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 since its only purpose was to
inform possible purchasers of Kohler products and the general public that these
products were made by "scabs" and "strikebreakers."
Though the UAW believed, and still believes, that the activities complained of
in these three charges were legal and permissible in every sense, the UAW and
the Jackson County CIO consented to the entry of NLRB cease and desist orders
in all three cases.
We did so because, as the press release dated August 23, 1955, and read into
the record of these proceedings by Emil Mazey in the session of March 7 indi-
cates, we did not wish to engage in any proceedings to establish the legality of
our conduct in these sporadic instances, particularly when these proceedings
might delay or interfere with the trial of our unfair practice charges against
the Kohler Co. We also considered that the type of conduct complained of in
these three charges was of an isolated nature and a relatively unimportant
segment of our total activity.
The Milwaukee charge: The charge filed by the importing company in this
case was investigated by the NLRB. On the 23d of August 1955, the UAW agreed
to stipulate a settlement of the entire proceeding with the NLRB.
Pursuant to this consent stipulation, an NLRB complaint was issued and a
settlement stipulated (exhibit A-1), and a temporary injunction was prayed
for, stipulated to and issued (exhibit A-2) .
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 9813
Subsequently, the stipulated settlement of the NLRB complaint was, pursuant
to its terms, the basis of consent order issued by the United States Court of
Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (exhibit A-3).
This settlement agreement speciiically disclaimed any concession of guilt on
the part of the UAW. We felt that the activity complained of by the charging
party was legal and permissible.
To the extent that there was any inducement of employees of any employer
present in the situation, the inducement would largely have been of employees
of the city of Milwaukee and the railroads, which is, we believe, permissible
under Taft-Hartley.
With regard to the alleged picketing of the Milwaukee municipal dock, the
NLRB did file and process a complaint against several of the other unions in-
volved, and this complaint was dismissed after trial by the NLRB in Paper
Makers fmport Company (116 N. L. R. B. 37), because the employees involved
were municipal employees of the city of Milwaukee.
Indicative of the confusion surrounding the interpretation and application of
the above quoted provision of NLRA is that the Fifth Court of Appeals has
taken a position contrary to the Board on the question of inclusion of municipal
employees and railroad employees in the group who are covered by the statutory
prohibition.
As of today, with the exception of the area covered by the Fifth Circuit, it is
the position of the NLRB that the conduct we are alleged to have participated
in in connection with the municipal dock picketing and railroad picketing and
other related matters would not have been found improper by the NLRB if we
had chosen to litigate the charge.
In any event, we did not so choose, but rather entered a consent agreement
with the NLRB, which agreement was incorporated in a consent order issued by
the Seventh Court of Appeals, and which stands today as a prohibition against our
engaging in any secondary boycott activities.
This consent order of the seventh circuit is not limited to the importing com-
pany or to otltf r employers specifically notetl in that order, but in general in scope
prohibiting us from "picketing * * * or in any other manner * * * inducing or
encouraging to strike the employees of * * * any other employer or person using,
selling, handling, transporting, or otherwise dealing in the products of or for
Kohler Co. * * * where an object thereof is to force or require * * * any other
employer or person to cease using * * * products of or for Kohler Co., or to cease
doing business with Kohler Co. or with any other employer."
In view of this court order to which we consented, we would not only be sub-
ject to NLRB proceedings if we engaged in secondary boycott activities, but would
be in contempt of coiirt subject to immediate penalties without the delays ordi-
narily incurred in Labor Board proceedings.
In fact, the order prohibits us from doing things which the Labor Board itself,
in the Paper Makers Importing case, decided were not prohibited, such as inducing
or encouraging employees of the city of Milwaukee to refuse to handle materials
of or for the Kohler Co.
Despite the fact that this very board order of the seventh circuit to which we
consented has been in existence during substantially the entire period of our
consumer boycott, no violation of this injunction has ever been alleged.
The Jackson, Mich., and Bellflower, Calif., cases : With regard to these two
charges, the legality of the act complained of basically depends upon findings of
whether a consumer picket line outside the principal entrance of a plumbing ware
distributor is intended to induce employees of that distributor in turn to bring
pressure on their employer to cease handling Kohler products.
Such was never our intention ; nor do we believe that such was the effect of the
picketing at Jackson, Mich., or at Bellflower, Calif., or any place else we may
have engaged in consumer picketing.
The fact that charges were filed. with the NLRB in these two instances —
Jackson, exhibit B-1, Bellflower, exhibit C-1 — that in each instance the NLRB
was prepared to issue a complaint and at Jackson had prayed for temporary in-
junctive relief in district court (exhibit B-2), establishes only that the NLRB
General Counsel felt there was reasonable cause to believe the law might have
been violated in each of these instances.
Within the last several years. Labor Board application of the above-quoted
secondary boycott provision has tended to establish that such consumer picketing
is prohibited per se when the entrance which is picketed is an entrance used in
part by deliverymen and/or employees.
9814 IMPROPER ACT'IVITIEIS IN THE LABOR FIELD
Perhaps the basic Labor Board decision on this doctrine, which was the basis
of th'o Board's inclination to proceed with the charges filed in the Jackson and
Bellflower situations, is Coca-Cola (33 L. R. II. M. 1122).
The line of Board decisions, including that very Coca-Cola case, also indicates
that the Labor Board has serious doubts as to the legality of such picketing even
if the entrance is only used by customers, a type of consumer picketing which
prior to the Coca-Cola line of decisions had generally been assumed to be perfectly
legal and proper, and which we feel is still legal and proper.
Several courts of appeal have reversed the Labor Board on this question, even
where the entrance of the distributor being picketed is also used by the distribu-
tor's employees and/or deliverymen of other concerns bringing material to the
distributor.
Principal among these courts of appeal is the second circuit, which has spe-
cifically upheld the right to picket the customers of a struck employer where the
general conduct of the pickets indicates that the picketing is addressed to the
consuming public. NLRB v. Electrical Workers (37 L. L. R. M. 2219) ; NLRB v.
Local 50, Bakery Workers (40 L. L. R. M. 2107).
At least one district court has very recently refused the NLRB request for a
temporary injunction against such picketing in Getrue v. Hatters Union, (41
L. L. R. M.2429).
In the Electrical Workers case, the second circuit dismissed the complaints of
the struck company's customers stating that :
"Their only fear seems to be a possible public embarrassment. Such embarrass-
ment and persuasion the union is privileged to pursue."
This dispute, as to the legality of consumer picketing of the type we have
occasionally engaged in will undoubtedly be clarified by the Supreme Court in
the near future. We are confident that the Court will uphold the decisions of the
Second Court of Appeals overruling the NLRB's theory that such consumer picket-
ing automatically violates the law.
Nonetheless, through being convinced of the legality of such picketing, in those
two instances where it was charged that such picketing violated the NLRA, we
consented, or advised the Jackson County CIO to consent, to a Board cease-and-
desist order which, if it were violated, would be immediately enforceable* by court
injunction.
Our agreement to stipulate that the Board cease-and-desist orders — Jackson,
exhibit B-3, Bellflower, exhibit C-2 — could be entered in these two cases is in
no sense an admission that we violated the NLRA.
A consent order, like a settlement of ordinary civil litigation, is simply an
agreement by the parties that the best interests of all will be served by the entry
of a particular order.
In fact, as the foregoing discussion indicates, had we litigated the charges in
these two cases, the legality of our conduct would undoubtedly have been deter-
mined not by any decision the NLRB might have issued, but by the eventual
decision of the Supreme Court which will clarify the dispute between certain
courts of appeal and the NLRB, and, as noted, which we are confident will uphold
the decisions of the second circuit on this question.
Our reason for consenting to orders in these two cases, as in the case of our
consent to the entry of an order in the Milwaukee municipal dock picketing
matter, was that we did not wish to engage in any activity in promoting our
primary consumer boycott which was of even doubtful legality.
CONCLUSIONS ON CONSUMER BOYCOTT ACTIVITIES
With the few exceptions noted above, the legality of our primary consumer
boycott has not even been challenged. Yet, before this committee, Kohler now,
for the first time, is attempting to cast doubt over the legality of our activities.
This would appear to us to be an abuse of the committee's facilities.
APPEALS TO GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES
The legality of one other aspect of our consumer boycott activities has also
been challenged in public debate, though no legal action has ever been taken in
this regard. This aspect concerns our open appeals to various governmental units
to refrain from purchasing Kohler products.
In those instances wlicre the propriety of such conduct has been raised, it has
not been coniu'ctcd with any Federal law, but rather with those various State
and municipal statutes and codes which control the process of governmental
purchases.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 9815
The issue raised in this connection is the very complicated one of whether
governmental bodies making decisions on purchases under statutes requiring
them to accept the "lowest responsible bid" or some such similar restriction can
and should consider the labor relations situation of a prospective supplier, and
whether the prospective supplier's labor relations policies may violate Federal
or State laws.
There have been numerous court decisions in the various States on this question,
and the Federal Comptroller General has issued numerous decisions not com-
pletely free of conflict regarding the Federal Government's right or duty to add
nonfinancial stipulations to its purchasing procedures.
Our appeal to governmental bodies has been based upon the fact that the
Kohler Co. has been charged by the appropriate Federal agency with substantial
and serious violations of the NLRA which prolonged the strike, in the course
of which Kohler has continued its operations through utilization of "scabs" and
"strikebreakers."
These appeals have been made openly and publicily. We have requested these
governmental bodies to refrain from assisting a corporation which is, in effect,
under charge for violation of Federal law, by refraining from purchasing the
products of that corporation.
In fact, we appeared before a subcommittee of this United States Senate in
June of 1955 in support of legislation which would establish a Federal govern-
mental policy of not purchasing products of companies who have been charged
with serious unfair labor practices leading to the precipitation or prolongation
of a strike which the company is attempting to break through operation of its
plant.
It was to these June 1955 hearings that Senator Ives had reference when, at
an earlier stage of this hearing, he remarked that he and other Senators once
before attempted to mediate and settle the Kohler strike.
Though the question has occasionally been raised that governmental bodies
have no legal right to consider whether a potential supplier has been charged
by the Federal Government with substantial violations of Federal law, the
relatively f^w decisions of State and Federal courts on this question appear to
establish the right, and even the duty, of governmental bodies to consider their
own and Federal public policy in determining from whom to purchase supplies.
Corpus juris secundum in its discussion of municipal corporations in section
1157 (b) notes that "the proper municipal authorities have a wide discretion
which will not be controlled by the courts * * * provided the determination is
in good faith based on appropriate facts, is in the public interest * * * The
municipal authorities need not be guided in this determination solely by the
question of the pecuniary responsibility of a bidder, but may consider * * * i^ig
general qualifications to execute the work properly."
Perkins v. Ltikens Steel Company, (310 US 113), is an illustration of inclusion
of a nonfinancial stipulation, and one relating to the labor relations of potential
suppliers at that, in the Federal Government's purchasing procedure.
Any question of possible illegality in connection with this activity would have
to be decided independently in the jurisdiction in which it arose under the specific
statutes or ordinances controlling the purchasing procedures in the particular
instance.
However, we believe that in any such situation, the broad public policy aspects
involved in State and local governmental units furthering compliance with
Federal laws by refraining from purchasing materials from suppliers charged by
the Federal Government with violation of those laws would prevail over restrie-
lions of powers of governmental purchasing units established by specific purchas-
ing procedure statutes.
In fact, it is our opinion that State and local governmental units not only may,
but should consider whether a potential supplier has been oflScially charged with
violating a Federal law.
APPEALS TO CHARITABLE ORGANIZATIONS SUPPORTED BY VOLUNTARY
COMMUNITY AGENCIES
Though no question of legality is involved, one other issue has been raised in
connection with the consumer boycott. This is the question of the propriety of
seeking to influence community agencies such as the Community Chest to refrain
from supporting charitable organizations which in turn purchase and install
Kohler products.
9816 IMPBOPE'R ACrniVITIHS IN THE LABOK FIELD
We have generally confined our approach to charities supported by community
agencies within the same limits as our approach to any other consumer of plumb-
ing ware, i. e., requesting the organization to purchase and install a union-made
brand.
In a few cases, where the charitable organization has not indicated any de-
sire to. refrain from assisting the Kohler Co. by refraining from purchasing its
materials, union members in the area, sometimes including UAW members, have
quite naturally become aroused to the point of threatening to withhold contribu-
tions to the community agency supporting the charity.
We always have discouraged any such action, and will continue to discourage
it, though it is sometimes exceedingly difficult, if not impossible, to prevent
workers from reacting adversely to a community agency which permits its funds,
partly contributed by the same workers, from being used to aid the Kohler Co.
SUMMARY
In summai-y, we would merely wish to note that the Kohler Co. has never
challenged the legality of our consumer boycott though extremely simple pro-
cedures for so challenging it under the NLRA and in the courts are available ; that
in those three isolated cases where the legality of our methods have been
challenged we have consented to the entry of court and Labor Board orders be-
cause, while not admitting that the activities are illegal, we do not wish to engage
in activities which are of even questionable legality ; and that consumer boycott
has been in effect in the most public fashion for several years and only now, be-
fore this committee, has the Kohler Co. attempted to take issue with our right
to engage and continue our attempt to disperse as widely as possible the facts
of the Kohler Story.
Respectfully submitted.
Joseph L. Rauh, Jr.
Redmond H. Roche, Jr.
Attorneys for UAW.
Senator Curtis, I want to ask the gentleman some questions.
Mr. Kauh, you said that you were not directing something at the
Chairman, but you were directing something at five of the Senators.
Will you identify the Senators?
Mr. Kauh. Yourself, Senator Mundt, Senator Goldwater.
Senator Curtis. What were you directing to us ?
Mr. Eauh. I think that you have been unfair in this hearing.
Senator Curtis. Now, Mr. Rauh, you are the judge of that, are you ?
Mr. Rauh. I have to be the judge of my own conscience and my own
mind.
Senator Curtis. Well, every once in a while you take the witness
stand to throw some charge or something like that in there, just to
divert or make headlines, and I guess we will have to endure it.
Now, you objected to Mr. Chase's appearance here on the ground
that he presented hearsay testimony.
Mr. Rauh. I do not object and I only ask for the same rights.
Senator Curtis. Did you not raise an objection to it ?
Mr. Rauh. No, sir. He testified for 3 hours and I sat quietly and
objected not at all.
Senator Curtis. I understand you did not object while it was going
on, but that was the basis of it. I want to know, are you the same Mr.
Rauh who sat with Mr. Brierather the other day when he testified ?
Mr Rauh. I sure am, sir. There was hearsay there.
Senator Curtis. I think, Mr. Rauh, that your position is not only
inconsistent with your own conduct, but I am not going to take the time
of the committee to give any expression about your charge of unfair-
ness here.
It is not true, but we are not going to take this forum this afternoon
to dispute it, but it is one of those things that divert attention. It is
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES m THE LABOR FIELD 98 IV
the game you have been playing here all of the time and I think the
public realizes it.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Call the next witness.
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Richard Sharp.
The Chairman. Mr. Sharp, will you come forward ?
Do you solemnly swear that the evidence that you shall give before
this Senate Select Committee shall be the truth, the whole truth and
nothing but the truth, so help you God ?
Mr, Sharp. I do.
TESTIMONY OF EICHARD H. SHARP
The Chairman. State your name and your place of residence and
your business or occupation.
Mr. Sharp. My name is Richard H. Sharp, and I live at Route 2,
Muskego, a suburb of Milwaukee, and I am a plumbing estimator.
The Chairman. Do you waive counsel, Mr. Sharp ?
Mr. Sharp. Yes, sir, I do.
The Chairman. Did you ever work for the Kohler Co. ?
Mr. Sharp. No, sir ; I have not.
The Chairman. Do you belong to any union ?
Mr. Sharp. I do right now ; yes.
The Chairman. I beg your pardon ?
Mr. Sharp. Yes, sir ; I do.
The Chairman. "What union do you belong to ?
Mr. Sharp. Local 75 of the plumbers.
The Chairman. Plumbers local 75 ?
Mr. Sharp. That is right.
The Chairman. How long have you belonged to it?
Mr. Sharp. About 4 years.
The Chairman. So that you are a plumbers estimator ?
Mr. Sharp. That is right.
The Chairman. All right, Mr. Kennedy.
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Sharp, you were employed by the Knab Co., a
plumbing contractor, in 1956 ?
Mr. Sharp. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. You were a subcontractor, were you, for them ?
Mr. Sharp. INo. I am a superintendent.
Mr. Kennedy. You were a superintendent ?
Mr. Sharp. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. At that time were you a member of the plumbers
union ?
Mr. Sharp. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. You were w^orking at Mitchell Field in Milwau-
kee, Wis.?
Mr. Sharp. That is right;
Mr. Kennedy. Did some plumbers walk off the job at that time,
when there was an installation of Kohler products ?
Mr. Sharp. Yes, sir ; they did.
Mr. Kennedy. How many walked off the job ?
Mr. Sharp. About 11 plumbers.
Mr. Kennedy. For what reason did they walk off ?
9818 nVIPROPE'R ACTIYITIEIS IX THE LABQiR FIELD
Mr. Sharp. We had the Kohler fixtures to go on a job, and the job
was completely roughed in, and the day's load came out there and
they left 1 by 1.
The Chairman. Will you come closer to the microphone, please ?
Mr. Sharp. One by one they started leaving the job.
Mr. Kennedy. Why did they leave ?
Mr. Sharp. They refused to install the fixtures.
Mr. Kennedy. For what reason ?
Mr. Sharp. Well, I asked a couple of the boys why and they said it
was their own opinion to leave and one of tliem did tell me he had re-
ceived a call from the business agent telling him if he wanted to stay in
the local and not be blackballed, he had better not put the fixtures in.
Mr. Kennedy. Who told you that ?
Mr. Sharp. I beg your pardon ?
Mr. Kennedy. Who told you that ?
Mr. Sharp. One of the plumbers.
Mr. Kennedy. What was his name ?
Mr. Sharp. I believe his name was Carl Oberlander.
Mr. Kennedy. He said he got a telephone call from the business
agent of the plumbers union ?
Mr, Sharp. Yes, sir.
Mr. ICennedy. What was his name, the name of the business agent?
Mr. Sharp. Anthony King.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you talk to Mr. King about that ?
Mr. Sharp. Mr. King was not available.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you have any other experience with the plumbers
walking off the job ?
Mr. Sharp. Well, right after this happened, we had the job at St.
Luke's hospital come up.
Mr. Kennedy. You were working there, also ?
Mr. Sharp. That is right, I was superintendent.
Mr. Kennedy. And two new wings of the St. Luke's hospital were
being constructed ?
Mr. Sharp. The east wing and west wing.
Mr. Kennedy. And there were Kohler products being installed ?
Mr. Sharp. Yes, and the old building had Kohler fixtures in it, and
they were Kohler fixtures, and the hospital board wanted to match the
fixtures up. That was not only to match them, but for maintenance,
so they would not have to have additional parts on hand.
While we were in the process of loading our material, we received a
call from Mr. King, stating that if we were putting Kohler fixtures on
the job, we would have trouble.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you ask him what he meant by "trouble" ?
Mr. Sharp. We would not get any men.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you ask him ?
Mr. Sharp. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. And he said you won't get any men ?
Mr. Sharp. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. If you insist on installing Kohler products he would
not allow the man to come up there and do the job ?
Mr. Sharp. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. He had control over the plumbers ?
Mr. Sharp. Yes, sir ; they go through the business hall.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIEL-D 9819
Mr, Kennedy. There is a business hall hiring ?
Mr. Sharp. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. You have to go to the business hall in order to get
plumbers to work on the job ?
Mr, Sharp. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. And he said he would not make any plumbers avail-
able on this installation if you insisted on installing Kohler products ?
Mr. Sharp, That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. The same j)rocedure that had been used earlier in the
Mitchel Field job?
Mr. Sharp. That is right.
Mr, Kennedy, Now, did they then discuss that with the hospital
authorities ?
Mr. Sharp. At that tiine, about 3 days later, my foreman on that
job walked off the job about 3 o'clock in the afternoon. He said he
could not stand the pressure of having the phone calls in there.
Mr. Kennedy. Who told you that ?
Mr, Sharp, It was Carl Papp.
Mr, Kennedy, He was the foreman working on the job and he said
he could not stand the telephone calls and he was going to quit the job ?
Mr, Sharp, That is right,
Mr, Kennedy, What did he say the telephone calls consisted of ?
Mr, Sharp, He said he had received calls that he would be black-
balled in the union,
Mr. Kennedy. From whom did he say he received the telephone
calls? •
Mr. Sharp. Mr. King.
Mr. Kennedy. And he said he was going to walk off ?
Mr. Sharp. He did walk off.
Mr, Kennedy. Was another foreman hired then ?
Mr. Sharp. I put another man on the job.
Mr. Kennedy, Who did you get then ? Who replaced him ?
Mr, Sharp, Carl Oberlander from the airport job,
Mr, Kennedy, Did he receive any telephone calls ?
Mr, Sharp. He didn't say, no, and at that time we had another meet-
ing with the hospital board, to see if we could change the fixtures to
some other brand, and the hospital said "No," they wanted to keep the
Kohlerware f ormatching up the other fixtures in the job.
Mr. Kennedy. The hospital board met and considered this request
of the plumber's union, that they not install Kohler products, and
they decided they were going ahead and install them, anyway ; is that
right?
Mr. Sharp. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. Because they wanted to have them matched up with
the other equipment in the hospital ?
Mr. Sharp. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. In the meantime, your first foreman quit, Mr. Carl
Papp, and you had hired another foreman, Oberlander ?
Mr. Sharp. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you have to go through the local plumber's
union to get this Oberlander ?
Mr. Sharp. No, I transferred him from the airport job, and he was
running both jobs.
9820 IMPROPE'R ACnVlTIEIS IN THE LABOR FIEIiD
Mr. Kennedy. Would he not be subject to pressure as Papp was
subject to pressure ?
Mr. Sharp. Yes, he would.
Mr. Kennedy. Did he receive telephone calls ?
Mr. Sharp. He never told me, and he told me he did not give a
care whether he got calls or not.
Mr. Kennedy. Do you know whether he ever received any ?
Mr. Sharp. He might have.
Mr. Kennedy. Do you know if he did ?
Mr. Sharp. No, sir, I don't.
Mr. Kennedy. Now, shortly after the hospital board made the deci-
sion to install the Kohler products, was there a picket line set up out-
side the hospital ?
Mr. Sharp. Yes, sir. One Monday morning we received a call at
the office that there was a picket line there, from my foreman, Carl
Oberlander. I got over to the job and the plumbers were all sitting in
the shack and they said they were not going to cross the picket line.
The electricians and carpenters and everybody else on the job were
working and the only one not working were the plumbers.
Mr. Kennedy. Did they carry signs, these pickets ?
Mr. Sharp. Yes, they did.
Mr. Kennedy. Saying, "Don't use Kohler products" ?
Mr. Sharp. Yes, and not to use scab-made products, and there were
5 or 6 different signs they had over there.
Mr. Kennedy. And the plumbers refused to cross the picket line?
Mr. Sharp. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. Did the rest of the building trades cross ?
Mr. Sharp. Yes, they were working.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you point this out to the head of the building
trades council ?
Mr. Sharp. I called our local business agent, but he was out of town.
It was a couple of days after that when we had a meeting with the
hospital board to see what we could get done and at this meeting, Mr.
Raymond Majaris came down from Sheboygan, and he sat in and told
the' hospital board how poor the fixtures were and that they should
not be put in the j ob.
He also at that time explained there was a very good possibility that
the Community Chest would be outlawed in town, if these fixtures
were going in the hospital.
MrT Kennedy. That the Community Chest would be what ?
Mr. Sharp. Would be boycotted.
Mr. Kennedy. Because of the fact that hospital was installing these
fixtures ?
Mr. Sharp. That is right. Mr. Kinsley, the head of the hospital
said that it would Jiot hurt this hospital but that it might hurt others,
and as far as he was concerned they were going to go ahead and put
in Kohler ware.
Mr. Kennedy. Why did he state it would not hurt St. Luke's?
Mr. Sharp. Because they had a very small percentage in it from the
Community Chest and he said most of their money was given to them
by other donators in town.
Mr. Kennedy. Did Mr. Majaris say anything at that time about the
picket line?
IMPROPER ACTIVrriES IN THE LABOR FIELD 9821
Mr. Sharp. No ; he did not.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you find out later that he had set up this picket
line?
Mr. Sharp. No ; but at the end of the week, in the meantime, the gen-
eral contractor was going ahead and we could not complete our job,
that is put sleeves for our pipe to go through after the concrete was
poured and there was nobody on the job to do it.
So, Monday morning, or the following Tuesday, I guess it was, I
called the Building Trades Council president, Mr. George Sanganaro,
and told him I did not think it was fair because every other trade
was working and the plumbers were not and it was going to involve the
Knab Company in quite a bit of additional expense to go in that job,
if they wanted our pipe to go in, and he said, "Don't you worry about
that. I will take care of that," and the next day the whole job shut
down.
Mr. Kennedy. So all of the other building trades walked out then?
Mr. Sharp. That is right, and in the meantime, the administrator
of the hospital, had been taking the license plate numbers of the pickets
and he told me, every morning, they were members of Local 9 of the
Brewery Workers Union.
Mr. Kennedy. The people on the picket line, according to the license
plates of the cars they were driving, were all members of the brewery
workers ?
Mr. Sharp. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. Do you know how the brewery workers got in on it?
Mr. Sharp, No, sir ; I did not get into that. The hospital adminis-
trator was in on that and he just told me different parts of that and
they were sure they were from the Brewery Workers Union, that were
on the picket line.
Mr. Kennedy. They said they were a citizens committee, opposing
the use of Kohler products, and when a check was made and investi-
gation was made, it was found that they were members of the Brewery
Workers Union?
Mr. Sharp. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. Was it ever determined who arranged for them to
come there?
Mr. Sharp. No ; I believe the hospital hauled them into court and
everybody refused to say anything on the deal, who paid them or why.
Mr. Kennedy. Now, the construction was shut down ?
Mr. Sharp. The construction was shut down for about 4 weeks.
Mr. Kennedy. Was this because of the picket line ?
Mr. Sharp. Yes, sir ; it was.
Mr. Kennedy. And didn't the hospital get an injunction then?
Mr. Sharp. The hospital got an injunction and they went back to
work but in the meantime they had dragged this thing through bad
weather and delayed the construction of the hospital about 2 months.
Mr. Kennedy'. Now, you say as far as your personal contact with
any official of any union, it was with Mr. King, is that right ?
Mr. Sharp. That is right, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. And it was Mr. King that arranged for the plumbers
to — at least according to your testimony, it was Mr. King's conversa-
tion with a plumber from Mitchell Field that got him to leave that
9822 IMP'BOPEIl ACnVITIEIS IN THE LABOiR FIELD
installation, and it was Mr. King's conversation with the foreman at
the St. Luke's Hospital that got him to leave, is that right ?
Mr. Sharp, That is right, sir.
. Mr. Kennedy. Now you are sm-e about that ?
Mr. Sharp. Yes, sir ; I am.
Mr. Kennedy. On that point, I interviewed Mr. King and he will
be a witness later on this afternoon, and he denies this completely.
Mr. Sharp. Well, this is what the men told me.
Mr. Kennedy. What is that ?
Mr. Sharp. This is what the men told me.
Mr. IvENNEDY. Well, didn't you have any conversations with Mr.
King ?
Mr. Sharp. Yes, sir ; I did.
Mr. Kennedy. Did he say this to you ?
Mr. Sharp. He told us that if we did not get rid of the Kohler
fixtures, we would have trouble. That was before we started.
Mr. Kennedy. Then you asked him what the trouble was going to
be?
Mr. Sharp. He also at the same time, Mr. Knab was on the other
phone, and Mr. Knab heard it at the same time.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you ask him then what the trouble was going to
be?
Mr. Sharp. He said we would not get men.
Mr, Kennedy. If you insisted on installing the Kohler products ?
Mr. Sharp. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. And tliat conversation was monitored at that time ?
There were two people on it ?
Mr. Sharp. That is right.
Senator Curtis. About when was this conversation with Mr. King ?
Mr. Sharp. It was right after we received the contract for St. Luke's
Hospital, about a week following.
Senator Guetis. And it was a telephone conversation ?
Mr. Sharp. Yes, sir ; it was.
Senator Curtis. Where were you at the time you received it ?
Mr. Sharp. I was in the office.
Senator Curtis. Of the Knab Co. ?
Mr. Sharp. Yes, sir.
Senator Curtis. And who placed the call ?
Mr. Sharp. It was placed in the union hall.
Senator Curtis. Did you call Mr. King or did he call you ?
Mr. Sharp. No, we got a call right from the union hall.
Senator Curtis. And did they say who was calling ?
Mr. Sharp. Mr. King.
Senator Curtis. And that meant Tony King, business agent for the
Plumbers Local 75 ?
Mr. Sharp. That is right.
Senator Curtis. Were you both on the phone from the beginning,
both you and Mr. Knab ?
Mr. Sharp. Yes, we were.
Senator Curtis, Whom did he ask for, when he called ?
Mr. Sharp. He asked for me.
Senator Curtis. He asked for you ?
Mr. Sharp. Yes, sir.
IMPROPER ACTIVrTIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 9823
Senator Curtis. And did you answer in the first instance or did
some secretary answer ?
Mr. Sharp. No ; one of the office girls answered.
Senator Curtis, An office girl answered ?
Mr. Sharp. Yes, sir.
Senator Curtis. And when you were told that Mr. King wanted to
talk to you on the phone, it was arranged that Mr, Knab get on another
extension ?
Mr. Sharp. That is right, sir.
Senator Curtis. Did both of you take part in the conversation with
King ?
Mr. Sharp. No, sir.
Senator Curtis. Which one of you talked ?
Mr. Sharp, I did, sir.
Senator Curtis, But Mr. Knab heard all that was said ?
Mr, Sharp, That is right.
Senator Curtis, By both parties ?
Mr, Sharp, That is right.
Senator Curtis. Did Mr. King at any other time have any direct
conversation with you about this subject ?
Mr, Sharp, Not directly with me ; no, sir.
Senator Curtis, Now, repeat again, just what did he say over this
telephone conversation to you and Mr, Knab, or to you when Mr, Knab
heard it ?
Mr, Sharp, He said that on account of the Kohler fixtures on this
thing .
Senator Curtis, I can't hear you,
Mr. Sharp. He said on account of Kohler fixtures on the St. Luke's
Hospital job, if we didn't advise the others to get rid of them, we were
going to have trouble on the job. And he said, "What do you mean?"
And he said, "Well you wouldn't get any men,"
Senator Curtis, Had Kohler fixtures already been delivered?
Mr, Sharp, No ; in fact the order hadn't even been ordered yet.
Senator Curtis. But it was known that they would be ordered ?
Mr. Sharp, That is right.
Senator Curtis, And he said if they proceeded to use them, there
would be trouble on the job ?
Mr, Sharp, Yes, sir.
Senator Curtis, Did he say what kind of trouble ?
Mr. Sharp, He said we wouldn't have any men on the job.
Senator Curtis, You would not have any men on the job ?
Mr, Sharp, That is right.
Senator Curtis, Now, there was a citizen's picket lien at St, Luke's
Hospital ?
Mr, Sharp. They called themselves a citizen's committee ; yes.
Senator Curtis, About how big a picket line did these citizens have ?
Mr, Sharp, Well, it varied anywhere from 3 to about 7,
Senator Curtis, Did they ever have any meetings that you know of 2
Mr, Sharp, Any meetings ?
Senator Curtis, Yes,
Mr, Sharp, The only time I noticed them, I don't know whether it
was a meeting or not, but there was a car pulled up there, and they
all left and weiit over and talked and it seemed like they were getting
instructions or something, and they all came back.
9824 iMPROPEn AcrrviTiBS ix the labo« field
Senator Curtis. I can't quite understand you.
Mr. Sharp. There was a car pulled up there, and they all walked
over to the car, and it seemed like they were having a meeting, and I
don't know if they were or not, but they walked over and seemed to be
getting instructions from the car that had pulled up and they all went
back to the picket line again.
Senator Curtis. Who was in the car, do you know ?
Mr. Sharp. I don't know, sir.
Senator Curtis. And you don't know what U AW representatives
may have talked to the hospital board about the citizen's picket line,
do you ?
Mr. Sharp. No, sir; I don't. The only thing I know was at one
meeting I was at with the hospital board, where Mr. Majerus sat in.
Senator Curtis. Was that meeting before the citizen's picket line
was formed ?
Mr. Sharp. I believe it was ; yes.
Senator Curtis. What did Mr. Majerus say there ?
Mr. Sharp. He said that he was helping the workers at Kohler, and
they would like to see them put something else in there beside Kohler
fixtures.
Senator Curtis. Did he say anything about the citizen's picket line ?
Mr. Sharp. No, sir; he did not. He said that in some cases they
would have trouble around these jobs.
Senator Curtis. Did he indicate what kind of trouble ?
Mr. Sharp. No, sir; he just said that they would have trouble, and
he did not indicate at all.
Senator Curtis. That is all Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Are there any further questions ?
Mr. Kennedy. That is all.
The Chairman. T have one question. When these men walked off
the job, how were you able to get the fixtures installed?
Mr. Sharp. You mean at the airport ?
The Chairman. You said that a number of them walked off the job.
Mr. Sharp. That was at the airbase. Well, we wound the job up
with three men.
The Chairman. You did what ?
Mr. Sharp. We wound the job up with three men, and we had a
$400-a-day backcharge standing over our heads, and we just made it
by the skin of our teeth.
The Chairman. In other words, if you did not complete the job
within a certain time, you would be penalized so much a day ?
Mr. Sharp. $400 a day.
The Chairman. But with three men you were able to complete it ?
Mr. Sharp. We just skinned it.
The Chairman. Who lost out on that strike, the fellows who struck ?
You went ahead and put the fixtures in anyhow ?
Mr. Sharp. Wlio lost out?
The Chairman. The folks wiio walked off the job lost their wages ?
Mr. Sharp. Well, that is right; and they went back to work right
away.
The Chairman. They went back right away ?
Mr. Sharp. Yes, sir. They went back to the union hall and were
put to work right away.
IMPROPER AcnvrriES m the labor field 9825
The Chairman. They went to work on this job ?
Mr. Sharp. No, sir ; another job.
The Chairman. They put them on another job ?
Mr. Sharp. That is right.
The Chairman. But you were able to finish ?
Mr. Sharp. Yes, sir ; we were.
The Chairman. I see. As a union man, how do you feel ? I believe
you said you are a union man now, and as a union man how do you feel
about these boycotts like that, or strikes, and picketing and what I
would call a secondary boycott ?
Mr. Sharp. Well, as far as the secondary end of it, I don't think too
much of it.
The Chairman. You don't think too much of it ?
Mr. Sharp. No, sir.
The Chairman. Mr. King is still business manager for local 75 ?
Mr. Sharp. Yes, sir ; he is.
The Chairman. And you are a member of that local ?
Mr. Sharp. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. Do you reckon you are in dutch now by reason of
your testimony ?
Mr. Sharp. I don't know, sir.
The Chairman. Well, let us hope not.
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. King, will you come around.
Mr. Dunn. I represent Mr. King, and he left to go back to the hotel
to get some additional statements under oath, with respect to the
testimony just given by this witness, and I understod you usually ad-
journed" at 4: 30.
The Chairman. Well, I don't want to get too usual around here,
because we may have to have some night session, the way we are going
now. I don't know why he left like this.
Mr. Dunn. We didn't have very much notice with respect to what
this gentleman was going to testify to.
Mr. Kennedy. I asked the questions before the noon hour, covering
generally what he was going to testify to, and he was supposed to be
ready to testify.
Mr. Dunn. That does not give us very much time.
The Chairman. Do we have another witness ?
Mr. Kennedy. How about Mr. Kuempel ? Is Mr. Kuempel here ?
The Chairman. Will you come around, please ?
Do you solemnly swear that the evidence, given before this Senate
select committee shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the
truth, so help you God ?
Mr. Kuempel. I do.
TESTIMONY OF HAROLD E. KUEMPEL
The Chairman. State your name and your place of residence and
your business or occupation.
Mr. Kuempel. Harold Kuempel, Niles, 111., building contractor.
The Chairman. Do you waive counsel ?
Mr. Kuempel. Yes, I do.
The Chairman. How long have you been a building contractor ?
Mr. Kuempel. 12 years.
The Chairman. Do you belong to any union ?
9826 IMPROPER ACTIVITIEIS IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. KuEMPEL. No, sir.
The Chairman. Have you ever belonged to a union ?
Mr. KuEMPEL. No, sir.
The Chairman. Have you had contacts with the union as a con-
tractor ?
Mr. KuEMPEL. No, sir.
The Chairman. Yours is a free and open shop ?
Mr. Kuempel. I sublet my work.
Tlie Chairman. You let the other fellow do the worrying ?
Mr. Kuempel. That is right.
The Chairman. All right, proceed.
Mr. Kennedy. You had some bathtubs you were installing in 1956,
June and July of 1956?
Mr. Kuempel. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. Where were you installing the bathtubs ?
Mr. Kuempel. In Niles.
Mr. Kennedy. Wliere?
Mr. Kuempel. In Niles, 111.
Mr. Kennedy. Now, did you have any damage to the bathtubs ?
Mr. Kuempel. One morning we came down to the job and there
were about seven jobs, and they were scratched with a sharp instru-
ment. So we contacted the Kohler Co. with respect to them, and on
the subflooring it said, "Stop using Kohler fixtures."
Mr. Kennedy. 'V'V'Tiat is that ?
Mr. Kuempel. On the subflooring, these jobs were just roughed in,
and so the Kohler representative came out.
Mr. Kennedy. There were notes there saying, "Stop using Kohler
fixtures?"
Mr. Kuempel. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Were the notes typewritten ?
]Mr. Kuempel. With a crayon.
Mr. Kennedy. Now, had you had any trouble or difficulty prior to
that time ?
]Mr. Kuempel. Never.
Mr. Kennedy. Had anybody called you or told you, you should not
use Kohler fixtures ?
Mr. Kuempel. No, sir.
Mr. Kennedy.
Mr. Kuempel. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. And there was a note or there were notes written,
"Stop using Kohler fixtures," and then the bath tubs were scratched?
Mr. Kuempel. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. How were they scratched ?
Mr. Kuempel. Well, they had a sharp object and it was scratched
with crosses, where the tubs were to be placed.
Mr. Kennedy. They made an indentation in the bath tub ?
Mr. Kuempel. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Did it scratch off the enamel or what ?
Mr. Kuempel. Sure, it went in a quarter of an inch or a 16th.
Mr. Kennedy. There were crosses ?
Mr. Kuempel. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. How many bath tubs ?
Mr. Kuempel. I think it was five or six.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 9827
Mr. Kennedy. How much does a bath tub cost ?
Mr. KuEMPEL. I imagine about $90.
Mr. Kennedy. So how much was the damage ?
Mr. KuEMPEL. Well, Kohler replaced the tubs for me, and all I had
to do was reinstall them.
Mr. Kennedy. Did that cost you anything ?
Mr. Kuempel. Just the installation charges.
Mr. Kennedy. The extra installation charges ?
Mr. Kuempel. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. How much was the damage ?
Mr. Kuempel. I imagine about $20 or $25 a job.
Mr. Kennedy. But the Kohler Co. had to replace the six bath tubs
at approximately $90 apiece ?
Mr. Kuempel. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. So they lost the $550 that they had to replace ?
Mr. Kuempel. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. Then you lost the $20 apiece ?
Mr. Kuempel. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. So you lost over $100 yourself ?
Mr. Kuempel. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Now, did you install those bath tubs that they re-
placed ?
Mr. Kuempel. Yes, we did,
Mr. Kennedy. Did you have any trouble after that ?
Mr. Kuj;mpel. None whatsoever. We resorted to American Stand-
ard on the rest, and I believe it was 16 more jobs.
Mr. Kennedy. Then you changed. For what reason did you
change ?
Mr. Kuempel. Well, in order not to have any more trouble.
Mr. Kennedy. Was it because of this difficulty that you changed ?
Mr. Kuempel. I believe so, definitely.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you change for the reason of the damage that
was done to your bath tubs ?
Mr. Kuempel. Yes, sir.
jVIr. Kennedy. Now, did you have any other damage done to your
])roperty?
Mr Kuempel. No.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you have any windows broken ?
Mr Kuempel. We did have a window broken a few weeks later, I
imagine about 4 weeks later. I don't know whether that pertained to
this incident or not.
Mr. Kennedy. Was there any other reason that the window would
be broken ?
Mr. Kuempel. I haven't any idea.
Ml". Kennedy. The damage there was some $275 ?
Mr. Kuempel. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you believe that it related to this incident or do
you know ?
Mr. Kuempel. I can't say for sure.
Mr. Kennedy. It was a thermopane window ?
Mr. Kuempel. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. To break a thermopane window, wouldn't you have
to use a hammer ?
21243— 58— pt. 24 23
9828 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOK FIEI.D
Mr. KuEMPEL. It would have to be a very heavy object.
Mr. Kennedy. Why would anybody break the window ?
Mr. KuEMPEL. I don't know.
Mr. Kennedy. And you stopped in order to avoid future problems
and difficulties ?
Mr. KuEMPEL. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. So if the purpose of scratching the bath tub was to
prevent you from using Kohler products, they were successful ?
Mr. KuEMPEL. That is right.
The Chairman. Did you have any more trouble after that ?
Mr KuEMPEL. No, we did not.
The Chairman. When you quit using Kohler, vou got along peace-
fully?
Mr. KuEMPEL. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. And had no more damage ?
Mr-KuEMPEL. No, sir.
The Chairman. What does that convince you of ?
Mr. Kuempel. Well, I mean it is just one of those things, and if you
want to get involved, you continue on, and I don't know what the con-
sequences would be.
The Chairman. Just one of those things ?
Mr. Kuempel. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. A pretty impressive thing, was it not?
Mr. Kuempel. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. Rather convincing ?
Mr. Kuempel. Yes, sir ; it was.
The Chairman. And it became conclusive?
Mr. Kuempel. That is right.
Senator Curtis. Where was this location where these bath tubs
were scratched ?
Mr, Kuempel. It was on the flooring in one room.
Senator Curtis. What county and State?
Mr. Kuempel. Niles, Illinois.
Senator Curtis. Did you report it to the police ?
Mr. Kuempel. Yes, sir ; we did.
Senator Curtis. And what was done about it?
Mr. Kuempel. Well, nothing was done. They sort of put a patrol
on the area just to check and find out who was doing it.
Senator Curtis. Did they find out ?
Mr Kuempel. No, they were not able to.
Senator Curtis. Did you keep any of the notes that were written?
Mr. Kuempel. No, sir, I did not.
Senator Curtis. What were they written on ?
Mr. Kuempel. On the sub-flooring.
Senator Curtis. They were written on the flooring?
Mr. Kuempel. Yes, sir.
Senator Curtis. Not on a piece of paper ?
Mr. Kuempel. Oh, no ; right on the floor.
Senator Curtis. They are all covered up now ?
Mr. Kuempel. Yes, sir.
Senator Curtis. They wrote with a crayon ?
Mr. Kuempel. With crayon, that is right.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES' IN THE LABOR FIELD 9829
Senator Curtis. As best as you can remember, what did they say?
Mr. KuEMPEL. I believe I don't remember definitely the wording,
but "Stop using Kohler products."
Senator Curtis. Plow much would have been your loss had the
Kohler Co. not replaced these tubs?
Mr KuEMPEL. Five tubs at about $90 offhand, and the charge for in-
stallation, maybe about $G50.
Senator Curtis. "\^nien you take these contracts, you let the plumbing
out for subcontracting ?
Mr. KuEMPEL. That is right.
Senator Curtis. Do you let all of the rest of the construction out ?
Mr. KuEMPEL. No, I maintain my own carpenters.
Senator Curtis. Your own carpenters ?
Mr. KuEMPEL. That is right.
Senator Curtis. How big an operator are you ?
Mr. KuEMPEL. About 20 houses a year.
Senator Curtis. About 20 houses a year ?
Mr. KuEMPEL. That is right.
Senator Curtis. And how long after did you continue to use Kohler ?
Mr. KuEMPEL. Well, I stopped at that particular time and resorted
to American Standard when we finished up the rest of them.
Senator Curtis. Why did you feel that you must make that switch?
Mr. KuEMPEL. Well, to stop any other encounter of any vandalism
or whatever prevailed.
Senator Ci'Rtis. That is all, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Is there anything further ?
If not, thank you.
Call the next witness.
Mr. Kenxedy. Mr. Charles Link.
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. Link. I do.
TESTIMONY OF CHARLES LINK
The Chairman. Be seated. State your name and place of residence,
and your business or occupation.
Mr. Link. Charles H. Link, Jackson, Mich. My place of business
is Link Co., 414 North Blackstone Street, Jackson.
The Ciiaieman. You waive counsel, do you, Mr. Link ?
Mr. Link. I do.
The Chairman, xire you a member of any union ?
Mr. Link. No, sir.
The Chairman. Have you ever been ?
Mr. Link. No, sir.
The Chairman. Are you in the contracting business ?
Mr. Link. No, sir. I am a wholesaler. I am a supplier, I am a
distributor.
The Chairman. You are a distributor ?
Mr. Link. That is correct.
The Chairman. All right, Mr. Kennedy.
Mr. Kennedy. You distribute Kohler products ?
9830 iMPROPEK AcrrvrnHS in the labor field
Mr. Link. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. Do you distribute anything other than Kohler
products ?
Mr. Link. Yes, sir, the general line of plumbing and heating
materials.
Mr. Kennedy. Were you approached on or about December 26, 1956,
by union representatives about your use of Kohler products?
Mr. Link. Yes, sir, I was.
Mr. Kennedy. And amongst those who came to see you was John
Archibalt?
Mr. Link. OftheUAW? Yes, sir.
Mr. B^ENNEDY. And Leo Brannix, business agent from Local o.51
of the plumbers?
Mr. Link. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. And two other representatives of the CIO locals, is
that right?
Mr. Link. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. Were they UAW locals, the two other men ?
Mr. Link. They were, I believe.
Mr. Kennedy. And they asked you to cooperate in the boycott of the
Kohler products ?
Mr. Link. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. And not to use the Kohler products, is that right ?
Mr. Link. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. What did you tell them at that time ?
Mr. Link. "No."
Mr. Kennedy. You told them you would continue to use Kohler
products ?
Mr. Link. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. Did they threaten you at that time ?
Mr. Link. No.
Mr. Kennedy. Did they tell you anything harmful would ha^ppen to
you if you continued to use Kohler ?
Mr. Link. No.
Mr. Kennedy. They had a conversation with you not to use them
and you said you would use them anyway ?
Mr. Link. That is correct. They got up and walked out of my
office after I told them no.
Mr. Kennedy. Were they angiy at the time ?
Mr. Link. I don't know.
Mr. Kennedy. On January 11, approximately, did pickets appear
at your place of business ?
Mr. Link. They did.
Mr. Kennedy. Two pickets appeared that morning ?
Mr. Link. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. And they started picketing your place ?
Mr. Link. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. And they were Vincent J. Brackin, one of the n\en
that had come to see you
Mr. Link. No, Brannick was not one of the orginial people that
called on me. Vincent Brackin is the president of the CIO council,
Jadison County Council.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 9831
to see you is Leo Brannick, is that correct \
Mr, Link. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. Vincent Brackin, president of Jackson County CIO
Council was one of the pickets and the other was Carl Acker?
Mr. Link. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. And they carried signs, did they ?
Mr. Link. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. And the sign said, "Don't buy Kohler fixtures and
fittings, made by scabs, sold by Link Co.," is that correct?
Mr. Link. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. And they marched up and down in front of your
company
Mr. Link. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. Did they say anything to anybody going into your
company, into your place of business ?
Mr. Link. They talked to some people as they arrived or in front
of the store and talked to some people as they left the store. These
were customers or employees of customers. They occasionally talked
to some truck drivers that were attempting to deliver merchandise to
the store or incoming freight.
Mr. Kennedy. Did they urge them not to go into your store ?
Mr. Link. The results of those conversations is difficult. The prob-
lem was they were attempting to tell the people not to buy Kohler,
implying not to buy from Link Co.
Mr. Ketnnedy. Did they cause any damage to your shop ?
Mr. Link. No, sir. There was no physical violence or damage.
Mr, Kennedy. Had they threatened anybody that went into the
shop?
Mr. Link. Not that I saw.
Mr. Kennedy. Did the pickets continue after January 11 ?
Mr. Link. The pickets continued until January 17. At that time,
they were served with an injunction and a temporary injunction.
Mr. Kennedy. So they continued steadily from January 11 to
January 17?
Mr. Link. The 11th was a Friday. The next Monday
Mr. Kennedy. The 14th?
Mr. Ltnk. A j-egular working day, the picket line was there. It
was there every day until the injunction was served.
Mr. Ivennedy. Did they take down the license plate numbers of
those that were
Mr. Link. The pickets engaged in jotting down license plates or
other identification information of almost all vehicles that parked in
front of my place of business.
Mr. Kennedy. And what was done with that list, do you know ?
Mr. Link. Some of it we knew was read off in union meetings.
Mr. Kennedy. The list of those people who were using your com-
pany?
Mr. Link. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. Or visiting your company ? Any customers of yours
who drove cars and who could be identified, their names were read off
at a meeting of the Plumbers Union ?
Mr. Link. That is correct.
9832 IMPRiOPER ACT'IVITIEIS IN THE LABQiR FIEI.D
Mr. Kennedy. Did you find that out ? That was reported to you ?
Mr. Link. Tliat was reported to me.
Mr. Kennedy. Did Mr. Archibalt come back again ; do you know ?
Mr. Link. No ; I never saw Mr. Archibalt after that.
Mr. Kennedy. Did his automobile ? Were you able to identify his
automobile ?
Mr. Link. Yes. The persons who seemed to be controlling the
operations of the picket, or picket line, whichever you want to call it,
that were giving them instructions, picking them up and transporting
them back and forth and periodically checking it, we noted the license
numbers of some of those vehicles.
One of those vehicles was registered to John Archibalt.
Mr. Kennedy. You got an injunction on January 16 ?
INIr. Link. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. And that enjoined the pickets from picketing your
establishment ?
Mr. Link. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. And then, subsequent to that, a secondary boycott
charge was filed with the National Labor Relations Board ?
Mr. Link. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. Directed against these same people, is that right ?
Mr. Link. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. And you did not proceed with that case because this
group, the defendants, made a consent agreement to agree not to dis-
courage employees of the Link Co. by picketing, is that right ?
Mr. Link. That is correct, an agreement of that nature was reached.
Mr. Kennedy. Wlio was that aimed against ?
Who were the def endents ? John Archibalt of the CIO ?
Mr. Link. No. The defendants were the officers of the Jackson
County CIO council. That is the only CIO organization we could
pin down at that time. Brannick, Vincent Brannick was president
of it. Our bill of complaint listed those people, their names, John
Doe and Mary Roe.
Mr. Kennedy. But they are representatives of the CIO and they
are the ones that agreed to discontinue this picketing?
Mr. Link. That is correct. The agreement was signed by a later
president, a man by the name of Mr. Paul, who superseded Mr. Bran-
nick in an election.
Mr. Kennedy. And they agreed to discontinue the picketing ; is that
correct ?
Mr. Link. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you have any trouble or difficulty after that ?
Mr. Link. Nothing in a direct manner.
Mr. Kennedy. The picketing ended ?
Mr. Link. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you have any problem or difficulty indirectly ?
Mr. Link. Nothing on an organized basis.
Mr. Kennedy. What do you mean by that ?
Mr. Link. Well, your implication there of a picket and the promo-
tion of a boycott was always present and it still is present today.
Mr. Kennedy. Did anybody make any statements to you to that
effect, that you would have another picket line ?
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES m THE LABOR FIELD 9833
Mr. Link. No. No, there was no other intimidation or any refer-
ence whatsoever to picketing on an organized basis after the
agreements.
Mr. Kennedy. Was there reference to picketing on an unorganized
basis ?
Mr. Link. No.
Mr. Kennedy. Wliat you mean is that that problem or difficulty was
always
Mr. Link. It ceased. We considered the case closed.
Mr. Kennedy. But there was always that problem that there might
be picketing, it was always present in this controversy ?
Mr. Link. It may have been. The picket — I mean the agreement
was confined strictly to Jackson County.
Mr. Kennedy. What I asked you was did you have any trouble or
difficulty after that?
Mr. Link. No.
Mr. Kennedy. The answer is "No", you had no more trouble ?
Mr. Link. No, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. All right.
Senator Curtis. Mr. Chairman ?
The Chairman. Senator Curtis.
Senator Curtis. What union was it that entered into the agreement
that resulted in the consent decree ?
Mr. Link. It was a group of unions.
Senator Curtis. A group of union ?
Mr. Link. A group of UAW-CIO unions, the group consisting of
members 6r the local unions belonging to the Jackson Council, Jackson
County Council. In other words, it is a rather loose organization.
Senator Curtis. Did the head of the council sign for all of them in
the agreement ?
Mr. Link. That is correct, the president.
Senator Curtis. Who represented the company in that case ?
Mr. Link. ^Miodid?
Senator Curtis. Yes, what attorney ?
Mr. Link. My attorney was John Anderson of Jackson.
Senator Curtis. Who represented the defendants ?
Mr. Link. I do not know.
Senator Curtis. You do not know.
Now, is Link Co. a corporation or a partnership ?
Mr. Link. No ; it is a partnership.
Senator Curtis. You are one of the owners, one of the partners ?
Mr. Link. That is correct.
Senator Curtis. How large is your establishment ?
Mr. Link. How large?
Senator Curtis. Yes, how many employees do you have ?
Mr. Link. I have 10 employees.
Senator Curtis. You have 10 employees ; and do you sell anything
besides plumbing supplies ?
Mr. Link. Plumbing supplies, generally, pipe fitting and valves,
other plumbing fixtures, anything else that goes along that field.
Senator Curtis. For how long a time have you carried Kohler
fixtures ?
Mr. Link. Approximately 25 years.
9834 •IMPROPE'R ACTIVITIBS IN THE LABOR FIELD
Senator Curtis. Have you done any advertising in that time ?
Mr. Link. Yes, we have.
Senator Curtis. You have featured the Kohler products in your
advertising?
Mr. Link. Yes, we have.
Senator Curtis. Have you carried a full line of Kohler products?
Mr. Link. That is correct. I have for a good many years.
Senator Curtis. Have you carried a full line of other plumbing?
Mr. Link. A partial line of Briggs Manufacturing.
Senator Curtis. Did you, yourself, observe this jotting down of
license numbers of people who came ?
Mr. Link. Yes, I did. Other employees did, too.
Senator Curtis. And did they jot down license numbers of every-
body they could that came in there, regardless of what their errand
was in your store ?
Mr. Link. That seemed to be the standard procedure for the picket
on duty, to note down all arriving vehicles of people entering our
store. The picket would wait until such time — usually until such time
as the occupant of the vehicle left and entered my store. Then he
would walk over and jot down the number and walk back to his own
vehicle or to assume his route of march that they had.
Senator Curtis. Did that constitute a harassment of customers ?
Mr. Link. An intimidation.
Senator Curtis. Probably a few people did not pay any attention
to it?
Mr. Link. That is correct.
Senator Curtis. But a number of them, the customers, would be
timid about going through such an ordeal, would they not?
Mr. Link. In other words, customers would be reluctant to enter
my premises for the purpose of picking up merchandise. That was
obvious.
Senator Curtis. Did any evidence come to you that the impression
might be given that you had labor difficulties or that there were charges
against you that you were unfair in some labor matter?
_ Mr. Link. That was not indicated from the posters that they car-
ried. It was not necessarily indicated with any conversation we could
have with them or, particularly, with any other personnel. It was not
indicated in conversation with our customers.
In talking with our customers, we pointed that fact out. My clien-
tele is a continuous turnover of the same clientele. It is not new every
day. It is the same clientele, day in and day out, year in and year out^
primarily.
They know that I am not a union house as a matter of course.
The Chairman. A what?
Mr. Link. A union house. I have no union in my organization.
Senator Curtis. You have 10 employees ?
Mr. Link. That is correct.
Senator Curtis. And you have a retail establishment ?
Mr. Link. No ; it is not retail. It is wholesale.
Senator Curtis. It is all wholesale ?
Mr. Link. That is correct, sir.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 9835
Senator Curtis. Those 10 employees are the people who work in
the business, salesmen and so forth.
Mr. Link. That is correct.
Senator Curtis. They do not work in the building trades ?
Mr. Link. No.
Senator Curtis. You do not do construction work '?
Mr. Link. No.
Senator Curtis. That is all, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. All right ; thank you very much.
The committee will stand in recess until 10 : 30 a. m. tomorrow.
( Wliereupon, at 4 : 47 p. m., the hearing in the above-entitled matter
was recessed, to reconvene at 10 : 00 a. m., on the following day.)
(Members of the select committee present at the taking of the recess
were Senators McClellan and Curtis.)
INVESTIGATION OF IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE
LABOR OR MANAGEMENT FIELD
TUESDAY, MABCH 25, 1958
United States Senate,
Select Commtttee on Improper Activities
IN the Labor or Management Field,
Washington^ D. C.
The select committee met at 10 : 50 a. m., pursuant to Senate Reso-
lution 221, agreed to January 29, 1958, in the caucus room. Senate
Office Building, Senator John L, McClellan (chairman of the select
committee) presiding.
Present: Senators John L. McClellan, Democrat, Arkansas; John
F. Kennedy, Democrat, Massachusetts ; Barry Goldwater, Republican,
Arizona ; Karl E. Mundt, Republican, South Dakota ; Carl T. Curtis,
Republican, Nebraska; and Sam J. Ervin, Jr., Democrat, North
Carolina.
Also present : Robert F. Kennedy, Chief Counsel ; Jerome S. Adler-
man, Assistant Chief Counsel ; John J. McGovern, Assistant Counsel ;
and 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, Curtis, Goldwater, and Mundt.)
The Chairman. Mr. Kennedy, call the next witness.
Mr. Kennedy. I believe Senator Goldwater has a statement to make.
The Chairman. I beg your pardon. Senator Goldwater.
Senator Goldwater. Mr. Chairman, I have a prepared statement
that I want to read. I will not be too long.
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee :
During this long hearing into what I consider to be a very important
phase of labor-management relations, I have been extremely patient
with the repeated outbursts of the counsel for the UAW-CIO, Mr.
Rauh.
I had intended to allow several instances to pass without my com-
ment, feeling that Mr. Rauh might have engaged in them through
overzealousness but, Mr. Chairman, when Mr. Rauh arose in this hear-
ing room yesterday and accused Senators Mundt, Curtis, and myself
of being biased and unfair during these hearings, I decide that patience
would have to stand aside.
I, as one member of this committee, and speaking only for myself,
have had more than enough of Mr. Rauh's misleading statements in
the hearing before this Senate committee.
He well knows that his function here, in representing one of the
two parties in this case, should be to assist the committee and its staff
9837
9838 iIMPBOPEE ACTIVITIEIS IN THE LABO'R FIELD
in interpreting the law, seeing that factual evidence is presented, and
in providing those he represents with proper legal counsel.
1, and the other members of this committee, welcome the help and
assistance of counsel when his conduct of the case is kept in orthodox
channels.
But Mr. Rauh has time after time attempted to mislead this com-
mittee with misstatements of fact that have been, at times, presented
without his being sworn.
He has also made a wild and irresponsible statement concerning
Senator Curtis, a member of this committee.
Some of his statements have been so erroneous, and they have oc-
curred with such frequency, as to force me to come to the reluctant
conclusion that this is being done deliberately.
This committee of the United States Senate should, under no cir-
cumstances, be forced to sit here and accept this sort of irresponsible
conduct on the part of an attorney representing one of the parties.
Now, Mr. Chairman, the counsel for the UAW has shown numerous
evidences for his disregard for the members of this committee.
An instance of this occurred when the committee had Witness
Robert Burkhart, international representative of the United Auto
Workers Union, before it on March 4, 1958.
On that occasion. Counsel Rauh charged Senator Curtis with at-
tempting to smear the witness Burkhart and Mrs. Burkhart.
Now it is my opinion, and I believe the dictionary supports me in
this, that the use of the term "smear" in this case could only mean the
utterance of an untruth — that Senator Curtis, a member of the com-
mittee, had uttered an untruth.
We know, as Mr. Rauh undoubtedly knew, that in the light of
Burkhart's background — his political affiliations and his private life —
Senator Curtis was trying to establish Burkhart's credibility as a
witness in this investigation and that what was elicited about Mr.
Burkhart's private life was the truth.
I now call the chairman's attention to these additional facts that
relate to Counsel Rauh's participation in the present investigation:
February 26, 1958.
Mr. Graskamp, UAW, had testified that a Federal Board, in 1934,
had held that the Kohler Workers Association was a company-
diominated union. I quote :
Mr. Rauh. We have the document here that Senator Goldwater has been
asking about. It is Case No. 115 ; hearing, September 8, 1934 ; decision, September
1.5, 1934 ; before the National Labor Relations Board ; under the old NRA. And
if Senator Goldwater would like to insert this or the particular paragraph we
would be happy to do so.
It does say this is a company dominated union.
Senator Goldwateb. I was interested in the year, and I was confused with
1934 and 1952.
The Chairman. 1934 is before the enactment of the Wagner Act, and this was
under the old NRA?
Mr. Rauh. Yes ; that is correct.
The Chahiman. The one that had the eagle spread out?
Mr. Rauh. Yes. (Transcript February 26, 1958, pp. 77-78.)
Mr. Chairman, I charge that Mr. Rauh, in this instance, was guilty
of an attempt to mislead this committee. He offered a public record
of the year 1934 to show that the KWA was a company-dominated
imion.
IMPROPER ACTIVrTIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 9839
He did not even mention other public records though he must have
known of their existence, that showed that for the 17 years during
which KWA represented Kohler's employees, from 1934 to 1952, it
was a perfectly legitimate, completely independent labor union and
had been so certified by the appropriate public agencies.
The trial examiner, in his intermediate report in the pending NLKB
Kohler case, pointed out, on page 5 thereof: (1) that in 1934, KWA
won an NLRB election and that the same NLRB to which Mr. Rauh
referred, on March 2G, 1935, directed Kohler to recognize KWA; (2)
that in 1946, the Wisconsin Employment Relations Board (WERB)
held an election between KWA and AFL which KWA won and was
certified by the WERB; (3) that in March, 1951, the Wagner Act
National Labor Relations Board conducted an election between KWA
which as a result thereof, was certified by the NLRB as the legitimate
bargaining agent of the Kohler employees. As a matter of fact, even
in the election of 1952, which the UAW won against KWA, KWA
could not have appeared on the NLRB ballot if it had been a company-
dominated union.
Moreover, during that entire period, there is no evidence that any-
one, no, not even the UAW, either before or after it lost the NLRB
election in 1951, ever filed a charge with any appropriate government
agency. State or Federal, alleging that KWA was company dominated.
See also pages 134-136, transcript of Feb. 26, 1958.
Mr. Chairman, that is not all. Mr. Rauh not only attempted to mis-
lead this committee, and the press and the public as well no doubt, by
his omissit)ns of these public records. In his statement, refeiring to
the 1934 record he submitted, he said, and I quote :
"It does say this is a company-dominated union," and by the use of
the present tense, as well as his omissions, clearly implied that KWA
continued permariently thereafter to be company dominated.
We come now to a second example of Mr. Rauh's inaccuracy and its
effect of misleading this committee, but more particularly the Amer-
ican public. The chairman, on February 27, 1958, called for the show-
ing of the moving pictures made by the Kohler Company.
Mr. Rauh objected, and I quote from the transcript, pages 290-291 :
Mr. Rauh. Mr. Chairman, the union requests the right to inspect the motion
pictures before they are shown on several grounds, if the Chairman please.
The company used at the NLRB hearing a cropped photo.
The Chairman. Just a moment, I am going to conduct the hearings just as
fairly as I know how, but I want you to understand now, we are not going to let
either the union or company run this proceeding.
Mr. Rauh. I am not asking to run it. I am asking to be heard for 1 minute
on this request: That is, that we be allowed to inspect the movie before it is
shown, because there is prima facie evidence, and I think if I could examine the
man who took these movies, that these movies are a cropped part of a number of
reels.
This is, I believe, about 1 reel out of 12. It could not possibly tell the whole
story, and they should put on all of the movies or none, but they shouldn't be
allowed to put on part.
Now, at the National Labor Relations Board hearing the examiner found that
these movies were unreliable, and untrustworthy, and to use them without letting
us see which ones they are and produce a witness to the fact that these are
cropped photos, seems to us unfair.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I wish to point out the ^ross inaccuracies in
the statement by Mr. Rauh from which I have just quoted. He as-
serted that these films had been shown before the trial examiner in the
9840 IMPROPER ACTIVITIEIS IN THE LABOR FIELD
NLRB hearing. As a matter of fact, as Mr. O'Neil of the Kohler Co.
testified under oath on page 300 of the transcript, and without
contradiction, these films had never been shown before.
True, there were films shown in the NLRB hearing, but they were
not these films; the NLRB films involved another picket line almost
8 months later. But so eager was Mr. Rauh to discredit the films shown
to us, that he relied on a statement made by the trial examiner in
connection with a completely different film.
The trial examiner in referring to this completely different film said
on page 73 of his intermediate report, and I quote :
The Geueral Counsel (of the NLRB) called an expert witness, Henry Ushijima,
who had made a careful examination both of the reels which respondent offered
and of a substantial portion of the dozen reels from which it had been compiled.
That, Mr. Chairman, is where Mr. Rauh must have gotten his notion
that the films we saw was only 1 reel out of 12 rather than the 900 feet
out of 1,300 that it actually was. But that, Mr. Chairman, is not all.
Not only did Mr. Rauh misrepresent the movie we saw, he misrepre-
sented the movie shown to the trial examiner in the NLRB hearing.
He characterized the trial examiner as having found the movie, and I
quote, "unreliable and untrustworthy." Here is what the tiial exami-
ner said on page 73 of his intermediate report in connection with the
movie which this Committee did not see :
TTie movie film was of no great value under all the circumstances which sur-
rounded its preparation and identification ; it is worthless as evidence of iden-
tification of particular strikers in particular incidents and as to their actual
commission of alleged acts of misconduct.
Note the examiner's language well.
He did not say the film was as Mr. Rauh put it "unreliable and un-
trustworthy." He said it was worthless for a particular purpose, to
wit,
as evidence of identification of particular strikers in particular incidents.
But he did go on to j)oint out, that in other respects, the film was of
considerable value and hence of reliability. I quote from his report
on the same page :
What the film does show, however, is that there were incidents in front of
the employment office when groups of pickets were actively engaged in blocking,
pushing, shoving and otherwise impeding the entrance of persons into the
(Kohler) employment office. It thus offers general corroboration of respond-
ent's (Kohler's) witnesses that such incidents occurred and it refutes similarly
general testimony by some of the General Counsel's witnesses that all the pickets
did was to stand and engage the job seekers in conversation. Thus, what the
movie does, is to supply the element of motion, missing of necessity from the
still photographs, which could show the participants only as frozen.
I ask the chairman and members of this committee if this sounds like
a description by the trial examiner of an "unreliable and untrust-
worthy" film as attributed to him by Mr. Rauh.
March 5, 1958.
Another instance in which Mr. Rauh on March 5, 1958, attempted
to mislead this committee, Mr. Chairman, is found on page 1025 of
the transcript. There he stated as follows :
Mr. Chairman, that statement was given by the man's wife, of the man who
perpetrated the hoax at the request of Kohler Co.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 9841
Again on page 1029 of the transcript Mr, Rauh stated :
I don't know what more substantial evidence we could produce here than the
man's wife's own statement to the district attorney that this was a hoax per-
petrated by three Kohler men.
In referring to the statement made by the wife, it will be noted that
it contains no reference to an alleged hoax perpetrated by the Kohler
Co. In fact, the word hoax does not even appear in the statement.
It was just Attorney Rauh's irresponsible asumption, made when he
was not under oath before the committee.
(At this point. Senator Kennedy entered the hearing room.)
Senator Goldwater. Sworn testimony by Witness Gerard A. Des-
mond indicated that the firing into the side of the garage at the Joyce
farm was carried out as part of the Kohler Co.'s investigation of the
reported incident and was done only to establish a shotgun pattern at
the range described by Joyce in his report of having shot at an in-
truder. This test was made some time after Henry Joyce, Jr., first
reported that a shooting incident had occurred in the yard of his
home.
On page 1177 of the transcript Mr. Rauh, again making a statement
not under oath, further misled the committee by declaring that the
statement of Mr. Joyce was given on the day after Joyce reported the
purported incident.
As the statement indicates on its face, and as Mr. Lyman C. Conger
pointed out, on page 1179 of the transcript, the statement is dated
January 8, 1955, but Jo3^ce had reported to the company that the
so-called incident took place on January 4, 1955.
Mr. Rauh, in a further attempt to mislead the committee, on page
1414 said :
Dr. Simonson, I understand is a pediatrician in Sheboygan
and on page 1415 he stated :
Mr. Chairman, I didn't slander this man. I said he was a pediatrician. There
are a lot of people who go around bragging about that.
The misleading effect of these statements by Mr. Rauh is shown by
the affidavit of Dr. Lloyd M. Simonson in which he said he is a duly,
legally practicing physician and surgeon of the State of Wisconsin.
It is submitted that if he was a pediatrician it would be so indicated in
his affidavit, set forth in the record on page 1418.
March 5, 1958.
In yet another instance, on March 5, 1958, and as shown in pages
1025 and 1034 of the transcript. Counsel Rauh attempted to convince
this committee that the 846 affidavits in this case relating to acts of
violence that range from paint bombings of employees' homes to the
dynamiting of automobiles and the beating and maiming of persons
who wished to work and earn a living, really alluded to nothing more
than nuisance telephone calls — "a kind of a joke" — as he termed it in
his reply to me.
This startling statement was made by the UAW counsel after much
sworn testimony had been put into the record by witnesses — the vic-
tims of these attacks of violence — who were under oath.
Mr. Rauh was not under oath when he thus attempted to mislead
the members of the committee.
9842 IMPROPER ACTIVITIHS IN THE LABOR FIELD
I wish to mention one more incident which preceded the confusing
and misleading information we have been given by the representatives
of the union and their attorney.
On the morning of March 6, 1958, Mr. Conger brought to the atten-
tion of the committee, an obscene statement made to him by Mr. Mazey
as he was leaving the witness chair. Mr. Rauh jumped to his feet and
made the following statement which I quote from the transcript.
Mr. Rauh. Mr. Conger stated a lie. (P. 1255)
Again on page 1258, Mr. Rauh said :
I would like to say that what occasioned the incident yesterday, sir, was that
Mr. Conger told Mr. Mazey, and it was that I wanted to bring before this com-
mittee, that Mr. Conger admitted to Mr. Mazey that he had been following
him, and it seemed to me that was something your committee should know,
that this man who is testifying here had our secretary-treasurer shadowed.
Now, Mr. Chairman, the UAW itself put out a news release follow-
ing this incident, which stated that Mr. Mazey spoke to Mr. Conger
first, and not the other way around, as Mr. Rauh had declared.
Moreover, Mr. Conger did not say, as Mr. Rauh indicated that he
was having Mr. Mazey followed. What he did say was in reply to Mr.
Mazey's question to him as to whether Mr. Conger was having him
followed, was "Not now."
Mr. Conger did not lie as Mr. Rauh asserted, as usual when not
under oath.
I think, Mr. C-hairman, that the members of this committee have
been long sufl'ering in connection with Mr. Rauh's conduct during
these hearings. I think it is time to call a halt.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement, at this time, Mr. Chair-
man, however, I reserve the right to comment further after we have
had an opportunity to personally cross-examine an affiant, Mr. Deis,
whose affidavit was submitted by the UAW-CIO.
Mr. Rauh. Mr. Chairman ?
The Chairman. Does any other member of the committee want to
be heard ?
Senator Mundt. Not unless the Chair proposes to hear Mr. Rauh,
to make this a protracted debate, in which case we might like to be
heard.
But it seems to me that we should get on with examining witnesses.
Senator Kennedy. In view of the statements that have been heard,
Mr. Chairman, I think Mr. Rauh ought to be heard. This makes very
serious allegations against Mr. Rauh's integrity.
I think he should have equal time to Senator Goldwater.
The Chairman. Let the Chair make this observation. On yester-
day, Mr. Rauh stated — first I thought he was implying that the whole
committee or the Chair had been unfair, and when I interrupted him
to ascertain exactly what he meant, he said lie did not mean the Chair
had been unfair, but that three members of the committee, I believe
was his language, had been unfair, and, thereafter. Senator Curtis in-
terrogated the witness as to who he meant when he said "three", and
he named the three Senators, Senator Curtis, Senator Goldwater, and
Senator Mundt.
Senator Curtis at that time made some brief comment, but virtually
passed it by, but with the inference that he denied any such implica-
tions that he had been unfair. This morning Senator Goldwater comes
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 9843
in and makes this long statement of some 10 pages, I believe, 9 pages
or something, and before we proceed any further I would like to ascer-
tain whether either of the other members of the committee wish to
make any comment.
Senator Mundt. Mr. Chairman ?
Senator Curtis. Mr. Chairman ?
The Chairman. Senator Mundt.
Senator Mundt. It is precisely for that reason that I answered you
as I did. I thought that Mr. Kauli conveniently chose the time when
t]\Q Senator from South Dakota was out of the room to attack him. I
had been here virtually all morning and virtually all afternoon, but
he made no attack upon my fairness at that time, until after I left the
committee room to go to another meeting.
He chose that time to try to make some derogatory statements
about me. That may be fairness according to the ADA or according
to Mr. Rauh, but it is not fairness according to me. When Senator
Kennedy makes a protestation about the fairness to Mr Rauh, it would
seem to me that somebody might well protect a committee member
who happens to be absent, when a counsel before a committee who, ac-
cording to the rules, as I understand it, is there to give legal advice
to counsel, and not either abuse or throw orchids to committee members.
But when he does those types of things, I am willing to pass it, unless
the Chair desires to make this a debate between counsel and the mem-
bers of the committee, in which instance I wish to participate, but at
this time not until Mr. Rauh has spoken because I don't want to be
shot in thejaack again.
The Chairman. Senator Curtis.
Senator Curtis. Mr. Chairman, I think it would be in the interest
of clarity as well as fairness if before Mr. Rauh is heard, that he pre-
pare a written answer to tlie written charges and that we take a look
at them. These statements of Senator Goldwater are in writing, speci-
fied as to book and page. The witness brought it on himself. He
made this attack yesterday. I am not objecting to him making an
answer at some time, but I do think that we should require him to
answer in writing, with the book and page of these things.
I don't believe that I waive my permanent right to protest as to what
Mr. Rauh said yesterday, but I am not going to even exercise that now.
I will do that later.
Senator Kennedy. Mr. Chairman ?
The Chairman. Just a moment. Do I understand the position of
the three Republican members is they don't want Mr. Rauh to be
heard ?
Senator Curtis. I said that I think he ought to answer the writt^
charges in writing and submit them to the committee before he makes
his request to be heard.
The Chairman. Is that the view of the other members ?
Senator Goldwater. No, Mr. Chairman, I would just as soon have
Mr. Rauh say what he wants to say right here.
The Chairman. How about you. Senator Mundt ?
Senator Mundt. I am perfectly willing to make this a debating so-
ciety if the Chair so rules. I am not going to hold either way.
The Chairman. The Chair wants to rule. He want to find out
what you folks want to do.
21243— 58— pt. 24 24
9844 IMPROPER ACTTVITIEIS IN THE LABOR FIELD
Senator Mundt. I am going to say that if Mr. Rauh is permitted
to give a speech, then I propose to answer him at the conclusion of his
remarks if he remains, and, if not, when he comes back.
I will do it while he is here. I will not use the tactics of attacking
an absentee. I was willing to pass all of this, because I thought we
had a lot of witnesses to be heard. I am a little curious to know why
we have counsel giving speeches in direct violation of every rule that
the committee ever had. According to law, I think this would be
acceptable, but I can find nothing in the rulebook to justify any of the
acts of proceedings that Mr. Rauh has made, or the one that he is now
bubbling to make. I am not going to protest, but I am certainly
going to reserve my right to reiply, if that is going to be the committee's
procedure.
The Chairman. Mr. Rauh is a witness as well as counsel. He has
been sworn and has been interrogated by members of the committee
at different times. The Chair is only trying to ascertain now what
is the pleasure of the committee.
Senator Kennedy.
Senator Kennedy. I notice in looking at the testimony of yesterday,
at page 3756, Mr. Rauh quoted a statement Mr. Emil Mazey had made,
and then he said :
Now, the reason I have cited these 4 examples, is that any statement, hearsay-
statement, that is so full of errors as the 4 I have already given you, and par-
ticularly 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.
I understand that the chairman said :
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 or 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 of the members of the committee, and
that I, too, share the belief that the chairman is trying to be fair under diflBcult
circumstances.
Senator Curtis asked who the three members w^ere. Senator Mundt
charged that Mr. Rauh attacked him while he was absent.
The fact is that Mr. Curtis asked for the identification. Mr. Rauh
did not make it gratuitously. While that is Mr. Rauh's opinion, he
can substantiate it if he feels he is able to. For Senator Goldwater
to give a 9- or 10-page attack on Mr. Rauh and then for Senator
Curtis to suggest that his answer should be in writing at some future
date, which should be examined first by the committee before Mr.
Rauh is permitted to make his answer, is most unfair.
1 think Mr. Rauh ought to be able to make his answer now.
The Chairman. The Chair is going to permit the witness to have
2 minutes, and I am going to then proceed with the hearings, unless
I am completely outvoted. Senator Mundt may have a minute or
two to reply. I can't stop members of the committee.
This proceeding is getting to where we are getting nonproductive
so far as the work of this committee is concerned. The Chair has made
mistakes, and I have no doubt about that, in trying to preside over
these hearings, but we should keep in mind, all of us, particularly
those of us on the committee, that this committee has a terrific assign-
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES Ds^ THE LABOR FIELD 9845
ment, an importcant job to do, and we are representatives of the United
States Senate and of our Government.
We ought to proceed with as much deliberation as it is possible to
get our work done.
Is there objection to hearing Mr. Rauh for 2 minutes ?
The Chair hears none.
Mr. Rauh, you may proceed for 2 minutes. Make it brief and let's
get along, because the Chair is not going to indulge much longer unless
I am completely overruled by the committee.
TESTIMONY OF JOSEPH L. KAUH, JR.— Resumed
Mr. Rauh. Mr. Chairman, in the 2 minutes allowed me to respond
to Senator Goldwater's 15- or 20-minute attack on me, it will be im-
possible, sir, to deal with the specifics, even though each specific
The Chairman. The Chair is not going to deny you the right to file
a stateinent if you want to. But for the moment, I want to make it
very brief. I want to get on with the work of the committee.
Mr. Raupi. I understand, sir, and I sympathize with your problem,
but 2 minutes to answer 15 or 20 is pretty hard, sir. I will do my best.
Senator Ivennedy. I move that Mr. Rauh be given 5 minutes.
Senator Goldwater. I will second that motion.
The Chairman. Is there objection to the motion ?
The Chair hears none.
Mr. Rauh, you are given 5 minutes.
Mr. R^UH. Thank you, sir.
The Chairman. Beginning now.
Mr. Rauh. It is said in a lawsuit that if you have a weak case, you
try the opposing counsel. I suggest to Senate Goldwater that he has
a weak case, and, for that reason, he is trying me. When I say he has
a weak case, I now challenge Senator Goldwater, Senator Curtis, and
Senator Mundt, to name 1 question in a 5-week hearing that they have
ever asked for the purpose of eliciting derogatory information against
the Kohler Co. Instead of that, they have asked thousands, and I say
thousands, of questions of UAW witnesses intended to bring out
derogatory information.
They have not asked one question of the Kohler Co. witnesses in-
tended to bring out derogatory information. In reverse, they have
asked hundreds of questions of Kohler witnesses that I call homerun
balls, put up for the purpose of allowing the Kohler Co. to state their
position.
They have not asked one question favorable to the United Auto-
mobile Workers. Now for the specifics. As far as my duty to help
the committee and the staff is concerned, I hope Mr. Robert Kenitsdy,
counsel, w^ill confirm that every witness they have asked for has been
here at the exact moment that they were requested and that the United
Automobile Workers has not asked that any witness be subpenaed.
Every one has appeared at the exact moment requested and has
answered every question asked of him. There has been no 5th amend-
ment, no effort to withhold. It has been a completely cooperative
venture.
Now as to the specifics. All I can say about No. 1, in my statement,
is the going after Mr. Burkhart was a smear, I believe it and repeat it.
9846 IMPROPER ACTIVITIHS IN THE LABO)R FIELD
I refer to Senator Kennedy's statement to the committee that this
was despicable conduct that had been engaged in by the company in
attacking Mr. Bnrkhart, and that Senator Curtis was using the com-
pany detective action in the same way.
As far as item No. 2, that I said this is a company-dominated union,
it is certainly. The 1934 statement did show it was a company-
dominated union. There has been no effort to withhold the fact that
there was a change in the union.
In fact, two of the witnesses, beside whom I sat and whom I helped
prepare to testify, with whom I discussed the case, both testified there
was a change in late 1949, from a company-dominated union to another
union.
As far as the question about the movies is concerned, Mr. Chairman,
I will have to let the examiner's statement stand for itself. Senator
Gold water did not read the relevant part of the examiner's statement,
which appears on page 73, in which he refers to Henry Ushijima's
testimony that these movies were not useful in this proceeding as
follows :
His testimony
referring to the expert
is accepted in its entirety. Tiiat testimony and the other evidence showed that
the single reel had been prepared in such a manner that in many cases the scenes
were fragmentized, that the entire effect was spasmodic and confusing, and that
there was inadequate identification as to specific times and dates with the scenes
shown thereon.
That was the basis of my statement that the movies were held un-
reliable and untrustworthy, and I thing that statement was sound.
The next item is the hoax question. I said that Mrs. Joyce had in-
dicated in her statement
The Chairman. One minute.
Mr, Kauh. That this was a hoax. I stand by that.
Senator Goldwater, Curtis, or Mundt, I can't say which, asked that
she be subpenaed. We would be happy to have her subpenaed. I
have not seen her, but we would be glad to have her make the final
decision. That I slandered Dr. Simonson by saying he was a pedia-
irician was based on Mr. Eabinovitz' statement that he takes care of his
children. I certainly have never said anything indicating that I ap-
proved of violence. If I did, I now want to apologize anywhere.
If I made any indication that I approve of violence, that shocks
me. It must have been a misstatement. I don't remember saying it,
but T certainly believe as our entire union does, we want to condemn
violence. I see my time is up. Thank you, sir.
The Chairman. Are there any questions ?
Are there any statements ?
If not, call the next witness.
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. King.
Senator Curtis. Mr. Chairman ?
The Chairman. Senator Curtis.
Senator Curtis. I have just a brief request for some information
that I would like to read into the record to be supplied at a later time.
Tlie Chairman. All right.
Come forward, Mr. King.
Go ahead. Senator.
IMPROPER ACTIYITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 9847
Senator Curtis. I will give a copy to Mr. Kauh.
Mr. Chairman, pursuant to our study of violence used as an organiz-
ing or bargaining technique in labor-management relations, I would
like to have Mr. Walter Reuther furnish to this committee at the
beginning of his testimony certain information described as follows :
1. A list of all the international representatives who have been com-
missioned, appointed, or designated by the UAW-CIO, together with
a copy of the commission form used.
2. That each individual listed as an international representative be
identified amply and that such identification include any aliases which
might have been used by any of such representatives.
3. A list showing the instances in which each international repre-
sentative has been designated to serve in a labor dispute, either di-
rectly participating in the dispute, or serving in an advisory or con-
sultative capacity for any period of time whatsoever.
4. All information which the UAW-CIO has concerning the arrest
of any international representative in connection with the commission
of a misdemeanor or felony, either while serving as such representative
■or at any other time.
5. Copy of the constitution of the UAW-CIO.
The Chairman. Has a copy of that been supplied. Counsel?
Senator Curtis. I have a copy for him and a copy for the reporter.
The Chairman. All right. It may be delivered to counsel.
I do not know, since Mr. Reuther is to appear here Thursday, I do
not know whether he is going to have time to comply with that.
But I would urge counsel to advise Mr. Reuther to make every effort
to comply with it by Thursday.
Mr. Rauh. I will do that. As you well know, sir, he is now in
General Motors negotiations, but we will do our best to have any-
thing we can.
The Chairman. Do your best.
Senator Mundt?
Senator Mundt. I am not going to take 2 minutes that the Chair
suggested I utilize to reply to Mr. Rauh, at this time, other than to
point out that I think the kind of performance we just had from him
emphasizes the position of the Senator from South Dakota, that we do
better in this committee room when we follow the committee rules and
limit the counsel to the function that counsel has normally had in this
committee room, to advise witnesses, instead of giving speeches, in-
terrupting the proceedings and debating with the committee membei-s.
I do hope that as the hearings continue we return to our committee
rules. I don't know why Mr. Rauh has had this strange latitude that
has been given no other counsel, but he certainly has abused it in my
opinion. He abused it specifically when he said that the three mem-
bers of the Republican Party — he apparently doesn't like the Repub-
licans, because he spends most of his time trying to make this a polit-
ical convention. Anyhow, he says the members of the Republican
Party asked no questions of company officials receiving derogatory
information. I think any fair-minded reader who will examine the
questions I asked Lyman Conger when he was on the stand, will find
that time after time I asked questions to elicit unfavorable informa-
tion followed those questions.
9848 IMPRiOPE'R ACTIVITIEIS IN THE LABO« FIEILD
As a matter of fact, when Congressman Hoffman appeared before
us, 3 or 4 times, specifically, when he had misspoken himself and had
accused the UAW of being involved in the strike, I straightened out
the record by pointing out I did not believe the union involved could
possibly be the UAW.
I got smiles of approval and approbation from Mr. Rauh on the
occasion. The only smiles of approval or approbation Mr. Rauh has
ever given the Senator from South Dakota in his whole entire lifetime
came on that occasion. So he refuted his own testimony. Finally, let
me say that I think we are going to find, when we examine the Chair-
man of the N. L. R. B. or his representative, another clear-cut where
Mr. Rauh deliberately or because of lack of information, tried to mis-
lead this committee repeatedly on the basis of what happened at the
boycott and the cease and desist order.
The Chairman, The Chair wishes to make this statement. I have
followed the rules of this committee as far as this committee will per-
mit me to do so. I shall continue to do so. And as between Mr. Rauh
and Mr. Conger, I have shown no partiality or no favoritism. I have
permitted either of them or both of them to speak whenever they
requested to do so, briefly, to state their position or to make a request
on behalf of their client. I have also let them both appear here as
witnesses. I challenge anybody to take this record and point out
where I have been unfair to one and partial to the other.
All right.
Mr. Witness, stand and be sworn.
Mr. Dunn. No, Mr. Chairman, I am counsel for Mr. King and
Local 75.
The Chairman. Witness, please stand up.
Do you solemnly swear that the testimony 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. King. I do.
TESTIMONY OF ANTHONY J. KING, ACCOMPANIED BY COUNSEL
THOMAS X. DUNN
The Chairman. State your name, your place of residence and your
business or occupation.
Mr. Kjng. My name is Anthony J. King. I live at 2855 North
Frederick Avenue, Milwaukee. I am a licensed journeyman plumber,
occupied for the last 23 years representing the Plumbers & Gasfitters
Union, Local No. 75, of the United Association of Apprentices and
Pipefitters of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry.
The Chairman. You have counsel representing you ?
Mr. King. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. Identify yourself. Counsel.
Mr. Dunn. My name is Thomas X. Dunn. I am a member of the
District of Columbia Bar. My office is in the Tower Building, Wash-
ington, D. C. I represent Local 75 and Mr. King.
The Chairman. Mr. Kennedy, proceed.
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. King, do you know Mr. Richard Sharp ?
Mr. King. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Richard Sharp testified yesterday, regarding
some contacts that he had with you personally and some contacts that
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES' IN THE LABOR FIELD 9849
people Avorking under him had with you. I would like to ask you
about those things. The first one was on the Mitchell Field work that
he was doing in Milwaukee, Wis. Are you familiar with that?
Mr. King. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. And he stated that he had 9 or 10 members of the
Plumbers Union working under him. He testified to that yesterady.
Mr. King. Mr. Sharp had plumbers working under him ?
Mr. Kennedy. Well, that they were working on the job, they were
installing Kohler fixtures. He said, he testified, that one of them told
him that he had received a telephone call from you saying that he
should get off the job and not handle Kohler fixtures. Did that ever
happen ?
Mr. King. That is not true.
Mr. Kennedy. It did not happen ?
Mr. King. No, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. You did not tell any of the plumbers working on the
Mitchell Field job that they should get off and discontinue their work
because you didn't want them to do work on Kohler fixtures?
Mr. King. I never told them anything.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you have any conversation with them at all
about leaving their jobs?
Mr. King. No, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. You did not?
Mr. King. No, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. So that testimony of Mr. Sharp, that testimony that
he gave b^ore the committee is not correct, so far as you are concerned ?
Mv. King. It is not correct.
Mr. Kennedy. He said another matter on which he was working
was St. Luke's Hospital in Milwaukee.
Mr. King. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. And he testified there that the foreman of the job
was a Mr. Papp.
(At this point. Senator Gold water withdrew from the hearing
room.)
Mr. King. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. Do you know Mr. Papp ?
Mr. King. At Mitchell Field ?
Mr. Kennedy. No. This is St. Luke's Hospital. Did you know
Mr. Papp?
Mr. King. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. He testified that Mr. Papp stated that he had re-
ceived so many telephone calls from you threatening him that he left
his job. Is that correct ?
Mr. King. That is not true.
Mr. Kennedy. That the reason that you called him was you told
him that he should not be handling Kohler fixtures.
Mr. King. That is false.
Mr. Kennedy. And that the Kohler fixtures were being installed
at that time and that you told Mr. Papp that he should stay off the
job and not handle Kohler fixtures ?
Mr. King. That is not true.
Mr. Kennedy. And Mr. Papp then quit his job because of that.
That is not correct ?
Mr. King. That is not correct.
9850 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABO'R FIELD
Mr. Kennedy. So that testimony also by Mr. Sharp is incorrect, is
that rio-ht ?
Mr. King. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. And he then testified that he had a telephone con-
versation with you personally in which you told him that Kohler
fixtures should not be handled. Did you tell him?
Mr. King. No, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. And that you told him in a conversation that he
would have trouble if he tried to install Kohler fixtures at the St.
Luke's hospital ?
Mr. I^NG. Are you now talking about someone else other than
Papp?
Mr. Kennedy. Yes. Now we have gone through the incident at
Mitchell Field, we have gone through the incident on Papp. Now I
will ask you about some other conversations that you had personally
with him regarding St. Luke's Hospital.
Mr. King. With Mr. Sharp ?
Mr. Kennedy. With Mr. Sharp personally. Did you have a con-
versation with Mr. Sharp personally in which you stated that if he
insisted on installing Kohler fixtures at the St. Luke's Hospital, that
he would have trouble ?
Mr. King. I had a conversation with Mr. Sharp over the telephone
when I learned that they were going to use Kohler fixtures from the
other men on the job. I called Mr. Sharp and told him "I am afraid
you are going to have difficulty getting men for the reason that I am
already experiencing difficulty in furnishing men for those jobs where
Kohler fixtures are being used now."
That is what I told Mr. Sharp.
Mr. Kennedy. You didn't threaten him with trouble if he insisted
on installing Kohler fixtures ?
Mr. King. No, sir. No, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. So that testimony by Mr. Sharp or the installation
of the testimony by Mr. Sharp that you threatened him, that if he did
not agree to cease installing Kohler fixtures, that he would have
trouble, and that you would not provide him men, is incorrect, is that
right?
Mr. King. Quite to the contrary. I furnished the men.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you ever attempt to pull men off the job who
were installing Kohler fixtures ?
Mr. King. No, sir.
(At this point, Senator Mundt withdrew from the hearing room.)
Mr. Kennedy. Did you support the boycott program of the IJAW
against the Kohler fixtures ?
Mr. King. Yes, I supported the boycott. I support it now.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you ever instruct any of the men that were
working, members of your union, not to install Kohler fixtures ?
Mr. King. No, sir. Quite to the contrary, I told them that thev
will have to decide that issue themselves.
Mr. Kennedy. But you never instructed them that they should not
install Kohler fixtures ?
Mr. King. No, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Can you explain to the committee why Mr. Richard
Sharp should come before the committee and give this testimony about
you if it is incorrect ?
IMPROPEiR ACTIVmES IN THE LABOR FIElrD 9851
Mr. IviNG. Well, Mr. Sharp and I have had a little difficulty. Mr.
Sharp was 11 months behind in payment of his dues, and he event-
ually, when he quit at the Knab Plumbing Co., he went to another
employer, and when he got there the journeymen plumbers ask each
other about their dues book, they found out that his dues weren't
paid, and they called me.
I told them I couldn't do anything about it. Evidently they did
something about it, because some time after that Mr. Sharp came to
the office and paid 6 months' dues.
He was still 5 months' dues behind. But at no time did I say
anything to him other than to ask him when he was going to pay
dues. I sent him statements showing that he only had 1 more month
to go and he would be expelled for non-payment of dues. He then
asked for a withdrawal card. According to our national constitution
no one can get a withdrawal card who works at our industry in a shop
where we have an agreement.
So our national organization denied the withdrawal card, and he
was very vexed with me because of that.
Senator Kennedy. Mr. Chairman ?
The Chairman. Senator Kennedy.
Senator Ivennedy. Mr. King, you support the boycott ?
Mr. Ejng. Yes, I do.
Senator Kennedy. Did you attempt to communicate to the members
of your local your sentiments on the boycott ?
Mr. King. I didn't get the question.
Senator Kennedy. Did you communicate with the members of your
union, you-r feelings about the boycott ?
Mr. King. No, sir.
Senator Kennedy. You took no action ?
Mr. King. I get out a bulletin once a month, and in the bulletin I
have made reference to the position of the American Federation of
Labor national convention resolution. I have mentioned that in
bulletins.
Senator Kennedy. Did you have personal discussions with mem-
bers of your union giving your sentiments about the boycott ?
Mr. King. Well, if a member comes to the union office to pay dues,
or I met him on the job, the conversation usually goes this way : "I
wish this Kohler situation would rectify itself. I don't like to handle
it, and I wish there were more done about it."
It is usually the conversation comes from the member to me with
respect to the boycott, urging people to do more about it, to intensify
it.
Senator Kennedy. In other words, you didn't make calls to call the
plumbers off the jobs ?
Mr. King. I never went out of my way to discus boycotts with
anyone.
Senator Kennedy. It seems to me it is sort of a fine line between your
f)osition as head of the union, directing your members to come off the
ine, in accordance with a boycott, which you say you didn't do, but
in other ways communicating with them your personal feelings that
the boycott should be maintained and be successful. You say it was
the second position that you took.
You merely gave them your personal views, you expressed the con-
viction that the boycott should be successful, you expressed the hope
9852 IMPROPER ACTIVITIEIS IN THE LABOiR FIELD
that it would be successful. Those are the sort of things that you did,
but you did not order them ; is that correct ?
You took all action short of formally requesting them not to go off
the job ; is that correct ?
Mr, King. Yes. The legal counselor of our union has said on many
occasions that each individual has a right to refuse to purchase Kohler
fixtures or to tell his friends not to purchase Kohler fixtures. I con-
sider all the members of our union friends of mine, and, therefore, I
feel that I have the privilege to discuss anything with them as an
individual.
Just bexjause I happen to represent the union, I should not have my
lips closed on different controversial subjects.
Senator Kennedy. Where is the line between telling them not to go
on the job and calling them off the job; where is the line between
that and what you say that you did? What does your counsel tell
you?
Mr. King. I, in my official duties, do not tell anybody or try to
influence anybody not to go to work in a particular shop. Never.
Senator Kennedy. What is it you do? If you don't do it in your
official duties, you do it as a personal matter; is that correct?
Mr. King. Usually the other fellow asks me what is happening on
the Kohler situation, anl has something to tell me about it. That is
usually the conversation.
Senator Curtis, Mr, Chairman ?
The Chairman. Senator Curtis.
Senator Curtis. How do you support the boycott ?
Mr. King. By telling my friends not to purchase Kohler-made ware.
Senator Curtis, How are plumbers provided and hired for the con-
tractors in your area ?
Mr. King. Since the charter of our union was issued in 1891, the
custom and practice has been, all during those years, long before I
was a member of the union, for the employer to call the union office
and inquire if there are any men available, and if the union didn't
have the men, the employer was free to get them from whatever source
he could get them from. That is precisely what he is doing and
has done.
Senator Curtis. In other words, the union provides employees if
they need them ?
Mr. King. If we have men on our list who reported to the union
that they are out of work, and they have asked us to pix)cure employ-
ment for them, we will call contractors and inquire whether or not
they could use a licensed journeyman plumber.
Senator Curtis. Is the contractor also supplied a plumber if he
needs one ?
Mr. King. A little louder, please.
Senator Curtis. Is a contractor always supplied with a plumber if
he needs one and there is not one working ?
Mr. King. If he needs one ?
Senator Curtis. Yes.
Mr. King. To the best of our ability, we do. Our capacity to fur-
nish plumbers at times just is not large enough to take care of the
demand. For instance, we were 50 plumbers short at the time when
St. Luke's Hospital was begun, and there were at least 40 contractors
waiting for perhaps a total of 75 plumbers at the time.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 9853
So we scoured the entire country. We telephoned to States as far
as Pennsylvania, Oklahoma — throughout the country. We sent tele-
grams to unions inquiring if there were any men available. We called
our national office to ask them to alert all of the organizers throughout
the country and tell them that we were urgently in need of journeymen
plumbers.
We put a large ad in 73 weekly newspapers in Wisconsin, asking
plumbers to come to Milwaukee, and telling them what the conditions
were, the rate of pay, the welfare plan, the vacation plan, and so on.
We did everything possible to furnish the trade with men. And if
we couldn't furnish them, the employer was free to get them from
whatever source he could get them from.
Senator Curtis. My question is: Are there any circumstances
where you withhold the furnishing of plumbers in response to a re-
quest, when, actually, the plumbers available in the area are not all
employed ?
Mr. King. No, sir. We never withhold any plumbers from any
employer whatsoever.
Senator Curtis. What is your policy in regard to this situation:
You say that you are supporting the boycott, and that during part
of this time in question, there was a shortage of plumbers. Suppose
two contractors, both of them, we will assume, have a record favorable
to labor in their own employment of people ; one of them is about to
install Kohler products, and another one is about to install products
other than Kohler.
They make their request at the same time. Who gets the plumbers ?
Mr. King. Senator, when the plumber comes to the office, he has
the right to see the list. It is hanging there for him to look at. He
chooses from the list the contractor he wants to go to. I do not tell
him.
Senator Curtis. Now coming back
Mr. King. If I did, he would tell me pretty quick where to head
in at.
Senator Curtis. In other words, the individual plumber makes a
choice ?
Mr. King. Absolutely.
Senator Curtis. Coming back to this disagreement as to what hap-
pened when Mr. Sharp was on the stand yesterday. I asked :
About when was this conversation with Mr. King?
Mr. Sharp. It was right after we received the contract for St. Luke's Hos-
pital, about a week following.
Senator Curtis. And it was a telephone conversation?
Mr. Sharp. Yes, it was.
Senator Curtis. Where were you at the time you received it?
Mr. Sharp. I was in the oflSce.
Senator Curtis. Of the Knab Co. ?
Mr. Sharp. Yes, sir.
Senator Curtis. Who placed the call?
Mr. Sharp. It was placed in the union hall.
Senator Curtis. Did you call Mr. King or did he call you ?
Mr. Sharp. We got a call right from the union hall.
Senator Curtis. And did they say who was calling'
Mr. Sharp. Mr. King.
Senator Curtis. And they meant Tony King, business agent for local 75?
Mr. Sharp. That is correct.
9854 IMFROPER ACTTVITIBS IN THE LABOR FIELD
Did that telephone conversation take place ?
Mr. King. Yes. I called Mr. Sharp at his office, as I said before,
and told him that because of the Kohler fixtures being used on St.
Luke's Hospital there would be difficulty, very likely, in trying to
furnish licensed journeymen plumbers. I anticipated that because
I already had the same difficulty trying to get journeymen plumbers
to go to work on other jobs where Kohler fixtures were being used.
That conversation — I didn't know that INlr. Knab was eavesdropping
on the telephone, but it wouldn't have made any difference.
Senator Curtis. You didn't know it the time that Mr. Knab was on
the phone?
Mr. King. Did I talk to Mr. Knab?
Senator Curtis. I say at that time you didn't know that Mr. Knab
was on the phone, too ?
Mr. King. No, sir.
Senator Curtis. Is there any dispute about whether he was or not ?
Mr. King. Any what ?
Senator Curtis. Any dispute as to whether or not he was on the
phone ?
Mr. King. No. It is immaterial.
Senator Curtis. Then I said to him : "Now, repeat again just what
did he say in this telephone conversation to you and Mr. Knab, or to
you, and Mr. Knab heard it ?
Mr. Sharp. He said that on account of the Kohler fixtures on this thing —
Senator Curtis. I can't hear you.
Mr. Sharp. He said that on account of the Kohler fixtures on the St. Luke's
Hospital job, if we didn't advise the others to get rid of them, we were going to
have trouble on the job, and he said "What do you mean" and he said "Well, you
wouldn't get any men."
Did that conversation take place?
Mr. King. No, the conversation was entirely different, as I have al-
ready related here.
I told him that because of the use of Kohler fixtures on the job, it
would be difficult for me to procure licensed journeymen plumbers
to install the work on that job.
Senator Curtis. You are also vice president of the Milwaukee Build-
ing and Construction Trades Council?
Mr. King. Yes, sir, and it is only a title, and I haven't any authority
of any kind whatsoever.
Senator Curtis. Mr. King, has local 75, and you as an individual,
ever been restrained from interfering with the business operations of a
plumbing contractor ?
Mr. King. Yes ; one Mr. Taggets.
Senator Curtis. About when was that ? Was it about 1951 ?
Mr. King. That is so long ago, my memory
Senator Curtis. I don't care for the exact date, but it was back some
time ago?
Mr. King. Yes, several years ago, and I believe about six.
Senator Curtis. What were you restrained from doing?
Mr. King. Well, I wasn't near the job. My associate working out
of our union office, a business representative, went to this job to see who
was doing the plumbing. All of the people on the job were members
of the Milwaukee Building and Construction Trades Council, and
there was no plumber on the job.
IMPROPER ACnVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 9855
When he left the job, Mr. Taggets was on the sidewalk and engaged
the business representative in a conversation. Immediately after that
we were cited for unfair labor practice, and we were charged with
coercing Mr. Taggets and we had a hearing before the Wisconsin
Jjabor Board, and the Wisconsin Labor Board ruled that we were in
violation of the Wisconsin Labor Act.
Senator Curtis. Did that go to court ?
Mr. King. No, sir. My attorney tells me that the case is void be-
cause of some legal terminology which has to do with expiration of
limitation, or something like that. I don't know the legal terminology.
Senator Curtis. Have you ever advised the membership that they
can refuse to install Kohler fixtures on an individual basis, without
violating the law?
Mr. King. I have advised them that they have a right to refuse to
install any kind of fixture or any kind of material. As an American
citizen they have that right.
Senator Curtis. Have you had any conferences or meetings with
representatives of the UAW concerning the boycott?
Mr. King. No, sir.
Senator Curtis. Have any ads been published indicating coopera-
tion between plumbers and the UAW?
Mr. King. Not to my knowledge ; and our local union had nothing
to do with it.
Senator Curtis. Will you identify that, please ?
The Chairman. The Chair presents to you what appears to be a
newspaper advertisement in the Sheboygan [Wis.] Press of Tuesday,
.] une '22, 1954:, and I will ask you to examine it and state if you identify
it
(A document was handed to the witness.)
The Chairman. Do you identify the advertisement?
Mr. King. Yes ; that has nothing to do with local No. 75.
The Chairman. But you do recognize that as an advertisement in
I he paper?
Mr, King. Yes, but we had nothing to do with it.
The Chairman. It may be made exhibit 125.
(Document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 125" for reference
and may be found in the files of the select committee.)
The Chairman. That is for reference.
Mr. King. We don't know anything about that ad at all, or the
reason that they have the picture there either, and I don't know why
they have tlie picture there either.
Senator Curtis. This exhibit 122 comes from the Sheboygan Press
of June 22, 1954, and it is a 1-page ad, I believe, and it says at the top,
"Plumbers and Kohler Workers Confer on the Strike."
Did you recognize anybody in that picture?
Mr. King. I think I recognized all of the AFL people, and my own
picture.
Senator Curtis. And you are in the picture ?
Mr. King. Yes, sir.
Senator Curtis. Name the others that you recognized ?
Mr. King. George Holloman, president of the State Federation of
Labor ; and I have to look at it again. Senator.
9856 •IMPROPE'R AOTIVITIHS IN THE LABOR FIELD
Senator Curtis. I will hand it back to you in just a moment. I will
read something and then I will be through with it myself. In the box
it says this:
Labor unity in action. The AFL plumbers, pii>efitters and steamfltters invited
the Kohler workers to send representatives for a discussion on the strike issue
with the leading AFL officials during the Wisconsin Pipe Trade Convention. Left
to right are: David Rabinovitz, Kohler local 833 attorney; Allan Grasskamp,
Kohler local 833 president; Peter Schoeman, assistant to the president, AFL
Plumbers and Steamhttters International Union ; Jerry Enright, president of
the Wisconsin I'ipe Trade Association ; Anthony King, Secretary of the Asso-
ciation ; E. W. Bradshaw, AFL plumber general organizer ; George Haberman,
president of the Wisconsin State Federation of Labor, 237,000 members ; Jacob
Friedrich, secretary-treasurer of the Milwaukee Federated Trade Council, 85,000
members ; Robert Burkhart, UAW-CIO international representative ; and William
Rawling, Kohler local 837 steward and council chairman.
(A document was handed to the witness.)
Senator Curtis. Now, did you discuss ways nnd means to support
the strike at that meeting ?
Mr. King. Senator, I am just trying to refresh my memory as to
when and where and on what occasion this picture was taken. I am
assuming that it must have been a convention. It was the Wisconsin
pipe trades convention.
At that time we had people come to our conventions from all of the
bordering States, and some beyond that. This was taken, or this con-
vention was held in the city of Sheboygan, and the Kohler people very
likely came over and asked for the privilege of appearing before the
convention.
Senator Curtis. Does it say there who invited them ?
Mr. King. Well, as secretary of the committee or of the Wisconsin
Pipe Trades Association, I assume, and I am not sure about this, I
assume that the president and the secretary perhaps collaborated on
the invitation. It could be possible. But I don't recall.
Senator Curtis. Do you know Raymond Majerus?
Mr. King. I don't recall what format was used in inviting these
people.
Senator Curtis. Do you know Raymond Majerus ?
Mr. King. Yes, sir.
Senator Curtis. Have you ever talked to him about the Kohler
boycott.
Mr. King. Yes.
Senator Curtis. Do you know Harvey Kitzman ?
Mr. King. Yes, sir.
Senator Curtis. Have you discussed the boycott with him?
Mr. King. Sure, at democratic party meetings.
Senator Curtis. And Allan Grasskamp ?
Mr. King. I believe I spoke to Allan Grasskamp at the time of this
convention, but I don't think that I have seen Mr. Grasskamp since.
Senator Curtis. What other UAW representatives have you dis-
cussed the boycott with ?
Mr. King. I don't believe I know any of the other people, and the
only people I ever met in the city of Milwaukee are Ray Majerus.
I met him at the fraternal organization that I belong to and he be-
longs to.
Senator Curtis. What is your official title in local 75 ?
Mr. King. Business manager.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIEI.D 9857
Senator Curtis. Now, liave you or have you not encouraged jour-
neymen plumbers not to install Kohler products ?
Mr. King. What is it?
Senator Courtis. Have you or have you not encouraged journeymen
plumbers not to install Kohler fixtures ?
Mr. King. On occasion, quite to the contrary. On occasion I have
urged them to install Kohler fixtures.
Senator Curtis. Well, have you ever encouraged them not to?
Mr. King. No, sir.
Senator Curtis. You did carry it in the bulletin that they had a
right to do so individually ?
Mr. King. That is right. They asked me a question and I will
answer it that way.
Senator Curtis. Did you give any publicity to this ruling of the
counsel besides in your bulletin ?
Mr. King. Would you repeat that again, please ?
Senator Curtis. Did you give any publicity to the ruling of the
counsel when he said as a matter of law they could act individually ?
Mr. King. The ruling of a counsel ?
Senator Curtis. Yes, your lawyer or lawyers had advised you, as
I understand it, that it was lawful for a plumber to act in his indi-
vidual capacity without violating the law.
Mr. King. I published his statement verbatim in the monthly
bulletin.
Senator Curtis. Now, did you give it any other publicity ?
Mr. King. I haven't any other means of publicizing anything.
Senator Curtis. Did you make any other statements that got in to
the public press concerning it ?
Mr. King. Yes, it might have. If a newspaperman happened to be
around or called me and asked me for specific answers, it may have
come out.
Senator Curtis. Here is a letter.
The Chairman. The Chair presents to you what purports to be a
photostatic copy of a letter dated January 29, 1958, and it appears
to be from Mr. Brierather addressed to "Dear Brother," and I don't
know what "Dear Brother" it is, and I don't believe it shows on here.
I will ask you to examine this letter and state if you can identify it
because apparently your name appears in it.
( A document was handed to the witness. )
Mr. King. Mr. Chairman, on
The Chairman. The question is, do you identify the letter ? Have
you seen it before, the original of the letter? Do you have any
knowledge of it ?
Mr. King. To the best of my recollection, I didn't receive that letter.
Senator Curtis. Mr. Chairman, as a matter of clarity, I stated I
don't know that he can identify it, but I w^anted to submit it to the
chairman before asking my question.
The Chairman. The witness says he cannot identify the letter.
Senator Curtis. I understand that. If I may see the letter, I want
to ask him a question about it.
Mr. King. I don't think that I ever received a letter like that.
9858 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES Es^ ITIE LABOR FIELD
Senator Curtis. Mr. King, I make no statement that you did receive
the letter. I wanted you to see it now because there is something in
here that I want to ask you about.
This appears to be a letter from Mr. Leo J. Brierather, boycott co-
ordinator from Kohler. It is addressed, "Dear Brother," so it may
have gone to one person or many and it was dated January 29, 1958.
There is one paragraph in the letter that I would like to read.
This continued type of labor relations has generated vigorous opposition to
scab-made Kohler products. We recognize that many of you have suffered
personal hardship by exercising your right as individuals to refuse to install
Kohler products. As a result of our consumer boycott, Kohler products are now
almost non-existent in Milwaukee County.
The letter closes :
We gratefully acknowledge the courtesy and cooperation of the oflScers and
members of local 75, and brother Tony King, business manager. Hoping we may
earn your continued support, with sincere thanks, we wish to remain . . ." and
then Mr. Brierather signed it.
I wanted to ask your opinion about this. He says.
We recognize that many of you have suffered personal hardship by exercising
your right as individuals to refuse to install Kohler products. Were there
members of your union that suffered hardship? I assume that would be to go
without work by reason of their refusal to install Kohler products?
Did you observe anything like that ?
Mr. King. No one ever reported that they were suffering any hard-
ship because they refused to install Kohler fixtures and if they did,
they elected to do so of their own volition, and the sacrifice, I don't
think, would be very great.
Senator Curtis. Now, he also says :
As a result of our consumer boycott, Kohler products are now almost non-
existent in Milwaukee County.
Do you agree with that statement made as of January 29, 1958?
Mr. King. I wouldn't know to what extent Kohler fixtures are
being used in Milwaukee. I couldn't express an opinion on it.
Senator Curtis. Do you know to what he might be referring when
he expresses gratitude for the courtesy and cooperation of local 75
and of you particularly ?
Mr. King. Do I know what he means by that ?
Senator Curtis. Yes, what transpired that would cause them to
express their gratitude ?
Mr. King. I wouldn't have a very good opinion of that. Senator.
Senator Curtis. There was nothing done that would cause them to
be grateful ?
Mr. King. I wouldnt' say nothing, but I certainly would be pre-
sumptuous if I undertook to define what is meant by that statement.
Senator Curtis. I will put it this way : What did you do as business
manager, and what did local 75 do that should cause them to be
grateful ?
Mr. King. It mi^ht be construed to mean this : That because I have
told some of my friends not to purchase Kohler fixtures, that in that
WEiy I was helping the strikers and they appreciated that assistance.
Senator Curtis. That is all, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. As I understand, the only difference between the
telephone conversation you had with Mr. Sharp, his version of it and
yours, he says that you used the word "trouble," and that he would
have "trouble" if he undertook to install Kohler fixtures.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EN THE LABOR FIELD 9859
You say you told him he wouki have "difficulty" ?
Mr. King. Well, to me, Mr. Chairman, to me "difficulty" is always
"trouble."
The Chairman. That is the point I was trying to make.
Mr. King. The two words, I think, are synonymous, and they mean
about the same. Wlien you have difficulty, you have trouble.
The Chairman. What I was trying to point out was actually the
conversation was a long time ago, and a telephone conversation, and
there is no conflict between your testimony with respect to that tele-
phone conversation, as I understand it.
Mr. King. I think that I made it clear that what I told Sharp was
that we anticipated difficulty or trouble, if you want to call it trouble.
The Chairman. That is w^hat I say. So far as the import of the
two witnesses' testimony, yours and Mr. Sharp, there is no conflict
between your testimony with respect to that telephone conversation,
except one used the word "difficulty," and the other called it "trouble."
Mr. King. That is right.
The Chairman. Now, as business agent, do you assign the plumbers
to jobs?
Mr. King. There are several of us that do. We have five girls in
the office, and they all assign plumbers.
The Chairman. I mean they are under your supervision, are they,
and your direction ?
Mr. King. Yes, but if a call comes in for a plumber, the girl that
answ^ers the phone in my absence, she calls the plumbers and asks
them, "Do you want to go to work for Jones ?""
The Chairman. I understand that, but they are not officials in the
union, and they are under your supervision and direction?
Mr. King. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. They carry out your orders, the girls in the office?
Mr. King. That is right, and the order is that they must place the
men when the calls come in as expeditiously as it is humanly possible
to do so.
The Chairman. All right, now let us talk about as equitable as
humanly possible to do so. Do you have the power and the authority
to withhold the assignment of any man to a job simply because he may
install Kohler fixtures ?
Mr. King. No, sir.
The Chairman. There has been an implication here at least in the
testimony, if not' a direct charge, about which I want to ask you spe-
cifically as business agent. If a man goes out and installs Kohler fix-
tures as a plumber, and works for a contractor that is installing Koh-
ler fixtures, on the next job that comes up you can punish him if you
want to or impose reprisals against him by not letting him work and
giving that job to someone else ?
Mr. King. I have no such authority, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Wliat authority do you have to assign men to
work ? If you can tell this man, "You maj^ have this job over here,"
why can't you tell the next man he can't have it ? Wliat is the dif-
ference ?
Mr. King. If you were a plumber and you came to my office and I
told you "Jones wants a plumber," and you told me "I don't want to
work for Jones, I want to work for Smith," that would be it.
21243 — 58— pt. 24 25
ZMPROPE-R ACTIVITIES IX TELE LABOR FIELD
The Chairman. It could be it.
Mr. IviNG. And if I did
The Chairman. But if that man comes and he says, "I want to work
for Jones," can you say to him "I will not assign you there because
last week you worked for Smith installing Kohler fixtures" ?
Mr. King. I challenge anyone to prove that I have ever done any-
thing like that.
The Chairman. I didn't ask you whether you did it or not. I
asked you, can you do it ?
Mr. King. I cannot.
The Chairman. You don't have that authority 'I
Mr. Kjng. No, sir.
The Chairman. Well, I am under the impression that business
agents in many unions do have such authority, and that they exercise
it. I have letters by the hundreds from union people telling me that
that is the fact.
Mr. King. That may be. Senator, but I wouldn't want that power.
The Chairman. I don't know about you individually, but I do un-
derstand how it operates according to the letters and testimony from
members of unions who say they are denied work and they can't be
assigned to a job unless they get along with the business agent.
Do you deny that is a fact '?
Mr. King. Yes, sir ; in my case.
The Chairman. In your case ?
Mr. King. In my case, and I don't know what other unions are do-
ing, and they run their owai organization.
The Chairman. Are there any further questions ?
Senator Curtis. Just briefly, do you refer nonunion plumbers to
work?
Mr. King. No, sir. We never have any nonunion plumbers come
near us.
Senator Curtis. Do contractors in your area ever hire plumbers
without calling you ?
Mr. King. Yes. In the last 5 years they have probably employed
100 nonunion plumbers who later were taken into our organization.
Senator Curtis. My question was, do they ever hire plumbers with-
out calling you first ?
Mr. King. Yes. They are privileged to do that any time they wish.
Mr. Dunn. Mr. Chairman, rather than read these affidavits into
the record, we have some nine affidavits which support the testimony
Mr. King has given here this morning.
The Chairman. You will submit the affidavits for the committee's
determination, and they wdll not be placed in the record or made
exhibits at this time.
Mr. Dunn. I would like further, other than these 9 exhibits, or
9 affidavits, to produce the Avork card for the men who were supplied
for the St. Luke's Hospital, about which there was quite some testi-
mony yesterday.
The Chairman. You cannot produce it and you are not a witness.
The witness, if he has a work card he wants to present, may submit
it to the committee.
Mr. DiTNN. I tliought I would expedite the work of the committee
by doing this myself, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. You understand I have problems here, and we are
trying to stay somewhat on the track.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 9861
Mr, Dunn. I tliink it can be carried too far, though, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. King. These are the original work cards for the Knab Co.,
which we discussed here this morning, and it will prove that compared
to other contractors the size of the Knab shop, that the Knab Company
obtained more plumbers during that period of time than any other
contractor including much larger ones.
1 w^as criticized by other contractors because I was channeling more
plumbers into the Knab shop. But these are the original records,
and unless I can get them back
The Chairman. If you wish to submit copies, prepare copies and
submit them to us.
Mr. King. Can I do that?
The Chairman. You may do that.
Mr. King. Thank you.
Mr. Dunn. Mr. Chairman, there is one thing I do want to say. Mr.
King doesn't know anything about it. There are two statements which
rebuts the hearsay testimony of both Mr. Chase and Mr. Sharp
yesterday.
The Chairman. Just a moment. You have some telegrams, and I
have some telegrams and we are not placing telegrams in the record
if I can prevent it.
Mr. Dunn. "We would like to be permitted to submit statements
under oath taken before notary public Mr. Papps, and Mr. Rohms
about which there was hearsay testimony yesterday.
The Chairman. You may haA^e tlieni submit their affidavits to the
committee^ along with these others for our determination and
disposition.
Mr. Sharp. Thank you for the courtesy ; I appreciate it very much.
The Chairman. Thank you. The committee will stand in recess
until 2 o'clock.
(Whereupon, at 12: 15 p. m., the committee recessed, to reconvene
at 2 p. m., Tuesday, March 25, 1958.)
AFTERNOON SESSION
(At the reconvening of the session, the following members are
present: Senators McClellan and Goldwater.)
The Chairman. The committee will be in order.
Call your next \yitness.
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, a member of the committee has
requested that Mr. Donald Rand be recalled.
The Chairman. Mr. Rand, come forward.
TESTIMONY OF DONALD RAND, ACCOMPANIED BY JOSEPH L.
RAUH, JR., COUNSEL— Resumed
The Chairman. Mr. Rand, you have been previously sworn. You
Avill remain under the same oath. You have the same counsel ap-
pearing before you as appeared for you when you testified previously.
All right. Senator Goldwater, have you some questions?
Senator Goldwater. I have no questions. I understand Senator
Curtis has some questions. He is on his way.
The Chairman. We will be at ease for a few minutes. I thought
we were ready.
9862 IMPOROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
(Brief recess.)
Senator (xoldwater wislies to inquire.
Senator (toldwater. Mr. Kand, are you on the payroll of the In-
ternational UAW ?
Mr. Rand. Yes. I testified to that effect previously, Senator.
Senator Goldwater. Did you testify as to the salary that you
receive?
Mv. Raxd. No, I didn't. Senator.
Senator Goldwater. Would you care to tell us what you are paid
a month ?
Mr. Rand. A month?
Senator Goldwater. Yes. Or a year.
Mr. Rand. I make $11,000 a year.
Senator Goldwater. Do you make any contributions or donations
to the union directly or indirectly in connection with any of your
activities ?
Mr. Rand. Are you referring to the flower fund ?
Senator Goldwater. Yes. I will get around to that.
Mr. Rand. Yes, Senator, I do make a contribution.
Senator (jIoldwater. Are they made regularly ?
Mr. Rand. I make them regularly, yes.
Senator Goldwater. By what? Monthly?
Mr. Rand. Weekly, biweekly, depending upon the individual.
Senator (joldwater. Do you make out your own check for these?
Mr. Rand. No, I don't make a check out, sir.
Senator Goldvv^a.ter. Do you give it in cash ?
Mr. Rand. I never have given a check, I have always made a
contribution in the form of cash.
Senator Goldwater. From your own funds ?
Mr. Rand. From my own money, yes.
Senator Goldwater. Who do you make that to ?
Mr. Rand. At the present time ?
Senator Goldwater. Yes.
Mr. Rand. Well, in our department we have an arrangement
whereby Jess Ferrazza is the custodian of the money. At least that
is where I turn it over.
Senator Goldwater. What is his title ?
Mr. Rand. He is also the administrative assistant to Emil Mazey.
He holds the same position, Senator, as I do in Mr. Mazey's office.
Senator Goldwater. Would you care to tell us how much these
funds are that you donate occasionally ?
Mr. Rand. That I contribute?
Senator Goldwater. Yes.
For instance, what was your last donation ?
Mr. Rand. $10, 1 think
Senator Goldwater. What would they total in a year ?
Mr. Rand. It depends. I am not sure of the exact total. Senator.
I can obtain that, if you like.
( At this point. Senator Curtis entered the hearing room. )
Senator Goldwater. Do you know how large that flower fund is
in your particular unit ?
Mr. Rand. No, I don't Senator.
Senator Goldwater. How do you use that flower fund ?
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 9863
Mr. Kand. The flower fund is used for a number of purposes. The
very fact that it is called a flower fund, to buy and purchase flowers
for various people, staff members, their familities, their children,
their friends, office personnel and so forth, and in addition to that
the fund, as Mr. Mazey has already testified, is used for the purpose
of handling the problems that we have. We, of course, have a politi-
cal union just like many other organizations, and the money is used
to print our literature and all of the other phases of becoming elected
in an organization such as ours.
Senator Goldwater. When it comes election time, how do you go
about getting money from that fund ?
Mr. Eand. The people who are responsible for that disburse it, I
believe.
Senator Goldwater. Mr. Ferrazza ?
Mr, Eand. Not necessarily Mr. Ferrazza. I am not positive of the
exact arrangement on that. Senator. I have no knowledge of it.
Senator Goldwater. Anyone who contributes to this flower fund,
then, has a right to expect assistance from it at election time?
Mr. Rand. I believe so. I would imagine so.
Senator Goldwater. How many people in your international con-
tribute to this particular fund ?
Mr. Eand. How many ?
Senator Goldwater. Yes.
Mr. Eand. I wouldn't know. Senator. I couldn't hardly tell you.
Senator Goldwater. Well, would it be more than 10?
Mr. Eand. I would say that, Senator, most of them do. Whether
they all do or half of them do — it is my personal opinion that most
of them do.
Senator Goldw^ater. When you say "they," do you mean just the
officers ?
Mr. Rand. Officers and staff members.
Senator Goldwater. What would that total be, roughly, 10, 25 ?
Mr. Eand. I don't know the exact number of staff people that we
have. We can obtain that information. I think Senator Curtis has
already suggested that we furnish the committee with the number
of staff people and so forth. I think that was a request this morn-
ing. Was it not, Senator ?
Senator Goldwater. Is this donation to the flower fund required
of you as an officer ?
Mr. Eand. No, sir.
Senator Goldwater. It is purely voluntary ?
Mr. Eand. Absolutely.
Senator Goldwater. Do you know if Mr. Ferrazza keeps an audit
of this fund?
Mr. Eand. I do not know that, sir.
Senator Goldwater. I think Mr. Mazey testified that you have
some 1,200 locals in the UA W.-
Mr. Eand. I think he mentioned 1,253 UAW locals.
Senator Goldwater. Would we expect to find a flower fund in each
of the locals?
Mr. Eand. I don't believe so, Senator. I have no knowledge whether
they do or they don't.
Senator Goldwater. How many flower funds do you have in head-
quarters ?
9864 IMPROPER ACTIVITIEiS IN THE LABOK FIELD
Mr. Rand. I couldn't tell you that, Senator. I am sure that we can
get the information if you so desire.
Senator Goldwater. That is all I have, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Senator Curtis.
Senator Curtis. Mr. Rand, do you make any payments back to the
TJAW or the flower fund, or any fund in connection with it ?
Mr. Rand. I have already testified, Senator. If I understand your
question, do I make a contribution to the flower fund — is that the
question ?
Senator Curtis. Yes.
Mr. Rand. I have already said that.
Senator Curtis. You did ?
Mr. Rand. Yes, just now.
^Senator Curtis. Do you do it regularly ?
Mr. Rand. Yes, I do, as an individual, yes.
Senator Curtis. Every pay day ?
Mr. Rand. Not necessarily a pay day. ^Ylienever I think about it
and get around to it.
Senator Curtis. How often do you do it ?
Mr, Rand. I do it as I have already stated. Senator, on a bi-weekly
basis, a weekly basis. I have been here in Washington almost 5 or 6
weeks, so I haven't made any attempt to do that.
Senator Curtis. The regularity with which you do it has been in-
terrupted by your presence here in Washington ?
Mr. Rand. No, that isn't exactly true, Senator. As I understand
your question, no, the fact that I am here doesn't do that. I, as an
individual, want to make that contribution, and I will make that
contribution to our flower fund.
.Senator Curtis. Do you make it in cash or by check ?
Mr. Rand. Was the Senator here ?
I have already just answered all of these questions, I think, yes, I
make it in cash.
Senator Curtis. Well, I will go on with what I have in mind.
Were you asked for an estimate of how much these contributions
would amount to in a year ?
Mr. Rand. No. As an individual?
Senator Curtis. Yes.
Mr. Rand. I have already testified that I probably make a contribu-
tion on the average of 5 to 10 dollars a week, depending upon the cir-
.cumstances. I think in my case I have been trying to contribute $10.
Senator Curtis. $10 a week ?
Mr. Rand. Yes.
Senator Curtis. That would be about $500 a year ?
Mr. Rand. Yes.
Senator Curtis. Why do they call it the flower fund ?
Mr. Rand. I think somebody just probably created that name. Sena-
tor. I have no idea whatsoever. I think it goes for a very worthy
cause. It is used to help people and assist people whenever they have
any problems.
Just what the actual accounting of it, I don't have it, but I am sure
that that information is available. We will be more than happy to pre-
sent it to you, Senator.
IMPROPER ACTIVrraES EST THE LABOR FIELD 9865
Senator Curtis. Would you say that your contributions to the flower
fund were about the same as the other representatives and employees
oftheUAW?
Mr. Rand. No. As a matter of fact, Senator, when I was on the
skilled trades staff and then on the regional staff, I made a contribution,
I think, of $3 or $5, or something.
But it just so happens that I now, on my own accord, make the $10.
I imagine there are other people in that some category who determine
that as individuals.
Senator Curtis. You are drawing more now than before in your
pay?
Mr. Rand. Yes. I have a different position than I had previously,
yes, sir.
Senator Curtis. Mr. Rand, you will recall that when you were on
the stand previously, there was time spent on an attempt to get you to
answer a question as to whether or not you were on the picket line and
participated in picketing procedure urging people not to buy Kohler
products.
You testified on page 2237 that you did not participate in that ac-
tivity.
Is that still your answer ?
Mr. Rand. I could ask you to read that again, because I didn't fol-
low you completely, but let me try to answer you any way without go-
ing through that. It was my opinion, in answering that question — I
think the word illegal was used and as far as I am concerned there was
no illegal methods as far as these picket lines was concerned.
I think I testified to the effect that I was on 1 or 2 of these. Now, if
that is what you are referring to, that is my answer to the question.
Senator Curtis. Were j^ou engaged in picketing on or about May 31,
1055, in West Allis, Wis,, adjacent to Milwaukee?
Mr. Rand. Yes, Senator, on the basis of the testimony that has been
given here, I recall that event. I wasn't here but I read parts of the
transcript.
Senator Curtis. You were in a group of 833 pickets ?
Mr. Rand. Yes, sir.
Senator Curtis. You were picketing at a plumbing establishment
when a Kohler truck was making deliveries ?
Mr. Rand. Yes, sir.
Senator Curtis. Do you know Frederick Byrum ?
Mr. Rand. I think his name is Fritz Byrum. It may be Frederick,
I don't know. I know a Fritz Byrum.
Senator Curtis. Who is he ?
Mr. Rand. I think he is a Kohler striker. I know he is a Kohler
striker.
Senator Curtis. Do you know Ethan Berg ?
Mr. Rand. Ethan Berg is also a Kohler striker ; yes, sir.
Senator Curtis. Do you know Frank Schulze?
Mr. Rand. I don't know the name offhand. I probably know the
individual.
Senator Curtis. Do you know Gottlieb Schmidt ?
Mr. Rand. I might say there are a lot of Gottlieb Schmidts in
Kohler. It is a little difficult to know which one you are talking
about.
9866 IMPrEWPE'R ACnVITIEIS IN THE LABOiR FIEI^D
Senator Curtis. Do you know a Kohler striker by the name of
Gottlieb Schmidt?
Mr. Rand. I believe I know the person ; yes.
Senator Citrtis. Do you know Frederick Matthias?
Mr. Rand. I can't testify, Senator, that I know them with the
name and person as such. But there is no question that I probably
know those people.
Senator Curtis. Were these people or any of them with you on
that picketing occasion at West Allis ?
Mr. Rand. Yes, Senator.
Senator Curtis. That is about 60 miles from Kohler, Wis., isn't it ?
Mr. Rand. A little more than that. Maybe 70 miles.
Senator Curtis. On that occasion did the pickets carry signs read-
ing "Don't buy Kohler ware. Made by scabs. Kohler ware is made
by strike breakers"?
]\Ir. Rand. I don't remember the exact language on the sign. Sena-
tor, but they did have some signs referring to the fact that Kohler
products were made by scabs and strikebreakers, et cetera.
Senator Curtis. Did you get over to the Neis establishment ?
Mr. Rand. I belive so, yes.
Senator Curtis. Do you recall that on that occasion you saw
Mr. G. A. Desmond ?
Mr. Rand. I believe Mr. Desmond was there, yes.
I might say I refreshed by memory from his testimony here and I re-
call some of that, some of the events that took place there.
Senator Curtis. Mr. Jacobi and Mr. O'Neil were there, too ?
Mr. Rand. Jacobi. That is the famous cameraman of the Kohler Co.
Senator Curtis. Was he there ?
Mr. Rand. Yes.
Senator Curtis. Mr. Rand, you spoke to a Mr. Neis, one of the offi-
cials in the plumbing company at that time, didn't you ?
Mr. Rand. I believe I talked to a person there. I don't know who
it was.
vSenator Curtis. But a person that you thought was part of the man-
agement of the company ?
Mr. Rand. Well, I knew he was somebody who was connected with
that company. Whether I imagined at that time he had an official ca-
pacity or otherwise, I am not in any position to testify to.
Senator Curtis. You spoke to him ?
Mr. Rand. Yes, I talked to a person there.
Senator Curtis. The Kohler Co. truck was unloading in the rear of
the building, was it not ?
Mr. Rand. It was in the rear of the building. Wliether it was un-
loading— I believe that during that period they did unload the truck.
Wliether you are saying that I was talking to this man while it was
unloading or not, I am not going to quarrel with that.
Senator Curtis. The pickets were doing their picketing near the
truck, weren't they ?
Mr. Rand. Yes. I think they were there. The question of whether
they were picketing or not is one that can be questioned. They were
there. Senator. I don't know whether, frankly, we were there to deter-
mine where the Kohler products were going. We wanted to know, we
were in hopes that we could discuss the matter with the people who were
interested in the Kohler products and tell them the Kohler story.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIEIxD 9867
Senator Curtis. You did carry signs?
Mr. Rand. I think they had signs, yes. But I don't think they were
carrying the signs as such in an established picket line.
Senator Curtis. You told them to stop buying Kohler isn't that cor-
rect?
Mr. Rand. I beg your pardon.
Senator Curtis. Didn't you tell this representative of the Neis Com-
pany to stop buying Kohler ?
Mr. Rand. I did tell him I hoped he would consider the problems
of the Kohler strikers ; I am sure that if he understood the problems,
the fact that the Kohler Co. had been found guilty of unfair labor
practices, and that they were presently not bargaining in good faith,
that they certainly would see the Kohler workers' side of the story, and,
as a result, they wouldn't handle the Kohler products, purchase the
Kohler products.
Senator Curtis. What did he say to you ?
Mr. Rand. I don't remember his conversation, though I have read
what Mr. Desmond said.
Senator Curtis. Do you think that might be correct ?
Mr. Rand. What was it he said. Senator ?
Senator Curtis. Words to the effect that he said if that was all you
wanted, he said you could leave the premises.
Mr. Rand. He said "Thank you. If that is all that you have" —
he said goodbye or words to that eifect.
Senator Curtis. What did you do then ?
Mr. RaiND. I left. Senator.
Senator Curtis. Did you take any pickets with you when you left ?
Mr. Rand. Well, as I remember the location there. Senator, no, I
didn't take any pickets with me as I left. I have read the testimony
of Mr. Desmond, and I don't agree with it.
As I remember, some of those fellows went with me out to the front
■of the establishment.
Senator Curtis. You did go to the front of the Neis Co.
Mr. Rand. Yes, we did, and why Mr. Jacobi and Mr. Desmond
■deliberately stood there and insisted on taking our pictures and tried
to create and provoke an incident. I am darn glad they didn't accom-
plish it.
Senator Curtis. Did you block Paul Jacobi ?
Mr. Rand. No', I didn't. Senator. You have to understand. Senator,
that this fellow Jacobi is a professional photographer for the Kohler
Co.
He has taken hundreds of affidavits. He has attempted to provoke
as many incidents as he can. He was the same individual who at-
tempted to provoke me into an incident out at that liome demonstra-
tion. Pie deliberately tried to do it there. Thank God that I didn't
fall for his hoax.
Senator Curtis. Did you threaten or say anything to Mr. Desmond ?
Mr. Rand. I beg your pardon ?
Senator Curtis. Did you say anything to Mr. Desmond ?
Mr. Rand. I don't remember any discussion that I had with Mr.
Desmond that day.
Senator Curtis. Did you say anj^thing either that was threaten-
ing in the words or in the manner in which you spoke?
9868 EVIPiRiOPE'R ACTIVITIEIS IN THE LABOiR FIELD
Mr. Rand. As I say, I don't remember that. What date was that?
That is quite a while ago, isn't it ?
Senator Curtis. That day of the picketing in front of the Neis Co.
Mr. Rand. It is a number of years ago, and I just don't remember
the conversation whatsoever, Senator.
Senator Curtis. Were you walking with the pickets in the picket
line that day?
Mr. Rand. I was there. I was not walkmg with the pickets, no,
sir.
Senator Curtis. What were you doing?
Mr. Rand. As I have already testified. Senator, I went there in
the hopes that we could talk to the people who were purchasing Kohler
products, and, by that, be able to convince them that there was a great
deal of merit to the Kohler workers' problems.
Senator Curtis. Did you tell the pickets to continue their picketing
after the Kohler truck left?
Mr. Rand. No, I didn't tell them to continue that.
Senator Curtis. They did though, did they not ?
Mr. Rand. I think they were there. I read this testimony also.
Senator, and I think Mr. Desmond attempts to establish the fact
that we continued the picketing. As I remember, Mr. Desmond and
this fellow Jacobi, and I think they had another man with them —
I am not positive of that fact — thej^ slowly went around the block.
I don't know what they were doing — trying to get more evidence
to try to provoke us into certain acts. They weren't successful.
Senator Curtis. Did the pickets, regardless of what they were
doing, at the truck entrance of the Neis Co., did they stay there about
an hour ?
Would you say that was correct ?
Mr. Rand. I don't know how long they stayed, Senator. I know
they were there for a short time after this particular incident.
Senator Curtis. Do you know anything about picketing at the F. R.
Dingel Co. in Milwaukee?
Mr. Rand. I know of it now ; yes. Senator. Whether I am involved
in it or not or anybody else, I couldn't tell you one iota of information
regarding that, other than what I have heard at this hearing. I just
don't remember that.
Senator Curtis. Do you know that Ray Majerus was there?
Mr. Rand. No. And as a matter of fact I read the testimony and
I don't know whether it says that in there, wliether Desmond or any-
one else claims he was there. I haven't any information about that.
Senator Curtis. Do you have any information about the account
that Ray Majerus assaulted Ely O'Neill and was physically restrained
by a Milwaukee policeman ?
Mr. Rand. Assaulted? Assaulted? No, I never knew that.
Senator Curtis. Did anything happen that you learned of whereby
a policeman restrained Majerus ?
Mr. Rand. Is this the Dingle incident you are talking about?
Senator Curtis. Yes.
Mr. Rand. No ; I knovr nothing about that. I have no information.
Senator Curtis. Did you have anything to do with following the
trucks ?
Mr. Rand. No ; not directly, Senator. I knew of it.
Senator Curtis. Wliat did you have to do indirectly ?
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 9869
Mr. Kand. As I pointed out to you, I don't know whether you gave
me the chance to say, that I was in charge of the strike. I went in
there in 1956, 1 think it was, and at the time w^e had 1,550 people still
on the assistance rolls, and I had many problems, among them was
the boycott.
I wouldn't want to leave the impression here with you, Senator,
that being in charge of a strike for the UAW with this kind of a situ-
ation was an easy job. There are many problems dealing with the
individual strikers, of which we could take days and days to i-elate
here, as a result of this strike who had many hardships, and among
the problems that I had was the conduct of the boycott and the vari-
ous phases, and it was a very small part of the overall direction that
I gave to local 833.
My main function there was that I was in direct charge of the
strike, and the related problems to the strike, and there were many.
Senator Curtis. Who was chairman of the committee on following
the trucks ?
Mr. Rand. Well, Senator, there was no chairman as such. I think
that Curtis Nack, it has been testified here, was in charge of it, and
this wasn't any professional program as such. It was a very simple
one.
Senator Curtis. Breirather had something to do wdth it, didn't he ?
Mr. Rand. Leo Breirather had this to do with it : He was what we
called or we created the name coordinator of the boycott program, in
an attempt to establish a boycott of the Kohler products in the hopes
we could^et this company to negotiate a collective bargaining agree-
ment.
xVs a result of this we had to develop a program. Leo Breirather
was directed by the executive board of the local 833 to coordinate the
program as such. Nobody knew anything about a boycott, and as a
result of that one of the functions that he probably worked with the
committee in having some work and assignment with this so-called
follow-the-truck committee. But it wasn't anything of a serious
nature.
It has already been testified to, I think, that they made a couple
of trips.
Senator Curtis. Were there meetings held regarding the following
of the trucks ?
Mr. Rand. I don't believe, Senator, that there was any formal
meeting as such. There may have been. We have a lot of good people
up there who have been working with us, and I am quite proud of
the fact that they have devoted a great deal of time and efi'ort to this,
and when they have a problem they get together in an informal
fashion and work out the problems relating to the strike, and they
have tried to assist one another.
Senator Curtis. Now, did they get together informally and discuss
follow-the-truck procedures, or did they discuss follow-the-truck pro-
cedures when they gathered for some other purpose?
Mr. Rand. Frankly, Senator, I haven't any information of when it
started, or how it started and all. I am just saying from my Imowl-
edge of the situation I am sure that the executive board took action
regarding this, the executive board of local 833, and they formulated
this volunteer folloAv-tbe-truck movement.
9870 'IMPROPER ACnVITLEIS IN THE LABOR FIELD
Senator Cuktis. Were any injunctions given to the strikers who
were following the trucks?
Mr. Rand. I have no knowledge of any formula of injunctions or
any such things as that. I imagine that they did, Senator, have some
understanding of what the program was, but I can't testify to what
that is.
Senator Curtis. Did you give any information to truckdrivers in
regard to that ?
Mr. Rand. Did I?
Senator Curtis. Yes.
Mr. Rand. No. Did I give them ?
Senator Curtis. To the people who were following the truck-
drivers ?
Mr. Rand. I may have, and I doubt it. I don't remember. I may
have, Senator.
Senator Curtis. Wliat would you have told them, if you did?
Mr. Rand. What would I have told them if I did ? I don't remem-
ber if I did, Senator, and I don't know what I might have told them.
I probably would have requested that they try to bring back some
information relative to the Kohler distributors.
That was the object as I understood it, to find where these materials
were going, so we would have some knowledge to try to develop some
sort of a boycott program as such.
Senator Curtis. How many pickets were involved in following the
trucks ?
Mr. Rand. I didn't know. I think Roy Johnsen, one of the Kohler
strikers, testified to the effect there were 15 or 16, I think he said.
Whether that is right or wrong, I don't know offhand, Senator. It
wasn't that
Senator Curtis. Were you Breirather's superior in regard to run-
ning things there ?
Mr. Rand. Senator, in our kind of a union, nobody is superior.
I was the individual who was assigned by the international to conduct
the affairs of the strike as a representative of the international union,
and my function was to work as closely as possible with the executive
board of UAW Local 833, of which Leo Breirather was a member.
If anything, the UAW executive board was superior to myself as
such.
Senator Curtis. Was there anyone else who stayed there the greater
share of the time from the international union that Avas your superior?
Mr. Rand. I believe that I testified previously, Senator, that when
Burkhart was there he was superior in the sense that he had a similar
position to what I have at the present time in that strike, and he
personally was in charge generally accepted as being the superior
person in that particular locality.
Senator Curtis. That is all, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Are there any other questions ?
All right, you may stand aside.
Call the next witness.
Mr. Kennedy. Could we have Mr. Deis ?
The Chairman. Mr. Deis, will you come around ?
Will you be sworn ?
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 9871
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. Deis. Yes, sir
TESTIMONY OF JOHN DEIS
The Chairman. State your name, and your place of residence and
your business or occupation.
Mi: Deis. John Deis.
The Chairjman. John what?
Mr. Deis. John Deis, D-e-i-s.
The CiiAiRMAisr. Where do you live, Mr. Deis ?
Mr. Deis. Sheboygan, Wis.
The Chairman. What is your business or occupation ?
Mr. Deis. Common labor.
The Chairman. Do you have an attorney to represent you ?
Mr. Kennedy. Do you have a lawyer ?
Mr. Deis. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. Is he here ?
Mr. Deis. Oh, no ; I don't need a lawyer.
The Chairman. You don't need a lawyer ?
Mr. Deis. No.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Mr. Counsel, proceed.
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Deis, you used to work at the Kohler Co. ?
Mr. Deis. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. And for what period of time did you work at the
Kohler Co. ^
Mr. Deis. Well, I worked, you know, in 1933 and then I had a layoff.
Mr. Kennedy. How long before 1933 did you work ?
Mr. Deis. They had me working there not long, maybe 4 or 5
months you know, and then we got a layoff, and you know I got a
notice, and I got an order, "Don't come back."
Mr. Kennedy. Were you one of the strikers in 1933 ?
Mr. Deis. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Then did you go back to work after the strikers
finished?
Mr. Deis. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. When did you go back to work ?
Mr. Deis. Well, they called me back in 1941, on June 11.
Mr. Kennedy. You went back to w^ork for the Kohler Co. then ?
Mr. Deis. What is that?
Mr. Kennedy. You w^ent back ?
Mr. Deis. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. What work were you doing then ?
Mr. Deis. I worked in the foundry.
Mr. Kennedy. How^ long did you work then ?
Mr. Deis. 13 years.
Mr. Kennedy. And when did you leave your job ?
Mr. Deis. I left the job in 1954.
Mr. Kennedy. In 1954 ?
Mr. Deis. In 1954.
9872 IMPROPER ACTIVITIEIS IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. Kennedy. You went out on strike ?
Mr. Deis. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. And you still are out on strike ?
Mr. Deis. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Are you receiving strike benefits from the union ?
Mr, Deis. No, not I. I had some, but not now,
Mr. Kennedy. Xot now ?
Mr. Deis. No, I withdrew my security.
Mr. Kennedy. You have a job of your own ?
Mr. Deis. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. Now, Mr. Deis, during the 1934 strike there was a
riot on the evening of July 27, 1934.
Mr. Deis. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Were you present during the riot?
Mr. Deis. Yes, sir.
Mv. Kennedy. Were you out on strike at that time?
Mr. Deis. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Were you present when the stones and rocks were
thrown at the window ?
Mr. Deis. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Windows of the plant ?
Mr. Deis. Yes, sir,
Mr. Kennedy. And then there was tear gas shot at the strikers ?
Mr. Deis. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. And did you see the tear gas shot ?
Mr. Deis. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. You were one of those who saw the tear gas ?
Mr. Deis. How is that?
Mr. Kjennedy. You saw the tear gas ?
Mr. Deis. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you see anybody, any people with guns at that
time ?
Mr. Deis. Yes, sir.
jMr. Kennedy. Did you see any people representing the company
shoot at anyone ?
Mr. Deis. You say the company ?
Mr. Kennedy. Any representatives of the company, did you see any
of them shooting at anyone?
Mr. Deis. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. You did ?
Mr. Deis. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. You saw that on the night of the strike ?
Mr. Deis. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Now, you filed an affidavit with the committee.
The Chairman. The Chair presents to you a document purporting
to be an affidavit signed by you on the 12th day of March 1958.
Mr. Deis. Yes, sir.
Tlie Chairman. That is this year ?
Mr. Deis. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. I ask you to examine this and state if you identify
it and if it is an affidavit which you signed ?
(A document was handed to the witness.)
Mr. Deis. Yes, sir ; I signed this.
The Chairman. You signed it?
IMPROPER AcrrvrriES est the labor field 9873
The Chairman. That affidavit may be made exhibit 123, I believe.
If that is not correct let the record be corrected accordingly. I have
checked it and it is 126.
(Document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 126" for reference
and may be found in the files of the select committee.)
The Chairman. Where were you when you signed that affidavit?
Mr. Deis. I went down to the office, Dave Kabinowitz's office, and
we signed these papers.
(At this point, the following members were present: Senators
McClellan, Mundt, Curtis, and Goldwater.)
The Chairman. Who prepared the paper ?
Mr. Deis. I forgot the name and, you know, the lawyer's name.
The Chairman. Another lawyer prepared the paper ?
Mr. Deis. Yes.
The Chairman. And you have forgotten his name ?
Mr. Deis. I forgot his name.
The Chairman. Is he associated with Mr. Rabinowitz ?
Mr. Deis. Well, I don't know. I cannot tell.
The Chairman. How come you to go down to the office to sign it ?
Mr. Deis. He called me down.
The Chairman. Wlio called you ?
Mr. Deis. The lawyer.
The Chairman. Which one ?
Mr. Deis. The lawyer that was down by the office.
The Chairman. The one you don't know.
Mr. Deis. What?
The Chairman. The lawyer that you don't know called you down
there?
Mr. Deis. Yes, he called me down.
The Chairman. Well, what did he teU you when you got down
there?
Mr. Deis. Well, you know, he asked me what is happening on the
picket line and everything, and I told him all about it, and he made
this copy out here.
The Chairman. You told him all about it and he made this copy
out?
Mr. Deis. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. Did he tell you he wanted an affidavit ?
Mr. Deis. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. Did he tell you why he wanted it ?
Mr. Deis. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. What did he say he wanted it for ?
Mr. Deis. Well, you know, I was in the strike, you know, and I got
shot and everything, and that is why they wanted the affidavit, you
know, and to bring it before the Senate committee.
The Chairman. He wanted to bring it before the Senate committee ?
Mr. Deis. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. He told you he wanted an affidavit about what you
knew regarding the strike and who you saw get shot and so forth, so
he could bring it before the Senate committee ?
Mr. Deis. Yes. I told him about what I saw and everything.
The Chairman. But you knew the purpose of the affidavit was to be
presented to this committee before you made it, is that correct ?
9874 IMPiROPE'R ACTIVITIEiS IN THE LABOiR FIELD
Mr. Deis. I can't — yes. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. Don't say yes
Mr. Deis. Oh, no.
TheCHAiEMAN. Wait a minute. Let's start over.
Mr. Deis. I want to hear this one ri<Tht. Then I can answer you.
The Chairman. I want you to hear it right. At the time you were
called down to the lawyer's office
Mr. Deis. Yes?
The Chairman. And before you made this affidavit, but before you
signed it, were you told or did you know and understand, that it was
being prepared for your signature and then to be submitted to this Sen-
ate committee ?
Mr. Deis. I cannot comprehend this question.
The Chairman. You can't understand my question ?
Mr. Deis. No, not this kind of question.
The Chairman. Not that kind of question. "Well, let's shorten it a
little. Did you know before it was to be prepared that you were to
sign it?
Mr. Deis. I can't answer this one.
The Chairman. You don't know whether you were going to sign it
or not when it was being prepared? ^
Mr. Deis. Yes, I know it as I sign it.
The Chairman. You knew you were going to sign it ?
Mr. Deis. Yes.
The Chairman. Did they tell you what was to be done with this
after you signed it ?
Mr. Deis." Oh, yes.
The Chairman. What did they tell you ?
Mr. Deis. What?
The Chairman. What did they tell you ?
Mr. Deis. Well, you know they asked me, the lawyer, was I know,,
and I told him everything.
The Chairman. I know. He asked you and you told him every-
thing. What did he say he would do with everything after he got
it in the affidavit?
Mr. Deis. Well, I told him everything, and he said he would have to
send it down to the Senate committee, you know.
The Chairman. He told you he would have to send it down to
the Senate committee ?
Mr. Deis. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. He told you that before you signed it ?
Mr. Deis. No, I signed it and I asked him, "Where you want to
send it?", and he said, "It is going to the Senate committee."
The Chairman. He told you after you signed it that he was going
to send it to the Senate committee ; is that correct ?
Mr. Deis. No ; I signed it and then he told me.
The Chairman. Which was first ?
Mr. Deis. What?
The Chairman. You signed it ?
Mr. Deis. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. Was it before you signed it or after you signed it
that you were told that it v/as coming down to the Senate committee ?
Mr. Deis. Yes, sir. No, I signed it and then I told him it is coming
down to the Senate committee.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 9875
The Chairman. You signed it and then you were told that it was
coming down to the Senate committee ?
Mr. Deis. That is right.
The Chairman. So it was after you signed it that you learned that
it was to come before the Senate committee. Did you read it before
you signed it ?
Mr. Deis. Yes, me look it over.
The Chairman. I beg your pardon ?
Mr. Deis. Me look it over. Me read it.
The Chairman. You looked it over ?
Mr. Deis. Yes. Me read it.
The Chairman. Did you read it ?
Mr. Deis. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. Do you know what was in it ?
Mr. Deis. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. Do you know who you said you saw got shot ?
Mr. Deis. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. Who ?
Mr. Deis. I get shot, do you mean ?
The Chairman. Who do you say in the affidavit got shot ?
Mr. Deis. Shot ? You Iviiow, well, you know, I get shot.
The Chairman. You got shot. You are No, 1. Who else? Who
else did you say in the affidavit got shot ?
Mr. Deis. Well, I don't know who all got shot. I know I get shot.
The Chairman. You know you got shot ?
Mr. Heis. Yes.
The Chairman. You felt it ? You felt it ? You know you got shot ?
Mr, Deis. You know, I cannot look around here, I cannot look
around on the picket line who else gets shot. You can't.
The Chairman. You can't do what on a picket line ?
Mr. Deis. What?
The Chairman. You said you couldn't do what on a picket line ?
Mr. Deis. I can't say this one.
The Chairman. I can't either. What I am trying to find out is
you state in your affidavit that you got shot.
Mr. Deis. Yes.
The Chairman. AYlio do you say in the affidavit shot you ?
Mr. Deis. Mr. Conger and Mr. Biever and John Eaml, and Runge,
these four that gathered on the sidewalk were with the shotguns.
The Chairman. Mr. Conger?
Mr, Deis, That is right, Mr, Biever.
The Chairman. Mr, Conger.
Mr, Kennedy. Mr. Conger ?
Mr, Deis, Yes.
The Chairman. And Mr. Biever?
]\Ir, Deis. Biever.
The Chairman. Those two were employees of management or rep-
resentatives of the Kohler Company, were they ?
Mr. Deis. That is right.
The Chairman. And the other two ? What are their names ?
Mr, Deis, John Euml, And Mv. Runge,
Mr. Kennedy. You are saying R-u-n-g-e, I understand, and Rami,
I understand.
2124.3 — 58— pt. 24 26
9876 IMPROPER ACTIVITIHS IX THE LABOR FIELD
The CiiAiuMAx. Which one of those is now dead ?
Mr. Deis. John Eaml.
The Chairman . Kami is dead ?
Mr. Deis. That is right.
The Chairmax. And the other three now are living?
Mr. Deis. That is right.
The Chairman. You say that they shot you. Wliat did they shoot
you with ?
Mr. Deis. Yes. they shot me.
The Chairman. Yes, they shot you. With a rifle, pistol, shotgun,
or what ?
Mr. Deis. Shotguns.
The Chairman. With a shotgun?
Mr. Deis. Shotguns.
The Chairman. All right. Wliich one of them shot you ?
Mr. Deis. Wliy?
The Chairman. No, not why, which ?
Mr. Deis. Which?
The Chairman. Who shot you ? Which of the 3 or 4 ?
Mr. Deis. Well, Mr. Conger, and Biever was on the front and I figure
these two shot me.
The Chairman. Mr. Conger and
Mr. Deis. Conger
The Chairman. Wait a minute. Mr. and Conger and Mr. Biever
were in front ?
Mr. Deis. In front.
Tlie Chairman. And you figured they are the two who shot you ?
Mr. Deis. That is right.
The Chairman. How many shots were fired at you ?
I^Ir. Deis. Two of them.
The Chairman. Two shots fired at you ?
Mr. Deis. That is right.
The Chairman. About the same time?
Mr. Deis. No. No. One in the head first, and the second one come
in the legs.
The Chairman. One did what ; the first one did what ?
Mr. Deis. The first one got right in the head behind and the second
one him come behind on the legs.
The Chairman. One come — one come where first?
One hit you in the hip ?
Mr. Deis. Yes, sir ; one hit me right on the head.
The Chairman. Head or hip? One hit you on the head?
Mr. Deis. On the head behind, yes ; one shot.
The Chairman. On the head behind. Let's settle for that. I think
I am right. And then how long was it before you were shot again ?
Mr. Deis. Well, that is all I was shot. I was just one shot.
The Chairman. Just one shot ?
Mr. Deis. No ; two shots. You know, they shot me maybe in one
second I get these two shots.
The Chairman. That is what I am trying to find out. The first
shot —
Mr. Deis. In one second I had these two shots.
EVIPROPE'R ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 9877
The Chairman. One second more possibly another shot hit vou in
the leg?
Mr. Deis. That is right.
The Chairman. Now we have it correct.
Did you see either Mr. Conger or Mr. Biever lire a shot at you ?
Mr. Deis. Oh, sure.
The Chairman. Which one of them fired first?
Mr. Deis. What one ? Me, I can remember, you know ; Mr. Conger
was the first one and Mr. J3iever was the second one.
The Chairman. Mr. Conger fired the first shot ?
Mr. Deis. That is right.
The Chairman. And Mr. Biever fired the second shot ?
Mr. Deis. That is right.
The Chairman. How close were they to you ?
Mr. Deis. 35 feet away.
The Chairman. 35 feet away. Well, then, did Mr. Eaml or Mr.
Runge, either of them, shoot at you ?
Mr. Deis. They stand right behind these two.
The Chairman. They are standing right behind. There might be
a lot of people behind them in a mob like that.
But did either of them shoot at you ?
Mr. Deis. There was about four of them together.
The Chairman. There was 4 together, and 2 shots were fired. It
only took 1 man to fire 1 shot, didn't it ?
I am trying to find out now if the other two — one of them is dead.
I am trying to find out if either of the other two shot you?
Mr. Deis. No, the other two never shot. You know, I know he had
a shotgun in his hands and I know he handles. You know, Mr. Biever
and Conger, he had his shotgun this way, and the other one had it
under the arm, the other. The}^ can not shot it when they got a
shotgun under the arm, they cannot shot nobody.
The Chairman. I am not questioning your saying Mr. Biever shot
jou or Mr. Conger shot you. What I am trying to determine is
whether either of the other two men actually shot you.
Mr. Deis. Well, you can't shot these way. When you got a shotgun
under the arm, you can't shot nobody.
The Chairman. Well, I will say I can't understand it. You are
not helping me veiy much. You had Mr. Conger and Mr. Biever in
front.
Mr. Deis. That is right.
The Chairman. And the other two men were behind them ?
Mr. Deis. That is right.
The Chairman. And Mr. Conger shot you first ?
Mr. Deis. That is right.
The Chairman. Mr. Biever shot you next ?
Mr. Deis. That is right.
The Chairman. Who shot you next ?
Mr. Deis. Mr. Biever.
The Chairman. Did he shoot you twice ?
Mr. Deis. No, no, no. You say who shot you. Mr. Biever. That is
ralways I had two shots.
The Chairman. Mr. Conger shot you first ?
Mr. Deis. That is right.
9878 IMPROPER ACTIVITIEB IN THE LABOR FIELD
The Chairman. Then Mr. Biever shot ?
Mr. Deis. That is right.
The Chairman. That is two shots ?
Mr. Deis. All right.
The Chairman. Who else shot ?
Mr. Deis. Nobody else.
The Chairman. Then Kami and Eimge, neither of them shot you ?
Mr. Deis. No.
The Chairman. Is that correct ?
]Mr. Deis. No. That is correct, you know. You cannot shoot this
way when they got a shotgun under the arm you can't shot nobody.
The other one had it straight.
The Chairman. Do we agree, am I correct now, you only got shot
twice ?
Mr. Deis. Well, I have to tell what I know, Senator.
The Chairman. I want you to tell exactly what you know. I am
not trying to keep you from doing that.
Mr.' DeIs. No, I can't tell.
The Chairman. I don't want you to tell something wrong. I would
hate to hear it. Listen to me a moment. You only got shot twice.
Mr. Conger shot you once, Mr. Biever shot you once, and no one else
shot you ?
Mr. Deis. No one else.
The Chairman. All right. We got it straight finally. Did you
testify at some previous hearing ?
Did you give some testimony regarding this strike and regarding the
shooting on the I7th day of September 1935 in the office of Arthur H.
Gruhle, court commissioner, in and for Sheboygan County, Wisconsin?
Mr. Deis. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. Do you remember having given that testimony, do
you?
Mr. Deis. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. Were you sworn at that time ?
Mr. Deis. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. An oath was administered to you to tell the truth ?
Mr. Deis. I cannot state this one.
The Chairman. You don't even remember whether you were sworn
or not ?
Mr. Deis. Yes, I was sworn.
The Chairman. All right, then. You were sworn to tell the truth.
That was in September 1935. Would that be about one year after
you were shot ?
Mr. Deis. I was shot in 1934.
The Chairman. Yes.
What date in 1934 was it?
Mr. Deis. In 1934 ? I can't think no more what date.
The Chairman. About the 27th of July ?
Mr. Deis. Yes, 27th, that is right.
The Chairman. July 27th is when you were shot ?
Mr. Deis. That is right.
The Chairman. One year and two months later, about 14 months
later, you gave testimony regarding that shooting and regarding
that riot, did you not, at this court where I have indicated ?
ri\iPROPEiR ACTrvrriES m the labor field 9879
Mr. Deis. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. Is that correct ?
Mr. Deis. Yes.
The CiiAiKMAN. The chair hasn't read this.
I am going to turn it over to counsel who will further interrogate
you about your testimony at that time.
That was about a year or about 14 months afterwards, after the
shooting, and you testified at that time. Now I will ask the attorney
to interrogate you about your testimony at that time.
Mr. Kennedy. I just have a couple of things on your testimony that
I would like to ask you about. On page 237 you were asked about
whether you saw anybody with guns. You were asked if you saw
anybody with guns.
Mr. Deis. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. And the question was "Well, did you see anybody
with guns?"
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Who did you see?
Answer. Why, I see a lot of them.
Question. Well, who?
Answer. Well, a lot of people with giins.
Question. AVell, did you know whether they were officers or not?
Answer. Well, I don't know if they were officers, I know two of them.
Question. Who were those two ?
Answer. Frank Brotz' boy and somebody else, I know the kid von the face,
I don't know the name.
Question. What kind of a gun did Frank Brotz' boy have?
Answer. W^ell, just a rifle gun.
Why did you tell them at that time if you saw Mr. Conger and Mr.
Biever with guns, why didn't you tell them that you saw Mr. Conger
and Mr. Biever with guns ?
Mr. Deis. Whj'^
Mr. Kennedy. Why?
Mr. Deis. You know — this time, you know, they say to me you can-
not tell any officer from the Kohler Co., they can't tell us, nobody. You
know, I come home, you know, and I talk to my wife, you know
Mr. Kennedy. ^-N^ien are you talking about ? You came home and
saw your wife ?
Mr. Deis. I say to my wife, and I told her all about what is going
on there, and she told me don't say nothing to nobody. When you say
you know the officer by Kohler, you know you was in here, and you tell
everything, then you lose your job.
Then you been out of a job. That is when I shut my mouth.
Mr. Kennedy. Why did you think you would lose your job?
Mr. Deis. Well, you know, the whole truth, you know, say you have
to keep still. Senator. You know, the Kohler Co. runs the whole She-
boygan County. Then you have to shut your mouth.
Mr. Kennedy. You say you didn't tell them about it at this time be-
cause you were afraid you would lose your job ?
Mr. Deis. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. You testified quite extensively on the fact that it was
the Kohler Co. that was at fault with your being shot and with these
other people being shot.
You told them that, at least. It wouldn't be much further just to
tell them that it was Mr. Conger that was doing the shooting.
9880 IMPROPER ACnVITIEIS IX THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. Deis. Well, I see it, you know.
Mr. Kennedy. But you said that you felt — over here you said, on
page 250, you said that you felt that the blame was on Mr. Kohler, Mr.
Conger, Mr. Biever, and certain other people.
You stated that.
Question. Well, do you think they are to blame, and they name these people.
Answer. Well, somebody is to blame for it.
Question. Well, do you think they are to blame V
Answer. No, I never think, but I feel this way. I mean, I feel this way.
Question. Well, do you know whether they are to blame or not?
Answer. How?
Question. Do you know whether they are to blame or not?
Answer. I don't know, but I just feel this way.
Question. You just feel that they had something to do with it?
Answer. Yes, sir.
You indicated there that they were responsible. If you were willing
to do that, certainly you were willing to tell them about Mr. Conger
shooting you ?
Mr. Deis. Well, nobody say nothing this time, you know. There
was an officer, you know, by the Kohler Co., and you say something,
you know, and you squawk, and then you lose your job. I work for
the city of Sheboygan this time, and you know when I squawk out on
this one, on Mr. Conger or Mr. Biever, you know, then I lose my job
maybe.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you lose your job after you testified this time?
Mr. Deis. Yes, when I testified, you know, this time, then I lose my
job sure.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you lose your job when you told them these
things ?
Mr. Deis. Not that.
Mr. Kennedy. In 1935 did you lose your job then ?
Mr. Deis. No, I never say a word. Then I never lose it.
Mr. Kennedy. You say that you felt that the Kohler Co. was re-
sponsible for this. You did tell them that. You didn't lose your
job.
Mr. Deis. Then I lose my job by the city, you know, wlien I say
these guys who are by and everything, and down there.
Mr. Kennedy. What I don't understand is why it has taken 20
years to find that it was Mr. Conger and Mr. Biever who were re-
sponsible for doing the shooting, Mr. Deis. Why have you waited
so long to say that it was Mr. Conger and Mr. Biever that shot you ?
Mr. Deis. Well, you know, I told you, you know, when I keep this
one light away out, then I lose my job.
Mr. Kennedy. The whole reason is because you felt you would lose
your job?
Mr. Deis. I lose my job, you know. I told you, the Kohler Co. run
the whole Sheboygan County. You only have to shut your mouth
this time. You have to keep still. My wife told me "You better keep
still, or you been out of a job."
Mr. Kennedy. You were asked specifically during that hearing,
about whether Mr. Conger or Mr. Biever or any of the officers were
responsible for shooting you, personally, and you never indicated that
they were responsible.
Y'ou didn't deny that they were responsible, but yon never indi-
cated that they had any responsibility on this, Mr. Deis.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 9881
Well, tluit is all.
Senator Curtis. Mr. Chairman ?
The Chairman. Let me ask this question.
You were at that hearing, and you were asked tliis question : "Did
you see who shot you ?"
Mr. Deis. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. You were asked that question when you testified
in September 1935. You answered "Well, no, I never see. There is
too many, see. I cannot tell who it was it. There is so many there."
Mr. Deis. Well, I know, there is too many. I know there is too
many. You know, we are come down on the end, you know
The Chairman. Well, I don't know. You were asked a direct ques-
tion: "Did you see who shot you?"
Mr. Deis. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. I asked you that question this afternoon, and you
said you did see Mr. Conger and Mr. Biever shoot you.
Mr. Deis. That is right.
The Chairman. You were asked that question 19 years ago, ap-
proximately 1 year and a month or 2 after you were shot.
You were asked that question under oath, and you answered "Well,
no, I never see. There is too many, see. I cannot tell who it was.
There is so many there."
Now, didn't you deny then that you knew who shot you ?
Mr. Deis. Yes.
The Chairman. O. K. Are there any other questions?
Senator Curtis. Mt. Chairman?
The Chairman. Senator Curtis.
Senator Curtis. Mr. Deis, I am going to ask you some questions,
and if you don't understand them, be sure and tell me and I will re-
phrase the question.
Would you sign 3'our name, John Deis, on a paper here, Mrs. Watt
is handing to you ?
(The witness complied with the request of Senator Curtis.)
Senator Curtis. Just a short while ago, on ]March 12 of this year,
you signed this paper, didn't you ?
Mr. Deis. That is right.
Senator Curtis. And I believe you said you signed it in Mr. Rabino-
witz' office?
Mr. Deis. That is right.
Senator Curtis. Who asked you to go to Mr. Eabinowitz' office?
Mr. Deis. You know, somebody from the representative, he call me
up, he want to see me down in the union office. I went down.
Senator Curtis. Wanted to see you where ?
Mr. Deis. He wanted to see me down in the office, down by the
union hall.
Senator Curtis. The union office ?
Mr. Deis. Yes. I went down.
Senator Curtis. Do you know who called you ?
Mr. Deis. Yes, sir.
Senator Curtis. Who was it ?
Mr. Deis. BobTreuer.
Senator Curtis. Bob Treuer ?
Mr. Deis. Treuer.
9882 IMPROPER ACT'IVITIEB IN THE LABOR FIELD
Senator Curtis. He is the UAW man ?
Mr. Deis. That is right.
Senator Curtis. What did he say to you i
Mr. Deis. Well, he say, 'They want to see you down in Dave's
office."
"Who wants to see me ?"
He says, "Somebody down there."
Senator Curtis. By Dave's office, did he mean Dave Rabinovitz?
Mr. Deis. That is right.
Senator Curtis. Did you go directly to Mr. Rabinovitz' office,
or did you go to the union office I
ISIr. Deis. No, I w-ent down right to Dave, to Dave Rabinovitz' office.
Senator Curtis. But you know it was Bob Treuer that called you ?
Mr. Deis. What?
Senator Curtis. You know it was Bob Treuer that called you ?
Mr. Deis. Yes, sir.
(At this point, Senator McClellan withdrew from the hearing
room.)
Senator Curtis. And he asked you to go to Mr. Rabinovitz' office?
Mr. Deis. That is right.
Senator Curtis. Who did you see there ?
Mr. Deis. Well, another man, you know, and I don't know his name,
an attorney.
Senator Curtis. There was an attorney and you didn't know his
name ?
Mr. Deis. Yes, sir.
Senator Curtis. Did he say he was an attorney ?
Mr. Deis. What?
Senator Curtis. Did he say that he was an attorney ?
Mr. Deis. Yes, sir.
Senator Curtis. Who else was there ?
Mr. Deis. Nobody else.
Senator Curtis. Just one person ?
Mr. Deis. That is all.
Senator Curtis. What did he say to you ?
Mr. Deis. Well, he say he got calls from them and he got all kind
of questions, and what I know, so I told him everything that I know,
you know.
Senator Curtis. Did he write it down ?
Mr. Deis. Yes, sir.
Senator Curtis. How did he write it, with a pencil ?
Mr. Deis. AVith a pencil.
Senator Curtis. With a pencil?
Mr. Deis. Pencil.
Senator Curtis. How long did you stay there ?
Mr. Deis. Well, maybe I stayed down maybe for not quite an
hour, something like this, maybe an hour.
Senator Curtis. What did he do after he wrote it down with a
pencil ?
Mr. Deis. What?
Senator Curtis. What did he do after he wrote it down with a
pencil ?
Mr. Deis. Well, he write it on, you know, what I say, you know.
Senator Curtis. Just the two of you were there ?
IMPROPER ACTIAaTIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 9883
Mr. Deis. That is all, just the two.
Senator Curtis. Did you sign a paper that day ?
Mr. Deis. No, no, no this day.
Senator Curtis, Not that day ?
Mr. Deis. No.
Senator Curtis. And there were just two people that were there
that first day ?
Mr. Deis. That is right.
Senator Curtis. That was before you signed the paper ?
Mr. Deis. That is right.
(At this point. Senator McClellan entered the hearing room.)
Senator Curtis. About how many days before ?
Mr. Deis. Well, I cannot remember no more.
Senator Curtis. Do you see any one behind you there in the court
room that looks like the man that you saw down there ?
Mr. Deis. Dave Rabinovitz.
Senator Curtis. He was there that first day ?
Mr. Deis. Do you mean in 1934 ?
Senator Curtis. No, I am talking about when they went down to
talk about this paper,
Mr. Deis. He was not here. He was here in Washington.
Senator Curtis. I didn't get the answer.
Mr. Deis. Dave was not down at the office.
Senator Curtis, Wlien you went down to Dave's office, who was
there?
Mr. Deis, I have to think it. Dave's office girl was down there
when I sign this one.
Senator Curtis. No, but the first day you talked about it. There
was just one man ?
Mr. Deis. Well, when I sign this paper, you know
Senator Curtis. No, the day before you signed it. When you went
down to talk about it, and you said that he wrote it with a pencil,
was there just one man in the office ?
Mr. Deis. Just one, yes.
Senator Curtis. Had you ever seen him before ?
Mr. Deis. No, I guess not.
Senator Curtis. Was it somebody that lives around there ?
How long have you lived around there ?
Mr. Deis. Sheboygan ?
Senator Curtis. Yes.
Mr. Deis. 46 years.
Senator Curtis. Do you know a lot of people ?
Mr, Deis. I know a lot of people, yes.
Senator Curtis. You had never seen this person before ?
Mr. Deis. No.
Senator Curtis. You lived there 42 years ?
Mr. Deis. 46 years.
Senator Curtis, 46 years.
How many years did you work for Kohler ?
Mr. Deis. Well, altogether coming 25 years out. The last time I
worked 13 years on the one place.
Senator Curtis. Did you get a retirement pension from them?
Mr. Deis. Yes, sir.
Senator Curtis. Are you drawing a retirement pension now ?
IMPROPETl ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOiR FIEIiD
Mr. Deis. That is always I get it. $12 a month.
Senator Curtis. How much?
Mr. Deis. $12 a month.
Senator Curtis. That is not the social security ?
Mr. Deis. No. $12 pension a month. That is what I get it.
Senator Curtis. Well, now, the day you went back and signed it,
who did you see ?
Mr. Deis. I signed just — just the one girl give me this paper and
I sign it, down by Dave's office.
Senator Curtis. No one else was there ?
Mr. Deis. Well, there was two girls. The head one, you know,
give it to me, and there was nobody else down.
Senator Curtis. Just two girls there ?
Mr. Deis. Yes, sir.
Senator Curtis. Did either of them read it over to you ?
Mr. Deis. What?
Senator Curtis. Did either of them read it to you ?
Mr. Deis. Yes, sir.
Senator Curtis. Which one of the girls read it to you ?
Mr. Deis. The oldest one.
Senator Curtis. She read it over ?
j\Ir. Deis. Yes, sir.
Senator Curtis. Then what did she say ?
Mr. Dels. Well, they say if I know everything, and I say yes. Well,
they say, do you want to sign it, and I say yes, I will sign it.
Senator Curtis. So the day you signed it. you talked to no one but
the girls ?
Mr. Deis. Nobody.
Senator Curtis. This man that you saw the first day was a total
stranger to you ?
Mr. Deis. Sure, I never seen him before.
Senator Curtis. But you did talk to him ?
Mr. Deis. Do you mean that guy in the office ?
Senator Curtis. Yes.
Mr. Deis. Yes, sir. I talked to him.
Senator Curtis. Did he tell you that somebody wanted you to give
this affidavit ?
Mr. Deis. He told me nothing.
Senator Curtis. Why did he say he wanted the affidavit ?
Mr. Deis. Well, he say, lie write it up, you know, and he want to
know everything, what I say, and everything and I don't know what he
do me then.
Senator Curtis. You thought he was an attorney ?
Mr. Deis. Yes, sir.
Senator Curtis. Wlio did you think he was an attorney for ?
Mr. Deis. Well, I don't know. I never see him in Sheboygan.
Senator Curtis. Did you think he was attorney for this committee ?
Mr. Deis. No. I guess the guy is from I\Iilwaukee. That is what I
think.
Senator Curtis. You thought he was somebody from Milwaukee.
How long were you there the day you signed the paper? How
long were you there the day you signed this paper ?
Mr. Deis. This paper ? Well, I sign it and I leave right away.
IMPROPER AcrrvniES en the labor field 9885
Senator Cuetis. How long were you there before you signed it ?
Mr. Deis. Well, about an hour down there. That is all. One hour.
Senator Curtis. One hour ?
Mr. Deis. Yes, and then I signed the paper and left.
Senator Curtis. You were there an hour each day, and on the day
that you just talked to the girls ?
Mr. Deis. Yes, sir, the day I went down there with the girls, yes,
sir.
Senator Curtis. Did you see Mr. Conner — and I am talking about
back there that day of the riot in 1934 — did you see Mr. Conger shoot?
Mr. Deis. Yes, sir.
Senator Curtis. Well, now, what was in his gun? Was it gas, or
was it some kind of shot ?
Mr. Deis. Shotgun.
Senator Curtis. What kind of shells were in it ?
Mr. Deis. Well, BB shots.
Senator Curtis. Were there any guns with tear gas?
Mr. Deis. Yes, sir. I see a lot of them, a lot.
Senator Curtis. What kind of guns were they ?
Mr. Deis. What?
Senator Curtis. What kind of guns did they use for the tear gas ?
Mr. Deis. Well, I don't know this, you know. It was so dark I
can't see it. They throw them all over, the tear gas. It was so dark
you can't see it. You don't know who shot it.
Senator Curtis. Did you shoot the tear gas with guns ?
Mr. Deis. Yes, sir. You cannot see.
Senator Curtis. Did they use shotguns for that ?
Mr. Deis. What?
Senator Curtis. Did they use shotguns for the tear gas ?
Mr. Deis. I don't know this. You know, this four guys who I see,
you know, got shotguns.
Senator Curtis. The men who shot tear gas, did they use shotguns ?
Mr. Deis. You can't see it. You can't tell it. You have to wipe
your eyes and everything else. You cannot look no more. It was like
a regular snowstorm, rocks and everything.
Senator Curtis. How did they shoot the tear gas? With guns?
Mr. Deis. Well, must be. I don't know. You can't see it. It was
dark, you know^ and everything, and rocks and everything, you have
to protect your head and everything.
Senator Curtis. Were you shot any place but in the back ?
Mr. Deis I?
Senator Curtis. Yes.
Mr. Deis. Yes, I was shot right behind here on by head.
Senator Curtis. And any place else ?
Mr. Deis. What?
Senator Curtis. Any place else? Were you shot any place else
besides the back of your head ?
Mr. Deis. Not as I know. I, do you mean ?
Senator Curits. Yes, you.
Mr. Deis. Yes, I was shot in the legs.
Senator Ct'Rtis. The back of the legs or the front ?
Mr. Deis. The first shot I get it liere and the second shot in the
legs.
9886 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IK THE LABOUR FIELD
Senator Curtis. The back side of your legs or the front side ?
Mr. Deis. The back, right in the back.
Senator Curtis. Whoever shot you was behind you ?
Mr. Deis. Well, you know, Mr. Conger and Biever was the closest
ones. That is only the two guys what is close.
Senator Curtis. Whoever did shoot you, were they back behind
you?
Mr. Deis. What ?
Senator Cltrtis. The person who sliot you, were they behind you
or in front of you ?
Mr. Deis. They were in the front, who shot me, right in the front.
Senator Curtis. And you were facing them ?
jMr. Deis. No, I never face them. I face my face this way, you
know.
Senator Curits. You were looking away from them?
Mr. Deis. Thirty-five feet away.
Senator Curtis. Which way were you looking ?
Mr. Deis. I am looking this way, and they stand behind me.
Senator Curtis. They were behind you ?
Mr. Deis. Yes, sir.
Senator Curtis. How could you see them if they were behind you ?
Mr. Deis. Well, you know, I pick my coat up here, I had the first
shot. You know, my coat was on the floor. You know, so I run
around my head this way and so I see Mr. Biever there with the shot-
gun this way, and Mr. Conger, and the other two they had it under
the arm.
Senator Curtis. Who had their shotgun under their arm ?
Mr. Deis. Mr. Runge and Mr. Ruml.
Senator Curtis. About what time in the evening was the shooting?
Mr. Deis. Oh, it must be something like this about 8 o'clock, I
guess, 7 or 8, between 7 or 8, something like this.
Senator Curtis. Was it dark or not ?
Mr. Deis. It was dark, darkness was coming, yes, sir.
Senator Curtis. How dark was it ?
Mr. Deis. What?
Senator Curtis. Ho w dc rk was it ?
]Mr. Deis. You know, wlien you liad no light on you can see these
guy^', they had a light on, so they can see it, and the light, it come right
on these guys in the face, and they come out there in the drugstore
and the shoe l)iiildi]ig, on the light, and that is where you see these
people.
Senator Curtis. It was night but the light was coming out from
the stores?
Mr. Deis. Right out the windoAv, yes.
Senator Ci inis. Now, were the facts that you told in this affidavit
on ]Mareh 12, tl.'i.s yetcr. the same facts that you told back there soon
after it happened ?
Mr. Deis. When I signed the affidavits ?
Senator Curtis. Yes.
Mr. Deis. Yes, sir.
Senator Curtis. You thought in this affidavit were the same facts
that you told back at tlie time that they took your testimony in 1934?
Mr. Deis. Not this one here for 1934.
IMPROPER ACTIVrriES EST THE LABOR FMhD 9887
Senator Curtis. 'Well, but the thiiio-s you said in there, were they
the same that you said in 1934 ?
Mr. Deis. Yes, I signed this, yes.
Senator Curtis. Yes, but the facts tliat are in here, are those the
same facts that you testified to in 1934 ?
Mr. Deis. Yes, sir.
Senator Cuktis. They are ?
Mr. Deis. Yes.
Senator Curtis. Is that what you thought when you signed it ?
Mr. Deis. Yes.
Senator Curtis. Did vou think that you were changing your story
from 1934?
Mr. Deis. I cannot know this.
Senator Curtis. Did you think you were telling the same story
when you signed this, as when you testified back in 1934 or 1935?
]\Ir. Deis. I cannot come into this.
Senator Curtis. You didn't understand my question ?
Mr. Deis. No.
Senator Curtis. You testified back in September of 1935. Now,
did you tell the same story in 1935 that you told in this affidavit
tJiat you signed in March of 1958 ?
Mr. Deis. No, there is a difference, different affidavits, you know.
Senator Curtis. They are different affidavits, but is your story as
to what happened, did you tell the same both times?
Mr. Deis. I told them what happened ; yes.
Senator Curtis. And you told it the same both times ?
Mr. Dfjs. No, I just told them here, this in 1958, 1 told them this one
here in 1958, 1 told'not what I say in 1934 or 1935.
Senator Curtis. It wasn't what you said in 1934 or 1935 ?
Mr. Deis. No, sir, I never said nothing in this one.
Senator Curtis. Did the man that you talked to, did he say anything
about what you said in 1935 ?
Mr. Deis. No.
Senator Curtis. He didn't ?
Mr. Deis. No.
Senator Curtis. Well now, did you know a man named Ingleman?
Mr. Deis. Yes, sir.
Senator Curtis. Do you know who shot him ?
Mr. Deis. No, somebody, some lady hollored, "Ingleman is shot."
Senator Curtis. You don't know who shot him ?
Mr. Deis. No, no, you can't tell, when four or five thousand people
are there, most of them, and kids are there, and you can't tell, and the
whole village went down.
Senator Curtis. You don't know who shot Ingleman ?
Mr. Deis. No, just I heard a lady hollored, "Somebody shot Ingle-
man."
Senator Curtis. "^Vlio do you say that Mr. Conger and Mr. Biever
shot ?
Mr. Deis. Who would say?
Senator Cut^tis. Wlio did Mr. Conger and Mr. Biever shoot, if any-
body?
Mr. Deis. No, not that I know.
Senator Curtis. Did they shoot anybody ?
9888 IMPROPER ACTIVITIEIS IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. Deis. Not as I know. All I know they shot me, and I don't know
if they shot somebody else.
Senator Curtis. How many people were around there when you got
shot?
Mr. Deis. TV^io I got shot, you mean, there were many.
vSenator Curtis. How many ?
Mr. Deis. Say, I was far down here on the line, maybe, and who can
figure, but I stayed there, maybe about 50 or 75 people were down
there, and some more on the sidewalk.
Senator Curtis. How big a crowd was around there.
Mr. Deis. On the sidewalk, you can figure on the whole sidewalk,
maybe 1,000 or 2,000 people, and I was on the end, just a couple of
people, when some more went down, and maybe he shot some more.
Senator Curtis. At about the time that you got shot, how big a crowd
was around there, about a thousand or two ?
Mr. Deis. No, I got shot down on this place, and I was down
around and when I took my coat out, and when these people went
there, and I say, "Listen," here may never come out on the picket line
for somebody, and I say, "When you guys want to fight it out come
on and fight me, and not be checked by guns, and the gas, or something
like that, and when you want to fight it out, fight it out with bare
hands."
And you know, you run around and told me, me want to show you
something, and then I got it right away. You shot me blinded then.
I just run around and when I pick my coat up here I got a shot, and
the second shot I fell down, and I so scratched my legs and everything,
and I went up.
Senator Curtis. Whoever shot you was behind you ?
Mr. Deis. Mr. Biever and Mr. Conger.
Senator Curtis. They were behind you ?
Mr. Deis. Right behind, 35 feet away.
Senator Citrtis. Well, how could you see them shoot ?
Mr. Deis. Well, nobody else but him had shotguns.
Senator Curtis. How many were there ?
Mr. Deis. Well four guys on the sidewalk with the shotguns.
Senator Curtis. Four men?
Mr. Deis. Four men.
Senator Curtis. Was anybody else anywhere around ?
Mr. Deis. With shotguns, you mean ?
Senator Curtis, Yes,
Mr, Deis. No, not on this place. Maybe there were a lot on the
other end.
Senator Curtis, Was there anybody around there who didn't have
guns?
Mr. Deis. I cannot say this one. What do you mean ?
Senator Curtis. Well now, you say of those four people, today you
say it was Mr. Conger and Mr. Biever that shot you ?
Mr. Deis. That is right.
Senator Curtis. Now, in this affidavit that you signed, on March 12,
I will read from it :
That he says he is positive that he was shot by the four deputies, Biever, Conger,
Runge, and Rami. That he caught sight of them as he bent over for his coat,
but he could not say which ones or whether all four were shooting at Lim, except
that they did shoot him.
IMPROPER ACTIVrTIES: lOST THE LABOR FIE'LD 9889
Now, on March 12 you said that there were 4 people there, and you
did not know which of the 4 shot you. Did you say that ?
Mr. Deis. No ; well, here is the idea : You know I saw them with
my eyes, and they had their shotguns this way and the other 2 headed
down, and now I cannot say the other 2 shot.
Senator Curtis. There were four men there ?
Mr. Deis. That is right : four men.
Senator (vUKTis. Who do you saj^ today shot you, of the four?
Mr, Deis. These four men, you mean 'i
Senator Curtis. Which of those four men today you say ?
Mr. Deis. They shot me on the front and behind.
Senator Curtis. Well, who do you say today shot you ?
Mr. Deis. I cannot understand this question.
Senator C'uirris. Who shot you ?
Mr. Deis. Mr. Conger and Mr. Biever.
Senator Curtis. Now, I want you to look at this paragraph that I
read, and I will read it over again :
That he says he is positive that he was shot by the four deputies, Biever, Conger,
Runge, aud Rami, and that he caught sight of them shooting him as he bent
over for his coat, but he could not say which ones or whether all four were
shooting at him, except that they did shoot.
Mrs. Watt, will you hand that to IMr. Deis and ask him, and I will
ask Mr. Deis to read the last paragraph on that page. Mrs. Watt
will show it to you. Kead it out loud for us.
(A document was handed to the witness.)
Senator Curtis. Will you read it out loud '?
Mr. Deis. I cannot do the reading.
Senator Curtis. Do you read English ?
Mr. Deis. A little bit.
Senator CuR'ns. Read it the best you can.
Mr. Deis. I cannot read this one, I know it.
Senator Curtis. You cannot read that?
Mr. Deis. No.
Senator Curtis. Do you understand what it means ?
Mr. Deis. Yes, sir.
Senator Curtis. What does it say ?
Mr. Deis. Well, it says these 4 guys, any of them, these 4 guys shot.
Senator Curtis. Did you say there in that paper that you didn't
know which ones ? ^
Mr. Deis. That is right, Mr. Chairman; you are right; you know
I went around and I turned around and I see it then, these two behind
shot me.
Senator Curtis. In that paper, who does it say shot you? You
don't have to read it out loud, but you look at it, and tell me who it
says, who you say in that paper shot you.
Mr. Deis. Well, any of triese 4, it means any of these 4, somebody
shot me from these 4,
Senator Curtis. Does it say that you didn't knoAv which ones?
Mr. Deis. No ; any of them from these four.
Senator Curtis. Any of those four ?
Mr. Deis. Yes.
Senator Curtis. Now, look at it again and see if it says that you
didn't know which ones of the four shot you.
9890 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN I'HE LABOR FIELD
Mr. Deis. Yes, sir.
Senator Curtis. It does say that ?
Mr. Deis. Yes, sir.
Senator Curtis. Well now, you testified here today that Mr. Conger
and Mr. Biever shot you ?
Mr. Deis. Well, that is right. I turned around and I can't see the
other two guys. They had their shotguns in his hands, and they had
them on their arms, you know, and these two had them in their hands.
Senator Curtis. But Mr. Deis, here, long after you quit working at
Kohler, so there is no job to lose, on March 12, 1958, you signed a paper
that says that you couldn't tell which of the four men shot you, didn't
you?
Mr. Deis. That is right.
Senator Curtis. Now you come here today, and you tell us that you
do not know who shot you ?
Mr. Deis. Well, I know it ; I see it.
Senator Curtis. Well, then, the paper isn't correct ?
Mr. Deis. Somebody made a mistake ; I can't tell, and not I.
Senator Curtis. I think, Mr. Deis, you are trying to be honest, and
I think that you have been called in here, and it is a situation where you
were asked to sign some things, and you have told me that you couldn't
read it. Now, look over the whole affidavit, and I am not going to ask
you to read it, but is there an5^thing in there that you can't read?
Mr. Deis. I can't read not so good.
Senator Curtis. What is that ?
Mr. Deis. I can read, but not so good.
Senator Curtis. Not too good ?
Mr. Deis. No.
Senator Curtis. Is there anything in there that you don't under-
stand?
Mr. Deis. I can't say, to that question.
Senator Curtis. What was the answer ?
Mr. Deis. There is a lot where I cannot read.
Senator Curtis. There is a lot in it that you can't read ?
Mr. Deis. That is right.
Senator Curtis. Did you tell them at the time that you signed it there
was some of it that you couldn't read ?
Mr. Deis. Well, you read it, and I listened to it ; that is all.
Senator Curtis. But you had to take their word for it ?
Mr. Deis. That is right.
Senator Curtis. You couldn't read all of that document and make
sure that you knew what you were signing yourself, could you ?
Mr. Deis. Yes ; I know what I signed.
Senator Curtis. But some of it you couldn't read?
Mr. Deis. Everybody makes mistakes, and maybe I make mistake,
and maybe somebody else ; that is what I think. Mistake is made by
everybody.
Senator Curtis. Now, you had to testify about this in 1935, didn't
you?
Mr. Deis. What testified, you mean ?
Senator Curtis. About the shooting, didn't you ?
Mr. Deis. Yes, sir.
IMPROPER AC!TrVITIEi& IN THE LABOR FIELD
Senator Curtis. And they called you in and asked you questions in
1935?
Mr. Deis. In 1935, yes, they asked me something; sure.
Senator Curtis. Did they ask you this question : "Did you see who
shot you?"
Mr. Deis. Yes.
Senator Curtis. And you answered, "Well, no ; I never see. There
is too many, see. I cannot tell who it was. There is so many there."
Did you say that in 1935?
Mr. Deis. That is right; that is right, Senator.
Senator Curtis. So, in 1935 you said there were so many people
there, you couldn't see who shot you ?
Mr. Deis. That is right.
Senator Curtis. Was that true ?
Mr. Deis. That is right.
Senator Curtis. Do you know what direction the shots were coming
from that shot you ?
Mr. Deis. Most of them; the most shots were coming out from the
group in the drugstore down here.
Senator Curtis. When they asked you that question back in 1935,
"Do you know what direction the shots were coming from that shot
you?" and you answered, "Yes, sir," do you remember that?
Mr. Deis. Yes, sir.
Senator Curtis. "Where were they coming f rom ?" And you said,
"Right from the drugstore."
Mr. Deis. From the drugstore, between the drugstore and the shoe-
store, right by the middle, you know ; something like this.
Senator Curtis. What building is between the drugstore and- —
Mr. Deis. The drugstore is the first, and then they have one build-
ing, and then comes the shoeshop, you know ; that is where they were
standing, a little way from the shoeshop, between the drugstore and
between the shoeshop.
Senator Curtis. What store is between this drugstore and the shoe-
shop?
Mr. Deis. Well, I don't know. There must be a hollow ; they must
be all done.
Senator Curtis. What is that?
Mr. Deis. A hall, where you hold a meeting.
Senator Curtis. Not the American Club ?
Mr. Deis. No, the American Club is farther away this way.
Senator Curtis. Which direction is the drugstore ?
Mr. Deis. The drugstore; well, it is the same direction or it is
closer on the sidewalk, and the American Club is farther away.
Senator Curtis. Do you know where the gate is in Kohler's, the
main gate ?
Mr. Deis. Yes, sir.
Senator Curtis. Which way is the drugstore from the main gate ?
Mr. Deis.- From the main gate, the drugstore is from the main gate,
you know, a little ways ; well, here it is.
Senator Curtis. Is it east or west or south ?
Mr. Deis. Well, I am all mixed up.
Senator Curtis. As you think of the back there, which way is the
drugstore from the main gate ?
21243— 58— pt. 24 27
9892 IMPROPER ACTIVITIEIS IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. Deis. From the main gate, you know, you go across the road
liere and just a little way this way. There isthe drugstore, and the
American Club is straight up from the main office.
Senator Curtis. Are they in opposite directions, the drugstore and
the American Club ?
Mr. Deis. You know, the drugstore is a little way eastway from
the big office.
Senator Curtis. Is the drugstore the opposite direction from the
American Club, from the gate ? They are not in the same direction,
are they ?
Mr. Deis. Oh, no ; when they go out on the gate, and you go straight
over the road, then you come on the sidewalk, and the drugstore
is a little ways this way, and tlie club, you can go in the American
Club straight in there.
Senator Curtis. Well, now back in 1935 you were asked with ref-
erence to the direction the shots were coming from, you were asked
this question: "Wliere were they coming from," and you answered,
"Right from the drugstore." Is that true ?
Mr. Deis. Between the drugstore and the shoeshop, between these
two buildings ; that is right.
Senator Curtis. The drugstore, that is from the west, is it not?
You were asked that question, and you said, "The drugstore is on the
west ; yes" ; is that right ?
Mr. Deis. I don't know whether it is west or south or east. You
know there are lot of gentlemen I see down here.
Senator Curtis. Now, which happened first, the tear-gas shots or
the shots of buckshot or some sort of pellets ?
Mr. Deis. Well, in the first, in the tear and then the second, the tear
gas coming, and then the shots coming out all over, and I don't know
where from.
Senator Curtis. But the first shots ; were they tear gas ?
Mr. Deis. Tear gas.
Senator Curtis. That was the first shots ?
Mr. Deis. That is, what is the first shots.
Senator Curtis. Did that get in your eyes ?
Mr. Deis. Yes, sir.
Senator Curtis. And the first shot that you saw, or know that took
place, was tear gas ?
Mr. Deis. Tear gas.
Senator Curtis. Was there lots of tear gas ?
Mr. Deis. Oh, yes.
Senator Curtis. Was there lots of tear gas there when you got shot
in the back of the head ?
Mr. Deis. Oh, no ; no tear gas down on this end, I never saw tear gas.
The tear gas was right by the American Club, strai^'ht on, that is
where the tear gas was. There were rocks and everything.
Senator Curtis. Did you sue the Kohler Co. back in 1934 or 1935 ?
Mr. Deis. Yes, sir.
Senator Curtis. Did you want to win your case ?
Mr. Deis. We want to win but I cannot.
Senator Curtis. Did you want to win it ? Did you try to win your
case in 1935?
Mr. Deis. My trouble?
Senator Curtis. Did you try to win it ?
IMPROPER AcnvrriES m the labor field 9893
Mr. Deis. I try to win it, I mean.
Senator Curtis. If you had known who shot you in 1935, wouldn't
it have helped you to say so ?
Mr. Deis. Well, I sued them, that is what I wanted to do.
Senator Cuktis. If you could prove that Kohler officers shot you,
then they would have to pay you damages, wouldn't they ?
Mr. Deis. Sure they shot me.
Senator Curtis. But Avhen they question you on September 17, 1935,
you told them you did not know who shot you, is that correct?
Mr. Deis. Yes, I told you wlio shot me, that is right.
Senator Curtis. You told them you did not know.
Mr. Deis. Yes, I told you who shot me.
Senator Curtis. In 1935 you told them who shot you ?
Mr. Deis. In 1935?
Senator Curtis. Yes.
Mr. Deis. Well, you asked me who shot me, and I told you.
Senator Curtis. But when they asked you in 1935, what did you say ?
Mr. Deis. Well, you shot me, that is all.
Senator Curtis. Did you say who shot you ?
Mr. Deis. No, that is right, I come right behind. Senator, that is
right, I never, that is right.
Senator Curtis. Do you know the Brotz boy ?
Mr. Deis. What is that?
Senator Curtis. Do you know the Brotz boy ?
Mr. Deis. Brotz, yes, sir ; I know him well.
Senator Curtis. Did he have a gun down there that night ?
Mr. Deis. He did I guess, I cannot tell whether it was a shotgun
or the gas or it was dark, but I know him well.
Senator Curtis. He liad a gun ?
Mr. Deis. It must be.
Senator Curtis. Now, you were asked in this same deposition,
when they took your testimony, "Well, did you see anyone with
guns?" and you answered, "Yes, sir." Then they asked, "Who did
you see ?" and the answer : "Why, I see a lot of them."
Question. Well, who?
Answer. Well, a lot of people with guns.
Question. Well, did you know whether they were officers or not ?
Answer. Well, I don't know if they were officers. I know two of them.
Did you say that back in 1935 ?
Mr. Deis. No, I never say not these two, no. I say there were a lot
of them but I never say these two.
Senator Curtis. You mean you never mentioned Mr. Biever and
Mr. Conger?
Mr. Deis. No, sir.
Senator Curtis. Did you know at the time that they shot you ?
Mr. Deis. Huh?
Senator Curtis. When did you first learn that they shot you ?
Mr. Dies. Well, you mean what time?
Senator Curtis. When did you find that out about Mr. Conger?
Mr. Deis. I find out right away, that is why I want to come in, and
I find out right away, he shot me, and you know, and I told this a cou-
ple of times right here on this stand, I have to shut my mouth. You
know I come here and talk to my wife, and my wife said, "You better
9894 IMPROPEH ACnVITlElS IN THE LABOK FIELD
shut your mouth, you lose your job, and no say it is officer shot you,"
or something like this, you know, and so I shut my mouth.
And I tell you gentlemen before.
Senator Curtis. When you were asked in 1935 who the two were
that had guns, you said, "Frank Brotz' boy and somebody else. I know
the kid on the face, and I don't know the name."
Mr. Deis. So am I, I don't know the name, I know Brotz, but I don't
know the other one.
Senator Curtis. You saw another boy there?
Mr. Deis. I saw a lot of them, yes, sir.
Senator Curtis, You were asked what Icind of a gun did Frank
Brotz' boy have ?
Mr. Deis. Wliattime?
Senator Curtis. What kind of gun, and you answered.
Mr. Deis. I don't know, you can't see it.
Senator Curtis. You said, "Well, a rifle gun."
ISIr. Deis. Something like this, a rifle or a shotgun, and you can't
see it.
Senator Curtis. Because it is dark?
Mr. Dies, It is dark, and you can't see it, and not this alone, you
know, I told this a couple of times, all of the gas in the world here, and
you have to wipe your eyes out. and you can't see it.
Senator Curtis, It was dark and you had the tear gas in your eyes ?
Mr, Deis. That is right. I have to wipe it out. out of the eyes.
Senator Curtis, And they shot you from behind ?
Mr. Deis. Yes, they shot me from behind.
Senator Curtis. You couldn't see who shot you then, could you?
Mr. Deis. Sure, I know who shot me.
Senator Curtis. But I didn't ask you whether you knew. Could you
see who shot you ?
Mr. Deis, Oh, no ; I can't see it, no.
Senator Curtis. So when you say that Mr. Biever and Mr, Conger
shot you, you are not basing it on what you saw. You did not see them
shoot you ?
Mr. Deis. I never say what to anybody that Biever.
Senator Curtis. You never told anyone?
Mr. Deis. No, just my wife.
Senator Curtis. Who did you tell lately wlio shot you?
Mr, Deis. You know, I never say, you know, maybe since 13 or 20
years ago, when we started in 1941 something like this.
Senator Curtis. Now, I want to ask you some more about this today
that you went down, when Bob Treuer called you to come down to
Mr. Rabinovitz' office.
Mr. Deis, Yes, sir.
Senator Curtis. We will talk about that for a little while. Did you
recognize Bob Treuer's voice over the phone or did he say he was Bob
Treuer?
Mr, Deis. No, he called me up.
Senator Curtis. And he said he was Bob Treuer ?
Mr. Deis, Yes, he told me to come down and he wanted to see me
in the union hall.
Senator Curtis. To the union hall ?
Mr, Deis. Yes, sir.
iMPROPEiR AcrrvrriEis est the labor field 9895
Senator Curtis. Did you go to the union hall ?
Mr. Deis. Yes, sir.
(At this point, the following members were present : Senators Mc-
Clellan, Goldwater, Mundt, and Curtis.)
Senator Curtis. Who did you see at the union hall ?
Mr. Deis. Well, I see Treuer. Nobody else. I talk to him.
Senator Curtis. You just talked to Treuer ?
Mr. Deis. What?
Senator Curtis. You just talked to Treuer?
Mr. Deis. To Bob Treuer.
Senator Curtis. What did he tell you then ?
Mr. Deis. He wanted to see me down in the office.
Senator Curtis. Did he say anything about Mr. Conger ?
Mr. Deis. Not a thing.
Senator Curtis. Did he say anything about Mr. Biever?
Mr. Deis. Not a thing.
Senator Curtis. But he told you to go to Mr. Rabinovitz' office?
Mr. Deis. Yes, sir.
Senator Curtis. Did you go right over there that day ?
Mr. Deis. What?
Senator Curtis. And you went right over there ?
Mr. Deis. I went down, yes.
Senator Curtis. And there was just one man in the office?
Mr. Deis. Just the one man down, that is all.
Senator Curtis. No^irls?
Mr. Dets. Well, the girls were in the other room.
Senator Curtis. The other room ?
Mr. Deis. Yes, sir.
Senator Curtis. What did this man look like that you saw there?
Mr. Deis. Well, he got black hair, dark face, you know.
Senator Curtis. Black hair. What kind of face ?
Mr. Deis. Dark face, you know, little dark face.
Senator Curtis. You thought he was an attorney ?
Mr. Deis. I guess so.
Senator Curtis. And you thought he was from Milwaukee ?
Mr. Deis. Yes, sir.
Senator Curtis. Did he say anything about Biever ?
Mr. Deis. No, sir, not a thing.
Senator Curtis. Did he say anything about Conger ?
Mr. Deis. No.
Senator Curtis. Did you ever see him after that ?
Mr. Deis. No.
Senator Curtis. And you had never seen him before ?
Mr. Deis. No.
Senator Curtis. In all your years around there, you never saw him
before ?
Mr. Deis. No.
Senator Curtis. What did he say when you came in ?
Mr. Deis. Down at the office ?
Senator Curtis. Yes.
Mr. Deis. I say "Hello."
Senator Curtis. Then what did they say ?
Mr. Deis. I say "Hello" to the girls.
9896 EvrpRiOPEK acttv^tieis m the labor field
Senator CuBTis. Yes.
Mr. Deis. I asked the girls who wants to see me. They say, "The
gentleman down in the other room."
Senator Curtis. What did he say ?
Mr. Deis. Well, you know, I shake hands with him and everything,
so he talked to me here, and he say — he talked from the copies and
everything, and, you know, what I say and everything, and I told him
all about, you know.
Senator Curtis. '^\niat did he say the first thing ?
Mr. Deis. I cannot remember.
Senator Curtis. AVlien you first saw him? You said "Hello" to
the girls, they told you to go back and see that man. ^Vliat did he say
the first thing ?
Mr. Deis. Well, I don't remember this one no more. I don't know.
Senator Curtis. Do you remember anything that he told you ?
Mr. Deis. No.
Senator Curtis. Do you remember anything you told ?
Mr. Deis. Yes, was I say — he asked me a couple of questions here,
you know, from the strike and everytliiiig, so I told him, you know.
Senator Curtis. What were the questions he asked you about the
strike?
Mr. Deis. Well, you knOAv, was I in the 1934 strike and everything,
and the strike here, what we got here, and I say yes, so I told him all
about, and what was around and everything. That is what I told
him.
Senator Curtis. Who did you think he was?
Mr. Deis. Well, I can't not tell who the man was. I don't know.
T never ask him.
Senator Curtis. This lawyer you saw down there, did he mention
Mr. Rabinovitz' name, Dave Rabinovitz' name?
Mr. Deis. Yes, sir.
Senator Curtis. What did he say about him ?
Mr. Deis. He said, "Do you knoAv Dave?" and I say "Yes, I know
him for 25 or 27 years." I said, "I know Dave well." That is all it
was me told him.
Senator Curtis. Did he use to be your lawyer ?
Mr. Deis. Dave?
Senator Curtis. Yes.
Mr. Deis. Well, you know I have not much to do. Dave he got
good friend of mine.
Senator Curtis. When you sued the Kohler Co., was he your
lawyer ?
Mr. Deis. No; Fitzpatrick, from Milwaukee. Fitzpatrick.
Senator Curtis. Wlien you sued the Kohler Co. ?
Mr. Deis. Yes, sir.
Senator Curtis. Did Rabinovitz have anything to do with that ?
Mr. Deis. Well, he was on, you knoAv. You know, Fitzpatrick do
the thing.
Senator Curtis, I don't understand.
Mr. Deis. I mean Rabinovitz, he was down ; sure. Fitzpatrick, he
took me with the 47 guys what was on.
Senator Curtis. Well, now, was Rabinovitz your lawyer when you
sued the Kohler Co. ?
Mr. Deis. I say Fitzpatrick was down.
IMPROPE'R ACnvrriES IN THE LABOR FIELD 9897
Senator Curtis. Do you remember in 1935 this testimony, when
you were asked the question : "How much was your doctor bill?" and
you answered, "I don't know. I gave it down to Dave Bino.
Question. To whom?
Answer. To my lawyer.
Question. Who is your lawyer?
Answer. Dave Bino.
Question. Do you mean Mr. Rabinovitz?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Did you say that '^
Mr. Deis. Yes. Do you mean in 1935 ?
Senator Curtis. Yes, in 1935.
Mr. Deis. Yes, sir.
Senator Curtis. In 1935, they asked you these questions :
Do you know Edward Biever?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Do you know Ernest Schuelke?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Ed George?
Answer. Yes.
Question. John Case?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. "Walter Kohler, Jr. ?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Robert Kohler?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Herbert Kohler?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. i^And Governor Kohler?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. And the Kohler Co.?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Do you feel that any one of those persons that I have just mentioned,
or all of them, are at fault for your getting shot that night?
Answer. I feel for ; yes.
Question. Well, do you think that they are to blame?
Answer. Well, somebody to blame down for.
Question. Well, do you think they are to blame?
Answer. No ; I never think, but I feel this way. I mean I feel this way.
Question. Well, do you know whether or not they are to blame?
Answer. How?
Question. Do you know whether they are to blame or not ?
Answer. I don't know, but I feel this way.
Question. Do you think they had something to do with it?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. What makes you think so?
Answer. Well, I think this way. You know, nobody around Sheboygan told
these boys down there go ahead and shoot. That is what I got in my head.
Question. Did you read this complaint, or have you read it?
Answer. No ; I never read it.
(At this point, Senator Ervin came into the hearing room.)
Senator Curtis. In 1935, you told them that you thought that these
men of the company were to blame because somebody told others to
shoot, is that right ?
Mr. Deis. I cannot state this question.
Senator Curtis. You don't understand the question ?
Mr. Deis. No. No, I cannot.
Senator Curtis. Well, it was true that you held up your hand and
swore to tell the truth, didn't you ?
Mr. Deis. Yes, sir.
IMPfBOPE'K ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Senator Curtis. In 1935 ?
Mr. Deis. Yes, sir.
Senator Curtis. And when you swore to tell the truth, you said
you didn't know who shot you ?
Mr. Deis. I know who shot me.
Senator Curtis. Well, did you say that you didn't know ?
Mr. Deis. No, I say I know who shot me.
Senator Curtis. No, in 1935, did you say you didn't know who
shot you ?
Mr. Deis. Yes, sir. I know who shot me.
Senator Curtis I will ask you again. You were asked this ques-
tion:
Did you see who shot you?
Answer. Well, no ; I never see. There are too many, see. I cannot tell who
it was, there are so many there.
Did you say that ?
Mr. Deis. That is right.
Senator Curtis. And you were sworn to tell the truth ?
Mr. Deis. That is right.
Senator Curtis. Wliat is the truth ?
Mr. Deis. That is right.
Senator Curtis. I wonder, Mr. Chairman, and it might clarify
things ; this witness, I think, has tried his very best ; he has cooperated
the very best he can. I think it might help clear up the situation if
there are others in the hearing room who could supply the name of
the man that he talked to at Mr. Rabinovitz's office in connection with
this affidavit of March 12.
The Chairman. Mr. Rabinovitz, would you know ?
Mr. Rabinovitz. Yes ; I know.
The Chairman. You have been sworn heretofore.
TESTIMONY OF DAVID RABINOVITZ— EESUMED
The Chairman. Do you know who this witness talked to in your of-
fice at the time this office was taken ?
Mr. Rabinovitz. I do.
The Chairman. State his name, please.
Mr. Rabinovitz. His name is Leonard Zubrensky.
The Chairman. Is he associated with you in your law practice ?_
Mr. Rabinovitz. No, sir. Since I have been engaged here in
Washington for this long period of time, I asked Mr. Zubrensky to come
to Sheboygan as often as he could, and as much as could, probably
2, 3, 4 days a week, and do my work at my office during my absence.
The Chairman. Is he a lawyer ?
Mr. Rabinovitz. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. Wliere is his home ?
Mr. Rabinovitz. Milwaukee, Wis.
The Chairman. So, he has been coming into your office just to kind
of look after your clients and take care of things the best he could
during your absence ?
Mr. Rabinovitz. That is correct.
The Chairman. And he is the one that contacted Mr. Deis and pro-
cured the affidavit ?
IMPROPER ACTIVrTLES EST THE LABOR FIELD
Mr, Rabinovitz. That is what I understand.
The Chairman. All right ; Senator Curtis.
Senator Curtis. What is liis lirst name ?
Mr. Rabinovitz. Leonard.
Senator Curtis. How do you spell the last name ?
Mr. Rabinovitz. Zubrensky.
Senator Cut^tis. With whom is he associated in the practice of law ?
Mr. Rabinovitz. He is associated with Max Raskin.
Senator Curtis. What position does Max Raskin, if any, hold in
reference to the UA W ?
Mr. Rabinovitz. Max Raskin is the regional attorney for the UAW-
CIO.
Senator Curtis. xVnd it was his associate who went down there ?
Mr, Rabinovitz. I am not so sure what his association is. Senator.
I know he has ofHce space in Max Raskin's office. I am sure they
are not partners or anything like that.
Senator Curtis. Mr. Rabinovitz, did you talk to anyone about the
securing of this affidavit ?
Mr. Rabinovitz. I spoke to Leonard Zubrensky, and told him that
we were attempting to obtain as many affidavits as we could of inside
deputies, outside deputies, wounded people, spectators, anybody that
knew anything about the 1934 strike. As Mr. Rauh has previously
stated, w^e intended to have our clay of a line of witnesses. To shorten
the testimony
Senator Curtis. Well, where did you
Mr, Rabinovitz, Let me finish, 1 would like to answer your ques-
tion.
Senator Curtis. I asked you if you had a conversation with him.
Mr. Rabinovitz. Wliat is that ?
Senator Curtis, I asked you if you had a conversation with him
about this affidavit.
Mr. Rabinovitz. Yes ; I did.
Senator Curtis. Where was that conversation ?
Mr. Rabinovitz. On the telephone.
Senator Curtis. You called from where ?
Mr, Rabinovitz. From Washington.
Senator Curtis, Where w^as he when you called him ?
Mr. Rabinovitz. I think I called my girl, first, my secretary, and
told her to get Lenny to come to Sheboygan, and I think I then called
him and spoke to him at my office.
Senator Curtis. For wdiom was he employed when he secured this
affidavit ?
Mr. Rabinovitz. Employed by me.
Senator Curtis. He is not employed by the UAW ?
Mr. Rabinovitz. No. He is working for me.
Senator Curtis. That was after you came down to Washington?
Mr. Rabinovitz. The affidavit is dated March 12. I would say 2
or 3 days before March 12.
Senator Cltrtis. Did you tell him what you wanted him to do ?
Mr. Rabinovitz, Yes.
Senator Curtis. In that conversation, did you mention John Deis?
Mr. Rabinovitz. Yes ; certainly.
Senator Curtis, What did you say about Jolin Deis ?
21243—58 — pt. 24 28
9900 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOK FIELD
Mr. Kabinovitz. Well, I told him— this is just a series of affidavits.
I told him to get an affidavit from John Deis, John Steiber, Art Bauer,
Art Fox, Lee Blandon, and I may have missed 1 or 2, and I said, "We
need these affidavits for presentation to the McClellan committee
through Leo Breirather, this being a substitute for our day." I told
him to call in Deis and talk to him, get all the facts, and then make
an affidavit and have it mailed to me.
Senator Curtis. How did you know that Mr. Deis was not going to
say what he said in 1935, that he didn't know who shot him?
Mr. Kabinovitz. Until this matter came up the other day. Senator,
I wasn't aware — at least, I probably knew at the time — I didn't know
until the matter came up before the committee here a few days ago
that Mr. Deis had given testimony in 1935.
Senator Curtis. Well, Mr, Deis testified at that time that you
were his attorney.
Mr. Kabinovitz. If you will note, and you have a copy there, Sen-
ator, if you will note the attorneys, I was not present at the hearing.
Mr. Joe Padway was represented by an A. G. Goldberg, who was a
nephew and associated with Mr. Padway. I was the attorney for
A. F. of L. Federal Labor Union 18545 in the 1934 strike. I assume
John Deis and all the other strikers considered me as their attorney.
But I was not
Senator Curtis. He didn't bring you his doctor bill ?
Mr. Kabinovitz. Yes ; he brought me. I am sure he did. If he said
so, he did.
Senator Curtis. Who were the other attorneys representing John
Deis?
Mr. Kabinovitz. There was only one attorney. Joseph Padway,
office. And this I just learned when I got this in the mail the other
day, that Joe Padway was represented at the adverse hearing by
A. G. Goldberg, his nephew.
Senator Curtis. Who is Goldberg's uncle ?
Mr. Kabinovitz. Joe Padway is an uncle of A. G. Goldberg.
Senator Curtis. "Wliere does Fitzgerald fit into this picture?
Mr. Kabinovitz. I didn't say Fitzpatrick. I said Goldberg.
Senator Curtis. Or Fitzpatrick ?
Mr. Kabinovitz. No, he said Bino. He couldn't pronounce my
name, if you will look at the testimony. He had difficulty pronounc-
ing my name at that hearing.
Senator Mundt. Will the Senator yield a moment?
Senator Curtis. Yes.
Senator Mundt. This afternoon, Mr. Kabinovitz, Mr. Deis said he
was represented by Mr. Fitzpatrick.
Mr. Kabinovitz. No, he didn't. Padway, he said. He said Padway
was his lawyer.
Senator Mundt. Didn't you say Mr. Fitzpatrick ?
Mr. Deis. Fitzpatrick.
Senator Mundt. Who did you say, Mr. Deis ?
Mr. Deis. Fitzpatrick.
Senator Mundt. I am trying to figure it out.
Mr. Kabinovitz. I don't thinl<: he is saying that. His lawyer was
~ adway,
Mr. Di
rMPROPBR AOTIVITIEIS EN THE LABOR FIELD 9901
Senator Curtis. Did you mean Padway and not Fitzpatrick?
Mr. Deis. No, that is what he sajs here. That is right.
Senator Curtis. You were associated with the case, Mr. Rabino-
vitz, in 1935, weren't you ?
Mr. Rabinovitz. This particular hiwsuit ?
Senator Curtis. Yes.
Mr. Rabinovitz. I was associated with everything that had to do
with the 1934 strike in behalf of the union. In connection with this
case, I procured hundreds of affidavits, let me explain this, at one
time, not knowing what we would use the affidavits for. Then Mr.
Padway was retained by these people to start the lawsuits.
I furnished all of these affidavits or some of them to Mr. Padway.
Being a local resident I am sure that these people brought their doctor
bills to me and I am sure I turned them over to Mr. Padway in help-
ing him with this case.
Senator Curtis. At the time the case was filed, or before that, had
you talked with John Deis about his case ?
Mr. Rabinovitz. I can't remember that.
Senator Curtis. Had you taken his affidavit ?
Mr. Rabinovitz. I may have. I don't find any in my file. I looked
for one. I had my girl in Sheboygan look and she can't find any.
Senator Curtis. Was there any surprise to you in 1935 when John
Deis said under oath that he didn't know who shot him ?
Mr. Rabinovitz. Well, Senator, I wasn't there, and I didn't hear
him say it. But let me tell you this : It was no surprise to me to have
either John Deis or any of these plaintiffs say the things they did,
because of the great amount of fear that existed in that community.
These people were afraid to speak up concerning any subject that dealt
with the Kohler Co. Today these people are speaking up because
they are not fearful any more.
Senator Curtis. But, now you were one of the attorneys for this
gentleman, who filed a lawsuit.
Mr. Rabinovitz. I was not one of his attorneys and did not file a
lawsuit.
Senator Cutitis. He said you were.
Mr. Rabinovitz. The record shows I was not his attorney. I ex-
plained to you before, Senator, all of these people considered me as
their attorney because I was attorney for the union, but in this specific
case I was not the attorney of record, I did not prepare the pleadings,
I did not attend the hearings.
Senator Curtis. I have read all of his testimony, and there is noth-
ing to indicate that Mr. Padway or anyone else expressed surprise at
his statement that he didn't know who shot him.
Mr. Rabinovitz. Mr. Padway nor Mr. Goldberg didn't testify.
But remember this, Senator, he was working for a municipality at the
time, for the city of Sheboygan, and if he had identified Conger and
Biever he would have lost his job at that time.
Senator Curtis. I know, but any lawyer filing a lawsuit, who repre-
sents a plaintiff, and who has very_ vital information that fixes a
liability on the def endent, and his client gives different testimony in
a hearing in connection with it, the subsequent cross-examination is
going to be an attempt to correct the erroneous statement. There is
no such thing in this deposition.
9902 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. Eabinovitz. Senator, this is an adverse examination under the
Wisconsin law. It is a cross-examination by a defendent. It is an
adverse examination. The opposing counsel cannot cross-examine,
because it is cross-examination at its inception. All that the opposing-
counsel under our statutes can do is to ask some questions to clarify or
interpret some of the testimony. Opposing counsel cannot ask ques-
tions.
Senator Curtis. You did tell this associate, or the gentleman who
came down and helped you in your office, that they should get in touch
with John Deis ?
Mr. Rabinovitz. I told him to get in touch with John Deis and 5
or 6 other people and prepare these affidavits for Leo Breirather's
testimony.
Senator Curtis. Were you then mindful of the fact that John Deis
had given testimony in 1935 ?
Mr. Eabinovitz. Senator, I found out, at least I was made aware
of the fact, that he had given testimony the day you or Senator Mundt
brought the matter up. At the time I asked Mr. Zubrensky to get the
affidavit, I was not aware of any testimony at any previous hearing.
Senator Mundt. Will the Senator yield ?
Senator Curtis. Yes.
Senator Mundt. Mr. Rabinovitz, under the circumstances, and tak-
ing everything that you say at face value, which I do, don't you really
feel that in view of the fact that this poor fellow has been here now
all afternoon, trying to recall what he signed in an affidavit which
he cannot read, and which is a direct contradiction with previous testi-
mony that he made under oath, and the fact that it now appears that
he is trying to state in his affidavit as best as he can understand the
questions and answer them because of a language difficulty, that he
was shot from behind in the dark at a time when his eyes were filled
with tear gas, but still he is sure he saw the man who shot him, don't
you really feel as a lawyer that the best thing to do is to withdraw this
affidavit from the evidence and let us go on with the other work of
the committee ?
Mr. Rabinovitz. Senator, there is no testimony here that his eyes
were filled with tear gas. I heard it. You weren't here. You came
in late.
Senator Mundt. He said it.
Mr. Rabinovitz. There is no testimony here that he was in such a
position that he could not identify his assailants, and, besides that, I
have given strict instructions to my girl, the notary public when I am
around and when I am not around, that no papers may be notarized
in my office unless the person reads them if he can read, or it is read
to him so that that person unmistakably understands what is in the
affidavit, and then my girl is instructed to sign the affidavit as a
notary public.
I am satisfied that this man is telling the truth completely today.
This man is an honest person. He was not in a position to tell the
facts in 1935 because of the terrible condition that existed in that
community, and partly still exists today. _
Senator Curtis. You are satisfied that he is telling the truth today ?
Mr. Rabinovitz. I am satisfied that he told the truth under tlic
affidavit and is telling the truth today.
IMPROPER ACTn-lTIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 9903
Senator Cuuns. They are contradictory, you realize that?
Mr. Eabinovitz. I know what you mean.
I still say that he is telling the truth today, and told the truth under
the affidavit. There is nothing inconsistent.
Senator Cltitis. Today, he positively stated that Mr. Biever and
Mr. Conger shot him. In his affidavit there are these words and I
am not lifting them out of context, "But could not say which ones or
whether all four were shooting at him." Today he is explicit that it
wouldn't be the other two. Do you stand on your statement that he
is telling the truth today ?
Mr. Rabixovitz. I am standing on my statement that he told the
truth under the affidavit and is telling the truth today. If you will
notice the last phrase, he says "Except that they did shoot him."
He certainly could mean 2 or could mean all 4.
Senator Ci'Rtis. Yes, but he also says that he could not say which
ones.
Mr. Rabixovitz. And I think he explained that.
Senator CuiiTis. Well, the fact remains that on March 12 he says
*'But could not say which ones."
Today he did positively say which ones.
Mr. Rabixovitz. I am satisfied this old gentleman would not raise
his hand here and swear to tell the trutli unless he told it to this com-
mittee here this afternoon.
Senator Curtis. I am not critical of Mr. Deis. That is the reason
that I want to know more about the preparation of this affidavit.
Senatof Muxdt. Before we leave that, I didn't quite get an answer
to my question from Mr. Rabinovitz. I would like a yes or no answer,
because it seems to me that we have spent a whole afternoon dis-
causing an affidavit with a witness who quite apparently, to every-
body in this room, doesn't understand the questions, doesn't answer
them, because of a language difficulty.
He is testifying that he couldn't read the affidavit but had an affi-
davit read to him, and then he signs it, which may or may not be
accurately read, and certainly he may or may not have understood it
accurately, because he couldn't understand the questions that he tried
to reduce down to monosyllabic words.
I don't really believe, Mr. Rabinovitz, that the position of the UAW
in these hearings is so desperate that you have to rely on such affidavits
at this time.
Mr. Rabixovitz. Xo, I am sure cases
Senator Muxdt. Just a moment. I don't know whether these other
affidavits that were submitted by Leo are as worthless as this one or
not, but certainly this one that we have spent the afternoon on •
Mr. Rabix^ovitz. I am sure
Senator Muxdt. Just a moment. You will be able to answer the
questions. The one that we have spent the afternoon on, there is no
committee member and I don't believe any one in the country could
give credence to, because this poor fellow is laboring under difficulty,
and is trying to explain why his affidavit today and his testimony i9
years ago when the facts were fresh in his mind are completely
contradictory.
. Mr. Curtis points out tliat his testimony here completely contradicts
what he said in the affidavit. I think it would facilitate the whole
procedure simply to withdraw this affidavit and let's forget about it,
9904 UMPROPE'E ACnVITIBS IN THE LABOR FIELD
and go on with a hearing which can be based on something which is
a little more demonstrably true of both, than try to struggle with this
fellow, who is trying to do his best, which simply is not making,
anything clear at all.
Mr. Kabinovitz. He may have not made it clear to you. Senator,
but, first of all, the case presented here by the UAW, under much
difficulty can rest on its merits, and I think the merits have been
established. We are not depending for the merits on our case on this
one affidavit.
Senator Mundt. This seems to me to be a trenaendous waste of the
committee's time.
Mr. Kabinovitz. You want an answer to your question.
This affidavit was obtained in good faith by a very honorable at-
torney, by a very reliable secretary, and whether he read it himself
or it was read to him is immaterial. We lawyers make many affi-
davits for people that can't read English, and yet they can be reliable.
I certainly hope that you are not casting any reflection upon the
reliability of the man, the attorney, or the stenographer or the notary
that took this affidavit.
Senator Mundt. If you will yield at that point, I want to keep the
record straight. I am not trying to question the reliability of your
associate in the UAW who got this man's affidavit. I am pointing
out that it is crystal clear that this poor chap couldn't understand his
reading of the affidavit any better than he could understand the
English language when we are trying to ask him questions, so there
isn't any way in the world that he could understand what is in the
affidavit, because he couldn't answer the simple questions, because he
said he couldn't comprehend them, and I think he is telling the truth.
When you are imposing an affidavit upon a man of that type, I say
the position of the UAW is not so desperate that we have a whole
afternoon in discussing what must be a worthless affidavit, but simply
withdraw it and forget about it. You said, and I take your word for
it, that at the time you solicited the affidavit you did not recall the
fact that the same man had made out depositions and appeared under
court proceedings in which he gave contradictory evidence. I feel
confident, sir, that had you known it then, you would not have put
the committee to all of this laborious Avork b}^ imposing this new
affidavit to contradict those statements.
Mr. Kabinovitz. Senator, if I had known what testimony he gave
in 1035, and had he given me the explanation he gave to Mr. Kennedy
and Senator McClellan today, I still would have taken his affidavit
as the truth and a verity, and the same applies to his testimony.
Tlie man explained why he gave the kind of testimony he did in
1935. I can tell you that he does not stand alone. There were dozens
and hundreds of others that concealed the true facts in 1935 because
of the fear of this company.
Senator Mundt. If you have others, I would suggest again that
you withdraw the affidavit from this fellow and get us the affidavit
from somebody that we can cross examine, who can understand the
questions, who is able to read the affidavit, ^vho laiows what it is all
about.
You say something which the record does not substantiate. You
said that he did not testify that he was wiping the tear gas out of
IMPROPER ACTirVITIElS IN THE LABOR FIlE-LD 9905
his eyes. He testified to that several times today when I was in the
committee room, since I came in.
He testified several times that it was dark, so dark that he couldn't
see at 35 whether a Brotz boy was carrying a tear-gas gun, a shotgun
or a rifle. I knew something about guns, and it has to be pretty dark
when at 35 feet you can't tell what kind of weapon it is.
All of those things are in the record. You are saying they are
not tliere will not eliminate them, so they will not bob up against you
when you read the printed word.
Mr. Rabinovitz. Senator Mundt, all of us do not have the advan-
tage of an education. This man did not have it. But on the essential
facts, on the fundamental and important facts, this man has been
crystal clear this afternoon.
Senator Curtis. Mr. Chairman ?
The Chairman. Senator Curtis.
Senator Curtis. I will try to be brief, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Rabinovitz, you have known Mr. Deis for a long time, haven't
you.
Mr. Rarinoattz. I no doubt knew him in 1934. When I saw him
today I recognized him again. I have seen him on the streets in
Sheboygan many times. I do not believe I knew his name was Deis.
I now Imow liis name is Deis and I now recognize him. But I haven't
seen him in the intervening years.
Senator Curtis. He always called you by your first name ?
Mr. Rabinovitz. All the strikers call me by my first name.
Senator Cut^tis. When this deposition was taken back in 1934,
you replaced Mr. Padway in that, didn't you ?
Mr. Rabinom:tz. Replaced him? No, I was always the attorney
for the Kohler local.
Senator Curtis. For Mr Goldberg, I mean. Didn't you appear
at the taking of these depositions the day following Mr. Deis' tes-
timony.
Mr. Rabino\t:tz. I have no personal recollection. If there are any
records showing that I did appear, then I did. I have no recollection
of having appeared at any of these hearings.
As I told you, I didn't have any recollection of a hearing until the
other day.
Senator Curtis. I am informed that the record shows that they
were taking the testimony of a number of witnesses, and the day fol-
lowing you replaced Mr. Goldberg.
Mr. Rabinovitz. That is all possible. Senator. If the record shows
it, then it is true.
(At this point. Senator Ervin left the hearing room.)
Senator Curtis. So you were in the case ?
Mr. Rabinovitz. I was assisting Mr. Padway, all for free.
Senator Curtis. The other day, after you said you had been sworn,
we have this testimony :
Senator Curtis. Did you assist in the preparation of the affidavit of .Tohn
Deis? Is that the was you pronounce it?
Mr. Rabinovitz. I did not.
Mr. Rabinovitz. Read that question again, please.
Senator Curtis. Senator Curtis: Did you assist in the preparation of this
affidavit
9906 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOUR FIELD
Mr. Rabinovitz. That is the Deis affidavit?
Senator Curtis. of .John Deis? Is that the way you pronounce it?
Mr. Rabinovitz. I did not.
You did assist in it, did you not ?
Mr. Rabinovitz. No, I had nothing to do with the drafting or the
interviewing of Mr. Deis, nor the drafting of the affidavit.
Senator Curtis. But you did make a telephone call and direct some-
body to do it. You said today they were working for you and you also
testified today that you mentioned John Dies.
Mr. Rabinovitz. In that respect, Senator, I did assist, but I did
not assist in the actual physical drafting of the affidavit.
Senator Curtis. The question was not the drafting.
Did you assist in the preparation of this afBtlavit of John Deis?
Answer. I did not.
Mr. Rabinovitz. When we talked about drafting an affidavit. Sen-
ator, it means at least interviewing the person and dictating and tak-
ing notes, and I did nothing of that kind.
Senator Curtis. But preparation and drafting are not synonymous.
Mr. Rabinovit,^. Well, you have my testimony now that I did call
and I did instruct Mr. Zubrinski to obtain this affidavit.
Senator Curtis. And you did not disclose that the other day, did
you?
Mr. Rabino\t:tz. I was not asked that question.
Senator Curtis. I asked you if you assisted in the preparation of
the affidavit and you said, "I did not."
Mr. Rabinovitz. Well, Senator
Senator Curtis. The truth is that it was your agent that you paid
to get the affidavit and you told him to do it.
Mr. Rabinovitz. It was the truth then and it is the truth today.
Senator Curtis. I do not know why you said that you did not assist
him.
Mr. Rabinovitz. You were seeking information as to who drafted
this affidavit.
Senator Curtis. I never used the word "drafted" at all.
Mr. Rabino\ttz. Wait. You wanted to know who was responsible
for this affidavit. You saw the name Mona Methfessel. The com-
mittee did not know who she was. You asked me that question and
I told you the truth then and I am telling you the truth now.
Senator Curtis. Yes, but we also wanted to get the truth as to the
paternity of that.
Mr. Rabino\ttz. You did not ask me any question like that.
Senator Curtis. I asked you, "Did you assist in the preparation of
this affidavit of John Deis?" and you said, "I did not."
Mr. Rabinovitz. Well, the record speaks for itself.
Senator Curtis. Now, it seems that you directed the preparation
of this affidavit.
Mr. Rabinovitz. Right. That is right.
Senator Curtis. Then I said —
Was it prepared in your oflSce?
Mr. Rabinovitz. I understand it was.
The facts are, you called your office and talked to your girl about
this and you either had her call the attorney employed or you called
him. You knew it was prepared in your office, did you not?
IMPRUPEK ACTirV'ITIES' IN THE LABOR FIELD 9907
Mr. Eabinovitz. I gave instructions to have it prepared. It was
mailed to me and I certainly understood it was prepared in my office
and I so told you.
Senator Curtis. But you knew it was prepared in your office?
Mr. RABiN0\aTz. Yes, and I did not deny it the other day either.
Senator Curtis. You said, "I understand it was."
Mr. Rabinovitz. You are dealing with a matter of semantics, Sen-
ator, and I do not quite follow you. If a person says, "I understood
something," he certainly means that it did occur and did happen.
That is what I told you and I tell you the same thing now.
Senator Curtis. Why did you select Deis as one of the individuals
to secure an affidavit from when you have not seen him since 1935
and did not know his last name ?
Mr. Rabinovitz. Because a survey was made by people from the
union concerning the entire 1934 strike. They interviewed — I would
guess — about 100 [)eople, or more. This was done by Karl Kutnick and
Bob Treuer.
As a matter of fact, I visited one person at home who is unable
to be here because of illness and who had a good recollection, a good
story, to tell this committee. We decided that we would use those
persons who had the most facts, the best facts, the most accurate facts
to present to this committee. John Deis was one of them. There are
others. We have three more people in this room. We have Rudy
Renn, who was the chief picket captain in the 1934 strike, who has an
excellent story to tell this committee.
We have Emil Schuette, who was at that time a member of the
National*" Guard, who picked up empty shells on company property,
and we have a tliird person here who can also tell a story relative to
Mr. Biever.
Senator Curtis. You Avould have been much more helpful, Mr.
Rabinovitz, if, when I asked you if you assisted in the preparation, if
you would have given me a full account at that time, stating that you
did hire somebody to do it, that you made telephone calls, that you
specifically mentioned Mr. Deis.
Mr. Rabinovitz. Senator, if you had asked me the same questions
then as you asked me today, you would have gotten the same answer
as you got today. But you did not see fit at that time to ask those
questions. 1 answered them truthfully then, and the same now.
Senator Curtis. No. I asked you, "Did you assist in the prepara-
tion?" In preparing an affidavit you have to call your witness, you
have to take a statement, somebody else has to type it, and a notary
public has to receive the acknowledgement.
Certainly, the person who directs that it be done is assisting in the
preparation. You informed this committee that you did not.
Mr. Rabinovitz. I did not. That is not a correct statement.
Senator Curtis. You did not say that ?
Mr. Rabinovitz. I did not deny to this committee that I had assisted,
that I had an^^thing to do with the preparation of this affidavit. Your
question at that time was directed to the matter of the preparation of
the affidavit, and I still say I had nothing to do with the preparation,
except to direct the person to make it, but not actually to assist in the
preparation.
Senator Curtis. But vou did assist in that way ?
9908 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABO'R FIELD
Mr, Rabinovitz, I assisted in getting the attorney to call Mr. Deis
in. I instructed my girl to do the notarizing. But I did not assist
in the actual preparation of the affidavit.
Senator Ctortis. Without your assistance there would never have
been any affidavit, would there ?
Mr. Rabinovitz. Without my direction, you mean.
Senator Curtis. Yes, we will call it that.
Mr. Rabinovitz. I was of very little assistance, Senator. I did not
speak to this man. I did not recognize him until I saw him here in
Washington toda5^ So T could not have been of much assistance
at this considerable distance from Sheboygan.
Senator Curtis. When was this survey made ?
The Chairman. Let the Chair make this observation.
Maybe we can hurry it along. According to your testimony, you
assisted in procuring the affidavit and directed tlie procuring of it?
Mr. Rabinovitz. That is correct.
The Chairman. The preparation of it, as I understand, you were
not there, you did not see it prepared, you gave no instructions at
the time it was prepared.
Mr. Rabinovitz. That is right.
The Chairman. But you did procure it.
Mr. Rabinovitz. That is right.
The Chairman. You Avere the one who started it in motion, the
action to get an affidavit from this man ?
Mr. Rabinovitz. True.
The Chairman. That is correct ?
Mr. Rabinovitz. Absolutely true.
( At this point. Senator Mundt withdrew from the hearing room. )
Senator Curtis. When was this survey made ?
Mr. Rabinovitz. This survey and compilation of the 1934 strike
was commenced by the union about 5 or 6 months ago.
Senator Curtis. Were you aware that Deis had been interviewed?
Mr. Rabinovitz. I was given a copy of the interviews that were
made by this committee and I believe I probably knew that Deis was
interviewed ; yes.
(At this point. Senator McClellan withdrew from the hearing
room.)
Senator Curtis. Did you read the interview ?
Mr. Rabinovitz. Yes, I did.
Senator Curtis. Did you have a copy of it?
Mr. Rabinovitz. I have it right here.
Senator Curtis. What is the date of it ?
Mr. Rabinovitz. There is no date on it, Senator. I could ascertain
what the date is very easily, but I looked for the date, and I do not
find it.
Senator Curtis. Would you read it?
Mr. Rabinovitz. Will I read the whole thing? It is two pages.
Senator Curtis. Go ahead.
Mr. Rabinovitz. It starts out with "Wounded No. 12."
Deis, John — statement to Karl Kotnick and Bob Treuer. Lives at 1429 Erie
Avenue, Sheboygan. Phone Gl 2-0686.
Striker in 1934. Fired in September 1933 after joining AFL by Herziger.
Went out to Kohler about 11 a. m., spent some time at strike kitchen. Picketed
at employment oflBce, returned to kitchen for lunch, then resumed picketing.
rMPROPER ACTniTIES; IN THE LABOR FIELD 9909
Captain Schuelke and deputies came around about 2 p. m. to "disarm" pickets.
About 7 : 40 in the evening was hit on the head by a rock thrown from top of
employment ofBce, where a group of deputies, blackshirts, were. The second
floor and roof of the employment office were filled with deputies. Rocks and
eggs were thrown at the pickets by the deputies.
Then Mike Widra, another picket, was hit on the head by a club thrown from
the roof of the office. Mike shouted up : "Sakrameut, what's the matter mit
you?"
There were shots from the employment office which went over their heads.
Most of the crowd had left, and he said to Big Mike that they ought to get out
of there. They walked up to the main office picket line, and found the pickets
lying on the ground to avoid being shot. Most of the shooting there came from
the American Club area. They agreed to get out, and began to move.
Across the road, on the sidewalk in front of the American Club, he saw a group
of four deputies carrying guns. He recognized them as Ed Biever, Lyman
Conger, William Runge, and John Rami. These four shouted over for the pickets
to get out, and followed along on the sidewalk as the pickets headed north across
the street.
As they passed the Brass Road, Deis heard a single shot and a woman scream
something about "they shot Engelman." He thinks that the shot was from the
direction of the group of four deputies that Biever was in. It was dark and
he could not make them out clearly in the confusion.
Deis had first seen the Biever group near the water bubbler in front of the
American Club. When he was out in High Street near Badura's shoestore, he
was once again confronted by the same four deputies. Deis says he shouted
at them, "What for you want to murder somebody?"
There was an exchange of words, and then Deis 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."
One of the four deputies — Deis does not know which one — shouted back, "You
wait, . we'll show you something!" Deis bent down to pick up his
coat, and received shotgun blasts in his head and leg. Some 45 to 50 pellets
were later dug out of his head and legs, his work cap was hot to pieces. He
was taken to the clinic.
Senator Cxtrtis. That word is "shot" ; I think.
Mr. Rabinovitz. They probably meant "shot." It reads "hot."
Deis says he is positive that he was shot by the four deputies, Biever, Conger,
Runge, 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 shoot-
ing at him, except that they did shoot him.
Deis said that he just simply could not stay at his post on the picket line any
longer than he did because of the rocks and clubs. He saw the machinegun on
top of the Brass Building, and there was a terrible amount of confusion, tear-
gas smoke, shooting before he left his picket post. He was one of the last pickets
out of the village.
That is the end of the statement. This is not a notarized statement
but was part of a survey that was made by Karl Kutnick and Bob
Treuer, who were assigned to this task and also interviewed many
strikers who were company guards in 1934, village deputies who are
now members of the union, spectators, and anybody that could tell
them something about the 1934 strike.
Senator Curtis. When did you first see that statement?
Mr. Rabinovitz. I saw so many documents, Senator, in the last few
months. A month or two ago, probably, maybe 2 months.
Senator Curtis. Then, when you called upon the phone to direct
that they get Deis' affidavit, you knew what would be in it?
Mr. Rabixovitz. I am sorry, I did not hear you.
Senator Curtis. Then, when you called up and directed the taking^
of Deis- affida^dt, you knew what would be in it ?
9910 IMPROPER ACTIVITIBS IK THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. Rabinovitz. No, I did not. I instructed Mr. Subrinsky and my
office girl that she should call in Deis and get a complete interview
from him. I had some idea what would be in it; yes, sir.
Senator Cup^tis. But you had read that statement ?
Mr. Rabinovitz. Yes, I did.
Senator Curtis. You said a little while ago you did not know what
his affidavit would attest.
Mr. Rabinovitz. Tliat is true. I did not know what the affidavit
would contain. This was to be a completely new interview by this
attorney of this person,
I told them to get the truth and the facts and tell Mr. Deis to tell
the truth, and that is what we wanted.
Senator Curtis. But you told us you did not know what he would
testify to, and here it develops that you had made a survey.
Mr. Rabinovitz. I did not make the
Senator Curtis. And you have this undated document, which you
had seen 2 months ago ?
Mr. Rabinovitz. I had a pretty good idea what he would testify. I
read this document. I read the affidavit.
Senator Curtis. But that was not your testimony earlier today.
Mr. Rabinovitz. I do not know what you are referring to. Senator.
Senator Curtis. Earlier today you said you did not know what his
affidavit would attest to.
Mr. Rabinovitz. I did not Iniow what would be in the affidavit. I
had a pretty good idea of what would be in it, but I did not know the
exact verbiage of it.
Senator Curtis. That is why I do not think that your appearance
has been as helpful as it ought to be. You were asked if you assisted
in the preparation and you said, "I did not."
Question. Was it prepared in your office?
Answer. I understand that it was.
That implies something other than direct knowledge.
Mr. Rabino\^tz. Senator, when I got through testifying, I am sure
you were satisfied that it was prepared in my office. You saw my name
on the document. Every time I was called impromptu or otherwise
before this microphone, I have tried to be helpful and am now, and
will continue to be.
(At this point. Senator Goldwater withdrew from the hearing
room.)
Senator Curtis. You left me with the impression that you had noth-
ing to do with it.
Mr. Rabinovitz. No, I did not.
Senator Curtis. But that you understood that somebody had pre-
pared it in your office.
Mr. Rabino^ttz. I am sorry if you gained that impression. The
record does not justify that.
Senator Curtis. I submit that it does.
It is still your belief that he is telling the truth today?
Mr. Rabinovitz. I sure do.
Senator Curtis. Even though he says today he does not know which
1 of the 4 people shot him ?
Mr. Rabino\itz. I am sure he explained that adequately.
Senator Curtis. Is there any variation between the survey and the
affidavit ?
IMPROPDR ACTIA'ITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 9911
Mr. Rabinovitz. I liave not liiid a cliaiice to compare it. I could
look at it right now.
Senator Curtis. Were stenographic notes taken of that interview
and your survey ?
Mr. Rarinovitz. I did not make the survey, I did not make the in-
terview. I do not know.
Senator Curtis. Did Mr. Subrinski take it?
Mr. Rabinovitz. Mr. Subrinsky did not make the survey. The sur-
vey was made by Karl Kutnick and Bob Treuer.
Senator Curtis. That is all, Mr. Rabinovitz.
TESTIMONY OF JOHN DEIS— Resumed
Senator Curtis. Mr. Deis, when the attorney interviewed you in
Mr. Rabinovitz' office and asked you questions about this, did they
have a stenographer take down what you said ?
Mr. Deis. Yes, sir.
Senator Curtis. Mr. Rabinovitz, would you produce those steno-
graphic notes for us ?
Mr. Rabinovitz. I was busy. I did not hear the question.
Senator Curtis. He testified that when he was interviewed by the
individual carrying on your work, that they took down the testimony
in shorthand, a girl took it down. I asked would you get the steno-
graphic notes.
Mr, Rabinovitz. If there are such notes, I shall call my girl and
have them sent to this hearing.
Senatofr Curtis. That is all, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Are there any further questions of either witness ?
Senator Curtis. Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Senator Curtis ?
Senator Curtis. I wonder if we could have this deposition offered
for the record.
The Chairman. It has been testified to here. It may be made
exhibit 127.
(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 127" for ref-
erence and may be found in the files of the select committee.)
The Chairman. Exhibit 127 is for reference, both exhibits 126 and
127.
Is there anything further of this witness ?
Mr. Kennedy. Thank you very much.
The Chairman. The committee will recess.
In the morning, we will have one witness. He will be a witness
from the National Labor Relations Board. We will have to hold that
hearing in the morning in room 357. I hope we can get back in here
tomorrow afternoon.
It is anticipated we will hear Mr. Kohler tomorrow afternoon and
hear Mr. Reuther on Thursday. I hope we can get back into this
room tomorrow afternoon. But we will not know until noon tomorrow.
In the morning, we will resume at 11 o'clock in room 357.
(Whereupon, at 4 : 45 p. m., the hearing in the above-entitled mat-
ter was recessed to reconvene at 11 a. m., on the following day.)
(Members of the select committee present at the taking of the recess
were Senators McClellan and Curtis.)
iiiiiiBifi
3 9999 06352 02J i
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11