and part of the labor- 
ing force wanting to work that you have to try to utilize the instru- 
mentality of the boycott to achieve the purpose of the strike. Isn't 
that correct ? 

Mr. BRIER.VTHER. What do you mean by labor group ^ Do you mean 
our own, the Kohler workers themselves, sir ? 

Senator Mundt. Yes, the Kohler workers and the working people, 
let's say, of Sheboygan. 

Mr. Brierather. If you include all of the working people of She- 
boygan, or the entire surrounding area, sir — this is another unique 
thing about this. 

Senator Mundt. Let's stick to Sheboygan now. Let's get an answer 
to the question of Sheboygan. If the working group, if the workers, 
in Sheboygan, had embraced the purposes of the strike sufficiently, 
you wouldn't need any boycott or anything else but to go on strike, 
is that right ? 

Mr. Brierather. Well, sir, I think if we could include all of She- 
boygan, we would still be in good shape as far as people not going 
into that plant. 

Senator Mundt. May I have the reporter read the question ? I think 
you didn't understand it. You certainly didn't answer it. It didn't 
have any connection with the question. 

(As requested, the reporter read the pending question.) 

Mr. Brierather. The workers in Sheboygan did embrace the strike, 
sir. 

Senator Mundt. Not sufficiently so that the strike won. 

Mr. Brierather. Yes, sir, if you put it that way, yes, sir. 

Senator Mundt. My point is that even if the people in the Kohler 
plant, if the workers at the Kohler plant, let's say 90 percent of them 
had said "This strike is for us, this is something we are going to 
strike with," you won't need a boycott, because they can't run a plant 
with 10 percent of the people. 

Mr. Brierather. That is correct. 

Senator Mundt. So that when you get to a situation of a boycott, 
it is because there is a division of opinion on the part of the workers 
as to whether the strike or the union or whatever is the situation, 
should be embraced ? 

Mr. Brierather. Well, where I am really confused is in the inter- 
pretation of the workers, sir. Like if you were saying workers within 
the Sheboygan area, I believe we wouldn't have needed a boycott. 
I don't think the Kohler Co. would have 

Senator Mundt. Let me pin it down. The point is this: If the 
workers in the Kohler plant themselves had supported the strike 100 
percent, it is obvious you don't need a boycott or anything else to win 
a strike because the plant is closed down. 

Mr. Brierather. That is correct, sir. 

Senator Mundt. So the company decides to keep the plant closed 
down forever or do business with the union. 

That seems to me to be simple. 

21243— 58— pt. 24 14 



9684 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Briekathek. That is right, sir. 

Senator Muxdt. If 90 percent of them, I suppose, in the plant sup- 
ported the strike, you don't have to have the boycott. 

Mr. Briekathek. That is correct, sir. 

Senator Mundt. There comes a point where you go down, it may be 
80, may be 70, or 60, but some place down the line, when you have 
a division of opinion among the workers in the plant, then it is diffi- 
cult for a union to win a strike, even though it feels that it represents 
the majority of the workers. Isn't that the problem^ 

Mr. BRIER.VTHEK. Actually, there was very little division. I stated 
before that if it could be on that fact alone, we wouldn't have needed 
a boycott, sir; it was the importation of strikebreakers that made it 
necessary for us to pursue a boycott. 

(At this point. Senator Ervin entered the hearing room.) 

Senator Mundt. That we will have to find out. You say they im- 
ported the strikebreakers from outside of Sheboygan and the com- 
pany said they didn't, and certainly the Senator from South Dakota 
doesn't know who is working at the plant. I will have to find out 
eventually who is right on this. There is a conflict of opinion, cer- 
tainly, between you and other witnesses as to where the workers came 
from. But the thing I am interested in primarily at this point is that 
if the workers within the plant themselves had been sufficiently united 
in their determination to strike and in persevering with the strike, you 
wouldn't get into this sticky business of a boycott. Sometimes it is 
perhaps legal and sometimes illegal and sometimes ethical and some- 
times imethical, but which you and I have recognized can be carried 
to excess. 

Mr. Brierather. That was not the case in the Kohler strike, sir. 
If it would have been just for the workers in the plant, union or non- 
union, we wouldn't have needed a boycott. 

Senator Mundt. Well, there is no use to argue that, because this is 
a matter of difference of opinion and difference in whoever seems to 
be testifying. We have had testimony in the plant that some 1,380, I 
believe, of the workers had gone back to work. We had testimony 
that 1,180 or thereabouts voted to strike. You can juggle these figures 
around and you are never going to wind up any place. But we can 
recognize the fact that if you had been able to sell the idea to all the 
workers, or 90 percent of the workers, you wouldn't have had this 
problem of going into a boycott. 

Mr. Brierather. I am confident that we did sell it, sir. You can 
prove anything with figures. 

Senator Mundt. You said a strike, as we all recognize, is a legiti- 
mate weapon of labor. It isn't very much different from a boycott. 
You said a boycott is sort of an extension of a strike. 

Mr. Brierather. Yes, sir. 

Senator Mundt. There is this big difference, isn't there: That a 
strike primarily is set up to keep workers who disagree with the 
strikers from entering the plant, assuming their jobs, and enabling 
the company to continue work without the strikers. That is the pur- 
pose of the strike ? 

Mr. l^RiERATHER. The purpose of the strike is to shut down the 
plant completely, sir. To shut it down so that there is no production. 

Senator Mundt. I think the purpose of the strike is for the union 
to win a labor argument. You are not trying to shut down a plant. 



IMPROPEIR ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 9685 

Mr. Brierather. Yes, sir. 

Senator Mundt. Now, there is this big difference in a boycott. A 
boycott is not directed, first, against the company at all. 

Mr. Brierather. It certainly is. 

Senator Mundt. It is directed against the third parties. It is di- 
rected against the third parties. That is the difficulty with a boycott. 
In order to operate, it is directed against third parties. You are not 
boycotting the company directly because the company doesn't sell, I 
presume, its fixtures and plumbing equipment out of the front office. 

It does it through innocent third parties, far removed. Somehow 
or other you intimidated little community commissioners and mayors 
in little towns far from Sheboygan who wanted to become public 
officials and feel that that is the thing to do for one reason or another, 
whether it is because of the desire to get labor votes, or public opinion, 
whatever it is. But clear off in Connecticut you had little fellows run- 
ning for town office who got so afraid or emotionalized or timid, or 
whatever it was, that clear off there you induced some of them, as part 
of the boycott movement, to pass city ordinances not to buy equipment, 
sold by Kohler, by taxpayers of their communities, who were no more 
involved in either side of the strike than that microphone in front of 
you. 

So the difference between the strike and the boycott is that it is di- 
rected against a third party. And the third party has some rights in 
this country which you must concede. I even think, and you may disa- 
gree with that, that a minority has some rights. I know that your 
counsel says he believes that in some of his fine speeches that I have 
read, and I would assume that maybe you would agree with me, that 
a minority has some rights; that even a fellow working in a plant who 
doesn't want to strike ought to have some rights. 

But apparently you set up not only a strike but a boycott to crush 
down the minority so they don't disagree. That is inevitable, isn't it, 
Leo? 

Mr. Brierather. Well, sir, our boycott campaign is against the 
Kohler product. I do agree that a third party often gets involved, 
sir. But the boycott is against the Kohler product. I believe, and we 
all believe that every citizen has a choice to buy what he wants to, to 
sell what he wants to, and we are trying to influence that choice, sir. 

We are trying to get him to exercise that choice. With government 
bodies, with dealers, and with everyone else. We haven't been success- 
ful in many cases, sir. 

Senator Mundt. May I say 

Mr. Brierather. Your allegation of intimidation certainly is not 
upheld in that, because with governmental bodies, in many cases we 
have been unsuccessful and in some cases we have. 

In other words, that particular body made its choice. We have in- 
fluenced that choice. In some cases we haven't, because they took just 
the opposite stand. So, as far as a boycott against a third party, that is 
not true. We are against boycotting Koliler products which are made 
by the Kohler Co. with a force of strikebreakers, sir. 

Senator Mundt. I think what you have said is rather long but a 
pretty definite affirmative answer to the question I asked you. By 
your very testimony you said it has to be directed against the third 
party. Your target is Kohler, but to get to Kohler you have to work 



9686 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 

throuf^h these distributors and work against others. That is exactly 
what I said. I am rather glad — I don't know who is right about the 
strike, but I am rather glad, at least we have a majority of public 
officials even in municipal organizations who refuse to be pushed 
around by any kind of pressure. 

By what you said you weren't too successful. In some places you 
couldn't induce people to pass ordinances, and in some places you 
could. It after all isn't much business up in Boston or in Buffalo, 
or someplace else, it isn't much business of the people there, just 
individual taxpayers, what statements are made over in Kohler, Wis. 
These are innocent third parties. They might manifest an interest 
in your cause, if they feel it just, by sending you money for your strike 
fund and so forth. But to tell the taxpayer that because he is using 
Kohler products, or a plumber because he is using Kohler products, 
that he can't work, he is out of a job, that is jungle warfare, that is 
what I think you and I and all of us on this committee are trying to 
get rid of. It is tantamount to the old-type lockout the employers 
used, which has been made illegal. It is tantamount to the type of 
roughhouse that strikes almost universally seemed to bring about. 
This one, to a considerable extent, at least, has avoided that. By the 
testimony here there has been less of a roughhouse situation than there 
was 20 years ago. I think we are making progress. But I think you 
are walking downhill back to the jungle times of labor strife when 
you direct coercion against third parties. We will not discuss it 
further. Your position, I think, is clear, and mine is clear. I would 
like to turn to some other aspects. 

Mr. Rauh. Just a moment. Senator Mundt. Mr. Brierather has 
an answer. Several times now during the course of your questioning 
of Mr. Brierather, you have cut him off short. He is about half your 
size. I think it is fair to let him answer. He wants to say something, 
but you want to quick-shift to some other subject. 

Senator Mundt. I haven't asked him a question, but if he wants to 
say something, he may. 

Mr. Brierather. Sir, I don't believe our efforts are intimidation or 
coercion at all. It is a matter of trying to win some friends. We are 
trying to do it in a manner of a sales campaign. We are pleading for 
their help, sir. 

I believe that this is an American right, and I believe that is one 
thing that shouldn't be taken away fi-om anybody, to try to win some 
friends and influence them so that he will help us. We have tried to 
do this by telling the Kohler worker story. We have asked them to 
review the story, and to judge us. 

In other words, the Kohler strikers and our families have placed 
themselves at the mercy of the American public. We have put our 
case in their hands for judgment. This is what this amounts to. They 
will judge whether we are right or wrong. We will stand on our 
record, sir. We certainly do not state that the Kohler Co. cannot tell 
its side of the story, because it certainly does so. In fact, they have 
many advantages that we haven't got in telling that story, and despite 
that," T feel confident that the people in America will separate the 
wheat from the chaff and make a decision one way or another. 

I believe that this is the American way of doing things. 

Senator Mundt. May I say to you that my mail indicates that in 
your campaign to win friends and influence people you have lost a 



IMPROPEIR ACrrV'ITIES IX THE LABOR FTELiD 9687 

considerable amount of ground by some of the tactics you have em- 
ployed. 

When you present your case, when you present the reasons for the 
strike, when you talk about the conditions you are trying to correct, 
or even when you are trying to induce people to buy union-made 
products, and to buy "label, "buy all of that, I think you make prog- 
ress and win friends. But I think you lose progress pretty fast when 
you have some of the statements made by some of the UAW officials 
about the churches, about the judges, about the people of Sheboygan, 
when we find that you have intimidated a little town council and some 
big city council officials, when you have exerted pressures on third 
parties. 

It is like the man walking out in the corridor concluded yesterday, 
almost with tears in his eyes, he said "I was certainly impressed with 
what Senator Curtis said." He said "I happen to be a businessman 
who has practically been bankrupted by the boycott activities of the 
union." 

He wasn't on your side or anybody else's side. He was trying to 
make a living like you are, like all of us are. So I think that you 
lose ground in this connection when you go to excesses. 

I want to turn to something else. I think you said you earn, what, 
$60 a week? 

Mr. Brierather. Yes, sir. 

Senator Mundt. And you talked about 2 different kinds of expense 
accounts, 1 that was $13 a day and 1 was something else. 

Mr. Brierather. That is only at the time when I go out of town 
for the union. That is the only time that I receive that, sir. 

Senator Mundt. You receive $13 a day when you are out of town ? 

Mr. Brierather. And in addition to the $60, 1 do receive insurance 
coverage which is given to all strikers on the stiike assistance, on 
strike rolls, and I also get my gasoline paid for for going back and 
forth from the office and home. 

Senator Mundt. Do you get any expense paid while you are in 
Sheboygan ? 

Mr. Brierather. No, sir, no. 

Senator Mundt. What confused me was you said $13 a day and then 
you said "and actual expenses." It seemed to me that you had two 
different types. 

Mr. Brierather. No. 

Senator Mundt. Of this $60 a week, $240 roughly a month, do you 
make any contributions of any kind to union funds ? 

Mr. Brierather. Very little, sir. There isn't much left for con- 
tributions. 

Senator Mundt. I am sure that is right. I am just asking you, 
consequently, whether you made any. 

Mr. Brierather. No, sir. 

Senator Mundt. None at all ? 

Mr. Brierather. No, sir. 

Senator Mundt. You said very little. 

Mr. Brierather. I may have contributed, but it would be negligible, 
sir. I haven't got that money at all. 

Senator Mundt. Well, I wouldn't think so. I am just asking the 
questions. It would seem to be pretty hard to live on $240 a month be- 



9688 LMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 

cause I presumed your family and you were accustomed to living with 
a little better income than that before the strike, a substantially better 
income. 

Mr. Brieratiiek. Yes, sir. 

Senator Mundt. Now I want to pass along. I have one other ques- 
tion on another aspect. The KWA, is that it, or IvAW ? 

Mr. Brieratiier. That was the Kohler Workers Association, sir. 

Senator Mundt. If I understoood you correctly, this was, in your 
opinion, a company-dominated union at the time it was formed? 

Mr. Brierather. Very definitely, sir. 

Senator Mundt. And the initial officers were selected, I think you 
said, by the company, or they encouraged, at least, their selection or 
nomination ? 

Mr. Brierather. The first three nominees were foremen, for pres- 
ident, for chairman. 

Senator Mundt. Are foremen members of the union ? 

Mr. Brierather. No, sir. 

Senator Mundt. Can they belong to your union? 

Mr. Brierather. No, sir. They are supervision, sir. You have to 
bargain with them. 

Senator Mundt. We cannot always tell by a term just what a man's 
job is. I wanted to find out. 

Then you testified, I believe, that there came a time when the Kohler 
union ceased to be company dominated. 

Mr. Brierather. Yes, sir. 

Senator Mundt. How did a company-dominated union become an 
undominated ? 

Mr. Brierather. This was a very gradual process, sir. Probably it 
was most noticeable after the war, when people returned from other 
places. You got younger people into the plant. They were not so apt 
to be 

Senator Mundt. How many years did it take to make the transition 
from a company-dominated union to an independent miion which was 
not dominated ? 

Ml-. Brierather. Well, sir, it would be hard to pinpoint a particu- 
lar date, but I would say 1948, 1949, or 1950, somewhere around that 
period. 

Senator Mundt. I am not asking you that particular date. But 
how many years did it require to bring about the transition? 

]\[r. Brierather. I would say about 16 years. 

Senator Mundt. In other words, it was formed about 1932? 

Mr. Brierather. 1933, 1 believe it was formed, sir. 

Senator Mundt. And it took 15 or 16 years. Then how long did it 
continue as an independent union after it ceased to be dominated by 
the company ? 

Mr. Brierather. Until May of 1952, sir, when it affiliated with the 
UAW. 

Senator Mundt. So your description of the history of the KAW 
was that for about, roughly, 15 years, it was company-dominated and 
about the last 5 years it was run by the members of the union ? 

Mr. Brierather. Well, it was starting to stand on its own feet, so 
to speak. 



IMPROPEK ACTIVITIEIS IN THE LABOR FIELD 9689 

Senator Mundt. Yes. I wanted to get that clear. I could tell 
from your testimony that you did recognize that there was a time 
when it was not company dominated, and it certainly sounded pretty 
clear to me that you thought that for the majority of the time you 
thought it was dominated by the company. 

Now, what year were you editor of the strike bulletin, year or 
years ? 

Mr. Brierather. From about May, the first week in May, of 1954, 
until I became boycott coordinator, about the second week of June 
1955. But I was a member of the publicity committee all the 

Senator Mundi'. Just a little over a year? 

Mr. Brierather. Yes, sir. 

Senator Mundt. As editor of the strike bulletin, you were in charge 
of its policies, I presume? There was nobody over you telling you 
what you had to do? You had freedom of the press to the extent 
that an editor runs his own plant, paper, right? 

Mr. Brierather. I would say more or less ; yes, sir. 

Senator Mundt. Consequently, you were responsible for what went 
into the bulletin? 

Mr. Brierather. Yes, sir. 

Senator Mundt. As any other editor has to be. Did you write 
most of it yourself or did you have quite a staff of assistants? 

Mr. Brierather. We had a publicity staff, but it would all go 
through me. They would give me their articles, and I would decide 
whether it goes in or stays out or whether it gets revised. 

Senator Mundt. Very good. Was it your policy as editor of the 
strike bulletin to tell the workers of Sheboygan the truth and the facts, 
or was it your policy as editor of the strike bulletin to put in a lot 
of falsehoods and propaganda, calculated to deceive them and to de- 
lude them and to continue the strike, whereas they might not have 
done that had they known the truth ? 

Mr. Brierather. 1 wanted to kid nobody, sir. I was trying to tell 
the truth as much as I possibly could. 

Senator Mundt. You were trying to tell the truth ? 

Mr. Brierather. Yes, sir. Because the other way you are in trouble 
pretty quick. 

Senator Mundt. You look like an honest young man and I was try- 
ing to find out. We have had periodicals and papers and publica- 
tions, and mimeographed sheets, which we all know which are cal- 
culated to stir up people and to propagandize them and not primarily 
devoted to the truth. 

I wanted to find out whether you were telling the truth in the strike 
bulletin. To the best of your knowledge, you were ? 

Mr. Brierather. Yes. On a few occasions, I had to backtrack 
plenty fast, where it was not the truth when it went in. But I thought 
it was at the time I put it in. 

(At this point, Senator Ervin withdrew from the hearing room.) 

Senator Mundt. When you put a false statement in the strike bul- 
letin, did you do what good editors usually do, by retracting it pub- 
licly in the bulletin ? 

Mr. Brierather. Yes ; definitely. 

Senator Mundt. We all make mistakes and try to correct them. 
That is the best we could do. 



9690 IMPROPKR ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Brieratiier. Yes, sir. 

Senator Mundt. I appreciate tliat, because I have had a long 
discussion with other witnesses before the committee, some of them 
who have been pretty unkind in the strike bulletin. I didn't know 
who the editor was. I am pretty impressed by the editor of the strike 
bulletin. I think you were a good one. You have a fine command 
of the English language, and you were a dispassionate, objective, 
ardent advocate of your cause. I like people like that, if I agree with 
them or not. 

Mr. Brieratiier. Thank you, sir. 

Senator Mundt. Some of the other witnesses of the union have said 
that you couldn't believe what was published in the strike bulletin, 
that it was calculated just to kind of kid people along. 

Mr. Rauii. Mr. Chairman, I object to this question on the grounds 
that there is not one iota of evidence after four weeks of sitting here 
to what Senator Mundt just said. 

I think it is unfair, sir. 

Senator Mundt. I beg counsel's pardon. There is an abundance 
of evidence on what I was about to ask. 

The Chairman. Would you proceed what you were gomg to ask? 

Senator Mundt. Yes. It would seem to me to ask the editor, et 
cetera, et cetera, because other witnesses from the union in answer 
to specific questions I have asked over and over again, 10, more than 11 
times, I had asked questions about the veracity of stuff in the strike 
bulletin, and have been told in one way or another that you can't al- 
ways believe what was published in the strike bulletin, that this was 
done to kid people along, that this was a hyperbole, an education, that 
<jouldn't be depended upon. 

I, for example, as one reader of the strike bulletin, couldn't place 
reliance on it, because what was said there was false. There is no 
question in the world about that, Mr. Rauh. 

The Chairman. The Chair will say that he will rule that he be- 
lieves the record supports the foundation for the question, and, if Mr. 
Rauh desires, the record may be read. 

Let the witness answer. 

Mr. Brierather. They couldn't say whether it was true from their 
own knowledge, sir. For instance, Emil Mazey, he would have no 
basis of saying whether something was true or false because he 
didn't write it. 

Senator Mundt. Emil, it seems, has done a lot of things that people 
are beginning to want to disavow, and I don't blame you for wanting 
to disassociate yourself for a lot of things that Emil Mazey has said. 
I commend you again. Now I come back to Leo. Did the union 
have secret agents in the Kohler plant, to the best of your knowledge? 

Mr. Brierather. No, sir, not secret agents as such. The word 
secret agent was a gimmick. We have many, manj^ friends in the 
plant. We have many people in Sheboygan who were related to people 
within the plant. Just because they are in there doesn't mean that 
they are opposed to us. 

Senator Mundt. I know that the Dutchmen of Sheboygan have big 
families. Let's not go through the whole family album now. Tvet's 
just stick to this. Didn't the union have secret agents in the Kohler 
plant, as far as you know ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIEIS IN THE LABOR FIEI.D 9691 



make it very secret, sir. 

Senator Mundt. I don't know what you mean by that. 

Mr. Brierather. Well, sir, the moment you say that secret agent 
U-2 or Q. T. was in the plant, certainly if this was to be taken at 
face value, the Kohler Co. would know just the minute anybody else 
does, sir, and it doesn't become very secret. 

Senator Mundt. It would seem to me it was very secret if you have 
a man by the name of John Schmidt in the plant, but he is known 
to you as secret agent U-2, this is secrecy underscored and underlined 
and it is the iron fist in the silk glove. 

It lets the Kohler Co. know "We have him. We identify them. 
We know their reports. We know them as U-2." And "Now, Kohler 
Co., you try to find out who they are." 

That is secrecy, secret enough for me. 

Mr. Brierather. If you believe that secret agent Q-2 and Q. T. did 
divulge any information that could have been a secret, and there could 
have been a hundred different people, if not more, that had access to 
that knowledge, and the name itself implies the type of effect that 
we tried to produce. 

Senator Mundt. I do not want to break down the whole union case 
that it is trying to build against the Kohler Co., because it has secret 
agents. I have been pretty well convinced that the Kohler Co. had 
agents, that they hired detectives, that they ferreted out information 
when they could. 

But if we adopt your rule that you don't have a secret agent once it 
tells somebody else what the secret is, then nobody has any secret 
agents in this business. 

Mr. Brierather. You can't compare the two, sir. Not at all. We 
made no effort to spy on anyone, to bring into his personal life. 
We didn't pay a dime to anyone, for any information or to anyone. 
We didn't solicit any information. Whatever we received was a purely 
voluntary basis. 

Senator Mundt. Secret agents have nothing to do about whether 
they are prying into personal lives, any financial records, inventories, 
working conditions, striker activities. It isn't the target that they are 
approaching. It is the method that they use. 

There is nothing about a secret agent where you can say "This man 
is a secret agent because he was paid," and "This man is a secret agent 
because he is not paid." 

A secret agent, and you know that as well as I do, is the fellow that 
is carrying information back, who is serving as an informant, and who 
is doing it under the cover of anonymity. That is a secret agent. Now, 
talking about that kind, your strike bulletin, for example, on June 

Mr. Kauh. Just a moment. Senator Mundt. You didn't give him a 
chance to answer. 

Senator Mundt. I didn't ask a question. Am I supposed to let him 
say something every time I say something? 

Mr. Rauh. I would think so. That would be perfectly fair. 

Senator Mundt. I haven't gotten around to even asking the ques- 
tion yet. I am pointing out that the strike bulletin of June 25 

The Chairman. Whenever the Chair hears a question, the Chair 
will give the witness a chance to answer. 



9692 IMPROPER ACl^IVITIBS IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator ]\Iundt. Any time I have asked one that he hasn't com- 
pleted, I would like to liave the counsel stop me. But I don't want him 
to stop me every time I start. 

The strike bulletin of June 25, 1954, says : 

The secret agents are handing in reports about the new indei>endent union being 
formed inside the Kohler plant. 

True or false, Leo ? 

Mr. Brieratiier. Wliat was it, sir ? I am sorry. 

Senator Mundt. I will have the reporter read it. 

(The pending question, as requested, was read by th.& reporter.) 

Mr. Brieratiier. We had reports stating 

Senator Mundt. Mr. Leo, I would like to have you answer the ques- 
tion. Tell me if it is true or false and then you can talk just as long 
as you want, as long as the Chair will let you. But I want you to an- 
swer the question. The question was : True or false ? 

Mr. Brieratiier. I would say it is true. 

Senator Mundt. All right. Now go ahead. 

Mr. Brieratiier. But I would like to qualify the secret agent, sir. 
We didn't solicit this information. We didn't pay for it, sir. What- 
ever information we got was purely voluntary. 

Senator Mundt. That 

Mr. Brierather. We had no organization within the plant. ^Vliat- 
ever information we got we got because people voluntarily told us so. 

Senator Mundt. On the second part of that, your testimony jibes 
com])letely w^ith what I got from other witnesses. On the first part 
it is as far away as yes is from no. I am going to accept your word 
for it. I am going to believe you. I am not even going to ask on 
this one that the Department of Justice try to figure out who is per- 
juring himself. You are convincing me you are telling the truth. 
And the whole record of facts indicates you are telling the truth in 
this, because you said you did have the secret agents. But you said 
they were voluntary. I accept that. I don't think you were paying 
them. They brought up the information and without being told spe- 
cifically what to get. I accept that. 

The strike bulletin of June — Mr, Rauh, why don't you talk up so 
I can hear you. There is certainly no legal advice about some com- 
ment I am making and I am not soliciting your advice. 

Mr. Rauh. There is always legal advice on w^ien a witness has a 
chance to speak, and particularly when you so unfairly keep him from 
speaking. 

Senator Mundt. I can't think of a witness in a long while who has 
had more freedom to speak than Leo has. I am giving him that right 
so he can answer these questions. I am simply going to insist that be- 
fore he adds the amplification, he answer the question. 

The strike bulletin of June 24, 1954, "Agent Q," and you mentioned 
him. I wouldn't ask you to identify him. 

Agent Q reports that the Kohler Co. insists that the various trucking com- 
panies cross our picket lines with material or they will suffer the company's dis- 
pleasure in future business. 

Here is an agent who has gotten pretty close to the inside because 
he knew what the Kohler people were thinking. Pie reported it to 
you, and you faithfully and honestly reported it to the people who 
read the strike bulletin. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 9693 

So that at that time, to the best of your belief, you were telling the 
people of Sheboygan the truth in your strike bulletin, I take it, when 
you said, "Agent Q reports that the Kohler Co. insists that the various 
trucking companies cross our picket line." 

To the best of your effort, you were trying to report the truth. 

True or false ? 

Mr. Brierather. True. But I would like to point out in all ^Df 
these cases the agent U-2 and Q. T. was a term, sir. 

(At this point. Senator Goldwater entered the hearing room.) 

Mr. Brierather. The words replace to say, "Information we have 
received" says this. It is a term on each item. 

We are not pointing to a specific person when we use this term. 
The mere fact that we use gimmicks like U-2 and Q. T. and 2-TJ, 
implies that. We used Agent Q. T. several times and it could be an 
entirely different individual. 

(At this point, Senator Erwin withdrew from the hearing room.) 

Senator Mundt. Would you like to tell us the proper name of 
Agent Q? 

Mr. Brierather. There is no such agent, sir. I just pointed out 
there is no such agent. 

Senator Mundt. You preceded what you said by telling me that 
you were telling the truth in the strike bulletin when you reported 
on Agent Q. 

Mr. Brierather. As much as I possibly could. This information 
was given to us by many, many people, over the telephone, and very 
often obviously wrong stuff. We had our strikers find out as much as 
they could in town, and they would report to us. We would have 
piles of information to try to analyze, and try to give as true an ac- 
count as we could. 

Sentor Mundt. Did you do any radio broadcasting in your capacity 
as either editor of the strike bulletin or as one of the strikers? 

Mr. Brierather. Yes, sir; as a member of the strike committee. 

Senator Mundt. I want to read you a transcript of a paragraph 
that ;^ou made in a radio broadcast on July 7, 1955. 

This is with reference to the clay boat incident of July 5. Quot- 
ing Leo now on the radio : 

Meanwhile Lyman Conger is filling up the newspapers with statements that 
the Kohler Co. does not need the clay to continue production. The secret agent 
reports from the plant — 

and I will repeat that, maybe there was confusion but I want it very 
clear : 

The secret agent reports from the plant do not uphold these statements, 
however. 

Acoording to these reports, the clay is desperately needed. 

Did you make that statement ? 

Mr. Brierather. I imagine I did, sir. I would say I did. 

Senator Mundt. And you are not the type of fellow who would 
get up on the radio and tell the people of Sheboygan the secret agent 
reports from the plant, if you hadn't had such reports, would you ? 

You wouldn't just fabricate a story ? 

Mr. Brierather. I had such reports. I was later told that I was 
wrong, though, but at the time I thought these were true, sir. 

And I gave them in good faith. 



9694 IMPROPER ACTrVITIDS IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Mundt. May I tell you that even the best espionage pro- 
tection that we can develop in government, the CIA, getting reports 
from abroad, of the best informants, of the best secret agents, the best 
detective agents, sometimes make mistakes. 

So, of course, sometimes you might inadvertently report something 
not based on fact, but you thought it was a fact at the time you said 
it because the agents had told you so at that time. 

Mr. Brierathek. The best secret agency wouldn't make a mistake 
like that, sir. This was very easy to determine, whether there was 
enough clay out there or whether there wasn't. Apparently our in- 
formation was wrong, sir. 

Senator Mundt. I think the best secret agents in the world can 
make mistakes at times. They do. 

Mr. Chairman, I am willing to rest at this point in the testimony. 
I have been trying to develop this across the period of witnesses. I 
will accept the validity of what this witness has said. I think he 
has told us the truth on this matter. I think that there were secret 
agents on both sides of this controversy. I don't know whether secret 
agents are proper or improper in a strike. I am not an expert. But 
I think it is pretty clear that both sides are trying to get information 
on the other side. 

They do that in politics, and you do that in a lot of other places. 
I don't know whether it is proper or improper in a strike, but I think 
the record is crystal clear that there were efforts made, sometimes 
successful and sometimes unsuccessful. 

I am not arguing that they were the same efforts. Each according" 
to his means, each according to his ability, each according to his pur- 
pose, was trying to find out something about the other fellow's pro- 
gram of activity. 

The Chairman. Are there any further questions or comments by 
members of the committee ? 

Mr. Brierather. Mr. Chairman ? 

The Chairman. Just a moment. 

All right, the Chair will hear you. 

Mr. Brierather. May I point out once again that we made no at- 
tempt to organize a secret agent force within the plant ; that we didn't 
pay a dime to anyone. Whatever information we received was volun- 
tary and we certainly didn't reject it. We will admit to that, sir. 

The Chairman. All right. Thank you, sir. 

Senator Mundt. I wanted to clear up so that Leo did not misunder- 
stand me, I never alleged any time or suggested that these were paid 
informants. 

Senator Goldwater. Mr. Chairman? 

The Chairman. Senator Goldwater. 

Senator Goldwater. Leo, I don't know whether you are the one to 
ask these question of or not. If you can't answer, just say so, and 
I will save this interrogation for Mr. Rand. I am interested, very 
interested, in the ability of the IT AW to reach its long arms into various 
communities of this Nation, into counties, and even attempts at a State 
legislative level, to ffct legislation passed in the form of restrictive 
ordinances against the Kohler Co., of Sheboygan. Wis. 

In your capacity as director of the boycott, does this function come 
under your jurisdiction ? 



IMPROPER ACTH-ITIBS IN THE LABOR FIELD 9695 

Mr. Brierather. It did, sir. 

Senator Goldwater. Let me ask you a question. I have here a 
photostatic copy of a resolution passed by the City Council of Bristol, 
Conn. I want to read it : 

Whereas the Kohler Co., of Sheboygan, Wis., has refused to meet with Federal 
and State mediators to settle the 2-year-old strike at their plant, and has re- 
jected truce efforts by church leaders and community groups, and has turned 
down ways of settling this dispute recommended by Federal judges and United 
States Senators and rejected the suggestions of the Governor of Wisconsin to 
arbitrate the issues, therefore, be it resolved that the City Council of the City 
of Bristol give notice to all contractors doing business with the city of Bristol 
that they cannot use Kohler products on any job contracted for by said city ; that 
all city boards and departments are hereby notified that it is their obligation and 
duty to see that the intent and purpose of this resolution is carried out. 

Did you have charge of that particular resolution ? 

Mr. Brierather. I didn't have charge of that particular resolution, 
sir, but I have sent out many, many requests to all departments of 
organized labor, to all central labor councils, to all CIO councils, ask- 
ing them, encouraging them, to contact their city councils and see if 
■vve couldn't get their sympathy, sir. 

So in a broad sense I had charge of that particular one. 

Senator Goldwater. Do you think that is a proper thing to do ? 

Mr. Brierather. Well, sir, I believe that we Kohler strikers are 
citizens just like anyone else, and I certainly believe that we can ap- 
proach a city government to ask them to consider a resolution like 
that. 

Senator Goldwater. Let's suppose that the city of Bristol were in 
the process of building a building and they called for bids on equip- 
ment such as Kohler makes, and Kohler was the low bidder, substanti- 
ally the low bidder, this ordinance would prevent the taxpayers of 
Bristol enjoying the savings on the Kohler bid. It that not true? 

Mr. Brierather. Well, sir, when they are calling for bids, they be- 
<*ome a consumer, and as a consumer we feel that they have a choice, 
that they can exercise that choice, and, if they chose to use unionmade 
products, for the reason that the}^ are unionmade or because they might 
he of better quality or for any other reason, they certainly have that 
choice as a consumer and as a buyer. 

This is what we were asking them to do, sir. This is the approach 
we made. 

Senator Goldwater. But by this type of resolution, you have denied 
the council one of the choices. In other words you have restricted 
it to all the companies with the exception of Kohler. 

Mr. Brierather. They are making that choice at the point they 
either adopt or reject the resolution, sir. 

Senator Goldwater. How does the union go about putting the heat 
on a city council to get this done ? 

Mr. Brierather. The heat, sir ? 

Senator Goldwater. Yes. That is a good word. 

Mr. Brierather. If it applies to this activity, then I would call 
all political activity heat, sir. 

(At this point,' the following members were present: Senators 
McClellan, Mundt, Curtis, and Goldwater.) 

Senator Goldwater. You are exactly right, and so if you want me to 
use another word, I can use "elbow" or "arm," but "heat" is a good 



9696 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 

word. How do you p;o about putting the heat on a citj^ council to 
get them to say that Kohler products cannot be installed in the city ? 

Mr. Brikrathku. Well, the only possible thing that I could think 
of is if the citizens of the community tell what choice they would like 
to have. In other words, the taxpayer himself certainly can indicate 
to his aldermen or representatives or whoever the person might be 
what he would recommend. 

If he would recommend adoption of the resolution, that is "heat,*' 
sir, and if he would recommend that the resolution would not oe 
adopted, that would also be "heat." 

Senator Goldwater. How do you go about doing that though ? You 
ask the local union to do it ? 

Mr. Brierather. We ask the local union to tell the story of the 
Kohler strike in order so that everyone can understand what our re- 
quest is for, and what it is about, so that any individual who is in- 
terested in it can make a decision on where he stands and exercise 
his privileges or his "heat" so-called, according to his own conscience. 

Senator Goldwater. Well, now, there is a possibility and I know- 
that you don't want it any more than I do, that there might be a 
strike by the UAW against part of the auto industry. Would it not 
be possible under this type of political activity to prevent the pur- 
chase, and let us say that Ford Co. is struck by UAW — would it not 
be possible assuming that this could be done nationwide, to prevent 
the purchase of Ford cars and trucks by any agency of the Govern- 
ment ? 

Mr. Brierather. Not as easily as you make it seem. sir. You still 
have to make a choice. 

Senator Goldwater. I am using a hypothetical case, and it would 
not be easy to do but you have been able do it in a number of com- 
munities. Let us say that you put on a little more "heat" in the case 
of the Ford Co. Would it not be possible in your mind to stop the 
purchase of Ford equipment ? 

Mr. Brierather. It is possible, but it is not probable, sir. 

Senator Goldwater. Would you think that that would be a proper 
thing to do, in your mind ? 

Mr. Brierather. Well, sir, on the contrary, if you would prohibit 
that you would be certainly taking away a privilege of the Ford 
workers, so to speak, to tell their story and to try to make their feel- 
ings known and make a request, sir. 

Senator Goldwater. Well now, hoAv many organizations in the 
country have that power, and that privilege, to get that done? 

Mr. Brierather. All people have that privilege, sir. Everyone has 
that privilege. I can go as a citizen to any common council and intro- 
duce a resolution. 

Senator Goldwater. How man}- of them have the power of or- 
ganized labor behind them, to get it done? 

I as an individual businessman, I can assure you, could not get it 
done in my own city (.'ouncil, and I don't think many businessmen 
liave much luck alone. 

Mr. Brierather. Well sir, an individual cannot be compared with 
your term of power of the union, and it is the reason we join a union, 
sir, because there is nothing more feeble than the individual, if he 
tries to get something done. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIElS IN THE LABOR FIELD 9697 

This is why you join a union, so that you can avail yourself of the 
collective efforts of everyone. 

Senator Goldwater, Now, wouldn't this reach a point where you 
would call it restraint of trade ? 

That is where you by the power of the union are denying the sale 
of a manufactured product? Wouldn't you call that restraint of 
trade ? 

Mr. Brierather. I would say it would be in a very democratic 
manner, and if you term that restraint of trade — when you are making 
an appeal and you are going through the democratic procedures, I 
don't know\ 

Senator Goldwater. Is it restraint of trade or not in your opinion ? 

Mr. Brierather. Isn't that a legal interpretation, sir? I would 
not know. 

Senator Goldwater. Well, I ask that for this reason: I have a 
number of these here, and I am not going to go into them with you 
because I think Mr. Rand can give us additional answers on them. 

It seems to me that this is a clear-cut case of the need to put some 
restraint on the unbridled power of labor unions. I think this is 
definitely restraint of trade, and I think it is just as clearly a restraint 
of trade as if two major corporations got together to restrain trade, 
and there are laws against that. 

You might not agree with me, but whenever you prevent the sale 
of anything in this country by force, that is a clear-cut case to me of 
restraint of trade and I think personally, expressing my own opinion, 
that it is one of the major things that will come out of this series 
of hearings, this uncontrolled power that now vests in the labor 
movement. 

Mr. Rauh, I am not talking to you. 

Mr. Rauh. I was just going to make an observation. 

Senator Goldwater. I did not ask you for an observation. 

Mr. Rauh. I was going to say or may I observe that there is legis- 
lation pending to do exactly what Senator Goldwater stated about the 
unfair labor practices, to prevent the Federal Government from buy- 
ing products where there are charges of unfair labor practice. 

So I don't suppose it is so outrageous if a Senator of the United 
States has actually proposed this be made a rule of law here. 

The Chairman. Well, this is all discussion and argument, and let 
us get the facts, and then the whole Senate will argue about it. Let 
us move along. 

Are there any other questions ? Are there any further questions of 
this witness. 

The witness is excused. Call the next witness. 

Mr. Brierather. May I say that I would like to thank you and the 
members of the committee for this opportunity and certainly for the 
courtesy extended to me to let me attempt to tell the story of the 
Kohler workers as I saw it. 

The Chairman. All right, sir, thank you. 

Senator Mundt. Let me say that you have been a very impressive 
and self-possessed and persuasive witness. In my opinion you have 
been the best witness so far produced by the union regardless of rank 
and regardless of salary. 

Mr. Brierather. Thank you, sir. 



9698 IMPROPER ACnVITIEvS IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman, lliat is a very high compliment for you. You can 
be proud of tliat. 

Call the next witness. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. T^eroy Taylor, 

The Chairman. Will you be sworn, please? 

You do solemnly swear that the evidence you shall give before this 
Senate select committee shall be the truth, the whole truth, and noth- 
ing but the truth, so help you God ? 

Mr. Taylor. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF LEROY TAYLOR, ACCOMPANIED BY HIS COUNSEL, 
THOMAS E. SHROYER 

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

Mr. Taylor. My name is Leroy Taylor, and I live at 2520 North 
22d Street, Sheboygan, Wis. I am a driver for the J. L. Scheffler 
Transport Co. 

The Chairman. A driver for whom ? 

Mr. Taylor. J. L. Scheffler Transport Co. 

The Chairman. Do you have counsel with you ? 

Mr. Taylor. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Shroyer. Thomas E. Shroyer, Commonwealth Building, 
Washington, D. C. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much, sir. 

All right, Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is S-c-h-e-f-f-1-e-r? 

Mr. Taylor. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. It is motor transport company? 

Mr. Taylor. That is right. 

Mr. Kjinnedy. Where is that company? 

Mr. Taylor. That is located in 1801 West Fulton Street, Chicago, 
111. 

Mr. Kennedy. How long have you been driving for them ? 

Mr. Taylor. Eight on 6 years, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were you driving trucks into the Kohler plant? 

Mr. Taylor. Yes, sir ; I was. 

Mr. ICennedy. And how long have you been performing that duty 
or task? 

Mr. Taylor. Shortly after the strike was in effect, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. You started driving into the Kohler plant? 

Mr. Tayi.or. Shortly afterward. 

Mr. Kennedy. Are you a member of a union ? 

Mr. Taylor. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. What union? 

Mr. Taylor. I am in 710, an AFL local. 

Mr. Kennedy. Is that a teamsters local ? 

Mr. Taylor. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And who is the head of that union, 710? That is 
710 in Chicago? 

Mr. Taylor. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who is the head of that? 

Mr. Taylor. John O'Brien is the secretary-treasurer, sir. 



IMPROPEK ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 9699 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. John O'Brien? 

Mr. Taylor. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. He is the secretary-treasurer? 

Mr. Taylor. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. What instructions did you receive from the union 
regarding the picket line outside of the plant ? 

Mr. Taylor. I did not receive any definite instructions from the 
union, but Mr. Scheffler had talked with the business agent of this 
local, of the Chicago local, and the business agent had made a state- 
ment to Mr. Scheffler that our union was not on strike and neither was 
the Scheffler Transport Co., and Mr. Scheffler instructed me to go into 
the plant. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who was the the business agent? 

Mr. Taylor. The business agent was Mr. Keegan. 

Mr. Kennedy; Mr. Keegan? 

Mr. Taylor. Yes. 

Mr. Ivennedy. He is of local 710 ? 

Mr. Taylor. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. You were carrying goods in and out of the Kohler 
Co. then during the period of the strike? 

Mr. Taylor. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were you followed at all when you were carrying 
goods in or out of the Kohler Co. ? 

Mr. Taylor. Yes, sir ; I was. 

Mr. Kennedy. When did that start, as far as you were concerned 
personally ? 

Mr. Taylor. Well sir, on one occasion we were followed all of the 
way from the Kohler plant, as soon as I pulled out with this trailer, 
all of the way to our Chicago terminal. 

Mr. Kennedy. When was that, the first time that you were followed ? 

Mr. Taylor. I don't remember the date, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Approximately, can you give us the month ? 

Mr. Taylor. I could not, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was it in 1954 ? 

Mr, Taylor. I believe it was in 1954, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you were followed, and I am coming back to 
that trip, but over what period of time were you followed? You 
were followed on other occasions, were you not? 

Mr. Taylor. I would say over a period of about 3 months for 
myself, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And how many times were you followed during that 
3-month period? 

Mr. Taylor. I believe it was three times, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now you are telling us about the first time, is that 
right? 

Mr. Taylor. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. You say that they followed you once as you came out 
of the Kohler Co., and followed you all the way to Chicago? 

Mr. Taylor. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, did they harass you or cause you any trouble 
as you were traveling to Chicago ? 

Mr. Taylor. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. They just followed behind you ? 

21243— 58— pt. 24 15 



9700 lAlPROPER ACTIVITIES IX ITIE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Taylor. That is right. 

Mr. KJENNEDY. What happened once you got to Chicago? 

Mr. Taylor. Well, when we arrived at our Chicago terminal, there 
were 2 other drivers also, sir, there were 3 drivers in all that were 
followed. When we got to our terminal in Chicago, these different 
men, and I did not know who they were, got out of their station 
wagon and they started immediately picketing Mr. Scheffler's trucking 
terminal. 

Mr. Kennedy. How would they do that? 

Mr. Taylor. Pardon me. 

Mr. Kennedy. How was that accomplished ? Did they have signs? 

Mr. Tayi.or. They had signs and different banners. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did tliey hand leaflets out? 

Mr. Taylor. I didn't see them hand any leaflets out. 

Mr. Kennedy. What would the signs say, as an example? 

Mr. Taylor. Well, something about scabs and not buying Kohler 
products and such as that. 

Mr. Kennedy. And this place that they were picketing was the 
home office of the Scheffier Trucking Co. ? 

Mr. Taylor. That is correct, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. How long did they remain as pickets, do you know ? 
How long did the pickets remain? 

Mr. Taylor. Well, they were not there too long. Mr. Scheffier ap- 
proached them and talked with them, and I would say they were there 
approximately 1 hour. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know who was in charge of the pickets? 

Mr. Taylor. No, sir. 

Mr. Kj:nnedy. You don't know any of the people who were fol- 
lowing you ? 

Mr. Taylor. No, sir. 

]Mr. Kennedy. How many of tliem were there ? 

Jklr. Taylor. I believe there were seven. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were they joined by anyone, once they got there? 

Mr. Taylor. No, sir ; I don't believe so. 

Mr. Kennedy. Just the seven of them marched up and down in 
front of the Scheffier Trucking Co.'s office ? 

Mr. Taylor. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did they cause you any personal difficulty while 
they were there ? 

Mr. Taylor. No, sir. 

]\Ir. Kennedy. Did you have any more trouble with this particular 
group at that time? 

Mr. Taylor. No, sir ; I did not. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, you were followed again, after that, is that 
rio-ht? That was the first occasion. Was there anything else about 
th*at first occasion that you think would be helpful ? 

Mr. Taylor. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then you were followed a second time? 

Mr. Taylor. Well, it wasn't that I was followed, sir, but this other 
driver, Peter Sussano I believe is his name. I was parked on the 
north side of Milwaukee, going to the Kohler Co., and I was pulled 
off the road into this gas station, and he came in with his trailer, and 
he pulled up alongside of me, and he had told me that a car almost 
ran him over. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 9701 

Now, he had been in this restaurant, and he had walked across the 
street to get to his truck, and he told me he had to jump on the 
running board to keep from getting hit by this car. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did he describe the car at that time ? 

Mr. Taylor. He told me it was a convertible, sir, and the top was 
down, and in a few minutes after he came there, this same car pulled 
into this driveway of this gas station, where I was parked. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did he identify the car as being the same one ? 

Mr. Taylor. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And the top was down ? 

Mr. Taylor. The top was down, and it was raining, and there was 
no license plate on the car. 

Mr. Kennedy. It was rather unusual ? 

Mr. Taylor. Yes, sir. I had asked the driver, and, well, this driver 
would continually try and more or less aggravate us. 

Mr. Kennedy. What would he say to you ? 

Mr. Taylor. He was cursing and calling us different swear words, 
different names. 

Mr. Kennedy. Indicating you were carrying products to the Kohler 
Co., and it was connected with that ? 

Mr. Taylor. That I couldn't say. 

Mr. Kennedy. Well, did he say anything about the Kohler Co., or 
being scabs ? 

Mr. Taylor. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Just swearing at you? 

Mr. Taylor. Just cursing and trying to aggi-avate us. 

Mr. Kennedy. For what reason did he say ? 

Mr. Tayt^or. He didn't say, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Well, was there any connection between what he 
was saying and the strike that was going on at the Kohler Co. ? 

Mr. Taylor. No, sir, there was no indication. 

Mr. Kennedy. That it had anything to do with the strike ? 

Mr. Taylor. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Well, he just got out and started swearing at you? 

Mr. Taylor. He was in the car, and this other fellow was in the car 
with them. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you inquire as to what it was all about, when this 
man in the convertible, while it was raining 

Mr. Taylor. I asked this man where the license plate was for his 
car, because I was going to call the police and give them the number, 
but I couldn't do so because there was no license plate. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you ask him why he was swearing at you ? 

Mr. Taylor. No, sir, I did not. It was just such a silly thing. 

Mr. Kennedy. He pulled up in the rain, in a convertible with the 
top down? 
. Mr. Tayi.or. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. And started swearing at you for no reason ? 

Mr. Taylor. He started swearing at this other driver and myself; 
that is right. That is what happened. 

Senator Mundt. Did you conclude from that strange incident that 
he was cussing you out because you were driving a truck with Kohler 
products ? 

Mr. Taylor. That was my conclusion, sir. 



9702 IMPROPER AOriVITlBS IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Mundt. Could you tliink of any other reason why he would 
be swearing? 

Mr. Taylor. No, sir. 

Senator Mundt. In view of the fact that you had heen followed by 
some of these strikers before, that was rather a logical conclusion, 
was it not ? 

Mr. Taylor. Yes, sir. 

Senator MuNirr. He was cussing you out for that purpose? 

Mr. Taylor. Yes, sir. 

Senator Mundt. It would seem that way to me. 

Mr. Taylor. Yes, sir. 

Senator Mundt. You really wouldn't have to ask him why he was 
doing it? 

Mr. Taylor. No, sir. 

Senator Mundt. He probably wouldn't have told you anyhow. 

Mr. Taylor. I told this other driver, I said, "Let us go to our truck 
and go," and as we were walking to our trucks this car had proceeded 
to leave, and we were driving down the road. Route 41, going to the 
Kohler Co., and I had noticed this same car driving back south. 

Senator Mundt. The same convertible with the top down, driving 
in the rain ? 

Mr, Taylor. That is correct. Then we were proceeding to the Koh- 
ler Co., and then I saw this car turn around, and I was watching the 
car in my mirrors, and I had noticed this car had turned around. 

Senator Mundt. Through your rear-view mirror ? 

Mr. Tayt.or. That is correct, sir. And this car pulled alongside 
of me, and he was pulling alongside of me, and this fellow that was in 
the car, not the driver but this other fellow, I noticed he was standing 
up holding on to the windshield and he had something in one hand. 

Now, I don't know if it was his idea to try and throw that through 
my windshield or what, sir, but as he came alongside of me, I could 
see him standing up and ready to throw this object. 

Senator Mundt. What did he seem to have in his hand ? 

Mr. Tayi,or. It was a long object, and I couldn't make it out at 
that time, but he threw this object at me, and I could tell by the way 
it hit that it was a length of pipe. 

Senator Mundt. He threw a length of pipe at you ? 

Mr. Taylor. Yes, sir, that is correct. 

Senator Mundt. At the cab ? 

^Ir. Tayi.or. At the cab of my tractor. 

Senator Mundt. At the windshield ? 

Mr. Ta^.or. He hit the door of my tractor. 

Senator Mundt. Well, let me ask you this : You have been a truck- 
driver quite a while, and what would be your opinion of the effect 
of a fellow coming along at night throwing a length of pipe through 
a windshield of a moving truck? You would be in pretty serious 
trouble? 

Mr. Ta^t^.or. Well, if the pipe had gone through my windshield, 
I imagine I would probably lose control of the vehicle and go off the 
road. 

Senator Mundt. Go ahead and tell what happened. It hit the 
door and what did you do? Did you swerve the car out of the way? 

Mr. Tayi>or. Yesj sir. I saw him starting to throw this object, and 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE lABOR FIELD 9703 

I cut over into the car to try and discourage him. I was trying to 
protect myself. 

Senator Mundt. If you had hit him, you would have discouraged 
him ? 

Mr. Taylor. I imagine so. 

Senator Mundt. Do you think your swerving over perhaps dis- 
rupted his aim a little bit ? 

Mr. Taylor. That was my idea, sir. 

Senator Mundt. And so he didn't get the pipe through the wind- 
shield and hit the door instead ? 

Mr. Tayi.or. That is correct. 

Senator Mundt. How many men were in that car ? 

Mr. Tayt.or. There were two, the driver and another man sitting 
next to the driver. 

Senator Mundt. And of course it wouldn't be the driver but the 
other fellow pitching the pipe ? 

Mr. Taylor. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, would he be able to tell or would they be able 
to tell that you were carrying products to the Kohler Co. or going to 
the Kohler Co. ? 

Mr. Taylor. I don't know how, sir, he would do it. 

Mr. Kennedy. But they might have known from where you left, 
or the fact that they knew that this trucking company was carrying 
products into the Kohler Co., they might have been able to tell from 
that and it would have been possible for them to know ? 

Mr. Tayi.or. Due to the fact that it was a Scheffler truck, he would 
know that. 

Mr. Kennedy. And that is my point. He could have told from the 
fact that there was a Scheffler truck on this Milwaukee road, in this 
direction that it was going to go to the Kohler Co. ? 

Mr. Taylor. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, did you report this to the police or report it to 
the Kohler Co. ? 

Mr. Taylor. I reported this incident to the Kohler Co., sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And was a report made to the police, do you know ? 

Mr. Taylor. That I don't know, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, did you have any other experience, a third 
experience ? 

Mr. Taylor. Yes, I did, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Would you relate what happened ? 

Mr. Taylor. Well, this was at night, sir, and I was coming down this 
road. This incident happened roughly about around 7 miles from the 
Kohler plant, and there was a car parked on the shoulder of the road, 
and as I passed this car, I don't know if it was a signal to tliis group 
of people who were waiting or what, sir, but as I got down on the 
road, this car put on the lights, just immediately after I passed this 
car, and I had my bright lights on, and I noticed objects in the road. 

It looked to me like it was tree stumps, sawed tree stumps, and I 
pulled over to the shoulder of the road to try and miss these as much 
as possible, and in doing so there was one fender; that is, the left 
fender was slightly damaged, and also I blew a tire out. 

Now, I reported this incident to the Kohler Co. and also to Sheriff 
Mosch. He inspected the tires and the vehicle itself. 



9704 TMPROPE'R ACTIVITIEIS IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. This was at night ? 

Mr. Taylor. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. About what time ? 

Mr. Taylor. I don't remember the time exactly, sir. They would 
have that. 

Mr. Kennedy. Approximately, was it early in the morning or was 
it at 10 o'clcok at night, or 4 a. m. ? 

Mr. Taylor. It was in the early hours of the morning. 

Mr. Kennedy. 2 a. m. ? 

Mr. Taylor. No, I couldn't exactly say if it was 2 a. m. 

Mr. Kennedy. And there was snow falling, was there ? 

Mr. Taylor. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you came over the top of a hill ? 

Mr. Taylor. Yes, sir, and there was a dropoff, and we leveled out 
right after I came over the hill, and there was a dropoff on the section 
of the hill. 

Mr. Kennedy. At that time there were objects in the road in front 
of you ? 

Mr. Taylor. Right after I came down the hill. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is when you had to pull off to the side? 

Mr. Taylor. I pulled over to the shoulder as much as I could, but 
due to the fact that it had snowed I didn't want to go over too far, 
and I would slide over into the ditch. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is the time that the tire blew out, and you 
damaged the fender ? 

Mr. Taylor. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, did you feel this arose out of the Kohler 
strike? 

Mr. Taylor. I did, sir. 

JSIr. Kennedy. You never had an experience like this before? 

Mr. Tayi.or. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you reported that to the Kohler Co., and to 
the sheriff? 

Mr. Taylor. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was anybody ever apprehended in connection with 
this? 

Mr. Taylor. I had not heard, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you have any other experiences ? 

Mr. Taylor. Not to my knowledge, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you have any telephone calls ? 

Mr. Taylor. No, sir. I did not live in Sheboygan at that time. 

Mr. Kennedy. You lived in Chicago? 

Mr. Taylor. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. And these are the three times that you had some 
experience on the road and carrying Kohler products ? 

Mr. Taylor. That is right. 

The Chairman. Mr. Taylor, do you have any doubt at all that these 
three experiences you have testified to, the abuse that was heaped 
upon you by these men, and by their profane and insulting language, 
and the attempt to drive you off the highway, and the throwing of an 
iron, a piece of iron at you and trying to hit your windshield, do you 
have any doubt at all that the union was back of these efforts to in- 
timidate, coerce, and threaten ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 9705 

Mr. Taylor. Well, sir, I believe that all of these incidents that oc- 
curred to me came from this Kohler strike. 

The Chairman. It all eminated from the strike ? 

Mr. Taylor. Yes, sir ; I believe so. 

The Chairman. You don't think the Kohler Co. or people sympa- 
thetic to Kohler were doing that to you, do you ? 

Mr. Taylor. Oh, no, sir. 

The Chairman. Oh, no ? 

Mr. Taylor. No. 

The Chairman. Do you have any information that the union as a 
union was sponsoring or encouraging this sort of terroristic activity ? 

Mr. Taylor. Not to my knowledge, sir, and I couldn't say. 

The Chairjvian. Do you know whether these men who engaged in 
these acts against you were members of the union ? 

Mr. Taylor. That I don't know, sir. 

The Chairman. You do not kiiow whether they were strikers or 
not? 

Mr. Taylor. No, sir, I do not. 

The Chairman. Can you identify them ? 

Mr. Taylor. No, sir, I couldn't. 

The Chairman. You do not know who they are ? 

Mr. Taylor. No, sir. 

The Chairman. You got no information at the time ? 

Mr. Taylor. No, sir. 

The Chairman. Were you placed in a state of fear or apprehension 
by reason of these acts that you have testified to ? 

Mr. Taylor. Well, it is only natural, sir. 

The Chairman. Sir? 

Mr. Taylor. It is only natural, sir, that with incidents happening 
like this, you would be a little afraid, yes. 

The Chairman. You were apprehensive? 

Mr. Taylor. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. I am sorry. 

The committee has to recess and go over to vote. Looking at the 
time here, I guess we had better try to come back today at 1 : 30. 

(Whereupon, at 11 : 40 a. m., the committee recessed to reconvene 
at 1 : 30 p. m., the same day.) 

AFTERNOON SESSION 

The Chairman. The committee will come to order. 

At this point we will recess temporarily the hearing involving the 
Kohler Co.-UAW strike, and proceed to another subject matter. 

(Brief recess.) 

The Chairman. Call the next witness, and now the committee re- 
sumes its hearing in the Kohler Co.-UAW matter. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Taylor, will you come around, please. 

(Members of the committee present at this point in the hearing 
were: Senators McClellan, Ervin, Goldwater, Mundt and Curtis.) 



9706 rMFROPER ACTIVLTIEIS IX THE LABOR FIELD 

TESTIMONY OF LEROY TAYLOR— Resumed 

The Chairman. Will you have a seat. You were sworn this morn- 
in£T, and you were in the process of testifying when we recessed at 
noon. 

All right, Mr. Counsel, proceed, or had you concluded ? 

Mr. Kennedy. There was one other matter. 

Senator Mundt, May I say, just so that the j^eople out watching 
this on television and radio and the folks in the committee room do 
not feel that the members over here have no interest in this restaurant 
situation, the only reason we didn't participate in the inquiry is that 
we didn't know this was coming up today, and we didn't have the 
background and so it caught us entirely unprepared. 

The Chairman. The Chair may say he didn't know it was coming 
this day and it was one of those things that we have to deal with some- 
times in an emergency. 

Senator Mundt. I think it deals with a very important situation, 
but I didn't want the fact that we took no part in it to indicate we had 
ni interest in it. But it was new to us and it just appeared in the 
newspapers. 

The Chairman. This was largely a procedural matter at this time. 

Senator Mundt. Now, Mr. Taylor, how long have you been a trucker. 

Mr. Taylor. Pardon me. 

Senator Mundt. A trucker ? 

Mr. Taylor. A truck driver, you mean. I have driven since I was 
sixteen and a half years old, sir. 

Senator Mundt. Fifteen or twenty years or longer ? 

Mr. Taylor. I have been driving for about 20 years. 

Senator Mundt. In your long career as a truck driver, had you 
ever had a series of experiences such as those which you described in 
response to the questions asked you by the counsel and by the chair- 
man at this morning's hearings ? 

Mr. Taylor. I have had no other experiences other than this in- 
cident that happened since the Kohler strike. 

Senator Mundt. In your whole career of more than 20 years of 
truck driving? 

Mr. Taylor. That is correct. 

Senator Mundt. As far as you know, do you have any personal 
enemies in that area, who might have been trying to wreck your truck, 
or throw a gas pipe through the windshield, or in any way else em- 
barrass or injure you? Have you made some personal enemies up 
there so this could have been a sort of personal vendetta? 

Mr, Taylor. No, sir, I have no one. 

Senator Mundt. Has anybody ever made any threats against you, 
and do you know of anybody who might be out to get you, and have 
you been in any personal troubles with some people up there? 

Mr. Taylor. I have no other personal troubles at all, sir, other than 
this. 

Senator Mundt. I believe you testified you don't live in Shelwygan 
and you live in Chicago? 

Mr. Taylor. I live in Sheboygan at the present, sir, but at the time 
the strike started I lived in Chicago. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LiABOR FIELD 9707 

Senator Mundt. Were you doing anything at all insofar as your 
activities on these trucks were concerned other than to try to earn a 
living for yourself or your family ? 

Were you participating as a strike breaker or what they call a scab, 
or anything of that nature, or were you simply trying to earn a living 
working for this employer of yours, carrying whatever merchandise 
happened to be assigned to your route ? 

Mr. Taylor. The only purpose for me driving a truck was my 
living, sir. 

Senator Mundt. You described a pretty serious occurrence, it seems 
tome. 

How fast were you driving down the highway when this man came 
along behind you and threw this gas pipe at you ? 

Mr. Taylor. Well, I would say, I wanted to be sure that I could see 
what he was going to do, and I naturally slowed the tractor up, and 
I was driving, I would say, probably between 30 and 40 miles an hour. 

Senator Mundt. If you run a tractor at ?>0 or 40 miles an hour into 
a ditch on the side of the road, is it a big enough vehicle so that a man 
is apt to get pretty badly injured or perhaps killed ? 

Mr. Tayt.or. That is correct, sir. 

Senator Mundt. Why do you think that they attacked you ? 

Mr. Taylor. Well, it was my idea that this all come from this 
Kohler strike. 

Senator Mundt. Can you think of any other reason at all why you 
would be, three different times, molested on the highway, or one of 
them actually resulting in an occurrence which could be murder at 
midnight, if they had hit your windshield with the ^as pipe? Can 
you think of any reason why anybody would want to kill you or injure 
you or wreck your truck other than the fact that you happened to be 
driving Kohler products ? 

Mr. Taylor. No, sir. 

Senator Mundt. I guess that is all, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Are there any other questions ? 

Mr. Kennedy. There was one other incident, where you were able 
to identify some of the drivers of the truck ? 

Mr. Taylor. I wasn't able to identify the drivers of this car. There 
were four occupants in the car, of which I acquired the license number. 

Mr. Kennedy. "Wlien was this incident? Is this one of the three 
that you have mentioned ? 

Mr. Taylor. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. This is a fourth incident ? 

Mr. Taylor. This is a fourth one. 

Mr. Kennedy. Would you tell the committee what happened, and 
where you were driving ? 

Mr. Taylor. This was roughly around the p. m. rush hour, and I 
was coming to Milwaukee and I was on the north side of Milwaukee. 

Mr. Kennedy. Coming from the Kohler Co. ? 

Mr. Taylor. No, sir, I was going to the Kohler Co. This car kept 
continually putting its brakes on in front of me trying to slow me 
down, or possibly trying to stop me with my tractor. It would pull off 
the shoulder of the road and then after I would pass, then this car 
with these four occupants in it would go and cut me off. 



9708 IMPROPER ACTIVinEIS IX THE LABOR FIELD 

Now, when I got to Sidwell, Wis., I stopped and called the sheriff's 
department and gave them the license number of this car, and I de- 
scribed the car to them at that time. 

I also reported the license number and this incident to the Kohler 
Co. Now, in turn, they investigated and found out that this license 
number was definitely registered under a Kohler striker's name. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. "Wliose name was that ? 

Mr. Taylor. I don't recall the name, sir, or the license number, 
but it is on record with the Kohler Co. 

Senator Mundt. But they did verify the fact that this car was 
driven by a striker or at least owned by a striker ? 

Mr. Taylor. The car was licensed ; that is, a Kohler striker had the 
car, and it was his car. 

Senator Mundt. Which would certainly tie it up pretty closely 
with the strike incident? 

Mr. Taylor. Yes, sir. 

Senator Mundt. Are you a member of any union, by the way ? 

Mr. Taylor. I am a member of the 710 AFL Teamster Union. 

Senator Mundt. You yourself are a union man, then ? 

Mr. Taylor. Yes, sir. 

Senator Mundt. So that they couldn't be attacking you because 
you were a scab. You have got as much right to work m your union, 
1 presume, as a man has to work in a plumbers' union, or a bathtub 
makers' union, whatever it is called, the UAW ? 

Mr. Taylor. That is right, sir. 

Senator Mundt. I think we could add to the point that Mr. Curtis 
was developing yesterday then that not only does this type of boycott 
activity and this attempted violence injure third parties who happen 
to be businessmen big or small, or jobbers, but that this in turn 
seeks to do violence to a member of a different union who just hap- 
pened to be going around trying to earn his living at his particular job. 

It emphasizes the point that when a boycott or a strike activity 
^ets beyond the area of the people involved, you do injury to a lot of 
innocent third people whose only offense is they happened to have 
to have to work for a living, which we all have to do in our respective 
ways. 

Mr. Taylor. That is right. 

The Chairman. Do you remember who you talked to in the Kohler 
Co. that gave you that information ? 

Mr. Taylor. No, I don't, sir, and I really couldn't say, and I 
didn't know the man. 

Senator Mundt. It is my information that the Kohler Co. has 
no record of this incident, but I wanted to Imow if you could re- 
member whom you talked to. 

Mr. TAYI.OR. No, sir, I couldn't. I didn't know the man's name. 

Senator Mundt. Did you call the sheriff's office? 

Mr. Taylor. No, the sheriff's office, no, sir, I don't remember who 
I talked to. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you talk to the police ? 

Mr. Taylor. There' were two county sheriffs' cars that came out to 
Stockville Restaurant where I was waiting for them. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you reported that to t^hem ? 

Mr. Tayi.or. Pardon me ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you report that incident to them ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVrriES EST THE LABOR FIELD 9709 

Mr, Taylor. I gave them the license plate number, yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Do you remember the name of the officers? 

Mr. Taylor. No, sir, I don't. 

Senator Mundt. You gave the name of either a county 

Mr. Taylor. Stockville County. 

Senator Mundt. So it would be whoever was the sheriff of stock- 
ville County? 

Mr. Taylor. I imagine so, sir. 

The Chairman. We have inquired out there, and they can't find 
any record of it, and that is why I was trying to see if you could be 
helpful and give us any more information so that we might better 
identify it and get the actual record. 

Mr. Taylor. Sir, all I know is I reported it on the telephone, and 
I talked to the sheriff's department, and these two squad cars came out, 
sir, and then they continued to escort me. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Is there anything further ? 

You may stand aside, and call the next witness. 

Mr. Kennedy. Arthur Butzen. 

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. Butzen. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF AETHUR BUTZEN, ACCOMPANIED BY HIS COUTTSEL, 
THOMAS E. SHROYER 

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

Mr. Butzen. My name is Arthur Butzen, and I reside on Route 3, 
Sheboygan, Wis. I work for the J. L. Scheffler Truck Co., which is 
located at 1801 West Fulton Street, Chicago, 111. 

The Chairman. You have counsel present. Let the record show, 
Mr. Reporter, the same counsel who represented the preceding witness. 

All right, what is your business or occupation? You drive a truck? 

Mr. Butzen. That is right, I drive a semi. 

The Chairman. What is that ? 

Mr. Butzen. A semitrailer for the Scheffler Co. 

The Chairman. You belong to any labor organization ? 

Mr. Butzen. Yes, sir ; I belong to local 56, AFL, Sheboygan, Wis, 

The Chairman. What is that ? 

Mr. Butzen. The teamsters local. 

The Chairman. The teamsters local ? 

Mr. Butzen. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Butzen, you drove a truck during the period 
that the strike was going on, to the Kohler Co. ? 

Mr. Butzen. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. You were making deliveries and pickups there, is 
that right? 

Mr. Butzen. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you receive permission from the teamsters 
business agent that you could go through the picket line ? 

Mr. Butzen. Well sir, I attended a meeting at Sheboygan. 



9710 EVIPROPER ACTIVITIEB IN THE LABO'R FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. I don't want to get details. Just, you did receive 
permission? 

Mr. BuTZEN. I did. 

]\[r. Kennedy. Who was the business agent ? 

Mr. Butzen. Mr. Hilhnan. 

Mr, Kennedy. Mr. Hilhnan ? 

Mr. Butzen. Yes, sir. 

INIr. Kennedy. He is the one who gave the permission ? 

INIr. Butzen. No, sir, his assistant, Mr. Ayler gave us permission. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you had a family at that time, which you 
needed to support and needed this work, isn't that correct ? 

]\[r. Butzen. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And so you continued doing work, part of which was 
to make these pickup and deliveries at the Kohler Co., isn't that right? 

Mr. Butzen. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. To support your family during this period of time ? 

Mr. Butzen. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, did you receive some threatening telephone 
calls after you started to make deliveries at the Kohler Co. ? 

Mr. Butzen. No, sir; I did not receive any telephone calls. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you receive any personal damage to your home ? 

Mr. Butzen. Yes, sir ; that I did. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could you tell the committee what happened to your 
home after you started making these pickups and deliveries ? 

Mr. Butzen. Well, the first time I had any damage was in January 
of 1955. At this time I had two rocks thrown through my picture 
window in the front of my home. This I reported to tlie sheriff's de- 
partment. They sent two county sheriff's deputies out to investi- 
gate, and that is the last I heard of that incident. 

The Chairman. Nobody was ever arrested that you know of? 

Mr. Butzen. Not that I know of. 

The Chairman. In October of 1955, was some more damage done to 
your home ? 

Mr. Butzen. Yes, and at that time it appeared to be a lead slug or 
probably a marble that hit this picture window and put one hole 
through it. Tliat I also reported to the sheriff's department and they 
came out to investigate and that was the last I heard of that incident. 

The Chairman. No arrests were made that you know of? 

Mr. Butzen. No arrests were made that I know of. 

The Chairman. What was the damage that was done in those two 
instances ? You had a third instance, is that right ? 

Mr. Butzen, That is right. 

The Chairman. Let us go through the third one first. 

You had some blasts of a shotgun fired at j'our home? 

Mr. Butzen. That is right. That was in December of 1955. As I 
remember, there were 3 shots from a shotgun, 1 of which went through 
the front door, that is the front entrance into my home, and 2 which 
went through this picture w^indow also in the front, and my car was 
parked in the driveway and there were 2 blasts fired into my car. 

This I reported to the sheriff's department. They came out the fol- 
lowing morning or this same evening rather, two deputies came out, 
and I asked for Ted Mosch to personally come out and inspect this 
damage in tlie morning, and he never did come out. He sent, I believe, 
it was the undersheriff to investigate this. 



'IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 9711 

They took the pellets out of the door from the bricks of my house 
and that was about the last that I heard of it. 

Mr. Kennedy. So you had the damage done to your home in Janu- 
ary of 1955, and you had two rocks thrown through your window, and 
through the picture window, is that right ? 

Mr. BuTZEN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And then the picture window was again damaged in 
October of 1955 when a marble slug was thrown through it ? 

Mr. Butzen. I am not too sure on that date. 

Mr. Kennedy. Approximately. 

Mr. Butzen. It could have been between August and October. 

Mr. Kennedy. And then in December of 1955, you had five blasts of 
a shotgun, which were fired into your home, and into your automobile ? 

Mr. Butzen. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were you at home when these blasts of the shotgun 
occurred ? 

Mr. Butzen. Yes, sir ; I was at home. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were you anyplace near or your family anyplace 
near where the gunshots hit ? 

Mr. Butzen. Well, I was in the rear of my home and my wife was 
in the living room which is the room this picture window is located in. 
She heard some noise outside, and so she looked through this front 
door, the front entrance, and as she looked through this window, ap- 
parently she did not think she had seen anyone so she turned away 
from the door and she probably took 1 or 2 steps at the most, and that 
was when the first blast came through the door. 

Mr. Kennedy. From her recital of the facts at that time, did it 
appear to you that the people who were shooting were actually shoot- 
ing at her ? 

Mr. Butzen. Well, I wouldn't go so far as to say they were shooting 
at her, because this was a rather small window m the front door, or 
three small windows. 

Mr. Kennedy. But at the most, she was only 1 or 2 feet away from 
where the blast hit ? 

Mr. Butzen. I would say about 1 step, which would be aproximately 
3 feet. 

Mr. Kennedy. And it occurred immediately after she looked out 
the window, however, isn't that right? 

Mr. Butzen. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And it could very well have hit her if she had not 
stepped away ? 

Mr. Butzen. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. What was the total damage that was done through 
the rocks being thrown through your window, and the shotgun blast ? 

Mr. Butzen. Well, I would estimate the damage to be between $800 
and $900. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you have vandalism insurance at that time ? 

Mr. Butzen. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. That you had taken out earlier? 

Mr. Butzen. Yes, sir; I had vandalism insurance. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you ever have any problem or difficulty like 
this prior to the time of the Kohler strike? 

Mr. Butzen. No, sir. 



9712 emprjoper AcnvrriBs in the labor field 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you attribute what happened to you in these 
three instances to the strike itself, to difficulties that arose out of the 
strike and the fact that you were making these deliveries? 

Mr. BuTZEN. Yes, sir; I do. 

Mr. Kennedy. You feel it is a direct result of that? 

Mr. BuTZEN. Yes, sir, 

Mr. Kennedy, And the difficulty occurred or came from those, or 
the trouble came from those who were interested in your not making 
the pickups and deliveries at the Kohler Co.? 

Mr. Btttzen. That is correct, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. You feel that those are the ones who are responsi- 
ble, is that right? 

Mr, BuTZEN. Yes, sir. 

Senator Mundt. May I ask a question ? Wlio was the sheriff at this 
thne who did nothing about any of these things, and did not even come 
out and examine your house after what could have resulted in the 
death of your wife which fortunately did not do her injury, but did 
result in injury of $800 or $900? 

Mr. BuTZEN. This was Mr. Mosch. 

Senator Mundt. Mr. Mosch. Is that the same sheriff who testified 
before our committee? 

Mr. Ejinnedy. That is correct. 

Mr. Butzen. Mr. Mosch did come out I believe on the first two 
times when my window was broken, but the third time, I don't recall 
him coming out to m^^ home other than the undersheriff, and I believe 
it was the undersheriff, and I am not sure on that. 

Senator Mundt. Did you ever have any other experiences as a truck- 
driver, except these three attacks on on your house, such as were re- 
lated by your predecessor on the stand, Mr. Taylor, incidents which 
occurred on the highway itself? 

Mr. BuTZEN. Well, sir, I was shot at one evening. 

Senator Mundt. Say that again. 

Mr. BuTZEN. I was shot at by a shotgun blast. 

Senator Mundt. While driving ? 

Mr. BuTZEN. Wliile driving my truck to Chicago. This happened 
between Sheboygan Falls and Waldo, on Highway 28. I would say 
I was about 5 or 6 miles southwest of Sheboygan Falls when this shot- 
gun blast was fired at me. 

I did not know at the time that I was being shot at. As this car 
approached me he put this headlights on bright and as this car got 
alongside of my trailer, of course my tractor was already past this car, 
and that is when I heard this blast. 

I thought a tire had blown out. So I pulled over to the side of the 
road to check if I had any blown out tires. I did not. 

Well, I thought ma^be that car backfired. So I continued on to Mil- 
waukee and I stopped in a restaurant. Now, another truckdriver from 
the Scheffler Co. had pulled out probably 5 minutes in back of me. 

When he caught up to me in Milwaukee, he stopped at this same 
restaurant and he asked me if I was shot at on Highway 28. Well, I 
started thinking, and, of course, I I'emember this blast, and he said he 
definitely was shot at because he had seen the blast or the flame come 
out the side of this car as it passed him. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN" THE LABOR FIELD 9713 

(At this point, the following members were present: Senators 
McClellan, Ervin, Mundt, Curtis, and Gold water.) 

Senator Mundt. Let me get this straight. Does he say that he saw 
the blast of the shotgun fired at you, or was he also shot at himself ? 
Mr. BuTZEN. He was shot at himself. 

Senator Mundt. Following you by about 5 minutes down the same 
highway ? 

Mr. BuTZEN. That is right. 

Senator Mundt. Go ahead. 

Mr. BuTZEN. The following morning we had heard that a farm 
home had its window shot out that evening, and, according to this 
other truckdriver, he was at the same location as where this home was 
located that had the window broken. Of course, we figured this win- 
dow was broken at the time he was shot at. This home is located on a 
curve in Highway 28. This other truckdriver states that he was 
rounding that curve at the time he was shot at. 

Senator Mundt. Did anybody in Sheboygan, a striker or a non- 
striker, a union member or a nonunion member, ever make any threats 
to you about shooting or anything which might help throw some light 
as to who was, what I would say, attempting murder out on a high- 
way ? If you are shooting at a man with a shotgun at a distance of 5 
or 6 feet, it is pretty rough on the guy that gets hit. 

Mr. BuTZEN. That is right, sir. 

Senator Mundt. Did anybody ever make any threats or any state- 
ments ? 

Mr, Butzen. No, sir. I couldn't say that anyone ever made a threat 
to take a shot at me. Of course, there was a lot of fellows that prob- 
ably would have liked to have beaten me up, but I couldn't state any 
one particular man, because usually there was a crowd of from 8 to 
12 strikers at the picket line when I crossed, went in and out of Kohler 
Co. If I had my 

Senator JNIundt. Did any of those people on the picket line ever 
make any threatening statements to you of derogatory statements 
or anything that would lead you to conclude that somebody might 
want to beat you up or do bodily injury to you ? 

Mr. Butzen. Well, I often heard "Butzen, we will get even with 
you" as I went through the picket line. 

Senator Mundt. Who would say that ? 

Mr. Butzen. That was the strikers. 

Senator Mundt. On the picket line ? 

Mr. Butzen. On the picket line. 

Senator Mundt. Did anybody ever say anything else besides 
"Butzen, we will get even with you" ? 

Mr. Butzen. Well, there was a lot of swearing at me. I believe 
the reason they probably said more to me than other drivers was be- 
cause I was one of the first drivers from the Sheboygan area to cross 
this picket line. 

Senator Mundt. You think they kind of singled you out, then, as 
a special target because of that ? 

Mr. Butzen. Well, that is the Avay it appeared to me. 

Senator Mundt. Did you have any personal enemies around She- 
boygan who might be trying to get even with you or bump you off 
for any other reason than that you were driving a truck which crossed 
the picket line and was carrying Kohler products ? 



9714 IMPROPER ACTIVITIEIS IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. BuTZEN. No, sir; I don't know anyone that I would call an 
enoniy of mine, that is, before the Kohler strike. 

Senator Mundt. In other words, you haven't been feuding with 
anybody in the neiohborhood and getting into a lot of trouble and 
brawls, and some unhappy neighbor might want to bump you off or 
someone else? 

Mr. BuTZEN. No, sir. 

Senator Mundt. You can think of no other reason, you are sure, 
excei)t the outgrowth of this strike that would have people attacking 
you ; is that your testimony ? 

Mr. BuTZEN. Yes, sir. 

Senator Mundt. You are a member of a union ? 

JSIr. BuTZEN. Yes, sir, I am a member of a union. 

Senator Mundt. And trying to earn a living for your family by 
working at your job just as the strikers were trying to earn a living 
for themselves, or for their jobs, or trying to protect their jobs, as they 
tell us, and having the strike out in front to try to keep people from 
replacing them. You were simply trying to earn your living; it that 
right? 

Mr. Butzen. That is correct, sir. 

Senator Mundt. Do you think you have a right to earn your living 
that way ? 

Mr. Butzen. Well, sii-, I do. I waited 4 months before I crossed 
this picket line. I traveled from Sheboygan, Manitowoc, Green Bay, 
Oshkosh, Fond du Lac, Milwaukee, looking for a job, and I couldn't 
find a job. I got part-time work as a welder, but this job didn't pay 
near enough to keep me going. 

I had financial problems. I have a new home to pay for. I had 
gotten married 1 month after the strike started. I had furniture to 
pay for. My only way out, as far as I was concerned, was to go back 
to work for Scheffler, and by going back to work for Scheffler I liad to 
cross the picket line because there was not enough freight coming out 
of Sheboygan for me not to cross the picket line. 

In other woixls, there probably was two nights a week when I 
would have a load out of Slieboygan that I didn't go into Kohler 
Co. But the other three nights of the week, if I wanted to work, I 
would have to cross the picket line to pick up a load up, take it out of 
Kohler Co. to Chicago. 

Senator ]Mundt. In other words, quite apart of whatever was hap- 
pening to Koliler or whatever was liappening to the strikers, regard- 
less of who was riglit in that controversy, you faced the choice of 
either having to cross a picket line or not being able to support your 
family ; is that right ? 

Mr! Butzen. Yes, sir. 

Senator Mundt. "Wliich, again, emphasizes tlie point that Senator 
Curtis was making yesterday from the standpoint of the expansion 
of a strike out })eyond the area of the labor controversy, whereby a 
majority, if you will, or a minority, or tlie striking group, seeks to 
impose its will l)y denying freedom of choice and the right to work and 
tlie riglit to survive to other people of the community, and, in this 
case, to a fellow union member, who has as much pride, I suppose, as 
these people in theirs. That is all. 

The ChxMrman. Senator Curtis? 

Senator Curtis. I have some questions if counsel was through. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 9715 

The Chairman. Counsel was not through, but you folks can pro- 
ceed. Go right ahead. You didn't ask a while ago but you went 
ahead. Now go ahead. 

Senator Curtis. I shall let the counsel finish. 

The Chairman. He is finished. Proceed. 

Senator Curtis. I am sorry, Mr. Chairman. I didn't believe I in- 
terrupted before. 

Mr. Butzen, this shooting that occurred in your home, what time of 
day or night was that ? 

Mr. Butzen. I would say it was approximately 11 o'clock at night. 

Senator Curtis. Your wife was in the front room, the front part of 
the house ? 

Mr. Butzen. That is correct, sir. 

Senator Curtis. And about how much time elapsed between these 
five shots that were fired ? 

Mr. Butzen. Well, sir, it appeared to me to be an automatic shot- 
gun or a pump. That is, as fast as those shots could probably come 
out of that gun, that is as fast as they were fired. 

Senator Curtis. Were you in the same part of the house ? 

Mr. Butzen. No, sir. I was in the bathroom at the time. 

Senator Curtis. And how close did this shot that came through 
the door come to hitting her ? 

Mr. Butzen. Well, the window that she was looking out of was 
broken. 

Senator Cltrtis. I see. Well, now, the shots that were fired in the 
car, that was the same evening, and that is what made up the five 
shots? 

Mr. Butzen. That is correct. 

Senator Curtis. Did you find any sliotgun shells out there ? 

Mr. Butzen. No, sir. I didn't see any shotgun shells. 

Senator Curtis. Did you call the sheriff immediately, or was there 
a little time that elapsed ? 

Mr. Butzen. Yes, sir, I called the sheriff immediately after this 
shooting took place. 

Senator Curtis. Is your residence inside the city or 

Mr. Butzen. No, sir. My residence is about a mile and a half 
south of Sheboygan in the town of Wilson, on Highway 141. 

Senator Curtis. What time of day was this first incident, the one 
where they threw tlie rocks through the window ? 

Mr. Butzen. This also took place between 10 : 30 and 11 o'clock at 
night. 

Senator Curtis. Were you home at the time ? 

Mr. Butzen. I was home on the first incident, when the rocks were 
thrown through the window. The second time when this slug of 
marble was put through the window, I was not at home. 

Senator Curtis. How large were these rocks ? 

Mr. Butzen. I would say those two rocks were probably the size of 
my fist. 

Senator Curtis. Each one of them ? 

Mr. Butzen. Each one. 

Senator Curtis. Did you keep them ? 

Mr. BuTSEN. No, sir. The sheriff's department picked up both of 
them. 

21243— 58— pt. 24 16 



9716 IMPROPEIl ACTTVrriEIS IN TKE LABOR FIETLD 

Senator Curtis. And they came through the picture window ? 

Mr, BuTZEN. Yes, sir; that is, one rock broke the window. The 
other rock hit the frame of the window. But either one of those rocks 
did not come into my home. This is a thermopane window, and it 
broke the outer glass only. In other words, the inside glass of the 
thermopane was not damaged. 

Senator Curtis, This assault upon your home, the one where a mar- 
ble or something round came through the window, was that likewise 
at night, too? 

Mr. BuTZEN. That was also at night. 

Senator Curtis. And it left just a round hole in the window ? 

Mr, BuTZEN. Just a round hole. 

Senator Curtis. You never found the thing that went through the 
window ? 

Mr. BuTZEN. No, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Did this have a terrifying effect upon your wife ? 

Mr. BuTZEN. Well, sir, my wife didn't notice this until about a half 
hour later. 

Senator Curtis. No, I am talking about the general, all four 
accidents. 

Mr, BuTZEN. Yes, sir, this had a great effect on my wife. She was 
very nervous. In fact, I thought she would have a nervous breakdown. 

Senator C^trtis. I think you have made a 

Mr. BuTZEN, Pardon me, sir. Did you mean if my wife was nervous 
before the Kohler strike ? 

Senator Curtis. No. I am asking if in addition to the property 
damage that was done there, if this shooting into the house and throw- 
ing rocks and breaking windows was terrifying to your wife. 

Mr. BuTZEN. It certainly was. 

Senator Curtis. You have made an important witness in this hear- 
ing. You have certainly, by recitation, firsthand, of what you experi- 
enced, established the untruth of the contention that this boycott was 
carried on just by means of persuasion, and by advertising the contro- 
versy between union and management in Kohler. I think it is regret- 
table that your local police officers weren't able to give you any pro- 
tection, with no prosecutions of these things. It may happen at a later 
time, maybe even after these hearings are long closed. But the truth 
will eventually come out on who directed these tilings, who financed 
them, who provided the guns, who provided the paint bombs and all 
these other things. 

I certainly hope it will. That is all, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Senator Goldwater, 

Senator Goldwater. I have no questions, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Senator Ervin? 

Senator Ervin. I have no question. 

The Chairman. Mr. Counsel, do you have any more questions? 

Mr. Kennedy. No, thank 5^ou. 

The Chairman. The Chair wishes to ask you one or two questions. 

Do you have any doubts that this vandalism and these attacks upon 
you grew out of anything else except this strike? 

Mr. Butzen. No, sir, I think this strike was the fault of it. 

The CiiAnnrAN. The cause of all of it? 



IMPROPER ACTIVrTIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 9717 

Mr. BuTZEN. The cause of everything that happened to my home. 

The Chairman. Do you have any doubt that it was union members, 
strikers, or their sympathizers that committed these acts ? 

Mr. BuTZEN. Well, I think it was somebody, probably a striker or 
someone that was in favor of the strikers. 

The Chaieman. You don't think anyone that didn't want the strike 
was committing these acts, do you ? 

Mr. Btjtzen. I don't think so. 

The Chairman. Do you have reason to think anyone outside of 
those who were on strike and their sympathizers would want to treat 
you that way? 

Mr. BuTZEN, No, sir. 

The Chairman. And all the threats you got were from those that 
were on the picket line, telling you they would get you ? 

Mr. BuTZEN. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. You got threats from them? 

Mr. BuTZEN. I certainly did. 

The CiLviRMAN. You got threats from no one else? 

Mr. BuTZEN. That is right. 

The Chairman. Do you know whether the officials of the union and 
of the international union knew that these pickets were making threats 
to you there on the picket line ? 

Mr. BuTZEN. No, sir ; I do not know that. 

The Chairman. You couldn't say that any official of the local union, 
of the local or of the international, were present and heard the threats ? 

Mr. BuTZEN. No, sir ; I couldn't say that anyone 

The Chairman. How many times were you threatened when you 
crossed the picket line? 

Mr. BuTZEN. Well, in the beginning of the strike, that is, when I 
started to cross the picket line 

The Chairman. That is 4 months after the strike began ? 

Mr. BuTZEN. That was 4 months after the strike began — I would 
say for the first 2 months that I crossed that picket line, it was just 
about every day. 

The Chairman. Do you mean you crossed it about every day, or 
that every every time you did cross they threatened you? 

Mr. BuTZEN. Every time I did cross. 

The Chairman. How often did you cross during that first 2 
months ? 

Mr. BuTZEN. Well, I would say I crossed probably four times a 
week ; that is, going in the gate and out of the gate. 

The Chairman. In other words, you made two trips in a week? 

Mr. BuTZEN. That is right. 

The Chairman. Going in and coming out you would cross the 
picket line ? 

Mr. BuTzEN. But there were times that I would go in more. Of 
course, I can't remember exactly how many times I went in. 

The Chairman. How long after these threats were made was it 
before this vandalism occurred ? 

Mr. BuTZEN. I went into the Kohler Co. the middle of August, 
and the first time I had any damage done to my home was in Jan- 
uary of 1955. 



9718 IMPROPER ACTTVITIBS IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. Had the threats on the picket line continued up 
until January 1955 ? 

Mr. BuTZEN. They continued after January. 

The Chairmax. Well, they had, from the time you started they had 
continued up to January 1955 ? 

Mr. BuTZEN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Chairman. And then continued on after; is that correct? 

Mr. BuTZEN. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Did you have any idea who was committing these 
acts against you ? 

Mr. Buiv.EN. I wouldn't go so far as to name any one man. 

The CH.VIRMAN. Did you tell the sheriff whom you belLeved the 
two men were ? 

Mr. BuTZEN. Yes, I did. 

The Chairman. You gave him their names ? 

Mr, BuTZEN. Yes. I gave him the names. 

The Chairman. Do you know whether he ever questioned them ? 

Mr. Butzen. No, sir ; I do not know. 

The Chairman. Did he ever report back to you that he had in- 
vestigated and found out that you were mistaken ? 

Mr. Butzen. No, sir ; he didn't. 

The Chairman. In other words, you gave him the names of those 
you thought you had the right to suspicion and believed committed 
the acts ? 

Mr. Butzen. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. And you got no further cooperation from him ? 

Mr. Butzen. That is correct, sir. 

The Chairman. Are there any other questions ? 

Senator Ervin. 

Senator Ervin. When you crossed the picket line, was anything 
done to you besides being threatened ? In other words, were you ever 
rocked or anything like that ? 

Mr. Butzen. Yes, sir; I had clearance lights knocked off the top 
of the cab on my tractor. This happened in the winter time, and I 
believe that it was a chunk of ice that was picked up and thrown at 
my tractor. These clearance lights are glass, that is, a glass reflector, 
and inside this reflector is a little bulb. These glass reflectors were 
knocked clear off of the tractor. 

Senator Ervin, How often did that occur ? 

Mr, Butzen. This happened to me one time. 

Senator Ervin. That is all. 

Senator Mundt. Mr. Chairman ? 

The Chairman. Senator Mundt. 

Senator Mundt. Prior to the strike situation at Kohler, had yoir 
had occurrences of this type against you as a truckdriver ? 

Mr. Butzen, No, sir. 

Senator Mundt. Nobody had ever shot at you, nobody had ever 
tried to break up your truck in the manner in which you described to 
Senator Ervin, or nobody had in any way threatened or intimidated 
you until this strike situation developed'^ 

Mr. Butzen. No, sir. That is correct. 

Senator Mundt, Do you have any other reason to believe that this 
was the strikers, other than the fact that they seemed to be the people 



IMPROPER ACTIVrTIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 9719 

who were against Kohler and Koliler products, and your truck was 
carrying Kohler products ? 

As you went out with your wife socially or to eat or to dance or any- 
thing, were you ever accosted by pickets or ever abused by them 
verbally ? 

Mr. BuTZEN. Well, a few times that my wife and I were out, I was 
called a scab. Of course, I don't call myself a scab. If I was called 
a strikebreaker, I would say that would be the correct name for me. 

Senator Mundt. A scab, in your dejEinition, would be a fellow 
who had gone back to work in the Kohler plant after he had gone out 
on strike? 

Mr. BuTZEN. That is what I would call a scab. 

Senator Mundt. You w^ere a fellow union member trying to earn 
your living and running in conflict with another union that was on 
strike against the company ? 

Mr. BuTZEN. Yes, sir. 

Senator Mundt. You would be, you say, a strikebreaker. 

Mr. BuTZEN. If they call it that. 

Senator Mundt. Did either of these two men, and there is no need 
to identify them by name, because you don't know whether they shot 
at you or not, and you don't want to accuse anybody of shooting with- 
out having pretty good evidence — you gave the two names to the 
sheriff and he never reported back to you — you must have had some 
reason, and I want you to give us the reason without mentioning the 
people's names. We will have some more w^itnesses in here to talk 
about the names, probably. What reason did you have for picking 
out, let's say, John and Joe and telling the sheriff "I think these are 
the fellows responsible ?" 

Mr. BuTZEN. Because those were the fellows that told me, "But- 
zen, we are going to get even with you." 

That led me to believe that they could have had something to do 
with the damage that was done to my home. 

Senator Mundt. In other words, these are the men that you could 
remember who personally had threatened you ? 

Mr. BuTZEN. Yes, sir. 

Senator Mundt. That would seem to be a pretty good, logical rea- 
son, for at least giving the names to the sheriff. You had no evi- 
dence, no information, as to whether the sheriff ever did anything 
about it or not ? 

Mr. Butzen. Not to my knowledge. If they were questioned, I 
•don't know about it. 

Senator Mundt. No report was made to you ? 

Mr. Butzen. No, sir. 

Senator Mundt. This was the same Sheriff Mosch that we have 
•been talking about ? 

Mr. Butzen. Yes, sir. 

Senator Mundt. All right. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Thank you very much. Call the next witness. 

Mr. Kennedy. John Schinabeck. 

The Chairman. Come forward, please. 



9720 'IMPROPER ACTIVITIDS IN THE LABOR FIELD 

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. SciiiNABECK. 1 do. 

TESTIMONY OF JOSEPH SCHINABECK, ACCOMPANIED BY COUNSEL, 
THOMAS E. SHROYER 

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

Mr. Schinabeck. Joseph Schinabeck of 2609 Main, Sheboygan. 
Wis. ; I work for the Scheffler Transport Co. 

The Chairman. How long have you worked there? 
Mr. Schinabeck. I believe 13 years. 

The Chairman. Counsel, do you appear for this witness also ? 
Mr. Shroyer. Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman. 
The Chairman. All right, Mr. Kennedy, proceed. 
Mr. Kennedy. You are in a union ? 
Mr. Schinabeck. Yes, sir. 
Mr. Kennedy. What local ? 
Mr. Schinabeck. Local 56 of the teamsters. 
Mr. Kennedy. Of the teamsters ? 
Mr. Schinabeck. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you received the same kind of notification as 
the previous witness about driving during the strike ? 
Mr. Schinabeck. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. You drove in and made pick-ups and deliveries at 
the Kohler Co. from 1954 on ? 
Mr. Schinabeck. I did. 

Mr. Kennedy. And did you ever have any threatening telephone 
calls when you were doing this work ? 

Mr. Schinabeck. Not that I can remember. 

Mr. Kennedy. You never had any threatening telephone calls. Did 
you receive any telephone calls at home ? 

Mr. Schinabeck. Not that I know of. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you have any damage done to your home ? 

Mr. Schinabeck. I did. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is, while driving for the Kohler Co. ? 

Mr. Schinabeck. I did, 

Mr. Kennedy. What happened, and approximately when ? 

Mr. Schinabeck. Well, I believe this was in 1956, March— I don't 
remember for sure — but my house was paint-bombed, I believe with 
four j ars of paint. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were they thrown through your window ? 

Mr. Schinabeck. They were thrown at the front door and through 
the picture window of the house. 

Mr. Kennedy. What kind of paint was it ? 

Mr. Schinabeck. That I do not know. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was it white paint or black paint or what ? 

Mr. Schinabeck. Black paint. 

Mr. Kennedy. Thrown into your living room ? 

Mr. Schinabeck. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. How many jars in your living room ? 

Mr. Schinabeck. I believe there was three. 



lAlPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 9721 

Mr. Kennedy. And did you have a fourth jar ? 

Mr. ScHiNABECK. At the front door. 

Mr. Kennedy. Through the front door ? 

Mr. ScHiNABECK. At the front door. 

Mr. Kennedy. And it covered your whole front door with paint ? 

Mr. SciiiNABECK. It bounced off as it hit. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did it break ? 

Mr. ScHiNABECK. It broke as it hit. 

Mr. Kjennedy. The other three jars were thrown through the 
window ? 

Mr. Schinabeck. Yes, sir. 

Mr. I{j;nnedy. Then did they splatter paint all over your living 
room? 

Mr. Schinabeck. All over the furniture. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. All over the furniture, the walls, the rugs? 

Mr. Schinabeck. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. What was the damage ? 

Mr. Schinabeck. Somewhere around $1,000. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you have insurance at that time ? 

Mr. Schinabeck. I did not. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did the Kohler Co. assist you ? 

Mr. Schinabeck. The Kohler Co. paid it. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you have any trouble or problems like this be- 
fore? 

Mr. Schinabeck. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you feel that what happened to you is directly 
related to the strike ? 

Mr. Schinabeck. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And do you feel that it is diiectly related to the fact 
that you were driving a truck and making pickups and deliveries at 
the Kohler Co.? 

Mr. Schinabeck. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And that those responsible were those who were at- 
tempting to prevent you from making these pickups and deliveries at 
the Kohler Co.? 

Mr. Schinabeck. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you feel that those are the ones that were re- 
sponsible ? 

Mr. Schinabeck. Yes. I believe the house was there 5 years and 
nobody ever touched it. 

Mr. Kennedy. You never had any trouble, except at this time? 

Mr. Schinabeck. At this time was only. 

Mr. Kennedy. And when you were driving through the picket line 
did the pickets and strikers make any statements to you ? 

Mr. Schinabeck. Well, just swearing. That is about all. 

Mr. Kennedy. They would swear at you ? 

Mr. Schinabeck. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kjennedy. And did they threaten you at all ? 

Mr. Schinabeck. Not that I can remember. 

Mr. Kennedy. What? 

Mr. Schinabeck. Not that I can remember. 

Mr. Kennedy. They didn't tell you that they would get you some 
day? 



9722 IMPROPEit ACTT\^TI,EIS IN THE LABO'R FIELD 

Mr. ScHixABECK. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. But, nevertheless, you feel, because of the fact that 
you had no problems or difficulty such as this before, that this paint 
Dombin<^ of your home arose out of the strike, isn't that correct, it 
arose out of the strike ? 

Mr. ScHiNABECK. Ycs, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And that those responsible were those who were 
trying to keep you from making these pickups and deliveries? 

Mr. ScHiNABECK. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Those that were on strike ? 

Mr. ScHiNABECK. Ycs, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. You continued to drive and make these pick ups and 
deliveries even after they paint bombed your home ? 

Mr. Schinabeck. I did. 

Mr. Kennedy. It didn't stop you ? 

Mr. Schinabeck. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. It didn't frighten you. You continued to do your 
work? 

Mr. Schinabeck. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Is there any other incident that occurred to you? 

Mr. Schinabeck. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. You weren't followed in your truck ? 

Mr. Schinabeck. Not that I know of. 

The Chairman. Wlien you crossed the picket line, how long was 
it after you first crossed the picket line and heard this cursing and 
so forth before the first incident occurred? 

Mr. Schinabeck. I believe it was somewhere maybe around 2 
months after I crossed the picket line that my house was paint bombed. 

The Chairman. I hand you some pictures here, some photographs, 
a series of five. Will you examine them and state whether you 
identify them, please? 

( Photographs were handed to the witness. ) 

Mr. Schinabeck. They are of my home. 

The Chairman. They are pictures of your home and the damage 
that was done to it ? 

Mr. Schinabeck. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. That is, by reason of the paint bombing? 

Mr. Schinabeck. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. They may be made exhibits 108, A, B, C, D, and E 
for reference only. 

(The documents referred to were marked "Exhibit Nos. 108 A, B, 
C, D, and E," for reference and may be found in the files of the select 
committee.) 

The Chairman. Senator Curtis ? 

Senator Curtis. On how many different occasions did they throw 
paint on your home? 

Mr. ScHiNABi;cK. Just once. 

Senator Curtis. Did they come through a window ? 

Mr. Schinabeck. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Did they break the window with the paint con- 
tainer, or how did it happen ? Do you know ? 

Mr. Schinabeck. The paint was in a jar. 

Senator Curtis. Yes ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES ENT THE LABOR FIELD 9723 

Mr. ScHiNABECK. Ill a (^lass jar. 

Senator Curtis. Did the glass jar break the window or did they 
break the window with a rock or something at that time ? 

Mr. ScHiNABECK. The glass jars broke the window. They went 
right through. 

Senator Curtis. How many jars of paint did they throw ? 

Mr. ScHiNABECK. I believe there was four. 

Senator Curtis. Four? 

Mr. ScHiNABECK. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Who was home at the time ? 

Mr. ScHiNABECK. My wife and children. 

Senator Ctjrtis. How many children ? 

Mr. ScHiNABECK. Two, 

Senator Curtis. What were there ages ? 

Mr. ScHiNABECK. 6 and 1, 1 believe, at the time. 

Senator Curtis. And had the children gone to bed ? 

Mr. ScHiNABECK. They were all in bed. 

Senator Curtis. Did it awaken them, disturb them that night? 

Mr. ScHiNABECK. It sure did. 

Senator Curtis. You were there ? 

Mr. ScHiNABECK. I was not. 

Senator Curtis. But your wife told you about it? 

Mr. ScHiNABECK. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. And the next day, or later, were you able to find the 
pieces of the jars so that 3^011 could figure out there was four of 
them? 

Mr. ScHiNABECK. Well, there were four covers. I think the police 
department took them all. 

Senator Curtis. Four tops to the jars? 

Mr. ScHiNABECK. Four tops. 

Senator Curtis. Were they all thrown in through the same window ? 

Mr. ScHiNABECK. Three of them were. One was thrown at the front 
door. 

Senator Curtis. One was thrown at the front door. Was the door 
open? 

Mr. ScHiNABECK. No, sir. It was not. 

Senator Curtis. Was there glass in the door? How did it come 
through the front? 

Mr. ScHiNABECK. A combination screen door. 

Senator Curtis. I see. Had your wife retired when this happened ? 

Mr. ScHiNABECK. She had just gone to bed. 

Senator Curtis. But she heard it at the time? 

Mr. ScHiNABECK. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Did any police officers ever do anything about it? 

Mr. ScHiNABECK, Well, they came and looked at it. 

Senator Curtis. I beg your pardon ? 

Mr. ScHiNABECK. They looked at it. 

Senator Curtis. Did you ever see them again? 

Mr. ScHiNABECK. No, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Was this the police officers or the sheriff's office? 

Mr. ScHiNABECK. The Sheboygan Police Department. 

Senator Curtis. I notice here one of the pictures that looks like the 
paint hit a davenport and above it. 

How badly was that damaged ? 



9724 IMPROPEIi ACTIVITIEIS IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. ScHiNABECK. That was ruined. 

Senator Curtis. That was ruined ? 

Mr. SciiiNABECK. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. It looks like a lot of paint around there. Did more 
than one jar hit there in that area, do you know? 

Mr. ScHixABECK. I don't really know. It could have been 1 or it 
could have been 2. 

Senator Curtis. They were all pretty much in the same general area 
where they hit ? 

Mr. ScHiNABECK. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Well, now, did this happen before or after your 
experience of being swore at, harrassed verbally when you would 
carry on your work ? 

Mr. ScHiisrABECK. After I went in a while then I got it. 

Senator Curtis. I beg your pardon ? 

Mr. ScHiNABECK. After I crossed the picket line for a while, then 
I got it. 

Senator Curtis. I see. You are satisfied that the purpose of this 
was to prevent you from hauling these Kohler products ? 

Mr. ScHiNABECK. I had to live. 

Senator Curtis. I beg your pardon ? 

Mr. ScHiNABECK. I had to live. 

Senator Curtis. I understand that. I am not disputing that. Why 
do you think this was done to you and your home ? 

Mr. ScHiNABECK. Bccause I crossed the picket line. 

Senator Curtis. Because you crossed the picket line? 

Mr. SCHINABECK. Yes. 

Senator Curtis. Which meant that you were transporting Kohler 
products, is that right ? 

Mr. ScHiNABECK. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. And they didn't want you to do that? 

Mr. ScHiNABECK. No, sir. 

Senator Curtis. And they proceeded in this manner rather than to 
persuade you with argument, is that right ? 

Mr. ScHiNABECK. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Was this a terrifying experience for your wife and 
children? 

Mr. ScHiNABECK. It sure was. 

Senator Curtis. That is all, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Senator Mundt. 

Senator Mundt. Did you have any insurance on your home? 

Mr. SciiiNABECK. I do. 

Senator Mundt. Did you check with the insurance company to see 
whether they would cover an incident like that ? 

Mr. ScHiNABECK. I did. 

Senator Mundt. And you found out that your policy did not cover 
that? 

Mr. ScHiNABECK. That is right. 

Senator Mundt. So if the Kohler Co. had not paid it, you would 
have had to pay it yourself ? 

Mr. SciiiNABECK. Yes, sir. 

Senator Mundt. Would $1,000 to a man in your circumstances have 
been a pretty serious setback if you had been stuck with it yourself ? 



IMPROPER ACrrVTnES IN THE LABOR FIELD 9725 

Mr. ScHiNABECK. I didn't have it. 

Senator Mundt. It would have taken you quite a while, I suppose, 
to save on any wages as a tinickdriver, $1,000, to replace your furni- 
ture? 

Mr. ScHiNABECK. Yes, sir. 

Senator Mundt. So except for the fact that the Kohler Co. did pick 
up the check for the damages, you would have been pretty seriously 
hurt, as a workingman in Sheboygan, as a member of a union, because 
some other union decided to heave some paint bombs at you ? 

Mr. ScHiNABECK. Yes, sir. 

Senator Mundt. Thank you. 

The Chairman. Are there any other questions? You have no 
doubts that this damage, this vandalism, toward your property was the 
outgrowth of this.strike, do you ? 

Mr. ScHiNABECK. I believe that was the cause of it. 

The Chairman. You wouldn't have any reason to think that anyone 
who sympathized with the Koliler Co. would want to throw paint 
bombs at you, would you ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. ScHiN ABECK. I really don't know. 

The Chairman. I mean, is there anybody at the Kohler Co. mad at 
jou who would want to damage your property ? 

Mr. ScHiNABECK. Well, I guess not. 

The Chairman. Have your relations with them always been 
pleasant ? 

Mr. Schinabeck. Pardon, sir ? 

The Chairman. Have your relations with the Kohler Co. always 
been pleasant ? 

Mr. Schinabeck. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. The only unpleasant matter that came up was re- 
garding the strike and your crossing the picket line ( 

Mr. Schinabeck. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Do you have any definite information as to whether 
the union itself countenanced this character of conduct? 

Mr. Schinabeck. I don't know sir. 

The Chairman. Do you know if they did anything to prevent it? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Schinabeck. I guess I don't know. 

The Chairman. You don't know whether they did or didn't? 

Mr. Schinabeck. I didn't get the question. 

The Chairman. Do you know whether the union did anything to 
try to stop, to try to prevent this vandalism from occurring? 

Mr. Schinabeck. I do not know. 

The Chairman. Did you ever hear of them doing anything to stop 
it? 

Mr. Schinabeck. I do not know. 

The Chairman. You just don't know either way ? 

Mr. Schinabeck. No, sir. 

The Chairman. Thank you. You are excused. 

Senator Mundt. You were not an employee of the Kohler Co. You 
were an employee of the trucking company, were you not ? 

Mr. Schinabeck. Yes, sir. 



9726 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Mundt. So that your connections with the Kohler Co., 
I suppose, are primarily through whoever owned the trucking com- 
pany. You worked for the trucking company ? 

Mr. SciiiNABECK. I work for a trucking company. 

Senator Goldwater. Mr. Chairman ? 

The Chairman. Senator Goldwater. 

Senator Goldwater. I want to ask the witness just a question about 
union policy. 

You are a member of the teamsters, are you ? 

Mr. ScHiNABECK. Ycs, sir. 

Senator Goldwater. You are not supposed to cross a picket line. 
Am I correct in that ? 

Mr. ScHiNABECK. I bcHeve not. 

Senator Goldwater. Have they ever told you anything in the local 
about crossing an illegal picket line ? 

Mr. ScHiNABECK. We was on our own. 

Senator Goldwater. You were on your own ? 

Mr. ScniNABECK. Yes, sir. 

Senator Goldwater. Did you feel that inasmuch as this was an il- 
legal picket line, that you had a right, as a union member, to cross 
it? 

Mr. ScHiNABECK. Well, I do not belong to that union. If I felt like 
it, I could have crossed it. 

Senator Goldwater. Thank you. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much. 

Call the next witness. 

(Members of the committee present at this point in the hearing were : 
Senators McClellan, Ervin, Goldwater, Mundt, and Curtis.) 

Mr. Kennedy. We will call Mr. Johnsen. 

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. Johnsen. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF ROY JOHNSEN, ACCOMPANIED BY HIS COUNSEL, 
JOSEPH L. RAUH, JR. 

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

Mr. Johnsen. My name is Roy Johnsen, I live at 3944 Holden Road, 
Sheboygan, Wis., and I am presently employed by the Larsen engine 
division of the Tecumseh Products in Holstein, Wis., and I am a grind- 
er, a precision grinder. 

The Chairman. A precision grinder? 

Mr. Johnsen. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. You appear for him, Mr. Rauh ? 

Mr. Rauh. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman, Let the record so show. 

All right, Mr. Kennedy, proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Johnsen, you were working at the Kohler Co. ? 

Mr. Johnsen. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. How long did you work for the Kohler Co. ? 

Mr. Johnsen. Approximately 5 years. 

Mr. Kennedy. From what period of time ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 9727 

Mr. JoHNSEN. I would say 5 years before the strike. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you went out on strike ? 

Mr. JoHNSEN. It could be a little less, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Approximately 5 years, and you went out on strike ? 

Mr. JoHNSEN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. In support of the UATV ? 

Mr. JoHNSEN. Yes, sir, I did. 

Mr, EIennedy. There were trucks that were making pickups and 
deliveries at the Kohler Co. ? 

Mr. JoHNSEN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And the union decided to try to do something about 
that to prevent it ? 

Mr. JoHNSEN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And they formed a f ollow-the-truck committee ? 

Mr. Johnsen. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you were a member of the follow-the-truck 
committee ? 

Mr. Johnsen. Yes, sir, I was. 

Mr. Ivennedy. Were you a leader of "follow-the-truck" committee? 

Mr. Johnsen. No, sir. 

Mr. IvENNEDY, Just a member of it ? 

Mr. Johnsen. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. How many members did you have ? 

Mr. Johnsen. I would say approximately a dozen to 15 or 16. 

Mr. Ivennedy. Who was head of the follow-the-truck committee? 
, Mr. Johnsen. Well, as far as I know, sir, I got all of my informa- 
tion and my money from Curtis Nack. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wliat was his position in the union ? 

Mr. Johnsen. "W^iat was his position ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes, what was Curtis Nack ? 

Mr. Johnsen. He worked with the executive board. 

Mr. Kennedy. He was a member of the executive board ? 

Mr. Johnsen. I don't know, sir, if he was or not, but he worked 
with them. 

Mr. Kennedy. He was one of the leaders of the union ? 

Mr. Johnsen. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. And he is the one that organized this committee? 

Mr. Johnsen. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. "V\^io organized the follow-the-truck committee ? 

Mr. Johnsen. I think Leo Brierather testified that he was a part 
of it. 

Mr. Kennedy. But you received your instructions from Nack ? 

Mr. Johnsen. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. How long was this follow-the-truck committee in 
operation ? 

Mr. Johnsen. I would say approximately 2 months, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. "^Yliat period was it, during when ? 

Mr. Johnsen. Well, about the fifth or sixth month or so, sometliing 
like that. 

Mr. Kennedy. In the summer? 

Mr. Johnsen. In June. 

Mr. Kennedy. And July of 1954 ? 

Mr. Johnsen. Yes, sir, that is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. May, June, and July ? 



9728 IMPROPER ACTIVITIEIS EN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. JoiiNsEX. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Shortly after the mass picketing ended ? 

Mr. JoiiNSEN. Tliat is'right, sir, 

Mr. Kennedy. And for approximately 2 months? 

Mr. Johnsen. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. And did you have cars assigned to you ? 

Mr. JoiiNSEN. We used our own cars, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And how many of you would go in each car? 

Mr. Johnsen. Approximately 3 or 4, and sometimes I think there 
were 5. 

Mr. Kennedy. Would you try to follow every truck that was com- 
ing out of Kohler Co. ? 

Mr. Johnsen. Not every truck, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Well, you w-ould follow a number of them, as many 
as you could, with the limit that you had in people ? 

Mr. Johnsen. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you would follow them wherever they went? 

Mr. Johnsen. In certain cases, yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you know where they were going prior to the 
time you started your trip ? 

Mr. Johnsen. No, we didn't. 

Mr. Kennedy. You didn't know where you were going to end up ? 

Mr. Johnsen. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. What was the purpose of the "follow-the-truck'' 
committee? 

Mr. Johnsen. To find out where the merchandise went and talk to 
the people in the community to relate the Kohler story. 

Mr. Kennedy. You would know that some merchandise was going 
to Chicago, and if you w^anted to talk to the people in Chicago, you 
didn't have to follow the truck down there ? 

Mr. Johnsen. That is right. I realize that, sir, but if it was a 
Chicago truck, it would have to be a Scheffler and I don't believe 
Kohler Co. trucks left the State. 

Mr. Kennedy. So why would you go down, or why would you fol- 
low the truck, and I ask you the question again, what would be the 
reason to follow the truck ? 

Mr. Johnsen. To find out where the merchandise was going. 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes, and then you found out it is going to some 
place in Chicago, and what would you do once you got there? 

Mr. Johnsen. Well, we would relate our story, and check in with 
the union down there, and relate our story and talk to the people 
around. 

Mr. Kennedy. What do you mean talk to the people around there ? 
What does that mean? 

Mr. Johnsen. Well, we wanted to get the people interested. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who are the people? 

Mr. Johnsen. The people, the public interested in the support of 
our Kohler workers. 

Mr. Kennedy. Just everybody you mean, or anybody specifically, or 
just everybody? 

Mr. Johnsen, Not everybody, sir, whoever would stop and talk 
to us. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES UST THE LABOR FIELD 9729 

Mr. ICenkedt. You didn't have to follow the truck to know that 
you should go down to Chicago and talk to the people in Chicago. 
You didn't have to follow the truck down there. 

Mr. JoHNSEN. I didn't know it was going to Chicago. 

Mr. Kennedy. But you knew some trucks were going to Chicago, 
did you not? 

Mr. JoHNSEN. That is right, and we believe it. 

Mr. Kennedy. You didn't have to follow the truck down there to 
find that out, and if you wanted to talk generally to people in Chicago, 
you could just go to Chicago and talk to them. 

Mr. JoHNSEN. We didn't know, sir, if this merchandise was going 
to a warehouse, or to a construction project, or what. 

Mr. Kennedy. Isn't it true that you went down there, and you fol- 
lowed the truck in order to talk to the people in the project or in the 
warehouse or wherever it might be, the specific people handling 
Kohler products? 

Mr. Johnsen. Well, sir, when the truck left we did not know where 
it was going. 

Mr. Kennedy. I know that, but the reason you followed it was to 
talk to the people to whom the deliveries were being made, isn't that 
right? 

You weren't going down to Chicago to talk to everybody in Chicago. 
You were talking to the people in the warehouse or the business 
project. 

Mr. Johnsen. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. And trying to influence them not to buy Koliler 
products ? 

Mr. Johnsen. To tell them our side of the story, yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Would that entail setting up a picket line so that 
people would not come in and patronize that place of business? 

Mr. Johnsen. We did picket the places, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. So here is a third party who is handling Kohler 
products, and you would set a picket line up in front of a relatively 
innocent third party and start picketing their establishment merely 
because they were buying Kohler products ? 

Mr. Johnsen. May I stress this, sir : We only picketed it at the time 
the Kohler Co. truck was there. 

Mr. KJENNEDY. Did you ever picket anybody else, any other trucks ? 

Mr. Johnsen. No, sir. Well, the Scheffler truck we did. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you picket where they made deliveries, and 
did you picket those places ? 

Mr. Johnsen. We followed the Scheffler truck from Sheboygan, 
from the Kohler plant to the Scheffler terminal in Chicago, and the 
truck itself had pulled inside the terminal. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you picket the terminal ? 

Mr. Johnsen. No, sir, because it pulled inside, and we took the 
signs out of the car. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you picket them at all? 

Mr. Johnsen. I don't think we did, sir. We had the signs with us 
but I think we held them down. 

Mr. Kennedy. Why didn't you picket them ? 

Mr. Johnsen. I believe we had instructions not to picket if the 
truck was in there, if the truck was pulled inside, and we had no clear 



9730 EVIPROPER ACT'IVITIEIS IX THE LABO'R FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. What did the clear vision entail ? 

Mr, JoHNSEN. Well, if they are unloading in a warehouse where 
we could picket and where there was public property, access to the 
sidewalks or something like that. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, you were actually picketing a third party, 
were you not, who might be handling as one of their products, or 
one of their products might be handling Kohler ? 

Mr. Johnsen. Yes, sir, 

Mr. Kennedy. And you received those instructions to do that from 
the officials of the union in Sheboygan ? 

Mr. Johnsen. I received all of my instructions and money, and ex- 
pense money, and everything from Curtis Nack at the strike kitchen. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did it ever occur to you that this might be causing 
harm and difficulty for a third party that had nothing to do with 
the strike ? 

Mr. Johnsen. In a way, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. But you went ahead and did it anyway ? 

Mr. Johnsen. Yes, sir. 

Mr, Kennedy, How much money did you receive? 

Mr. Johnsen, That all depends upon where we would go, sir; 
probably $20 and sometimes more. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were you receiving strike benefits at the time ? 

Mr. Johnsen. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Which was how much ? 

Mr. Johnsen. I think, well we got a food voucher, and I think we 
got our check, $25 a week, or whatever it was later on. 

Mr. Kennedy. About $25 a week, plus food vouchers ? 

Mr. Johnsen. I think so. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you would receive your expenses when you 
made these trips ? 

Mr. Johnsen. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you never would know where you were going 
to end up ? 

Mr. Johnsen. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Why did you join the "follow the truck" committee? 

Mr. Johnsen. I volunteered for it, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. For what reason ? 

Mr. Johnsen. Because I could get in my picket duty that way. 

Mr. Kennedy. You could what ? 

Mr. Johnsen. I would get credit for picket duty that way. 

Mr. Kennedy. You would get paid more if you are a picket ? 

Mr. Johnsen. No, sir; we got credit for the duty. Eather than 
walk the line in front of the plant, or be one of the men at the gates 
at the plant, we got credit for hours as picket duty by following these 
trucks. 

Mr. Kennedy. What does it entail when you get credit for it ? 

Mr. Johnsen. Well, we had to put in so many hours a week to get 
our pay. 

Mr. Kennedy. To get the strike benefits ? 

Mr. Johnsen. That is right, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And this was part of your responsibilities and 
duties? 
- Mr. Johnsen. That is right. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 9731 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, you say this lasted approximately 2 months, 
and how many places did you actually picket during that 2-month 
period ? 

Mr. JoHNSEN. Well, sir, I made one run to Chicago. I made one 
run down to Fort Dodge, Iowa. 

Mr. KENNEDY. Did you picket every time you made these runs ? 

Mr. JoHNSEN. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. How many places did you actually picket ? 

Mr. Johnsen. I would say we picketed about three places in 
Milwaukee. 

Mr. Kennedy. All in Milwaukee ? 

Mr. JoHNSEN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you picket any place in Chicago ? 

Mr. Johnsen. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. We had some testimony before the committee that 
sometimes a car would come up and harass the driver, the truckdriver, 
by either going in front of him or cutting him off, or stopping 
quickly. 

Did you do anything like that ? 

Mr. Johnsen. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. None of those tactics were followed by you or the 
driver of your car ? 

Mr. Johnsen. Not once, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Where would you go, or where would you go as far 
as the truck was concerned ? Did you ever go in front of the truck ? 

Mr. Johnsen. The only time we passed a truck, sir, was to fill up 
with gasoline, because the truck would carry a bigger supply of gaso- 
line than a car could. 

Mr. Kennedy. You did not harass the driver ? 

Mr. Johnsen. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you ever carry guns ? 

Mr. Johnsen. Never. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you ever shoot at the driver ? 

Mr. Johnsen. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. You never did anything like that ? 

Mr. Johnsen. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. You are sure you never carried guns, and were there 
any guns carried in the car ? 

Mr. Johnsen. Never. 

Mr. KennedV. Did you ever know of any guns carried by any of 
the "follow the truck" committee V' 

Mr. Johnsen. Well, out of this group about 16, sir, I traveled prob- 
ably with about 8 of them, and never have I ever heard mentioned any 
weapons or any clubs of any kind or any guns. 

They were never carried by us pickets. We carried the signs for a 
simple reason. We used to wait for these trucks out at the picket 
gates, and we used to get in the line with the boys on the line, and 
picket until we left, and the truck pulled out and then we followed, 
and we threw the signs in the car. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you ever harass the driver of a car? 

Mr. Johnsen. Not that I recall, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. You would remember if you did that ? 

Mr. Johnsen. I probablv called him a ''scab" or somethine; like 
that. 

21243— 58— pt. 24 17 



9732 "IMPROPER ACTTIVrTIES EST THE LABOR FIEIiD 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you ever try to force liim off the road or any- 
thing like that? 

Mr. JoiiNSEN. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Never once while you were a member of this 
committee ? 

Mr. Johnsen. No, sir. It would be pretty foolish to try and force 
a "semi" off the road with a car. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, did you make reports when you returned from 
your trip ? 

Mr. Joiinsen. I kept reports, sir, on our expenditure, and the 
amount of money received, and what we spent in gas, and everything 
else. 

Mr, Kennedy. And what your experiences were ? 

Mr, JoHNSEN, Yes ; and I think that I did on certain occasions. I 
kept reports from county to county where we were stopped, and if 
we were stopped, and where we were followed, if we were followed 
by a squad car or something like that, and I did write down notes, 
sir. 

Mr. Kennedy, When there were police who would talk to you? 

Mr, Johnsen, That is right, 

Mr, Kennedy, Or whatever exchange you had with the driver ? 

Mr, Johnsen, That is right. 

Mr, Kennedy. You made notes of those ? 

Mr. Johnsen. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. You submitted them to the union ? 

Mr. Johnsen, Yes, sir, 

Mr, Kennedy, But part of your instructions from the union, as I 
understand it, was to picket establishments that were handling the 
Kohler products? 

Mr, Johnsen. Well, sir, I don't believe anybody ever told me in. 
the union to picket, but as I say, we had these signs along, 

Mr. Kennedy. That was understood that you were to do that? 

Mr, Johnsen, Yes, sir, and that has been testified previously. 

Mr. Kennedy, I understand, it was testified that it was done? 

Mr, Johnsen. That is right. 

Mr, Kennedy, And you participated in it ? 

Mr, Johnsen, I did, sir. 

The Chairman, Did you make your reports typewritten? 

Mr, Johnsen. No, sir ; I did not. 

The Chairman. Did you make them out in pencil? 

Mr. Johnsen. Longhand ; yes, sir. 

The Chairman. I present one to you here, a photostatic copy of 
one that is typewritten, and I will ask you if that is a typewritten copy 
of the report you submitted. 

(A document was handed to the witness.) 

Mr, Johnsen, Part of this, sir, is my report, sir. 

The Chairman, A part of it is your report ? 

Mr. Johnsen. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. What part of it is not ? 

Mr, Johnsen, I haven't read it all, sir, but I don't think — I know 
a part of it is my report. 

The Chairman. Let me have the report now, and you say it is part 
of it? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIEIS IN THE LABO'R FIELD 9733 

Mr. JoHNSEN. May I mention one thing else. As you will find 
this report is very much in detail, and I have license numbers of every 
car to show that we did not harass or bother the truckdriver in anj 
way, and otherwise we would have been picked up. 

The Chairman. Is that your report or not ? 

Mr. JoHNSEN. I did not read it all, and shall I read it all ? 

The Chairman. Yes, you may take time to satisfy yourself whether 
it is or it is not. 

(The witness read the report.) 

Mr. JoHNSEN. Sir, I have read it all, and this is my report. 

The Chairman. It is your report ? 

Mr. Johnsen. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. At the request of Senator Curtis, the report will 
be printed in full in the record at this point. 

(The report is as follows:) 

Trip No. 1 to Iowa : Left Kohler Co. 9 : 30 a. m. headed for Plymouth ; just 
before Plymouth "Decker" transportation truck stopped and talked to the 
Plymouth Police force. Continued on and stopped at the Plymouth Police sta- 
tion. We parked our car across from there. (Driver was scared stiff.) 

(1) Officer from desk came across street and told us he wanted to talk to us. 
Entered police station, questioned, all names taken, tape recorder going at the 
same time. Explained our duties, showed our literature. Driver released before 
us. later we were released and warned. 

Continued our chase toward Fond du Lac, Wis. In Fond du Lac, Decker truck 
stopped on main drag, later at police station. Explained to a detective that he 
was (names taken) being followed and didn't want his head smashed in. We 
were again questioned by the (2) Fond du Lac Detective Treelevel and later told 
off by Sheriff George LaMuel — warned of the previous blasting and told we'd 
end up in'the jail. 

Driver entered building to call his company — released with no charges, con- 
tinued our trip with Detective Treelevel following us out of Fond du Lac (County 
squad car, license No. A-44-269). Continued on Highway 151 — squad license 
No. A-44-269 passed us and later followed the truck, staying a safe distance 
behind and watching our speed limits. 

(Driver stated he was a union man.) (3) State police picked us up from be- 
hind with Detective Treelevel still following in front. Treelevel turned back 
just before we entered Lamartine. 

(4) Dodge County squad car met State patrol at filling station just before we 
entered Waupun, Wis. Left filling station. State cop ahead and county cop 
behind us. Still Highway 151. Speed of Decker truck approximately 35 to 40 
miles per hour. 

Entered Dodge County, State Patrol turned off Dodge County still following 
on U. S. Highway 68, headed for Fox Lake. First Dodge County squad stilE 
ahead of us. 

(5) Later picked up and followed by second squad car (Dodge County 55 Nashi 
license No. 322) . Decker truck stopped at intersection Highway 68 — Two squads 
also stopped, joined by third (6) (a Pontiac, license No. 482). 

Time is now 1 : 25. Later truck continued headed toward Portage with Pon- 
tiac license No. 482 following behind traveling on Highways 22 and 33, back oa 
U. S. 16, crossing into Columbia County. Just before Wisconsin Dells squad No, 
6 drops off, picked up by a (7) brown Pontiac (license No. V-1104) and fol* 
lowed by him. 

Traveling now on Highway 13, 16, and 23 into Saulk County (time 2 : 45 p. m.). 
Headed right on Highway 12 and 16 (46 miles) to Tomah. 

Picked up again from behind by a (8) Plymouth (license No. 218), flasher 
going on squad car passing us and dropping in back of truck (time 3: 15 p. m.) 
followed by the (9) second squad car. 

Black Nash squad car No. 8, license No. 218, falls behind us flasher again on 
and siren, pulls us over to the side and told us to follow him to police station, 
the sheriff had a couple complaints about us. 

Explained our position and story and were told the driver said we tried to 
run him off the road. (Note). — Truck having protection all the way from 



9734 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

police forces and we stayed a good 500 feet behind— it was impossible to run 
him off the road. After talking to uudersherifE of Mauston we were released 
upon story and told better get going if you want to catch him. Time 3 : 50 p. m. 
After approximately a 20- to 25-miuute lead we continued or chased to see 
if we could pick him up again. Entered Monroe County on Highway 16 headed 
for Sparta joined with Highway 71— passed through Sparta into La Cross 
County entered La Cross and picked up our baby crossing Missouri River and 
(Mississippi River) crossed into Minnesota (note no escort behind). Entered 
Hokah, Minn., turned left on 44 and 76, entered Spring Grove and later Feli- 
raore County (time 6 p. m.) on Highway .52 and 63 back left on Highway 16 
and 63 through Preston. ( Change drivers in flight. ) 

Entered Spring Valley — time 7:17. ( Driver was slowing down seemed tired 
from driving. ) Entered" Austin, Minn., still on Highway 16, time 8 : 05 — 8 : 15 
p. m., truck pulled in filling station and eat shop. 

We also enter to eat and gas up again. Passed out literature and explained 
our purpose of our mission to people in eat shop. (Sat next to driver in eat 
shop.) Driver asked what we planned to do, set up a picket line or what? 
(He was frankly told that was up to us what we were going to do.) Getting 
dark driver felt terrible, and didn't want to continue flight. 

Again he called in for protection and waited for it. Highway patrol arrived 
from Freeborn City. License No. 668 — officer's badge No. 5. (Note: Driver 
told us four in front of the officer — he was told by his boss from Decker to run 
us off the road), time 9: 05. Driver also told officer he hauled a load of meat 
up from Iowa. 

Explained to officer, truck was going to Souix City, and we should go ahead 
of him. Officer explained there was no violations made, and we came this dis- 
tance — fellow there's nothing I can do. Continued on way. 

P. S. : Passed a sign pointing off to the left, it said, "Conger," any relation to 
Lyman? 

Continued on Highway 13-16-19. Right at Blue Earth to Guckien — ^followed 
truck Anto Fairmount. Where the truck stopped off — driver checked into hotel — 
followed into hotel and listened to conversation. Driver was supposed to get 
up at 4 a. m. Bought a couple magazines to listen to conversation. (Time: 
11 : 45; bunked in.) 

Two cops stopped off at car and warned us not to touch his truck. Later 
headed back south to Fort Dodge. 

We bunked in at Fort Dodge at 2 : 45 a. m. Waited to morning to contact the 
CIO headquarters. Contacted UPWA (United Packing Workers of America). 
Explained our mission. Explained that the driver was from Fort Dodge and 
said he was a union man and was told to cross our line. 

Complete check will be made by president of driver's local — by CIO (two 
locals). Will bring up our cause at following meeting on the 14th of June 
1955. Promised literature explaining the issues and background of the Kohler 
strike. 

Also enter Armstrong Plumbing and Heating, 619 First Street, telephone: 
Walnut 1881, Fort Dodge and asked if they sold Kohler plumbing ware of which 
they said they sold a lot. (Don't know if it was just sales talk or what.) 

Also noticed Kohler of Kohler News laying on counter (April issue). Re- 
l^nited to CIO headquarters about it — later called the plumbing concern and one 
of our men picked up the April issue and turned into CIO headquarters. Girl 
from office asked if they were trying to make fools out of the CIO men by dis- 
playing the literature. Had done previous business with this plumbing firm 
amounting to better than $6,000 worth and people in Armstrong seem afraid and 
asked what everything was about. 

Later returned homeward passing out balance of lirerature on stops. 

JOHNSEN. 

The Chairman. Are there an.y further questions, Mr. Counsel ? 

Mr. Kennedy. We have that report, whicli I believe goes into it. 
You have some questions on the report, do you ? 

"\ATiy don't you ask him that? 

Senator Curtis. All right. 

Were you in the hearing room today when these truck drivers, Mr. 
Taylor, and Mr. Butzen, and Mr. Schinabeek testified i 

Mr. JoHNSEN. Yes, sir ; I was. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 9735 

Senator Curtis. Had you ever seen those men before? 
Mr. John SEN. I coiikl not identify them by sight, sir ; no. 
Senator Curtis. You knew who they were ? 
Mr. JoHNSEN. When they were here; yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. You recognized them as individuals who had been 
transporting Kohler material ? 

Mr. JoHNSEN. No, sir ; I can't say I do. 
Senator Curtis. Did you ever follow those men ? 
Mr. JoHNSEN. I don't know, sir. 
Senator Curtis. You don't know ? 

Mr. JoHNSEN. No. 

Senator Curtis. You think you might have ? 

Mr. JoHNSEN. It is possible. 

Senator Curtis. Did you ever follow a truck from the Scheffler 
Transportation Co. ? 

Mr. JoHNSEN. Yes, sir ; I did. Into Chicago. 

Senator Curtis. Into Chicago ? 

Mr. JoHNSEN. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Do you know who was driving that time ? 

Mr. JoHNSEN. No, sir ; I don't. 

Senator Curtis. Did you follow more than one of their trucks ? 

Mr. JoiiNSEX. It could have been two, sir, but I don't believe I did, 
and I think it was only one Scheffler truck. 

Senator Curtis. Now, all three of these men were driving for 
Scheffler, and you say that you may have followed them? 

Mr. JoHNSEN. I may have, sir. 

Senator Curtis. One of them. I have noticed this report here and 
it appears to be dated June 10, 1955, and it says, "Trip No. 1 to Iowa." 

How many trips to Iowa did you make ? 

Mr. JoHNSEN. Just one, sir. 

Senator Curtis. How many trips outside of Wisconsin did you 
make in this foUow-the-truck committee work? 

Mr. JoHNSEN. The only truck, sir, I followed was the one to Iowa, 
and I believe there was one Scheffler. 

Senator Curtis. Did you go outside of Wisconsin on any other 
occasion ? 

Mr. JoHNSEx. No, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Did you follow any truck that was headed for 
out of the State, but did not continue beyond Wisconsin ? 

Mr. JoHNSEN, Not to my knowledge, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Did you follow some trucks in Wisconsin ? 

Mr. JoHNSEX. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Did you always follow them to their destination? 

Mr. JoHNSEN. In Wisconsin, sir ? 

Senator Curtis. Yes. 

Mr. JoHxsEX. Yes, sir ; usually we did. To my knowledge I think 
we did, because most of the trucks that I followed in Wisconsin, I 
believe in fact all of them were trucks that went to Milwaukee, Wis. 

Senator Curtis. And you followed them there, and you followed 
them right up to where they made the delivery ? 

Mr. JoHNSEN. Yes, sir; to the street in front. 

Senator Curtis. And you would make an appearance at the point 
of deliverv, would you not ? 



9736 -IMPROPEK ACJniVlTIEIS IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. JoHNSEN. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. You would picket there ? 

Mr. JoHNSEN. In cases we did, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Now, you said something about the money you 
received for this was in place of what you would do this in, or instead 
of doing picket duty. Will you explain that a little bit more to me ? 

I did not quite understand. 

Mr. JoHNSEN. We didn't get money for doing this duty. We get 
money to cover our expenses, such as meals and gas and stuff for the 
cars. 

(At this point, the following mmebers of the committee were present : 
Senators Curtis and Goldwater.) 

Senator Curtis. Would you have been able to draw your weekly 
strike benefit if you had not performed this duty or picket duty ? 

Mr. JoHNSEN. Yes, I would, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Then you volunteered to do it ? 

Mr. JoHNSEN. Yes, sir, I told you that before. 

Senator Curtis. Now, in this report of trip number one to Iowa — 
by the way, do you have a copy of it there? I am going to refer to 
it. 

(The document was handed to the witness.) 

Senator Curtis. In the last part of paragraph 1 on page 1, you 
have reported 

In Fond du Lac, Decker Truck stopped on main drag, later at the police station. 
Explained to a detective that he was (names taken) being followed and didn't 
want his head smashed in. 

Did you make that report ? 

Mr. JoHNSEN. Yes, sir, I did. 

Senator Curtis. How did you find out that this man, this driver, 
told tlie detective he didn't want his head smashed in ? 

Mr. JoHNSEN. Sir, we overheard the conversation. The man was 
scared because we were following his truck. 

Senator Curtis. You frightened him ? 

Mr. JoHNSEN. No, we didn't frighten him. I didn't say that, sir. 

Senator Curtis. What was he afraid of ? 

Mr. JoHNSEX. I don't know. 

Senator Curtis. Afraid of the weather ? 

Mr. JoHNSEN. That could have been. 

Senator Curtis. Do you think it was ? 

Mr. JoHNSEN. No, sir, it wasn't. 

Senator Curtis. Well, if he was scared, who frightened him ? 

Mr. JoHNSEN. We didn't, sir. 

Senator Curtis. But you did follow him into the police station? 

Mr. JoiiisrsEN". No, sir. 

Senator Curtis. How did you overhear him tell a detective he 
didn't want his head smashed in ? 

Mr. JoiTNSEN. They talked to the detectives. The detectives were 
called and he stopped on the main drag. 

Senator Curtis. Was anybody with you ? 

Mr, JoHXRETsT. Was anybody with me ? 

Senator Curtis. Yes. 

Mr. JoHNSEN. Yes, I believe there were three other people. 

Senator Curtis. Who were they? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 9737 

Mr. JoHNSEN. I believe they were Ronald Ziller. 

Senator Curtis. Who is Ronald Ziller ? 

Mr. JoHNSEN. A striker from local 833. 

Senator Curtis. He lives where ? 

Mr. JoHNSEN. In Sheboygan. 

Senator Curtis. Who were the others? 

Mr. JoHNSEN. Frank E. Schultz. 

Senator Curtis. Where does he live ? 

Mr. JoHNSEN. I believe in Sheboygan. He is a striker also. 

Senator Curtis. And the third one ? 

Mr. JoHNSEN. It was either Fritz Byrum or Fritz Metthias. 

Senator Curtis. Where does he live? 

Mr. JoHNSEN. Right out of Sheboygan, sir, in the township. 

Senator Curtis. Is he a striker? 

Mr. JoHNSEN, Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Did any international representatives or anyone 
other than strikers of Local 833 ever accompany you on this follow 
tlie truck business ? ? 

Mr. JoHNSEN. No, sir. 

Senator Curtis. What did you tell the detectives when this 
driver — by the way, what was the driver's name ? 

Mr. JoHNSEN. Well, what did you say to the detective when you 
heard the driver come up in the manner which you have described, 
in which he was scared ? 

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

Mr. JoHNSEN. In Fond du Lac ? 

SenatoV Curtis. Yes. When he said he didn't want his head 
smashed in. What did you say ? 

Mr. JoHNSEN. I don't recall, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Did you say anything ? 

Mr. JoHNSEN. I don't think I did. 

Senator Curtis. You didn't deny it ? 

Mr. JoHNSEN. I didn't deny what, sir ? 

Senator Curtis. That he was frightened, and you didn't protest his 
statement — I will withdraw the word "deny." Did you protest his 
statement about he didn't want his head smashed in ? 

Mr. JoHNSEN. No, sir. I had nothing to say about that. 

Senator Curtis. He was frightened ? 

Mr. JoHNSEN. I believe so. 

Senator Curtis. Then reading on, it says : 

We were again questioned by the (2) Fond du Lac detective Treelevel, and 
later told off by Sheriff George LaMuel — warned of the previous blasting and 
told we'd end up in the jail. 

Was it Sheriff LaMuel who told you off and warned of the previous 
blasting and told you you would end up in jail ? 

Mr. JoHNSEN. No, sir. I will explain that a little bit in detail. 

Senator Curtis. All right. . 

Mr. JoHNSEN. Not so long ago, I believe just before that incident, 
there was a car blown up and I believe it was in Fond du Lac County 
at that time. He made a statement of some kind that he didn't want 
no trouble from any Kohler strikers. That is what I meant by the 
warning, sir. 

Senator Curtis, Did he warn of a previous blasting and told you 
you would end up in jail ? 



9738 'EVIPBOPE'R ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. JoHNSEN. He told us about it, yes. He told us about this car 
being blown up. 

Senator Cuktis. In your report you said "Later told off by Sheriff 
George LaMuel," then a dash "Warned of the previous blasting and 
told us we'd end up in jail." 

Mr. JoHNSEN. Sir, he mainly told us that he didn't want any trouble 
from us in any way. We explained our position, that we were just 
following the truck, that we didn't harm the driver, we didn't carry 
any weapons of any kind, and that was our present position at the 
time. 

Senator Curtis. This is a correct report, that he warned of the 
previous blasting and told you you would end up in jail ? 

Mr. JoHNSEN. That is right, sir. Wlien he says he warned of the 
blasting, he was talking about the explosion that happened. 

Senator Ctjrtis. What did you say to him ? 

Mr. JoHNSEN. I don't recall I answered him, sir. 

Senator Curtis. It seems like by the time we got through the first 
paragraph here that once in your presence, the driver makes a state- 
ment he didn't want his head smashed in, and you didn't protest that. 
Then later you were told off by the Sheriff and warned of the previous 
blasting and told "We'd end up in jail" and you said nothing about 
that? 

Mr. JoHNSEN. That has nothing to do with us, sir. We hadn't 
threatened the driver to smash his head in to start with. We explained 
to tlie detectives in Fond du Lac that this was peaceful following of 
the truck, and that is exactly what we did, sir. 

Senator Cuktis. Was this visit at Taylor's home a peaceful one ? 

Mr. JoHNSEN. I don't know anything about that, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Was the visit to Mr. Butzen's home a peaceful one ? 

Mr. JoHNSEN. Are you insinuating that these acts of vandalism 
were caused by the strikers, sir ? 

Senator Curtis. I don't know who did it. 

Mr. JoHNSEN. That is what it sounds like. 

Senator Curtis. That is what I am trying to find out. I think even- 
tually we will. This hearing may close, but this will come out. This 
was too much of a network, too well organized, with the same weapons 
used in each place. This is going to come out some time. 

Mr. JoHNSEN. I hope it does, sir. I think you will be surprised, too. 

Senator Curtis. I expect I will, and I don't care who is hurt if the 
truth is established. I think reigns of terror against women and chil- 
dren, against homes, when the truth comes out, if it is the truth, I hope 
the responsible people are dealt with. Now, on page 2 of this report 
you made of your trip, near the bottom of the page, the fifth line from 
the bottom, there is in parenthesis "change drivers in flight." What 
does that mean? 

Mr. JoHNSEN. Well, sir, we switched drivers. 

Senator Curtis. In flight? What does that mean? 

Mr. JoHNSEN. While we were driving, sir. 

Senator Curtis. But it says "flight." 

Mr. JoHNSEN. Flight, yes, sir. We were following the truck. 

Senator Curtis. I don't get the point of the word "flight." 

Mr. JoHXSEN. Well, that is just an expression, sir. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 9739 

Senator Curtis. That, to me, has two connotations, and one is that 
someone is fleeing, running away from something, and the other is that 
they are actually flying. 

Mr. JoHNSEN. That is very simple, sir. We did not come to a dead 
stop. 

Senator Curtis. Then on the top of the next page, beginning in the 
second line — 

Getting dark. Driver felt terrible and didn't want to continue flight. 
Was that your driver or the truckdriver that you are talking about ? 

Mr. JoHNSEN. Just a moment, sir. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. JoHNSEN. That was the truckdriver, sir. 

Senator Curtis. How do you know he felt terrible^ 

Mr. JoHNSEN. Because we overheard a conversation between him 
and the officer that he had called. He had stopped at a restaurant to 
eat, as you read in the previous testimony there. 

Senator Curtis. Whenever he would stop you would stop ? 

Mr. John SEN. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. And when he would go in some place to eat, you 
would go in there? 

Mr. JoHNSEN. Yes, sir. We got hungry, too. 

Senator Curtis. So when he stopped and talked to the officers, you 
knew he was frightened. But do you mean to say under oath you 
didn't know what frightened him? 

Mr. JoHNSEN. I told you that we were following the truck, sir. 

Senator Curtis. All right. Answer my question. You followed 
him all over, right with him, you would hear his conversation. 

Mr. JoHNSEN. I could not read his mind, sir. I imagine it was the 
idea of us following him. 

Senator Curtis. But you were a good enough observer that you vol- 
unteered the information to me that he was frightened. 

Mr. JoHNSEN. That is right, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Is it your statement under oath you don't know 
what frightened him ? 

Mr. JoHNSEN. I say it probably was the car that was following the 
truck. 

Senator Curtis. Which was you people ? 

Mr. JoHNSEN., Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. All right. Let's not take so long to get simple an- 
swers. Now in the middle of page 3 — 

Continued on Highways 13, 16, 69, right at Blue Earth to Buckien— followed truck 
into Fairmont. Where the truck stops off— driver checked into hotel. Followed 
into hotel and listened to conversation. 

Did you follow him into the hotel ? 
Mr. JoHNSEN. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Did your two companions follow him ? 
Mr. JoHNSEN. No, sir. I believe there was only one, sir. 
Senator Curtis. Did you start out on this trip with two companions ? 
Mr. JoHNSEN. Three, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Three. Did all of them go all the way ? 
Mr. JoHNSEN. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. But there were just how manv of you that went into 
the hotel? 



9740 (IMPROPER ACTIVITIHS IN THE LABOR FIEIiD 

Mr. JoHNSEN. Two of US, sir. 

Senator Curtis. And you listened to his conversation? 

Mr. JoHNSEN. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. How close were you ? 

Mr. JoHNSEN. I would say within maybe 20 feet, sir. Maybe a little 
closer. 

Senator Curtis. You knew this man wae frightened. You knew 
that he had asked officers for protection. Why did you continue to 
follow him everywhere he went and listen to him ? 

Mr. JoHNSEN. I went into that hotel, sir, to buy magazines to read, 
as it later states in my testimony here. 

Senator Curtis. You went in for the purpose of buying magazines? 

Mr. JoHNSEN. Yes, because 

Senator Curtis. What does this mean? Just a minute. It says 
"Bought a couple magazines to listen to conversation." 

Mr. JoHNSEN. That is right. 

Senator Curtis. Now you tell me that you went in for the purpose 
of getting the magazines. 

Mr. JoHNSEN. I killed 2 birds with 1 stone. 

Senator Curtis. Did you have anything to do with the other stones 
in the strike ? 

Mr. JoHNSEN. No, sir. 

(At this point. Senator Gold water withdrew from the hearing 
room.) 

Senator Curtis. You don't know anything about that. 

Mr. JoHNSEN. No, sir. 

Senator Curtis. How big were these fellows that followed this 
driver ? 

Were they as big as you were ? 

Mr. JoHNSEN. Some of them were a lot smaller, sir. 

Senator Curtis. "Driver was supposed to get up at 4 a. m. How 
did you find that out ? 

Mr. JoHNSEN. From his conversation, sir, with the hotel clerk. 

Senator Curtis. It says "Time 11 : 45, bunked in." Who went to bed 
at that time ? 

Mr. JoHNSEN. The driver did, I presume. 

Senator Curtis. Then it says — 

Two cops stopped off at car and warned us not to touch his truck. 

Did that happen ? 

Mr. JoHNSEN. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Now, you were just innocent visitors to town, peace- 
ful men. Why did the cops come up and tell you, and warn you not to 
touch his truck ? 

Mr. JoHNSEN. That is very easy, sir. I believe at the time I heard 
what time he was checking into the hotel, that when he said that, we 
bought our magazines and left and went out to the car, where our 
other 2 companions or 2 strikers were sitting in. Well, then, if you put 
2 and 2 together, I imagine he had called from the hotel and warned 
the cops to keep an eye on his truck because he was sleeping over. 

I don't know what danger he expected that would happen from us. 
We followed him all the way through and never harmed him any- 
place, never threatened anyplace, never carried any weapons of any 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIEOLD 9741 

kind anyplace, and still lie was scared we were going to hurt that 
truck. 

Senator Curtis. He was still scared ? 

Mr. JoHNSEN. I believe he was. He must have been. Otherwise he 
wouldn't have called the cops. 

Senator Curtis. What makes him scared ? 

Mr. JoHNSEN. What makes him scared ? 

Senator Curtis. Yes. 

Mr. JoiiNSEN. Probably his conscience was bothering him. 

Senator Curtis. Do you believe that ? 

Mr. JoHNSEN. In a way, sir. 

Senator Curtis. You don't think it was the fact that you followed 
him along and if he stopped to go in some place, you followed along 
and listened to his conversation ? 

Mr. JoHNSEN. Well, I repeat, I will repeat again, as I said before, 
I figured that the final act that we were following him was probably 
what scared him. 

Senator Curtis. Do you know what driver this was ? 

Mr. JoHxsEN. Xo, sir, I don't. It was a Fort Dodge truck, a 
Decker transportation truck, sir. 

Senator Curtis. It says toward the end of your report 

Mr. JoHNSEN. Can I make a statement, sir ? 

Senator Curtis. Surely. 

Mr. JoHNSEN. As you notice on this report, when he checked into 
this restaurant here, you seem to have skipped that part, where the 
ojSicer w^s called again on the report, ancl he told the driver right 
straight to his face that we did not harm him in any way, 

We cannot give you protection. These guys are not going to hurt you. 

Senator Curtis. Did the police tell him that ? 

Mr. JoHNSEN. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Why did the police tell him that ? 

Mr. JoHxsEN. Because we hadn't hurt him through every county. 

Senator Curtis. Then it was you people who were frightening 
him ; wasn't it ? 

Mr. JoHNSEN. I don't know, sir. I say that is probably his con- 
science or else behind him. 

Senator Curtis. The conversation that you just reported of the 
police, the police told him you couldn't hurt him. 

Mr. JoHNSEN. That is right. The officer said we did not molest 
him, sir, which he didn't. And we told the officer we meant no harm, 
and which we didn't. 

I don't think there is any law, sir, that a man can't drive on the 
highway any place. 

Senator Curtis. That is right. 

(At this point. Senator Goldwater entered the hearing room.) 

Senator Curtis. Now, toward the end of the statement 

Mr. JoHNSEN. What page, sir ? 

Senator Curtis. The very last, page 4, about the next to the last 
line, "And people in Armstrong seemed afraid." What are they 
afraid of? 

Mr. JoHNSEisr. Well, I believe we inquired at this one place, sir, 
where they were selling Kohler plumbing and asked them how much 



9742 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABO'R FIELD 

they were selling and everything else, and what I mean by that, sir, 
is that they were afraid. 

They never did give us too much information of any kind. 

Senator Curtis. You have mentioned somebody being afraid here 
and reference to someone reporting they thought their head would 
be smashed in. You volunteered that the driver was afraid. We have 
taken testimony this afternoon or today about the violence that oc- 
curred at the liome of Mr, Taylor and Mr. Butzen. Violence occurred 
at Mr. Schinabeck's home, where their wives and children lived, which 
frightened them as well as damaged their property. 

It is fitting into a picture that fear and intimidation might be a 
part of this boycott. Is that right ? 

Mr. JoHNSEN. No, sir. I don't believe so. Not in my mind. 

Senator Curtis. Did you picket Kohler Co. showroom and branch 
office in Milwaukee ? 

Mr. JoHNSEN. Yes, sir, I believe I did. 

Senator Curtis. Was that about June 17, 1954, along in the evening 
about 6: 30? 

Mr. JoHNSEN. I wouldn't say for sure. 

Senator Curtis. Did you and three other strikers picket the F. K. 
Dingell Co. in Milwaukee about June 1, 1955 ? 

Mr. JoHNSEN. It is very possible, sir. I said we were there. 

Senator Curtis. And did you picket at a point where Kohler ware 
was being unloaded and around the cab of a Kohler Co. truck? 

Mr. JoHNSEN. I believe so. 

Senator Curtis. And did you carry signs ? 

Mr. JoHNSEN. I believe we did, to the best of my knowledge. 

Senator Curtis. What did the signs say ? 

Mr. JoHNSEN. Something about Kohler ware was made by scabs 
and strikebreakers. 

Senator Curtis. And this was done while vou were picketing the 
Dingell Co. ? 

Mr. JoHNSEN. I don't remember, sir, what was on all the signs. 
They were made by our board. 

Senator Curtis. Was there any labor trouble in the Dingell Co.? 

Mr. JoHNSEN. No, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Do you have any evidence that the management or 
the employees of the Dingell Co. were not worthy people, trying to 
carry on their work and business ? 

Mr. JoHNSEN. No, sir. 

Senator Curtis. But you were trying to stop their business ; weren't 
you? 

Mr. JoHNSEN. I wouldn't say so, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Did you make any remarks to those people while 
you were around the Dingell Co. unloading that day ? 

Mr. JoHNSEN. To what people, sir, the people unloading ? 

Senator Curtis. Yes ; or anybody else around there. 

Mr. JoHNSEN. I don't recall, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Was anybody called "scabby" in that ? 

Mr. JoHNSEN. That could have happened, sir. 

Senator Curtis. It probably did ? 

Mr. JoHNSEN. It probably did, sir. The word "scab" was used 
many times in this strike, and it is still going to be used. 



IMPROPER ACTTVITIBS IN THE LABOR FTEiLD 9743 

Senator Curtis. Did anybody come around with a camera ? 

Mr. JoHNSEN. I believe so. I think there were several occasions 
we had our pictures taken. 

Senator Curtis. Did you say anything to the people with the 
camera ? 

Mr. JoHNSEN. I don't recall, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Did you say, "We don't need cameras. We can 
smell you." 

Mr. JoHNSEN. That is possible. 

Senator Curtis. You probably did ? 

Mr. JoHNSEN. I probably did, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Did you refer to the Kohler tnickdriver as a scab 
driver ? 

Mr. JoHNSEN. I probably did, sir. To my knowledge, that is what 
he was. 

Senator Curtis. Were Raymond Majerus and Robert Treuer, UAW 
international representatives, also active in picketing in Milwaukee? 

Mr. JoHNSEN. I don't recall, sir. I believe they did come down to 
the showroom once, but I don't recall. 

Senator Curtis. Were Ray Majerus and Robert Treuer the organ- 
izers of the picketing in Milwaukee ? 

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

Senator Curtis. Who paid your expenses to Milwaukee ? 

Mr. JoHNSEisr. Who paid our expenses ? 

Senator Curtis. Yes. 

Mr. JoftNSEN. The union executive board. 

Senator Curtis. The local or the international ? 

Mr. JoHNSEN. I believe it was the international, sir, because I 
think our local is broke. 

Senator Curtis. Who did you get your instructions from? 

Mr. JoHNSEN. Who did we get our instructions from ? 

Senator Curtis. Yes. 

Mr. JoiiNSEN. In what instance are you speaking about, sir ? 

Senator Curtis. Generally. 

Mr. JoHNSEN. I got my instructions at strike headquarters. 

Senator Curtis. From whom ? 

Mr. JoHNSEN. From whom, sir? 

Senator Curti,s. Yes. 

Mr. JoHNSEN. From Curtis Nack. 

Senator Curtis. What was his position ? ^ 

Mr. JoHNSEN. I do not loiow, sir. He met with the committee in 
the mornings in their meetings when they held it at the regional of- 
fice, and whatever was decided there, he came out and the money was 
given to me at the strike kitclien and we were told what trucks we 
should follow, if we should follow any. 

Senator Curtis. Is he a local man ? 

Mr. JoHNSEN. A union man; yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Is he a local man ? 

Mr. JoHNSEN. Local 8B3 ; yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. In your opinion, he was the virtual boss? 

Mr. JoHNSEN. He was my boss. 

Senator Curtis. Who was the top boss ? _ 

Mr. JoHNSEN. I think Leo Brierather testified he was in charge of 
the boycott. 



9744 iMPBOPE'R ACTivrriEis in the labor field 

Senator Curtis. I am asking you. Who do you think was really 
running this activity ? 

Mr. JoHNSEN. Who do I think, sir ? 

Senator Cuktis. Yes. 

Mr. JoHNSEN. The international, I think; that is where our money 
come from. 

Senator Curtis. Well, now, your — — 

Mr. JoHNSEN. I want to state one thing, sir. I have never got any 
instructions from our local or any international union official of any 
kind to picket any place. 

Senator Curtis. Well, now, your objective was to stop or decrease 
the sales of Kohler products ; wasn't it ? 

Mr. JoHNSEN. No, sir. Our mission, as I explained before, was to 
find out where this merchandise was going, and to contact the people 
in the immediate area and tell them the Kohler story. 

Senator Curtis. Yes. Well, now, my question wasn't related to the 
limited purpose of your following the trucks, but the purpose of the 
boycott was to get people to either stop buying Kohler products or at 
least to decrease the sales ; is that correct ? 

Mr. JoHNSEN. I think that is the purpose of the entire boycott, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Now, you realize that that would shut off the busi- 
ness and employment of distributors and others who were not parties? 

Mr. JoHNSEisr. No, sir. 

Senator Curtis. You didn't know that? 

Mr. JoHNSEN. No, sir. 

Senator Curits. Did you picket at the Dingell Co. more than 1 day ? 

Mr. JoHNSEN. I believe I did, sir. 

Senator Curtis. About how many days ? 

Mr. JoHNSEN. I wouldn't know offhand. I believe I made about 
6 or 8 trips, maybe a couple more. That is including the trip to Chi- 
cago, the trip to Iowa, and the rest were in Milwaukee, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Well, now, in Milwaukee, this picketing was done 
not at a Kohler showroom, but it was at a place of business of a third 
party ; wasn't it ? 

Mr. JoHNSEN. Yes, sir ; if you want to call it that. 

Senator Curtis. Well, wasn't it ? 

Mr. JoHNSEN. I believe the place was owned by the Kohler Co. 

Senator Curtis. The Dingell Co. ? 

Mr. JoHNSEN. I thought you were talking about the showroom, sir. 

Senator Curtis. No. I said other than the showroom. 

Mr. JoHNSEisr. The Dingell Co., yes, that was a third party. 

Senator Curtis. Did you later on in June 1955, about the iTth, 
follow a Kohler truck to the B. Hoffman Manufacturing Co.? 

Mr, JoHNSEN. It is possible I did, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Where is that located, what city ? 

Mr. JoHNSEN. Milwaukee, sir, I think, or right on the outskirts. 

Senator Curtis. Did you mill around the truck ? 

Mr. JoHNSEN. No, sir. 

Senator Curtis. That is, when it arrived ? 

Mr. JoHNSEN. No, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Did you check the ware being unloaded ? 

Mr. JoiiNSEN. Yes, sir; I probably did. One of our main purposes 
was to find out — we heard a lot of rumors, sir, that these trucks were 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIEILD 9745 

going out of the plant half loaded, empty, and everything else, just to 
give us ideas during the strike. That was also a purpose of this boy- 
cott, was to find out the truth. 

Senator Curtis. The Hoffman Co., that is a neutral business, isn't 
it? 

Mr. JoHNSEN. I believe so, sir. 

Senator Curtis. So far as you know, they had no trouble with their 
employees ? 

Mr. JoHNSEN. I don't know of any, sir. 

Senator Curtis. So far as you know, both management and em- 
ployees there were worthy people, entitled to carry on their pursuit of 
their work ? 

Mr. JoHNSEN. I believe so, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Now, while you were around the truck and check- 
ing what was being unloaded, did you say anything to the truckdriver ? 

Mr. JoHNSEN. I don't recall, sir. That is quite a few years ago. 

Senator Curtis. Do you think you might have called him a rotten 
scab? 

Mr. JoHNSEN. It is possible, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Had it often happened ? 

Mr. JoHNSEN. Off and on, sir. 

Senator Curtis. It happened sometimes ? 

Mr. JoHNSEN. Yes ; it did, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Did you hand literature to the truckdrivers ? 

Mr. JoHNSEN. To the truckdrivers, sir ? 

Senatot Curtis. Yes. 

Mr. JoHNSEN. I don't know if we handed it to the truckdrivers, 
but we did pass out literature in places. 

Senator Curtis. Did you pass out literature to other truckdrivers 
that would come up to the Hoffman Co. while you were checking 
this load? 

Mr. JoHNSEN. It is very possible we did, sir, if they stopped and 
talked to us. 

Senator Curtis. Did you have any placards or signs to carry ? 

Mr. JoHNSEN. It is possible we did, sir. 

Senator Curtis. I am talking about this procedure in front of this 
neutral business. You had some signs there ? 

Mr. JoHNSEN. I believe so, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Who provided them ? 

Mr. JoHNSEN. Who provided the signs ? 

Senator Curtis. Yes. 

Mr. JoHNSEN. The union. 

Senator Curtis. Do you mean the international union ? 

Mr. JoHNSEN. Well, the international paid for the making up of 
them, but I believe they are made up by our local union. 

Senator Curtis. You live around there ; don't you ? 

Mr. JoHNSEN. Yes, sir ; very close to there. 

Senator Curtis. The international financed the whole strike and 
everything connected with it ; did they ? 

Mr. JoHNSEN. I believe they did, after our local went broke, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Did you later, in June, about the 24th, 1955, follow 
a Kohler truck? 

Mr. JoHNSEN. I could have, sir. 



9746 (IMPBOPER ACTIVITIEIS IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Curtis. Did you drive your own car on these occasions? 

Mr. JoHNSEN. No, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Did you ever drive your car ? 

Mr. JoHNSEX. No, sir; there was times during the strike I didn't 
have a car, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Did you ever drive a car that had a top sign on it ? 

Mr. JoHNSEN. I drove in a car with top signs on it, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Describe that top sign. 

Mr. JoHNSEN. The top sign ? 

Senator Curtis. Yes. 

Mr. JoHNSEN. It was a three-cornered sign, with literature on it 
telling the public not to buy Kohler plumbing ware or fixtures because 
they were made by scabs or strikebreakers. 

Senator Curtis. Did you follow the truck to the Glendale Supply 
Co.? 

Mr. JoHNSEN. That is possible, sir. 

Senator Curtis. What city is the Glendale Supply Co. in ? 

Mr. JoHNSEN. I believe that is right out of Milwaukee sir. 

Senator Curtis. And that is another neutral concern. Not part of 
Kohler? 

Mr. JoHNSEN. No, sir. 

Senator Curtis. You carried on a procedure there something like 
you did at Dingell and at Hoffman ? 

Mr. JoHNSEN. I don't believe we picketed there, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Did you follow a truck to Kenosha ? 

Mr. JoHNSEN. I don't think I did, sir. 

Senator Curtis. What are you doing these days ? 

Mr. JoHNSEN. What am I doing ? 

Senator Curtis. Yes. 

Mr. JoHNSEN. Working for a living. I am employed at the Lawson 
engine division of the Tecumseh Products in New Holstein, Wis. 

Senator Curtis. You are no longer around Kohler ? 

Mr. JoHNSEN. I live close by Kohler, yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. But you are no longer connected with either the 
union or the company ? 

Mr. JoHNSEN. No, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Are you one of the individuals the company said 
they didn't want to take back ? 

Mr. JoHNSEN. No, sir. 

Senator Curtis. How long were you out on strike before you took 
this or some other job ? 

Mr. JoHNSEN. 1 believe I started working, if I am not mistaken, at 
the Tecumseh Products, New Holstein, in 1955 for a short time, and 
then we were laid off, and then in 1956 and 1957 on. Or it probably 
was 1956 when I started this, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Has this strike cost you a loss ? 

Mr. JoHNSEN. Yes, sir. 

Senator CrRTis. It cost you a loss of money ? 

Mr. JoHNSEN. Certainly. 

(At this point, Senator Goldwater withdrew from the hearing 
room.) 

Senator Curtis. That is all, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Are there any further questions ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 9747 

If not, thank you. You may stand aside. 

Mr. Kauh. Mr. Chairman, we have a number of — we have two 
affidavits I would like to put in. The reason for that is I understand 
Mr. Johnsen is the only witness being called in connection with our 
follow-the-truck committee. 

The Chairman. With what ? 

Mr. Rauh. The only witness being called by the committee on the 
follow-the-truck committee. The reason we prepared this affidavit is 
we understood there was to be testimony of the type that occurred this 
afternoon by the three truckdrivers, and we found every follow-the- 
truck committee member we could locate after we heard this. We 
have an affidavit from all of them, two affidavits in total. 

The Chairman. I will tell you what you do. Submit the affidavits 
for our inspection and you can call it to our attention when we resume 
Monday. 

Senator Curtis. I have one other question. Did you make any 
other reports in writing besides this one about your Iowa trip? 

Mr. JoHNSEN. I don't recall, sir, I don't believe I did. 

Senator Curtis. That is the only report you made in writing that 
you recall ? 

Mr. Johnsen, Yes, sir. May I make a statement? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

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

Mr. Johnsen. Sir, may I make a statement yet ? 

Mr. Chairman, may I make a statement yet ? 

The Chairman, Mr, Johnsen, you may make a statement. The 
Chair will observe, as you speak, whether it is proper, 

Mr. Johnsen. I want to say this: That at the time these people 
had crossed our picket line in Kohler, this was a legal strike, and 
these men, what so-called union men, did cross our line there that 
testified today, and there is no evidence whatsoever that these here 
cases of vandalism that were convicted against the homes of these 
people were ever caused by our members of the local or the interna- 
tional, that ever went on testimony here, and also about this 

The Chairman. There is no use to make a speech. 

There is some indication that it is caused from that source. 

Mr. Johnsen. One more thing, sir ? 

The Chairman. You couldn't convince me by arguing for an hour 
or two. Go ahead. 

Mr. Johnsen. This third party business, sir, I believe that there 
is plumbing ware made by Briggs, Crane, Rundle and other com- 
petitors of the Kohler Co. that is made just as good if not better than 
the Kohler Co. plumbing, and I believe these people which is so- 
called the third party could have sold this ware much better than the 
Kohler Co. ware. 

The Chairman. That is a good plug for those other companies. 
Now would you say that at the time the strike was called, that their 
product was better than Kohler's ? 

Mr. Johnsen. No, sir. But I say during the strike. 

The ChxVirman. Well, again you want to attribute that to some 
scab. Is that what you are trying to put over ? 



21243— 58— pt. 24- 



9748 iIMPBOPE'R ACTIVITIE(S IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. JoHNSEN. No, sir. I want to contribute that to the amount of 
people that have come from all parts of the country and moved into 
the Kohler Co. plant. 

The Chairman. Are you willing to let the people who buy the 
products judge which one they want ? 

Mr. JoHNSEN. Yes, sir, I am. 

The Chairman. That is a good idea. 

On that theme we will stand adjourned until Monday morning at 
10:30. 

I do not know whether it will be in this room or the other one. 

(Whereupon, at 4:10, with the following members of the committee 
present : Senators McClellan, Goldwater, and Curtis, the hearing was 
adjourned until 10 : 30 a. m. Monday, March 24, 1958.) 



INVESTIGATION OF IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE 
LABOR OR MANAGEMENT FIELD 



MONDAY, MARCH 24, 1958 

United States Senate, 
Select Committee on Improper Activities 

IN the Labor or Management Field, 

Washington, D. C. 

The select committee met at 11 : 03 a. m., pursuant to Senate Resolu- 
tion 221, agreed to January 29, 1958, in room 357. Senate Office Build- 
ing, Washington, D. C, Senator John L. McClellan (chairman of the 
select committee) presiding. 

Present : Senator John L. McClellan, Democrat, Arkansas ; Senator 
Sam J. Ervin, Democrat, North Carolina; Senator Barry Goldwater, 
Republican, Arizona; Senator Karl E. Mundt, Republican, South 
Dakota; Senator Carl T. Curtis, Republican, Nebraska. 

Also present : Robert F. Kennedy, chief counsel ; eJerome S. Alder- 
man, assistant chief counsel; John J. McGovern, assistant counsel; 
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: Senators McClellan and Curtis.) 

The Chairman. Call your first v^itness. 

Mr. Kennedy. Lucius P. Chase. 

Mr. Conger. Mr. Chairman, might I be heard for a moment? 

The Chairman. All right, Mr. Conger. 

TESTIMONY OF LYMAN C. CONGER— Eesumed 

Mr. Conger. Mr. Chairman, I would like to offer at this time, in 
rebuttal of the Deis affidavit that was submitted here the other day, 
the testimony of John Deis in the case of Joe Jakolic and others, in- 
cluding John Deis, versus Kohler Co., Walter Kohler, Herbert Kohler, 
Robert Kohler, Walter Kohler, Jr., John Case, Edward George, Er- 
nest Schuelke, and Edward Biever, defendants. 

In his deposition that was taken under oath, on adverse examination 
before trial, on the I7th day of September, at 10 o'clock in the fore- 
noon, at the office of Arthur Gruhle, before Arthur Gruhle, a court 
commissioner. I would like to offer that, and I would ask the privil- 
lege of reading a few excerpts of it. 

The Chairman. That may be offered, and it will be placed with, 
affidavits that were submitted the other day, together with two af- 
fidavits submitted last Friday by Mr. Rauh. They will all be placed 
in one exhibit in bulk, and held subject to further order of the com- 
mittee. Your papers, Mr. Conger, the matters you are now refer- 

9749 



9750 IMPROPER ACTIVITIHS IN THE LABOR FIELD 

rin^ to, submitting, may o;o alono: with them. This matter will take 
some study by members of the staff and members of the committee be- 
fore final disposition of it can be made. 

The testimony that you offered there will be placed along with all 
the rest, and we will make some disposition of it as soon as we can 
get to it. 

Mr. Conger. Very well. 

The Chairman. Mr. Chase, come forward, please. 

Mr. Conger, submit your documents to the clerk. Mr. Chase, 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. Chase. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF LUCIUS P. CHASE, ACCOMPANIED BY LYMAN C. 
CONGER AND GIRARD A. DESMOND, COUNSEL 

The Chairman. State your name, your place of residence, and busi- 
ness or occupation. 

Mr. Chase. My name is Lucius P. Chase, 315 Ridge Way, Kohler, 
Wis. Since 1926 I have been general counsel of Kohler Co., except 
for 4 years during World War II, when I was in the service. Since 
1937 I have been a director of the company. The boycott which the 
UAW has been conducting against Kohler Co. has been my particular 
responsibility in recent year. 

I have had charge of the company's efforts to combat it, assisted by 
Mr. Desmond, of my staff, and in cooperation with Mr. Conger, the 
chairman of the management committee. 

The Chairman. Mr. Chase, you have submitted, I believe, a pre- 
pared statement of some 40 pages — is it ? 

Mr. Chase. Yes, sir, I have. 

The Chairman. Forty-four pages, I believe. Are you willing to 
file your statement and let it be printed in full in the record, and then 
just highlight it ? 

Mr. Chase. Yes, Senator, that is exactly the way I intended to pro- 
ceed. I have asked Mr. Desmond, who has testified previously, and 
who is assistant general counsel, to help me with exhibits which I 
will offer from time to time. While I am not going to read this state- 
ment, the exhibits are keyed to it, and I will use the statement as just 
a guide. 

The Chairman. All right. Without objection, the witness' state- 
ment will be printed in the record in full at this point, and the witness 
may proceed and highlight his statement and introduce exhibits as 
he reaches them. 

(The statement referred to is as follows :) 

My name is Lucius P. Chase. Since 1926 I have been General Counsel for 
Kohler Co., except for a period during W^orid War II when I was in military 
service as a Reserve officer. 

Since 1937 I have been a director of Kohler Co. 

The boycott which UAW-CIO has been conducting against Kohler Co. has been 
my particular responsibility and I have had charge of the company's efforts 
to combat it, working with Mr. G. A. Desmond of my staff and in cooperation with 
Mr. Lyman C. Conger, chairman of the management committee. 



EVIPROPE'R ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 9751 

INTRODUCTION 

The United Auto Workers have taken pains to label their Kohler boycott a 
••legal primary boycott." That, of course, would be a voluntary withholding of 
their own patronage by union members and sympathizers. 

We would not contest the union's right to foster that sort of thing, at least 
if its promotional propaganda were recognizably related to the truth. 

But a simple primary boycott of a product is largely an illusion. 

lu practice, a primary boycott almost inevitably becomes engulfed by a 
secondary boycott. While this may not always take the form of a technical 
violation of the Taft-Hartley Act as it has been construed, it does nearly always 
involve "drawing a neutral into an industrial dispute." The latter is the evil 
Jigainst which the 80th Congress directed its action, according to Judge Learned 
Hand, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 501, et al. v NLRB 
(181 F. (2d) 34). 

This sinister pressure on neutrals, to induce them to become unwilling co- 
conspirators with the United Auto Workers, characterizes the Kohler boycott. 

Not once have the Auto Workers been willing to put their Kohler boycott to 
a legal test. In three cases, which will be discussed later, charges were filed 
with the National Labor Relations Board. In all three cases the union took 
consent decrees or restraining orders. 

A distinguished Senator has been quoted as saying that "next to violence, the 
secondary boycott is the most vicious weapon used by union bosses." 

It was in that same order, chronologically, that union violence and boycott 
appeared at Kohler. 

The Kohler boycott started soon after it became apparent that the Auto 
Workers' primary weapon, violence, had failed. 

On May 21, 1954, the Wisconsin Employment Relations Board had ordered 
the UAW international and local 833 to end their orgy of mass picketing and 
violence which had kept the plant closed for almost 2 months. 

When the unions defied the order, the Board petitioned the circuit court for 
enforcement. Thereupon the unions announced that they would comply with 
the order, ^though union violence continued in many forms, the mass picket- 
i ng ceased and the plant began to operate. 

The boycott followed. 

In the late summer of 1954 groups of strikers began visiting Wisconsin cities, 
urging that Kohler products not be used on public buildings. 

On September 30, 1954, the Kohlerian — weekly organ of the strikers — reported 
that — ■ 

"Milwaukee County, State and auto union leaders this week called on all union 
members, their families and the public to refrain from buying Kohler products 
in a move designed to strengthen the 7 months' long strike at the Sheboygan 
plumbingware firm. 

"The statement was issued by Robert Jordan, president, and Fred Erchul, 
secretary, of Milwaukee County CIO ; Harvey Kitzman, director, UAW region 
10; Charles M. Schultz, president, and Ross Baum, secretary-treasurer, Wis- 
consin State CIO" (the Kohlerian, Sept. 30, 1954, p. 5). 

This statement, standing alone, could be consistent with a primary boycott. 

Then the Wisconsin State Industrial Union Coimeil (CIO) "in convention 
assembled" in Milwaukee, October 20 to 24, 1954, adopted a resolution calling 
upon workers and others "to refrain from buying or installing any of the goods 
or wares produced by the Kohler Co." (the Kohlerian, Oct. 28, 1954, p. 9). 

The reference to "installing" is significant. Plumbing fixtures are customarily 
installed by union journeyman plumbers, employees of plumbing contractors. 
Any resolution "to refrain from installing" Kohler plumbingware would nec- 
essarily be directed to them. 

While additional evidence might be needed to establish a case technically, 
a secondary boycott such as this would clearly violate the intent of the Taft- 
Hartley Act. 

Finally, on May 5, 1955, the Kohlerian announced that " a nationwide boycott 
of Kohler products is underway, and will feature picketing of various places 
to help advertise the boycott" (the Kohlerian, May 5, 1955, p. 1). 

Here the reference to picketing is significant, for picketing of third parties 
usually violates the law. Thus, the auto workers' legal primary boycott stood 
exposed as a sham. 

This was to be the powerful UAW's Sunday punch, the first successful na- 
tional boycott in history. 



9752 IMPROPER ACTIVmBS IN THE LABOR FIELD 

"This is the most comprehensive boycott ever organized by labor * * * " 
boasted Donald Rand, UAW international representative in charge of the boy- 
cott, to Ray Vicker, Wall Street Journal stafiE reporter, in August of 1956 

Its purpose? "That's what we're doing, wrecking the company," said Mr. 
Rand in the same interview. 

BOYCOTT ORGANIZATION 

Donald Rand, of Detroit, who was then in charge of the Kohler strike, headed 
the boycott organization. The unian currently refers to Mr. Rand as assistant 
to Emil Mazey, international secretary-treasurer of the UAW. 

■Leo Breirather, a striker, was named local 833 boycott coordinator, and 
was put in charge of the boycott headquarters in Sheboygan. 

The field organization consisted of about 15 professionals, mostly international 
representatives or regional organizers of the auto workers. 

Prominent among them are the following : 

John Archambault, international representative : Active in Indiana, Ohio and 
Michigan. 

Fred Ascough. international representative : Active in New York and vicinity. 

Robert Burkart (and Grace, his wife), international representative: Origi- 
nally in charge of the Kohler strike ; later active in the boycott nationwide 
and more recently in California. 

John Collins, international representive : Active in Illinois. 

Garvin Crawford, international representative : Active in Chicago and vicinity. 

Aubrey Durant, international representative: Formerly active in the South 
Central States. 

Ovide Garceau, international representative : Active in New England, and 
particularly Waterbury, Conn., where he was an alderman. 

Gerald Harris, international representative : Active in Pennsylvania, Maryland, 
and District of Columbia. 

Harvey Kitzman, director, UAW region 10 : Active in Wisconsin and Midwest. 

Cecil J. Londo, international representative, Indianapolis, Ind. : Active in 
Indiana, Kentucky, Mississippi, Tennessee, and part of Georgia. 

Raymond Majerus, international representative: Active in Wisconsin, Minne- 
sota, Iowa. North Dakota, and South Dakota. 

Rex Mainord. international representative : Active in southern California. 

Luther M. Slinkard, UAW administrative assistant: Coordinates boycott 
activities in Missouri, Kansas, Colorado, Oklahoma, Texas, Louisiana, Arkansas, 
and New Mexico, comprising UAW region 5. 

Tom J. Starling, international representative, Atlanta, Ga. : In charge of boy- 
cott in Georgia and other southeastern States. 

Harold Wilson, international representative : Active in Ohio. 

Several Kohler strikers are apparently employed full time in the field, notably 
Peter Gasser and Elmer Gross of Sheboygan. Their activities seem to gravitate 
around Chicago. 

In addition to these, almost any paid employees of any union anywhere is 
likely to get into the act on occasion. Here and there an amateur appears. 

Reporters who have seen the boycott headquarters have written of the "battle 
maps," the file cabinets and other equipment, likening it to a military head 
quarters. (Wall Street Journal, Aug. 9, 1956.) 

Mr. Rand said of the headquarters, "We put this program on a highly organized 
business basis with this as a central office." 

Robert Burkhart described the activities of the UAW boycott representatives 
as follows : 

"We try to leave no stone unturned. We hit State capitals and large cities. 
We talk at union membership meetings, and district labor council meetings and 
conventions. We talk with editors, union officials, architects, contractors, 
builders and anyone else we can corral." 

More realistically, their activities have also included : 

Inducing Government officials to violate statutes relating to competition on 
public works. 

Organizing picketing of third parties — distributors, plumbing contractors, etc. 

Threatening Kohler distributors, plumbing contractors, builders, and others of 
trouble if they handle or use Kohler material. 

Tracing shipments of Kohler products from plant to destination, possibly in- 
volving violations of the Interstate Commerce Act. 

Inducing and encouraging journeyman plumbers to engage in secondary 
boycotts. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 9753 

Spreading maliciously false UAW propaganda about the company and its 
management. 

The mission of Strikers Peter Gasser and Elmer Gross in and around Chicago 
seems to be to intimidate customers by veiled threats, phone calls at odd hours, 
posing as representatives of a journeyman plumbers' local union, and similar 
cloak and dagger activities. 

According to the Kohlerian of November 29, 1957, the boycott staff met in 
Detroit during that week. Those shown in a published picture include Peter 
Gasser, Rex Mainord, Jerry Harris, Elmer Gross, Fred Ascough, Ovide Garceau, 
Harold Wilson, John Archambault, Allan Graskamp, Leo Brierather, Don Rand, 
Ray Majerus, Tom Starling, Robert Treuer, and Cecil Londo. 

All of these have been mentioned previously except Allan Graskamp, president 
of Kohler local 833, and Robert Treuer, UAW publicity man assigned to the 
Kohler strike. 

For convenience, typical boycott activities have been classified and will be 
discussed under appropriate headings. 

Interference with Government 

One of the least effective boycott activities, but one of transcending significance, 
was the imion's effort to intimidate public ofiicials by flexing its political muscles. 

United States.— In December of 1954, UAW Local 833 deluged the United States 
Department of Defense with petitions against the awarding of an artillery shell 
contract to Kohler Co. 

Petitions were padded with forged signatures. The company was awarded 
the contract, which it accepted, although it preferred not to because of the man- 
power shortage it was then experiencing. 

Wisconsin, Circuit Court, Sheboygan County. — One of the first Kohler boycott 
Incidents grew out of an act of union violence, with a Wisconsin circuit court 
judge as the target. 

This was the case of William Vinson, one of the goons which the UAW im- 
ported from Detroit to spearhead the strike. Vinson was 27 years old, stood 
6 feet 3 inches tall, and weighed 240 pounds. He was convicted and sentenced to 
1 to 2 years»in the Wisconsin State Penitentiary for criminally assaulting and 
almost killing Willard VanOuwerkerk, a nonstriker, in June 1954. 

Mr. VanOuwerkerk was a small man, 49 years old, who weighed about 120 
pounds. 

The Wisconsin Supreme Court summarized the facts of the case as follows : 

"We find it undisputed that Vinson * * * overheard part of a conversation be- 
tween a husband and wife. 

"Though the husband, a worker, was about half Vinson's size and twice his age, 
without justification or excuse * * * Vinson * * * viciously attacked him from 
the rear, knocked him down and then proceeded to kick his ribs in until, mouthing 
obscenities, Vinson was forced away by a bystander. The interests of justice do 
not appear to us to require our intercession in his behalf." 

Taking offense at this rather mild sentence, the UAW's Emil Mazey hurried to 
Sheboygan and announced that the union would boycott three food markets owned 
by the judge's family. 

This brazen assault on a free judiciary outraged the community, and many 
groups passed resolutions condemning it, including both Protestant and Catholic 
clergy. 

Wisconsin clay hoat riot 

The notorious clay boat case was another one in which violence and boy- 
cott teamed up. 

Kohler Co. buys ceramic clays from England by the shipload. Brokers charter 
the ships and deliver the clay f. o. b. ship, Sheboygan. A local contractor, 
Buteyn Excavating, unloads the clay and trucks it to Kohler. 

On July 5, 1955, the motorship Fossum lay alongside in Sheboygan awaiting 
unloading. UAW radio broadcasts had been urging for days that their people 
go down to meet the ship, and they did. When they got there, UAW organizers 
from Detroit led by Donald Rand formed them into a tight picket line across 
the entrance to the docks. 

Mr. Rand boasted, "We are going to pull out all the stops to prevent this clay 
from being delivered." (The Milwaukee Journal, July 6, 1955.) 

Mr. Rand's personal leadership of this riot was recalled in a Sheboygan Press 
editorial on February 8, 19.56, regarding a later union disorder, as follows : 



9754 IMPROPE'R ACTIVITIEIS IX THE LABOR FIELD 

"Mr. Rand will be remembered for bis activities in the day of the riot at 
the harbor front last July. It is a remarliable coincidence that disturbances 
become intensified during the periods that he is in the city." 

When Buteyn's trucks and cranes arrived in the vicinity of the dock early 
on July 5, the mob wrecked the equipment and beat up the drivers, who were 
union men. 

The since-defeated mayor of Sheboygan, Rudolph Ploetz, who owed his elec- 
tion to the UAW, ordered the police not to enforce the law. 

He promised the mob to cooperate with them by keeping all unloading equip- 
ment at least three blocks away from the dock. 

When it became apparent that the Fossum could not be unloaded at Sheboygan, 
it left for the municipal dock in Milwaukee at the invitation of the Milwaukee 
port director. Another Kohler clay ship destined for Sheboygan, the motorship 
Divina, was also diverted toward Milwaukee. 

Upon the Fossuni's arrival in Milwaukee on July 7, the UAW picketed the en- 
trances to the port and induced the union representing the city's dock employees 
to refuse to permit the ship to be unloaded. 

Simultaneously, the UAW and other unions publicly threatened that there 
would be trouble if an attempt were made to unload it. Milwaukee city officials 
succumbed to these threats, which the UAW then extended to cover other 
Great Lakes ports. 

The Fossum and the Divina were then moved to Montreal. There, the police 
prevented the UAW from interfering, and the ships were unloaded by union 
stevedores. The clay was shipped to Kohler by rail. 

The clay brokers filed secondary boycott charges with the National Labor 
Relations Board. Both the UAW International and Kohler Local 833 consented 
to the entry of a sweeping order restraining them from instituting a secondary 
boycott against anyone having dealings with Kohler Co. 

The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals entered an enforcing decree. {National 
Lahor Relations Board v. Local 833 and International Union, UAW-CIO, docket 
No. 11558.) 

State of Massachusetts. — A resolution calling for the use of other than Kohler 
products on State work was slipped through the Massachusetts House of Repre- 
sentatives as the first order of business on February 23, 19.56, under suspension 
of the rules. 

This was the day after Washington's Birthday, a legal holiday in Massa- 
chusetts, and few representatives were in attendance. 

The entire business took only a few minutes, and the minority leader of the 
house did not even know that such a resolution had been introduced, much less 
passed, until after it appeared in the newspaper. The resolution was neither 
messaged to the senate nor presented to the Governor, and so never became 
effective. 

Los Anf/eles County. — On April 5, 1956, the Los Angeles County Board adopted 
a resolution against the purchase of any goods or services from firms presently 
violating Federal labor laws and court orders, the resolution to become effective 
upon approval by the county counsel. 

Kohler Co. was not mentioned in the resolution and did not fall within its 
terms, but union propaganda left no doubt concerning the target. Since the 
county counsel never approved the resolution, it did not become effective. 

The board rescinded the resolution on July 10, 1957, when the county counsel 
advised the board, in response to a request for a legal opinion, that the resolu- 
tion was illegal. 

Although the Los Angeles grand jury returned no indictment, it strongly 
criticized the county board for this action in a resolution issued by the grand 
jury, on October 15, 1957. 

The resolution concluded : 

"Now, therefore, be it 

Resolved, That in the opinion of the 1957 grand jury the original resolution 
of the board of supervisors was an unfortunate and improper decision and not in 
the best interests of the citizens of Los Angeles, whom the board of supervisors 
represent." 

We are aware of no similar action taken by any other county board in the 
United States. The Milwaukee (Wis.) Coimty Board tabled a companion 
resolution. 

Waterhury. Covn. — On June 4, 1956, the city of Waterbury passed an anti- 
Kohler resolution. It had been introduced by Alderman Ovide Garceau, UAW- 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 9755 

CIO Iiiteriiatioual representative in charge of the Kohler boycott in that area. 

On September 10, lOGG. the board of aldermen unanimously rescinded the 
resolution following a ruling by the corporation counsel that it was contrary 
to the city charter. 

Other Connecticut cities. — Ansonia, Bristol, and New Britain passed similar 
resolutions, but those in Ansonia and Bristol were later rescinded. 

In New Haven an anti-Kohler resolution introduced by Alderman Frank 
Beach, president of United Rubber Workers Local 338, was tabled by a 20-to-7 
vote. 

Other resolutions failed in adoption in Bridgeport, Norwalk, Norwich, Shel- 
ton. and Torrington. 

We do not know of any similar resolutions being considered elsewhere in 
Connecticut. 

We believe the impetus for all of these resolutions in Connecticut, as well as 
those in Massachusetts, was provided by Mr. Garceau. 

Musiiachuscttcs citics.—In July and August of 1956, the Boston, Lynn, and 
Worcester City Councils passed Kohler boycott resolutions. The New Bedford 
City Council tabled a similar proposal. 

These resolutions do not seem to have been effective. For example, Kohler 
fixtures were installed on the only mu-nicipal project in Lynn immediately after 
the resolution was passed. 

Michi(jan citict<. — On August 28, 1056, the City Council of River Rouge adopted 
a boycott resolution. It was aimed at Kohler Co., although the company was 
not mentioned by name. According to its terms, the resolution would become 
effective with respect to a company's product only upon receipt of a petition 
a.nd specific action by the city council. 

The City Council of Lincoln Park adopted an almost identical resolution on 
September 4. 1056. Later, the city council was petitioned to apply the sanctions 
of the resolution to Kohler Co.. but ihe petition was tabled uiM)n advice of the 
city attorney. 

In general we are unaware of any similar resolutions passed by any other 
municipal bodies in the entire country. 

The UAW and local unions have applied political pressure to a number of 
other governing bodies, including school boards, with respect to specific proj- 
ects. In a few cases they have been successful. In most cases oflScials have 
been faithful to their public trust. 

Neutrality is the only tenable position for public officials to take regarding 
a labor dispute. True neutrality consists of buying just what one would buy 
an.vway without regard to a strike, not buying or refusing to buy a product 
simple because of it. 

AMBULATORY PICKETING 

In a number of instances, UAW pickets followed Kohler Co. trucks and 
picketed the customers' places of business. In most cases the picketing was 
illegal. This was particularly true where the picketing continued after the 
Kohler truck had left. Some examples of this type of boycott follow. 

Miliraukee, Wis. 

In the middle of May 1955, UAW pickets commenced following Kohler trucks 
to Milwaukee. 

On May 20 four large pickets, including strikers Ethan Berg. Gottlieb Schmidt, 
and Maurice Gahagan, followed Kohler Co. driver Clifford Hanson's truck to 
United Plumbing & Heating Siipply Co., a Kohler distributor in Milwaukee. 

The pickets took pictures, carried signs, and called the drive scurrilous names, 
such as "dirty slimy scab." Fifteen minutes later policemen arrived and the 
pickets stopped hollering. The truck was unloaded without further incident. 

The truck next went to Cordes Supply Co. where three policemen were waiting. 
The pickets arrived with the truck, and both policemen and pickets stayed until 
the truck had been unloaded. 

On the way back to Kohler the truck stopped at Unique Polishing Co., Sauk- 
ville, which had been skipped on the way down in the morning because of the 
presence of Kohler pickets. 

The truck driver was informed that the pickets had remained there from 9 
in the morning until nearly 4 p. m., half an hour before the truck returned. 

On May 24. Kohler driver Edmund Kleinow delivered some material to Reui>ert 
Plumbing & Appliance Co., a plumbing contractor in Milwaukee. Four pickets 
got out of a car which had followed the truck all the way to Milwaukee. One 



9756 IMPBOPER ACTIVmEB IN THE LABOR FIELD 

of them was Leon Losey, a striker. The pickets carried signs. The contractor 
was afraid to accept the material with the pickets present, and it was agreed 
that it would be taken to B. Hoffman Manufacturing Co., where Reupert would 
pick up the truck later. 

By the time the truck arrived at Hoffman's nine pickets had gathered. They 
walked back and forth on the sidewalk and tried to block the truck by walking 
in front of it. While the truck was being unloaded the pickets were calling the 
driver names. 

Police were there but did nothing about it. One of the pickets called to one of 
Hoffman's warehousemen, "We'll call the president of your union and he'll stop 
you from unloading." 

On May 25 pickets followed Edmund Kleinow's truck to F. R. Dengel Co. The 
loading dock is in an alley. Leon Losey, Frank Owens and two other pickets 
walked back and forth across the end of the alley carrying signs. They called 
the driver abusive names and yelled to people driving by in cars. A little later 
the pickets were joined by Raymond Majerus, UAW international representative. 
He stayed for about an hour and loudly led the yelling. When Majerus walked 
up the alley to the unloading dock, a policeman told him "to get out where you 
belong." 

Mr. E. F. Maurer, Dengel's manager, started taking some pictures, but picket 
Frank Owen threatened to take his camera away. 

When another truck backed up to the Dengel loading dock, one of the pickets 
asked the driver, "You aren't going to buy some of that scab ware, are you?" 

When the Kohler truck left Dengel's the picket car followed the truck to a 
lunchroom and then back toward Kohler. 

On May 27, following complaints by Kohler truckdrivers, G. A. Desmond of the 
legal department took Paul Jacobi and L. E. O'Neill, photographers, to the F. R. 
Dengel Co. to watch the unloading of a Kohler truck. 

When the truck arrived it backed up into the loading dock with the cab extend- 
ing out into the alley. 

Leon Losey, Frank Owen, and two other pickets commenced picketing the cab 
of the truck in a semicircle. Unlike other days, they did not picket any other 
part of the Dengel premises. Also unlike other days, the pickets did not say 
anything. 

At 9 : 45 a. m., however, Ray Majerus joined the pickets. He walked over to 
Paul Jacobi and said, "Don't go taking any pictures of me or you won't have that 
camera any more. If you take my picture you won't appear in any court." 

This was accompanied by menacing gestures. When Mr. O'Neil tried to take 
a picture Majerus ran over and grabbed at the camera. Two police officers 
who were present grabbed Majerus and pulled him away. They told him to go 
over near the other pickets. After some argument with the police as to CNeill's 
right to take pictures, Majerus left. 

During the morning, Leon Losey talked to drivers of a J. W. Cartage Co. 
truck, a Stefifke Freight Co. truck, a Ziffrin truck and a Dengel truck. He 
talked to all of them about "scabs" and "scab ware." During the unloading, Mr. 
Roy C. Lane, president of Teamsters Local 200, stood near the pickets and ges- 
tured local 200 drivers away. 

On May 31, Messrs. Desmond, O'Neill, and Jacobi visited the Neis Co., West 
Allis, a plumbing and heating contractor which is a Dengel customer. There 
Iiad been complaints of picketing of the Neis property while Kohler trucks 
were making direct deliveries for Dengel. 

This morning the Kohler truck was followed from Kohler by a Ford regis- 
tered in the name of Frank Schulze, of Sheboygan, a Kohler striker. The truck 
backed into the loading dock and International Representative Donald Rand 
led a group of seven pickets. 

Other pickets recognized were Frederick Matthias. Gottlieb Schmidt, Frank 
Schulze. Ethan Berg, and Frederick Byrum. The pickets carried signs reading, 
"Don't Buy Kohler Ware Made by Scabs" and "Kohler Plumbing Ware is Made 
by Strikebreakers." Two policemen were stationed at the loading dock. 

Mr. Rand asked Mr. Neis, the proprietor, to stop handling Kohler products 
and to refuse to receive this shipment. Mr. Neis replied that if that was all Mr. 
Rand wanted, he could be excused. 

Rand then took four pickets from the group at the loading dock and had them 
picket the front of the Neis Co. store on West National Avenue, around the 
•corner and about a block away from the truck. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIE'S IN THE LABOR FIELD 9757 

Frederick Byrum was one of these pickets. Again the pickets indulged in name 
calling, using terms as "four-eyed monster," "God damn parasite," "son-of-a- 
bitch," etc. 

Both groups of pickets handed out circulars entitled "Don't Buy Kohler 
"Ware — It's made by Strikebreakers." Comments in a similar vein were made 
to people walking by. 

When the Kohler truck left, Mr. Rand told the pickets to continue picketing. 
Both groups of pickets remained. Nearly an hour after the Kohler truck had 
gone, another truckdriver refused to unload because the pickets were still there. 

This picketing continued almost daily for several months. The actions were 
much the same, with occasional changes in the cast of characters. 

As time went on the pickets became more bold, trespassing on the customers' 
property to peer into the truck or into the warehouse in order to identify prod- 
ucts being delivered and shipping data on the crates. They made detailed 
notes. 

OshkosJi, Wis. 

On May 23, 1955, four pickets, including Strikers Gottlieb Schmidt and Rudy 
Gunderson, followed a Kohler truck, first to Plumbers Supply Co., Fond du Lac, 
and then to the George W. White Co., Inc., of Oshkosh, both Kohler distributors. 

The pickets called the drivers names such as "traitor", "Brown-nose scab", 
etc. They carried signs and Gunderson took pictures. 

The truck was unloaded in White's yard after the police chief and a plain- 
clothesman had talked to the pickets and the pickets had left. 

On Tuesday, June 7, there was a repetition of the incident, with an Oshkosh 
CIO representative joining the four pickets from Sheboygan. This time the truck 
was driven into the warehouse and the door closed, but the pickets still carried 
placards in front of the distributors' place of business. 

Sheboygan, Wis. 

On August 2, 1955, three UAW pickets, one of whom was Frank Owen and 
another was Maurice Gahagan, followed a Kohler truck to the South Side Hard- 
ware Co. in^Sheboygan. The pickets carried signs and called the driver "scab," 
"sowbelly" and other names similar to those criticized recently by the United 
States Supreme Court in Youngdahl v. Rainfair, Inc. (78 S. Ct. 206). One of 
the pickets yelled, "We are not going to let them unload." The proprietor 
called the police, and upon the arrival of two uniformed officers the unloading 
proceeded without further interference. 

The South Side Hardware Co. is a plumbing contractor and a customer of a 
Kohler distributor. Thus the picketed business was twice removed from Kohler 
Co., the primary employer. 

Sioux Falls, 8. Dale. 

On July 26, 1955, Decker Truck Lines delivered a truckload of Kohler prod- 
ucts to A. Y. McDonald Manufacturing Co., Kohler distributor in Sioux Falls. 
Three unidentified Kohler pickets in a 1947 or 1948 light colored Mercury con- 
vertible followed the truck all the way from Kohler to Sioux Falls. 

Three unidentified Kohler pickets in a 1947 or 1958 light colored Mercury 
convertible followed. the truck all the way from Kohler to Sioux Falls. The 
pickets walked for about half an hour and passed out yellow handbills while 
the truck was being unloaded. After about half an hour A. T. McDonald's 
manager spoke to the pickets and they left. The truck was unloaded. 

OTHER PICKETING OF THIED PASTIES BY THE UNITED AUTO WORKERS 

In addition to so-called ambulatory picketing of Kohler distributors and their 
customers, previously discussed, the United Auto Workers engaged in or directed 
other illegal picketing of third parties. 

Hartshorn Bros., Bellflower, Calif. 

Hartshorn Bros, are plumbing contractors. None of their employees belonged 
to the United Auto Workers, nor did they have any labor dispute with that 
organization. 

In the fall of 1956, a person whose name is unknown but who identified him- 
self as a UAW agent from the East, asked the Hortshorns to go along with 
the boycott of Kohler products. They refused. 

Early in the morning of March 7, 1957, two women began picketing. Latet 
they were joined by a man. The pickets were Mr. and Mrs. Macon Stevens 



9758 EMFROPER ACnViTlEIS IN THE LABOR FIELD 

and their daughter. The next day Mrs. Stevens and a Mr. Maddox picketed in 
the same manner. Previously Mrs. Stevens had regularly engaged in picketing 
the Kohler Co. Los Angeles branch oflSce. 

The pickets walked in a line from a point in front of the office building to a 
point in front of the yard and back, crossing the alley used by truck drivers 
and other workers. They carried "Boycott Kohler" signs. Boycott posters were 
also hung on a pickup truck which the pickets parked in front of the Hartshorn's 
building. The picketing continued for several days. 

Hartshorn Bros, filed a charge with the Los Angeles regional office of the 
National Labor Relations Board. 

The case did not proceed to a hearing because the UAW International signed 
a settlement agreement requiring them not to induce or encourage the employees 
of Hartshorn Bros, to engage in a strike or a concerted refusal to handle or 
otherwise work on goods with an object of forcing or requiring Hartshorn Bro=. 
to cease doing business with Kohler Co. 

(International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft & Agricultural Implement 
Workers of America (UAW-AFL-CIO) (Hartshorn Bros.) Case No. 21-CC-26.5). 

TJie Link Co., Jackson, Mich. 

On December 26, 1956, four men visited Mr. Charles Link in his office. One 
was John Archambault, of Detroit, UAW-CIO international representative in 
charge of the Kohler boycott in that area. 

Another was Leo Brannick, of Jackson, business agent for journeyman plum- 
bers local 313. The visitors tried to persuade Mr. Link that his company, a 
Kohler distributor, should not handle Kohler products. 

Threats were made. 

The Link Co.'s employees were not represented by the UAW, nor did the com- 
pany have any labor dispute. 

A day or two later Mr. Paul E. Bengel, a plumbing contractor, who is a cus- 
tomer of the Link Co., was invited to the CIO council hall in Jackson. 

Messrs. Archambault, Brannick, and other union men were there. Mr. Archam- 
bault said to Mr. Bengel, "If Bengel sets Kohler fixtures we will have to picket 
Bengel's place of business." 

Mr. Bengel replied that he did not want any trouble and he would see what 
could be done. Another union man present, John Dwyer, told Mr. Bengel after 
the meeting that he "didn't want any trouble and didn't want anybody to get 
hurt." 

On January 10, 1957, Mr. Bengel was told to come to the CIO hall at once. 
He found John Archambault, John Dwyer, Leo Brannick, and Victor Brannick 
waiting for him. 

Mr. Archambault suggested a compromise to the effect that they would let Mr. 
Bengel set Kohler closets and slop sinks on his present project if Mr. Bengel 
would use another make of lavatories. 

Mr. Archambault said, "You are going to hear about this Link Co. deal later 
on because we talked to Chuck Link and he was quite arrogant." 

On January 11 two pickets, named Vincent Brannick, president of the Jackson 
County CIO Council, and Carl Acker, began picketing the Link Co. They were 
joined by John Archambault on January 16 and by Ercel Davis on January 18. 

On January 15, at a meeting of journeymen plumbers local 313, the secretary 
read off a list of five plumbing contractors who had crossed the CIO picket line 
at the Link Co. The president of the local took members to task for crossing 
the picket line at the Link Co. 

The Link Co. petitioned the circuit court for the county of Jackson for an in- 
junction, with the Jackson County CIO Council, Vincent Brannick, Carl A. Acker. 
Ereel Davis, John Doe, and Mary Roe and others as defendants. A temporary- 
injunction was issued restraining the defendants from picketing and threatening 
the plaintiff or interfering with its business. 

Because of doubt as to the court's jurisdiction, a secondary boycott charge was 
filed with the NLRB regional office in Detroit against the same defendants. 

This case did not proceed to a hearing as the defendants executed a settle- 
ment agreement prohibiting them fi'om attempting to force the Link Co. or any 
other employer to cease doing business with Kohler Co. (Jackson County CIO 
Industrial Council of Jackson and Vincent J. Brannick, Carl A. Acker, and 
Ercel Davis, its agents (the Link Co.) case No. 7-CC-58) . 

The United Auto Workers International was not made a defendant in these 
proceedings because the identification of John Archambault was not confirmed 
until later. However, the defendants were represented by Harold Cranefield and 
Kurt Hanslowe, legal counsel of the UAW-CIO international. 



IMPROPEtR ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIE1.D 9759 

Booth & Thomas, Inc., Springfield, III. 

Booth & Thomas are distributors of Kohler products. 

On September 10, 195«>, Mr. Jolm Collins, of Chicago, UAW international 
representative, and Mr. Francis Smith, president of UAW Local 1027, Spring- 
field, visited Booth & Thomas. 

Mr. Collins handed Mr. Thomas a typewritten form letter urging Kohler Co. 
to settle with the UAW. Mr. Thomas was supposed to copy this on his com- 
pany's letterhead and send it to Kohler Co., mailing copies to Mr. Collins in 
Chicago and local 833 in Sheboygan. Mr. Collins said that they were trying to 
get a large number of Kohler customers to do the same thing, which would 
force Kohler Co. to give in. 

Mr. Collins told Mr. Thomas that if he did not write the letter as directed 
Booth & Thomas would "probably be picketed." 

On September 14 Mr. Collins telephoned to inquire whether Mr. Thomas had 
sent the letter, saying that he wanted to make a report to the local 1027 mem- 
bership. Mr. Thomas told him that he was not sending the letter. 

Early in the morning of September 17, Mr. Collins headed a group of pickets 
in front of the Booth & Thomas place of business. Many of the pickets were 
recognized as UAW Local 1027 members from the Allis-Chalmers night shift. 
They carried "Don't Buy Kohler" signs. 

No legal action was instituted, as the picketing was soon discontinued. 

Mr. Thomas reported that during the picketing his company's business practi- 
cally ceased. No trucks or union plumbers would cross the picket line. The 
effect of this lingered for some time after the picketing stopped. 

St. Luke's Hospital, Milwaukee, Wis. 

While this was ostensibly a case of spontaneous "citizen picketing" by volun- 
teers, Raymond Majerus, UAAV international representative, was active in 
organizing it. 

The trustees of St. Luke's Hospital requested Kohler plumbing fixtures, and 
the architects, Grasshold & Johnson, of Milwaukee, specified them. The Knab 
Co., plumbing contractors, were prepared to install them. 

In September 1956, Anthony J. King, business manager of Plumbers Local 
75, Milwaukee, told the Knab Co. superintendent that if Kohler material were 
used on the St. Luke's Hospital job he (King) would prevent it "even if it 
meant breaking the Knab Co." 

On October 12, Knab telegraphed King for journeyman plumbers for the St. 
Luke's Hospital job. King replied that none were available to set Kohler 
fixtures. 

On October 15 so-called citizen pickets, claiming to have no connection with 
any unions, appeared at the job site. Building-trades men refused to cross the 
line and work was halted. The picketing continued daily, with the pickets 
carrying "Kohler Boycott" signs. 

On October 19 a meeting of the "citizen pickets" was held at Club Orlo, in 
Milwaukee, with Raymond Majerus, UAW international representative, playing a 
])rominent part. 

On October 23, the Knab Co. ascertained that its own journeymen plumbers 
were willing to return to the hospital job provided there were no pickets and 
no restraint by their own union. 

On October 31, the hospital, relying on the citizen pickets' protestations that 
They represented no unions, sued 17 of them individually for conspiring to inter- 
fere with a lawful business, a violation of the Wisconsin statutes. The action 
was for damages and an injunction. 

On November 1, Robert Johnson, of Siesel Construction Co., general contractor 
for the project, arranged an armistice with the Milwaukee Building and Con- 
struction Trades Council to permit emergency work for 20 days in order to 
prevent weather damage. 

The following day the pickets sat in their oars instead of picketing,and all 
buiding-trades men except plumbers resumed work . On Xe%-ember 5 the plumbers 
were still not working. Mr. King told Mr. Knab that he had looked over the 
job and could find no plumbing work which needed doing. However, on Novem- 
ber 7. one of Knab's journeyman plumbers and an apprentice returned to work, 
saying that Mr. King had told them they could not refuse to do emergency work. 

From November 8 to 13 individual citizen pickets were examined adversely 
under the discovery statute by counsel for the hospital. 



9760 IMPROPER ACTIVrriBS IN THE LABOR FIEIiD 

The pickets refused to testify on the ground that their testimony might tend 
to incriminate them. The matter was referred to the circuit cour for a contempt 
citation. 

The 20-day armistice expired with no further developments. Piclieting was 
not resumed, Kohler ware was installed, and the hospital's case against the citi- 
zen pickets remains in status quo. 

INTIMIDATION OF CUSTOMERS 

Any boycott visit by a union representative to a distributor, plumbing con- 
tractor, journeyman plumber, architect, builder or owner, however devoid of open 
threats, has an intimidating effect. Most people resent the implications and are 
strong enough to resist. 

Others are influenced. 

In some cases union representatives have made direct threats to Kohler cus- 
tomers. 

A few examples follow : 

Atlanta Ga. 

On May 3, 1957, Thomas J. Starling, Atlanta, UAW international representa- 
tive, called on a Kohler distributor and threatened to put them out of business 
if they continued handling Kohler products. He later denied having made the 
threat, saying that he merely predicted that there would be the natural conse- 
quence of their trying to sell Kohler products. 

The Atlanta situation will be discussed later in another connection. 

Chicago, III. 

Peter Gasser, a Kohler striker now employed by the United Auto Workers as 
a boycott promoter, operates in the Chicago area. He is sometimes accompanied 
by Elmer Gross, another striker. 

During the spring of 19.57, Gasser repeatedly phoned Albert Bower, plumbing: 
contractor, and his wife, in a war of nerves, using language which Mrs. Bower 
described as "very crude." 

On March 28, 19.57, Gasser called on John Fairbairn, mechanical engineer, 
Chicago, and said that his firm's projects (principally schools) might encounter 
construction difficulties if they continued specifying and approving Kohler 
products. Mr. Fairbairn told Gasser he intended to coaitinue to specify and 
approve Kohler fixtures. 

In the spring of 1957, Gasser phoned Robert Richey, Chicago architect, that 
use of Kohler material might slow up completion of the Illinois Bell Telephone 
building at Barrington, 111. Mr. Richey resented this interference and heated 
discussion followed. 

Gasser also phoned H. R. Stewart, of Gary, 111., the plumbing contractor on. 
this job, to the same effect. No trouble ensued. 

In the spring of 1957, Gasser phoned the oflSce of Shukis Builders, Inc. five 
times, and on at least one occasion threatened to break windows if they con- 
tinued to install Kohler fixtures. On May 3 Mr. Gasser phoned Mr. Shukis per- 
sonally and asked him whether he were Jewish. Mr. Shukis replied that he 
was Lithuanian. In the ensuing discussion Mr. Gasser became agitated and 
said, "If I can't talk in a reasonable manner I will take other means." Mr. 
Shukis was not intimidated. 

About November 1, 1957, Mr. Gasser and another man visited the Town House 
job in Wilmette, 111., on which the plumbing contractor was William B. Park, 
of Northbrook, 111. Gasser told the journeyman plumbers, "We are from the 
union and wish to visit with you," implying that they were from Plumbers' 
Local 130. One of the journeymen replied, "Well you are not from our union. 
I have not missed a meeting in years and I never saw either of you before." 
Gasser then admitted that they were not really from Local 130 but were UAW 
representatives assigned to the Kohler boycott. He asked the journeymen not to 
install Kohler fixtures. Gasser threatened to report them to the business agent 
of their local if they did. The journeyman plumbers stood pat, but told Gasser 
that if their own business agent talked to them they would listen. The job- 
was completed with Kohler fixtures. 

About September 1, 1957, Mr. Gasser repeatedly annoyed Mr. Le. E. Cooper, 
a Chicago home builder, with implied threats over the telephone. Mr. Gasser 
said that a union representative would visit the job sites to talk to the build- 
ing tradesmen. Mr. Cooper resented the calls. 

Other phone calls and visits by Peter Gasser have been reported. 



IMPROPEiR ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 9761 

Dayton, Ohio 

lu Juue of 1956 John Blair, Troy, Ohio, UAW international representative, 
phoned Mr. Warner of W. H. Kiefaber Co., Dayton, Kohler distributors, that 
he would do anything in his power to prevent the installation of Kohler products. 
Detroit, Mich. 

On February 22, 1956, John Archambault, UAW international representative, 
called on Linwood Pipe & Supply Co., a Kohler distributor in Detroit, and 
threatened them with an intensified boycott. Mr. Archambault said that every 
truckload shipment was being traced from Kohler to destination, builders would 
be requested to switch from Kohler fixtures to other makes, and union repre- 
sentatives would pass out boycott leaflets at all projects where Kohler fixtures 
were due to be installed. 

Linwood Pipe & Supply Co. was contacted again on July 27, 1956, when Mr. 
Archambault was accompanied by 6 union representatives, including 3 members 
of the State legislature. On June 25, 1957, Mr. Archambault called on Mr. Mar- 
golin, of Linwood, regarding a truckload shipment which had arrived on June 12. 
Mr. Archambault had a complete list of Kohler material included in the truckload. 
Mr. Archambault reminded Mr. Margolin that this was the third call on his 
company and the union was now going to get tough. 

On February 22, 1956, Mr. Archambault also visited another Kohler distributor 
in Detroit, Warren Plumbing Supply Co. In addition to the statements reported 
by Linwood, Mr. Archambault told Mr. Warren that money was no object. He 
said that every plumbing contractor would be contacted, and that if the con- 
tractors proved obstinate they would go to the owners. Every architect would 
be asked to disapprove Kohler fixtures. Mr. Archambault again claimed that 
the union knew the manner in which Kohler products were shipped, the names 
of the carriers, the individuals receiving the material, and the time they received 
it. He asked Mr. Warren to switch to another line. 

During the 2 days following Mr. Archambault's visit, at least a dozen of 
Mr. Warren's plumbing contractor customers phoned him that they were 
fearful about using Kohler fixtures. 

In the sam^ month Mr. Archambault called on Kenneth Anderson, of Detroit, 
a Kohler distributor, and used the same approach. When Mr. Anderson asked 
him to put his remarks in writing, Mr. Archambault refused. 

On February 7, 1957, Mr. Emil Mazey, UAW international secretary-treasurer, 
phoned Michigan Generator Service, Kohler electric plant distributor in Detroit, 
and arranged an appointment for one of his assistants to meet Mr. Montgomery, 
a partner. Donald Rand, assistant to Emil Mazey, visited Mr. Montgomery and 
complained about his Kohler exhibit at the Detroit boat show. He requested 
Mr. Montgomery to write Kohler Co. urging settlement of the strike and stating 
that pressure was being put upon Michigan Generator Service to discontinue 
handling Kohler products. Mr. Rand reminded Mr. Montgomery that they could 
picket the display at the boat show. Mr. Rand arranged to have Mr. Archam- 
bault meet Mr. Montgomery at the boat show that evening, but Mr. Archambault 
did not show up. There were no further developments. 

Memphis, Tenn. 

On May 29, 1956, Cecil Londo, UAW international representative, called on 
Mr. John Fisher, of Fisher Plumbing »& Heating Co., Memphis, plumbing con- 
tractors for a new Methodist Hospital addition in Memphis. Mr. Londo asked 
Mr. Fisher whether he was going to use Kohler material. Mr. Fisher told him 
that this came under the heading of his own personal business. Mr. Londo 
predicted that "journeymen will not set the Kohler fixtures" and said that "a 
picket line would be set up." In the ensuing conversation Mr. Londo admitted 
that the picekt line could probably be eliminated by Mr. Fisher at the expense 
of time and court action. No trouble developed and Kohler fixtures were 
installed. 

Phoenix, Ariz. 

In June of 1956, Mr. Nicholas C. Dragan, UAW representative in Phoenix, 
called on Phoenix Pipe & Supply Co., a Kohler distributor, with representatives 
of two other unions. He requested them to discontinue buying Kohler products. 
The callers stated that they were going to make every possible effort to stop the 
sale of Kohler ware in Arizona. They said they were tracing each car leaving 
the Kohler plant to determine its destination, and they would call on all archi- 
tects and builders in addition to holding union meetings. 

The Phoenix situation will be discussed later. 



9762 IMPROPER ACTIVITIEIS IX THE LABOR FIELD 

Port Washington, Wis. 

In May of 1955 Emil Mazey, UAW international secretary-treasurer, and Rob- 
ert Burkart, UAW international representative, visited a school job in Port 
Washington on which Rohde Bros., of Plymouth, Wis., were the plumbing con- 
tractors. They told Rohde's foreman that he had better not install Kohler fix- 
tures. When the foreman told them that he was not under their jurisdiction 
and that he intended to install the fixtures, they replied that they could not 
order him not to. 

In October 1955 unknown vandals caused extensive water damage to the school 
gymnasium. Union spokesmen publicly denied responsibility. 

JOURNEYMAN PLUMBERS 

Journeyman plumbers are the building tradesmen who install plumbing sys- 
tems. They serve a long apprenticeship and are usually licensed by States or 
municipalities. They are customarily employed by plumbing contractors who 
hold master plumbers' licenses. 

As might be expected, the United Auto Workers have tried to induce or en- 
courage journeyman plumbers to refuse to handle Kohler products. In an in- 
dustry whose products require installation, this has ominous implications. 

We have no evidence that the Journeyman Plumbers and Steamfltters Interna- 
tional Union has instituted any secondary boycott of Kohler products. 

In 1954, according to the newspapers, the UAW requested the late Martin 
Durkin, then president of the Journeyman Plumbers and Steamfltters Interna- 
tional, to pull the UAW's chestnuts out of the flre. Mr. Durkin was reported to 
have turned them down, saying, "We never do that," meaning refusing to install 
nonunion articles. 

Following the AFL-CIO merger convention in New York City early in Decem- 
ber of 1955, Mr. Peter T. Schoemann, the new general president of the journey- 
man plumbers and steamfltters, gave the UAW a letter which the latter used as 
an introduction to a propaganda booklet. While urging support of the strikers, 
Mr. Schoemann incorporated this paragraph in his letter : 

"I caution you, however, that during the course of your employment you must 
handle and install all Kohler products. If you should refuse to handle and install 
Kohler products on the job, such actions would be a secondary boycott in viola- 
tion of the Taft-Hartley Act and other State laws. Likewise, you cannot and 
must not request employees of other employers not to handle and install Kohler 
products during the course of their employment." 

The action of the Journeyman Plumbers and Steamfltters International Quin- 
tennial Convention in Kansas City, Mo., in August of 1956 was consistent with 
this directive, according to an article in Business Week of August 25, 1956. 

Despite the presence of a big UAW delegation which attempted to blitz the 
convention with anti-Kohler displays and banners, the convention turned down 
two tough resolutions calling upon plumbers to refuse to install Kohler plumbing 
fixtures. The resolutions committee chairman argued against the proposals and 
called attention to the prohibitions of the Taft-Hartley Act. The convention did 
adopt a much milder resolution sympathizing with the strikers. 

The illegality of a secondary boycott was recognized by UAW Local 833 in the 
Reporter and Kohlerian of April 5, 1957. Under the headline "Can Plumbers 
Boycott?" the local explained to its members that — 

"If the plumbers union were to refuse to install it would be a violation of the 
Taft-Hartley Act's secondary boycott provisions. 

"A plumber as an individual can refuse to install Kohler. If he gets fired for 
it there is nothing his union can do for him." 

This is good advice, but this further point should be made with respect to 
individual refusals to install : 

Under the doctrine of the Genuine Parts Case (119 N. L. R. B. No. 53), if a 
union advises its members of their rights to refuse to handle products "as indi- 
viduals," in a context where such advice constitutes inducing and encouraging 
them to take such "individual" action, it is in violation of section 8(b) (4) of 
the Taft-Hartley Act. 

In other words, this would be a "concerted individual refusal," akin to thQ 
concept of "conscious parallelism" which has found a place in antitrust law. 

The Booher Lumber Co. Case (117 N. L. R. B. No. 210) throws further light 
on "concerted individual refusals" to handle material. 

Despite this realistic attitude on the part of the plumbers international, and 
even by the striking UAAV local itself, few plumbers and steamfltters locals have 
taken secondary boycott action against Kohler Co. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIElS IN THE LABOR FIELD 9763 

Apparently the boycott receives its vertical impetus w^ithin the United Auto 
Workers' organization and spreads horizontally on the local level. A few ex- 
amples follow. 

Atlanta, Ga. : It was mentioned earlier that Thomas J. Starling, one of the 
UAW international representatives in charge of the boycott, lives in Atlanta. 
This may explain why Journeyman Plumbers Local 72 of Atlanta became inter- 
ested in the boycott. 

In August of 1955, Mr. V. B. Harper, then a business agent for the local, served 
notice on plumbing contractors that they would be given 90 days within which 
to dispose of non-union-made materials. Thereafter, members of the local would 
refuse to install them. He expressly mentioned Kohler. 

When Mr. O. E. Wilkinson, Kohler Co. branch manager, called on Mr. Harper, 
the latter said that this action had been voted on at a local 72 meeting some time 
before. Mr. E. H. Fleming, then president of the local and now a business agent, 
told Mr. Wilkinson the same thing. 

Mr. Fleming advised that the only way the situation could be corrected would 
be for the Kohler Co. to send a communication to the union in writing which could 
be read at a meeting and which might persuade the members to revoke their 
resolution. Mr. Fleming was not optimistic. 

On September 11, 1955, Mr. Harper admitted to a committee of plumbing con- 
tractors that local 72 had taken such action. He said the question had been 
decided on the floor in a union meeting and he personally could do nothing about it. 

The situation then seemed to clear up for a while, but late in 1956 local 72 
business agents were suggesting to plumbing contractors that they might encoun- 
ter costly difiiculties if they used Kohler fixtures. These comments were made 
in the context of the contractors' having to secure journeyman plumbers through 
the local 72 hiring hall. This afforded the local an ominous control over the 
fortunes of plumbing contractors. Many contractors became afraid to base their 
bids on Kohler quotations. 

The situation came to a head on a Southern Railway job in Atlanta, when sev- 
eral new journeyman plumbers which local 72 had sent to Sasser & Co., the plumb- 
ing contractor, refused to install Kohler fixtures. A local 72 business agent per- 
mitted Sassfcr & Co. to install Kohler fixtures on this job on condition that he 
would not use them thereafter. 

For an appreciable time after this, only a few Atlanta plumbing contractors 
employing union journeymen continued willing to use Kohler products. 

On July 23, 1957, Atlas Supply Co. (Kohler distributor) delivered three fixtures 
to Sasser & Co. on an Owens-Illinois Glass Co. job in Atlanta. Arthur H. Moore, 
a local 72 steward for another contractor on the job, instructed the driver to take 
the fixtures back to Atlas. On July 24 Mr. Moore was sent a registered letter 
warning him that any repetition would render him personally financially re- 
sponsible for damages. 

It has been reported that this letter and other indications that litigation was 
shaping up were the subject of a long meeting at local 72 headquarters, at which 
it was decided to keep hands off the Kohler boycott. AVhether this is true or 
not, a steadily increasing number of Atlanta contractors are using Kohler prod- 
ucts and are experiencing no diflSculties. 

Detroit, Mich. : Plumbers local 98 has jurisdiction around Detroit. It has 
considerable power over plumbing contractors through the operation of a hir- 
ing hall through which plumbing contractors obtain their journeymen plumbers. 
While there is no consistent pattern of local 98's boycotting Kohler, some activity 
has been reported from time to time. 

The impetus for this activity in Detroit clearly stems from the United Auto 
Workers. This liaison is difiicult to understand, for an Associated Press dis- 
patch of February 6, 1956, reported UAW building craftsmen crossing the picket 
lines of the AFL building trades unions to do the latter's work at the Packard- 
Studebaker plant in Detroit. 

During the autumn of 1955 there had been rumors that local 98 would cease 
installing Kohler fixtures after January 1, 1956, and had appointed a study 
committee to find some "legal" method of doing this. 

On January 17, 1956, John Archambault, UAW international representative, 
addressed the Detroit Building Trades Council and urged them to boycott 
Kohler (Detroit Building Tradesman, January 20, 1956). 

On February 7, 1956, the day after the Associated Press dispatch referring to 
the Packard-Studebaker picketing, Emil Mazey addressed Plumbers Local 98 

21243— 58— pt. 24 19 



9764 IMPKOPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

for more than an hour. While he did not openly state that they should refuse 
to in.st.iill Kohler fixtures, that was implicit in everything he said. 

On February 10, 19r)(;, a local 98 member who was foreman for Mechanical 
Heat & Cold, plumbing contractors on the Red Run gold course job, told his 
employer that he would not allow his men to set Kohler fixtures because the 
local union was requesting journeymen plumbers not to handle them. 

When the plumbing contractor phoned the local, the man at union head- 
quarters would not admit this but said, "You are taking a big chance in using 
Kohler ware as they could very easily be broken on the job by accident." 

On February 22, 1956, Donald Rand, UAW international representative, wrote 
a letter to all journeyman plumbers oh Plumbers Local 98 letterhead. While 
the letter did not specifically advocating refusing to install Kohler fixtures, it 
was calculated to have that effect. It enclosed a form entitled "Kohler Boy- 
cott Survey" on which journeyman plumbers were expected to report all jobs 
using Kohler fixtures, including the names of the contractor, the architect, and 
the owner. 

In February 1956, W. J. Rewoldt Co., Detroit, had the plumbing contracts on 
the Mount Clemens Hospital, Mount Clemens, Mich., the Amelia Earhart High 
School, Detroit, and the Cross manufacturing plant, Detroit. 

Journeyman plumbers refused to accept a truckload of Kohler fixtures which 
was delivered to the Mount Clemens Hospital by the Nelson Co., of Royal Oak. 
The journeymen were asked to have their business agent phone the plumbing 
contractor. 

The business agent did so and stated that Kohler fixtures would not be in- 
stalled by journeyman plumbers in Detroit. He was told that the Mount Clemens 
job was already roughed-in for Kohler fixtures, and walls had been tiled and 
plastered. 

The business agent still insisted that Kohler fixtures could not go in, but 
after some discussion he agreed to let the contractor install Kohler fixtures in 
the hospital if he would not use them in the Amelia Earhart School and the 
Cross manufacturing plant. 

The net result was that Kohler fixtures were installed in Mount Clemens 
Hospital and the Amelia Earhart School, but not in the Cross manufacturing 
plant. 

By May of 1956 a number of plumbing contractors doing large institutional 
work in the Detroit area were encountering refusals by their journeymen to 
handle Kohler fixtures, but they were reluctant either to fight local 98 them- 
selves or even to furnish evidence. In other types of work the boycott was 
ineffective. 

Later on the situation steadily improved. 

Dover, Del. 

Plumbers Local 782, Dover, had jurisdiction over a 100-bed hospital job at 
Dover Air Force Base. It operates a hiring hall. 

In July of 1956 journeymen plumbers employed by Frederick Raff Co., a Hart- 
ford, Conn., plumbing contractors for the hospital job, refused to unload about 
15 Kohler drinking fountains from the delivery trucks. 

W)ien Mr. Raff phoned the president of local 782 he was informed that their 
journeymen would not install Kohler fixtures under any circumstances. When 
Mr. Raff threatened to use nonunion journeymen the local president said, "We 
would strike the job." 

In August 1956, the journeyman plumbers refused to install Kohler fixtures 
and struck the job for 5 days. When Raff's foreman, Mr. Blair, complained 
to B. F. Kelley, of Seaford, Del., business agent of local 782, he said that there 
was nothing he could do. He advised Mr. Blair that Raff's only alternative 
was to fire the men, in which case the local would try to send others. 

On July 31. Mr. Kelley met Raff's representatives at the job, including W. F. 
Fitzgerald, Blair's successor as foreman. It was agreed to install the Kohler 
drinking fountains since the roughing-in had been completed. 

When W. J. Donnelly, Kohler Co. branch manager in Philadelphia, called on 
Mr. Kelley, the latter denied that he had instructed his men not to install 
Kohler ware, but he said that if he were working as a journeyman he would 
refuse to install it. 

On Januarv 10, 1957, additional Kohler fixtures were delivered to the job 
without incident. Mr. Kelley permitted the installation of these fixtures be- 
cause roughing-in had previously been completed. He would make no commit- 
ment for the balance of the order. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 9765 

On July 15, 1957, Mr. Donnelly again visited the job site and learned that 
fixtures of another make were being installed on the balance of the job. A 
young man in Raff's employ, who declined to give his name, said that a con- 
ference had been held with local 782 at which Mr. Kelley had served notice that 
no more Kohler ware was to be used. Mr. Kelley said that he had compared 
Kohler roughing-in with that of another make and had found too little differ- 
ence to matter. 

Kohler material was used on only about one-third of the job. 

Kansas City, Mo. 

The Kansas City situation parallels the one in Atlanta to the extent that the 
United Auto Workers have strong local organizations there, and Journeyman 
Plumbers Local 8 controls the assignment of journeyman plumbers to plumbing 
contractors through the operation of a hiring hall. Employers subject to the 
union contract call the hiring hall for men. 

Early in 1956, Mr. John S. Gorman, business agent for plumbers local 8, be- 
gan calling on the smaller and newer plumbing contractors in and around 
Kansas City, many of whom were still card-carrying members of the union. It 
has been reported that over 100 out of approximately 160 plumbing contractors 
in Kansas City still hold cards in the journeyman plumbers local and are sub- 
ject to its discipline. 

Late in January 1956, Mr. Paul Lovell, owner of Midcontinent Plumbing 
Supply Co., received the first truckload of Kohler material for a .300-unit hous- 
ing project at Hickman Mills, Mo. Mr. Lovell soon received a phone call from 
John Gorman advising him not to install Kohler fixtures, and informing him 
that if he did so he might have difficulty obtaining journeymen a little later when 
the project was fully underway. Mr. Gorman refused to write a letter to Mr. 
Lovell or to confer with him. Mr. Lovell returned the truckload to the Kohler 
distributor, A. Y. McDonald Manufacturing Co., of Kansas City, and canceled 
the balance of the order. 

On February 24, 1956, a representative of Mr. Gorman's visited a job on which 
Brookside Plumbing &. Heating Co., Charles F. Stevenson, owner, was going to 
use Kohler material purchased from Grinnell Co., Kansas City. 

Brookside's foreman, a union journeyman plumber, was shown an unsigned 
letter on plain stationery instructing him and his plumbers not to install Kohler 
products. As a result, Brookside gave Grinnell a cancellation of the order for 
Kohler fixtures. We understand that Brookside has since gone out of business. 

In February of 1956 A. Y. McDonald Manufacturing Co., Kohler distributor, 
invited many of the larger plumbing contractors to meet Mr. L. P. Chase, of 
Kohler Co., at a luncheon. The night before the luncheon, John Gorman is re- 
ported to have called a number of the contractors and told them that the union 
would have the luncheon spotted and would know which ones attended. 

In December 1956, Fairway Plumbing & Heating Co., E. L. French, owner, 
ordered 500 sets of Kohler fixtures from A. Y. McDonald Manufacturing Co., 
Kansas City, to be used on small homes for three different builders. 

On December 20, Mr. Gorman told Mr. French that while he was entitled to 
purchase any fixtures he chose, local 8 journeymen had a constitutional right not 
to install them, which he was confident would be their position. He made it 
clear to Mr. French that it would not be possible to obtain journeymen from 
local 8 who would install Kohler fixtures. While Mr. French was not convinced 
that his own men would refuse to install, he became apprehensive and canceled 
the order shortly after giving shipping instructions for the first triickload. 

In October 1957, Mr. Harold Miles, of H. E. Miles Co., Inc., Bolivar, Mo., 
plumbing contractor for the Fort Leavenworth Junior High School, phoned Mr. 
Gorman for clearance on using Kohler fixtures. Mr. Miles had a quotation from 
A. Y. McDonald Manufacturing Co., Joplin, Mo. 

In Mr. Gorman's absence, Mr. Miles talked to an unknown person in the union 
office, who said that Kohler fixtures were listed as not to be used by union mem- 
bers throughout the country, and that local 8 did not allow Kohler fixtures to 
be installed anywhere within its jurisdiction. Feeling that as a small operator 
he could not afford to take a chance on using Kohler fixtures, Mr. Miles placed 
the order elsewhere. 

Los Angeles County, Calif. 

Journeyman Plumbers Local 761, of Burbank, has jurisdiction in the San 
Fernando Valley. It operates a hiring hall. The business agents of the local are 
Red Gibson and Bill Foder. They have been promoting a boycott of Kohler 
products. 



9766 IMPKOPER ACTIVITIEIS IK THE LABO'R FIE1.D 

On or about November 6, 1956, an unnamed steward of local 761 went to the 
Palmdale housing project where Ray Hadney Plumbing, of Glendale, was the 
plumbing contractor, and threatened damage to fixtures if the contractor in- 
sisted upon installing Kohler products. He mentioned a blowtorch "accidentally" 
directed on the enamel or a hammer dropped in the tub. 

The plumbing contractor asked Wholesale Plumbing Supply Co., Kohler dis- 
tributor, to pick up 25 Kohler tubs which had been delivered and cancel the 
balance of the order for 110 sets of fixtures. 

S. R. Clark, Inc., of Downey, Calif., was the plumbing contractor on a 167- 
unit housing project in Palmdale. While the journeyman plumbers did not 
actually refuse to install Kohler fixtures, the foreman, a member of Burbank 
Local 761, said that he did not like to ask his men to install them. He implied 
that the men might take all day on a single fixture, and if the men were fired the 
business agent would probably send them winos, wine drinkers, in their place. 
Kohler tubs which had been delivered were returned to the Kohler distributor. 

On November 5, 1956, Familian Pipe & Supply Co., of Van Nuys, Calif., a 
Kohler distributor, delivered 10 Kohler tubs to an apartment house project in 
Burbank for Yops & Mammill, Inc., a plumbing contractor from Van Nuys. The 
latter received a phone call from a business agent of local 761 to the effect 
that if they were planning on using nonunion material ou the job they had better 
not proceed to install it "for your own good." 

Hartshorn Bros., Bellflower, Calif., were the plumbing contractors on the Park- 
west Exhibit Homes in Woodland Hills. On March 6, 1957, they were informed 
by the local 761 steward on the job, Buzz Brown,, that his men would not in- 
stall Kohler fixtures. Another make of fixtures was substituted. 

According to the Los Angeles Times of December 1, 1956, Local 761 and 
union officials were sued for $1,130,000 damages by two plumbing contractors, the 
Desert Plumbing Co. and Schneider & Wikoff, Inc., of Lancaster-Palmdale. 

The complaint charged the defendants with vandalism, deliberately perform- 
ing faulty work, and fostering deliberate loafing and deliberate strikes. These 
charges apparently had nothing to do with Kohler products. 

Milwaukee, Wis. 

The business manager and moving spirit in Plumbers Local 75, Milwaukee, is 
Mr. Anthony J. King. He has been a labor leader in Milwaukee for more than 30 
years and has been prominent in both the Socialist and Progressive Parties. In 
1951 he was enjoined by the Milwaukee circuit court from interfering with the 
business operations of Hugo A. Taggatz, plumbing contractor at Elm Grove, Wis., 
in a matter that had nothing whatever to do with Kohler Co. 

Mr. King operates the local 75 hiring hall, which is the principal source of Ms 
power. A noncooperating plumbing contractor may get no journeymen, and a 
uoncooperating journeyman may get no job. 

During the fall of 1956, Mr. King was especially cooperative with the United 
Auto Workers' boycott of Kohler products. 

Early that fall, Mr. King told a meeting of the apprenticeship committees 
of the plumbing contractors and journeyman plumbers in Milwaukee that there 
would be no point in using any Kohler plumbing fixtures in apprenticeship train- 
insc because his members would refuse to handle them. However, Mr. King did 
not press the point when someone took issue with him. 

The official bulletin of local 75 is issued over Mr. King's signature. The Sep- 
tember 1956 issue included this paragraph : 

"Kohler : The State Federation of Labor, in Convention August 23, adopted a 
resolution for the active support of the Kohler strikers. Members of organized 
labor were called upon to do all in their power to influence people against the 
purchase of Kohler plumbing fixtures. 

"It was pointed out that individual members of organized labor have a right 
to refuse to handle Kohler plumbing ware and that they cannot be prosecuted 
for doing so. Quite a number of our members have informed their employer that 
they will not install Kohler fixtures and are refusing to do so. 

"bur attorney informs us that such action on the part of members is legal. 
As a citizen of this community, I wish to express my sincere admiration of those 
who are in this manner assisting the Kohler strikers." 

Under the doctrine of the Oenuine Parts case (119 NLRB No. 53), this exhorta- 
tion to "individual" action, coiipled with the implications of the hiring hall, 
constituted inducing and encouraging journeyman plumbers to refuse to handle 
Kohler goods in the course of their employment in violation of section 9 (b) (4) 
of the Taft-Hartley Act. This is a good example of "concerted individual re- 
fusal." 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 976T 

In August of 1956, Ellis Rahu, a journeyman plumber of the Knab Co., plumb- 
ing contractors for the Air Force Reserve Training Center at Mitchell Field, 
Milwaukee, told James Knab and Dick Sharp, Knab's superintendent, that Mr. 
King had told Rahn that he could not install Kohler fixtures on this job. Rahn 
and another of Knab's journeymen then refused to install Kohler fixtures. 
Knab Co. transferred journeyman plumbers from another job to do the install- 
ing. 

We have already seen the part played by Mr. King in the St. Luke's Hospital 
situation in September and October of 1956. 

On October 8, Mr. King told the Paul J. Grunow^ Co., plumbing and heating 
contractors for the Blockl Building, Milwaukee, that he would not permit Kohler 
fixtures to be installed. Mi-. King visited the job on the pretext of checking 
whether laborers were doing plumbers' work. He did not look up the plumbing 
foreman but spoke to several journeymen plumbers and told them they could 
refuse to install Kohler fixtures. 

Mr. King also visited the owner of the building, accompanied by several leaders 
of the Milwaukee Building and Construction Trades Council and a member of the 
plumbing contractor's firm. They told the owner that a citizens' committee such 
as had appeared at the St. Luke's Hospital was all ready to picket the Bockl 
Building, but they would hold it off if he would agree to use no more than 50 
percent Kohler fixtures in his building. 

Some fixtures of another make were used, but far less than 50 percent of the 
total. 

There was no picketing, and Kohler fixtures were installed without difiiculty. 

Also in October, Wenzel & Henoch, Milwaukee plumbing contractors for a new 
Marquette University dormitory, were told by a representative of the Milwaukee 
Building Trades that Kohler fixtures were not to be used on this job. There was 
also talk of "citizen pickets." The contractor had had a requisition for 6 journey- 
men on file at the local 75 hiring hall for at least 2 months but had not received 
any men. 

No picket line developed, and Kohler fixtures were used. 

In Deceijiber of 1956 a union steward in the employ of L. Soergel & Sons, plumb- 
ing contractors for a St. John's convent installation in South Milwaukee, told 
his employer that he was unwilling to install Kohler tubs on the job because he 
would be called before his union and be reprimanded. Tubs of another make were 
installed and trimmed with Kohler brass fittings. Later another journeyman 
plumber refused to install Kohler lavatories on this job. 

While some plumbing contractors continue fearful of using Kohler fixtures in 
Milwaukee, the situation has vastly improved since the fall of 1956. 

However, on January 29, 1958, Leo Breirather, boycott coordinator for UAW 
Local 833 strike committee, wrote a letter to Milwaukee journeyman plumbers 
which said in part : 

"We wish to acknowledge the wonderful support received from the officers and 
members of local 75, in the campaign to stop Kohler sales in the Milwaukee area. 
We are proud and grateful to have earned the support of the United Association 
and also the great majority of the entire labor movement. 

"Your actions have made Resolution No. 261 adopted at the 1956 Convention 
of the United Association a living document. * * * 

"* * * We recognize that many of you have suffered personal hardship by 
exercising your rights as individuals to refuse to install Kohler products. As a 
result of our consumer boycott Kohler products are now almost nonexistent in 
Milwaukee County. 

"We gratefully acknowledge the courtesy and cooperation of the officers 
and members of local 75 and Brother Tony King, business manager. Hoping 
that we may earn your continued support and with sincerest thanks, we wish 
to remain." 

Phoenix, Ariz. 

Plumbers. Steamfitters and Ref I'igeration Local 469 has jurisdiction in Phoenix, 
Ray Sanders is the business manager-financial secretary, Frank Profiri has been 
business agent, and "Monk" Witt was Profiri's assistant. 

In April of 1957 about 10 Kohler bathtubs were delivered to the Villa del 
Coronado Cooperative Apartments in Phoenix for installation by McCullough 
Plumbing Co. of that city. Mr. McCullough was told by Paul Harrell, an appren- 
tice, and the foremen for the electrical and carpenter contractors, that they 
would all "go fishing" if Kohler products were installed. Frank Profiri. then 
business agent of plumbers local 469, told Mr. McCullough to get the tubs ofE 
the job. He also said that the men would "go fishing." 



9768 GCVIFROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Paul Harrell finally installed some Kohler colored fixtures selected by one 
of the owners on condition that some other make of fixtures would be used on 
the balance of the job. Later Harrell refused to unload Kohler sinks from 
a truck. "Monk" Witt, assistant business agent of local 469, was inducing 
and encouraging employees of LK Plumbing to refuse to install Kohler fixtui-es 
on these jobs. Threats were made to OK Plumbing and others to the effect that 
if an attempt were made to install Kohler fixtures there would be trouble. 

Several of OK Plumbing's journeymen assured their employer that they were 
willing to install Kohler fixtures unless prevented by their union. 

When Kohler fixtures were delivered to one of the jobs on August 21, 1957, no 
trouble was encountered and the fixtures were installed. According to several 
workmen on the job, this project had been the subject of a great deal of discus- 
sion at union headquarters, but when it became known that Kohler Co. was 
preparing to take legal action the journeyman plumbers were told not to refuse 
to install the Kohler fixtures. 

On or about January 13. 19.58. Mr. Clarence Tripon, owner of Arizona 
Plumbing & Heating Co., sent Charles Young, a journeyman plumber, to Eloy, 
Ariz., to work on a low-rent housing project. Young stated that he would not 
install Kohler fixtures which had been delivered to the job unless he had clear- 
ance from local 741. His reason was that he would be subject to a fine, osten- 
sibly on the pretext of some other offense than setting Kohler fixtures. 

The plumbing contractor, feeling that he would not afford to risk labor trouble, 
return 30 Kohler fittings which had been delivered to the job site and secured 
approval from the architect to substitute fixtures and fittings of another make. 

The larger plumbing contractors of Phoenix, who are associated with local 
469 in a pipe trades industry program, seem to be reluctant to offend the local 
by attempting to use Kohler fixtures. 

Those examples are illustrative of the activities of perhaps a dozen or two dozen 
other journeyman plumbers' locals around the country. 

EFFECT OF THE BOYCOTT 

Obviously. Kohler Co., has lost some orders because of the boycott. How- 
ever, we believe that this has been more than offset by other business which 
we are receiving directly as a result of the stand we have taken. We have re- 
ceived many thousands of letters to this effect. 

But whether it is in spite of the boycott or because of it. our company is at 
least holding its own competitively. National magazines have quoted our com- 
petitors to this effect. 

While the decliue in residential construction during the past 2 years has been 
felt significantly by our entire industry, our sales and earnings have been 
affected less than those of competitors, according to the latter's published re- 
ports. 

Our production is the best we have ever had, both in output per man-hour and 
the quality of our product. This comes from the finest work force in our history, 
mostly veteran employees. 

Our selling is aggressive. 

We come to grips with the boycott wherever the threat appears. 

We believe we have demonstrated that a company need not succumb to union 
violence and coercion, but can successfully take a stand for principles in which 
it believes. 

The CriAiRMAN. Mr. Conger, I notice, is also appearing as counsel 
for Mr. Chase. 

Mr. Chase. The TTnited Auto Workers in their propaganda and in 
a memorandum filed here by Mr. Counsel, have taken pains to label 
this boycott as a legal primary boycott, a consumer boycott. As I 
point out in the written statement, that, of course, would be a volun- 
tary withholding of their own patronage and that of their friends and 
sympathizers. 

Of course, we would not contest their right to do that. Neither 
would we contest their right to promote that sort of a program, pro- 
viding their promotional propaganda bore some relationship to the 
truth. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 9769 

The propaganda which has been spread around this country bears 
a much closer resembhince to some of the testimony we luive listened 
to before this committee. 

It has been our experience, and I believe it would be the experience 
of most primary boycotts, that the primary boycott becomes engulfed 
very quickly in the secondary. 

That, of course, is the sinister thing, this throwing in of neutrals to 
the dispute. We think that that is the evil against which the 80th 
Congress directed its eiforts in enacting the Taft-Hartley Act. 

We do not claim that all of the forty-some examples referred to in 
my memorandum, or statement, are illegal under the Taft-Hartley 
Act. 

We think in some respects they are examples of the sort of thing 
which should be illegal. 

Senator Cltktis. Mr. Chairman ? 

The Chairman. Senator Curtis. 

Senator Curtis. I do not want to consume any more time with any 
of these witnesses than necessary to make the case clear, so I will not 
interrupt now if you intend to cover it a bit later, but I would like to 
have you cite cases of a boycott which you believe is illegal, and then 
also point out some of the transactions w^iich you contend have the 
same eifect as a boycott, and which Congress ought to consider whether 
or not they should be outlawed. 

Mr. Chase. Senator, I have done that to some extent in my pre- 
pared statement, and in my testimony I will keep that in mind and 
try to point out which is which as I go. 

SenatoB Curtis. Thank you. 

Mr, Chase. The boycott started soon after it became apparent that 
the campaign of violence had failed. In the late summer of 1954, 
groups of strikers began going out in their cars to other communities, 
and I think there lias been some testimony on that before this 
committee. 

In September of 1054 leaders of the CIO in Wisconsin, including 
Harvey Kitzman of the UAW, and Charles Shultz, the State presi- 
dent, issued a resolution in Milwaukee which was reported in the 
striker's own weekly paper, the Kohlerian on September 30, 1954, 
calling on all union members and their families to join the boycott. 

We can't claim that that statement standing alone violated the law. 
We think they have a right to ask their friends to withhold their own 
patronage if that is what they choose to do voluntarily and on their 
own volition. Then came a convention of the Wisconsin State Indus- 
trial Council in Milwaukee, from October 20 to 24, 1954, w^hich 
adopted a resolution calling upon workers and others, and I quote 
briefly from that resolution, 

To refrain from buying or installing any of the goods or wares produced by the 
Kohler Co. 

We think the reference to installing there is significant because if 
there is a refusal to install, it deprives the consumer who might other- 
wise want to buy the product from getting it. The product must be 
installed to be used. These fixtures, of course, are customarily in- 
stalled by union journeymmen plumbers. 

(At this point. Senator Mundt entered the hearing room.) 
Mr. Chase. We think that that resolution if followed up by actual 
refusals, would constitute a violation of the law as it stands, although 



9770 ilMPBOPE'R ACTIVITIBS IN THE LABOR FIELD 

I will agree that it hasn't always been too clear that that was the case. 

The Taft-Hartley Act uses the language "inducing or encouraging 
employees to refuse to handle." 

I don't think the inducing or encouraging has to be by their own 
union, and I think that inducing or encouraging by the UAW would 
still be a violation of the Taft-Hartley Act. But that is not as clear 
as it might be. Then on May 5, 1955, the UAW announced its full- 
scale national boycott, and I quote from the May 5, 1955, issue of the 
Kohlerian, the strikers' own weekly paper : 

A nationwide boycott of Kohler products is underway, and will get your 
picketing of various places to help advertise the boycott. 

We think that in that passage the reference to picketing is impor- 
tant because under many circumstances the picketing of a neutral is 
illegal under the Taft-Hartley Act. 

We think that under appropriate amendments of that act all picket- 
ing of neutrals should be prohibited. 

Spokesmen or witnesses for the union have testified to the nature 
of their boycott organization, and I will not detail that here as it is 
detailed in my statement on pages 4 and 5. 

In addition to the 15 or so professional employees of the UAW 
named in the statement, several Kohler strikers were hired fulltime to 
work in the field on the boycott. I will come to that later. We found 
that almost any paid employee of any union anywhere might get into 
the act, and once in a while an amateur appears. 

I have an exhibit I would like to offer at this time. It is from 
Labor's Daily of April 10, 1956. 

It contains a statement by Robert Burkhart of the boycott efforts 
on his part. We offer it not as any evidence of the truth of what it 
states, but as to what Mr. Burkhart claims he was doing in the course 
of his travels. 

The Chairman. Is that a newspaper article ? 

Mr. Chase. It is from the Labor Daily, a union paper. We don't 
consider it just a newspaper article. 

The Chairman. That will be made exhibit No, 109 for reference 
only. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 109" for ref- 
erence and may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

Mr. Chase. Mr. Brierather testified, when he appeared here before 
the committee on behalf of the union, of a boycott staff meeting in 
Detroit during the week of November 29, 1957. By way of further 
identifying the participants in that we have a picture taken from 
the UAW Local 833 Reporter and Kohlerian of November 29, 1957. 
That is only for reference. 

The Chairman. That may be made exhibit 110. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 110" for ref- 
erence and may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

Senator Mundt. Does the picture carry an identification of the 
people on it ? 

Mr. Chase. It does. Senator. 

Much has been said of the interference with Government units in 
connection with the boycott. It has not been an effective boycott ac- 
tivity, but it has been one of importance, we think, because of its 
significance. The first was an effort in December of 1954 by petitions 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES; IN THE LABOR FIELD 9771 

directed to the United States Department of Defense, protesting the 
award of a contract for artillery shells to the Kohler Co. 

The company was awarded the contract which it accepted, although 
it preferred not to because of the shortage of manpower at that time. 

We have here as an exhibit several letters, and one of those petitions, 
on which the signatures were forged. We will offer that as an exhibit. 

The Chairman. What is the exhibit ? 

Some letters? Identify them a little further. 

Mr. Chase. The first item in this set of five sheets is a letter from 
John Fanning, director of industrial relations, to a Mr. Schreiber, of 
1015 North 2od Street, Sheboygan, dated December 28, 1954. 

"Dear Mr. Schreiber." 

The Chairman. That may be made exhibit 111. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. Ill" for 
reference and may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

The Chairman. Just identify the others. 

Mr. Chase. The next is a letter from Herman Schreiber to the 
Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense dated January 3, 1954. 

The Chairman. That may be made exhibit 111 A. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. Ill A" for 
reference and may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

Mr. Chase. Next is a letter from Mr. John Fanning, the director 
of industrial relations of the Office of the Assistant Secretary of De- 
fense, apparently to Mr. Schreiber. 

Although Schreiber's name does not appear, it is dated January 17, 
1955. 

The Chairman. That will be exhibit lllB. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. IIIB" for 
reference and may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

Mr. Chase. The next is a photostat of an envelope addressed to 
Charles Wilson, Secretary of Defense, Washington, D. C, postmarked 
December 11, 1954, Sheboygan. 

The next one is the petition itself. I would like to discuss that 
series of exhibits. 

The Chairman. That will be numbered lllC and D. 

(The documents referred to were marked "Exhibits Nos. IIIC and 
D" for reference and may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

Mr. Chase. Exhibit 111, the letter of December 28, 1954, reads as 
follows, and it is the letter to Mr. Schreiber from the Department 
of Defense: 

This will acknowledge your communication to the Secretary of Defense con- 
cerning the recent award of a shell contract to the Kohler Co., of Kohler, Wis. 
The Office of the Secretary of Defense does not award contracts. Contracts 
covering required procurements are awarded by the three military departments. 

The rest of the letter is not pertinent to my testimony. It is all in 
evidence. 

Exhibit 111 A, Mr. Schreiber's reply of January 3 

The Chairman. Are you reading all of the exhibits ? 

Mr. Chase. No, Mr. Chairman, I am reading just the pertinent 
excerpts. 

The Chairman. All right. Proceed. 



9772 iIMPROPE'R ACTIVITIES IX THE LABO'R FIELD 

Mr. Chase. Mr. Schreiber's reply of January 3 stated — 

I have received a letter from your office dated December 28, 1954, acknowl- 
edging the communication supposedly from me regarding a recent award of a 
shell contract to the Kohler Co., of Kohler, Wis. 

It is possible to send that communication to me? Someone has used my name 
to try and influence your office one way or another regarding this contract. 
I have sent no communication to your office, but would like to find out who 
sent that letter. 

The Chairman. ^V]\o wrote tliat letter ? 
Mr. Chase. That was written by Mr. Herman Schreiber. 
11 ID was Mr. Fanning's reply to Mr. Schreiber returning the peti- 
tion bearing Mr. Schreiber's name, and stating — 

This office followed the practice with respect to many of the petitions received 
of sending an acknowledgment to the first name on the petition. This explains 
the reason why you received a letter from us. 

The petition which I will not read is headed, "We protest using 
our tax money for strikebreaking at Kohler." 

The first signature on it is that of Mr. Herman Schrieber, who is 
this correspondence denied having signed it. Other signatures on 
that petition who are persons who have denied signing it are Harvey 
Hensel, of Sheboygan, Dr. Willard Hugh Bricksey, of Sheboygan, 
and there the name was misspelled on the petition, Robert Emig of 
Sheboygan, and Dr. James Huehn of Sheboygan. Whether other 
signatures on the petition were forged, we do not know. 

However, the last name is that of Frank Geray. The telephone 
book of that time showed no Frank Geray. It did show a Gus Geray, 
and a man with a first name of P^rank on the next line in the telephone 
book. 

We don't think that that is a mistake which the man himself would 
have made. Apparently whoever put his name there took the first 
name from tlie next line in the book. 

The next example of pressure on governmental units in my state- 
ment was with regard to the William Vinson case, in the Circuit 
Court of Sheboygan County, and I believe the committee has had 
ample testimony on that. That is the attempt to intimidate Judge 
Schlichting, and I believe the judge has been here and there have been 
several other witnesses on that incident. 

The next incident covered in my prepared statement was the clay 
boat riot in Sheboygan which has also been testified to at length be- 
fore this committee, and I will not add my testimony to it, except 
to say that after this clay boat was unloaded at Montreal and the 
clay was shipped back to Sheboygan, Wis., by rail, the union again 
tried to interfere with the delivery of the cars by ]5icketing the south 
railroad yards of the railroad, the Chicago & Northwestern Eailroad 
in Sheboygan. 

The police moved or asked the pickets to get off the track, and they 
did, and there was no further interference with the cars, and they 
were delivered. That was a couple of weeks after the lakefront 
riot. 

The next incident referred to in my statement, and reported on 
page 10 of my statement, pertains to a resolution adopted by the 
House of Representatives of the State of Massachusetts on February 
23, 1956, the day after Washington's Birthday when very few were 
in attendance. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 9773 

The minority leader of the house diclirt even know such a resolution 
had been introduced, much less adopted, until it appeared in the 
papers. The resolution was never messaged to the senate nor sent to 
the Governor and as far as we know it has never been effective. 

It may be of interest that in a remodeling job of the statehouse where 
the resolution was adopted, Kohler plumbing- fixtures were used. That 
is a "plug," Senator. 

The Chairman. I guess you are proud of that ? 

Mr. Chase. Yes, sir. 

The only county in the United States to adopt a boycott resolution 
was Los Angeles County where the county board adopted a resolution 
not naming the Kohler'Co. by name but with Kohler Co. as the target 
according to statements made during the debate and in union propa- 
ganda. 

The resolution was passed subject to the approval of the county legal 
counsel, and he never gave his approval, and so it never became effec- 
tive. Later it was rescinded on his legal advice, after the committee 
had asked him for a legal opinion. 

My statement quotes a portion of a resolution issued by the grand 
jury of Los Angeles County which did not indict the county board for 
its action but strongly condemned it in these words : 

Now, therefore, be it 

Resolved, That in the opinion of the 1957 grand jury, the original resolution 
of the board of supervisors was an unfortunate and improper decision and not in 
the best interests of the citizens of Los Angeles whom the board of supervisors 
represents. 

We are aware of no other resolution on the county level anywhere 
in the United States. 

On June 4, 1957, the City Council of Waterbury, Conn., adopted a 
Kohler boycott resolution which was introduced by Alderman Ovide 
Garceau, the UAW International representative in charge of the 
Kohler boycott in that area, who was an alderman. 

Then on September 10, 1956, the board unanimously rescinded the 
resolution, following a legal opinion by the city attorney. Several 
other Connecticut cities, 8 others, passed similar resolutions, and 2 of 
them were later rescinded. 

Similar resolutions failed of adoption in 4 additional cities, or rather 
5 additional cities. We believe that all of them were the handiwork of 
Mr. Garceau. 

In Massachusetts the City Councils of Boston, Lynn, and Worcester 
adopted resolutions, and New Bedford refused to. We have had no 
evidence that any of them have had a j^ractical effect. 

Two cities in Michigan, River Rouge and Lincoln Park, adopted 
resolutions which did not pertain directly to Kohler Co. Under the 
terms of the resolutions they would become effective with respect to a 
company's products upon specific action following a petition by citi- 
zens. 

Senator Mundt. I would like to ask the witness there, in the overall 
what has been the impact on the company of these boycott activities? 

That is not related to any one community, be it Los Angeles or Aus- 
tin or any other place, but in the overall what has been the impact. No. 
1, on the company, and No. 2, have you any evidence that some of your 
distributors or some of your local retailers may have been individually 
hurt whether or not the company as such has been hurt ? 



9774 OMPROPE'R ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Chase. You are referring to these governmental resolutions 
now, or the boycott generally ? 

Senator Mundt. The general boycott activity, and as I understand 
the resolutions are just 1 part, and I believe 1 part was started in pick- 
eting and abandoned and another part was the following of trucks, 
and the squad cars, and generally what we would call the overall boy- 
cott campaign. 

Mr. Chase. Well, I have an item on that at the end of my state- 
ment but I will summarize it here. Senator. The municipal resolutions 
have been relatively ineffective. They have influenced a few jobs. 
The one in Los Angeles did a large hospital job. The boycott has been 
effective in some places. 

Senator Mundt. In the first stage, you could say that you can trace 
certain municipal projects which you thought were going to sell and 
didn't sell, and you think that you can trace your failure to sell them 
to the municipal resolutions? 

Mr. Chase. There were a few. Senator. 

Senator Mundt. A few of those ? 

Mr. Chase. Yes, sir. 

Senator Mundt. About how many ? 

Mr. Chase. Well, I would hesitate to say. 

Senator Mundt. I don't want the exact number, but were there 5, 
60, 500, or 5,000, just to give us a rough idea ? 

Mr. Chase. I would think it was several dozen throughout the coun- 
try. 

Senator Mundt. Now go ahead with the rest of it. 

Mr. Chase. I would like to interpose in connection with that this 
specific comment. While the boycott in total may have a very slight 
effect on the Kohler Co., because we sell in 48 States, and what happens 
in a single market may not be of overwhelming importance to us, that 
local market may be the entire source of business for one of our dis- 
tributors, and its is very serious for many, and because it is serious for 
many, of course, it is for us, too, even though it doesn't affect our over- 
all sales materially. 

Senator Mundt. Wliat you are saying, as I understand it, is that 
if you lose a hospital in Los Angeles County because of a boycott, you 
don't sell some bathtubs there but maybe you can sell your bathtubs 
down in Texas or Louisiana some place, so that the impact on the 
company is not so serious. But to the man who is distributing bath- 
tubs for Kohler in Los Angeles this might be the difference between 
success and failure ? 

Mr. Chase. Exactly, Senator. 

Senator Mundt. And have you had reports from some of your dis- 
tributors, and some of your retailers, or your handlers or your job- 
bers or whatever you call them, that they have been seriously injured 
financially as a result of the boycott campaign ? 

Mr. Chase. Yes, Senator, and I believe some of them have been 
called as witnesses before this committee. I will touch on a few of 
those later in my statement, but I believe several of them will testify. 

Senator Mundt. Has it been serious enough impairment of their 
economic activity so that some of their employees may have lost jobs 
and their means of livelihood as a consequence of the effort of other 
workers to, in their own terms, protect their jobs ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES UST THE LABOR FIELD 9775 

Mr. Chase. That is quite possible, although I can't name any em- 
ployee who has lost his job in that way. I really don't know, but I 
would think there were some. 

Senator Mundt. You don't have precise firsthand information on 
that? 

Mr. Chx\se. I do not. 

Senator Mundt. Now, we were discussing the overall impact of 
the boycott campaign, and you got down to the point where the 
municipal resolutions and county resolutions and the pressure on pub- 
lic bodies, I believe you said, had cost you perhaps several dozen 
contracts ? 

Mr. Chase. Yes, sir. 

Senator Mundt. Now, how about the other aspects of the boycott 
campaign ? 

Mr. Chase. I may say this, before we move on to that, that this 
would not pertain to the municipal field, because there we think 
bidding should be competitive, and we take our chances with our com- 
petitors. In other areas we Imow that we have secured a lot of busi- 
ness, specifically because of the strike. 

Senator Mundt. Would you say that again ? 

Mr. Chase. We know that in some of the other areas of the boycott 
involving private consumers, we have actually received business be- 
cause of the strike. 

Senator Mundt. In other words, if I understand what you are say- 
ing now, it is that you have evidence that because of the boycott pres- 
sures and.publicity revolving around them, that in some instances you 
have had people who will say, "We don't like this kind of activity, and 
we are going out deliberately and buy Kohler products, because we 
want to encourage them in resisting a boycott" ; is that right ? 

Mr. Chase. That is right. Senator. A lot of people just don't like 
to get pushed around. 

Senator Mundt. So while it may have hurt you in some places, it 
has increased your sales in others? 
Mr. Chase. That is right. 
Senator Mundt. I am sure of that. 

Mr. Chase. Yes, we know of instances. Now, whether the greater 
impact is on one side or the other, no one can say, because most con- 
sumers just don't communicate, and they either buy or don't bu}^ and 
keep it to themselves. 

We believe that the choice should be left to them, and those that 
want to buy our products should be able to do it and those who don't 
want to buy our products certainly don't have to. 

Senator Mundt. Is there anything else that you want to say on 
the overall effectiveness of the boycott, adding up to liabilities from 
the standpoint of the company, where it has cost you some business, 
as against dividends where it has encouraged others because of some 
independent spirit or resentment to purchase products from Kohler 
which they might not have done otherwise ? On balance, subtracting 
one from the other, has the company been seriously hurt by the 
boycott ? 

Mr. Chase. Well, one way or another, whether it is in spite of the 
boycott of because of it, we have at least held our own competitively. 
Senator Mundt. You have held your own competitively? 
Mr. Chase. Yes, sir. 



9776 'IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABO'R FIELD 

Senator Mundt. So that the main impact adversely of the boycott, 
as I understand 3'our testimony, has not been upon the company but it 
has been u])on jobbers or distributors or retailers in certain pockets or 
areas where the boycott may have been permanently or temporarily 
successful ? 

Mr. Chase. That is right. 

Senator Mundt. Does the Kohler Co. solicit or receive any financial 
assistance from its distributors and retailers to help them continue 
their side of the strike, as the union tells us they have been getting 
assistance to continue its side of the strike ? 

Mr. Chase. No, sir. Now, we do tliis : In an area where the boycott- 
pressure seems to be verging on the illegal, we retain counsel and we 
have a community of interest with our distributors, we believe, and 
with tlie plumbing contractors, and with the OAvners and everyone 
interested in having the material installed. 

We try to work those situations out without litigation. There have 
l)een two of those situations which 1 will refer to a little later here, 
W'here there w^as litigation started, and we were not the nominal parties 
or complaining parties, but we were working very closely with our 
customers and we do that. 

But we have not paid any of them money to resist the boycott or any- 
thing of that sort. We have not done that. 

Senator Mundt. That would be help from you to them. I am think- 
ing of whether or not you tiied to get help from them to you, to help 
von finance your operations as against the strikers. 

Mr. Chase. AVe haven't had a penny's help from anybody as far as 
I would know, and I think I would know. 

Before I leave this matter of municipal resolutions, I would like 
to make this comment, that we believe neutrality in a labor dispute is 
the only tenable position for any public official to take. 

We believe that true neutrality consists of just exactly what they 
would do without regard to the strike, rather than buying or refusing 
to buy because of it. That is true neutrality. 

Senator Mundt. In other words, you don't believe that the sale of 
the product should depend either on whether or not it is boycotted, or 
should be based on the idea of somebody trying to help the company 
which is involved in a strike situation '^ 

Mr. Chase. Certainly not in the public job field, not with the tax- 
payers' money. An instance not covered in my prepared statement, 
but which has been referred to in this hearing, is the one at Duluth, 
Minn., where St. Mary's Hospital has been threatened with the with- 
holding of patronage by the unions tliere, where the community fund 
has been threatened with a union boycott unless it eliminates the hos- 
pital from the list of agencies. I liave two rather recent issues of the 
Labor World, the union paper in Duluth, Minn., bearing on that, 
wdiich I would like to offer as exhibits because they show the temper 
of the activity at Duluth. 

The Chairman. How many papers are there, how many issues? 

]\Ir. Chase. Two issues. 

The Chairman. They may be made exhibits 112 and 112 A. 
(The documents referred to were marked "Exhibits Nos. 112 and 
112A" for reference and may be found in the files of the select com- 
mittee.) 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LiABOR FIELD 9777 

Mr. GiiASE. The issue of February 27, 1958, would be 112, 1 take it, 
and the issue of March 6, 1958, ^YOuld be 112a. The statement has been 
made to witnesses before me, union witnesses, that tlie UAW had 
nothino^ to do with that boycott of St. Mary's Hospital. Reading 
from exhibit 112A, Labor World for March 6, 1958, the third para- 
graph of tlie lead article on page 1, it is as follows: 

Vice President Ed Murnane, St. Paul, siibregional director of the A. F. of 
L-CIO United Auto Workers, said full details of the St. Mary's incident will go 
directly to the UAW International in the Kohler strikers. "In fact," said 
Murnane," the UAW may seek an investigation of methods used to influence 
uortliern Minnesota buyers, like St. Mary's, in favor of Kohler fixtures. 

Then they followed with action directed to the State of Minnesota. 
I have one more here, which, with the chairman's permission, might 
be 109B of the same paper. 

The Chairman. Tliat will be made 112B. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 112B" for 
reference and may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

Mr. Chase. It is the March 13 issue, in which an article on page 1, 
column 3, relates an effort to extend the boycott of public works in 
Minnesota to the University of Minnesota. 

Senator Mundt. Speaking of boycotts of hospitals, Mr. Chase, I 
have received some information which I state simply on the basis, I 
don't know whether there is any validity to it or not but you should 
know, that there was a boycott by the UAW of a hospital in Wiscon- 
sin. Do you know anything about that? Is that substantiated by 
fact? 

Mr. Chase. I believe the Senator may refer to St. Luke's Hospital 
in Milwaukee. 

Senator Mundt. That was the name of the hospital I heard about 

Mr. Chase. I am coming to that a little later in my statement, if 
I may. 

Senator Mundt. As long as you were talking about hospitals, I 
thought I would refer to that. It is all right with me if it is further 
in your statement. 

Mr. Chase. There has been testimony before this committee of the 
follow-the-truck campaign of this local union, 833. I was not in 
Kohler, in fact, I was not in the country when that started. My 
assistant, Mr. Desmond, is thoroughly familiar with that. I am not 
going to try to cover all of the instances referred to in my prepared 
statement; but Mr. Desmond was an eye witness to two of these 
incidents in Milwaukee. 

With the committee's permission, I would like to have Mr. Desmond, 
who has previously been sworn as a witness, testify to those two in- 
stances which is personally observed. 

The Chairman. I am sorry. 

Did you offer another exhibit ? 

Mr. Chase. No, sir. I just commented that I would not go into all 
the details of these follow -the-trucks incidents referred to in my state- 
ment, but that Mr. Desmond, my assistant, who was an eye witness 
to two of these, who is here helping me with the exhibits and the 
papers, with the committee's permission I would like to have Mr. 
Desmond interpose his testimony at this time on the two incidents 
that he observed. 

The Chairman. Mr. Desmond, you have been previously sworn ? 



9778 IMPROPE'R ACTIVITIEIS IN THE LABO'R FIELD 

Mr. Desmond. Yes, sir, I have. 

The Chairman. Without objection, the committee will hear you on 
those two incidents with which you are familiar. 

TESTIMONY OF GIRARL A. DESMOND— Resumed 

Mr. Desmond. Senator, at the time the union engaged in following 
our trucks, our truck drivers were very apprehensive about that partic- 
ular thing. They were intimidated. 

Wherever they went the car containing the strikers would follow 
them. As you have heard in other testimony here, they, if they went 
into a restaurant, the car containing the strikers would stop and go 
into the restaurant, and they would stand very close to them, and 
our drivers felt that something would happen to them if that con- 
tinued without anyone there to protect their interests. 

I spoke to many of the truck drivers, took affidavits from them, 
concerning the experiences that they had, and it was decided that 
myself and other representatives of the company would follow the 
trucks to be sure that nothing would happen to them. 

On one occasion, on May 27, 1955, when our truck made some de- 
liveries to F. E. Dengel Co., on Third Street in Milwaukee — I think 
it's Fourth Street — they were followed by the strikers, and at the time 
when the truck was making deliveries to the F. R. Dengel Co. the 
strikers would picket the truck, call the truck drivers names, "scabbies," 
"slimy scabby," and names of that caliber. 

We were there with the object in mind to, first of all, be sure that 
nothing would happen to them, and, secondly, to record whatever 
was necessary in the way of evidence which would assist us at some 
later time if it became necessary to do anything about it. 

(At this point. Senator Mundt entered the hearing room.) 

Mr. Desmond. We had a man with us who was a photographer, and 
we were taking photographs of the truck as it was being unloaded. 
A short time after the truck was there, Ray Mejerus, an international 
representative of the UAW-CIO, came down and threatened one of 
our photographers. 

He said "If you take a picture of me, you wouldn't have that 
camera." He said, "You wouldn't be able to go to any court, either." 

On another occasion, another representative of ours, who was not 
present at that time, he was in F. R. Dengel Co., came out and was 
taking photographs of the unloading of the truck, and Majerus 
rushed over to him and came in bodily contact with him, and made an 
effort as if to grab him and grab the camera away. At that particular 
time, there were two policemen there and they grabbed ahold of 
Majerus, pulled him away, and restrained him from making a further 
assault upon our representative. The policemen were not called by us. 
I think they were called by the F. R. Dengel Co. That is all I have 
in connection with that particular incident. 

Incidentally, I saw the whole tiling happening there and Majerus, 
when he was talking both to the two photographers, was talking in a 
very angry and menacing manner, and the men there were afraid of 
what would happen to them if he was allowed to attack them. 

We have some photographs here that we would like to offer as an 
exhibit. This one is a photograph taken on May 27, 1955, by Paul 



IMPROPER ACTIYITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 9779 

Jacoti, one of our representatives, and it sliows the signs that were 
carried by the pickets, and the pickets around the truck, and some 
policemen. We would like to offer that as an exhibit. 

The Chairman. Is that the incident you have been testifying about ? 

Mr. Desmond. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. That may be made exhibit 113. Is it two photo- 
graphs ? 

Mr. Desmond. Yes, sir ; two photographs. 

The Chairman. 113 and 113a. 

(The documents referred to Avere marked "Exhibits Nos. 113 and 
113A" for reference and may be found in the files of the select 
committee. ) 

Mr. Desmond. This other photograph shows two policemen and 
Ray Majerus, the international representative of the UAW-CIO, 
arguing with the policeman. We would like to introduce that. 

The Chairman. That is 113A. 

Mr. Desmond. There was another incident I was a witness to, Mr. 
Chairman, and that was an occasion when our truck delivered some 
material to a customer of F. R. Dengel Co., a plumbing contractor by 
the name of Neis Co. 

This customer of Dengel is located in West Allis, which is a com- 
munity contiguous to Milwaukee, and at the time when our truck made 
the deliveries to that particular contractor, the loading platform was 
at the southwest part of the building. 

The jSTeis Co. is located at 70 something West National Avenue. I 
think it is 7913 or 7915, something like that. 

And the loading platform is near a railroad a block away from 
National Avenue, which is quite a thoroughfare in West Allis. 

At that time, Donald Rand, another international representative 
of the UAW-CIO was there, and at the time when the material, the 
Kohler materials, was being unloaded from the Kohler truck, Donald 
Rand went up into the warehouse and spoke to Willard Neis, one of 
the sons of the owner. 

I was there at the time. And Donald Rand told Mr. Willard Neis 
that he should not handle Kohler products and should not accept that 
particular shipment. 

Mr. Neis asked him if that was all he had to say, and when Rand 
said "Yes," Mr, Neis said that he could be excused. At that particular 
point, Rand walked down the stairs from the warehouse to the point 
where the pickets were picketing the Kohler Co, truck, and he took 
four pickets and took them around to th front of he Neis Co. building, 
which was a block away, and they began picketing the entrance to that 
plumbing contractor. 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Desmond, I want to get this straight. Is 
Dengel Co. owned by Kohler ? 

Mr. Desmond. No; that is an independent distributor, and an in- 
dependent plumbing wholesaler. 

Senator Curtis, Do they handle other makes of products besides 
yours ? 

Mr. Desmond. I think at that time. Senator, Kohler was the — they 
had one full-line manufacturer. By that I mean that handled all 
of the plumbing fixtures and fittings, and I don't think that they had 
any other full-line manufactures. 

21243— 58— pt. 24 20 



9780 IMPROPE'R ACTIVITIEIS IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Curtis. They had sold some of your products to a con- 
tractor named Neis? 

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

Senator Curtis. And when your truck arrived at Dengel 

Mr. Desmond. No, sir. At that particular point they arrived 

Senator Curtis. Well, what I mean is you took it up there rather 
than unloading it at the distributor and having it be reloaded and 
take it on to the contractor. Your truck went direct to the 
contractor ? 

Mr. Desmond. That is right, sir ; yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. In that instance, in addition to the harassment 
which you have just told about, and the remarks made to young Neis, 
did Neis company have an office or a place of business there, too? 

Mr. Desmond. Yes, sir; they had this warehouse which was in 
back of their office and general showroom. On National Avenue they 
had a very large store, in which they displayed fixtures and other 
plumbing products that they sold, and they had a show window, and 
that is the p)lace where Rand took these four pickets to picket the 
front of the store. 

Senator Curtis, Did they picket the front of the store? 

Mr. Desmond. Yes, sir ; they did. 

Senator Curtis. Do you know for how long ? 

Mr. Desmond. Well, they picketed there all the time when the truck 
was being unloaded, and after the truck left Neis Co., they continued 
picketing at the front of the store on West National Avenue, and 
also down at the loading dock. AndEand 

Senator Curtis. In other words, these boycott activities not only 
extended to the distributor, Dengel, but they also extended to his 
customer, which was Neis, the contractor ; is that right ? 

Mr. Desmond. Yes, sir; that is right. The significant part about 
that is this : That after the truck left, the Kohler Co. truck left, they 
continued picketing for quite some time. 

I think it was about three-quarters of an hour to an hour or so. 
We had left that location and came back and they were still there, the 
pickets were still there, after the truck, the Kohler Co. truck, had left. 
We have some photographs here of that particular incident which we 
would like to offer. 

We have five photographs here which we would like to offer. One 
shows the Kohler truck backed up into the loading platform of Neis 
Co., and it shows the pickets 

The Chairman. That may be made Exhibit 114, and the other four 
will be 114A, B, C, and D. 

(The documents referred to were marked "Exhibits Nos. 114, 114A, 
114B, 114C, and 114D," for reference and may be found in the files 
of the select committee.) 

(At this point. Senator Goldwater entered the hearing room.) 

Mr. Desmond. I would like to call the committee's attention to one 
of the pickets there. No. 4, who was Roy Johnsen, one of the witnesses 
who testified here a few days ago. He is indicated as No. 4. 

Another one here shows the front of the Neis Co. store, and shows 
the picket signs, the pickets are not very discernible, here, although 
you can see them. It shows the picket signs. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 9781 

Another one here is taken from the inside of the Neis Co. and shows 
Donald Kand standing on the sidewalk in front of the Neis Co., and 
also shows two pickets. One of them is Fred Byrum and the other 
one is Roy Johnsen. 

These photographs show the back of these pickets, but I was there 
and I can identify both of them from the back. Donald Rand, on 
the other hand, shows a front view, and I think he is very discernible. 
There is another one here that was taken on West National Avenue; it 
shows the pickets picketing the front of Neis Co. 

It shows a side view of Roy Johnsen, and the back of Fred Byrum. 
Another one shows the loading platform of the Neis Co., a block away 
from the street where the other photographs were taken, and shows 
the pickets still picketing after the Kohler truck had left. 

I had talked to another Neis man b}^ the name of Harvey Neis, and 
after the truck had left, he heard Donald Rand tell the pickets, "We 
will keep them here." 

The photographs indicate that they are still there, but it was Donald 
Rand, according to Mr. Harvey Neis, who directed the pickets to stay 
at the premises, after the truck had left. 

(At this point. Senator Gold water withdrew from the hearing 
room. ) 

The Chairman. Have you concluded, or have you about concluded 
3'our testimony? 

Mr. Desmond. I have concluded ; yes, sir. 

The Chairman. I wasn't trying to preclude you from proceeding 
at all, bu<?I was trying to get a point where we could recess. 

The Chair has to be on the floor for a little while, to try to get some 
floor work done in connection with this committee. I am trying to 
tind the proper and convenient time to recess until this afternoon. 

Is there anything now before we recess that either of you wish to 
state ? 

Mr. Desmond. I would like to make one additional comment. Sen- 
ator, in regard to the picketing at Neis Co. Mr. Paul Jacobi was 
■with me at the time, and in order to take photographs showing the 
picketing at the front of Neis Co. store, Mr. Jacobi and I walked 
across the street and he was taking photographs. Donald Rand fol- 
lowed us- over there and was positioning himself in front of Mr. Jacobi 
every time he started to take a picture, and he went to the point of 
coming in bodily contact with Mr. Jacobi. I got too close to him one 
time and he said "You better keep away from me, Desmond. I am 
looking for an opportunity to get at you." 

That is all I have, Senator. 

Mr. Chase. Senator, those two examples will conclude our testi- 
mony on this phase of the boycott. We have a number of other ex- 
amples in my prepared statement, but we will present only those two 
orally. 

The Chairman. The Chair wishes to interrogate you briefly, and 
probably other members will have some questions also.' 

Senator Curtis. Briefly, yes. 

The Chairman. Please be back at 2 o'clock. 

I am unable to announce at the moment whether the hearing this 
afternoon will be resumed in this room or if the caucus room will be 
available to us. We will have to ascertain that during the noon hour. 
You will just have to do your best to find out for yourselves. 



9782 IMPROPER ACTIVITIHS IN THE LABOR FIELD 

"VVe will resume at 2 o'clock either here or in the caucus room. 

(At this point, the following members were present: Senators Mc- 
Clellan and Curtis.) 

(Whereupon, at 12 : 01, a recess was taken until 2 p. m. of the same 
day.) 

AFTERNOON SESSION 

The Chairman. The committee will come to order. 
(At the reconvening of the session, the following members of the 
committee were present : Senators McClellan and Curtis.) 

TESTIMONY OF LUCIUS CHASE— Resumed 

The Chairman, Senator Curtis, did you have some questions ^ 

Senator Curtis. Not at this point. I will wait until the witness has 
concluded. 

The Chairman. There has been testimony before the committee 
regarding the amount of money this strike has cost the union, an 
amount, I believe, conceded to be in excess of $10 million. I do not 
believe we have any statement in the record of the amount this strike 
has cost the company. Are you prepared to give us that information ? 

Mr. Chase. I do not have that figure. Senator. The committee staff 
has had full access to the company's books and records. I thought that 
they had obtained that. 

The Chairman. Does any one for the Kohler Co. have those figures, 
do you know ? 

Mr. Conger ? 

Mr. Conger. Senator, I don't believe that any one can make an ac- 
curate appraisal of what this strike has cost the company. There are 
certain fixed expenses that could be tabulated, but I would know no 
way of finding an absolute accurate or even an approximate figure of 
that. 

The Chairman. I am not talking about in loss of business. At the 
moment I am talking about in actual expenditures in opposing the 
union and in trying to win the strike, and that is what you have been 
doing. 

Mr. Conger, You get into these shadow areas. For example, the cost 
of supervisory salaries during the 54 days we were shut down with the 
mass picket line. Is that a strike expense or isn't it ? 

The Chairman. I understand. I wouldn't expect you to be as accu- 
rate as a certified public accountant might make it. But I thought for 
the record we should have some reasonable estimate as to the cost, what 
it has cost the company to resist this strike. 

Mr. Conger. I can ask our accounting department to give an esti- 
mate, but it will be only an estimate. 

The Chairman. I can appreciate that. Will you do that and submit 
those figures so we will have some basis ? 

Mr. Conger. Yes. 

The Chairman. I do not imagine the $10 million is accurate which 
the union has spent. I imagine that it is a rough guess, with regard 
to finality, but I thought we ought to have some figures in this record, 
as near as we can get to accuracy, with respect to what the company has 
spent on this strike. 

Mr. Conger. We will do our best on that, Senator. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 9783 

The Chairman. I do not know whether you are the one to answer 
this, Mr. Chase, or Mr. Conger : Is the plant operating now to capacity ? 

Mr. Chase. It is operating normally, Senator. It very seldom oper- 
ates at all capacity. 

The Chairman. You say it is operating normally. Wliat percent- 
age of capacity would you say ? Let me ask this way, first : Is it back 
now in production to a level comparable to its production at the time 
the strike was called ? 

Mr. Chase. It is, in relation to the potential market; may I point 
out, Senator, that approximately 900,000 homes were started in this 
past year. 

The year before, about 1,100,000. The year before that, 1,300,000, 
and residential construction does represent the principal market for 
this industry. Now, in relation to the market available, we are in 
normal production by prestrike standards. 

The Chairman. Of course, if they build a million less houses, you 
would sell a few less fixtures ; is that correct ? 

Mr. Chase. That is right. 

The Chairman. On the basis of the economy in 1954 and on the basis 
of the economy in the construction program now, you would say that 
the company is back operating on a normal basis ? 

Mr. Chase. Yes, sir. We feel we have maintained our competitive 
position. 

The Chairman. Did you lose money in 1954 ? 

Mr. Chase. No, sir. 

The Chairman. In spite of the fact, the company made money 
in 1954? 

Mr. Chase. They made money in 1954. 

The Chairman. Is that over and above the cost of the strike ? I 
mean, do you include that in your operating expenses and you still 
made money ? 

Mr. Chase. That was over and above everything. We had a net 
taxable income in 1954. 

The Chairman. How about 1955 ? 

Mr. Chase. We had a much larger net income in 1955. 

The Chahjman. 1956 and 1957 ? 

Mr. Chase. And in 1956 and in 1957. 

The Chairman. 1957 was a larger year than 1955 and 1956? Have 
you been increasing your profits each year ? 

Mr. Chase. 1957 was the year of declining residential construc- 
tion, but in relation to the market we felt that it was as good a 
year as 1955. 

The Chairman. I am trying to determine this : Have you felt any 
appreciable injury from the boycott ? 

Mr. Chase. We have. Senator, in this respect : 

The boycott necessitates our taking offsetting action against it. To 
the extent that we may do a better and harder job of selling, to the 
extent that where we lose one job we go after the next one a little 
harder, it is difficult to measure. But in net effect we don't feel the 
boycott has hurt us. We feel that in one way or another we have 
protected ourselves from it. The real injury is to our customers. 
Here and there a distributor who had a relatively localized market 
has felt it severely. 



9784 ;IMPR!OPER ACTIVITIEIS IN THE LABOUR FIELD 

The Chairman. In other words, in certain instances it has hurt 
your distributor considerably. It hurts him, because it is directed 
against him, it hurts him worse than against the company ? 

Mr. Chase. That is right. Senator. 

The Chairman. The company can look for other outlets, whereas 
the distributor is localized, and he has to depend on a local trade area, 

Mr. Chase. That is right. 

The Chairman. These local distributors have been your representa- 
tive or your distributor in these localities in some instances for many 
years, have they ? 

Mr. Chase. For many, many years. I think it is characteristic of 
our distributors that they have been with us a long time. 

The Cpiairman. And in representing you and handling your prod- 
ucts, I assume they handled it exclusively, when they handle your line 
of products ? 

Tliey handle that exclusively ? 

Mr. Chase. The smaller ones do. There is no requirement by us 
that they handle them exclusively, but the smaller ones do as a mat- 
ter of practice simply because they cannot finance more than one full 
line. The larger distributors, some of them handle several lines. 

The Chairman. But some of the distributors spend money adver- 
tising, building up trade for the product? 

Mr. Chase. That is right, and they have done that over a period of 
years. They have identified their name and their goodwill with that 
of the Kohler Co. 

The Chairman. And, of course, if they strike, I mean if the union 
strikes them, puts up a picket line and so forth, it does them great 
harm. 

Mr. Chase. It does. Senator. 

The Chairman. What has been the trouble with plumbers installing 
your equipment by reason of the boycott ? 

Mr. Chase. That has been very spotty. There has been no general 
nationwide pattern of that, but some local plumbers' unions have 
engaged in that sort of thing. There is no overall pattern nationally 
of that. 

The Chairman. Are you having any serious trouble getting your 
equipment installed anywhere in the country ? 

Mr. Chase. We have in a few places. 

The Chairman. How many ? What would you say ? 

Mr. Chase. Perhaps two dozen in varying degrees, not continu- 
ously but here and there and off and on. 

The Chairman. Tliroughout the United States, you have a prob- 
lem, maybe, in two dozen difi'erent places? 

Mr. Chase. Probably about that number. 

The Chairman. And some of that, as you say, varies in degree? 

Mr. Chase. That is right. It varies from time to time and from 
place to place. 

The Chairman. I don't know how much money has been spent on 
this boycott elfort, but as I understood you to say this morning in 
your testimony, as a result of the boycott it lias evoked some resent- 
ment in some areas, and, therefore, you have gotten business by rea- 
son of that, from new sources. 

Mr. Chase. Very definitely, Senator. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 9785 

The Chairman. In other words, what would you say by way of 
comparison, tliat you have gotten more business from new sources by 
reason of the boycott and the resentment that it may liave buih, up 
in some people, than you lost by reason of the boycott effort? 

Mr. Chase. That is my opinion. Senator. 

It is difficult to measure, but I feel that way. 

The Chairman. In other words, then, when we sum it up, notwith- 
standing the boycott, liowever extensive the effort has been to apply 
it, and notwithstanding the amount spent on it, and notwithstanding 
whether it is a primary or a secondary, kind of a boycott or both, you 
feel that the company has profited just as much from the boycott as it 
has lost? 

Mr. Chase. I think the company has, but, again, with reference to 
our customers, some of them have been badly hurt. 

The Chairman. The company in the overall has not lost by reason 
of it, but individual customers, distributors, who are innocent in the 
controversy, who are not parties to the controversy, who are just simply 
distributors selling the product, they have been hurt? 

Mr. Chase, That is exactly the point. Senator. 

The Chairman. What is your remedy for this situation? While 
your company survives it, I feel reasonably sure I have made the 
statement, and would you agree, your company has been able to survive 
these strikes, the mass picketing and the boycotting and the other 
means or tactics employed by the union, and go on operating normally, 
making money, without getting hurt. 

"Wliat .would you say would happen to a company of less financial 
resources to meet up with the same pattern of pressures, whether legal 
or illegal? Let's just say the same type of pressure. Would they be 
able to combat it ? 

Mr. Chase. They would liave a very difficult time. Senator. And 
even more than the amount of financial resources is the question of ac- 
ceptability of the product in the market. 

The Chairman. The what? 

Mr. Chase. Acceptability in the market. How widely known and 
how well established is tlie line. How much demand is there for the 
product ? 

A small company which hasn't developed a national demand for its 
product, which doesn't have extensive resources, would have a most 
difficult time if faced with this kind of a threat. 

The Chairman. The purpose of my question is to try to get some 
facts on the record so that we can evaluate it with respect to whether 
legislation should be directed at the type of boycott or the practices 
that have prevailed here in this boycott in order to protect businesses 
and to protect the public. 

Mr. Chase. I feel very strongly that when the battle goes beyond 
the immediate contestants in the arena, that it has gone too far. 

I think that neutrals, these third parties, are not only the principal 
victims but the ones most in need of protection. 

As soon as the effort goes beyond mere voluntary persuasion, the 
"Please, wouldn't you help us" sort of thing, it has gone too far. 

The Chairman. We are getting down, I hope, near to the end of 
these hearings, and I hope we can conclude this week, but I would like 
to ask 3'ou one other question. 



9786 IMPROPER ACTIVITIEfS IN THE LABOR FIELD 

I would like to get both sides to comment on it, the proper repre- 
sentatives. Do you feel that you have won the strike and that you 
survived the boycott, and that now there is nothing else for you to be 
concerned about with respect to collective bargaining with the union ? 

Mr. Chase. Collective bargaining doesn't fall within my province. 
Mr. Conger has cliarge of labor relations. My area of interest is every- 
thing else. I would rather have him answer that. 

The Chairman. I will ask Mr. Conger the question. Do you feel 
now you have won the strike and there is no necessity for you to 
further bargain with the union ? 

Mr. Conger. The answer to the first half I think would be "Yes," 
and the answer to the second half would be "No." We are always 
willing to entertain the idea of settlement of the strike. We would 
certainly like to see the thing wiped out if there is any reasonable 
means of doing so. 

Plowever, any settlement that we might make on that would have 
to take into consideration the rights of our employees. 

The Chairman. There is one other thing that I am unable to rec- 
oncile in your position, Mr. Conger, and that is you take the position 
that you will not bargain, or you feel like you shouldn't bargain, with 
a union that does not represent a majority of your employees. 

And you have taken the position, and I understand it is an issue 
now before the National Labor Relations Board, that the UAW no 
longer represents a majority of your employees. 

I don't understand how you can anticipate any negotiation or settle- 
ment until that first question is resolved, as to whether they do or don't. 

Mr. Conger. Certainly no settlement that would envision a con- 
tract. Senator. However, the 1934 strike has been referred to many 
times here. That strike was settled with a committee from the A. F. 
of L., and settlement was readied, although they did not represent a 
majority of our employees. But the settlement did not include a 
contract. 

The Chairman. As I see, tlien, you would be willing to negotiate 
with respect to settling the strike ? 

Mr. Conger. That is correct. 

The Chairman. But you will not negotiate with respect to a con- 
tract until it is established that they represent a majority? 

Mr. Conger. That is correct. 

The Chairman. Is that your position ? 

Mr. Conger. That is correct, Senator. 

The Chairman. I am trying to get it clear on the record. 

Mr. Conger. I think that is a very good statement of it. 

The Chairman. Are there any questions, Senator ? 

Senator Curtis. I have 2 or 3. Has the witness finished ? 

Mr. Chase. No, sir. 

The Chairman. I am sorry. I beg your pardon. I thought you 
had finished. All right, proceed. 

Mr. Chase. I think what I said was we had finished that phase of 
the boycotting. 

The Chairman. I was laboring under the impression that you had 
concluded. Go ahead. 

Mr. Chase. At the close of the morning session, Mr. Desmond was 
giving his eyewitness account of two instances of following trucks, 
one to a jobber's place of business and the other to a contractor's. I 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 9787 

would like to point out that in the case of the contractor, lie was 
twice removed from us. 

He wasn't our direct customer. He was our customer's customer. 
In my statement, in my prepared statement, there are two other in- 
stances of that. There is the Reupert Plumbing Co., of Milwaukee, 
and the instance is covered on page 13 of my prepared statement, 
where the contractor, Reupert Plumbing & Appliance Co., was afraid 
to take in the material that was being delivered by our truck because 
of the threatening conduct of the j)ickets, and the truckmen took the 
products to our jobbers' place of business where he would pick it 
up later. 

On page 17 of my prepared statement, I referred to another in- 
stance of picketing on this second level down, South Side Hardware 
Co. in Sheboygan. There, too, the place being picketed was not our 
customer's place of business, but his customer's place of business. 

We also refer on the same page to a truck of the Decker Truck 
Lines that was followed all the way to Sioux Falls, S. Dak., from 
Sheboygan, which is quite a ways for a truck to be followed. 

This picketing, this following of trucks and the picketing of Kohler 
trucks, was not the only picketing of third parties by the United Auto 
Workers. There was the case of the Hartshorn Bros., Bellflower, 
Calif., in the vicinity of Los Angeles. Hartshorn Bros, are plumbing 
contractors. None of their employees belong to the United Auto 
Workers, and there was no labor dispute there. 

In the fall of 1956, someone who identified himself as a UAW 
representative asked Hartshorn to go along with the boycott, and 
they refused. 

Then early in tlie spring of 1957 there were two pickets appeared at 
Hartshorn Bros., and the next day they were joined by another. 

These were pickets who had picketed the Kohler Co. showroom in 
Los Angeles. 

The interesting thing there is, I think, first of all, that Kohler Co. 
did have a place of business in Los Angeles which could have been 
picketed; they didn't have to picket the customer to get at Kohler 
Co. even if the argument were to be made that that sort of thing was 
legal. 

I don't think it is, but even if the argument was made, there was 
a Kohler Co. place of business in Los Angeles which could have 
been picketed. 

Well, they picketed back and forth across an alley that was used 
by truckdrivers coming to pick up material, not only Kohler mate- 
rial, but everything that Hartshorn handles, which was used by 
Hartshorn workers. That went on for several days. 

We consulted with Hartshorn Bros, on it, and Hartshorn filed 
charges before the NLRB, the regional office in Los Angeles, and 
that was one of the so-called settlements that the UAW made. 

They agreed to discontinue the picketing, and a settlement order 
was entered to that effect. They had to post a notice, and that sort 
of thing. 

That was one case where legal action was taken. Another was the 
Link Co. at Jackson, Mich. 

In December of 1956, 4 men, 1 of whom was John Archambeault of 
Detroit, a UAW-CIO international representative in charge of the 
boycott in that area. 



'9788 JIVIPROPER ACTIVITIHS IX THE LABO'R FIELD 

They asked Mr. Link to discontinue handling Kohler products, some 
threats were made, and he refused to do it. 

A phimbing contractor, a customer of Link's, Paul Bengel, was 
called to the union hall, where John Archambeault, of the UAW, 
and Mr. Brannick, who is journeymen plumbers local officer, and sev- 
eral others confronted Mr. Bengel with crossing the Link picket line. 

I think that came a little later. They confronted him with install- 
ing Kohler fixtures. Mr. Archambeault said, "If Bengel sets Kohler 
fixtures, we will have to picket Bengel 's place of business.' 

Bengel replied that he didn't want any trouble, and another union 
man there said that he didn't want anybody to get hurt. 

Then a few days later, Bengel was called down to the CIO hall 
again. He found these same men there. Mr. Archambeault suggested 
a compromise, that Mr. Bengel be permitted to install Kohler fix- 
tures in one job, some Kohler fixtures, if he would use another make 
of lavatories. It was a horse trade. As you will see a little later, 
that was rather typical of Mr. Archambeault's approach. 

He would get part of the pie. Mr. Archambeault said, "You are 
going to hear bout this Link Co. deal later on, because we talked to 
Chuck Link and he was quite arrogant." 

What he meant, of course, was that Mr. Link refused to support the 
boycott. Then on January 11, 1956, two pickets appeared in front 
of the Link Co. and they were then joined by John Archambeault 
of the UAW. At a meeting of the journeymen plumbers local a list 
of of the people who had crossed the Link picket line was read off, and 
some were taken to task. 

Then the Link Co., after some consultation, started an action in 
the circuit court for an injunction, which was granted. 

Then because of some doubt as to the legality of that injunction 
imder the Federal preemption doctrine, proceedings were begun be- 
fore the NLKB. 

Charges were filed with the regional office in Detroit. And, again, 
the proceedings ended in a consent order. 

The UAW was not made a defendant in that proceedings because at 
the time the case was filed, it was not known that Mr. Archambeault 
w^as the one who played the role that lie did. That was ascertained 
later. We have one exhibit here which establishes Mr. Archambeault's 
participation. 

It is the Michigan CIO News, Jackson Count v edition, for January 
24,1957. 

The Chairman. That may be made exhibit 115. 

(The document referred' to was marked "Exhibit No. 115" for 
I'eference and may be found in the files of the Select Committee.) 

Mr. Chase. It tells of the boycott of the Link Co. It refers to Leo 
Brannick, tlie Journeymen Plumbers business agent. Then it gets 
down to John Archambeault, and identifies his participation by name, 

A similar instance occurred at Springfield, 111., in the case of Booth 
and Thomas, Kohler distributors there. 

In September of 1956, a Mr. John Collins, a UAW representative 
from Chicago, and a Mr. Francis Smith, the president of the UAW 
Local in Springfield, called on Booth and Thomas. Mr. Collins 
hajided Mr. Thomas a form letter, which he requested him to send to 
the Kohler Co., asking the Koliler Co. to give in to the UAW. He said 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 9789 

that a lot of similar letters were being solicited, and the purpose was 
to force the company, the Kohler Co. to give in. Mr. Collins told Mr. 
Tliomas that if he didn't write the letter, his place of business would 
probably be picketed. And when Mr. Thomas 

The Chairman. A lot of this is hearsay testimony on your part, 
isn't it ? 

Mr. Chase. It is hearsa}^ as far as my personal knowledge is con- 
cerned, except that these things were reported to me. 

They were tlie basis of action by me in cooperation with these 
customers. 

Tlie Chairman. I just wanted to get that pohit corrected in the 
record. You are testifying to a great deal of things here that have 
been reported to you in the course of this boycott fight ? 

Mr. ChxVSe. They have been reported to me in the course of business, 
and I liave worked with that information and relied on it in taking 
action with respect to it. 

The Chairman. And at times where there is hearsay or something, 
you have had it confirmed by contact with people who actually knew 
the facts ? 

Mr. Chase. In my prepared statement I indicated the source. 

Mr. Thomas refused to send this letter to Kohler Co., which Mr. 
Collins, the UAW representative insisted on, and true to Mr. Collins' 
threat or promise, as you please. Booth and Thomas was picketed, com- 
mencing on the morning of September 17, 1956. 

We have here, which I would like to offer as an exhibit, a copy of a 
letter which Mr. Thomas sent to his two Senators, Senators Dirksen 
and Douglas of Illinois, and his CongTessman, Peter Mack. This one 
happens to be the one to Congressman Mack, in which he gives his 
account of that instance. 

The Chairman. That may be made exhibit 116, for reference only. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit 116" for reference 
and may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

Mr. Chase. I have another exhibit, the Springfield UAW Broad- 
caster of September 1956, which shows the pickets in front of the 
Booth and Thomas place of business. It also shows right next to it 
UAW representatives taking down a Kohler sign from the front of 
a plumber's place of business close by Booth and Thomas. 

The Chairman. That paper may be made exhibit 117 for reference. 

(The document referred to was marked ''Exhibit 117" for reference 
and may be found in the files of the select committee. ) 

Mr. Chase. Xo legal action was instituted in the Springfield case, 
because the picketing soon stopped. I may say this, I may inter- 
pose it here, that our attitude toward litigation throughout the boy- 
cott has been that it is a last resort. 

We don't start litigation to punish someone vindictively for what 
has happened. 

Any action we take by way of litigation or otherwise in connection 
with the boycott is geared to the future. We are interested in the 
next job, not the last one. And if we can clear up a situation per- 
suasively and without litigation, we do it. 

(At this point, the following members were present: Senators 
McClellan and Curtis.) 



9790 IIMPROPER ACriVITIEIS IN THE LABO'R FIELD 

The Chairman. I think it has been indicated liere in previous testi- 
mony that they have stopped this boycotting or picketing and so forth 
of your distributors ; is that true or not ? 

Mr. Chase. I think that testimony, Senator, was Avith reference to 
the following of trucks. 

The Chairman, I know they stopped that, and I understood they 
had stopped this picketing and so forth of the distributors. Am I 
correct or am I in error ? 

Mr. Chase. There has been no very recent instance of it, I mean 
within the last few months. We never know when they have stopped 
something because it may start again. There has been none within 
the last few months. 

The Chairman. The Chair would make note of the fact that I 
have just received a news release, and you said we never know when 
something is going to start. 

I thought vandalism stopped out there, but I find here that a 
couple of witnesses who testified a day or two ago here, one of them 
who testified here has had liis picture window broken again, and 
something thrown through it, and another instance where they threw 
and missed the window and hit the house. So maybe you are going 
to have some more vandalism out there. 

Mr. Chase. We have never been sure when anything stops. Now, 
in the case of Booth and Thomas, the effect of that picketing continued 
long after the picketing stopped. Mr. Thomas so states in the letter 
which has been put in evidence. 

Another Instance of a little different twist was St. Luke's Hospital in Mil- 
waukee. That was ostensibly a case of citizen picketing as they call it. The 
pickets ostensibly were not representing any union, and they were just a lot 
of irate citizens who happened to get there together some morning, all equipped 
with signs, and how it happened nobody knew, and they were just citizens. 

The trustees of St. Luke's Hospital had specifically requested the architect to 
specify Kohler fixtures, and he had done so, and the plumbing contractor, the 
Knab Co. had purchased the fixtures, and was prepared to install them. 

In September of 19.56, according to information from the Knab Co., Mr. An- 
thony King, the business manager of plumbers local 75 in Milwaukee told Knab 
Co.'s superintendent, Mr. Sharp, that if Kohler material were used on the St. 
Luke's Hospital, he would prevent it even if it meant breaking the Knab Co. 
That was Knab Co.'s report to us. 

On October 12. Mr. Knab requested journeymen members for that job, and he 
was informed by Mr. King that none were available to install Kohler fixtures. 
Then on October 15, the citizen pickets appeared at St. Luke's. They claimed to 
have no connection with any union. 

Curiously, although this was ostensibly not a union picket line, the union build- 
ing tradesmen refused to cross it. It seemed to us that if it were not a union 
picket line, it should have made no difference to them. Anyway, they crossed it. 

On Octoiter 19, at a meeting of the citizens pickets was held at Club Orio in 
Milwaukee according to the Milwaukee Journal of October 20, 1956. Raymond 
Majerus, UAW International representative addressing the meeting, and playing 
a prominent part. 

The Knab Co.'s own journeymen plumbers were perfectly willing to return to 
the hospital and go on working provided there were no pickets there, and pro- 
vided there would be no restraint by their own union. On October 31, the hos- 
pital siied these citizen pickets, taking them at their word that they were not 
union men and therefore not entitled to the protection of he labor laws, and 
just a lot of citizens, officious intermeddlers conspiring to interfere with the 
lawful business of the hospital, which is an offense under the statutes of the 
State of Wisconsin. 

Immediately after that, the next day in fact, the general contractor negotiated 
an armistice for "emergenc.v work" in order to prevent damage to the building, 
and all of the building tradesmen except the journeymen plumbers went back 
to work. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 9791 

Mr. Knab was told by Mr. King that he had looked over the job and he could 
find no plumbing work which needed doing. A couple of days later, however, 
without any further conversation with Mr. Knab, a journeyman plumber and 
apprentice showed up and went to work. 

These citizen pickets who were made defendants in this lawsuit by St. Luke's 
Hospital were examined adversely under oath, under the discovery statutes of 
the State, and they all took the Wisconsin equivalent of the 5th amendment. 
The matter was referred to the circuit court for a contempt citation, and the case 
stands right there. 

Now, there were no further developments at the hospital building site, and 
the 20-day armistice expired, and the construction went right on and the Kohler 
fixtures were sent and the hospital is in operation. 

Senator Curtis. Might I ask a question right there. These people 
wlio declined to testify, were they residents of the area ? 

Mr. Chase. They were residents of Milwaukee ; yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. That is all. 

Mr. Chase. Now, the intimidation of customers has taken other 
forms. We feel that any visit by a union representative to a distrib- 
utor or plumbing contractor, or journeyman plumber or architect or 
builder and owner has an intimidating effect. 

You cannot isolate the conversation that is used from the whole 
context in which these people do business. Most people, as I indicated 
earlier, resent the implications of this sort of threat and they resist it, 
but some succumb to it. 

I have, in my prepared statement, some examples of that. At At- 
lanta, Ga., just last May, Thomas Starling, the Atlanta UAW repre- 
sentative, called on a Kohler distributor, not just 1, but 3 as a matter 
of fact, and threatened to put them out of business if they continued 
handling Kohler products. 

Xow, he later claimed that he wasn't making a threat, he was merely 
predicting what would follow as a natural consequence of their con- 
duct. But the threat was made. In one case it was made to a woman 
who is the president of the business. 

In Chicago, Peter Gasser, one of the Kohler strikers who was em- 
ployed bj' the UAW now as a boycott promoter, was accompanied by 
Elmer Gross, another striker, and during the spring of 1957 Mr, 
Gasser repeatedly teleplioned a plumbing contractor by the name of 
Albert Bower and his wife, using very crude language, and they be- 
came quite frightened. 

In May of 1957 Mr. Gasser called on John Fairbairn, a mechanical 
engineer, and this partly answers one of your questions. Senator Mc- 
Clellan. AVhen Mr. Fairbairn was told by Mr. Gasser that he might 
encounter construction difficulties if he used Kohler products, Mr. 
Fairbairn told Gasser he intended to continue and he was quite in- 
dignant at the interference. 

The same thing happened in the case of a Bell Telephone building at 
Barrington, 111., where Gasser phoned Eobert Richey, the Chicago 
architect, and told him that the use of Kohler fixtures might slow up 
completion of the job. 

He also told that to the plumbing contractor, and both of them stood 
their ground and no trouble ensued. 

I will say this, that almost without exception where a plumbing 
contractor takes a strong stand and says, "I am going to run my own 
business," no trouble does follow. It is the contractor who is just a 
little timid, and doesn't feel that he can quite take the risk and backs 
iiAvav from it who has the trouble. 



9792 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

There were several oihev instances reported. There is the case of 
the Shukis builders where Peter Gasser 

The Chairman. All of these are covered in your prepared state- 
ment, Mr. Chase ? 

Mr. Chase. They are so far ; yes, sir. 

The Chairman. I am not going to limit your testimony at all, but 
I think we would have been probably expediting it by just letting you 
read your prepared statement to start with. 

Mr. Chase. 1 am abbreviating it considerably, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. All right, go ahead. 

Mr. Chase. There was an instance at Wilmette, 111., where Peter 
Gasser visited a job and gave journeymen plumbers the impression he 
was from the journeymen plumbers' union. They called him on it 
and he admitted he wasn't and that job was completed. 

In Detroit this same John Archambault, international representa- 
tive about whom I have testified a little earlier, called on several 
Kohler customers, Linwood Paper & Supply Co., and Andrews, and 
Anderson, and Warren, all Kohler distributors and told them muck 
the same thing, that they were tracing every Kohler truckload, and 
they knew the contents and they knew where it was going, and they 
were going to follow up with architects and builders and owners and 
just anybody at all, and make it very, very difficult for these distribu- 
tors to handle Kohler products. 

Mr. Mazey came into the picture in connection with a Kohler elec- 
tric plant distributor, who was showing his Kohlerware at a boat 
show, and Emil Mazey and Donald Rand put considerable pressure on 
this company to discontinue handling Kohler, and even threatened 
picketing the display. 

At Phoenix, Ariz., a UAW representative by the name of Nicholas 
Dragan, accompanied by two others, called on Phoenix Pipe & Supply 
Co., a Kohler distributor, and said they were going to make every 
possible effort to stop the sale of Kohlerware in Arizona. There again 
they said they were tracing each car leaving the Kohler plant, and 
w^ould call on architects, builders, and others, and so on. 

At Port Washington, Wis., in May of 1955, Emil Mazey and Robert 
Burkhart of the UAW called on the school board and told them they 
had better not install Kohler fixtures in the new school that was being 
built. 

The following October, vandals caused extensive damage to the 
gymnasium, water damage, and union spokesman publicly denied re- 
sponsibility. We don't know whether they were or not. 

Now, there is another type of activity which I just referred to briefly, 
and it is not covered in my prepared statement, and that is this matter 
of tracing cars. I would like to offer two exhibits in connection with 
this : The first is a copy of a form letter which Donald Rand sent out 
to unions all over the country, and I will read just the pertinent 
sentences : 

On the attached list of known Kohler Co. distributors there is designated the 
number of railroad car shipments which were recently made to these companies. 
Will you kindly check the distributors in your area and find out why they have 
purchased goods which are on the unfair list of the AFL-CIO? 

Now the significant thing about that is that no one can determine 
from the outside of one of these boxcars where it is going, and there- 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 9793^ 

is nothing to indicate it. There must be a confidential source of infor- 
mation, either in the Kohler Co. or in the railroad office. 

Another exhibit, part of the same progi^am is a mimeographed sheet 
which was distributed by UAW, Local 833, Sheboygan. In general 
it calls for a boycott of Kohler products, and soliciting the aid of union 
members in stopping the sale of Kohler products by the Kohler distrib- 
utor whose name in each case has been typed on the mimeographed 
sheet. In this case it is the Glick Supply Co., of Marshalltown, Iowa. 
At the bottom of the sheet is this statement : 

Note. — Above information should be used with good judgment, otherwise we 
may jeopardize our confidential source. 

We offer that in evidence. 

The Chairman. Those may be made exhibits Nos. 118 and 119. 

(Documents referred to were marked "Exhibits Nos. 118 and 119,'^ 
respectively, for reference, and may be found in the files of the select 
committee.) 

The Chairman. Let us move along as fast as we can. 

Mr. Chase. To return again to the journeymen plumbers, they are 
the mechanics, of course, who install plumbing fixtures, and they are 
employed by plumbing contractors. There has been indication from 
time to time of UAW efforts to enlist the journeymen plumbers in the 
boycott effort. I may say that we have no evidence that the journey- 
men plumbers' international has instituted any secondary boycott, and 
we have no evidencce on the international level. 

According to newspapers in 1954, they approached the late Martin 
Durkin and tried to enlist his help, and he refused, saying, "We never 
do that." 

In December of 1955, immediately after Peter Schoemann was 
elected general president of the journeymen plumbers, he gave the 
UAW a letter in general support of the boycott but the letter con- 
tained the caution which appears at top of page 29 of my prepared 
statement, and I would like to read it for the record, just that one 
paragraph. 

I caution you, however, that during the course of your employment you must 
handle and install all Kohler products. If you should refuse to handle and 
install Kohler products on the job, such actions would be a secondary boycott 
in violation of the Taft-Hartley Act and other State laws. Likewise, you can- 
not and must not request employees of other employers not to handle and install 
Kohler products during the course of their employment. 

The international's actions have been pretty much consistent, I be- 
lieve, with that paragraph. 

Just last spring the striking local, in explaining to their members 
why journeymen plumbers could not assist with the boycott, included 
this statement in the Kolerian, their weekly paper, of April 5, 1957 : 

If the plumbers union were to refuse to install, it would be a violation of the 
Taft-Hartley Act secondary boycott provisions. A plumber as an individual can 
refuse to install Kohler but if he gets fired for it there is nothing his union can 
do for him. 

Well, that is pretty good advice. But we believe that under the 
doctrine of the Genuine Parts case handed down by the NLRB late 
last fall, if a union advises its members that they don't have to install 
in a context where the advice is pretty much understood to be a di- 
rection that they follow it, that would be a violation of the Taft- 
Hartley Act. 



9794 IMPROPER ACTIVITIEIS IN THE LABOR FIELD 

We think it could be termed a concerted individual refusal. Those 
of us who have some little familiarity with the antitrust laws hear 
of the doctrine of conscious parallelism. I think that this concerted 
individual refusal is akin to conscious parallelism. 

They are individually doino; the same thino; in concert. A number 
of plumber's locals have not followed that advice, and have gone off 
the deep end of this boycott business, the secondary boycott sort of 
activity. I testified a little earlier that that might reach as many as a 
dozen or two dozen cases. One of the more serious localities at one 
time was Atlanta, Ga., where Mr. Starling, the UAW representative, 
is in charge of the boycott effort. 

That started back in August of 1955, when the business agent for 
the local at that time, Mr. Harper, gave the plumbing contractors 90 
days' notice that upon the expiration of the 90 days they would set 
no more Kohler fixtures. 

Mr. Wilkinson, the Kohler Co, plant branch manager, talked to Mr. 
Harper and he said he could not do anything about it because the ac- 
tion had been voted by the local at a meeting and would have to be 
taken up there, and that was confirmed by another spokesman for the 
union. 

After some of this effort to clear up the boycott by persuasion and 
conversation, it did get better, and then late in 1956 the business agents 
of the local went around to the plumbing contractors and told them 
they would encounter costly difficulties if they used Kohler fixtures, 
and a number of contractors became afraid. 

Now, that threat would not have bothered them except in the con- 
text of the union hiring hall. Under the union agreement there, con- 
tractors had to go to the union to get journeymen, and contractors 
knew that if they got in bad with the local they might have a hard 
time getting journeymen. 

That is what gave the threat an ominous term. There was a refusal 
to install, and following that on a Southern Railway job there was 
quite a hassle between the union and the contractor over that, and 
finally they permitted them to go ahead and install the fixtures there 
if we would agree not to use Kohler fixtures on any other jobs. 

He was a young struggling contractor, just getting started on big 
work, and he did not feel that he could resist them. The thing finally 
came to a head in July of 1957 when a union steward on a job sent 
just three fixtures back to the Atlas Supply Co., a Kohler distributor, 
and a registered letter was sent to the steward telling him he would 
be held personally financially responsible for damages in any further 
cases, and we understand that this threat of litigation and other con- 
versation about litigation w^as the subject of long meetings at the 
union hall, and at the present time there are quite a few plumbing 
contractors in Atlanta who are successfully installing Kohler fixtures 
on big operations, but it was a long, hard pull getting that. 

In Detroit, Mich., there is another place where the UAW has suc- 
ceeded in enlisting the support of the journeymen plumbers. There, 
too, there was a hiring hall through which the contractors must get 
their journeymen and while there has been no consistent boycotting by 
the journeymen plumbers of Detroit, there have been a number of 
instances. 

John Archambauld of the UAW addressed a meeting of the build- 
ing trades, urging their cooperation in the boycott in January of 



I 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELiD 9795 

1956; Emil Mazey addressed a meeting of the plumbing contractors 
local and urged them to participate in the boycott. Then in February 
of 1956, just a few days after that, on a job being handled by Me- 
chanical Heat & Cold, plumbing contractors, the journeymen plumbers 
said that they could not install Kohler because of requests by their 
local union. 

Now, we have an exhibit we would like to present in connection with 
this. It is a letter which Donald Kand of the UAW sent out to all of 
the journeymen plumbers in Detroit, and on the letterhead of the De- 
troit local. Mr. Kand's letter is on the letterhead of the Detroit 
local. 

Senator Curtis. Of what local ? 

Mr. Chase. The journeymen plumbers. 

Attached to the letter was a Kohler boycott survey calling for de- 
tailed information on jobs where Kohlerware was being installed, and 
the letter requested the assistance of journeymen plumbers in the 
Kohler boycott effort. 

The Chairman. That may be made Exhibit No. 120. 

(Document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 120" for reference 
and may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

Senator Curtis. May I see that exhibit ? 

(A document was handed to Senator Curtis.) 

Mr. Chase. A plumbing contractor in Detroit had the experience 
in 1956 of having his journeyman plumbers refuse to accept a truck- 
load of Koliler material on a hospital job, and he had 2 other jobs 
going at the time, and he finally made a deal with the business agent 
of the pluniber's local, under which he was able to install Kohler fix- 
tures in 2 of them, but not on the tliird. The fixtures had been bought, 
and arranged for, and the buildings had been roughed in. 

"Roughing in" means the pipes are in the wall to fit these particu- 
lar fixtures, and there would be considerable expense involved in try- 
ing to change all of that. 

x\gain in Detroit, the situation has improved more recently but 
there still are plumbing contractors there who are afraid to risk re- 
taliation by the union if they handle Kohler fixtures. They even 
refuse to tell of their experiences in many cases. 

At Dover, Del., we find another plumber's local which has coop- 
erated closely with the auto workers. In that case we had a large air- 
base hospital. United States Air Force hospital, and over a period of 
time there was considerable difficulty with the business agent, a Mr. 
B.F.Kelley. 

At times he would permit fixtures to be installed for which the 
roughing in was completed, and other times he would just say "No." 

Finally, some Kohler fixtures were installed, and the balance of the 
job was completed with other makes. Mr. Kelley served notice that 
no more Kohler ware would be permitted on the base. 

(At this point the following members were present: Senators 
McClellan, Mundt, Curtis and Gbldwater.) 

Kansas City rather parallels the Atlanta situation in that tlvit has 
strong United Auto Worker locals, which seem to have gained the 
cooperation of the journeymen plumber's local. 

21243— 58— pt. 24 21 



9796 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The plumber's local there also operated a hiring hall through which 
the contractors must get their men, which gives the business agent 
considerable power. 

In 1956, the business agent started threatening the smaller con- 
tractors, if they used Kohler fixtures, and many of them quit, changed 
to other makes. One contractor, a Mr. Paul Lovell, sent a truck- 
load back, after receiving a phone call from the business agent there 
and being told that he might have trouble installing Kohler fixtures 
if he tried to go ahead, he might have trouble getting journeymen. 

Several others had the same experience. As late as October, last 
October, one of the plumbing contractors who had a job just out of 
Kansas City, at Fort Leavenworth, a junior high school job, phoned 
the business agent, Mr. Gonnan, for clearance on using Kohler fix- 
tures, and the contractor was told by the union office that Kohler 
fixtures were listed as not to be used throughout the country, and 
that local 8 didn't allow Kohler fixtures to be installed anywhere. 

The plumbing contractor changed to another brand. I referred 
earlier to the Hartshorn Bros, picketing, the picketing of the Hart- 
shorn Bros., a plumbing contractor in the Los Angeles area, and 
Hartshorn had other trouble in the San Fernando Valley, where local 
761 of the journeymen members had jurisdiction. This seemed to 
be a pretty tough local. They made it very, very difficult for anyone 
to handle Kohler fixtures in that area. 

There was a Palmdale housing project on which Ray Hackney 
Plumbing had the contract. 

There, one of the business agents, according to Mr. Hackney, threat- 
ened to damage the fixtures if he installed Kohler. He talked about 
a blow torch, about a hammer, about dropping a hammer, and all 
that sort of thing. Wliether the threat was a serious one or not, 
nobody knows, but the contractor was caused to cancel the order 
and return the fixtures that had been delivered to the jobbing house. 

Milwaukee is pretty close to home, as far as we are concerned, and 
there the business manager of local 75 is Mr. Anthony King. 

Local 75 has a hiring hall where the contractors must go for their 
journeymen, and the feeling in Milwaukee, as it has been reported 
to me is that a noncooperating plumbing contractor may get no jour- 
neymen and a noncooperating journeyman may get no work. 

During the fall of 1956 the boycott in Milwaukee by local 75 was 
especialy active. 

I would like to offer in evidence at this time a bulletin of local 75. 

The Chairman. That may be made exhibit 121. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 121" for ref- 
erence and may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

Mr. Chase. It is local 75's bulletin of September 1956, which con- 
tains this paragraph, the next to the last paragraph of the bulletin, 
and I will read just the one paragraph : 

State Federation of Labor in convention August 23 adopted a resolution of ac- 
tive support of the Kohler strikers. Members of organized labor were called upon 
to do all in their power to influence people against the purchase of Kohler 
plumbing fixtures. It was pointed out that individual members of organized 
labor have a right to refuse to handle Kohler plumbing ware, and that they 
cannot be prosecuted for doing so. Quite a number of our members have 
informed their employers that they will not install Kohler fixtures, and are 
refusing to do so. Our attorney informs us that such action on the part of 
members is legal. As a citizen of this community, I wish to express my sincere 
admiration of those who are in this manner assisting the Kohler strikers. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 9797 

The next bulletin of that local, 75, on October 1956, we would also 
like to offer. 

The Chairman. We will make that exhibit 121A, since it is along 
the same line. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 121 A" for 
reference, and may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

Mr. Chase. I will read just one portion of exhibit 121A. 

The A. F. of L., the UA Association, the A. F. of L. State Federation of 
Labor, and our local Federated Trades Council, at their recent conventions,, 
have all gone on record by resolution to support the Kohler strikers. Yet some 
people seem to think that our members should be indifferent about the Kohler 
situation. People who do not belong to labor unions don't seem to understand 
the fealty one union extends to another. 

The security of the labor movement is dependent upon the loyal support its 
individual members will render to other members who find themselves in dis- 
tress. Recently two more of our brothers working for the plumbing contractor 
who has been awarded the plumbing installation at St. Luke's Hospital quit 
working on the site when they were requested to rough in piping for Kohler 
fixtures. 

They did so voluntarily. At the present time, a group of citizens is picketing: 
the new addition to St. Luke's Hospital. All building-trades men affiliated with 
the Milwaukee building and construction trades council have refused to cross 
the picket line, and the progress of the job came to a standstill. 

Then a third exhibit in this series, illustratinf^ the attitude of busi- 
ness agent of local 75, is an item in the Milwaukee Sentinel of Friday, 
October 19, 1956, which quotes Mr. King. 

The Chairman. That may be made exhibit 122. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 122," for 
reference, and may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

Mr. Chase. King — 

pointed out that individual union men, as members of organizations on record 
in support of the boycott have strong feelings over the fact that money con- 
tributed to the hospital project by labor through the united hospital fund is 
being used to purchase Kohler products. 

I may say that in Milwaukee they also threatened to boycott the 
community fund. 

I will continue the quote. 

"Under the law, we business representatives can't tell any one he can't go 
through a picket line," King said. "But we can tell him what we would do — 
as individuals — if we were confronted with the same situation. That's all we 
can do legally. 

"We don't want to get into any legal entanglements." 

When members of his union called for advice, King said he advised them to 
use their own judgment, and then adds that he, as an individual, would honor 
such a picket line. 

"Not many of our men call our office," King said. "They are informed. They 
know what's expected of a union man." 

It is our belief that under the doctrine of the Genuine Parts case, 
this exhortation to individual action, coupled with the power which the 
writer of the bulletin has through the hiring hall and the control over 
the jobs of his members, actually constitutes inducing and encourag- 
ing within the intent of the Taft-Hartley Act. 

We think that that is a good example of concerted individual re- 
fusal. This policy was carried out all through the months when these 
bulletins were appearing. At the Mitchell Air Base job in Mil- 
waukee 



9798 IMPROPER ACTIVITIEIS IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Mundt. Before you leave the Milwaukee case, the St. Luke's 
Hospital — are you still on St. Luke's Hosj^ital ? 

Mr. Chase. I covered St. Luke's Hospital while you were out, 
Senator. I will be glad to return to it right now. 

Senator Mundt. I am curious about one paragraph, and I want to 
ask you a question about it. If you have covered it, you can so state 
and need not repeat the ground. 

On page 21 of your statement, I find this paragraph, under the 
heading St. Luke's Hospital, Milwaukee, Wis. 

While this was ostensibly a case of spontaneous "citizens picketing" by volun- 
teers, Raymond Majerus, UAW international representative, was active in 
organizing it. 

Have you ^one into that particular phase? 

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

Mr. Chase. I did. Senator, and I put in evidence an exhibit, at 
least I referred to it, a meeting of the citizen pickets held at a tavern, 
(lie Club Orlo in Milwaukee, which was addressed by this Raymond 
Majerus. 

Mr. Majerus also called on officers of the hospital with respect to 
this. He was very active in connection with it all the way through. 
It was ostensibly just a bunch of citizens, but the UAW seemed to 
have a considerable preoccupation with it. 

Senator Mundt. I think that is particularly significant. If you 
have the documentation put in as an exhibit, that is fine, because it 
runs contrary to earlier testimony we had had from some of the union 
officials and from the coordinator of the boycott activities in Sheboy- 
gan, which indicated that the UAW, per se, was not trying to bring 
about the picketing which was construed to be illegal. 

Mr. Chase. I find that we did not introduce that exhibit. I re- 
ferred to it but did not introduce it. 

Senator Mundt. I think we should have it in the record if you have 
it available, because this is a very key aspect of the whole thing, if 
citizens spontaneously decide to picket a place, we certainly don't 
want to hold the UAW responsible for something that they didn't 
instigate. 

But on the other hand, if the UAW international representative, 
Mr. Majerus, instigated it, that is a horse of an altogether different 
color, and we would like to have the evidence of whatever it is. 

Mr. Chase. This is a clipping from the Milwaukee Journal of 
October 20, 1956, regarding this meeting at Club Orlo, this tavern 
which was addressed by Mr. Majerus. I have seen in the hearing 
room the Knab Co.'s superintendent who handled these jobs, the St. 
Luke's Hospital and the Mitchell Field job. I presume he is going to 
testify. 

He can probably tell you, if he does, of his conversations with Mr. 
Majerus with respect to this very same job. 

Senator Mundt. Wliat is that gentleman's name ? 

Mr. Chase. The witness I have seen in the courtroom is Mr. 
Sharpe, who was superintendent of the Knab Co. 

Senator Mundt. Is Mr. Sharpe going to be a witness? 

Mr. Kennedy. He is. 

Could I just clarify this ? 

You state that Mr. Majerus organized this so-called spontaneous 
picketing ? 



I 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 9799 

Mr. Chase. Yes, we think he did. 

Mr. Kennedy. Excuse me ? 

Mr. Chase. We think he did. 

Mr. Kennedy. You said, "While this was ostensibly a case, he was 
active in organizing it." 

Was he, in fact, active in organizing it? 

Mr. Chase. We think he was from the circumstantial evidence, 
which has come to us, this Club Orlo appearance the conversations he 
had with the St. Luke's Hospital people in advance of the pickets 
appearing, 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you have any information other than the con- 
versations that he had, which these witnesses will testify to, that he 
was actually active in organizing the picketing, which is what Sena- 
tor Mundt was asking you about, and which you state here in your 
statement at page 21 ? Do you actually have any facts that he was 
active in organizing? 

Mr. Chase. That is inferred from the facts that I have stated. 

Mr. Kennedy. I interviewed Mr. Sharpe, and it might very well be 
that he did do that. But I don't know of any 

Mr. Chase. I have no direct evidence that Mr. Majerus organized 
this citizen picketing. The citizen pickets themselves took the Wiscon- 
sin equivalent of the fifth amendment when they were asked about this, 
or perhaps that would have come out. We have no direct evidence 
beyond what I have stated here. 

The Chairman. What do you mean by the equivalent of the fifth 
amendment? I don't understand the Wisconsin equivalent? 

Mr. Chase. Under the State law, witnesses have certain rights which 
parallel those of the fifth amendment. 

The Chairman. They still have the fifth amendment right, in State, 
municipal, county, any tribunal. 

Mr. Chase. They have the fifth amendment and they have in addi- 
tion to it the parallel provisions of the Wisconsin laws. They have 
both. 

The Chairman. I don't think a State provision in its constitution 
could add anything to the Federal. 

Mr. Chase. I don't think it adds anything. The point is that they 
refused to testify. 

The Chairman. In effect, they took the fifth amendment and took it 
under a different name, under the State law ? 

Mr. Chase. Exactly. 

The Chairman. Tliat is what it amounts to? 

Mr. Chase. Yes. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Mr. Chase. They refused to testify on constitutional grounds. 

The Chairman. You used that expression 2 or 3 times. 

Mr. Chase. I used it because they didn't make specific reference to 
the fifth amendment. 

The Chairman. But they made reference to the State provision ; is 
that correct? 

Mr. Chase. That is correct. 

Senator Mundt. Have you seen a transcript of those proceedings, or 
were you there and can you tell us the nature of the questions on which 
they took recourse to the fifth amendment or its Wisconsin equivalent ? 



9800 IMPROPER ACTIVITIEIS IX THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Chase. I did not see the transcript. I was told that by the attor- 
ney for the hospital, who conducted the examinations, and it was re- 
ported fully in the public ])ress. 

Senator Mundt. Were they asked questions on this instant subject. 
Namely whether or not Mr. Raymond Majerus was active in instigat- 
ing the strike, in organizing it, and whether his activities or the UAW 
had any relationship to their picketing? 

Mr. Chase. They refused to testify with respect to anything per- 
taining to the St. Luke's Hospital job. They were asked who sent 
them there, who arranged for it. I don't know what they were asked 
about Mr. Majerus specifically. 

Senator Mundt. They apparently were asked questions which, had 
they answered them, would have either implicated Mr. Majerus or 
somebody else in the event somebody sent them, if they were asked a 
question of who sent them there. They were asked that question ? 

Mr. Chase. I have the clipping here which I would be happy to 
put in evidence supporting this. 

The refusal was by their attorney. I would like to read these 2 or 3 
paragraphs, and then I will offer this in evidence. 

The Chairman. Offer it now and then read it. 

Mr. Chase. This is a clipping from the Milwaukee Sentinel of 
November 13, 1956. 

The Chairman. That may be made Exhibit No. 123. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 123" for 
reference and may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

The Chairman. Now you may quote from it. 

Mr. Chase (reading) : Their name, age, address, marital and family status 
was the only information two witnesses would give Monday afternoon at a dis- 
covery examination in the recent picketing at St. Luke's Hospital. 

Court Commissioner Walter Schinz said he would certify them for contempt 
of court and the examinations were adjourned pending a court ruling on his 
decision. Edward S. Davis, Sr., 42 — 

the address is given 

Clyde P. Roethe refused to answer on advice of their attorney, Leonard S. 
Zubrensky. 

Lawrence C. Hammond, Jr., hospital attorney, confronted both men with photos 
of the pickets carrying signs protesting installation of Kohler fixtures at the 
$1,700,000 hospital, and asked them to deny they were on the pictures. Both 
men said "I refuse to answer." The witnesses also refused to say where they 
were employed, if they were union members, whether or not they picketed the 
hospital, who hired them to picket, and how much they were paid. Attorney 
Hammond droned through identical questions with both witnesses, who were 
examined separately. After each refusal, Commissioner Schinz murmed, "same 
ruling," referring to his contempt citation. 

Then they went to some earlier witnesses. The section of the Wis- 
consin State Constitution which they cited was article I, section 8 
of the Wisconsin Constitution. 

The Chairman. Are there any further questions ? 

Have you anything further ? 

Mr. Chase. Just a bit more on Milwaukee and that will conclude 
this. I mentioned the Air Force Keserve Training Center at Mitchell 
Field, where two journeymen plumbers refused to install Kohler fix- 
tures, saying that Mr. King had advised them not to. The fixtures 
were installed by the transfer of journeymen plumbers from another 
job. In connection with a dormitory project at Marquette Univer- 
sity, the plumbing contractors, Wenzel & Henoch, were told by a com- 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 9801 

mittee of the Milwaukee Building Trades Council that Kohler fixtures 
were not to be used, and there is again a suggestion that citizen pickets 
would appear if they were used. 

The contractor had a requisition for 6 journeymen plumbers on file 
at the hiring hall for at least 2 months but had not received any men. 

On that job there was no picket line, citizen or otherwise, and Kohler 
fixtures were used. 

(At this point, Senator McClellan withdrew from the hearing 
room.) 

Mr. Chase. Some plumbing contractors in Milwaukee continued 
to be fearful of using Kohler fixtures because of the implications of 
the hiring hall. However, the situation there has vastly improved, 
and it is not nearly what it was. 

Now with regard to the connection of the UAW with this boycot- 
ting in Milwaukee County, we have here, and would like to offer in 
evidence, a letter written by Leo Breirather, the coordinator of the 
boycott for local 833, to all journaymen plumbers in Milwaukee 
County. 

I will offer that at this time. 

Senator Ervin. That will be made an exhibit. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 124" for ref- 
erence and may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

Mr. Chase. After acknowledging what he calls the wonderful sup- 
port received from officers and members of local 75 in the campaign 
to stop Kohler sales in the Milwaukee area, Mr. Breirather says : 

We recognize that many of us have suffered personal hardship by exercising 
your rights as individuals to refuse to install Kohler products. As a result of 
our consumer boycott, Kohler products are now almost nonexistent in Milwaukee 
County. 

We greatly acknowledge the courtesy and cooperation of the officers and 
members of local 75 and Brother Tony King, business manager. 

We believe that that letter, its reference to the refusals to install, 
characterizes the so-called consumer boycott which Mr. Breirather 
mentions in the same paragraph of his letter. 

We think that it indicates the object of the boycott by the UAW in 
Milwaukee County, that the refusals to install were part of that ob- 
ject, and that those activities, including this letter, constituted an 
inducing and encouraging of the journeymen plumbers to refuse to 
handle Kohler fixtures. The last situation to which I would like to 
refer is at Phoenix, Ariz. 

I testified earlier about, I believe, UAW threats to the Phoenix 
Pipe & Supply Co., the Kohler distributor there, of trouble if they 
tried to handle Kohler fixtures, or continued to handle Kohler fix- 
tures. Plumbers local 469 has jurisdiction there. 

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

Mr. Chase. In April of 1957, about 10 Kohler bathtubs were de- 
livered to the Villa del Coronado cooperative apartments in Phoenix 
for installation by the McCullough Plumbing Co., and Mr. McCul- 
lough's employees refused to install plumbing fixtures. He said he 
would go fishing and the others said they would go fishing if Kohler 
fixtures were installed. 

The business agent of the local, Frank Profiri, made the same threat, 
that the men would all go fishing. There, again, I think we have a 



98U2 IMPROPER ACTIVITIEIS IN THE LABQiR FIELD 

good example of this concerted individual action, induced and en- 
couraged by the union. 

There was a partial refusal to install on that job, although a few 
colored Kohler fixtures were installed with the assistance of one owner 
of a cooperative apartment. The whole thing in Phoenix came to a 
head on two school buildings in the Roosevelt School District. The 
plumbers union there, and others, had been making threats to the 
plumbing contractor. Okay Plumbing, that Kohler fixtures were not 
going to go in, that that was to be a showdown. We were prepared 
to meet that sort of a situation. 

Charges were prepared for filing with the NLEB. They were 
never filed because when the fixtures were delivered the threat did 
not materialize, and the fixtures were installed. 

Journeymen, both plumbers and other building trades on the job, 
said that the subject had been discussed extensively at union head- 
quarters, and when it became known that Kohler Co. was preparing 
for legal action, the journeymen plumbers were told not to refuse to 
install the fixtures. That job was completed. Those are a few ex- 
amples of the 2 dozen or so cases where journeymen plumbers around 
the country, journeymen plumbers locals have taken boycott action. 

I don't know how many journeymen plumbers locals there are in 
the United States. There are probably seven or eight hundred, and 
there are about 2 dozen of them that have caused us any trouble. 

That is why we think that the vertical impetus for this is within 
the UAW, and the influence on the journeymen plumbers is at the 
local level. That is just a surmise on our part. I have testified earlier 
as to the effect of the boycott. I would be glad to answer further 
questions on that or anything else. We do believe that we have dem- 
onstrated that a company which wants to take a stand for principles 
in which it believes, and has the resources can do so, can do it success- 
fully. As I testified earlier, a smaller company might have a very, 
very difficult time of it. 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Senator Curtis. 

Senator Curtis. You made reference at one point in your statement 
about truckdrivers and others being frightened. When Mr. John- 
sen was here the other day, who was head of the follow-the-truck 
committee, he made reference at one point to the fact that this truck 
follower that they were following into restaurants, hotels and gasoline 
stations, was scared. 

Did you observe the same thing when you made your foUowup on 
these activities that took place ? 

(At this point, Senators Mundt and Gold water left the hearing 
room.) 

Mr. Chase. Yes. I think that fear was the principal characteristic 
of this boycott. There were not so many instances where a plumbing 
contractor was actually stopped from installing Kohler fixtures. 
There were a great many plumbing contractors who were just afraid 
to take the chance. 

We have been told that by many, many of them. 

Senator Curtis. And has it been the smaller distributor and busi- 
nessman who suffered more in this ? 

Mr. Chase. Very definitely. 

Senator Curtis. Why is that, just briefly ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 9803 

Mr. Chase. Well, taking the distributor level first, the larger dis- 
tributor, first of all, has the resources to be a little more independent 
in running his own business than a smaller one might be. 

Senator Curtis. Does he carry an inventory of several lines ? 

Mr. Chase. Well, he may have, in some cases, some other lines 
which he can supply where the pressure is too great. 

The smaller distributor almost always has just one line, and he 
has identified himself Avith that through his advertising and sales 
promotion over a long period of years, and he has a great deal to 
lose if he changes. 

He has a big investment in goodwill. 

Senator Cuetis. There is one other thing I want to ask you. 

Some of these boycott activities quite apparently are in a cate- 
gory where they are a violation of existing law. 

Some of the acts complained of in the field of boycott are not cov- 
ered by existing law. What do you consider as a typical or a classic 
case of a bovcott that you recite in here that is a violation of existing 
law? 

Mr. Chase. First of all, the cases or the instances where cases were 
actually commenced before the NLRB, the Link case, the Hartshorn 
case, the Booth and Thomas picketing was one — of course, the picket- 
ing stopped before proceedings could be instituted. I think the whole 
Atlanta situation would have justified legal action, but we felt con- 
stantly that we were making progress there without litigating. 

I may say that by persuasion we can clean up a dozen or two dozen 
situations while we w^ould be trying a lawsuit for one, so we don't 
sue unless we have to. 

I think the whole Milwaukee situation in its totality would represent 
a violation of the Taft-Hartley Act. 

Senator Curtis. "\'\niat are the remedies under that act ? 

Mr. Chase. Well, first of all, an injunction. Well, first of all, a 
proceeding before the Board ending up in a cease-and-desist order. 
Second, an injunction proceeding, either the Federal district court 
or following action by the board with an enforcing order in the circuit 
court of appeals, such as in the clay boat case we have had reference 
to here. And then action for damages, of course. 

Senator Curtis. But that is all. 

Mr. Chase. That is all. 

Senator Curtis. In other words, my primary concern here is the 
concern of the public, and particularly the small-business man. If a 
small-business man is the victim of a secondary boycott under a set 
of circumstances that clearly constitute a violation of present law, 
there is no place he can turn for police protection or for an arm of 
the Government to come out and stop that activity, is there, without 
spending his own money and going to court ? 

Mr. Chase. That is true in case of a boycott ; yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Now, if a group other than a labor union, if a 
competitor or someone not connected with it w^ould commit a trespass 
upon his property, he would have some police protection, wouldn't 
he? 

Mr. Chase. Yes, he would. It would probably be a violation of 
the antitrust laws, Federal if interstate commerce were involved, or 
State antitrust laws, perhaps. 



9804 IMPROPER ACTTnTIEIS IN THE LABOK FIELD 

Senator Curtis. And in that case, the Government would proceed 
with the case after due investigation ? 

Mr. Chase. Yes, sir; it would. Of course, you would also have in- 
dividual rights. 

Senator CuRns. He wouldn't have to be the plaintiff, would he? 

Mr. Chase. He could be, but he wouldn't have to be. 

Senator Curtis. He wouldn't have to be. What would you rega-rd 
as a typical or a classic case of a boycott that you experienced that is 
not now prohibited by law ? 

Mr. Chase. Principally these threats to employers. In the Taft- 
Hartley Act, the secondary boycott provision relates to inducing and 
encouraging employees to take certain concerted action. I think the 
Taft-Hartley Act was probably intended to cover all secondary boy- 
cotts, when it was passed. 

But it has been construed otherwise. 

Senator Curtis. The way it is construed, it fails to prohibit the 
applying of pressure on management ? 

Mr. Chase. That is right. Although in two recent cases the labor 
board has found that in one case picketing and in the other case boy- 
cotting by a minority union, although applied to the employer, might 
also be inducing and encouraging the employees and a violation of 
their rights. 

That is going up to the courts, in that, I suppose. But by and large, 
under the Taft-Hartley Act as it has been construed, threats may be 
made to employers with some impunity. 

Senator Curtis. In other words, the somewhat general line of de- 
marcation of what is lawful and what is not lawful relates to who the 
pressure is applied upon ; doesn't it ? 

Mr. Chase. That is right. 

Senator Curtis. Do you agree with the position taken by the 
Journeymen Plumbers International — no, rather, it was the State 
federation — I will withdraw that. 

On pages 29 and 30 of your statement, the Journeymen and 
Plumbers and Steam Fitters International of Kansas City, in 1956. 
They took a position, and it is referred to on the bottom of page 29 and 
the top of page 30, 

If the plumbers union were to refuse to install, it would be a violation of the 
Taft-Hartley Act's secondary boycott provisions. 

Do you agree with that ? 

Mr. Chase. I agree with that ; yes, sir. 

Senator CuRns. And the two sentences at the top of the next page : 

"A plumber as an individual can refuse to install Kohler. If he gets fired for it, 
there is nothing his union can do for him. 

Do you agree with that ? 

Mr. Chase. I think that is a correct statement of the law, provided 
it is strictly individual action. He can refuse as an individual to install. 
If he is fired for it, there is nothing his union can do to help him, except 
through tlie device of the hiring hall the refusing of employees on 
further jobs to the contractor. There is nothing legally they can do 
for him, no. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 9805 

Senator Curtis. Turning noAv to page 39, and quoting from the State 
Federation of Labor, which I assume was Wisconsin, 

It was pointed out that individual members of organized labor have a right to 
refuse to handle Kohler plumbing, and they cannot be prosecuted for doing so. 
Quite a number of our members have informed their employer that they will not 
install Kohler fixtures and are refusing to do so. 

Our attorney informs us that such action on the part of the members is legal. 

That involves the same idea tliat I asked you about a bit ago. How- 
ever, in this individual action, when does that become unlawful ? 

Mr. Chase. When it is not strictl}^ individual action. When it has 
been induced and encouraged by union activity. I think that under the 
doctrine of the Genuine Parts case, in which the union advised the 
members at a union meeting that individually they could refuse to 
handle this so-called hot cargo, and they understood, in the whole 
context, that that advice was more than advice, the Board found it to 
be a violation of the Taft-Hai'tley Act. 

I think that the issuance of these bulletins, with this extreme pre- 
occupation with so-called individual action is calling not for indi- 
vidual action, but that is what you might call concerted individual 
action, which I think would violate the Taft-Hartley Act. 

I think the advice of the attorney is assuming genuine individual 
action. 

Well, I don't think it is, in most cases. 

Senator Curtis. And the courts have dealt with that problem a time 
or two ; have they not ? I am thinking of the contempt case against 
John L.^Lewis, where Judge Goldsborough held there that while there 
was no direct vote to strike, in light of the fact that everybody stayed 
away from work at that particular time the absence of formal action 
on the part of the union did not relieve them from liability. 

Mr. Chase. I say he said that responsibility was not avoided by the 
use of a nod or a wink instead of the word strike. We think that here 
there has been a lot more than a nod or a wink. 

Senator Curtis. And that also must be viewed in this atmosphere 
of fear that has been established ; is that correct ? 

Mr. Chase. The fear, the fear of vandalism, the fear of retaliation 
by the plumbers' union through its hiring hall, the furnishing of 
journeymen, the fear of other retaliatory action. 

Senator Curtis. From the standpoint of a consumer, whenever 
there is a boycott, the consumer's choice of merchandise is lessened • 
isn't it? 

Mr. Chase. Very much so. 

Senator Curtis. Then doesn't it follow that his prices go up ? 

Mr. Chase. That is right, to the extent that one competitor is 
hampered or removed from the market, and there is less competitioD. 
Presumably the price would be higher. 

Senator Curtis. The consumer is faced with more delays, isn't 
he, when more of his products are restricted and the selection is nar- 
rower ? He faces more delays, doesn't he ? 

Mr. Chase. He certainly does. Anything that interfered with 
the free flow of commerce is going to delay construction or what- 
ever is involved. 



9806 IMPBOPETl ACTIVITIHS IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Curtis. I followed very closely your colloquy with the 
chairman, and I think it pointed out, both the questions and tlie an- 
swers, very pertinent facts. Is it your conclusion that this boycott 
has been more damaging to the neutrals, the bystanders, you might 
saj^ — ^they are bystanders so far as any controversy between 833 and 
the Koliler Co. — than it has either of the participants ? 

Mr. Chase. That is right. 

Senator Cuetis. I shall give further attention to your paper, and 
some of these cases I may follow up in my own study with facts be- 
yond what you were able to cover here. I am intensely interested in 
the legislation relating to a secondary boycott. 

It has been my observation over a period of a number of years that 
it is an action directed at consumers, at neutral businesses, and pri- 
marily small businesses. 

There are quite a few of them that I know who have gone com- 
pletely out of business as victims of boycotts emanating from a labor 
dispute in some far removed place. 

That is all, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. Chase. Call the next 
witness. 

Mr. Ratjh. Mr. Chairman ? 

The Chairman, Mr. Rauh. 

Mr. Rauh. I believe I mentioned this to you before, that we had 
also prepared a memorandum. I have some factual material. It 
seems to me that the company has been given all day to state hearsay 
and legal conclusions, and we ought to be given, say, 10 minutes now 
to state our position on their legal conclusions. 

When I tried to put in roughly the same material. Senator Mundt 
objected and the material was not received. It seems to me that I 
ouglit now to be given the opportunity for at least a few minutes, at 
lease, to refute some of the statements. 

Mr. Chase admitted it was all hearsay. I would like a chance now 
to state our legal position on some of the hearsay that Mr. Chase has 
put in liere, sir. 

The Chairman. Well, very much of Mr. Chase's testimony was 
hearsay. He also pointed out some positions they took with respect 
to acts, that either he had personal knowledge of or that had been 
reported, which he felt he had confirmed by inquiry and investigation. 
He expressed some opinion as to whether they violated the law or 
didn't. 

Is there any objection to hearing Mr. Rauh for 10 or 15 minutes? 

Senator Curtis. I would like to ask this question : This material 
that you referred to by Mr, Mundt, you were sworn in putting the 
material in? 

Mr, Rauh. Yes, I was sworn. I put in some documents, but I 
was not allowed to put in the memorandum which we had. 

The Chairman . The memorandum that you had, as I recall, was a 
brief stating your position with respect to the law. 

Mr. Rauh. Sir, the only difference between my memorandum and 
Mr. Chase's statement is that he says, "Prepared statement by Lucius 
P. Chase", and I said, "Memorandum". I made a bad mistake. I 
should have said prepared statement. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 9807 

I made a mistake. They both have hearsay and legal conclusions. 
I made a mistake, and I will be guided by it. I would appreciate the 
10 minutes now, sir. 

The Chairiman. The Chair does not want to deny to either side any 
right or privilege he grants to the other. So if you will make it very 
brief, unless there is objection on the part of the committee, we will 
hear you. 

Senator Curtis. No objection. 

The Chairman. If there is no objection, you may have 10 minutes, 
and, I may stretch it to 12 if necessary. 

TESTIMONY OF JOSEPH L. RAUH, JR.— Resumed 

Mr. Eauh, Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, I would 
just like to deal now with some of the factual statements in here 
quickly. On page 7 there is a statement referring to forged signa- 
tures. We have checked with Sheboygan. There were some 2,000 
signatures on there, and, of course, it would have been ridiculous for 
anybody to have gone out and forged a signature to make 2,001. I am 
informed by the people there who got this up, the Veterans group, that 
there were no forged signatures. 

Senator Curtis. I would like to ask a question, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Senator Curtis. 

Senator Curtis. Have you checked with the specific individuals 
named by Mr. Chase ? 

Mr. Ghase. No, sir, I haven't had time, sir. I have tried to make 
a quick check of the facts that I have. I do hope that since I only 
have 10 minutes, you will accord me the privilege of using the 10 
minutes. After that I would be happy to answer questions. But if 
I am to meet the chairman's 10-minute deadline, I am going to have 
an awful hard time, if I am to be stopped. 

I am willing to, but it seems to me that the Chair's purpose in 
speeding it up is going to be awfully difficult. 

The Chairman. All right, proceed. 

Mr. Rauh. On page 21, Mr. Chase made the suggestion that the 
UAW had some connection with the citizens picket line. 

I would like to point out that that has been denied, and that the 
only witness, Mr. Davis, who was called for this purpose, informed 
me this morning that nobody on the picket line as far as he knew, 
including himself, had been in any way urged to go there by the 
UAW, and I understancl that Mr. McGovern has excused Mr. Davis, 
so I presume he was satisfied that Mr. Davis was telling the truth. 

With respect to page 27, where the suggestion is macle that Mr. 
Eand stated that he would picket the Michigan Generators Services 
at the Detroit Boat Show, Mr. Eand informed me at noon that he 
never made that statement. 

The Chairman. Is Mr. Eand here? 

Mr. Eauh. He is available, and he has been living here for 5 
weeks and he is available at any time. But I am trying quickly to 
go through these. 

The Chairman. I will give you time. He is the Don Eand that has 
been testifying from time to time, and referred to quite often ? 

Mr. Eauh. Yes. He is here and he is ready. 



9808 IMPROPER ACTIVITIBS IN THE LABQiR FIELD 

Senator Curtis. May I ask the Chairman something and the time 
not taken out of his time? 

Tlie Chairman. All right. 

Senator Curtis. When Mr. Rand was on the stand, I did not know 
that he was an active leader in the boycott. He was the superior of 
the man who testified here at some length in regard to that. 

Since he is here in town, could we at a later time have him for a, 
brief cross-examination ? 

The Chairman. I would think that we can. 

All right, proceed. 

Mr. Rauh. On page 28, the amazing statement is made that in May 
of 1955, Emil Mazey, UAW international secretary-treasurer, visited 
a school job in Portland, Wash., and did something about tlieir 
Kohler products. 

Mr. Mazey's office records show that he was not in Wisconsin any 
time during the month of May 1955, and it shows all of his trips and 
he was not there. 

Now, the reason I have cited these four examples is that any state- 
ment, hearsay statement that is so full of errors as the four I have 
already given you, and particularly this last most unfair attack on 
Mr. Mazey because he wasn't even in Wisconsin, evidences, it seems 
to me, the mistake of this committee in taking a statement so full of 
hearsay. 

The Chairman. The Chair appreciates that it is possibly a mistake. 
But I am in a position here where if I don't let it in, I am charged 
with bias and prejudice toward one side or the other, and I don't have 
any either way. If one lets in a little hearsay, we will hear a little 
hearsay from some other source. Proceed. 

Mr. Rauh. Thank you, sir. I hope the Chair will recognize that 
most of my remarks have been directed against three members of the 
committee, and that I, too, share the belief that the chairman is trying 
to be fair under difficult circumstances. 

The Chairman. I am glad to have the compliment, but let us move 
along, and I would rather make progress than be complimented. 

Mr. Rauh. I will summarize the statement here of Mr. Chase as a 
document which says the UAW is doing awful things, but it doesn't 
hurt. That seems to be the result of 44 pages that I have heard this 
morning. 

Now, there are certain legal propositions I would like to call your 
attention to. On page 12, Mr. Chase states or he read this: "Neu- 
trality is the ostensible position for public officials to take regarding 
a labor dispute." 

We challenge that, and we believe the whole history of the last 25 
years is that governmental neutrality toward labor conditions is con- 
trary to the way governmental policy has worked. 

The Chairman. What do you mean by that neutrality ? My posi- 
tion is that I would be neutral. I would want the law enforced, and 
I would want to search to find out whether new laws are needed to 
keep things on an equitable and fair basis. But just because a union 
decides to strike, that is no reason why I should immediately take 
sides with the union and say, "I am against the company." I can't 
figure that one. 



IMPROPER ACTIVrTIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 9809 

Mr. Rauh. I would like to explain, sir, that more goes into the de- 
ciding of whether a governmental agency should buy a product than 
the cost. 

For example, today the Vice President of thd UnMied States is chair- 
man of a committee whose purpose it is to see that contracts do not 
go to people who do not Use fair employment practices in hiring. I 
only cite that to show that when a governmental body contracts to 
buy products, much more goes into the contract than just the cost. 

I think by the same token there is a good deal to be said for the 
proposition that when an unfair labor practice has been committed, 
the Government won't assist the person who has committed the unfair 
labor practice. 

It is not the strike, Mr. Chairman, that would cause the government 
to act, any government, city. State or National. It is the fact of an 
unfair labor practice which might cause them to act, and I would 
analogize that to the situation you have in, say, the Contract Com- 
pliance Committee of the Vice President. 

I don't make a major Federal case of this, but I simply point out 
that neutrality is not always the role of Government. The Govern- 
ment is not neutral on certain policy issues where they do lend the 
power of Government purchasing to carry out certain policies. I 
mentioned one, but there are undoubtedly others. 

Now, the next point I would like to make is the question about neu- 
trals generally, about the strike hurting neutrals. Of course a strike 
and a boycQtt hurts neutrals. When we go on strike in a city, any 
union, the grocer is hurt because there is less money for the workers 
to spend at the grocery store. 

When you go on a boycott, someone is bound to be hurt but in a 
sense they are allies. The distributor is an ally of the Kohler Co., and 
certainly we have a right, and this was the next point I wanted to 
make, we have a right as a union to tell our story to the public and 
urge them not to deal with this distributor. Indeed, it seems to me, 
that under the Supreme Court's decisions we probably have a con- 
stitutional right of free speech, at least by leaflets, to tell everyone 
in the area not to deal with the Kohler distributor. 

In other words, if your committee were considering, as I think Mr. 
Chase said, some legislation which would prevent one from urging 
people not to deal with a distributor, I doubt very much, sir, whether 
you could constitutionally prohibit a union which is on strike, or any- 
one else from urging people by leaflets not to buy products from a 
particular distributor. 

The Chairman. Would you grant the same liberty of speech to the 
company or to management, whenever people walk out on a strike, 
to advertise "Here is a list of strikers. Don't employ them, they will 
give you trouble" ? 

Mr. Rauh. I think that is a far different circumstance, sir ; the black- 
list which has been used — and actually they have done that, and some 
of our people have been blacklisted. But I don't consider that a 
blacklist. 

The Chairman. Does that prevail in this instance, and has the 
Kohler Co. blacklisted strikers ? 



9810 IMPROPER ACTIVITIEIS IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Eauii. Some of our employees told us that they could not get 
jobs because of the fact the Kohler Co. pressure in the area was pre- 
venting them. We could probably produce 1 or 2, and I have not 
personally seen that. 

The Chairman. What I was trying to determine, do you charge 
that the Kohler Co. has actually been active in trying to prevent 
strikers from getting jobs? 

Mr. Rauii. I have had individual instances, but I wouldn't make 
that charge, and I don't have enough evidence to make such a charge. 

The Chairman. I am just trying to get a little balance of equity 
here. If the striker has a right to go out and try to induce people not 
to use the product of the company, would the company have the right 
to try to induce people not to hire the strikers ? 

Mr. Rauh, Certainly not, sir. Ever since 1914, the laws of the land 
have been very clear. 

Tlie Chairman. I am talking about a matter of equity and justice. 

Mr. Eatjh. Labor is not a commodity, sir, and there is a big differ- 
ence between telling somebody that he cannot hire somebody and urg- 
ing somebody not to buy some goods. 

The Chairman. When you strike and put up a picket line, certainly 
mass picketing, you tell somebody he can't work at his job. 

Mr. Rauh. We haven't been mass picketing at that plant for almost 
4 years. 

The Chairman. I don't care if it has been 10 years. There was mass 
picketing there, and I think it was 4 years ago. 

Mr. Rauh. Certainly there was, for 57 days. 

The Chairman. I don't want to argue, and I want to give you a little 
more time and let us move along. 

Mr Rauh. I don't think that I am going to need a great deal more, 
sir. I have tried to point out, first, that there were so many factual 
errors in here that this document can't be credited at all. Secondly, 
neutrality is not a proper governmental action in this kind of situation. 
Thirdly, neutrals are drawn into this involuntarily but they are really 
allies of the Kohler Co. 

Now, the major point I would like to make is that if we have done 
such terrible things, why is it that the Kohler Co. has never sued the 
United Automobile Workers, and why is it that they have never gone 
lO the National Labor Relations Board, and why is it that they have 
never gone to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals for a contempt 
order under the consent decree? And why is it if in fact they come 
here and wail about the illegality of our alleged secondary boycott they 
liave never taken any legal action? 

We are not engaged in illegal conduct. We have carried on, con- 
sidering this is a nationwide boycott, a careful and conservative opera- 
tion. 

The point I would like to make is that considering that this is nation- 
wide in scope, we have been extremely cautious in our operations. We 
liave in two situations only had a complaint to the Labor Board about 
the picketing of distributors. 

Now, at that time, and I would like to point out this, Senator Curtis, 
you asked Mr. Chase what it was that came to mind quickly when you 
said, "Is something illegal that they are dohig, and give me an example 
of illegality." Mr. Chase responded, "The Link and Hartshorn." 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 9811 

Now, those were cases where we picketed the distributor and in those 
cases there were complaints, and we agreed. Senator, to stop. 

Now, I would like to point out, as I did before when I was talking 
with Senator Mundt in an exchange, that the law as declared by the 
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit permits the 
very picketing which we agreed not to do. 

In other words, had we sought to fight that out, our right to engage 
in picketing at a distributor, we would have been successful. But 
instead of that, because of the conservative and cautious approach 
we have taken to this secondary boycott, we consented not to do what 
the law now permits us to do. 

So in conclusion, and I thank the committee for being able to make 
this short statement, it seems to me that the secondary boycott dis- 
cussions nuich ado about nothing. We have been so careful and made 
so much of an effort to avoid any legal breaches that I think, far from 
being critical, that the United Automobile Workers ought to be en- 
titled to some feeling that they had sought to carry this out with a 
minimum of accident, and I believe in a nationwide operation that is 
what has occurred. 

I would ask, Mr. Chairman, now, in view of the fact that Mr. Chase's 
statement was printed in the record at the 02)ening of his remarks, 
that our memorandum be printed in the record at the conclusion of 
mine now. 

The Chairman. Without objection, it will so be ordered. 

(The tnemorandum is as follows :) 

Memorandi'M on UAW Consumer Boycott of Koni.ER Company Products for 
Presentation to the Senate Select Committee on Improper Activities in 
THE Labor or Management Field. 

The UAW has followed four basic principles in the effectuation of its consumer 
boycott of Kohler products. These are : 

(1) To tell the "Kohler Story" to the broadest possible segment of the general 
public. 

(2) To utilize every possible medium of communication in a completely open 
fashion in telling the "Kohler Story-" 

(3) To avoid any activities the legality of which could even be questioned. 

(4) To consent to the entry of cease and desist orders in those few instances — 
actually three in number— where charges were brought against UAW alleging 
violation of the secondary boycott provisions of the National Labor Relations Act. 

Despite the fact that we have confined our activities to open appeals to the 
public to refrain from patronizing Kohler Company, and have avoided all activi- 
ties which are of even questionable legality, it is now sought by the Kohler Co., 
for the tirst time to challenge the legality of our exercise of the constitutionally 
protected right of free speech. 

Section 8(b) (4) (A) of the NLRA as amended provides : 

" (b) It shall be an unfair labor practice for a labor organization or its agents — 

"(4) To engage in, or to induce or encourage the employees of any employer 
to engage in, a strike or a concerted refusal in the course of their employment to 
use, manufacture, process, transport, or otherwise handle or work on any goods, 
articles, materials, or commodities or to perform any services, when an object 
thereof is : 

"(A) Forcing or requiring any employer or self-employed person to join any 
labor orgainzation or any employer or other person to case using, selling, handling, 
transporting, or otherwise dealing in the products of any other producer, proces- 
sor, or manufacturer, or to cease doing business with any other person * * *" 

The consumer boycott conducted by the UAW against the Kohler Co. products 
does not in any way violate this provision of the Taft-Hartly Act. Our purpose 
has been simply to direct the attention of the public to the facts surrounding the 
Kohler strike ; in other words, to tell the broadest possible section of the public 
the Kohler story. 

21243— 58— lit. 24 22 



9812 imprjopee activities in the labok field 

Th9 various methods used by the UAW to disseminate this information, and 
appeal to consumers not to patronize Kohler Co., have included : 

(1) Various types of advertising; 

(2) Direct approach to individuals and groups of individuals who are par- 
ticularly concerned with plumbing wares, such as contractors and architects ; 

(3) Direct approach to individuals and groups who themselves are sub- 
stantial consumers of plumbing ware, such as corporations building and operating 
hotels and large apartment developments and various governmental units ; and 

(4) Handbill distribution and occasional consumer picketing of plumbing were 
distributors and wholesalers who handle Kohler products. 

The UAW has never made any secret of its consumer boycott. The various 
methods used have been open and aboveboard. The Kohler Co. has known of 
this consumer boycott, and of the methods used to effectuate it from the out.set ; 
yet it has taken no action whatever against our union. 

The very purpose of a consumer boycott is best achieved by a maximum of 
publicity. In fact, though it is certainly not the purpose or intent of this com- 
mittee, this hearing which has developed many hitherto unknown aspects of 
Kohler Co.'s antiunion activities such as its use of labor spies, will substantially 
increase dissemination of the Kohler story and unquestionably increase the 
effectiveness of the boycott. 

There will unquestionably be a great increase in the number of people who are 
aware of our consumer boycott following this hearing in view of the publicity 
which this hearing is receiving, and the facts of the Kohler story which this hear- 
ing is developing. 

If there were anything illegal about this boycott, one could certainly assume 
that the Kohler Co. would have instigated legal action against the UAW. Yet, the 
Kohler Co., which proposes to produce a large number of witnesses before this 
committee presumably in an attempt to establish the illegality of our consumer 
boycott, has not filed a single charge with the National Labor Relations Board 
challenging the propriety of any aspect of our consumer boycott, nor has it taken 
any other legal proceedings. 

Our consumer boycott activities have been questioned before the NLRB on 
three separate occasions in the following charges : 

(1) A charge filed by an importing company against the UAW and several 
other unions growing out of the attempted unloading of a clay boat at the city 
of Milwaukee municipal docks. This charge did not actually grow out of our 
consumed boycott, but is included here since it is one of the three instances where 
we have been charged with violating the secondary boycott provisions of the 
NLRA. 

(2) A charge against the Jackson County CIO Council filed by a plumbing ware 
distributor in Jackson, Mich., whose main customer entrance was picketed by 
Jackson County CIO members who were attempting to broaden dissemination of 
the Kohler story. 

(3.) A charge filed against the UAW by a plumbing ware distributor in Bell' 
flower, Calif., alleging the same type of activity noted in (2) above. 

In all three of these cases, the charged parties, including the UAW, felt that 
the activity complained of was legal and permissible